In the past few days I've stumbled upon a limitation of the English language.
Last week the spouse of a respected faculty member at Samuel Merritt died, after struggling with cancer. I didn't know her at all, and haven't had much opportunity to interact with the faculty member (although we are on a few committees together) since I've only been at Samuel Merritt since August. Nonetheless, as soon as I saw the details for her memorial service I made plans to attend.
There were two reasons for this: to offer respect and comfort to a member of our community, and to represent the library and educational technology staff that I lead. The memorial service invitation made it clear that space was limited, so I felt an obligation to represent our group.
And there's that troubling word...obligation. That is really what I felt, but "obligation" has such a strong connotation of "coercion" or "no choice." That was not the case here--no pressure at all, implicit or explicit, was on anyone to attend the service. I put the pressure on myself, and would do so again in a similar circumstance.
By 2011 the tides have turned away from obligations of birth (to carry on a family business even if you don't want to, for example) to obligations of choice. People have more freedom to chart their courses, which is a freedom that includes deciding how and with whom to grieve. In some cultures entire villages still show up at a funeral even if most people don't know the family that is grieving. In professional America everyone involved makes a private choice to attend, or not, based on their own internal calculus of appropriateness and comfort with stepping into a sad situation.
My own calculus is unambiguous--you go to every memorial service to which you are invited if you possibly can. End of story. It is an obligation, yes, but one willingly undertaken. We need a better word.
Comments