Cyberthanathology: death and beyond in the digital age
https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2025-10-1-80-94
Abstract
The preponderance of technology and digital connectedness has revolutionized every aspect of humans’ social life, including death. Digital technologies are reshaping how the interactions between the living and the dead are negotiated. Indeed, emerging technologies are not only embedded in end-of-life, death, and grief experiences, they are also changing the global context in which these phenomena take place. Although interactions between death-related phenomena and technologies are not new, the ubiquitous presence of digitalized spaces drastically increased the salience and the magnitude of these interactions. To further and structure the understanding of these interactions, we introduce the concept of cyberthanatology as the articulation of death and all related phenomena with and within the digital space. In the light of this framing concept, this paper explores the topology of online death-related behaviors and phenomena, reviews the current state of knowledge on the online representation of death and grief, and identifies the challenges that will have to be faced in the future in order to optimally integrate the understanding of death-related phenomena in the larger field of cyberpsychology. By promoting and nurturing the dialog between the fields of cyberpsychology and death studies, cyberthanatology research will not only result in theoretical advances but also contribute to generate practical knowledge to help people deal with death and grief in the modern technological age.
About the Authors
E. Beaunoyer
Université Laval
Canada
Canada
Quebec City
M. J. Guitton
Université Laval
Canada
Canada
Quebec City
References
1. Walter T. Communication media and the dead: From the Stone Age to Facebook1. Mortality. 2015. Vol. 20, no. 3. P. 215– 232. DOI: 10.1080/13576275.2014.993598. (In Engl.).
2. Arnold M., Gibbs M., Kohn T., Meese J., Nansen B. Death and digital media. New York: Routledge, 2018. 188 p. ISBN 978-1-138-91795-8. (In Engl.).
3. Rheingold H. The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1993. 304 р. ISBN 0-201-60870-7. (In Engl.).
4. Wellman B., Guilia M. Virtual communities as communities // Communities in cyberspace / Eds. P. Kollock, M. Smith. New York: Routledge, 1999. P. 167–193. (In Engl.).
5. Roberts P., Vidal L. A. Perpetual care in cyberspace: a portrait of memorials on the web. Omega — The Journal of Death and Dying. 2000. Vol. 40, no. 4. P. 521–545. DOI: 10.2190/3BPTUYJR-192R-U969. (In Engl.).
6. Roberts P. Here today and cyberspace tomorrow: memorials and bereavement support on the web. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging. 2004. Vol. 28, no. 2. P. 41–46. (In Engl.).
7. Sofka C. J. Social support ‘internetworks’ caskets for sale, and more: thanatology and the information superhighway. Death Studies. 1997. Vol. 21, no. 6. P. 553–574. DOI: 10.1080/074811897201778. (In Engl.).
8. Beaunoyer E., Hiracheta Torres L., Maessen L., Guitton M. J. Grieving in the digital era: mapping online support for grief and bereavement. Patient Education and Counseling. 2020. Vol. 103, no. 12. P. 2515–2524. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.06.013. (In Engl.).
9. Beaunoyer E., Dupere S., Guitton M. J. COVID-19 and digital inequalities: reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020. Vol. 111. P. 1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106424. (In Engl.).
10. Amy T., Doka K. A call to action: facing the shadow pandemic of complicated forms of grief. Omega — The Journal of Death and Dying. 2021. Vol. 83, no. 1. P. 164–169. DOI: 10.1177/0030222821998464. (In Engl.).
11. Nguyen M. H., Gruber J., Fuchs J., Marler W., Hunsaker A., Hargittai E. Changes in digital communication during the COVID-19 global pandemic: implications for digital inequality and future research. Social Media + Society. 2020. Vol. 6, no. 3. P. 1–6. DOI: 10.1177/2056305120948255. (In Engl.).
12. Nguyen M. H., Hargittai E., Marler W. Digital inequality in communication during a time of physical distancing: the case of COVID-19. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021. Vol. 120. P. 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106717. (In Engl.).
13. Guitton M. J. The immersive impact of meta-media in a virtual world. Computers in Human Behavior. 2012. Vol. 28, no. 2. P. 450–455. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.016. (In Engl.).
14. Guitton M. J. Living in the hutt space: immersive process in the Star Wars role- play community of Second Life. Computers in Human Behavior. 2012. Vol. 28, no. 5. P. 1681–1691. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.006. (In Engl.).
15. Guitton M. J. Swimming with mermaids: communication and social density in the Second Life merfolk community. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015. Vol. 48. P. 226–235. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.004. (In Engl.).
16. Saramaki J., Leicht E. A., Lopez E., Roberts S. G. B., Reed-Tsochas F., Dunbar R. I. M. Persistence of social signatures in human communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2014. Vol. 111, no. 3. P. 942–947. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1308540110. (In Engl.).
17. McLuhan M. Understanding media: the extension of man. London: Routledge, 1964. 318 p. ISBN 978-0451627650. (In Engl.).
18. German K., Drushel B. E. Introduction: emerging media: a view downstream // The ethics of emerging media: information, social norms, and new media technology / Eds. B. E. Drushel, K. German. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011. P. 1–9. (In Engl.).
19. Carroll B., Landry K. Logging on and letting out: using online social networks to grieve and to mourn. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2010. Vol. 30, no. 5. P. 341–349. DOI: 10.1177/0270467610380006. (In Engl.).
20. Barry E. From epitaph to obituary death and celebrity in eighteenth-century british culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 2008. Vol. 11, no. 3. P. 259–275. DOI: 10.1177/1367877908092584. (In Engl.).
21. Walter T., Littlewood J., Pickering M. Death in the news: the public investigation of private emotion. Sociology. 1995. Vol. 29, no. 4. P. 579–596. DOI: 10.1177/0038038595029004002. (In Engl.).
22. Clark D. B. The concept of community: a re-examination. The Sociological Review. 1973. Vol. 21, no. 3. P. 397–416. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1973.tb00230.x. (In Engl.).
23. Hutchings T. Wiring death: dying, grieving and remembering on the internet // Emotion, identity and death: mortality across disciplines / Eds. D. Davies, C.-W. Park. New York: Routledge, 2012. P. 43–58. (In Engl.).
24. De Vries B., Rutherford J. Memorializing loved ones on the world wide web. Omega — The Journal of Death and Dying. 2004. Vol. 49, no. 1. P. 5–26. DOI: 10.2190/DR46-RU57-UY6PNEWM. (In Engl.).
25. Gibson M. Death and mourning in technologically mediated culture. Health Sociology Review. 2007. Vol. 16, no. 5. P. 415–424. DOI: 10.5172/hesr.2007.16.5.415. (In Engl.).
26. Walter T., Hourizi R., Moncur W., Pitsillides S. Does the internet change how we die and mourn? Overview and analysis. Omega — The Journal of Death and Dying. 2012. Vol. 64, no. 4. P. 275–302. DOI: 10.2190/OM.64.4.a. (In Engl.).
27. Sas C., Schreiter M., Büscher M., Gamba F., Coman A. Futures of digital death: past, present and charting emerging research agenda. Death Studies. 2019. Vol. 43, no. 7. P. 407–413. DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2019.1647643. (In Engl.).
28. Sofka C. J., Cupit I. N., Gilbert K. R. Preface // Dying, death and grief in an online universe: for counselors and educators / Eds. C. J. Sofka, I. N. Cupit, K. R. Gilbert. New York: Springer, 2012. P. xv–xvi. (In Engl.).
29. Chapple H. S., Bouton B. L., Chow A. Y. M., Gilbert K. R., Kosminsky P., Moore J., Whiting P. P. The body of knowledge in thanatology: an outline. Death Studies. 2017. Vol. 41, no. 2. P. 118–125. DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2016.1231000. (In Engl.).
30. Baum F., Newman L., Biedrzycki K. Vicious cycles: digital technologies and determinants of health in Australia. Health Promotion International. 2014. Vol. 29, no. 2. P. 349–360. DOI: 10.1093/heapro/das062. (In Engl.).
31. Obst K. L., Due C., Oxlad M., Middleton P. Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2020. Vol. 20, no. 1. P. 1–17. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2677-9. (In Engl.).
32. Ward K. The emergence of the hybrid community: rethinking the physical/ virtual dichotomy. Space and Culture. 1999. Vol. 2, no. 4/5. P. 71–86. DOI: 10.1177/120633120000100405. (In Engl.).
33. Gibson M. Grievable lives: avatars, memorials, and family ‘plots’ in Second Life. Mortality. 2017. Vol. 22, no. 3. P. 224–239. DOI: 10.1080/13576275.2016.1263941. (In Engl.).
34. Park S., Hoffner C. A. Tweeting about mental health to honor Carrie Fisher: how #InHonorOfCarrie reinforced the social influence of celebrity advocacy. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020. Vol. 110. P. 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106353. (In Engl.).
35. Bell J., Bailey L., Kennedy D. ‘We do it to keep him alive’: bereaved individuals’ experiences of online suicide memorials and continuing bonds. Mortality. 2015. Vol. 20, no. 4. P. 375–389. DOI: 10.1080/13576275.2015.1083693. (In Engl.).
36. Brubaker J. R., Hayes G. R., Dourish P. Beyond the grave: Facebook1 as a site for the expansion of death and mourning. The Information Society. 2013. Vol. 29, no. 3. P. 152–163. DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2013.777300. (In Engl.).
37. Gamba F. Coping with loss: mapping digital rituals for the expression of grief. Health Communication. 2018. Vol. 33, no. 1. P. 78–84. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1242038. (In Engl.).
38. Bassett D. J. Who wants to live forever? Living, dying and grieving in our digital society. Social Sciences. 2015. Vol. 4, no. 4. P. 1127–1139. DOI: 10.3390/socsci4041127. (In Engl.).
39. Cerrillo-i-Martínez A. How do we provide the digital footprint with eternal rest? Some criteria for legislation regulating digital wills. Computer Law & Security Report. 2018. Vol. 34, no. 5. P. 1119–1130. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2018.04.008. (In Engl.).
40. Erdos D. Dead ringers? Legal persons and the deceased in european data protection law. Computer Law & Security Report. 2021. Vol. 40. P. 1–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105495. (In Engl.).
41. Irwin M. D. Mourning 2.0 — continuing bonds between the living and the dead on Facebook1. Omega — The Journal of Death and Dying. 2015. Vol. 72, no. 2. P. 119–150. DOI: 10.1177/0030222815574830. (In Engl.).
42. DeGroot J. M. ‘For whom the bell tolls’: emotional rubbernecking in Facebook1 memorial groups. Death Studies. 2014. Vol. 38, no. 2. P. 79–84. DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2012.725450. (In Engl.).
43. Knudsen B. T., Stage C. Online war memorials: YouTube as a democratic space of commemoration exemplified through video tributes to fallen danish soldiers. Memory Studies. 2013. Vol. 6, no. 4. P. 418–436. DOI: 10.1177/1750698012458309. (In Engl.).
44. Cohen E. L., Hoffner C. Finding meaning in a celebrity’s death: the relationship between parasocial attachment, grief, and sharing educational health information related to Robin Williams on social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016. Vol. 65. P. 643–650. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.042. (In Engl.).
45. Hoe-Lian Goh D., Sian Lee C. An analysis of tweets in response to the death of Michael Jackson. ASLIB Proceedings: New Information Perspectives. 2011. Vol. 63, no. 5. P. 432–444. DOI: 10.1108/00012531111164941. (In Engl.).
46. Beaunoyer E., Guitton M. J. When popular culture phenomena provide experimental grounds for science: the example of death’s perception, bereavement and mourning. Journal of Science & Popular Culture. 2018. Vol. 1, no. 2. P. 171– 175. DOI: 10.1386/jspc.1.2.171_3. (In Engl.).
47. Daniel E. S., Westerman D. K. Valar morghulis (all parasocial men must die): having nonfictional responses to a fictional character. Communication Research Reports. 2017. Vol. 34, no. 2. P. 143–152. DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2017.1285757. (In Engl.).
48. Gamba F. Faire le deuil par l’image: les idiographies rituelles de commémoration sur YouTube. Revue des sciences sociales. 2015. No. 54. P. 72–79. DOI: 10.4000/revss.2311. (In Fr.).
49. Maddrell A. Online memorials: the virtual as the new vernacular. Bereavement Care. 2012. Vol. 31, no. 2. P. 46–54. DOI: 10.1080/02682621.2012.710491. (In Engl.).
50. Robinson C., Pond D. R. Do online support groups for grief benefit the bereaved? Systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative literature. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019. Vol. 100. P. 48–59. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.011. (In Engl.).
51. Marwick A., Ellison N. B. ‘There isn’t wifi in heaven!’ negotiating visibility on Facebook1 memorial pages. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 2012. Vol. 56, no. 3. P. 378–400. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2012.705197. (In Engl.).
52. Nansen B., Kohn T., Arnold M., Van Ryn L., Gibbs M. Social media in the funeral industry: on the digitization of grief. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 2017. Vol. 61, no. 1. P. 73–89. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2016.1273925. (In Engl.).
53. Öhman C., Floridi L. The political economy of death in the age of information: a critical approach to the digital afterlife industry. Minds and Machines. 2017. Vol. 27, no. 4. P. 639–662. DOI: 10.1007/s11023-017-9445-2. (In Engl.).
54. Field D. Palliative medicine and the medicalization of death. European Journal of Cancer Care. 1994. Vol. 3, no. 2. P. 58–62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.1994.tb00014.x. (In Engl.).
55. Northcott H. C., Wilson D. M. Dying and death in Canada. Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2017. 336 р. ISBN 978-1442634565. (In Engl.).
56. Moore J. Being there: technology at the end of life // Dying, death and grief in an online universe / Eds. C. J. Sofka, I. C. Noppe, K. R. Gilbert. New York: Springer, 2012. P. 78–87. (In Engl.).
57. Neimeyer R. A., Noppe-Brandon G. Attachment at distance: grief therapy in the virtual world // Dying, death and grief in an online universe / Eds. C. J. Sofka, I. C. Noppe, K. R. Gilbert. New York: Springer, 2012. P. 103–118. (In Engl.).
58. Li J., Chen S. A new model of social support in bereavement (SSB): an empirical investigation with a chinese sample. Death Studies. 2016. Vol. 40, no. 4. P. 223–228. DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2015.1127296. (In Engl.).
59. Aoun S. M., Breen L. J., Howting D. A., Rumbold B., McNamara B., Hegney D. Who needs bereavement support? A population based survey of bereavement risk and support need. PLoS One. 2015. Vol. 10, no. 3. P. 1–14. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121101. (In Engl.).
60. Noppe I. N., Sofka C. J., Gilbert K. R. Death education // Dying, death and grief in an online universe // Eds. C. J. Sofka, I. C. Noppe, K. R. Gilbert. New York: Springer, 2012. P. 163–182. (In Engl.).
61. Bryant M. Grieving with Buffy 20 years on. British Journal of General Practice. 2017. Vol. 67, no. 658. 222. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X690701. (In Engl.).
62. Myrick J. G., Noar S. M., Willoughby J. F., Brown J. Public reaction to the death of Steve Jobs: implications for cancer communication. Journal of Health Communication. 2014. Vol. 19, no. 11. P. 1278–1295. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2013.872729. (In Engl.).
63. Brown W. J., Basil M. D., Bocarnea M. C. Social influence of an international celebrity: responses to the death of princess Diana. Journal of Communication. 2003. Vol. 53, no. 4. P. 587– 605. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02912.x. (In Engl.).
64. Mundt M., Ross K., Burnett C. M. Scaling social movements through social media: the case of black Lives Matter. Social Media + Society. 2018. Vol. 4, no. 4. DOI: 10.1177/2056305118807911. (In Engl.).
65. Kates S., Terechshenko Z., Linder F., Nagler J., Bon neau R., Vakilifathi M., Tucker J. A. Online issue politicization: how the common core and Black Lives Matter discussions evolved on social media // Center for Social Media and Politics. 2020. URL: https://csmapnyu.org/assets/publications/2020_09_04_CC_BLM_Evolved.pdf (accessed: 10.10.2024). (In Engl.).
66. Cumiskey K. M., Hjorth L. ‘I wish they could have answered their phones’: mobile communication in mass shootings. Death Studies. 2019. Vol. 43, no. 7. P. 414–425. DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2018.1541940. (In Engl.).
67. Robinson L., Cotten S. R., Ono H., Quan-Haase A., Mesch G., Chen W., Schulz J., Hale T. M., Stern M. J. Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society. 2015. Vol. 18, no. 5. P. 569–582. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532. (In Engl.).
68. Whitehead L. C. Methodological and ethical issues in internet-mediated research in the field of health: an integrated review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine. 2007. Vol. 65, no.4. P. 782–791. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.005. (In Engl.).
69. Moreno M. A., Goniu N., Moreno P. S., Diekema D. Ethics of social media research: common concerns and practical considerations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2013. Vol. 16, no. 9. P. 708–713. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0334. (In Engl.).
70. Tasse A. M. The return of results of deceased research participants. Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics. 2011. Vol. 39, no. 4. P. 621–630. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00629.x. (In Engl.).
71. Breen L. J., Kawashima D., Joy K., Cadell S., Roth D., Chow A., Macdonald M. E. Grief literacy: a call to action for compassionate communities. Death Studies. 2022. Vol. 46, no. 2. DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2020.1739780. (In Engl.).
Review
For citations:
Beaunoyer E., Guitton M.J. Cyberthanathology: death and beyond in the digital age. Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity. 2025;10(1):80-94. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2025-10-1-80-94
Views:
3
JATS XML
Email this article 