
Joan Didion: On Grief and Isolation
At the recent 2005 Chicago Humanities Festival, Joan Didion appeared to provide reflections about her new book, "The Year of Magical Thinking", as well as some of the feelings that were evoked by the events described in her book. Joan Didion's memoir is about grieving for her husband, fellow writer John Gregory Dunne. The couple had been married since 1964. Her thoughts presented in Chicago were starkly realistic--an attitude shaped by the sudden death of her husband and her only child. She described the almost immediate dramatic, life-altering effect that she experienced: "The notion that I could control things died hard...I do not believe in an afterlife; I wish I did."
Dunne died of a heart attack at the end of 2003. His death came suddenly, just as the couple was sitting down to dinner after visiting their daughter in the hospital, who had fallen into a coma after being treated for pneumonia and septic shock. In her memoir, Didion contemplates how the rituals of daily life were fundamentally altered when her life's companion was taken from her.
Her impressions, both sharply observed and utterly reasonable, portray a deeply engaging image of an exquisitely intelligent woman grappling with her past and future.The year referred to in the title would take its toll on Didion in another way, as well: despite showing signs of recovery, Didion's daughter died in August of this year, several weeks after Didion submitted her final manuscript.
Her initial struggle to begin writing about the thoughts and feelings of grief, sorrow and utter isolation aroused by this tragic experience began with four magnificantly dignified short lines:
Life changes fast.
Life changes in the instant.
You sit down to dinner and life as you know it ends.
The question of self-pity.
**Update:
Joan Didion, whose memoir "The Year of Magical Thinking" is quickly becoming a classic portrait of sorrow and grief, won the National Book Award for nonfiction Wednesday night (11/16/2005). "There's hardly anything I can say about this except thank you," said Didion, praising her publisher for supporting her as she wrote her acclaimed best seller about the death of her husband, John Gregory Dunne, and the illness of her daughter, Quintana Roo.
The 70-year-old Didion, who had never won the National Book Award, has long been admired by many distinguished authors for her precise, incisive fiction and literary journalism. However, "The Year of Magical Thinking" brought her a substantially larger readership, with booksellers saying that her memoir has been especially in demand from those who have lost a loved one or knew someone who had.

Author Joan Didion giving her acceptance speech after winning the National Book Awards Nonfiction prize for "The Year of Magical Thinking," at the National Book Awards ceremony in New York, Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2005.
Our seemingly established right to freedom of expression may be seen as caught between two different trends of disenchanted modernity. The first trend relies upon the demands of an extremely pragmatic form of rationalization, leading to the framing of our thoughts as legitimate only when subordinated to the dictates of scientistic objectivism and the dominant governmental ideology.
At perhaps an even more personal level, it can lead one to become subjugated to an increasingly impaired quality of thought processes (often a rapidly progressing, narrow focus upon issues related to the draconian pursuit of power) characterizing whatever institution to which one has been devoted.
The second trend is to anchor feelings of confidence upon introspective self-inquiry, which offers one the opportunity for a sense of freedom from the dictates of orthodoxy, inequality, and authority.
However, the reaction against the first trend of submission to external domination may tend to produce, in its emphasis upon introspective subjectivity, a vulnerability to reifying counter-ideals of not-knowing and mutuality, which must also be carefully deconstructed. Differences in meanings achieved by others who also choose to rely ever more upon the liberating capacity of subjectivity suggest pluralism will make new knowledge demands upon us. The development of new critical abilities will be needed to help form a way of knowing that is based upon collaborative, democratic processes, where knowledge itself can be used homeopathically as an antidote to the old ideal of the knowing authority.
In the history of psychoanalysis, there is hardly a more striking anecdote than a comment made by Freud in a letter to Oskar Pfister in 1910:
"Discretion is incompatible with a good presentation of psychoanalysis. One must become a bad character, disregard the rules, sacrifice oneself, betray, behave like an artist who buys paints with the household money belonging to his wife or bums the furniture to heat the studio for his model. Without such a bit of criminality there is no real achievement."
This statement, notably to a non-analyst, reminds us how, despite its present appearance of orthodoxy and reverence for the founder, psychoanalysis began as a marginal, radical enterprise. From its inception, psychoanalysis took up a quietly critical stance toward authority, bourgeois conventional norms and what were then the certainties of conscious knowledge.
In contemporary life, the renewed sense of enrichment provided by a turn to self-inquiry, as opposed to living as a servant to external powers, is accompanied by sometimes distressing feelings of disenchantment, an awareness that the modern condition no longer allows us to call upon religious, mysterious, and awe-inspiring forms of truth, upon authority founded in such revealed truth. One of the consequences of this disenchantment is that the ultimate and most sublime values have retired from public life, at best into the brotherliness of immediate personal relationships.
At the same time we are required either to suffer a great deal more uncertainty or, more constructively, learn how to embrace it. Those who find this condition too difficult to bear will retreat vociferously, in a manner that obscures the uncertainty of life, into the arms of churches which promise them a renewed sense of entitlement and power over others, often over the unfortunate and disadvantaged.
My concluding remarks are perhaps the most difficult to formulate clearly. In contemporary psychotherapeutic and "self-help" thinking, feelings of resignation are unanimously associated with feelings of depression, inadequacy and a sense of low self-worth. There are, however, important incidents in the history of psychoanalysis that point out an entirely different dimension of "feelings of resignation."
One striking example involved the psychoanalyst Edith Jacobsen in the 1930s, who at that time was a member of the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute. Jacobson was arrested by the Gestapo for participating in a resistance group in 1934 and was sentenced and held for more than two years in a Gestapo prison; she was finally released due to illness and managed to escape.
It subsequently been revealed that Anna Freud responded to the Nazi persecution of Jacobson solely in terms of her deep worry that Jacobsen had jeopardized the psychoanalytic movement in Berlin, which had hoped to preserve the Institute and continue treating patients without interference, by complying with the authorities, accepting (demanding) the resignation of its Jewish members, and generally being on best behavior.
For Anna Freud, then, "resignation" was in fact both an oppressive demand and a despicable compliance with the Nazi domination and persecution of the Jews. Jacobson committed herself to an entirely different, firm "sense of resignation" to refuse the vulgar type of "resignation" demanded by Anna Freud, displaying a noble, moral and life-enriching form of resignation.
In the United States, the history of psychoanalysis presents other practical instances where the sense and enactment of feelings of resignation were pioneering and moral acts of justice. One of the more significant of these events took place in the 1930s, with the simultaneous resignations of Karen Horney and Clara Thompson from the New York Psychoanalytic Institute in protest against the degrading understanding of women that it expounded, viewing women as innately inferior and damaged humans.
The subsequent body of writings about women created by Karen Horney can quite justifiably be understood as a major cornerstone for the feminist movement that emerged. Clara Thompson went on to become a founder of the William Allison White Institute in New York City, which from its very beginnings has served as a fountainhead for contemporary relational thinking.
"Feelings of resignation," then, need not necessarily be understood to reflect underlying depression, lack of self-confidence, feelings of incompetence and inadequacy. Instead, feelings and acts of "resignation" may serve as a firm commitment to the affirmation of justice, the defiance of authoritarian domination, the refusal to be ruled by primitive forms of reason and the pursuit of humanitarian achievements. In this manner, "the sense of resignation" stands proudly as a beacon of hope for all mankind.
The mountains daily speech is silence
Profound as the Great Silence
between the last Office and the first
Uninterrupted as the silence God maintains
throughout the layered centuries
All the mountain's moods,
frank or evasive,
its whiteness, its blueness,
are shown to sight alone
Yet it is known
that fire seethes in its depths
and will surely rise one day, breaking open
the mute imperturbable summit. Will the roar of eruption be
the mountains own repressed voice,
or that of the fire? Does the mountain
harbor a demon distinct from itself?
Denise Levertov, 1997.
"I WOULD NOT BE STANDING HERE TODAY, NOR STANDING WHERE I STAND EVERYDAY, HAD SHE NOT CHOSEN TO SIT DOWN...I KNOW THAT." This was Oprah Winfrey's statement during her "sorrowful" publicity act at a three-hour memorial service for Rosa Parks at the historic Metropolitan A.M.E. Church in Washington, D. C. on Monday.
Yes, dear Oprah, where WOULD you be standing? Standing outside a Parisian Hermes store after it had closed, stamping your feet and degrading its employees, since you were SO FAMOUS that they had no right not to open it up after-hours just for you and the entourage that you employ to cater to your every whim??
Or perhaps standing and pretending to be so empathic and caring for the plight of the many characters that you parade across your stage each week on your daily television talk show? An "empathic facade" that is well-known, by large numbers of people in Chicago, to immediately evaporate as soon as the television cameras turn away or when the show cuts to a commercial break.
Where was even a pittance of financial support (from your immense fortune) for Rosa Parks when not too long ago her landlord was about to evict her from the humble Detroit apartment, where she lived alone in abject poverty? There was none--you were too involved in all of the "draining"activities of keeping your face everywhere as a national entertainment personality.
Shame, shame, deep shame upon you...and upon all of the other big names who now show up to "piously" bask in the spotlight of her memorials. Shame on you and President Bush and Former President Bill Clinton and Rep. John Conyers and Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan and U. S. Senator Barack Obama and Reverand Al Sharpton and Bishop Adam Jefferson Richardson and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Aretha Franklin and Cicely Tyson and the NAACP and the many other politically powerful, famous and wealthy so-called supporters of human dignity and rights.
Where were any of you when Rosa Parks really needed your help? Nowhere to be found.
Shame, shame, shame, eternal shame upon all of you.