Summary:
Socolovsky attributes mainly the middle class sections of the populations’ rise in their use of the Internet and its capabilities to memorialize to much of her subsequent argument in the article.
Socolovsky argues that humans inability to cope with death and loss leads them to attempt to create another presence to fill the void left by the absence of their loved one. She writes, “The immediate desire to monumentalize suggests an anxiety about and inability to process grief… and a desire to translate one’s private personal voice into a collective voice” (468). The computer has led to a fundamental shift in how we structure memory, with humans becoming dependant on them as a tool, and the ability for constant manipulation they facilitate. Socolovsky claims that the dissociation that comes through experiencing a memorial through a medium is overcome, in turn creating a “archival place” as opposed to a virtual space. She alludes to the similarity of a gravesite and its ability to meet and communicate with lost loved ones.
The networking ability allowed online has led to online memorials becoming more than simply a site of memory. “but also sources of information for grief counseling, religious education and inspiration, community-building , and various clearly laid out political agendas and voices” (472). Sites such as virtualmemorials.com have created archival memory that relies on replacement and the ever present ability to simply click and be taken to another source to help you come to terms or commemorate your loved one. You have the ability to experience your memory in many forms, allowing for an ever-present sense of closeness with them even after death. Socolovsky also brings up the ability to interact with others in grief even when you didn’t actually know the deceased and the added support provided by this ability. She goes on to discuss the religious undertones carried in many of the memorials, citing specifically the memorials that came following the Columbine shootings. The example of Cassie Bernall who was allegedly killed after answering, “yes” when asked if she believed in God saw a huge amount of media attention; especially from the religious right. Socolovsky closes with more examples of religious and political undertones in the memorials of other victims and believes mourners use this to help fill the void between the, “bereaved and deceased” (485).
Inquiry:
I agree with the concept that humans have an instinctual desire to fill the void created when a loved one is lost. Computers have become such a huge part of human interaction in general in the modern world it seems obvious they would become a means to help deal with the grief. The ability to talk to others with similar experiences or simply have a means to publicly grieve is an understandable advantage to the traditional gravestone being erected since hyperlinks allow for quick and easy transfers to multiple resources dealing specifically with death and loss. In instances such as Columbine where the amount of media attention is sure to spark debate Socolovsky is right on in stating that religious and political undertones cannot help but come to the forefront of discussion and become a vital way to hold onto the memory of the deceased, as well as have your feelings made both public and permanent through their memorial.
Questions:
1. Are online memorials a good way to help commemorate and help deal with the grief after losing a loved one, or are they too susceptible to becoming a means for a religious or political statement? If so is this a bad thing?
2. Facebook groups have become a way to memorialize loved ones through the formation of a social group with a common, often strong, tie to the same person and commemorate them with the ability to share stories and comment on a wall and posted pictures. Do you see this as becoming the more prevalent style online memorial or will sites like virtualmemorials.com remain prevalent?
3. Can an online memorial that requires a medium in order to be viewed have the same sense of permanent remembrance that is often associated with tombstones and an individual’s final physical resting place?
I think Facebook groups that memorialize loved ones is going to become much more popular in the near future. Just in the past month I have come across two young people who have passed on and have Facebook groups dedicated to them. It's a great way to build community and show support for the family and friends who are hurting. It is an easy way to spread the news of a death and to offer your condolences. I do not believe that they will become a platform for religious and political beliefs. The people who have such strong opinions and care to share them have other ways to voice their opinion. They should respect areas that they should not touch such as an online memorial. If this were to begin, I would expect some sort of authority to come into play and regulate what kind of comments appear on the site.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that an online memorial that requires a medium in order to be viewed has the same sense of permanent remembrance that tombstones, graves, and physical monuments have. Online memorials are not tangible in that one cannot touch the memorial, smell it, leave flowers, etc. In a way, online memorials make death seem less real and do not help people overcome their grief; they actually provide a means to perpetuate grief and cling to it by the constant easy access and publicity of the memorial. Furthermore, it is extremely easy to deconstruct online sites, for there to be code errors, hackers, or technological malfunctions. However, physical tombstones or monuments constructed out of steel or stone are far more permanent. To demonstrate this point, a common saying that basically states the permanence of something is “set in stone” not “set in the internet.”
ReplyDeleteOnline memorials are indeed a crucial aspect of dealing with death in today’s society. They allow for communities to express their grief in a public setting, and have a specific manner in which they mourn for those lost. While they may not be as “permanent” as a physical gravestone, memorials serve the virtually the same purpose, and allow for a more public setting in which respects can be continually paid, rather than just a headstone in a sea of graves. In addition, online tributes and memorials offer a more accessible and open environment in which to pay respects.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the possibility of these memorials becoming vehicles through which to express political/religious messages, there is always going to be that possibility. While there should always be a certain amount of respect for someone’s death, their manner of death can be an important tool for social change, etc. Cassie Bernall’s murder is of course going to draw attention from religious groups-it is a tragic example of what it means to be a martyr and how part of society perceives her faith. Religion is necessarily associated with her death, and should be a part of the discussion.
I was just recently sent a link by a friend to the Facebook group page of a baby girl who was diagnosed with neuroblastoma. As of tonight, the group has over 20,000 followers and a paypal account has been established for people to make donations. Despite the tragic circumstances, this form of an online memorial has become hugely successful for the parents of this little girl. This huge amount of public exposure and ease of ability to raise funds would make online memorials an ideal media for commemorating loved ones. The followers of the group experience camaraderie against this personified evil: cancer. Cancer is a universal killer, and does not really evoke political arguments. The facilitators of the group operate it with the intent to gain supporters. Unlike the permanence of a constructed memorial, I believe the interest in this cause will diminish quickly. Facebook memorial groups could become more prevalent, and it is wonderful that the family is receiving so much support. I, however do not fully support the idea of public, online memorials. I would feel guilty for feeling obligated to join a group of someone with I shared no personal connection.
ReplyDelete