In her article “David Bowie and the Rise of the Grief Police,” Megan Garber argues that, sometimes, the act of grieving online (often publicly, such as via Facebook) does not have to be a “deeply insincere” act as Camilla Long tweets. Rather, it can be a “declaration of support to the deceased’s family and friends,” almost like a virtual “condolence card” for the loved ones (even if it is personally addressed to the deceased).
Plenty of condolence cards and memorial flowers come from people who did not have a close relationship with the deceased (or any at all). Though these condolences can be touching and personal, they may also simply express sorrow for the family’s loss–a universally human sentiment that can still carry some weight for the loved ones regardless of the sender’s actual relationship to the deceased. As Garber points out, that does not make them much different from memorial posts online.
In class, I brought up a similar idea in our small group’s discussion. What makes a memorial post much different than signing a guest book at a wake? On the one hand, posting on a memorial page is often in a more public forum, which certainly lends the post many of the negative aspects associated with other public posts–this is something that the poster wants you to see, something that is curated and meant to communicate a certain message or agenda.
On the other hand, we can focus on different aspects of a memorial post. If it’s posted on a page created specifically to mourn or memorialize a certain person’s passing, that page is often not ostensibly meant as a place for people to gain social capital; rather it may be created by family, friends, or loved ones for those affected by the deceased. Like a sizable crowd at a funeral, a mailbox packed with condolence cards, or a completely full guest book, a populated memorial page can help the loved ones of the deceased deal with the unendurable–it can comfort someone knowing that their deceased loved one had a tangible impact on so many different people.