Some Observation on the Consumption of Death
This narrative delves into how different cultures and contexts shape our perception and consumption of death, urging a deeper reflection on our relationship with mortality.
One of the earliest reactions, to the perception, of the phenomenon of death—can be found in the archaeological record of the extinct archaic hominoid, the Neanderthals. In the depths of Shanidar Cave (Iraqi Kurdistan), archaeologists have identified flower pollens on some human remains. Which they suggest is the earliest evidence of demise rituals, by a way of offering flowers to the dead. Onward from the Neolithic period, humans have witnessed and experienced rapid development in technological invention and innovation. With this swift evolution, their taste and sensibility inevitably followed suit—trailing behind yet adapting to the spaces and times they occupied. Taste and sensibility evolve, not in a vacuum, but in response to the context—geographical, temporal, and cultural—that surrounds them. And, over time, humans have developed a myriad of ways to engage with—react to—the phenomenon we call death.
Though demise seems—at least at first glance—is something we actively avoid. But upon closer inspection, it is evident that—much like any other commodity, we encounter and engage with death constantly, often in the most unassuming situation of our daily lives. We consume demise, in one way or another, and it is in this spirit that this essay is dedicated—to an inquiry into our constant relationship with death.
To me, the consumption of death emerges as a compelling subject of inquiry—it is in this category, that we see our interaction and relation to death. I will in the following passages try to characterize, what I mean by consuming the death. But before we leap into that inquiry – let us first engage with the idea of death.
Death is a ubiquitous phenomenon—a broadly natural occurrence. Yet, across temporal and spatial boundaries, the ways in which different cultures conceptualize death vary profoundly. To understand death as a mere biological end is a way to depreciate and negate the profound hold that death has on the imagination and behavior of the human species. Death has, over time, assumed an aesthetic of its own – a highly convincing and engulfing force that envelops any doubts that challenges its reality. The ultimate truth. This aesthetic of death is a powerful tool and people over time have explored and exploited this aspect – But by using the word ‘exploit’ I don’t mean to take a moral angle, but rather as an activity related to death, which, advances some kind of agenda – whether deliberately or inadvertently.
Now, what do I mean by invoking the word ‘consumption’,, I do not mean to use the word ‘consumption’, in the sense of gastronomic ingestion. Arbitrary as it might be perceived, but for the purpose of this essay, by consumption I am implying a sense of interaction and relation – as a result of which we internalize certain notions of death. Death does not occur in a vacuum, but, rather in a conceptual space – within a certain cultural framework. This is to say that death occurs in a context – the reaction to death is contextually driven. It is this context that lends to our judgment of choosing certain perceptions and reactions over others.
The role of context, in our style of consumption of death, is very much evident in the realm of art. Consider the 1974 Hindi classic – Sholay. The portrayal of death is integral to its dramatic narrative. Death as a narrative tool is used to – build tension, and depict loyalty, and heroism. As the film reels to its end, it transpired into an event leading to the death of one of its primary characters, Jai- portrayed by Amitabh Bachan, in the arms of his jigri dost (best friend) Verru – portrayed by Dharmendra. Death here, then evokes an emotion of loyalty and the ultimate friendship – in this way death uplifts the character to an almost saintly quality. Jai’s death, cemented him as a modern saint of friendship, in the hearts and minds of Indian cinema consumers.
Let’s consider another popular film—Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003). In this movie, death is rendered through a spectacle of choreographed violence and highly stylized cinematic gore. As Uma Thurman’s character, The Bride, slashes her way through her enemies, their deaths are depicted as acts of retribution. The death of the villain O-Ren Ishii, played by Lucy Liu, is particularly interesting. The final sword fight between them culminates in Ishii’s scalp being sliced off by her opponent, symbolizing a necessary vindication. The film directs us to derive a certain satisfaction from her death as if it serves to “scratch an itch.” This sense of satisfaction in response to death is something we often overlook. In my view, we tend to forget—or perhaps fail to recognize—that we, (this ‘we’ as in cultural we), also have the capacity to react to death with a kind of glee or satisfaction. This reaction remains hidden because we typically understand death in a singular way—as something grim or sorrowful. I believe that the more remote or exotic the depiction of death in a narrative, the more likely it is to evoke emotions in us that diverge from grief or even lead to indifference.
Let us now turn to the political aspect of death. Death, often perceived as a private and personal event, is, in reality, deeply entwined with political power and social control (Especially when the deceased holds a position of significant stature or prominence). Like the living, the death can and is political. Death though no longer interested in the living, the living are suprimely interested in the dead. Death with its formidable quality has always been employed by the living as a political strategy—commemorating, mythologizing, and instrumentalizing death to serve specific political purposes. However, to convey this point, without any material analysis is insufficient and wouldn’t convince you much. So, allow me to illustrate.
In 2018, I reluctantly signed up for the Master’s Program with Indian medieval history as my Major. However, in no time I was swept off my feet, not by the Persian magic carpet, but, rather by a world of bloodshed, violence, intrigues, jewels, and glamour. But mostly I was besotted with the Mughals, especially their art and architecture.
Architecture has always been a mass communicator. Architecture shapes the lives, ideas, and culture of those who occupy its spaces. Before the printing press and the subsequent rise in literacy came along, architecture was the dominant way to communicate – dogmatized big ideas on a wider scale. Tombs as an architecture is usually and superficially, explained or understood away as a house for the dead, however, this couldn’t be far from the truth.
Humayun’s tomb inevitably comes to mind—a remarkable piece of architecture, as art historian Glenn D. Lowry assesses in his work, Humayun’s Tomb: Forms, Function, and Meaning in Early Mughal Architecture. This architecture symbolizes the Mughal’s aspiration to revive and establishes their dominance over India – a statement of Power. Humayun’s tomb emerges as a politically articulated/ political articulation of Mughal Identity and ambition. The tomb transcends mere commemoration; meaning the structure is not simply an exercise in display of adoration and memorialization. The mute structure, screams with ideologically charged symbols – the screens with mihrabs, the glowing light, evoke a spiritual illumination, the six-pointed stars, representing Akbar’s connection to his father. The architecture synthesized, and crafted by Mirak Mirza Ghiyas, marries central Asian and Indian styles into a distinctive Mughal language. In this blend of elements, Humayun’s tomb stands not just as a memorial, but as a vivid testament to the Mughal’s aspiration and grandeur.
Having said this – one key element that makes this grand statement – a statement, is the role played by the populace – then and now. Without its consumer, i.e., the public these grand structure is just another assemblage of red stones. For consumption is done by the people, the public, the populace, and without its audience – the feeling would be akin as Camus describes – actors divorce from his stage – absurd, without meaning. It is the public reaction and interaction with the structure that creates the power dynamic. Public monuments –have always been meant for public consumption – the public consumes the ideas and tastes; that the elite aim to convey.
This power relation created with the help of the dead, can be seen in the context of tribals of Northeast India. The Khasi-Jaintia of Meghalaya state also shares this peculiar kind of power relation supplied by the dead – the ever omnipresent consciousness of death in society creates a situation in which death-related behavior, shapes the very social fabric of the community. A native scholar from the state – C. A Mawlong, extensive work on the Khasi-Jaintia megaliths, demonstrates the the importance of these monuments, showing the interconnectedness between the realm of death and living. This megalith structure stands as a courtroom judge that legitimizes unequal access to resources enjoyed by the dominant founding class. Elsewhere in her writing on the Garo (another tribe in Meghalaya), Mawlong exerts that “they (the megaliths) are the material expression of their dominant beliefs, moral value, and attitudes in relation to other fellow men”. The traditional rituals of demise stand at the center of their social life. To reiterate—it’s a message, delivered by the dominant class to the subordinate, through the medium of material structures, all in the name of honoring the dead ancestor.
This essay does not purport to unveil anything particularly new – indeed nothing in this essay is novel. Rather, it is intended to provoke a reexamination, to serve as an invitation—a call to the reader to reflect, and rethink, our relationship with demise. Contemporarily in our modern style of existence, we are conditioned –to deflect any serious reflection or conversation on and about death. And even if it is not actively discouraged, it is neither encouraged, the topic of death assumes a characteristic of a subtext – only to be picked up by a few. It is a conditioning that results in our shallow understanding, and superficial engagement with death and consequently our response to life. Our attraction to – un-acknowledgment, disengagement, and denial of death needs to be observed and navigate a way back to engagement with death in different ways. And reconsider our position in our sense of existence. It is only right that we encourage engagement with death, in one way or another. And given that it is a question of not ‘if’ but ‘when’, it seems justifiable.
Death is always around you.
Wish you a good life and a good death.
Singed your friendly morbid friend.
What's Your Reaction?
