Introduction

Death is one of the few inevitabilities of life. Yet it remains largely overlooked by sociologists of families and relationships. In being the first to consider Morgan’s (1996; 2011a) work on family practices in relation to sibling bereavement, this article expands our understanding of Morgan’s work in a new direction and offers sociologists a different lens through which to explore family life. It acknowledges the influential role that death plays in the ways that family is ‘done’ over time and seeks to show how family practices can be better understood if recognised in the context of bereavement. In doing so, it reconnects death with the mundanity of everyday life, emphasising the relational and temporal nature of bereavement experiences, and enhancing our overall understanding of how family members relate to one another. As such, it contributes to a small but growing body of work that demonstrates how connecting death studies with the sociologies of families, relationships and personal lives, can greatly improve our understanding of living relationships (Woodthorpe and Rumble, 2016; Borgstrom et al, 2019; Almack, 2022; Towers, 2022; Ribbens McCarthy et al, 2023).

Owing to the overall argument of this article, the focus is not sibling bereavement per se, but the way that bereavement influences the ways that family members relate to one another in the context of sibling loss. Yet by exploring this through the lens of sibling bereavement, this article inevitably improves our understanding of sibling bereavement experiences, particularly given the overall lack of attention given to grieving siblings in general (Marshall and Winokeur, 2017). The limited literature available largely originates in the ‘psy’ disciplines (for example, psychiatry and psychology), and so emphasises individual pathology, thereby failing to acknowledge the relationality of bereavement or the temporal longevity of grieving experiences. The examples shared in this article demonstrate some of the ways that sibling bereavement is embedded in both time and relationships. In doing so, it makes a secondary contribution by enhancing understanding of what it means to be a bereaved sibling and providing an alternative, experiential account of this loss.

Within popular culture, as well as academic and clinical approaches, death is conceptualised in crisis terms, as an ‘extraordinary event that brings about intense and extreme emotional experiences’ (Ellis, 2013: 252). As such, there is a dominance of ‘rupture-related thinking’ (Ellis, 2013: 251), which sees death as destabilising our sense of self and rupturing the assumed security of our biography (Jakoby, 2015). Consequently, the ‘bereavement process’ is understood to require ‘repairing that rupture and developing a new way in which to adopt a new sense of self’ (Souza, 2017: 61). Yet such thinking reflects the dominant medicalised understanding of bereavement as a condition to be treated (Valentine, 2008), and transforms death into something disconnected from the mundanity of everyday life (Ellis, 2013). It also conceptualises bereavement in individualistic terms, to be managed in isolation from social relationships, and thereby fails to recognise the relational nature of bereavement experiences (Ribbens McCarthy et al, 2023). Bereavement denotes a state of loss, whereas grief is an emotional reaction to that loss (Doka and Martin, 2010). As it is not possible to restore what has been lost, the status of ‘being bereaved’ is permanent; a bereaved mother will always be a bereaved mother, regardless of when her child died or if she has any other living children. Part of bereavement, therefore, is learning to adjust and adapt to a new way of life without the person who died (Doka and Martin, 2010). Thus, while bereavement experiences can undoubtedly be profound, challenging the very essence of who we are, they can also be grounded in the routines and relationships of everyday life.

For better or worse, family life is irreparably changed following a death (Funk et al, 2017), with significant implications for ongoing family relationships (Almack, 2022). Yet death studies is typically concerned with understanding how people maintain relationships with the dead, and so very little attention has been given to the ways that people manage ongoing relationships with the living following a death (Woodthorpe and Rumble, 2016; Ribbens McCarthy et al, 2023). A small number of studies have begun to explore how death affects families and the way they ‘do’ relationships in bereavement; specifically, in relation to inheritance (see Finch and Mason, 2000) and funeral planning (see Woodthorpe and Rumble, 2016; Woodthorpe, 2017). An even smaller number have applied Morgan’s (1996; 2011a) idea of family practices, though these mostly focus on times when a family member is dying (Ellis, 2013; 2018; Borgstrom et al, 2019; Almack, 2022). While Pearce and Komaromy (2021) offer some insight into ways of ‘doing’ family life following a death, in the context of parental loss, a direct consideration of family practices in bereavement is largely missing from the discussion; a gap which this article seeks to address.

The article begins with a review of the relevant background literature and conceptual framework, before offering an overview of the original study. It then progresses to the main discussion, which is divided into three parts. Using the example of communication, section one demonstrates that bereavement can continue to subtly shape mundane family practices long after the initial death takes place. Following this, section two considers how decision making about life events also considered family practices, such as moving house, can be influenced by bereavement as well. This leads to section three, which recognises that family practices can overlap, as individuals negotiate being part of an ‘original’ family alongside their ‘chosen’ family. As such, this final section highlights how bereavement can influence the way that individuals approach and negotiate these overlapping practices. These arguments highlight that the sociologies of families, relationships and personal life can better understand family practices by recognising the lingering presence of death within living relationships, while the multidisciplinary death studies could be enhanced by further recognising the relationality of bereavement experiences. As such, the article concludes that there is much to learn about family life, relationships and practices, by continuing to enhance the connections between death studies and mainstream sociology.

Death in the ‘family’

Any discussion of ‘family’ must open with the recognition that ‘family’ is a highly contested term (Ribbens McCarthy, 2012), as it falsely implies a series of rigid and fixed structures (Morgan, 1996). Yet Morgan (2011a) himself acknowledges that the idea of ‘family’ retains value and significance, as it remains a distinct sphere of everyday practices and experiences, and people still employ the language of family in daily life (Edwards et al, 2012; Ribbens McCarthy, 2012), social policy (Woodthorpe and Rumble, 2016) and political discourses (Edwards et al, 2012). As such, ‘in the continuing aftermath of death ‘family’ needs to be understood as a powerful but problematic, very fluid, and co-constructed term’ (Ribbens McCarthy et al, 2023: 6).

Though death is a ‘significant “family” event’ (Almack, 2022: 237), referring to ‘family grief’ as a collective overlooks the individuality of each member’s experience and oversimplifies a complex interaction of emotions (Breen et al, 2018). Rather, there is an ‘interplay of individual family members grieving in the social and relational context of the family, with each member affecting and being affected by the others’ (Gilbert, 1996: 271). While there is a growing body of literature that recognises the influence of family life and relationships on bereavement experiences (Rosenblatt, 2000; Valentine, 2008; Walter, 2020), it is the reverse consideration, of how bereavement shapes family life and relationships, that takes priority here. Across projects, Tony Walter highlights the symbolic ways in which ‘family’ is constructed in the context of bereavement. For example, funerals help to reinforce traditional cultural norms of ‘family’ over more fluid interpretations (Walter and Bailey, 2020), while unspoken hierarchies of grief reinforce, and are reinforced by, perceptions of who is considered more or less ‘entitled’ to grieve; these then help to reify notions of who is, or is not, seen to be a member of the (grieving) ‘family’ (Robson and Walter, 2012).

A much broader range of literature is available when considering specific relational connections. With regard to siblings, Winokuer (2017) found that parental death can lead siblings to lose touch, as they are no longer pulled together by a shared connection, while Connidis (2001) suggests the death of parents can bring siblings (back) into contact with one another. Once again, however, there is insufficient exploration of how people experience these moments and thus the impact of death on their everyday family relationships is overlooked. Indeed, the literature overall is preoccupied with the period of grief immediately following a death, and thus fails to recognise bereavement as an ongoing experience that families navigate and negotiate over time (Ribbens McCarthy et al, 2023). As such, very little is known about the impact of ongoing experiences of bereavement on family life. This article therefore contributes to this gap in knowledge by exploring how family practices can continue to be directly shaped by bereavement, using the lens of sibling loss to further this discussion.

(Re)locating family practices

As is often cited, the central premise behind the ‘practices approach’ is the idea that family is something that people ‘do’, rather than ‘have’ or ‘be’ (Morgan, 2011a). It carries with it a sense of action and an assertion that family life is a set of activities, rather than a static structure with fixed positions, such as that of ‘mother’ or ‘father’. Practices are ‘often little fragments of daily life which are part of the normal taken-for-granted existence of the practitioners’ (Morgan, 1996: 190–1). Though often associated with everydayness, the essence of practices is that they are part of routine family life and occur with some regularity, be it daily, weekly, monthly or annually (Morgan, 1996; 2011a). Morgan (1996) notes that family practices have an emotional dimension to them, as well as personal or moral significance, creating meaning for the practitioners and their actions. However, this does not mean that they are always considered in positive terms; many practices are considered to be oppressive or constraining.

One of the original aims when introducing ‘family practices’ was to address the notion of sameness and rigidity implied by the term ‘family’, instead seeking to acknowledge that families are greatly variable and constantly changing (Morgan, 2011a). One aspect of this fluidity is seen in the way that family life is implicated in a number of social institutions and alternative social practices, meaning that practices described as family practices may be considered in different terms. For example, parenting practices may also be described as gendered practices. As such, practices ‘merge and overlap’ one another. Another aspect of this fluidity is the way that family practices are not exclusively confined to the home, instead being conducted in various situations and locations, including those not associated with family life (Morgan, 2011b). For example, May (2023) demonstrates how ‘family’ can be enacted in public settings and spaces, away from the ‘family’ home.

Even though ‘death comes to us all’ (Almack, 2022: 227), there is surprisingly very little recognition of death within sociological research on family practices, as well as sociological family literature more generally. This oversight could be due to the perceived incongruity between the mundanity of everyday family life and the rupturing experience of death (Borgstrom et al, 2019), or due to a ‘flatness of sight’ within family sociology (May, 2023: 62). One of Morgan’s (2011a: 6) few references to bereavement suggests that family practices aim to ‘convey a sense of everyday life both in the sense of those life-events which are experienced by a significant proportion of any population (partnering, parenthood, sickness, bereavement) and equally, those activities which seem unremarkable, hardly worth talking about’.

By identifying bereavement as a ‘life event’, the idea is perpetuated that death is disconnected from the everyday. Yet a growing body of work is demonstrating that it is possible, and indeed beneficial, to recognise how family practices are enacted at the end of life (Ellis, 2013; 2018; Borgstrom et al, 2019; Almack, 2022). For example, Ellis (2018) explores the materialities of food and eating to demonstrate its social and symbolic meaning for those living with a terminal illness, while Borgstrom et al (2019) highlight the fluidity of family practices by examining their presence away from home, within institutional settings such as hospice care. Though Almack (2022: 237) aims to extend the application of Morgan’s (1996) family practices to ‘the area of death and dying’, this (as is often the case) excludes experiences of bereavement. This article therefore seeks to expand the core sociological concept of ‘family practices’ by demonstrating that it is possible to gain a greater depth of understanding about the way that some families ‘do’ family and the meaning that they apply to their actions by recognising that some practices should be understood in the context of bereavement. By reconceptualising bereavement as an ongoing experience, rather than a one-off event, we can see the everydayness of bereavement experiences and acknowledge the role that it plays in guiding people’s actions. As such, it is an important consideration for family sociologists to remember when seeking to understand how and why family members relate to one another in certain ways.

The study

This article is based on research that explored how the death of a brother and/or sister shapes and influences the lives of surviving siblings over their lifecourse. The study applied a relational lens to recognise the multitude of relationships that siblings are embedded within and examine the role of these ties within the bereavement experience. By adopting this conceptual approach, it was inevitable that analysis led to learning about family life and relationships. As found by Funk et al (2017), all participants commented on their relationship with (step)parents in depth, far more than any other kinship tie, and it was clear that, in varying ways, sibling bereavement experiences are highly influenced by this (Marshall and Winokuer, 2017). This article thus focuses on the relationship between bereaved siblings and their (step)parents to reflect participant experience and best demonstrate the arguments being made.

A total of 36 (mostly White British) participants (9 men, 27 women) living in England took part in a semi-structured interview that lasted, on average, two to three hours each (see Appendix A for participant overview). All sibling deaths occurred when participants were aged between 8 and 34 years, while individuals were aged between 19 and 66 years at the time of participation. Although all participants are currently residing in England, one was raised in Mexico, one in the US, two grew up in Northern Ireland and one was born in Kuwait but moved around the Middle East as a child. All bar the latter lived in their country of birth at the time of their sibling’s death. A ‘self-defining’ approach to recruitment was applied, employing opportunistic and snowball sampling methods to minimise any sense of pressure or obligation to participate in the research. The use of a self-defining approach also allowed individuals to interpret their own sibling relationship, enabling the inclusion of a diverse range of connections, such as step-, half- and adopted brothers or sisters. As ‘the bereaved’ are a non-visible ‘group’, there were no straightforward or pre-defined methods for recruitment so participants were recruited through a range of means including social media and university volunteer mailing list, as well as the charities Child Bereavement UK, The Compassionate Friends and The Rotary Foundation. Influenced by the avenues used for recruitment, the vast majority of participants were university-educated and employed in professional jobs. No restrictions were placed regarding the cause of death, but a minimum of five years had to have passed since their sibling’s death. Interviews took place in a location of the participant’s choosing across various sites in England, including cafes, their home, university campus and a small number by telephone or Skype.

Though not explicitly narrative interviews, an awareness of narrative was maintained throughout data collection and drawn out during the process of analysis. This is because narratives enable people to reflect on the value and meaning of their experiences, and so are a useful device for people when trying to make sense of their lives (Birch and Miller, 2000). Thematic analysis was used to identify themes across the transcripts (Braun and Clark, 2006), though narratives within the individual transcripts were also recognised. As such, interview transcripts were coded and analysed using a narrative approach to thematic analysis (Riessman, 2008). A ‘hybrid’ approach to coding was applied, which required balancing both inductive and deductive coding (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006). These codes were organised into themes, which were then reanalysed so that narratives could be drawn out within particular topics, in addition to those found within individual interviews.

All aspects of the research adhered to university ethical guidelines, and fieldwork was carried out following ethical approval. Several steps were taken to ensure participant welfare, including reassuring participants that they did not have to answer any questions they found distressing, reminding them of their right to withdraw should the experience prove emotionally stressful, and signposting participants to bereavement support services should they seek further assistance. It is also acknowledged that conducting bereavement research can be emotionally challenging for the researcher as well as the researched (see Reed and Towers, 2021, for a fuller discussion of the author’s experience in this regard).

Findings and discussion

Conclusion

Death forever alters the ways that family members relate to one another. As roles shift and responsibilities change, bereavement can be influential in the way that family is ‘done’ over time. It is increasingly recognised that family relationships are the context in which individual loss is experienced. However, this article has refocused this discussion to suggest that bereavement can be the context in which family life and relationships are routinely located. This is because everyday mundane practices, as well as significant life events, can continue to be informed and influenced long after the death of a family member. The examples of maintaining communication and moving house were used to illustrate this point but there are a range of additional activities that could also be drawn on. However, the passing of time and the shift from families of origin to families of choice also means that individuals can be tasked with managing multiple, overlapping family practices. The way these decisions are negotiated can once again be heavily influenced by aspects of the bereavement experience. In making these arguments, this article contributes the first consideration of family practices in the context of sibling bereavement to broader discussions of Morgan’s (1996; 2011a) work and highlights the importance of recognising the role of death when seeking to understand family life.

Though the primary contribution of this article is the value of situating families in the context of their bereavement, a secondary contribution is that it furthers knowledge and understanding of sibling bereavement experiences. Following the death of their brother and/or sister, bereaved siblings often feel a duty of care and responsibility for their parents, experienced in complex and conflicting ways (Towers, 2022). The examples of communication and decision making discussed in this article largely hinge on these ongoing feelings of care, and so the arguments made here continue to build a picture of this fundamental aspect of sibling bereavement. They also highlight the relational and temporal nature of bereavement, thereby demonstrating the need for death studies to further recognise the importance of these concepts in bereavement experiences.

While families are fluid and can consist of a multitude of relations (Morgan, 1996; Smart, 2007), here the relationship between (step)parents and (adult) children is used as a demonstrative case study. The examples given feature bereaved siblings and focus on issues specific to the loss of a brother or sister, but their consideration serves to make a wider point regarding family practices. Parents can experience similar feelings of heightened responsibility towards surviving children (Rosenblatt, 2000), so it is likely that similar ideas could be explored through the lens of parental bereavement. However, the loss of a family member means different things to different people, and so experiences and impacts of loss vary depending on the nature of those relationships (Walter, 2020).

Overall, the core aim of this article is to highlight that decision making regarding family practices can be highly informed by bereavement, for many years after the initial death. Taking this into account and recognising the possible presence of death in living relationships, there is potential for sociologists of families, relationships and personal life to develop a far greater understanding of the ways that individuals relate to one another and navigate ‘doing’ family. Widespread application of this article is limited by its focus on British norms and values, particularly as normative expectations of the sibling relationship vary among countries and cultures (see Edward, 2010). Indeed, it is acknowledged that the study participants are mainly White British and highly educated, factors which have significant implications for how ‘family’ and sibling relationships are understood. Despite these limitations, the suggestion that bereavement continues to influence family life remains intact, and it remains clear that there is more to learn about family relationships by continuing to enhance the connections between death studies and mainstream sociology.

Funding

The research was funded by an Economic and Social Research Council Studentship (no. ES/J500215/1).

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.