Setiya Grief

Alayna Frazier H1

    For my presentation, I will be talking about the concept of grief from the book Life is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way by Kieran Setiya. Setiya writes that there are three forms of grief: relational grief, “grief at the harm that befalls someone who dies,” and “grief at the sheer loss of life.”

    The first type of grief relational grief is grief due to the loss of a relationship. Setiya talks about feeling this grief over the loss of his first relationship when he was 15 with a girl named Jules. After 6 months, Jules had seemed to grow bored of him and ended up breaking up with him. To make it worse, she gave him no reason as to why she broke up with him. I experienced a similar situation less than a year ago when my high school boyfriend broke up with me over text just a week before our third anniversary. Like Jules, he seemed to grow tired of me slowly over the last 2 years of the relationship, eventually ending it with very little reason as to why. Setiya writes that romantic grief revolves around the death of a relationship rather than the person. You could say that with relational grief you are also grieving all of the time and effort that went into a relationship that has gone to waste. Though with relational grief, no one has died, it is still a valid form of grief. When we care about someone deeply, and they are suddenly gone it feels like you’ve lost part of yourself. I believe with relational grief, we are also grieving that part of ourselves that has been taken.

    The second form of grief is “grief at the harm that befalls someone who dies,” is centered around the deceased’s experience. Setiya writes that both ancient Greek and Roman schools agree that it makes no sense to grieve for the dead because “death does no harm.” This thought process suggests that we are mourning for the wrong party. Epicurus argued that death causes no pain to the person who is dying because when we die, we simply lose consciousness and never regain it. Setiya argues that when we die we lose the privilege of living. What we lose is all the experiences, relationships, moments that we could have if we were still alive. He argues that what we lose is life itself, especially when the deceased died young.

    The third form of grief is “grief at the sheer loss of life.” Setiya writes about how for different cultures, there are different traditions for how we grieve. How we grieve in the West ties back to ancient Rome. Setiya cites historian David Konstan on the ancient Roman laws surrounding the mourning of the dead. You can mourn parents and children over the age of 6 for one year. You can mourn children under 6 for a month. Husbands can be mourned for ten months. Close relatives can be mourned for 8 months. We still see these rules, though not stated explicitly, in our culture. I think these laws are still an outline for our societal norm of what is considered an “appropriate” amount of grieving time. I feel like they shape the way we view grief, not necessarily for the better. Having these laws can alienate those who don't "get over" a dead loved one fast enough or if they seemingly move on too fast.

    Over time, we have become more private in our mourning process. Setiya writes that historically in the West, we used to have established conventions for dying at home, surrounded by the comfort and support of our loved ones. The nineteenth century was when death become more private. This change took place around World War One when so many people were dying outside of the home, like in the hospital or in combat, that death surrounded by doctors and nurses became our new norm.

    I researched and compared death customs, comparing early American customs to modern American customs. Puritans had silent, somber funerals, but had very different wakes. Puritan wakes were actually communal events involving feasts and liquor. Not what you’d expect from the Puritans, huh? Now funerals and wakes are considered more private events for friends and family. This provides an opportunity for loved ones to come together and grieve or reflect over the life of the deceased.

    The COVID pandemic impacted every part of our lives, and we still feel that impact. Setiya writes about how the pandemic disrupted already fragile death and mourning rituals. One sentence that really stuck with me was “there is a great mass of suspended grief,” which I feel is true. Even now, nearly 5 years after the pandemic, we face lasting impacts of it every day. Some of those lasting effects may be good, like how almost every business now has curbside pickup, and people are more likely to social distance or stay home when sick. But we still have negative effects like the virus itself sticking around and continuing to infect people and disrupt lives. I feel like most of us would agree that the pandemic doesn’t feel like it was 5 years ago, which I think is part of the suspended grief Setiya was talking about. I think that it will take probably decades for our generation to fully process the trauma that COVID caused, especially because it impacted us during crucial social developmental years.

    Setiya ends the chapter with the sentences, “If life is a story, grief reminds us, then it does not have a happy ending. Perhaps it’s not a story after all.” This gives readers an opportunity to rethink our perception of life itself.

 Source:

Life is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way by Kieran Setiya

Discussion Questions:

How do you feel about the Roman laws surrounding mourning periods?

Do you think COVID has a lasting effect on our generation, and if so do you believe it left a positive or negative impact?

Do you agree with Setiya that relational grief, or the loss of a relationship, is a valid form of grief?