This article originally appeared on 05.07.19
Grieving in the technology age is uncharted territory.
I'll take you back to Saturday, June 9, 2012. At 8:20 a.m., my 36-year-old husband was pronounced dead at a hospital just outside Washington, D.C.
By 9:20 a.m., my cellphone would not stop ringing or text-alerting me long enough for me to make the necessary calls that I needed to make: people like immediate family, primary-care doctors to discuss death certificates and autopsies, funeral homes to discuss picking him up, and so on. Real things, important things, time-sensitive, urgent things.Real things, important things, time-sensitive, urgent things.
At 9:47 a.m., while speaking to a police officer (because yes, when your spouse dies, you must be questioned by the police immediately), one call did make it through. I didn't recognize the number. But in those moments, I knew I should break my normal rule and answer all calls. “He's dead??? Oh my God. Who's with you? Are you OK? Why am I reading this on Facebook? Taya, what the heck is going on?"
Facebook? I was confused. I hadn't been on Facebook since the day before, so I certainly hadn't taken the time in the last 90 minutes to peek at the site.
“I'll call you back", I screamed and hung up. I called my best friend and asked her to search for anything someone might have written and to contact them immediately and demand they delete it. I still hadn't spoken to his best friend, or his godsister, or our godchild's parents, or a million other people! Why would someone post it to Facebook SO FAST?
While I can in no way speak for the entire planet, I certainly feel qualified to propose some suggestions — or, dare I say, rules — for social media grieving.
How many RIPs have you seen floating through your social media stream over the last month? Probably a few. Death is a fate that we will each meet at some point. The Information Age has changed the ways in which we live and communicate daily, yet there are still large voids in universally accepted norms.
This next statement is something that is impossible to understand unless you've been through it:
There is a hierarchy of grief.
Yes, a hierarchy. It's something people either don't understand or understand but don't want to think or talk about — yet we must.
There is a hierarchy of grief.
Hierarchy is defined as:
- a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority, and
- an arrangement or classification of things according to relative importance or inclusiveness.
What does this mean as it relates to grief? Let me explain. When someone dies — whether suddenly or after a prolonged illness, via natural causes or an unnatural fate, a young person in their prime or an elderly person with more memories behind them than ahead — there is one universal truth : The ripples of people who are affected is vast and, at times, largely unknown to all other parties.
A death is always a gut punch with varying degrees of force and a reminder of our own mortality. Most people are moved to express their love for the deceased by showing their support to the family and friends left behind.
In the days before social media, these expressions came in the form of phone calls, voicemail messages, and floral deliveries.
If you were lucky enough to be in close proximity to the family of the newly deceased, there were visits that came wrapped with hugs and tears, and deliveries of food and beverages to feed all the weary souls.
Insert social media. All of those courtesies still occur, but there is a new layer of grief expression — the online tribute in the form of Facebook posts, Instagram photo collages, and short tweets.
What's the problem with that? Shouldn't people be allowed to express their love, care, concern, support, and prayers for the soul of the recently deceased and for their family?
Yes.
And no.
Why? Because there are no established “rules," and people have adopted their own. This isn't breaking news, and you're not trying to scoop TMZ. Listen, I know you're hurt. Guess what? Me too. I know you're shocked. Guess what? Me too. Your social media is an extension of who you are. I get it. You “need" to express your pain, acknowledge your relationship with the deceased, and pray for the family.
Yes.
However...
Please give us a minute.
We are shocked.
We are heartbroken.
Give the immediate family or circle a little time to handle the immediate and time-sensitive “business" related to death. In the minutes and early hours after someone passes away, social media is most likely the last thing on their minds. And even if it does cross their mind, my earlier statement comes into play here.
There is a hierarchy of grief.
Please pause and consider your role and relationship to the newly deceased. Remember, hierarchy refers to your status and your relative importance to the deceased. I caution you to wait and then wait a little longer before posting anything. This may seem trivial, silly, and not worth talking about, but I promise you it isn't.
If the person is married, let the spouse post first.
If the person is “young" and single, let the partner, parents, or siblings post first.
If the person is “old" and single, let the children post first.
If you can't identify the family/inner circle of the person, you probably shouldn't be posting at all.
Do you get where I'm going with this?
In theory, we should never compare grief levels, cast the grief-stricken survivors into roles, or use words like status and importance. But maybe we need to at this moment (and for the next few weeks and months).
The “RIP" posts started hitting my timeline about an hour after my husband's death, and I certainly didn't start them. This created a sense of confusion, fear, anxiety, panic, dread, and shock for the people who knew me, too. What's wrong? Who are we praying for? Did something happen? Did someone pass? Why are there RIPs on your wall and I can't reach you? Call me please! What's going on?
That's a small sample of messages on my voicemail and text inbox. I had to take a minute in the midst of it all to ask a friend to post a status to my Facebook page on my behalf.
Your love and expressions of support are appreciated and needed, but they can also be ill-timed and create unintended additional stress.
The person is no less dead and your sympathy no less heartfelt if your post, photo, or tweet is delayed by a few hours. Honestly, the first couple of hours are shocking, and many things are a blur. Most bereaved people will be able to truly appreciate your love, concern, prayers, and gestures after the first 24 hours.
I've learned this from the inside — twice within the last four years. And I assure you that if we each adopted a little patience and restraint in this area, we would help those who are in the darkest hours of their lives by not adding an unnecessary layer of stress.
A few extra hours could make all the difference.
You may have missed the actual meaning behind these 5 popular songs.
'Every breath you ...' what? 5 classic songs where people totally missed the meaning
I’ve never been a "lyrics guy"—as long as the words sound pleasing to the ear, are relatively interesting, and aren’t evil or distractingly dumb, I don’t care all that much what the singer is going on about. I’m focused on the dynamics, the color of the arrangements, the rhythms, and harmonies. It’s only natural that I’d misinterpret some songs over the years, including ones that I’ve heard a thousand times while walking around malls and supermarkets.
I know I’m not alone. And I’d argue there are plenty of factors behind this phenomenon: Some people take lyrics too literally, while others only focus on hooky choruses and fail to notice nuance in the verses. Context can also blind us—if the music is danceable and upbeat, you might fail to catch darker elements in the words. Still, it can be hilarious and/or shocking when hugely popular tunes are misinterpreted on a mass scale.
Speaking of which: Let’s consult a viral Reddit thread titled "Any songs that are (or were) misunderstood by the public?" There's a mountain of suggestions—everything from '90s Latin-pop hits to '80s heartland-rock epics. But five of them felt especially perfect, so let’s dig a little deeper below.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
The Police - "Every Breath You Take" (1983)
As someone argues in the comments, "Pointing out the real meaning behind 'Every Breath You Take' has to have become so commonplace that it can't really be misunderstood anymore." Point taken. But still…this eerie Police track continues to be used in pop culture and everyday life as a signifier of romance—appearing as the soundtrack to TV slow dances and being arranged for weddings by string quartets. It’s easy to assume, at first glance anyway, that the song's protagonist is pledging their devotion—sticking around for "every breath" their partner takes. Instead, the atmosphere is more disturbing, given the whole "I’ll be watching you" thing. "I didn't realize at the time [I wrote it] how sinister it is," Sting told The Independent in 1993. "I think I was thinking of Big Brother, surveillance, and control."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Bruce Springsteen - "Born in the U.S.A." (1984)
"Born in the U.S.A." is one of Bruce Springsteen's signature songs—but also likely his most misinterpreted. As an official explainer video notes, the words "center around America's industrial decline and loss of innocence during the Vietnam War"—a message that became somewhat diluted as politicians began using the stadium-sized track for their campaigns. "Conservative commenters praised the song, and it earned the approval of both candidates in the 1984 presidential election," the clip's narrator adds. "Despite being adopted as a patriotic anthem, 'Born in the U.S.A.' is far from nationalistic." In a deep-dive piece, NPR quotes Springsteen talking about the song on stage: "'After it came out, I read all over the place that nobody knew what it was about,' he said before performing 'Born in the U.S.A' to a crowd in 1995. 'I'm sure that everybody here tonight understood it."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Los Del Rio - "Macarena" (Bayside Boys remix) (1995)
Most Americans probably know the bubbly Bayside Boys remix of Los Del Rio's Spanish-language hit—it became the marquee moment of many a mid-'90s wedding reception and middle-school dance, thanks to its once-ubiquitous choreography. Maybe it's because people were too distracted by remembering the dance moves, but lots of us didn’t notice the lyrics. Of course, the chorus is in Spanish, which could have been a barrier for some, but the remix features English lines like the following: "Now don't you worry about my boyfriend / The boy whose name is Vitorino / Ha! I don't want him, can't stand him / He was no good so I, ha ha ha / Now come on, what was I supposed to do? / He was out of town, and his two friends were so fine."
"My little teenage mind was blown when I learned 'Macarena' was about cheating on a boyfriend with his friends," one Redditor wrote. "[Thank you] for the correction, it was 2 friends! Was sleep deprived writing this. I just did the moves, never questioned the lyrics." Yeah, gotta admit—this legitimately never crossed my mind either. Same with some of the people who took part in a reaction video for Distracify: "It’s definitely about dancing," one person said, before learning the truth. Another added, "I have no idea what it’s about still to this day. Please tell me it’s not something really dark."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Baha Men - "Who Let the Dogs Out" (2000)
The party was nice. The party was pumpin'.' Until, that is, some "flea-infested mongrels" got involved. Back in 2000, you couldn't escape Baha Men's booming cover of "Who Let the Dogs Out"—it became a staple of sporting events everywhere, a kind of bookend for the Jock Jams era. "I know I definitely misunderstood 'Who Let the Dogs Out' to be about actual dogs," one Redditor wrote, likely speaking for most of the listening public. There's probably a good chance most of those people chanting the chorus weren't thinking about the song's real meaning, crafted by Trinidadian artist Anslem Douglas for his 1998 original. But if you pay attention to the lyrics, "Who Let the Dogs Out" has a feminist theme, telling the story of women who stand up against crass catcalling. "This is going to be a revenge song where a woman tells men, 'Get away from me—you're a dog,'" Douglas told Vice in a 2021 video history of the track. "[Offensive] slang was everywhere. It was just degrading women and calling them all sorts of derogatory names. I tried to do a social commentary as a party song, but the party song overshadowed the social commentary aspect of it."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Hozier - "Take Me to Church" (2013)
One section of the Reddit thread is devoted to songs interpreted as pro-religion, when the truth is... well, more complicated. "'Take Me to Church' by Hozier is often used by Churches for things, and I’m like 'Oh, that’s not…,'" wrote one user. The bluesy, slow-burning ballad may use religious imagery. Still, it's about something more human—"[It's] this idea that powerful organizations use people’s sexuality in order to mobilize people against women, against gay people," the Irish songwriter told Genius in 2023. "And the justification behind that is often religious in nature." Hozier even isolated one particular lyric that highlights this misconception: "'She tells me, ‘Worship in the bedroom' [is] something tongue-and-cheek, a bit of humor to it, also revealing that this is not necessarily a traditional worship song," he said. "I think I still see my name put into playlists for Christian music, and I’m not averse to that—I don’t think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. But that line I would’ve thought would’ve disqualified it from something like that."