authorities to medical authorities, and finally to the authority of the self, does
not intrinsically change or challenge the nature of authority. It is here that
I think a more careful understanding of authority is necessary. In neo-
modernism there appears to be a paradoxical return of religion, but one that
is potentially hollow and artificial. The encouragement and involvement of
secular professionals in the development of a “personal myth to live by” dur-
ing the process of dying is a paradoxical practice of sacralization amidst an
already disenchanted and desacralized institutional setting, a revitalization
of religion divested of its communal and authoritative trappings and trans-
formed by a highly individualized outlook. It is the transformation of reli-
gion in the form of spirituality in relation to authority that I wish to discuss
further.
As mentioned, within neo-modernism Walter distinguishes between late
modern reflexive manipulation, the increasing secular desire to control the
dying person, and postmodern double coding, the self-reflective and simul-
taneous and contradictory use of religious language and mixed ritual prac-
tice (e.g., Yogic meditation, Christian prayers, Buddhist chanting, New Age
healing crystals, aromatherapy) and medical technology (e.g., chemotherapy).
The incorporation of a wide variety of approaches to caregiving is viewed as
part of a holistic response to the reality of value pluralism. What Walter does
not address in detail within his theory regarding the revival of death (where
death becomes a sustained topic of public conversation) is the curious move
toward the re-enchantment of death that takes place within the postmodern
strand of neo-modernism. In particular, the postmodern incorporation of a
market mentality toward death and the spiritualization of dying, the dynam-
ics of which I argue may lead to the dangers of expressive individualism –
the authority of the self and the interior feelings of the self at the expense of
others. Instead of religious authorities deciding what is and what is not a
“good death,” which is highly problematic in any regard, it is the individual
who decides this. While this might seem to be part of respecting the auton-
omy of the individual, I think there is an important difference, especially in
instances where the spirituality of the dying person is taken to be a sign of
inward truth (private belief) over and above an external state of affairs (pub-
lic knowledge). The authority invested in the dying narrative, about accept-
able care, the diagnosis of symptoms, the management of pain, and the relation
between medical and non-medical expertise is problematic because it may
ultimately discourage open communication and threaten to become a one-
190 • Kenneth G. MacKendrick