In my article in the February 026 issue of The Director, I noted that the 2025 NFDA Cremation & Burial Report highlighted a number of the factors that have contributed to steadily rising cremation rates across North America. Among these factors are: cost considerations, changing consumer preferences, fewer religious prohibitions, environmental concerns and an increasingly transient population.

We have come to realize that traditional funeral rituals have lost their value and meaning for many. Those of us in deathcare recognize that meaningful funerals help families in numerous ways, but we would be in denial if we didn’t acknowledge that there are several factors influencing the deritualization of death in North America. 

The purpose of this article is to outline additional – and perhaps less obvious – reasons why many people are questioning the value of funeral ceremonies. Using this “seek-to-understand” principle, I then invite us to develop a reclamation initiative that educates families and communities about the critical importance of meaningful funerals.

The Influences Deritualizing Death

LACK OF EXPERIENCE WITH FUNERALS

Many people live into their 40s or 50s before experiencing a close personal loss. Today, two-thirds of all deaths in the U.S. each year are people age 65 or older. A result of this mortality shift is that if you are 40 or older and have never attended a truly meaningful funeral, you might never have learned the importance of the ritual.

In the early 1900s, most children had attended a number of funerals by the age of 10. Aging, illness and death were parts of everyday family life. Although we are thankful for the medical advances that have helped lower mortality rates and allowed for longer lifespans, these advances also have distanced us from illness, death, grief and – as a result – the funeral ritual.

CONVENIENCE-ORIENTED, FAST-PACED CULTURE

Tremendous geographical distances often separate family members and friends today. Historically, people only had to walk down the street to attend a funeral. Now, some people must fly thousands of miles. This is not convenient, and we currently live in a “convenience-oriented” culture. If it isn’t easy, most people simply will not do it.

But easier is not always better. Slowing down to embrace elements of ceremony is effective but not necessarily efficient. The planning of a personalized, meaningful funeral takes time and elicits a multitude of emotions. Some say, “Why go through all of that?” I’ve also noticed that the first thing we eliminate from our lives when we get busy is rituals. Many families have begun to forgo rituals such as eating meals together, gathering for special occasions and holidays, and going on vacation. As families’ lives become less ritualized, it makes sense that they would begin to question the value of gathering for a funeral.

For some efficiency-oriented people, participating in experiences they cannot “control” seems impractical. Funerals, by their very nature, encourage people to give up control, embrace pain, accept outside support and, most importantly, feel instead of think. Openly expressing limitations and emotion and accepting the need for support are simply not efficient things to do. I recently overhead an efficiency-oriented person say, “What’s the point of having a funeral? It doesn’t bring the person back to life.”

LOSS OF THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY

Historically, people shared their lives with those around them. Generation after generation, families lived in the same town, or at least the same state. Neighbors visited on the front porch and took care of each other’s children. People knew one another. People watched out for one another. People cared about one another.

Now, more so than any other time in history, people feel alone and unconnected to groups. In fact, we are in the midst of a loneliness epidemic. In one recent Cigna survey, over half of Americans reported that they always or sometimes feel as though no one knows them well. Loneliness rates have doubled in our country in the past 50 years.

This rising sense of loneliness and the rise in technology have happened concurrently. In lieu of face-to-face conversations, we now rely on emails and texts to communicate with one another. Instead of visiting local shops, restaurants and banks, many people now order online, have goods and food delivered, and swap digital currency. As we have connected to the internet, it seems that we have disconnected from one another.

Social media is also part of the technology tsunami. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and other digital social networks are taking the place of the evening stroll, the Saturday night dance and the community potluck. Sadly, we have evolved from a country of primary relationships to one of secondary relationships. Primary relationships involve people who 50 March 2026 THE DIRECTOR know each other in a number of capacities – as friends, neighbors, co-workers. Secondary relationships involve individuals who are merely acquaintances. Collectively, these practices negatively impact the way family members and friends interact with one another.

Technology has created a new kind of person, one who is connected to machines instead of fellow human beings. If we are not connecting with one another during life experiences, it only makes sense that we would not be connecting with one another during death experiences, either.

VALUE OF SELF-RELIANCE

We continue to live in an era of rugged individualism and independence. Many people embrace the motto: “If you want something done right, do it yourself.” The term “rugged individualism” was coined by President Herbert Hoover in 1928. The phrase encapsulates the misguided notion that individuals should be self-reliant and independent and not count on others for support.

For some people and families, self-sufficiency and self-determination are the pinnacles of self-development. We are encouraged to think of ourselves as individual centers of consciousness with the capacity for logical analysis. This results in the following lines of thinking:

• “We know the person is dead, so we don’t need to see the body.”
• “We don’t need to gather together. That won’t change anything.”

When people think with their head (logic), they risk losing their heart (emotion). In addition, they risk losing any sense of allegiance to their community. Funeral ceremonies are intended to activate support among family, friends and community members. The trend toward the deritualization of death reflects, in part, the placement of selfinterest over community interest.

Funerals, by their very nature, encourage people to give up control, embrace pain, accept outside support and, most importantly, feel instead of think.

ACADEMIC ORIENTATION TO LIFE

There are a number of people with whom I interact who take what I call an “academic orientation to life and death.” As I’ve traveled North America as a grief educator, I’ve observed that some of the largest areas for direct disposition with no ceremony are highly populated, academic communities. In a 1962 study, sociologist Robert Fulton confirmed that people who doubt the usefulness of funerals are more likely to be highly educated, professionally employed and financially well-off. Although we should not overgeneralize this, observational research today is consistent with Fulton’s historical findings.

Many within this highly educated population project to me (and I’m one of their own – an academic) that they have found a substitute for the traditional funeral. That is, the “celebration of life” or “party.” We are witnessing a powerful movement toward celebrations and parties and away from meaningful funeral experiences.

Many people now believe that trying to be joyful at a time of death is not only appropriate but helpful, too. Borrowing a phrase from the musical group R.E.M., we “shiny, happy people” have forgotten that a primary purpose of the funeral is to authentically mourn and outwardly embrace the death of someone who has gone before us.

Yes, it seems the more educated a person becomes, the less likely they are to participate in death rituals. The potential problems with focusing on celebrations and parties during times of death are as follows:

1. They often are delayed until a more convenient time – weeks or even months after a death.
2. The body often is eliminated from the ceremony.
3. Celebrations and parties often attempt to deny the suffering of the soul, whereas authentic funerals invite confrontation of the mystery and pain associated with loss.

A distraught woman who intentionally had been excluded from the “funeral party” her family was planning for her favorite uncle recently sought counseling from me. Family members explained that they knew she would cry at the gathering, therefore she was not allowed to attend. Many families are attempting to make what I refer to as “swift, clean breaks” from their loss. But when people refuse to feel their full range of emotions, they are unable to be changed by them. So, instead of experiencing movement, they risk becoming stuck in their grief.

MOVEMENT AWAY FROM GRIEF INSTEAD OF TOWARD IT

In contemporary times, our society encourages prematurely moving away from instead of toward grief. One way to avoid the natural pain that loss brings is not to participate in a ceremony that – among other things – encourages you to embrace your thoughts and feelings and acknowledges your painful new reality.

Sadly, people who express grief Funerals, by their very nature, encourage people to give up control, embrace pain, accept outside support and, most importantly, feel instead of think. www.nfda.org March 2026 51 often are told to “carry on,” “keep their chin up” and “just keep busy.” The not-so-subtle message is: “Leave it behind you and get on with your life.” The disturbing takeaway is that far too many people view grief as something to overcome rather than experience.

I also have witnessed some mourners being greeted with such theological cliches as, “God wouldn’t give you any more than you can bear.” This misuse of doctrine could discourage someone from holding a funeral. Any shame-based message in the name of faith results in grief-stricken individuals thinking mourning (i.e., sharing grief outside of oneself) is bad. If you are “doing well” with your grief, you may well be considered “strong” and “in control.” Of course, meaningful funerals are all about surrendering to a lack of control and allowing yourself to openly and honestly mourn.

LOSS OF DEATH SYMBOLS

The symbols we have used to acknowledge death historically are no longer as prominent in North American culture. Unfortunately, what left with them is a link that, in previous generations, provided meaning and a sense of continuity for the living.

For example, in generations past, the bereaved wore mourning clothes or armbands, oftentimes black, that symbolized their sorrow. In some subcultures, mourners also hung wreaths on their doors to let others know someone had died. Today, we can’t even tell who the bereaved are.

Some view flowers and food as unnecessary, so they’re becoming ousted symbols, as well. Several decades ago, we rarely saw an obituary that ended with, “In lieu of flowers…” This is now commonplace across North America. In some areas, food is no longer sent to families, either. But, as Cesar Chavez said, “The people who give you their food give you their heart.”

Perhaps the ultimate symbol of death we are losing is the guest of honor (i.e., the body). When displayed at the visitation or during the funeral service, the body encourages mourners to confront the reality and the finality of the death. Today, we are witnessing an increased reliance on little, if any, visitation; closed caskets; and cremation with an abbrevi