When getting down to reading “Behind the Formaldehyde Curtain” by Jessica Mitford, I was not expecting to face an essay of such a dark content. From the very first lines, I felt both excited and pushed away by the evident originality of the topic being discussed. Perfectly alive and feeling happy about it, I did not feel like reading about the dreadful details of modern funeral practices. Provoked by curiosity I, however, did.

The essay was first published in 1967 in The American Way of Death, a collection of texts primarily focused on mortuary profession criticism. Mitford’s focus is quite obvious from the very start of the essay. She confidently and harshly communicates her resistance to the procedures performed when handling the human body after death. The author describes in detail the process of embalming, refers to its illogical confidentiality, and, in addition, analyzes the American funeral practice and attitude to death.

What Mitford attempt to do here is to inform the general public of how the procedure of embalming is performed, attract attention to the widespread practices of the funeral industry, their obvious absurdity and irrationality, hoping that if more people finally realize what a barbaric happening occurs behind a so called “formaldehyde curtain,” they might not allow embalming quite so enthusiastically. Mitford creates a dramatic portrayal of the funeral business in the essay. She goes into numerous ghastly details in order to impress, or even shock.

Mitford positions herself as a specialist in decease and dying. She analyzes the traditional attitude to death, and criticizes what seems nonsensical to her with untypical, somehow shocking sobriety and scientific rationalism. Her language is sophisticated, while her manner of communication is deeply ironical. She is not ironic about death, however, it is more that she judges those who turns it into a set of routine responsibilities.

Mitford frequently questions the actual legality of the embalming process.  She refers to the accepted law practices regarding the after-death procedures: “the signature of next of kin must be obtained before an autopsy may be performed, before the deceased may be cremated, before the body may be turned over to a medical school for research purposes; or such provision must be made in the decedent’s will. In the case of embalming, no such permission is required nor is it ever sought.” (Mitford)

The author attributes the secrecy that surrounds the process of embalming to the possible resistance people may feel if finding out the truth, which would eventually reduce funeral industry’s incomes. No wonder, she claims, family members who might wish to witness the process would be discourages by the ‘caring’ funeral director. It is hardly possible that anyone would allow the “embalmer-restorative artist” exercise the described procedures to the lifeless body of a dear person. The author inspires us to consider the facts and finally change the attitude to dubious ritual activities. She calls for the general way in which the American populace regards death to be altered.

True indeed, death is ugly as it is. Still, does it make sense to make it look better than it actually is?  Turning human body into a raw material, suitable for different sorts of dreadful transformations, is a display not only of lack of respect to the deceased one, but also of wrong attitude to death in general. “The object of all this attention to the corpse, it must be remembered, is to make it presentable for viewing in an attitude of healthy repose.” (Mitford) Is it normal, however, to make someone who is inevitably dead look like a living doll? If you discover your friend’s body looking as if unmarred by the damages caused by illness or injury, will you, in fact, forget he was trully affected by some fatal disease? The funeral practice, which we are used to viewing as the display of respect and love, may, at least partially, turn out to be the manifestation of egocentrism and expression of human fears of dying.

While criticizing the funeral industry, Mitford also criticizes those people who pay for and conform to the conventional attitudes and practices related to the funeral traditions. Depending on personal experience and own view of funeral procedures, one may decide on whether agree or disagree with the author’s position. Personally I find Mitford’s arguments strong enough. Her vivid descriptions, employing numerous vivid and repulsive images, accompanied by her ironic remarks, have reached the goal and persuaded me that something indeed should better be changed in American way and view of death.