The Denial of Death
The Denial of Death (1973) by Ernest Becker was his last published work while he was still alive. Months after his early death, the book won the Pulitizer prize for general non-fiction. Becker’s Escape from Evil was the last work that he was working on and was published after his death.
Classifying The Denial of Death would be like trying to classify Ernest Becker. It’s rather difficult, if not impossible. Is it a philosophical work? Psychology? Anthropology? All of the above. Like any great profound piece of writing, it transcends all divisions and speaks to the most existential problems to human life. In many ways, I consider it an accessible version of existential philosophy. The primary motivation for Becker’s work was to understand human nature and thus understand human evil. Why do we act the way we do? How to harness the wealth of scientific and academic knowledge to bring about a unified, clear understanding of human beings?
If I were a Freudian, I would analyze Becker’s fixation on human nature, lies, and evil based on Becker’s facticity or conditioning due to his times. Becker’s parents were Jewish immigrants (Ernest Becker Biography), and he had been involved in the European theater in World War II. The post-WW2 era was one of overwhelming nihilism. It is no surprise then that Becker would have a lifelong mission to understand human beings and the lingering fears throughout his works. By understanding human beings, Becker’s hope was that we could build better societies rather than the dangerous states of the early 20th century.
As Becker clearly states himself, The Denial of Death was to “fix” Sigmund Freud with the help of the lesser known, once disciple of Freud, Otto Rank. Whereas Freud explained the motivations and neuroses of human nature to unconscious instinctual drives, Becker and Rank see man’s problems based on his basic split between his limited body and his limitless mind. This basic dualism is a universal form that can be seen throughout history in all works. Sartre’s being-in-itself and being-for-itself. Descartes’s division between mind and body. So on and so forth.
Victor Frankl would write in Man’s Search for Meaning (1956) humans live on meaning. Likewise, Becker analyzed the ways that man seeks his own heroism or meaning in the world. To find and sustain an immortality project that transcends one’s own life and lives on forever. In this light, Becker saw all of civilization, family, and religion as vehicles for man’s immortality projects. Yet, all things in the world are conditional, arise, and vanish. We seek to become Gods, to be unconditional…or at least seek someone or something that can be God. Whether it’s science, a lover, a skill, or a religion. One of the underlying themes of the book is a double exposure of reason, science, and psychotherapy. On one hand, they have brought about wonderful changes, but on the other hand, they shall never make us into Gods and help to fuel our mania.
Socrates once wrote that philosophy is practicing the art of dying. So, Becker would write, “…to become conscious of what one is doing to earn his feeling of heroism is the main self-analytic problem of life” (11). Becker believed that each of us carries a “vital lie”, that which gives our life meaning, and we would do anything to protect that lie. Becker’s hope was that by becoming conscious of the vital lies that we live by, we could by some degree be free from them. We, as a society, could choose better vital lies to live by such as the principles of freedom, truth, and peace. Ultimately, Becker wrote that the fullest achievement of man was his self-transformation, submission to being the creature that he is. We are neither animal nor god, only human. He understood religion in this light, as the presence of a transcendent that we submit our individuality for something greater than ourselves.
As a contemplative person myself, I appreciate Ernest Becker’s works a great deal. I was introduced to The Denial of Death in a college philosophical course on Death and Dying. It was easily one of the most influential undergraduate books on my thinking. Yet, there is one great piece of the puzzle missing from the text.
The very last sentence of the Denial of Death book is “The most that any one of us can seem to do is to fashion something – an object or ourselves – and drop it into the confusion, make an offering to it, so to speak, to the life force”.
What a strange, enigmatic sentence. Is he speaking in despair, jest, cynicism, or hope? Perhaps, all of the above. This book does a wonderful job of starting the original philosophy project of self-reflection, know thy self. For the first time reader though, one is left with a sense of emptiness, as if the ground and meaning of your life had been suddenly put into serious jeopardy. Then what?
What I believe Becker ultimately failed to understand was that uncovering one’s vital lies only leads to madness, nihilism, or a stronger vital lie. The true project of philosophy was to reflect thereby understand. But understanding the need for a vital lie does not remove the need itself. One must dig deeper to understand and uproot the need for vital lies in the first place and thereby be free from them.
{ 11 trackbacks }
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
I joined the royal australian navy in 1962,at the age of fifteen,found myself in the fleet and in conflicts before my seventh birthday,as a Photographer, finished my career after Vietnam. then embarked on a career with the media. Then fartherhood and the responsibility of young lives . The work of Ernest Becker,filled a big hole in assisting my children to find the right parth in life along with another book, PRAKRUTI, IF YOU HAVENT THEN DO……….READ IT
Excellent analysis!
Thanks for reminding me of Franl’s work dropped ‘into the confusion’.
Reading your last lines above, I’m worried that ‘uprooting the need’ for ‘vital lies’ may well lead to an overwhelming extinction. To truly dig deep enough into ‘vital lies’ we may come to realise that we are not even alive without them. To understand this might ‘mean’ we wouldn’t even be able to deny death, let alone seek to conquer it. It’s not even nihilism.
And further, what is the “something greater” if not our vital lies writ large?
Just thinking aloud.
I was rather pleased to find this page. I discovered Ernest Becker’s work a year or more ago playing forumwarz; my character was “emo” and one of my abilities was to depress other users with depressing quotes, one of which was from The Denial of Death. It fascinated me so much that I inevitably bought the book.
His ideas have had a prfound effect on me.
Hiya Brian,
can you please make another posting – or to me privately – wiredtothemoon@gmail.com – with more details on the book “Prakruti” – thanks!
Hey guys, thank you so much for the positive feedback. I didn’t know what would happen creating this site, and it’s always good to know real human beings are actually coming here. I haven’t been active in the becker community or done much with this site. But I’m planning on some updates and getting back into it soon. My apologies for such a late reply.
Meika, I know that becker said that vital lies are necessary, but I’m not so sure they have to be permanent, fixed, and the same. Growth, to me, would mean shedding old vital lies for perhaps new ones. As a part time mystic on the Buddhist side, I tend to believe that it’s possible to attain greater degrees of mental and emotional mastery and believe a characteristic of enlightenment is no longer having such vital lies. Or at least aware of them on a conscious level. Vital lies are just thoughts after all. All suffering comes from an expectation, a goal, a thought. Not to say we should eradicate thoughts, but most of us are addicted.
After having read and re read this book many times over the past forty years I have taken more from the title than squeezed from the text. Simply, we cannot know death but nonetheless apply the only thing we do know (life) in a fruitless effort to comprehend the incomprehensible. As a result and primarily through religious belief we deny the unknowable as knowable. Unfortunately this causes us to live by the dictates of whatever concept of the unknowable was planted in the formative psyches of our childhood. Insofar as this brainwashing usually occurs before we reach the age of reason our very concept of reason is skewed if not obliterated. Until we accept our individual mortality as a void beyond understanding, encountered only in our imagination we remain unable to accept and respect life.
What I have come up with is that I now realize that I am mortal and I will die. But the thing is there are a lot of things I like doing and before there were other things that I did to cope with dying…smoking, drinking, womanizing….etc. Now I realize that I want to live as long as possible and do the things I really enjoy….sports, laughing, a nice dinner….Not everything people do is a denial of death mechanism…many of things are quite healthy…(but of course the insecure part of me then wonders whether every rationalization is then a newfound denial of death mechanism I am imploring – the denial coming in the form of fooling myself into thinking that other behaviors were denial of death and this is not..oh well)
It seems as if there is a wealth of wisdom around Becker’s thesis, from Castenada to Byron Katie, Anne Wilson Schaeff, the Bible, to name a few. Does confronting and overcoming one’s “vital lies” have to lead to madness? Can the mad actually help the mad become self-actualized? The Wachowski bros must have read Kierkegaard extensively.
I am reading Denial of Death along with John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Both authors seek answers to ancient questions unique to mankind: Who am I? What is my purpose? Becker, the scientist, studies the great scientific observers and commentators of the ages, Kierkegaard, Freud, Rank; John Paul II meditates on the revelation of scripture, Old Testament and New. The truest message of Becker’s D of D is that ultimately psychology and theology merge into the same idea: Human Health begins with a personal acknowledgment of the Fatherhood (Love) of God and is preserved by faithfully living out all that this Gift of Creation entails; Neurosis (sickness, sin) originates in the denial of that paternity and the substitute of an imperial self incapable of love, but full of judgment.
Anybody looking for more information on Becker would do well to visit http://www.ernestbecker.org and also join the forum. We update frequently and provide a wealth of materials.
I recommend checking out the more recent Terror Management Theory based on Becker’s ideas:
http://www.tmt.missouri.edu/index.html
http://www.deathreference.com/Sy-Vi/Terror-Management-Theory.html
“Terror Management Theory (TMT) was proposed in 1986 by social psychologists Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, and Sheldon Solomon. The theory was inspired by the writings of cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker, and was initiated by two relatively simple questions: Why do people have such a great need to feel good about themselves?; and Why do people have so much trouble getting along with those different from themselves?
“The basic gist of the theory is that humans are motivated to quell the potential for terror inherent in the human awareness of vulnerability and mortality by investing in cultural belief systems (or worldviews) that imbue life with meaning, and the individuals who subscribe to them with significance (or self-esteem). Since its inception, the theory has generated empirical research into not just the nature of self-esteem motivation and prejudice, but also a host of other forms of human social behavior. To date, over 300 studies conducted in over a dozen countries have explored such topics as aggression, stereotyping, needs for structure and meaning, depression and psychopathology (e.g., phobias), political preferences, creativity, sexuality and attraction, romantic and interpersonal attachment, self-awareness, unconscious cognition, martyrdom, religion, group identification, disgust, human-nature relations, physical health, risk taking, and legal judgments.”
I’m very glad of the information on this page and on your site generally. I’ve just done a review of The Denial of Death on my blog. I’d be glad of any comments especially if you think I have misrepresented any facts or been unfair to him.
In particular I have speculated as to whether Becker was aware of his own illness, or guessed at it, when he conceived the book, or while he was writing it, and would be glad of any information on that.
Denial of Death had a strong influence on me as a Christian. Becker’s remarkably succinct views on the effects of our denial caused me to translate it to “Christianese”, if you will. What does a Christan fear more than death but the fear of the non-existence of God, and what role does this play in the forming the modern Christian world.
When a viable immortality ideology is accepted, the encapsulation of death is largely complete and set aside with much relief. However, an entirely new “project” is introduced, and among other things, it includes the defense-at-all-costs of this ideology and every aspect of its creed. In a way, we begin to remove God and replace him with the visible and the measurable. Instead of drawing near to God, we draw near to these replacements. Drawing near to God is too risky – after all – what if he’s not there?
I think the vital lies makes life more enjoyable, tolerable. If life ends in death and if death means submitting to the oblivion then, I guess the vital lies I make to myself since birth may well be worth it. I think the reason we don’t fully realize that death is inevitable is because it kills the fun out of life. sorta like a movie spoiler.
I also think that life is all about the random experiences rather than just a state of hopelessness. I believe since birth, in the back of our heads we know we’ll die, but our focus is more on living and experiencing that’s why we try a bunch of hobbies and learning a lot of things as we’re growing up so if ever we die- or submit ourselves to nothingness – we know that the experience of living and dying has its significance.
Or we could just forget all about these and believe there are just things we’ll never completely understand as humans. Perhaps, E. Becker is right when he said humans have a limited body and limitless mind.
“The very last sentence of the Denial of Death book is “The most that any one of us can seem to do is to fashion something – an object or ourselves – and drop it into the confusion, make an offering to it, so to speak, to the life force”.
What a strange, enigmatic sentence. Is he speaking in despair, jest, cynicism, or hope? Perhaps, all of the above. This book does a wonderful job of starting the original philosophy project of self-reflection, know thy self. For the first time reader though, one is left with a sense of emptiness, as if the ground and meaning of your life had been suddenly put into serious jeopardy. Then what?”
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes…you have summed up what anyone who reads the book ultimately comes to find out…EB had no answer to the problem, and I don’t think he failed to understand this–it’s just that he had no answer and knew it…and when you realize that he himself believed in a god, you realize that you are on your own to ”fashion that something”….
Phil,
Bingo! Great summation of this discussion. Becker was jewish, in the way most followers of Becker understand. It was the cultural anchor he wanted to live in this world. It gave him comfort and he understood why he was doing what he was doing.
A truly brilliant man.
its a good book
I read The Denial of Death (and have revisited it many times since) 35 years ago when I was 16. The deep influence it had on me has never faded. It is like no other book I have read before or since. What it captures is something quite profound and special.
Aren’t our “vital lies” our personal explanation for the unknowable?
I’ll check out The Denial…
Hi JLaFleur,
Not necessarily because they’re a lie to ourselves which presumes that we know the truth.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”
Voltaire, 1694 – 1778
The core of the vital lie analyzed by Becker is an absurdity.
Regarding the last sentence: Becker was human, brilliant, anxious and dying. His sentence bears a certain degree of confusion because he is gesturing at denying the very denial he put forth.
I have not read Becker’s book and am quite unlikely to do so, being 92 years old. As could Mark Twain, I can easily imagine what it must be like to be dead. In his opinion he had been dead for billions of years before he was born; (he should have made it an eternity) yet the universe was very much in existence. I am also reminded of Bertrand Russell’s remark: Man is the only animal that knows it must die and promptly denies this fact. I really have little understanding for this human denial of death and as a non-believer will enter the Bhuddist Nirvana, without going through many cycles of reincarnation. Nevertheless, I am glad I lived and was able to participate in the human adventure and “miracle”, provided a non-believer is entitled to use this word.