When grief has nowhere to go: what happens when we skip the funeral

We often talk about funerals as if they are just a formality, a symbolic event, or a matter of personal taste. From the perspective of how humans actually work, that misses the point. A funeral is not decoration. It is essential social infrastructure.

​Across cultures, funerals function as a kind of social technology. They help us absorb the shock of a death, share the weight of grief, and begin to restore order after a profound disruption. When we cut these rituals short, skip them, or do not do them at all, grief does not simply get quieter or more private. Its very shape changes.

The social glue

Sociologist Émile Durkheim argued that shared rituals are central to social cohesion and to what he called the collective conscience, the shared moral framework that binds people together (Durkheim, 1912). Funerals are a clear example of this process in action. They publicly acknowledge a death, affirm obligations to the person who has died, and transform private pain into something shared.
​
When a death happens without this kind of ritual recognition, that social scaffolding weakens. Grief becomes isolated. People can feel unmoored and alone at exactly the moment they most need support, a condition Durkheim described as anomie. The grief is no longer held by the community. It is carried solo.

Stuck in the 'in between'

Anthropologists understand funerals as rites of passage. Arnold van Gennep described these rites as moving through three phases: separation → transition (liminality) → reintegration (van Gennep, 1909). Victor Turner later emphasised the importance of the transitional or liminal phase, the in between space where ordinary life is suspended and change becomes possible (Turner, 1969).
​
A healthy ritual holds people in this in-between space, the raw and disoriented time of mourning, and then helps them re-enter daily life in a changed way. The problem arises when the ritual cannot be completed. Turner warned that unresolved liminality can become prolonged or permanent.

This is not a personal failure, it is a structural failure. Life moves on, but something essential remains unresolved and unintegrated.

When rituals break down

Anthropologists describe these situations using terms such as ritual failure and ritual rupture. Ritual failure occurs when a culturally meaningful rite cannot be carried out and often leads to guilt, anxiety, or distress. Ritual rupture refers to broader social or practical conditions that prevent ritual altogether, interrupting shared meaning-making and cultural continuity.
​
In both cases, the loss is not just the absence of a ceremony. It is the loss of a shared process that helps people make sense of death. The in-between phase, instead of being a contained transition, becomes a state of ongoing disorganisation.

The loss of togetherness

Victor Turner used the term communitas to describe the sense of equality, closeness, and shared humanity that emerges during collective ritual (Turner, 1969). Funerals traditionally create this through gathering, storytelling, music, silence, and simple acts of care.
​
When funerals are minimised or eliminated, this communitas is weakened or lost. Grief becomes a solitary task rather than a shared one. Mourners lose not only practical support, but the experience of being witnessed in their grief.

The modern shift and its cost

The loss of communitas is not an abstract concern; it is the direct result of specific modern trends, and particularly relevant in the context of contemporary funeral practices.

In many Western societies, there has been a marked rise in:

• direct cremation without ceremony
• delayed or absent memorialisation
• privatised or professionally “handled” death
• language that frames funerals as unnecessary, indulgent, or emotionally risky; This language actively discourages the very gathering that generates communitas.

These shifts are often justified by cost, convenience, or emotional avoidance. We tell ourselves that we do not need a funeral to grieve. Yet research in grief studies consistently shows that ritual participation supports meaning-making and healthier grieving, particularly after sudden or traumatic loss (Walter, 1999; Neimeyer, 2001).
​
When funerals are treated as consumer choices rather than social necessities, grief is redefined. It becomes an individual psychological task rather than a communal responsibility. This reflects a broader cultural movement in which care is privatised and collective obligation diminishes.
​
From an anthropological perspective, this is not progress. It is erosion.

Grief as a social wound

Medical anthropologists describe grief under these conditions as social suffering, pain produced not only by death itself, but by the absence of social structures that would normally help people carry that loss (Kleinman, Das, & Lock, 1997).
​
This helps explain why many people describe a lingering sense of incompleteness after a minimal or absent funeral. Something important did not happen. The death was not adequately marked. The grief was not witnessed.

Why ritual still matters

Funeral rituals do not exist to make death neat or easy.

They exist to do necessary work.
​

• To acknowledge rupture openly.
• To hold people in the chaos of the in-between.
• To redistribute grief so it is not carried alone.
• To help restore order to lives and communities.

When ritual collapses, grief is left without a container.

​And when grief has nowhere to go, it does not disappear.

​It stays.

Let's keep the conversation going

Your insight and memories are the essential material. My role is to help you structure these elements into a graceful and coherent ceremony.
​
This post discusses the 'container' that ritual provides. If you feel comfortable sharing, has there been a time when that container was missing, or when a different kind of act helped you? Your reflections are welcomed below.

I’m here to help and will respond to every comment.

References
Durkheim, É. (1995). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (K. E. Fields, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1912)
van Gennep, A. (1960). The Rites of Passage. University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1909)
Turner, V. (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Aldine Publishing.
Walter, T. (1999). On Bereavement: The Culture of Grief. Open University Press.
Neimeyer, R. A. (2001). Meaning Reconstruction and the Experience of Loss. American Psychological Association.
Kleinman, A., Das, V., & Lock, M. (1997). Social Suffering. University of California Press.