Modern society is said to adopt a view of ignorance regarding issues surrounding death. Many scholars suggest that contemporary Western society has evolved and transformed into a society of ignorance and denial when considering issues related to death. Thus, creating numerous controversies around "the assertion that contemporary Western society denies death is simplistic, if not completely false." Through historical assessment, changing attitudes toward death become clear, demonstrating new influencing factors on the subject created by industrialization and the rise of capitalism. Processes of commodification, individualism and medicalization are all key elements to explore in determining the extent of death denial within modern society (Calhoun et al. 2012). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayIn the past, death has never been as inhibited and constrained as is demonstrated on the surface of today's society. Many believe that in today's society, the rejection of death is a fundamental quality that characterizes and threatens the prosperity of modern culture. In previous eras, death was understood as an essential phase of life, making it a futile effort to deny the inevitable. Philippe Aries (1914-1984) studied the historical evolution of perceptions of death in Western society. In conclusion, there have been four major periods with their own individual characteristics in defining humanity and its connections to death. Aries asserts that for two millennia, concepts of death have resisted the pressures of evolution. In a constantly changing world, conventional conceptions of death were like a slope of indolence and permanence. Therefore, the first three periods spanning over a thousand years until the 19th century were considered similar, with Aries recognizing the parallels between them. Unlike the instantaneous development of the modern concept, the evolution of these other periods was a slow progression that took centuries. From the beginning of the Middle Ages, Aries established and titled his first period “tamed death”. In those days, death was an accepted cost of living; people didn't want to die but it was expected. Rituals were used to prepare for the inevitable, often making deaths a public event involving the many rather than the few. The following period; “His Own Death” covers the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, from the 11th to the 15th centuries. This way of thinking was very similar to that of the first period. Rituals were conducted to comfort oneself in the knowledge that a brief life would end in death. The main distinction came from the belief that life had value and that actions would be judged and influence the afterlife. Death was now a moment of awareness increasing the appreciation of existence before death. Established between the 18th and 20th centuries, the third period was entitled “Your death”. Throughout this era, the conceptualization of death began to radically alter emerging from one's own death. Concerns now revolved around the “other,” creating bonds and relationships with the dead (Kellehear 2008). There was a reluctance to abandon loved ones, leaving a new air of emotion around death that had never been seen before. Graves have evolved and changed to allow mourning, thus shifting the conception of death from the dying to those who remain,becoming a symbol to cling to in the remains of what has been lost. Finally, the fourth era seems to dominate the 20th century with its influences and ideals only continuing to the present day. Aries defines such periods and believes that death is illicit and savage. Death is now so removed from personal experience that it is under societal control. Emerging through notions of death in risk management have been silently eroded, dismissed and ignored to preserve the sanctity of happiness and psychological well-being of societies. Aries sets standards of cleanliness and sanitation that coincide with the ignorance of death brought by the protection of happiness. He points out that although “rapid advances in comfort, privacy, personal hygiene, and ideas about asepsis have made everyone more delicate. Our senses can no longer tolerate the sights and smells that, at the beginning of the 19th century, were part of daily life.” Death now has physical implications on the bodies of not only the dying but also those around them. Feelings of revulsion and a kind of disgusted shock-horror emanate from the ideals of death, as it is now experienced as a filthy and indecent event when it does not occur in the clinical setting of hospitals, homes, etc. The 1930s were when the dying were first removed from wider society and placed in such contexts. The aim was to hide the sorrows of the dying, preventing their condition from affecting society at large, through what could be seen by some as a form of quarantine, containing death from impurity. Some workers (i.e. hospitals, nursing homes, funeral directors) are now trained in the management of death, being seen as the only members of society with the capabilities to cope with the process naturalness of death. Through what we call medicalization, death has become sterilized and procedural, creating a segregation of society. The ideals of society now demand that the ugly stains and tarnishes that wreak havoc with the presence of death be separated from civilization; not for the benefit of the dying but for the mental health of their loved ones. Life, as Aries sees it through modernity, strives to ignore the evil of suffering by living in a bubble of ignorance ignoring the appearance of death. Contemporary values ​​require that citizens of societies contribute to the protection of death. Through the process of socialization, children are led to adopt the same ideals of taboos regarding death. Abandoning their biological autonomy, instead adopting the philosophies and symbolic systems of modern culture, immersing their beings in a sense of cultural immortality. Therefore, it results in the sheltering and concealment of misery, aching pains and sorrows that evolve from the grief associated with the dying process. They are now muted and covered up in an attempt to maintain a semblance of perfect and pleasant happiness, which results in human concealment of their inherent awareness of death, thereby freeing the mind from these emotional tensions (Becker 1980). Becker explains the socialization process as the practice of deception, hiding the true path to one's destiny in a feigned sense of immortality (Becker 2014). A concept of neurosis shared throughout society through irrational thoughts of deception about death. However, where this can be observed in certain areas of Western culture, a true examination of the vast societies and cultures established during modernity casts doubt on this ideal ofdenial of death. Many Western cultures have not taken such a stance and have adopted completely different practices, beliefs and rituals in relation to death. Although it is not possible in this essay to explore these practices in more depth, such ideas can be raised to cast doubt on the validity of death denial, thereby lending some form of credibility to the statement evaluated in this test. Aries and Dastur argue that in recent decades, the meaning of death has shifted from a solid fact to something more malleable that mitigates and avoids it. “Death has ceased to be accepted as a natural and necessary phenomenon.” Thanks to medicalization, death, illness and disease have become “objective” incidents rather than a fundamental feature of human life. One of the radical changes in the perception of death is that people no longer want to witness such a tragedy or see if it happens. The ideal death inmodern society is considered to be one where old age is transmitted during sleep. Additionally, through the practice of medicine, it is now normal to administer a sedative to the dying to obscure their pain and awareness of approaching death. Walter (2008) disputes that the material of public discourse, particularly that of medicine, does not intentionally suppress the emotional element of death. He just struggles to achieve the ability to connect empathy to pain addressed privately through family dynamics. Although holistic palliative care efforts attempt to introduce compassionate, personalized attention throughout the medical process. A technological approach has been created through the science of medicalization, with many theorists linking it directly to the imperatives of society's denial of death. Death is now seen as a direct consequence of a technological failure in the attempt to save the body. Health systems are dominated by the ideology of preventing death by preserving life at all costs. This ideology now reveals certain ethical concerns that accompany such positions (Zimmermann and Rodin 2004: 121-128). The persistence of control aimed at preventing the death of those who are hopeless must be considered bad practice. There is a clear distinction between prolonging life and prolonging the dying process. When considering criticism of these forms of what some consider malpractice, one must keep in mind that the laws surrounding medicalization are not the same everywhere, with places like Oregon offering suicide assisted those who needed help to alleviate their suffering. Another process of denial that arises from this, however, is the power of states and governments over death as a means of controlling society. The ultimate form of control can be seen through the practices of corporal punishment or the illegality of euthanasia and suicide; the state literally holds everyone's life in its hands by crossing such boundaries. However, while there are many connections via medicalization that support the ideology of a death-denying society, a small shift in perspective can also lead to the questioning of such beliefs. . In an era which carries such great weight in the credibility and rationality of scientific discoveries, the denial of death would then be an anomaly. Science proves that death is inevitable and cannot be avoided, and through the art of medicine which strives to prolong life, society does not deny death but accepts it by prolonging life (Pearson 1991 ). Medicalization is used as a form of control, allowingfor society to face death head-on and address issues of prolonged suffering that could be avoided or reduced. This control is only limited in scope, demonstrating that death is always an inevitable factor in life and that it is accepted once scientific and technological intervention has done all it can. There is additional bickering over the living to try to persuade the dying that this is not their current state of being. Try to convince them that they will recover and live a healthy life. While in many ways this statement denies the death of the other, it can also be a defense mechanism; a statement of comfort, not for the dying person but for the person who will be left behind. The dying will have accepted their fate and will use their final moments to console those who will have to live with the effects of their death (Becker 2014). It's the living who tend to have trouble talking about death, not the individuals who will soon touch it. Medicalization empowers society to try to come to grips with death, thereby giving, in some sense, a sense of heroism to the culture. People may view this fight for life as if they are heroes rebelling against evil in the name of morality. It gives meaning and purpose to people's lives while creating an air of superiority and beyond resulting in separating humanity from its mortal animality. Despite Becker's existential prose, it remains the case that, due to the scientific realism of today's society, religion is generally not the main form of discussion in relation to medicalization and, therefore, assertions and ideas about piety are not seen as reflective of society's broader views. the world today. Western culture actually derives a sense of determination and resolve through the process of medicalization and efforts to help save one's life. However, this does not come from misplaced notions of immortality but from capitalism and the commodification of the self through the institutionalization of labor practices. Through notions of rationalism, Weber illustrates economic life in modern society as a bureaucratic organization of work through the systematic accounting measures used to assess profit and value. People now work not only to pay for their survival in society, but also to pay for their eventual death. This consumerism established by capitalism is another demonstration of the power of the state over the lives and deaths of its citizens. This is the reality of society; it became a working model of Max Weber's "iron cage" theory. Developments in capitalism and medicalization have led to increased rationalization, locking individuals into systems and processes within society that are solely focused on technological productivity, rational design, and power over society through the body dominant who controls them. Death in support of the death denial thesis is the individualization and secularization of society. Weber understands that this is a form of “disenchantment of the world” where society can no longer understand their collective meaning as it once did. The introduction of capitalism and rationality resulted in a shift from community care to an individualistic society where everyone believes they must function independently. Things become privatized, thus leading to the displacement of the place of death. While in the Middle Ages death was considered a collective matter of community mourning, today it is isolated from society. It has become institutionalized, people.