Friday, October 26, 2012

Thoughts on public grieving

Watching the film on Tuesday made me think about my feelings on the public displays of emotion that have become so prevalent in our society. Personally, they make me quite uncomfortable, so I am going to try and deconstruct my reasoning on this to see if you all think I'm just out of step with the rest of the world.

When we were discussing the film it was mentioned that the first time this kind of mass memorialisation had been seen was in the immediate aftermath of the death of HRH Diana, Princess of Wales. (I should caveat this before I start by saying that I am an ardent monarchist who has framed pictures of the Royal family on her wall like some sort of 1950s housewife). I remember the seas of flowers littering central London, the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the gates of Buckingham Palace and the hideous smell as all those flowers rotted in the street because no one was brave enough to just tidy them up. I also remember the way the tabloid press decided to dictate the way that HM Queen Elizabeth II and her family should grieve for their own personal loss. I understand that Princess Diana was a well loved and respected figure and people would be shocked and saddened (as I was) by her sudden and tragic death. I don't understand the idea that they were grieving. I don't see how you can grieve for a person that you have never met. I can understand sorrow and empathy for those who are grieving, but I don't understand how you can feel true grief for someone who's life you experienced through magazines and television. I think that the British public, in trying to publicly show their love and sense of loss for Princess Diana, robbed the people who were actually grieving her loss of their right to do so in the way that they chose to, by forcing them to conform to what they as a mass thought was the appropriate way of showing their feelings. (Gosh, sorry that was a shockingly constructed sentence)

I think that the issue I have is that public grieving now seems to be seen as the only way to grieve. If you are not showing how upset you are then you cannot be upset at all. I have a schoolfriend who was killed 5 years ago. He was shot in an alleyway on a council estate (like a project I think? - social housing financed by the State). People left flowers and candles and other things at the spot where he died but I didn't. I didn't want to remember Jason bleeding to death in an alleyway, I wanted to remember him alive. Although I keep objects that remind me of him, I keep them privately, so that I can remember him in the way I choose. Maybe it is just me, but I don't think remembering him in this way is any less respectful of his memory or any less important. I'm not a public crier (for much the same reasons as Sarah gave in her post) but that doesn't mean my sense of loss is any less acute than someone who wears their emotions on their sleeve. I carry photos of those I have loved and lost around with me, I talk about them, I remember their birthdays. I try to remember them, rather than how they died.

I found the idea of people leaving objects at the Vietnam memorial, World Trade Centre and Federal building fascinating because I think I might have had the same initial reaction as the curators did. "Why has all this random stuff been left here?" I can understand this more now because the people who leave the objects leave them in memory of people that they knew and loved. I still don't think I would do it. I still think I would want to keep the stuff private and safe. I do see why they want to put something there that represents their loved one though. To stop them being a number or just another victim in a list. To say to the world that they were an individual. So I think in the case of major events that genuinely effect large numbers of people, leaving objects is a good thing. I think we have to consider the people as being more important than the event and personal items help to do that. Preserving them shows that we respect life above other things and that can only be good.

I just think that we need to know how to differentiate between grief and sorrow and respect how people choose to deal with their own emotions.

*Awkward rant over*

1 comment:

  1. I like what you said about people being more important than the event. I think this is a good approach to history that many historians don't always remember to engage -- we get so focused on the big picture, we forget the individuals affected. Because of these individual experiences, however, we have to be aware that everyone will have a different way to express feelings about major events.

    But to answer your original question, I don't think you're out of step or crazy; I just think everyone expresses their grief or sorrow differently, and that's just another thing we have to keep in mind as public historians.

    ReplyDelete