Critique of “green burial standards”
December 16, 2009
The Green Burial Council has set itself up as a watchdog to ensure that burial becomes “more sustainable, economically viable, and meaningful” in North America. We applaud such an effort - our Mother Earth can only benefit from any help. And burial is no insignificant environmental factor when the earth’s massive population and consequent burial needs are considered.
We reviewed their environmental standards for burials and find them excellent … as far as environmental factors are concerned. However, as a new initiative, we should not expect its aims or ideas to be perfect from Day 1. In fact, we find that in certain aspects green burial favors environmental aspects at the expense of human ones. Following their standards will certainly make burial “more sustainable and economically viable” as they hope - but not necessarily more meaningful for human beings.
Burial - human needs vs environmental ones
Human meaning is not at all irrelevent, for burial and death rituals have been a cultural and spiritual cornerstone of humanity, perhaps the most important, ever since Man understood that he was mortal. The environmental factor in burial on the other hand is a modern phenomena - starting with Napoleon’s removal of the Parisian cemeteries to the catacombs under the city. We should remember this relation - for if we disregard what has always been of importance to humanity exclusively to benefit a temporary (albeit acute) environmental factor, we do so at our own cultural, psychological and spiritual risk.
Now I am not suggesting the Green Burial Council excludes the human factor altogether. They certainly understand that a conflict between man and environment, nature and culture is natural and unavoidable. And that nothing is black and white, that compromises are inescapable - one simply cannot have it all. But in their compromise between nature and culture, the Green Burial Council has clearly chosen to err on the side of the environment. That is their perogative - but it necessarily entails compromises for humanity, for the cultural and spiritual aspects of burial.
In fact, the environmental factors in a burial are far easier to understand and change than the cultural and spiritual ones - we must return to what mankind did until very recently. (In fact, even that is no longer so simple - today’s population size does complicate matters. But the green burial movement as a whole does not address this more global issue - see Green Burial’s Shortcomings ).
The shortcomings in human terms of modern burial practices take more creativity and sensitivity to overcome: creating attractive, meaningful new ways of memorializing; discovering new mechanisms to guarantee grave perpetuity in an overpopulated and ever-changing world; finding acceptable new aesthetics to replace the gloomy old Victorian one we have inherited.
Freedom of expression in memorials
Returning to the Green Burial Council’s Standards, we find nothing specific to take issue with at the lower two levels, which essentially aim to eliminate ground pollutants (concrete, formaldehyde, pesticides etc) and conserve energy. It is at the third level of standards (the second-most stringent) that we cannot agree with them - at this point the nature/culture conflict emerges in the question of memorialization, an archetypal human need with no possible environmental benefits.
Here we see that a “natural burial ground” must:
- “Develop a plan for limiting the types, sizes, and visibility of memorial markers/features to preserve or restore naturalistic vistas in the cemetery landscape and (where appropriate) to landmarks outside its borders.”
- “Develop a plan for dealing with unauthorized grave decoration and landscaping.”
Certainly enduring monuments and personal grave decorations will interfere with the natural aesthetics of a site - but should we be limiting the last freedom of expression left to human beings, the one that will represent them long after all other reminders of their existence have melted away? I can’t accept this personally and I suspect that a majority of society will feel the same way, if they reflect on it. This will self-limit the popularity of green burial.
In regard to freedom of expression in memorials, I believe the Perpetua’s Garden concept offers a far better compromise between nature’s needs and humanity’s.
Grave perpetuity
In the past, the perpetuity of a grave site, the eternal “Rest-in-Peace”, was considered a sacred right, perhaps the most important consideration of all in a grave. That has long since disappeared in the modern world, with whole cemeteries turned into parking lots, golf courses and shopping centers. And unless a radical new solution is found (Perpetua’s Garden?), the future can only be even darker in this respect.
But instead of addressing this grave cultural deficiency, the Green Burial Council first addresses perpetuity in their last (and least accessible) level, the “conservation burial ground”. Here their highest goal becomes transparent - the perpetual protection of the land, not the grave sites:
- Conservation Burial Grounds, in addition to meeting all the requirements for a Natural Burial Ground, must further legitimate land conservation
- A Conservation Burial Ground must protect in perpetuity an area of land specifically and exclusively designated for conservation.
- A conservation burial ground must involve an established conservation organization that holds a conservation easement or has in place a deed restriction guaranteeing long-term stewardship.
Perpetuity is nowhere expressed as a benefit to humanity and the dead who can rest in perpetuity, but only in terms of the perpetual stewardship of the land. And the perpetual stewardship of the land does not necessarily imply the perpetuity of the grave sites - indeed, there is no mention anywhere of the perpetuity of the individual graves. According to their phraseology, it is only the “land-as-nature” that will be conserved, not the “land-as-cemetery” and not the individual graves. One wonders if this last point has even been thought of…? Or does the Green Burial Council anticipate grave recycling in the European model? This would be a very bad compromise - but we don’t know, this question is not mentioned on their site.
Conclusion
We agree that the elimination of ground pollutants and the conservation of energy in burials are important goals and we wish the Green Burial all the success in the world here. And though we are skeptical about the long-term effectivness of it, we also love the idea that nature can be conserved because our bodies protect it from redevelopment. But if the human questions of memorials and grave perpetuity are not better addressed, then we suggest the Green Burial Council stick simply to their pollution-reduction goals and let others address the human questions.
Denying death in green burials?
December 10, 2009
I am unconvinced that green burial as currently conceived necessarily represents a healthier integration of death as a part of life - for some of its fans, it may be yet another subtle form of death denial. Moreover, although it claims to have an environmental motivation, it may also hide unresolved spiritual issues - that is, it as much a soul issue as a body one.
None of this means I don’t believe in green burials - on the contrary, some form of green burial is the way of the future - but at this point they need to be better understood in order to improve them.
Regarding the death denial possibility.
For many green burial may yet be another subconscious attempt to deny or exclude death by making it invisible, in this case by trying to hide death within nature, rather than visibly integrating it into nature’s cycles. Let me explain….
Yesterday I watched this Youtube video on green cemeteries. A man walking his dog through Forever Fernwood cemetery in California was interviewed (view from min 07:16).
He liked this green cemetery because it was a pleasant green space rather than a morbid traditional cemetery - a nice place for a stroll, to walk the dog in or relax on a bench in the sun. This is understandable - and I want the same …. Why not walk your dog in a green cemetery? But a green cemetery should aim to be something more than just a pretty place to walk your dog.
When the park has people buried in it, then it should manifest this function visibly and consciously. In this particular “cemetery”, at least in its green burial section, there are no visible signs of the dead who are buried there. This makes it feels like a park - but nothing more, only a park. It is no longer a cemetery but a park whose link with death is nothing more than its use as a space for environmentally-friendly body disposal. It has lost all connection with the personal and cultural memorial function of a cemetery.
All the above holds true for all forest, woodland, or conservation cemeteries where the visibility of the dead resting there is eliminated. As I have said elsewhere, this will result in beautiful but anonymous forests, not green cemeteries.
Green burial - also a soul issue, not just a body one
No - this reveals a soul issue. Death has been subconsciously denied in these cases, excluded, not integrated. That no visible signs are allowed is not accidental, however subconsciously motivated - this is a new disguise for the old “Let’s try to live as if there was no tomorrow and no death, no end to reckon with.” A literal attempt to push death “out of sight, and out of mind”.
On the contrary, a healthy and fearless psychological integration would consciously and deliberately include visible signs of the dead resting there. Death might be scary, but it is not a sickness; it is normal reality and handled properly, it can be enormously therapeutic for living.
Let me be clear. I fully empathize with the contemporary repulsion for traditional cemeteries, which for most contemporary people are gloomy, pessimistic places full of meaningless, pretentious and overpriced symbols. They speak neither to my sense of beauty, my private beliefs in life and after-life, or my connection with nature and natural cycles. I also want little to do with them.
But I do not want to deny death - on the contrary! Nothing is unhealthier for the soul, the psyche. Death must be, therefore we must integrate it into our life. But it does not have to have the negative association our traditional cemeteries arouse in us moderns. No - I want to find a way to deliberately and visibly integrate death with life in a positive relationship. Like many who embrace green burial, I love the idea of being buried in nature, be it a natural park or a forest. I love the idea that people will have picnics over my grave, play with their children, pick flowers or mushrooms, make secret love in the dark.
But in doing this, they should be given material to reflect that this is where I and many others lie, many others also who played and loved and picked flowers like them - but who have now moved on … as they will. This - and not denial - is healthy and brave. A cemetery should be a momenti mori, a reminder, not a denial of death.
Done with positive meaning and a timeless nature-oriented aesthetic, the bitter-sweet contrast between life and death could add greatly to our appreciation of life, to enjoying what we have while we have it.
Unfortunately what I describe here is NO LONGER in the spirit of traditional cemeteries. But it is also NOT in the subconscious spirit of denial apparent in much current green burial thought. This is why I am developing the Perpetua’s Garden concept: perpetual and green cemeteries, where time and human death are not denied but integrated with nature and life, symbolic and hopeful places where life and death meet and make friends.
Culture vs Nature in cemeteries
November 5, 2009
If I have one gripe with many green and woodland cemeteries it is that they don’t think deeply enough about the consequences to humans and human culture of making cemeteries more “natural”. This regards above all finding a place for enduring memorials in natural cemeteries.
This morning I came across an interesting story from the UK, in which the same conflict emerges in another aspect: http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/midweekherald/news/story.aspx?brand=MDWOnline&category=news&tBrand=devon24&tCategory=newsmdw&itemid=DEED03%20Nov%202009%2012%3A32%3A44%3A790
For the time-pressed (or if the link expires), the story essentially concerns the conflicts between mourners in a woodland cemetery and the deer that wander in and quite naturally eat the fresh flowers laid on burial sites. As a woodland cemetery, it is a good sign that the deer like to visit. But what happens when they eat all the natural flowers so that, paradoxically, all that remain are the artificial ones?
This simple example illustrates well the possible conflicts between nature and culture that can only become more evident as woodland and other “green” cemeteries multiply. I find nothing wrong with more natural cemeteries - on the contrary, Perpetua’s Garden aims to be just that. But people need to be clear that natural cemeteries set different boundaries between nature and culture than conventional cemeteries and the consequences need to be accepted. When a cemetery is intended to be a closer part of nature, it is only logical that situations like the above happen.
The issue of the flowers can be extended to memorials and in general to all that is human (ie cultural) in the cemetery. We want a cemetery that blends into and is friendly to nature - this means that we must accept that the human cultural aspect is curbed: that the flowers get eaten (or we use artificial ones) and that the stone memorial is forbidden. That flowers get eaten and must be replaced is a small concession to nature’s cause which we can easily accept; but not being allowed any kind of enduring memorial means the line has been drawn too far on the side of nature and human culture has lost its place altogether in the cemetery. The disappearance of the flowers upsets the direct descendents of the deceased - the absence of personalized, enduring memorials may not be noticed until later, when nature has naturally taken back its domain and no signs remains whatsoever, not even where the body rests. Then it is too late and human culture as a whole suffers.
Where does nature’s place end and culture’s begin, where do we draw the line, what are our priorities and what compromises must we make? Ideally we think about these things in advance and do not have to learn only by our mistakes. Perpetua’s Garden also sets this question as one of its tasks.
Michael Jackson’s Funeral
July 9, 2009
That motorcade, that gold casket, all that incredible media and popular interest in this prominent funerals. Where was the environment in all of this? And why was everyone so fascinated by it all, especially Americans who are so afraid of anything to do with death?
In the microcosm of burial and cemeteries, more immediate and personally relevant considerations than environmental effects are present. In the last moments of Michael Jackson’s world, as well as that of his millions of mourners, the environment was non-existent. This is understandable for mourners, or for someone considering their own final arrangements: the end of a life is no light matter, and for the majority, the environment will always be secondary, maybe the last thing they care about at that point. In ultimate situations, people follow what they believe in, they don’t give a damn about what they are told or forced to do. Hence the only real solution for green burials would be to gradually change the predominating beliefs so that people do the “right thing” willingly, almost instinctively at the moment of crisis.
Such a change will not come about by simplistic “holier-than-thou” green dogma, public indoctrination with the 3-R’s, renewable energy, green-industry, etc - or, in the case of green burial, citing fearful statistics about how much formaldehyde and concrete goes into the earth etc. Instead of fear-based negative preaching, green burial should be presented in positive terms of higher human integration into natural cycles, including the non-material spiritual aspects, indeed based on them. Almost all traditional religions (even nature-hostile Christianity in its original form) integrated man far more effectively into the environment than we will ever do with our technical “environmentalism” - so too, our world will only reintegrate itself properly into the earth’s processes if it finds a “higher” reason to do so and then works downwards from the spiritual belief to the material action. The environmental benefits will then be positive side-effects of a different worldview, and not the primary goal.
Death, burials and funeral rituals may present a place for such a worldview to grow. There is no more personal form of recycling than “dust to dust”. To a limited degree, the green burial movement speaks of this. But it should go further and emphasize that our recycled “dust” goes to create new life, and that, in cycles of birth, death and rebirth for as long as the earth exists. All this only on a material level - more importantly, the infinite natural cycles of death and resurrection could lead us to new prospects regarding our own souls, that old forgotten concept in our mundane and nihilistic world.
But for this to happen, we have to integrate the human aspect better than the green burial movement currently does, make it the primary consideration again, and not merely a means to realize an environmental goal.
I thus find the image of a garden more appropriate for green cemeteries than a forest. A forest exists independently of humans, a garden on the other hand exists for and requires humans. Nevertheless it exhibits all the birth, death and resurrection of nature. The only question is of the degree of human involvement in the garden’s formation and maintenance. This is a matter of taste. In our world, where Man’s interference with nature has been radically overdone, a lesser degree of artificiality would be attractive. A Japanese garden for example, where nature’s owns forms are used to go even beyond naturally manifesting beauty.
Michael Jackson’s funeral (and his life for that matter) exhibited all the worst nature- and death-denying aspects of our artificial world. However, the incredible level of interest in his funeral - as in those of in other prominents like Lady Diana, Ronald Reagan, etc - shows that the problem of our mortality is as acute as ever it was in history. We are too afraid to face the fact of our own mortality directly, hence these celebrity deaths become mirrors in which we can work through the problem indirectly, without fear. Far from being disinterested in death and funerals, we are fascinated.
Beautiful garden cemeteries that had NOTHING of the hopeless and morbid atmosphere of traditional western centuries might be another place where we could come to terms with our mortality. Their “greenness” would be a positive side-effect, or a concession to the real needs of an overpopulated and overstressed environment, but not the main thing.
Thomas Friese