Webupon

If asked to visualize a typical North American cemetery most would think of a serene green space with row on row of flower-adorned tombstones. Idyllic in setting, they are physical sites that hold not only the remains of the deceased but the memories that surround them, in turn becoming places of pilgrimage for the bereaved. Yet as we delve deeper into the digital age we face a realization that traditional forms of memorializing are not necessarily written in stone. Cyber cemeteries have emerged as a new mode to venerate the dead. Upon first glance their differences seem glaring yet there does exist similarities between the two. They are both repositories of memory allowing for “visitation” by loved ones. They function as outlets of remembrance in the process of dealing with grief and are designed to inspire a dignified, spiritual tranquility. However, these similarities are countered by some subtle and not so subtle differences, leading to the question “can cyber cemeteries truly replace traditional cemeteries in memorializing the dead?”

Undeniably the traditional graveyard is a tangible space – a place that we can definitively enter. This physicality of location may be seen as an important link to the memory of the dead, allowing us to maintain a palpable connection by leaving offerings (e.g. flowers) and retrieving souvenirs of individual experience (eg. grave rubbings). Furthermore, the durable stability of both tombstone and land bestows a comforting permanence on the memories that are stored there. Yet what happens when we remove this physicality from the process of grieving and memorializing? The increasing popularity of cyber cemeteries has created a scenario of just that.

In his 1995 book Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, Marc Auge defines the Internet as a non-place “having no identity or history, transient in nature and consisting of spatial flows, movement and transitional zones”. Thus the virtual cemetery as a non-place has to redefine the notions of memorializing the dead without the aid of sensory evocation, physical stimulus or conventional permanence.  This lack of permanence or ability to grasp a tangible location can make memories seem fleeting  – rooted nowhere and everywhere all at once. In fact, memories stored online reflect the transitory nature of the medium much like memories invested in graveyards reflect the permanence of physical place.  This may be observed in the journal like entries found in cyber memorials, often eliciting responses from other mourners and creating an ongoing dialogue about the deceased. With the limitless opportunity to post photos and videos, the bereaved have a viable way to keep memory alive and actively evolving. Thus one notable difference is that while tombstones offer a very permanent singular sentiment to the deceased, the virtual can provide a continually updated, personal and complex recollection of the individual.

If we continue with the notion that cyber cemeteries represent a non-place, it would be true to suggest that they are also utopias (from ancient Greek: ou, ‘non’ and topos, ‘place’, i.e. the place that does not exist). “Yet in our everyday consciousness, Utopia often has another meaning which is more like the Greek eu-topia  (eu meaning good, perfect, desirable). It is often thought of as the dream of the perfect place. In fact it is this idyllic version of utopia that the traditional cemetery aspires to. The beautifully landscaped ground with meandering paths inspire calm reflection of the hallowed dead and has set a standard for ambiance in relation to grieving. It aspires to be heaven on earth and comfort the bereaved with the knowledge that their loved ones have gone to a better place.  This aesthetic is also reflected in the designs of virtual memorials, echoing the flowers, gardens, and pastoral blue skies that one comes to expect from the tranquil graveyards.

One of the main contrasts to memory making and the notions of place and non-place is the location of the body. The site of burial is traditionally the accepted place to reflect on death and in a kind of metonymy, shift memory from the physical body to the land and stone that mark its place.  The bereaved are then able to recognize and accept the loss, letting memory be shaped and recalled by the peaceful surroundings and the singular sentiments that are etched in memorial. Yet as the popularity of cremation increases there exists a greater need to focus on how to memorialize in the absence of the body. Though one could argue that cremation is a more efficient use of space, addresses sanitary concerns, and allows more freedom in the disposition of physical remains (ie. kept conventionally in an urn, buried or scattered over the land), it is clear that the cremated no longer have a fixed place. In one sense they are nowhere. In another sense they may be everywhere – much like the cyber cemeteries that may bear their memorials.

Though the virtual allows for images and words of remembrance to provide a link to the deceased, it is still devoid of the physicality of death – yet in many ways it thrives on this disconnect between mortality and memory. It has been observed that within recent years there is a noticeable disassociation of death from the heart of the urban fabric. This is a trend that has largely triumphed as we express an increasing reluctance to address death as the inevitable consequence of life. One might say that death has no place in a society that is obsessed with youth and vigor and as the graveyard buries itself beneath associations with mortality, the groundless, ever-changing Internet appears perpetually new. In other words, the virtual’s appeal in the modern world is that it can transcend the inevitability of our own demise, capture the desire for immortality and satisfy the inability to accept the finality of death.

This quest for immortality may also be linked to another trend – that of individualization. As we struggle to come to grips with mortality and the memories that we leave behind there is a natural inclination to want to be different and never be forgotten. For many, traditional memorialization offers little variation and chance for individuality – often two hyphenated dates and a single phrased epitaph represent a whole life. Thus given the rush to go on living, it is proposed that these dated inscriptions are routinely overlooked in such a throwaway culture. Consequently, there is a postmodern revival of death that values individual choice; or something T. Walter describes as “doing it my way” (Walter T. (1994) The Revival of Death, London: Rutledge). It is not a rejection of the modern or of the traditional, but a mixing of them at will, without any sense of inconsistency or shame.

Another consideration in the comparison of traditional and cyber cemeteries is that of public and private setting. Though private cemeteries do exist (e.g. familial plots on one’s own land) for the most part cemeteries nowadays may be considered public. In fact, it is their very public nature that has led to their description as heterotopias, suggested by Foucault as ‘capable of juxtaposing in a single real place several spaces, several sites which are themselves incompatible’. For example, as well as being sites of burial, they act as parks of leisure, subjects for art and photography and resources for genealogical research. Yet what effect does this have on memorialization?

There seems to be a duality of consequence. On one hand cemeteries have become less like cities of the dead and more like gardens of occasional remembrance. By housing this multiplicity of activities, traditional cemeteries may be said to further marginalize death, focusing on unrelated uses of place and constricting memory making into the short duration between death and burial. On the contrary, they may also temper their link to the morbidity of death, encouraging elements of life and knowledge as well as bringing levity to the process of grieving.  Needless to say this heterotopic aspect of traditional cemeteries is not reflected in its virtual counterpart whose purpose is quite singular. However there is a curious dichotomy in the relationship of online memorials to the notions of public and private space. The World Wide Web (true to it’s name) offers the most accessibility of any new media resource, making “these virtual gravesites accessible anywhere in the world, convenient for those that couldn’t attend the funeral or were unaware of a death.” This is particularly important in respect to the acceleration of global travel as it allows for remembrance of highly mobile individuals who have left highly dispersed and incoherent networks of kin, friends and personal acquaintances”. Yet the Internet also may be seen as exceptionally private, encouraging the bereaved to memorialize in the privacy of their personal space. Thus allowing survivors to grieve not under the constraint of tradition but in more reflective individualized ways.

Though both traditional and cyber memorials offer high accessibility to the public they can be restrictive at times. Often graveyards will have designated hours of operation or are in isolated, out of the way locations, burdening the bereaved with problems of transportation. This is clearly not a problem for the virtual memorials, as they are unfettered by the confines of place yet they can fall victim to the tribulations of technology. Server disruptions, computer malfunctions or simply lack of computer access can conceivably disrupt memorializing in a cyber setting.

As both real and virtual worlds become intrinsically linked in our lives, so too may they become in death. Though nostalgia for tradition and practicality of body disposition keep conventional burial sites alive, the encroachment of cyber cemeteries cannot be denied. They offer a means of expanding memorialization in a way that traditional gravestones cannot. By their very transitory nature they can become anything we wish them to be, offering innumerable possibilities of expressing grief and condolence as well as memory collection and circulation. Whether the detachment of memory from the physical presence of body and gravestone can ever be complete remains to be seen. Indeed one day, a burial may be needed for the age old tradition of the conventional

Image via Wikipedia

 cemetery.