« Friuli Alert | Main | Morning in America? »
November 5, 2006
In loving memory...you son of a bitch
Today's NY Times has an interesting article about one tricky ramification of online memorials to the dead: the rise of the "dissers of the dead" (ie people who speak ill of the dead in the comment or guest book areas of an online memorial).
I have some conflicting thoughts about this:
1. To do this, you have to sort be a chicken shit in many cases. From some of the examples they gave, one wonders why the people writing didn't have the courage to say this publicly when the person was alive, thus obviating such post-mortem testimonials.
2. In some ultimate sense, who are third parties (the editors) to say what should or shouldn't be presented in a public forum like this?
3. The whole reason people have private services for the dead is that they wish to focus on their own experience with this person, rather than weather alternative viewpoints. I realize that those who own a memorial site do have the absolute right to censor it, but didn't they realize that this was one of the ramifications of such an open forum? Didn't they realize that the collective view of the dead would become more democratic?
4. In a lifetime, we likely influence the course of many other people's lives. Shouldn't they, in some poetic sence, have some right to relay that experience? After all, it was as real as the impact of that person's life on those who control our memorial.
5. Does the medium (ie the web) make it just too cheap and easy to fling any indictment at the dead? I have noticed that people are often much less guarded in their emails than their face to face conversations. I have received several nasty emails over the years, and when I responded by confronting the sender face to face they went into headlong retreat almost immediately (and I don't think my size is the issue-in each case they were aware of it before they sent their email).* There is something about the disintermediation of face to face contact that seems generally to raise inhibitions, while the reverse is true of online communication. Since face to face exchanges obviously evolutionarily predate online communication, is it possible that the latter lowers our inhibitions to a degree that is just not a good idea for human societies? If everyone expressed every thought they had every moment they had it, what kind of a society would this be?
*In one case someone perceived an email of mine to be quite nasty, and they wrote back how much it hurt them and how angry and upset they were with me. This was not my intention: I wrote the message quickly and matter of factly, leading them to read into it a tone I did not intend. The moment I called them up and they heard the tone of my voice, I think they understood the mis-read immediately and amicable relations were quickly re-established.
Posted by dag at November 5, 2006 11:28 AM