In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Death, Modernity, and the Body: Sweden 1870–1940
  • Lynn Åkesson
Eva Åhrén. Death, Modernity, and the Body: Sweden 1870–1940. Rochester Studies in Medical History. Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 2009. xv + 215 pp. $75.00 (ISBN-10: 1-58046-312-6, ISBN-13: 978-1-58046-312-6).

Modernity came quite late in Sweden. But when it did, it imbued almost every aspect of daily life, death included. In five interesting, well-written chapters, each demonstrating a specific case study, Eva Åhrén guides the reader through the transformation of death in Sweden between 1879 and 1940. She argues, “attitudes toward death correspond to culturally constituted, historically changing needs” [End Page 133] (p. 15). She convincingly shows that changes in the handling of dead bodies match specific fears and conceptions of death in modern Sweden.

The five chapters focus on medical practice: body parts on display, for scientific as well as for entertaining purposes; the role of the undertaker; photos of the dead as a specific genre of portrait; and, finally, cremation. Interestingly, Åhrén uses different empirical sources in the five cases: publications, illustrations and exhibitions, written reports, memory photography, and pamphlets. She does not discuss her method as much as it might have deserved, describing herself as a historian wanting to “anthropologize” history (p. 5). Her approach is crossdisciplinary. She combines anthropological (Clifford Geertz) and historical (Paul Ricoeur) thinking, stating that the goal of interpretation “is not to depict the reality behind the traces . . . the meaning lies in the traces themselves” (p. 6). This fruitful perspective could have been developed a bit further.

The book was first published (in Swedish) in 2002, and most of the references end here. A few updates up to 2009 can be found. The study is well anchored in the classic literature on death and dying. It covers Swedish, international, and historical as well as anthropological texts. She disagrees with Philippe Ariés and agrees with Michel Vovelle that historical change “not only means dissolution of traditions but also the creation of new practises” (p. 2). This is a perspective strongly implemented through the book as a whole. New needs in modernity match new death practices. She makes use of Mary Douglas’s concepts of pollution and taboo and the borderline status of the dead body, as well as Arnold van Genneps’s rites of passage.

In a final chapter summarizing her findings, Åhrén introduces a new concept, “abject,” inspired by Julia Kristeva. The abject, characterized by ambiguity and duality, corresponds well to common feelings toward dead bodies, feelings relatively unaffected by time and space. It is therefore a bit surprising that the concept occurs first in the summary chapter. It could, for instance, have been used as an interesting strand throughout the different cases in relation to modernity.

Åhrén states that she will not apply a grand theory of modernity. Instead, she uses the concept in a pragmatic way meaning “both a time period and its primary characteristics” (p. 6). Given that “modernity” is one of the most central concepts in the study, it might have been worthwhile to pay more attention to the main characteristics of the extensive scientific debate on modernity and for the author to position herself in this field. She makes it very clear, however, that she finds “no reason to join the chorus of those critical of modernity” (p. 152).

Another concept used in a pragmatic way is “visual culture.” In Åhrén’s study this mostly means representations such as photographs, exhibitions, illustrations in textbooks, and the like. References to visual culture as a specific research and theoretical field are not very explicit. This could have been expanded upon, taking into consideration the book’s many interesting illustrations.

In the final chapter, Åhrén sums up which customs disappear, which remain, and which rituals increase and decrease in importance. Pathology came to stay, while anatomy had its golden era in the beginning of the twentieth century. Keeping the deceased in the home, viewing the dead, the use of local women instead of [End Page 134] undertakers—all were practices that disappeared during the period studied. The same goes...

pdf

Share