A Social History of Dying

A Social History of Dying is an informational, useful book that's impact is diminished by its lack of organization and structure. It serves more as a compilation, or a catalogue, of sociological information (most of it having to do with death and dying) rather than a straightforward book about the history of dying. This, if the book was organized better, would have worked better in its favor.

First, the positives: The information Kellehear puts out and the opinions he posits are both very intriguing, especially the progression of the ‘kinds' of deaths that are conceptualized. Furthermore, I appreciate the inclusion of different perspectives, cultures, and traditions in his analyses of society. A common criticism I've seen is that he makes sweeping generalizations of humanity and this critique, to me, seems unfounded. The inability to make specifications is an inherent problem seen with topics like sociology and philosophy, which is why the effort Kellehear made to include all kinds of cultures is appreciated. It's difficult to write on the humanities without making generalizations, especially with a topic so universal yet divisive as death.

His general message in his conclusion about care and compassion being a human instinct is a good one. Too often do people think that humanity is inherently selfish or skewed towards unstable power dynamics.

This is also good in addressing how things like capitalism and colonization affects certain aspects of death and dying. The former is especially stressed in relevant chapters.

Now, the negatives: Again, I don't believe that Kellehear adding a wider context to this book is necessarily bad. The problem herein lies with the fact that his lack of structure causes the background information to be less supplemental and more distracting. His tangents don't seem to be contained, and are sprinkled in here and there. I would have found several chapters on background information and then several chapters on the main point to be much easier to read. The organization — or lack thereof — made reading hard to sludge through sometimes, especially with chapters filled with background information such as Part II and III. This one flaw made it drastically harder to read and, as seen with other reviews, made others quit entirely within the first few chapters. I would have definitely finished this a lot quicker had it not been for this.

Overall, it's a good read, but I would only really recommend it to people who are really interested in death studies and aren't too bothered by extra details. A summary of all his ideas — which I would say are still thought-provoking — are listed in the conclusion, so if you're unsure about reading all of it, it might be good to read just the conclusion.