This page is referenced by:

• 1 2018-05-07T21:01:25+00:00 Confidence Men or an Emphathetic Ear 1 image_header 2018-05-07T21:01:25+00:00 However well-intentioned directors may have been, the industry was not bereft of critics, such as Jessica Mitford who portrayed the industry and the directors who controlled it as vultures who preyed on the weak and vulnerable in her work The American Way of Death. In the publication, Mitford vilified the funeral industry, questioned the authenticity of American burial traditions, and the ways by which Americans honor their dead. Arguing that American burial traditions are merely symptomatic of the funeral industry, by the sixties, funeral services had become big business with umbrella companies serving the needs of the bereaved. The mass production and sale of caskets, vaults, urns, flowers, and services to the bereaved became the subject of what Mitford viewed as the industries ostentatious actions to a vulnerable public. Mitford speculated that “the Dismal Traders” have successfully turned the tables in recent years to perpetrate a huge, macabre, and expensive practical joke on the American public.”[1] 
  Published in 1963, and much to the chagrin of the funeral industry, Mitford’s work quickly became a New York Times bestseller influencing government action and popular culture.  Mitford justifies her argument by showcasing the price increases, advertising methods, and monopolization of the industry. In addition, the journalist highlights what she terms “a new mythology, one which is essential to the American funeral rite, has grown up, or rather been built step by step.”[2] It is in this way that Mitford contends the funeral industry justifies itself by building on “Articles of Faith” which are in fact based on myth. Mitford lists these as American tradition, the American public is [being] given what it wants, myth[s] based on psychiatric philosophies such as memory picture, and finally new terminologies such as “funeral coach” instead of “funeral hearse”, “floral tributes” instead of “flowers”, “loved one” instead of “corpse”, “cremains “instead of “ashes”, or euphemisms such as “slumber room” which have replaced older and more direct terms.[3] Together, these myths successfully remove death from the equation. According to Mitford, these are the ideals by which the funeral industry has taken advantage of the American public for the monetary gain of Funeral Directors and other industry insiders. While Mitford and memorial societies portray directors as confidence men and argue against the extravagance, eccentricities, and cost of American funeral services, others suggest that the changes taking place were part of a broader social transformation.
  Unlike Mitford, Religious Historian Gary Laderman has argued that increases in cost, marketability, and monopolization of the industry are comparable and reflective of the changes that took place in most privately-owned businesses during the latter half of the twentieth-century. Laderman asserts that the industry has evolved, not by the institutionalization of the practice, rather, the industry is reflective of broader cultural and social changes such as the immigration reform that took place during the second half of the twentieth-century. In addition, strong religious connotations and the prominent role religion has always played in American funeral rites inform us that the traditions Mitford excuses as myth are in fact a significant part of American ideologies. Furthermore, Laderman speculates that embalming, viewing, and other practices unique to the disposition of the deceased in America are deeply rooted in these traditions and lend themselves to the comfort of the bereaved.[4] Unlike Mitford who claims that grief mythology is “based on half-digested psychiatric theories,” Laderman contends that religious myths are valid because “they provide a sacred context for meaning and action in everyday life.”[5] In brief, Laderman argues that the industry provides the public with something that they need. Moreover, the industry does so in a compassionate and professional manner, while myths such as a “memory picture” offer the bereaved an opportunity to come to terms with mortality and also reconcile the death of a loved one. It is within this framework that the industry provides a service to the public that the public does not want to oversee. However, ironically it is a service the public needs.
   

  ---

  [1] Mitford, The American Way of Death Revisited, 14.

  [2] Ibid., 16.

  [3] Ibid., 17.

  [4] Laderman, Rest in Peace: A Cultural History of Death and the Funeral Home in Twentieth-century America.

  [5] Ibid., 110.