Politics

Politics Lewis H. Mates DRAFT VERSION: The final version of this was published in Douglas Davies with Lewis H. Mates, The Encyclopedia of Cremation (Ashgate, 2005), pp.338-342 Cremation first came to the attention of the modern occidental world at the end of the eighteenth century when French revolutionaries tried to „de-Christianize funeral rites by promoting cremation‟ (Prothero 2001:9). Thus, from the outset cremation was indelibly tainted by those who had chosen it as a weapon in their political struggle to undermine the power of Christianity as embodied by the institution of the Catholic Church. Although the consequent political reaction in France caused it to recede, cremation‟s cause was, nevertheless, taken up in the later nineteenth century by those whose motives were in many ways similar to the French Jacobins‟ of the previous century. Many nineteenth century cremationists wished to challenge the established authorities, particularly those whose power was based on religion, and, most importantly, that of the Catholic Church. This became explicit when, in direct opposition to the Vatican Council inaugurated in Rome, freemasons held an International Congress in Naples on 8 December 1869. The Congress, which aimed at dealing a propaganda blow against the Vatican Council, discussed practical means of countering the Church‟s influence, including non-confessional burial. There was also discussion of an attempt to revive the cremation of corpses, and this featured prominently in the congress‟ „anti-ecclesiastical declaration‟. Like the French revolutionaries before them, freemasons had given cremation a firm dogmatic significance: a person who was procremation was regarded an ally of freemasonry in the political struggle against the Catholic Church. Incidentally, an international congress of medical experts met in the same year in Florence. It deemed burial unhygienic and advocated cremation „in the name of public health and of civilisation‟ (Prothero 2001:9). The paths of masonry and medicine run through many sections of this Encyclopedia, and, as many doctors were also freemasons, they are often indistinguishable from each other. The actual level of Masonic involvement in cremation advocacy varied considerably and depended, naturally, on the strength of the organisation and the priorities of its adherents in any given country. Involvement varied from Argentina, where almost all the important first generation cremationists and many who followed were freemasons, to Switzerland where there was very little Masonic involvement. Britain and Sweden were other examples where Masonic influence was low or non-existent, freemasons being generally more prominently involved in Catholic countries such as France and Italy (Report 1960:34, 36). Others contesting the influence of the Catholic Church, such as freethinkers, also supported cremation from the nineteenth century. Some individuals placed more overtly on the political left became cremationists, though sometimes, as with Argentine cremation advocate and militant socialist Dr José Ingenieros, they were also freemasons or freethinkers as well. In Argentina, Ingenieros‟ political convictions were not exceptional within cremationist circles. There were also more revolutionary elements involved in cremation advocacy. In 1871 France again became the arena for cremation being linked to revolution. This time, the anti-government uprising that became the short-lived Paris commune used cremation to dispose of its dead, a matter of two years after the Naples Masonic conference. Anarchism also provided good conditions for support for cremation. In 1972 Robert Hazemann noted that, until 1914, there was „very little progress [regarding cremation] south of 1 the Pyrenees and the Alps, apart from Italy and Spain, two countries which have had a certain anarchist tradition‟ (Hazemann 1972:3). Some well-known anarchists, such as Bartolomeo Sacco and Nicolas Vanzetti, chose cremation. Framed for murder and executed in 1927 by the American state, they requested that their bodies be cremated and their ashes divided into two parts, one for the family in Italy and the other to rest in Boston columbarium. Argentine cremationists gave them and other revolutionaries who had been cremated after their executions, the American Joe Hill and Spaniard Francisco Ferrer, favourable coverage in their bulletins. Where „communist‟ regimes emerged, namely in Russia in 1917 and China in 1949, cremation was advocated by the authorities, though this did not necessarily meet with immediate success. Lenin‟s anticipated cremation in Russia was expected to be a good example to the populace, but his body was eventually preserved and placed on show in Red Square instead. Still, this did not prevent Argentine cremationists, for example, from praising the Bolshevik‟s attempts at advancing cremation and their wider political project. As well as being an ideological weapon to use against the influence of the Church, cremation had other attractions for „progressives‟, a term adopted as embracing Liberals, freemasons and freethinkers through to socialists and anarchists. A real concern for the plight of the poor motivated many cremationists, as shown at the 1936 Prague International Cremation Congress, when a Czech delegate argued that „poor people, who during their lifetime had been the prey of human selfishness, should be honoured after death by being cremated‟ (Report 1936:42). Of course, this kind of sentiment was not confined to the anti-clerical left. Slightly more explicit was a quote that Argentine cremationists were fond of carrying in their journal in the 1920s, to the effect that cremation provided the „purifying fire‟ that „vanishes the abominable privileges of class‟. Certainly the cheapness of cremation when compared to burial in most countries also made it attractive to those on the left, as did the fact that fewer workers would have to live next to stinking and unhygienic cemeteries. Cremation, like death, was regarded by some „progressives‟ as a social „leveller‟. The cremation movement also offered an opportunity to forge international co-operation, which must have appealed to all „progressives‟. At the 1937 London International Cremation Congress, the chairpersons‟ welcome included a reference to bringing the representatives of different countries together, which would help promote peace (Report 1937:3). Given these considerations it was natural, perhaps, for working class cremationist groups to emerge. In Austria, a handful of socialists formed a workers‟ branch of the Austrian Cremation Society in 1904. It had far more explicitly left wing politics than its parent organisation, which it eventually outgrew and from which it became independent in October 1922. By the time it was dissolved by the Austrian state in 1934, it had a massive membership in excess of 160,000. In the Netherlands, the „Workers‟ Association for Cremation‟ was established by a trade unionist called Andries de Rosa in 1919. Like its Austrian counterpart, it was regarded as „socialist‟, though it differed in that it was born separate from the main Dutch Cremation Society but later joined it, though a planned complete merger between the two failed due to political differences. However, these examples were the exception and working class support of cremation tended to be confined to those who were also situated and active on the political left. From the outset, the cremation movement sought to distance itself from „politics‟, despite the fact that many advocates were „progressives‟ and surely involved precisely because of their political attitudes. Thus, at the first International Cremation Congress in Dresden, Germany, in June 1876 the final of the „six great principles‟ of cremation was that „the sacred feelings of each family should be respected such as the request of civil and religious ceremonies‟. (The first five principles concerned the practicalities of cremation). This was disingenuous, at least as far as organisations like the freemasons were concerned, for their true motivations had been openly expressed a mere seven years earlier at their Naples congress. The emphasis placed on 2 the practical application of cremation rather than its religious and philosophical implications must have been at least in part a tactic to obviate a degree of the opposition that inevitably would come from institutions like the Catholic Church. The tactic clearly failed, as the Catholic Church came out strongly against cremation in 1886 and retained this opposition until 1963. Still, despite this obvious failure, the „non-political‟ mantra of the cremation movement was to be oft repeated. At the Prague International Cremation Conference in 1936, a German delegate, discussing the development of cremation in different countries, argued that cremation was not political, but „purely technical‟. He complained that cremationist activities had suffered in some countries due to „artificially aroused nationalism and the race question‟, and this in spite of „the old motto “no religion and no politics in the cremation movement”‟ (Report 1936:39). Pharos made a similar complaint at around the same time: in the early days of the cremation society, „enemies sought to prejudice people against us by saying cremation was against Christianity and its practitioners were atheists and political revolutionaries… a famous Victorian preacher said, “A lie is half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on”‟. According to some cremationists, despite the involvement of politically committed individuals, the cremation movement historically had remained „non-political‟. This was the view taken by Austrian cremationist Dr F. Michelfelt who delivered a paper on Roman Catholic Canon Law at the 1954 ICF Congress. Michelfelt admitted that, at the beginning the cremation movement was mainly led by freemasons, freethinkers and opponents of the Catholic Church who tried to use cremation for their own ends. Curiously, he still maintained, however, that their purpose remained „neither religious nor political‟. This was echoed by Robert Hazemann, another delegate at the same congress, who, whilst recognising where cremationist support had come from politically, made a similar point. Hazemann asserted that „there were no politics in our movement‟ but, generally speaking, in the past „people of conservative views were on the whole against cremation‟ whereas those who were „more or less on the left were in favour of it‟. The key, though, was not how the cremation movement „officially‟ regarded itself, but how it was actually viewed from outside by the institutions it was attempting to alter, and some cremationists showed that they were clear on this question. Addressing the 1951 ICF Congress on „The Church and Cremation‟, a Danish delegate drew a parallel between the Church‟s attitude to the labour movement and its attitude to the cremation movement. He argued that both movements represented social progress and were therefore resisted by conservatism as embodied in the Church hierarchy. He did not comment on the fact that there was a certain cross-over in personnel between both movements, which must also have been noticed by the Church. There were at least two other unmentioned aspects of the cremation movement that made it comparable with the labour movement. Firstly, it was very aware of its own history (though, and again like the labour movement, the lessons drawn from this history varied greatly) and, secondly, it was highly internationalist minded (at least in respect of occidental societies). Yet, in fairness to Michelfelt and Hazemann, it appeared that the movement they were addressing in the 1950s was one undergoing significant change. Whilst anti-clericalism characterised large sections of the European cremation movement before 1939, an alteration seems to have begun in the movement in the aftermath of the Second World War. Indeed, Robert Hazemann himself, on remarking that pro and anti-cremation sentiment broadly corresponded to political affiliation, (those with left political views being generally procremation), added that this generalisation „was true before the war but not after the war‟ (Report 1954:11). Others, such as French cremationist Dr Godard in an interview with Le 3 Monde in 1984, noted the same change: before 1939, he argued, „The “family” of cremationists at that time was made up largely of free thinkers, rather anti-clerical. […] The battle changed progressively. Having become outdated, anti-clericalism gave way to the public health argument, to avoid the risk of epidemics. Then, this risk having diminished, another argument was put forward; lack of space‟. Those who professed the „non-political‟ nature of the cremation movement after 1945 were not being disingenuous, unlike their pre-war counterparts, as people with more conservative views were increasingly coming to support cremation and its anti-clericalism was becoming outmoded. Curiously, given his comments in 1954 and the fact that the cremation movement was broadening out politically in some countries, Hazemann was more overtly „political‟ in a paper he gave at the 1957 ICF Congress. Discussing Catholic countries and opposition to cremation, Hazemann identified three types or groups of thinking on the situation: „communist‟, „socialist‟ and „Christian democrat‟. These three positions, according to Hazemann, formed two blocks, an extreme left and, more often, a coalition composed of Christian democrats and socialists. Hazemann was critical of the policy followed by those in the coalitions as the „leftish elements have been the prisoners of clerical elements. Thus arises the incomprehensible situation of a [progressive] government which retreats on the subject [of cremation]‟. There was similar criticism of the political left in 1960 when a delegate thought it „remarkable‟ that many labour movement leaders seemed „indifferent to cremation‟, particularly given its cheapness and in spite of the fact that many personally supported it. These comments imply that cremationists still saw their natural constituency as drawn from the political left and were disappointed when the left in government did not use its power to promote cremation. And this was regardless of the political changes occurring within the ranks of cremationists themselves. Another aspect of the „political‟ struggle here was that the Catholic Church, as well as having immense political influence itself, often enjoyed the support of Catholic political parties. Thus, in Belgium, for example, there was fierce opposition to cremation both from the Catholic Church and the parties overtly aligned to it. In his 1957 paper, Hazemann touched on another aspect of the post-1945 change in the political complexion of the cremation movement when he remarked that „the extreme left has painful recollections of cremation, for people were cremated alive during the war‟. Thus, as more conservative elements were beginning to support cremation, so those from the political tradition that originally supported it had begun to reject it. However, even before 1945, cremation advocacy was by no means limited to the progressive elements of occidental society, as some on the extreme right also favoured it. In 1933, the American cremationist Hugo Erichsen remarked that the new Hitler-lead government in Germany favoured cremation and would introduce the long-awaited national German cremation law, which it subsequently did. The following year Erichsen noted that Germany had almost half of the 234 crematoria in Europe and that its eight percent cremation rate was second only to that of the Swiss (twelve percent). He also added that in Italy, Mussolini was not opposed to cremation (CANA 1933:39; 1934:34-5,39). The Nazi attachment to cremation reached its terrible apogee with its application in concentration camps to dispose of the regime‟s victims. This was the most extreme example of when cremation was advocated and supported by „non-progressives‟ and employed for anti-progressive ends. Not all cremationists in non-fascist countries were progressives who abhorred fascism. For example, at least one American cremationist involved in the Cremation Association of North America (CANA) appeared to be favourably disposed to the 1930s European fascist regimes. In a talk on „Observations on Europe‟, Ray Brennan, first discussed the „labor difficulties‟ and widespread strikes in the United States. He then mentioned the feeling of a „war atmosphere‟ 4 in much of Europe and followed this with comments on Mussolini‟s great oratorical abilities and intelligence. After commenting on communism in Europe, Brennan returned to strikes at home and emphasised the need to instil the idea in cremation workers that they were „all capitalists‟ and that they could all „rise up the ladder‟ in their work. He argued that those in the cremation businesses needed to use ideas from Europe in order to achieve this and thereby „stave off this leftist uprising and keep our businesses intact in a clean American way‟. The European ideas he was referring too were fascist ones (CANA 1937:40-4). In the post-war world of cold war antagonism with the Soviet bloc, CANA spent some time discussing international questions that appeared to have nothing to do with cremation. At the 1953 CANA annual convention, for example, Charles Howard spoke on „Facing Soviet Russia‟ and Christian Science advocate Gordon Walker addressed the convention on „Communist Aims in Russia‟ (CANA 1953:38, 66-75). These observations on CANA indicate how it was somewhat exceptional in the cremation movement. It was composed almost entirely of businessmen who sought profits in cremation and who were, in the main, not interested in the progressive aspects of the practice. The one obvious exception to this was Hugo Erichsen, who regularly delivered papers to annual conventions on international developments in the cremation movement. Apart from him, no one showed much interest in the evangelising aspect of cremation and it is somewhat ironic that evidence of an interest in wider international questions only came after Erichsen had died and because the cold war was in full swing. In contrast to Nazi Germany, the behaviour of other European authoritarian regimes tended to emphasise the „progressive‟ nature of cremation advocacy. Portugal had begun tentative moves towards using cremation that were ended when an authoritarian regime took power in 1938. Cremation only became a possibility again when the regime ended in 1976. This was very similar to what occurred in Spain, where the Second Republic began considering the idea of cremation only for the Franco regime to prevent its implementation. Again, cremation only had a real chance when the Franco regime was ended. Of course, in both these cases Roman Catholicism was very strong and it is unlikely that cremation would have made significant advances. But at least cremation would have been an option for those who desired it as, for example, in Argentina. The modern cremation movement was inspired by events in revolutionary France and could not help but be regarded as „political‟. Cremation was later explicitly stated as a means to combat the Catholic Church by freemasons and the movement‟s consequent attempts to claim its „non-political‟ credentials, in order, presumably, to avoid drawing the Catholic Church‟s direct fire, rang hollow and predictably failed to convince. In this sense freemasons, by being so open about their intentions for cremation from the outset, at the very least ensured that the Catholic Church would come out as even stronger opponents of cremation in the short and medium term. However, the cremation movement was a diverse one and differed considerably from country to country. It appeared most „political‟ where opinions on the topic were most polarised, and where freemasons were strong and actively involved. This was also where the Catholic Church was often the strongest. Britain was arguably the key example of where the „non-political‟ label best applied from the outset, as, though clearly informed by „progressive‟ ideas, early cremationists were respectable middle class individuals who could relatively easily bring their influence to bear on government policy. Of course, there were radicals involved in Britain too, such as ex-militant Chartist William Price, but they were the exception rather than the rule. From relatively early on, politicians from the political right, such as Conservative Bonar Law, chose cremation, and even Winston Churchill supported it (though he was eventually buried, much to the chagrin of the British Cremation Society). Thus Pharos‟ claim in 1937 that 5 cremationists were from „almost all schools of political and religious thought‟ rung fairly true in Britain, at least. This relatively un-polarised attitude towards cremation, again probably due to the British Catholic Church‟s relative lack of influence, must partly explain the Cremation Society‟s success in Britain. But Britain was relatively exceptional in this sense and it was not surprising that the Catholic Church only changed its mind on cremation in the context of a post-war European cremation movement that was far less tinged with anti-clericalism than it had been before 1939. References Boletín de la Asociación Argentina de Cremación, No.s 1-7, 9-12, CRE/A/AG/1. Boone, P.C., Heuer, A. and Raild, N.J. (1960), „The Sociological Aspects of Cremation‟, paper given at the ICF Congress in Stockholm, CRE/D4/1960/6. CANA (1924-1954), Reports of CANA Annual Conventions, CRE/A/US4. Documents (1993), „Documents Pour l‟Histoire de la Cremation‟. L‟Association Crématiste de Strasbourg: Strasbourg, B/FR/4. ICF Bulletins (1964-972), CRE/D3/5-/18. Hazemann, Robert, „The Social and Cultural Aspect of Cremation‟, Paper Presented at the Grenoble ICF Congress, 1972. ICF Paper (1963), ICF Committee for Propaganda, „The World Problems of the Disposal of the Dead‟, Paper Presented at the ICF Congress, Berlin, CRE/D4/1963/3. Jupp, Peter (1999), „History of the Cremation Movement in Great Britain: the First 125 Years‟, Pharos 65(1) 1999:18-25. Pharos, 1934- present day, CRE/A/UK/19. Prothero, Stephen (2001), Purified by Fire. A History of Cremation in America. California: University of California Press. Report (1936), of the International Cremation Congress in Prague, CRE/D4/1936/3. Report (1937), of the London International Cremation Congress, CRE/D4/1937/2. Report (1951), of the ICF Triennial Congress at Copenhagen, CRE/D4/1951/2. Report (1954), of the ICF Triennial Congress at Oslo, CRE/D4/1954/2. Report (1957), of the ICF Triennial Congress at Zurich, CRE/D4/1957/2. Report (1960), of the ICF Triennial Congress at Stockholm, CRE/D4/1960/1. 6