Murray claims that in preserving part of the dead person in question, we allow ourselves to have a continuing conversation with them. There is more to this however, than keeping ashes in an urn, having a skull or finger behind glass, or even an ordinary tombstone. The way we talk with and about the dead becomes significant.
No longer a living entity, the dead are not subject to change. They are no longer fluid beings capable of fixing past mistakes, accomplishing goals, or trying out a new hairstyle. We keep them alive within our memories, and as such must choose, from a basis of available information, the qualities that most closely match how we want the person in question encapsulated. A dead relative well liked may be remembered by their good qualities, minor sins no longer relevant and utterly forgotten. To those who were hurt by the dead relative's actions however, those sins may be very significant, and shape the static image of their now-dead enemy.
This is particularly noticeable among people who were martyred. Think of the rhetoric employed when the name Jesus Christ is invoked. Or the words used when we speak about Ghandi. Or the things you'll hear when you ask about Ayatollah Khomeini (depending on who you ask).
We keep relics of the dead for the purpose of augmenting and maintaining our memories, they serve as reminders of the people who once lived. It is the way we speak about them that truly matters, for it is in how we speak about them that they are forever preserved.
In this case, the way we communicate our feelings in relation to the dead transcends the constraints of language. Sometimes, even a look between two close family members is enough to say everything they need about their passed loved one. But this ability seems to deteriorate with time after their death. Also, so much of how we remember people is through anecdote, not always accurate, but just as important as the truth. Language's role is complicated here, I'm not even fully sure I grasp it. Thought-provoking post.
ReplyDelete