Intentional Awareness of the Nervous System

I was doing an educational training program the other day - for my professional license renewal - the topic of which was “Polyvagal Theory” and trauma recovery. I chose to do this training because I had heard of Polyvagal Theory only in passing and lacked any deeper understanding of the framework, as I’m sure many folks have. Its unique name certainly makes it memorable though few folks take the time to understand what it truly means.

I won’t be explaining it - if you want to learn about what Polyvagal Theory is, I’d suggest watching this short Youtube video.

I also won’t be explaining the criticisms and counterclaims levelled against Polyvagal Theory, though these are growing in number and are well-documented as well (like in this NIH peer-reviewed article).

After completing the training and doing some supplemental reading and research on both sides of the theory I can only say that it appears to me that more research on and clarification of key principles is needed before I personally commit myself to integrating too much of Polyvagal Theory into my counseling practice. Much of what I heard in the training, and read from the Theory’s founder, Dr. Porges, seems to ring true on a human level, though, there does seem to be empirical evidence that certain biological phenomena have been misunderstood, oversimplified, or otherwise misconstrued in this theory.

What I took away from the training in a more personal manner was how much I had grown to take for granted my own awareness of what my nervous system was doing in my own body, which runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. I am often mindful of what my head feels like, or what my gut is doing, or how my left knee is feeling. But my nervous system seems to have been flying under the proverbial radar far more than it ought to have been.

I consider myself a fairly mindful person; I maintain a mindfulness practice, I enjoy yoga, I have a toolbox of strategies for when I lose my mindfulness and need to regain it. I rely a lot on curated imagery to help me do this and maintain a collection of mental images to assist me in my mindfulness practice. So imagine my surprise when I found my usual everyday mindfulness was neglecting one of the most important parts of my body most days! And, to boot, I seemed to lack strategies, imagery, or other tactics in observing and regulating this nervous system of mine. Wow!

The nervous system is often spoken about in terms of the flight-or-fight stress and threat responses, but it’s so much more complicated than that! The extent to which we’re well-regulated in our nervous system can impact how our body feels (e.g. gut health, skin health, etc.); it can also impact our abilities to see our worlds accurately, thereby impacting our ability to interact with the world and the people in it effectively.

Those of us with poor awareness and poor regulation of our central nervous system, which is often due to the absence of regulation in childhood and early life, suffer unnecessarily due to these deficits. It makes relationships harder, it makes work harder, and it makes achieving our best physical selves nearly impossible.

In making a more intentional effort this past couple of weeks to maintain a mindful and compassionate awareness of my nervous system I’ve found many, many moments where I was dysregulated but wouldn’t have previously thought so. The best way I can describe it now is using the imagery of the gears in a car: I’d find myself in fourth gear when I really only needed to be in first or second gear, or sometimes I’d find myself in reverse when I had no reason to be in anything other than park. Wild!

Furthermore, in these moments, I’ve made a new intentional effort to curate new strategies, many of which are imagery-based for me (a well-documented best practice in Polyvagal Therapy), to help me regulate my nervous system in these moments. So far, I’m achieving real success in getting myself and my body back on the same page; putting myself back in the right gear for the moment, to continue the metaphor.

So, I simply wanted to share this experience. That I too, as many mental health professionals can admit, struggle sometimes to maintain our awareness on all the important things we know we need to if we want to be the healthiest and best versions of ourselves. It’s not about neglecting these things, it’s all about what you do about it once you realize it. And so far I’m happy with what I’m doing about it.

And no one has to believe what I believe, but I choose to believe that the universe helped me out by putting this training in my path, perhaps specifically at this particular time. Perhaps this is exactly what I needed to hear not only professionally, but personally. If you’re interested in speaking about any of this with me, I’d welcome the conversation. In the meantime, I continue my work…

Letter to the Editor RE: 'Flanagan's Law'

In response to: “Named after former Fall River mayor, Flanagan’s Law filed to protect public safety and prevent violent mental health failures”- Fall River Reporter - ARTICLE LINK

Letter to the Editor 

Fall River Herald News 

RE: 'Flanagan's Law' 

This proposed legislation is a dangerous combination of carelessness and ineffectiveness. 

I write today to express my immense concern and disappointment in Representative Alan Sylvia’s filing of Massachusetts House Bill HD.5406, “An Act establishing the Massachusetts Violent and Dangerous Persons Mental Health Information System”, which he and his citizen collaborator, Mr. William Flanagan, have requested be called “Flanagan’s Law”. 

It is my opinion that this bill’s negligent lack of specificity in, and due respect for, profoundly critical issues of personal privacy, civil liberties, criminal justice, and mental health are astonishingly reckless. 

My first concern about this bill is that the proposal suggests anyone would be eligible for inclusion on this new secret list if they were “found to be a ‘violent or dangerous person’”. You might ask, how is a “violent or dangerous person” defined?  

Firstly, anyone who is “convicted of a violent felony offense”. Which sounds right, until you realize this is further defined as a litany of loosely associated crimes. 

Primarily a “violent felony offense” is defined here to include any crime by any adult – or juvenile! – in which the person used a deadly weapon or any other sort of physical force against another person. I could maybe understand the use of a deadly weapon, but it seems to me like a singular moment of using physical force in an arrestable offense is inherently a poor indicator of future risk to the masses in any increasingly violent manner. 

Furthermore, their definition of a “violent felony offense” includes the crimes of burglary, extortion, arson, or kidnapping. Including these criteria separately seems to be an admission on the part of the authors that these crimes are often not considered legally violent offenses, and an admission that the authors believe they ought to be for the purpose of their list. 

Lastly, this bill further defines a “violent felony offense” to include adults and juveniles who commit crimes which “otherwise involve conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to another”. Whew, talk about casting a wide net. This last inclusion criteria seems to be wide open for interpretation and seems to grounds to include everyone from drunk drivers to people who start forest fires to hungry and desperate teenagers running out of a store stealing a candy bar. How scary. 

Believe it or not, that’s not the only way someone could find themselves on this secret list.  

The second way an individual would be eligible for inclusion on this list of “Violent and Dangerous Persons” if they are ever, even once, “adjudicated as posing a substantial risk of harm to self or others as determined by a qualified mental health professional” under either a Section 12 (involuntary mental health treatment) or Section 35 (involuntary substance abuse treatment) proceeding. 

It is wholly illogical and irresponsible to conflate anyone’s risk of harm to themself as any kind of indicator or predictor of risk to others, now or in the future. The inclusion of this criterion is a gross mischaracterization of mental health crisis and is downright disrespectful to those who have experienced it. Furthermore, conflating addiction with interpersonal violence is a similarly reckless and uninformed decision. I’m truly flabbergasted at the suggestion. 

Think of how many people you’ve heard of, or maybe know or even love, who at one time needed mental health or substance use treatment through a civil commitment proceeding. Did their struggles make them violent? Did it predict violence? Should their struggles follow them for the rest of their days, more than it already does? Should first responders or judges treat them differently for the rest of their lives because of it? 

Finally, I also assert that any insinuation that the existence of such a “list” like the one Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Sylvia aim to create would have prevented the unquestionable tragedy of what Mr. Flanagan experienced in his assault on October 20th, 2025 is equal parts irresponsible and unsubstantiated by any precedent.  

I’m able to say this because no similar State-sponsored database, or “list”, containing the personal information and with the stated goals of Mr. Sylvia’s proposed list exists anywhere else in our country. There is no proof or precedent that the creation of such a list or database would prevent any crime at all, big or small, visited upon any citizen of our great Commonwealth, well-known or otherwise. 

Perhaps Mr. Sylvia is unaware, but there are Federal database systems long in existence aimed at indexing a narrow group of our society’s most violent offenders for the protection of first responders – the NCIC Violent Person File – and for the prevention of firearm procurement – the NICS Index. There are similarly many State-level initiatives that share critical mental health-related information across affiliated health agencies to improve and expedite mental health care.  

Mr. Flanagan says in the article that “we already track sex offenders because we know the danger of letting known threats slip through the cracks. This law follows that same logic.” 

With due respect, what an offensive comparison to make. Especially when a vast majority of the people Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Sylvia seem eager to include on a secret list like the one Mr. Sylvia proposed do not, in any way, present any kind of legitimate violent or malicious threat to anyone, let alone children or the most vulnerable.  

In closing, I hope it becomes increasingly clear to everyone that this half-baked idea lacks credibility, precedent, and respect for human dignity on multiple levels. That it would be ineffective if enacted in any shape or form beyond the effectiveness of more established and responsible Federal and State databases. That it is reactionary at best and ill-intentioned at worst. I hope Mr. Sylvia, his citizen collaborators, and his legislative co-petitioners all reconsider this bill.  

Signed, 

Owen Tidwell 

Fall River Resident 

Mental Health Professional and Social Worker 

 LINK

An obituary for the obituary - Part IV

The first thing I’d like to do in this fourth and final installment of this blog series (final for now, at least) is recap some of the points made in previous installments while also offering some closing, forward looking, thoughts on the topic. 

As in the previous installments I’ll repeat here that I do not judge as better or worse the more traditional practices around death and obituaries or the more modern approach. I hope I’ve done a nice job highlighting the costs and benefits of both with the goal of helping folks feeling unsure, uncertain, or otherwise curious about the topic make a more informed and thoughtful decision or understanding.

As such, as we review the points made previously, let;s frame these items as such:

Regardless of how you choose to publicize or spread news of your loss, please give yourself the gift of…

• Taking into account, in whatever proportion feels authentic to you: the historical intentions of the practice of obituaries, your particular set of wants, needs, and resources, and the wants and wishes of the deceased.

• Remembering that as much as we may try, our language generally doesn’t have the capacity to fully convey the profound and complicated thoughts and feelings we experience in grief and loss, so take the pressure off to find them in your writing.

• Acknowledging and allowing the sad, more modern, reality that loss is indeed complicated by the financial implications of a death. We cannot act as if these financial complications are not real, though we also cannot be ruled by them exclusively. We aim to mitigate costs when able and to also indulge in costs when they are congruent with the desires of the deceased and the wants and needs of those left behind.

• Reminding ourselves, as often as we need to, that grief is a profoundly personalized experience; we all grieve and mourn losses differently. Giving each person affected by a loss the ability to say what they need to say, do what they need to do, is a beautiful gift. There will be some parts of mourning and publicizing a loss that can be more autonomous, and some which will need to be more collaborative. The key is knowing the difference.

• Part of the gift of obituary writing, or other public statements of loss, is that in the act of writing there is often this shift in point of view, away from the heavy subjectivity of our pain to a slightly more objective view of the loved one’s life. We do well to remember that this shift in perspective, even if it’s for only brief moments, is often a critical reprieve from the overwhelming thoughts and feelings of profound pain folks are feeling in these early hours and days of a loss.

• Working to avoid, as much as possible, allowing decisions related to someone’s obituary to become a flashpoint for conflict between you and your other loved ones. Far more often will clients speak about regrets over strained relationships after these types of conflicts than do clients express regrets over flower arrangements, obituary photos, or words in an obituary.

• Furthermore, we are better off remembering that if such moments of disagreement and conflict are handled with care, respect, and a mutual understanding of everyone’s pain, these can be really healthy and therapeutic moments for everyone involved.

• Keeping in mind that the collaborative process of writing the obituary, or by engaging in a virtual discussion or collaboration on Facebook, serve the critical purpose of having your pain and grief validated by the pain and grief of the others. When these opportunities are too strongly monopolized by one person, that person loses the opportunity to get that love and validation from others.

• Choosing a path in which we allow, and maybe even encourage, people who love us and care about us to act out their love and kindness towards us in our time of loss in more substantial and meaningful ways. Seek out hugs, and flowers, and notes, and visits more than text messages, and “likes”, and direct messages. Folks will be more than happy to offer you those, so you may have to ask for the good stuff.

Going forward there does not seem to be a great un-doing of the social changes that have made obituaries so different today than they’ve ever been in our history. Nor does there seem to be any great return to some of the social norms of yesteryear, whether it be newspapers regaining popularity, folks reading obituary pages again, or hand-written notes or the popularity of funerals. None of this will ever be what it once was.

That being said I do see opportunities for small changes for all of us. I’d encourage everyone to try and interact with death, mourning, and grieving just a little bit differently than you may originally be tempted to. 

Maybe we can help validate those around us in their experiences with death and loss by sharing a bit of what we’ve learned in our own experience, or a bit of what we’ve learned here.

Maybe we subscribe to our local newspapers, and read it! Especially the obituary sections. Or, we could make a concerted effort to read up on obituaries at our local funeral homes or on an aggregation site like Legacy.com; in the hopes of learning about losses folks in your life might be dealing with but not advertising or publicly speaking about.

Perhaps we can have healthy, more proactive, conversations with the people we care about and love about the topic of final arrangements. After all, do you know what your spouse, or sister, or parent want to have happen in their honor after they pass? Many of us don’t. I think it’d be so healthy to change that.

Arguably most importantly, if we come across a Facebook obituary from someone we know or care about, perhaps we can buck the trend, lead by example, and pick up the phone, or send a note rather than sending a text or reacting to the Facebook post. In almost every instance, this effort is profoundly appreciated, and will often be reciprocated, in our own hours of need.

I look forward to exploring new topics in this blog going forward. I’m grateful for those who read this and considered my thoughts on the topic; I hope at least one person, somewhere, someday, finds it even minimally helpful.

An obituary for the obituary - Part III

Our last installment explored a variety of benefits to the observed trend of what I’ve dubbed the “Facebook Obituary”. These benefits included the freedom of word count, word choice, content, and the use of photographs, among others. In my work I have observed, conversely, some drawbacks to the use of Facebook for obituary posting which I’d like to enumerate now. 

My goal in doing so is not to cast judgment on those who have chosen this route in mourning their loved one, but rather to point out ways in which their mourning or their grief might miss out on some of the under-appreciated benefits of the old traditions so they may seek them out elsewhere. I also do so in an effort to assist those conflicted with obituary-related decisions to make as informed a decision as possible.

Similar to our last installment, I’ll bold portions of this commentary that I think are core concepts to the grieving process and/or grief work as I understand it.

The first downside to the “Facebook Obituary” is that the post, unless otherwise directed to a certain page or group, definitionally goes out to only your “‘friends”, people with whom you've previously chosen to connect with. This is much different than the traditional obituary, which has historically been something for broader public consumption.

I suppose, in theory, it's possible that the post would then be shared by your friends to some of their friends, but I don't think this happens as often as we might think. Similarly, in theory, the use of hashtags might bring the post to a broader audience, though folks would need to be looking for that kind of content which doesn’t strike me as altogether too likely.

So this idea of a “friends-only” obituary is a major departure from the traditional obituary, which was written and presented in a way to communicate the most important details of an individual's life and death to family, friends, and strangers alike. The fact that the posting would be seen by folks who had not previously known your loved one, or hadn’t been a part of their life for years, I believe, tasked the author(s) with writing an obituary in a way that was immensely more therapeutic.

It asked the authors to widen their gaze to include someone's entire life, all the chapters of their proverbial book. It forced the authors to mention details that might otherwise be assumed to be well-known to those closest to them, but many times aren't as well-known as we estimate. It also asked the authors to write with the deceased's friends, colleagues, and acquaintances from both past and present in mind, and not so much their own. Overall it asked the authors to take a wider, more objective third-party view of the loss, perhaps even the view of the stranger, which in the early days of grieving and mourning a loss can be immensely healthy and profoundly therapeutic. This shift in perspective, even if it’s for only brief moments, is often a critical reprieve from the overwhelming thoughts and feelings of profound pain, loss, and sadness folks are feeling in these early hours and days of a loss.

Writing about a loved one who’s passed with an audience consisting only of your friends in mind seems to me to rob the author of the opportunity to step into this different perspective, see the loss from different points of view, and perhaps tell their loved one’s story in a slightly different, often more holistic, way.

The second downside I see in this trend is that the “Facebook Obituary” is almost always written by one person and only one person. Unlike the obituary of yesteryear which was a much more collaborative process, often including multiple different loved ones of the deceased, which in my estimation brought with it a host of therapeutic benefits.

I acknowledge that sometimes this collaborative process has proved to be more of a curse than a blessing for some families, often due to underlying family dysfunction and old conflicts bubbling up where they ideally wouldn’t belong. I’ve had plenty of folks share with me how in writing the obituary with their loved ones disagreements emerged related to who to include and exclude in the next-of-kin, which photograph to use, which adjectives to use, which facts about the person’s life should be included and which shouldn’t, just to name a few.

The problem is, as far as I can tell, if these conversations and disagreements are handled with care, with respect, and with a mutual understanding of everyone’s pain, these can be really healthy and therapeutic moments.

More often than not I’ve seen loved ones bond in these difficult moments. For example: I’ve seen the choice of the photograph become an opportunity for loved ones to sift through photos together, during which they invariably pull some out and say “remember this day?” or have a laugh or have a cry over a mutually emotional memory. All of which wouldn’t happen if this weren’t a collaborative process. Similarly, I’ve seen loved ones learn things about the deceased they might not have otherwise learned if another loved one hadn’t shared about it during the obituary writing, which folks tend to cherish in this moment of loss.

And, ultimately, the collaborative process of writing the obituary serves the purpose of a loved one having their pain and their grief validated by the pain and grief of the others involved, the value of which cannot be overstated. In our most difficult moments of grief and loss, we often feel so isolated and so strange in our emotions. Learning that others close to you are feeling a similar way is a lighthouse on the shore for folks lost in their grief. 

The third downside of the “Facebook Obituary” I’d like to point out here is that I fear the Facebook post provides an all-too-convenient box in which those who love the author can offer support and love. As this love and support, almost always, will only be returned to the Facebook user in the form of likes, hearts, comments, or direct messages online. All of which certainly have their place in our emotional world, but don’t seem to me to measure up to the love and support we’d receive otherwise. 

Contrast the digital hearts and D-M’s of the Facebook post with what used to come as a result of the public obituary. If a loss you read about in the paper elicited any reaction from you at all as someone who cared, or knew, or liked, or loved the deceased, you would offer your condolences and offer your support in the form of a making phone call, hand-writing a letter, ordering and sending flowers, making and offering food, or in some extreme (and I think lovely) cases in the form of an in-person visit. 

How much more meaningful and fulfilling must it be to have someone look you in the eye and tell you they care, and that they're “here for you”? Or to hear it in their own voice on the other end of the phone? Or to see it in their own handwriting, in an envelope they addressed, sealed, stamped, and mailed? Or to see it manifested in a beautiful aromatic bouquet of flowers or a warm delicious meal? 

Of course the “Facebook Obituary” doesn’t preclude someone from doing any of these things, and I sure hope they do one of them. But, in reality, I fear the convenience of hitting that reaction button and calling it a day is too tempting for most folks. Many of whom perhaps intend on doing more but maybe never get around to it. Regardless of the reasons, these old traditions forced folks to live out their love and kindness towards the bereaved in what seem objectively to me to be more substantial and meaningful ways. And I want that for people, especially those suffering with grief and loss.

In the next and final post in this blog series I’ll summarize all we’ve said here and reflect on where we might be heading in terms of our traditions around death and obituaries. In closing I’ll reiterate what I said in the beginning of this post: my goal here is not to cast judgment on anyone’s decisions on how to share the news of their loss, but rather to fully illuminate what I see as the benefits of the more traditional obituary. I do so because I firmly believe these benefits help make grieving and mourning our losses healthier.

An obituary for the obituary - Part II

The “pros” of the Facebook Obituary

Though I have some concerns about the “Facebook Obituary” trend, as I've coined it, I believe it's only fair that I acknowledge the positives. It's also important that we enumerate the positive aspects in an effort to bring awareness to what are generally considered in grief work to be important components of healthy grieving. I'll bold this part of the commentary below.

I have seen some exceptionally beautiful, thoughtful, and sentimental Facebook posts honoring the life and death of their loved one. In reading them I can imagine they are uniquely cathartic and I am glad folks are finding that release during a profoundly difficult time. I can certainly see how, when done with awareness and in tandem with other grief and mourning practices, the Facebook Obituary has its place in many people’s grieving.

First, I find it’s nice that the posts can be as long as they want to be, that the writer isn't handcuffed by word limits like you might find in a traditional obituary, either digital or in print. Our English language, or any human language, generally doesn't have the breadth or the depth to fully convey the profound and complicated feelings involved in grief and loss. And as such, having more space, more words, at your disposal to try and express the pain is almost always helpful. I do believe there is a limit to this, I'm sure most people would agree there is such a thing as a Facebook post being too long, no matter what the content is. But in my anecdotal experience folks generally don't cross over into this territory too often. A large majority of the time, the unlimited space is a benefit to the person posting. It gives the author space to acknowledge the many complexities of the person’s life, death, and the relationship they shared together. 

I think it's great that Facebook Obituaries can include one or two or, in some cases, a dozen photos of a loved one alongside it; the writer doesn't have to just pick one photo like in the more traditional obituary. I cannot overstate the frequency in which I hear of folks, often family members, struggling and arguing over which photo to use in an obituary and the unnecessary harm it causes for everyone involved. Some folks believe it’s important the photo reflects the person at their best, in their “prime”; some folks believe it's important the photo reflects who the person was as recently as possible. Arguments can be made that the photo is more for the family than it is for the public, and vice-versa. I'm not sure there are right answers in any direction to any of these debates. When given the opportunity, what I've encouraged folks to do is to try and choose a photo that the deceased themselves appeared to enjoy, which is often a photo somewhere in a frame in their home, or hanging on a wall, or, nowadays, was their profile photo on Facebook. I also remind folks they will have opportunities to choose other photos, ones of their preference, at other times in the grieving process to use in commemorating or memorializing the person. Thankfully, the Facebook Obituary helps solve this problem quite nicely, allowing the writer to include any number of photos with the post that brings them meaning and connection.

I think it's wonderful that it's free, that no one is paying by the letter or by the square inch. Grief and loss are too often, sadly, complicated by the financial implications for those who are most impacted by the loss and any way we can mitigate these complications is welcomed. I believe we can appreciate the difficult position newspaper outlets are in when it comes to maximizing the profit of every square inch of their print publication, or every pixel of their online edition, while also acknowledging the fact that the costs associated with obituary postings in newspapers have become, for most people, unreasonable. Newspaper obituaries have come to cost hundreds of dollars; longer obituaries which include a photo often cost many hundreds of dollars. Their digital counterparts, the online obituary hosting sites, do cost less, but will often still cost between $50 and $100 depending on the service and the amenities it offers. The cost of the obituary, of course, is relative; relative to the readership of the publication, which in every example is significantly down compared to prior years, and also relative to the other costs loved ones are assuming in laying the deceased to rest, which in every example is up significantly compared to prior years. We also find ourselves in the middle of a challenging economic moment for most average Americans. In this unique environment the costs of an obituary present more of a challenge to those who have suffered a loss than ever before, and I can understand the allure of a completely free option. Facebook appears to be offering that to folks.

Lastly, I believe the Facebook Obituary is fairly unique in that the author has complete autonomy over it. The author can speak for themselves, allowing other family members to do the same in their own posts, meaning there isn’t this pressure to agree on what needs to be said in a moment like this. There’s also very little restriction on what can be said; assuming nothing breaks Facebook’s policies the author can say whatever they want to say about the deceased in whatever language, tone, and tenor they like. Grief is a profoundly personalized experience; we all grieve and mourn losses differently. And each loss is different, too. Giving each person affected by a loss the ability to say what they want to say about the deceased, in the way they want to say it, is quite powerful. In grief work we believe the writing of the obituary to be a unique part of the process of mourning, grieving, coping, and healing. Historically this might have only been available to the next-of-kin, or the person otherwise appointed as in-charge, or might have been shared with a small group of loved ones. Now, with Facebook, everyone can enjoy the benefits of taking pen to paper, or in this case fingertips to keyboard, and processing their grief and pain by using words to share the news with others. And because the post doesn’t need to conform to traditional rules around the language and tone of obituaries, each person can feel comfortable speaking their truth about the complexities of the person’s life and death. Considering these two big differences, I can certainly see how the Facebook Obituary is a unique and welcomed opportunity for folks dealing with the loss of a loved one.

An obituary is most often one of the first steps in mourning, that is, the public-facing part of the grieving process; it comes before wakes, funerals, burials, celebrations of life, memorials, and other mourning practices. So much of writing an obituary is an exercise in accepting the loss just enough to share the news with others, while so many other parts of your being are in denial, anger, or depression. This is an important part of taking the first steps towards a place of greater acceptance and integration of the loss in your life, and it does appear to be something the Facebook post does allow for as much as a traditional obituary would. It also serves the purpose of alerting the people in your life that you've suffered a loss and could likely benefit from some support, presence, and kindness during this time. In a world where we seem more fractured in our connectedness by the day, this is critically important and I'm glad that the Facebook post serves this function as well. 

Adding these benefits to the ones outlined above, I can appreciate how and why Facebook Obituaries seem to be slowly replacing the old traditions. I believe these changes in obituary practices pose challenges as well, which we’ll explore in the next installment of the series, but the advantages do deserve acknowledgement. It is my hope this outline may assist someone in understanding why they may be considering a certain type of obituary for their loved one, validate someone’s frustrations with the current practices around obituaries, and/or give someone grieving permission to pursue the kind of obituary for their loved one that they feel is best for them in this moment.

An obituary for the obituary

Part One - Where we started and where we are

In my recent grief work I'm observing, at least anecdotally, a major shift in practices surrounding obituaries.

The word obituary in its original Latin phrasing means a notice of “departure”, and in the context of life and death certainly refers to the latter. I suppose there’s no way to know if it was always used exclusively for someone’s passing, but in modern times it certainly has been.

There are many writings online that will tell you the act of posting public obituaries for the deceased started in Ancient Rome, though I cannot seem to find a reliable source that establishes this as historical fact. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true, though I’m fairly certain it would have looked and sounded much different than it does today.

What is more credibly established as fact is that up until the early to mid-1800’s in America, obituaries were more-so simple statements of fact regarding someone’s death. There’s reason to believe many of these obituaries were not even written by someone who knew or cared for the deceased; more likely they were written by someone at the newspaper and probably served as more of a formality or legality than anything else. 

Some have reflected, and I would as well, that obituaries in their modern form weren’t quite as necessary then as they are now. In those times communities were much smaller, tighter, more closely connected. Not to mention most folks in these communities likely attended service at the same church or bought bread at the same local bakery, allowing news of a passing to travel quickly and widely in these communities all on its own. There was nothing anyone could read in a newspaper that they hadn’t already heard through the proverbial grapevine.

History shows us that during the mid-1800’s, on the heels of events like Western expansion, the Gold Rush, and the Civil War, as young people of all backgrounds ventured off away from their communities, the practice of writing obituaries began to change. Obituaries became a place for not only sharing facts about the death but also a place for commentary on their life. Furthermore, there is evidence that during this time loved ones began to take on a more active role in writing the obituary itself. Perhaps this is because of the tragic and traumatic nature of many deaths during this time, and perhaps it's because lives were increasingly being lived outside of the community of origin more so than ever before, and a story needed to be told. 

In taking on a more active role in writing the obituary, I believe, people found unexpected catharsis and healing during a tremendously difficult time. Otherwise I’m not sure why in generations and generations since then loved ones have volunteered to write an obituary for the deceased during a time of immense sadness and grief, and at a time in which there are numerous other responsibilities which require their attention. The obituaries seem to have become a place for loved ones to process the full scope of their loss, to share the highlights as much as the lowlights of someone’s life, to introduce their communities to the descendents (who might need support), and to invite the community to mourn with them at the wake or funeral. These obituaries went out to friends, family, and strangers alike.

By all observations, traditions around obituaries would then remain fairly static for approximately 150 years. At which point things started to change drastically and rapidly. As you have probably noticed, in the past thirty years newspapers across the country and the world have hastily transitioned to digital publication, and the obituary section has gone digital as well. Precipitated by a large drop in readership in the early 1990s, this move to digital was likely due to the advent of home-based computers, the internet, and cable news channels all contributing to a change in how Americans got their news. The problem is that with the rising costs of newspaper publication, especially for local newspapers, the fees these publications now charge for hosting obituaries seem to have risen to the point where many folks now forgo a posting in the newspaper altogether. 

This appears to have correlated with an increase in the popularity of low-cost online obituary hosting services, many of which are offered through the funeral homes where folks are having their loved one's final arrangements carried out. Because these low-cost obituaries have become so popular, and so numerous, there's even successful third-party sites like Legacy.com which aggregate obituary postings from thousands and thousands of funeral homes and newspaper websites into one searchable database. They'll even send you a daily email containing the previous day's postings in an effort to keep you up to date; it used to be a newspaper thrown onto your front stoop, now it’s an email in your virtual inbox.

Most of this is relatively old news. What seems new, at least to me, is that even these online obituaries, which over the last two decades have boomed in popularity, appear now to be slowly changing in their utility for people. Obituaries now seem to be returning to the content of our earlier days, once again becoming more straightforward statements of fact: date, age, location, and sometimes the manner of death. I observe less and less reflection in these postings, less and less feeling behind the words. Quite often, I’ve been told, that's because a friend or a loved one isn’t even writing it anymore; it's someone from the funeral home or, I fear, an AI machine. Some folks I speak with have even told me that with the scourge of online identity theft, writing a more detailed obituary has become risky, and what a sad commentary on our culture that is.

What appears to have taken the place of the modern obituary is something we've probably all seen and maybe even done ourselves: the Facebook post. In the next chapter of this blog series, we’ll begin to explore and reflect upon what I, and we in the field of grief work, see as the pros and cons of the changes we’ve seen in obituary practices, including what I’m calling the “Facebook Obituary”.

Greetings & Introductions

First off - thank you for reading. I believe in the power of writing even when there isn't a reader, but the possibility of a reader really does bring a whole new energy to the exercise.

My goal in writing through this medium is to share some of my otherwise private reflections and meditations on my work and various other work-adjacent topics with anyone curious enough to come looking for them. My hope in doing so is that it is accessible and substantive and gives something to folks with whom I'm not otherwise connected.

This blog will generally work with a central concept of grief and loss, although posts will likely branch out to touch a number of different subtopics as I explore grief and loss from every possible angle. I can project ahead to some of these subtopics now although many of them, I believe, will emerge organically over time. I imagine there are many ways in which grief and loss will come up in my daily work, local happenings, world events, current affairs, and mental health more generally. I believe we could all benefit from closer examinations and deeper reflections on such matters and I hope to do my part here.

My goal is to post content on a biweekly basis, every-other-week, though you may have to forgive me if this proves to be too ambitious. I’m already finding it to be difficult to thread the needle between quantity and quality in blogging; seems like a more difficult balance to strike than I probably ever gave it credit for. But, I will try. 

I look forward to building a relationship with you through this medium and am grateful for your time and consideration of my words. If anything on this blog particularly speaks to you please consider using the contact page to reach out to me and let me know. I’d be thrilled to hear from you.

I feel that sets the stage rather nicely.

Onward.

Owen