THE IMPORTANCE OF MUSIC AS SENSORY FACTOR AT THE POINT OF SALE AND PURCHASE DECISION

In the western world burial rituals signify the importance of the individual that passed away. Grave stones indicate who they were, what role they occupied within a familial system and how long they

lived. For those that prefer cremation, memorial blocks are set up displaying the same information as a grave stone would. Such displays are not only our way of remembering someone and honouring them in death but these sites give people a place to visit their loved one even though their physical being is no longer there. Burial rituals, it can be argued are conducted to keep the spirit of the deceased alive for those they left behind. Over the last century there has been a rise in pet cemeteries across the globe as more people begin to view their pets as family members (Field et al., 2009). However for some burying a pet has no meaning as they believe the essence that was their pet, is gone. In both cases pet owners tend to keep their pets belonging as something to remember them by which in a sense links in with the principles surrounding the significance of burial rituals.

Ten of the twelve participants were able to comment on how they felt about burial rituals and if they had in fact utilized any of the available burial options for pets. Four of the ten participants noted they had not buried or cremated their pets. It was indicated directly or indirectly that burial or cremation of their pet did not play a significant part in how their pet would be remembered or mourned. The 10 participants were asked to comment on whether the veterinary staff had informed them of the various burial options available to them. The majority of which indicated that they had been informed of the various options.

“I think she did say do you want anything special done or something like that, but that, even with people I don’t hold great store by what happens after, the thing that is the person or the dog is gone, it’s gone so the rest is just stuff, you know. It’s not important to me, what happens after that.The Rexness of Rex has gone so you know little pots or plots you know whatever it’s not, yeah.”

(Participant 10).

“The vet asked like do you guys want to take the body and bury him or leave him. Then I didn’t have anywhere to bury him, so then I thought no, we will just leave him. I, I still think sometimes that maybe I should have took him, taken him and buried him somewhere.”(Participant 5).

Participant 4 and 11, as noted previously, were not present when their pets passed away and were therefore not able to provide first hand experiences or insight into the reasoning for their pet’s ashes not being collected from the veterinary practice after cremation. However it can be argued based on their narratives and the treatment of their pet that the pet’s ashes were not a significant part of the remembrance and mourning processes for the participants and their families. In such instances photos and memories would be more significant to the family as they hold more meaning in relation to their relationships with Asha and Ozzy.

“I don’t know what actually happened to her, I assume they left her at the vet and then I don’t know

“They had him cremated but we didn’t get the ashes back.” (Participant 11).

Participant 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13 believed that through burying their pets they gained closure as well as the opportunity to keep their pets close to home. The majority of this cluster buried their pets at home or close by so that they were able to visit their pet’s grave. Participant 6 described the burial of both Jack and Missy noting that;

“We decided to bury our dogs and Missy to, to keep them close and everything.”

In relation to Jack’s burial participant 6 stated that;

“Seeing Jack coming back from the vet, it was like he was still there. Um, my Dad had dug a nice deep whole for him and we laid him in covered him with some leaves and flowers it was the pain that everyone felt (Crying more intensely). It really is, it’s like taking a limb off you, you don’t feel the same afterwards.”

The above statement links in with the intensity of grief as participant 6 noted that after the passing of her pets “you don’t feel the same afterwards”. This statement while not directly stated by all the participants was evident throughout their narratives.

“When you think of home you think of the animals (inaudible) um He was very much family, and it’s, it’s just kind of to the point where home is almost just not the same, I don’t know how to describe it further” (participant 3).

“Knowing that we were going to have to physically put her down, um and then knowing that we wouldn’t have her at home when we came home. I think that for us was the real cos you so used to seeing her little face and um. ja, so, so a great deal of anxiety, a great deal offear I suppose, knowing what to expect and I mean it’s been over a year and we’re still, like we have her kennel, we have her toys, we haven’t replaced her, cos I don’t think we can, in time we may get another dog, but I don’t think it will ever be Beatie.” (Participant 2).

The above statements are just two examples from the participant’s narratives illustrating how participants did not feel the same after their pet had passed on. As previously stated burial rituals serve to bring closure to pet owners and give them the opportunity to say goodbye to their beloved pets. Thus participant 6 and her family felt that it was necessary to bury Missy when her sibling arrived home later that day. The family waited so that the other member of the family could say her goodbyes.

“But the fact that we kept Missy, which seems really creepy but it was just so my sister could say good-bye and she could at least be part of that.”

This statement indicates how important burial rituals can be within the familial system. It can be argued that without this closure the participants familial system may have been disrupted as one of them would have been absent when Missy was laid to rest. This could cause friction within the family.

Often people place roses or personal objects on the coffin of a family member or loved one when they are laid to rest, this ritual is a common practice among pet owners as well (Field et al., 2009). Several of the participants indicated that placing personal items with their pet would make their pet more comfortable or happier in the afterlife. It can be argued that this ritual serves as a form of comfort for the pet owner as it makes them feel contented that their pet is in a better place.

“When we did bury her, we did, I, I threw a ball in just as well. And we planted a tree over her grave which was a beach tree, which I liked the sort of irony of that. And then one of the neighbours who used to walk her and also really loved her put a kite in the tree.” (Participant 7).

A grave site serves as a reference point for the pet owner as they have the opportunity to visit their pets and pay their respects. Here it could be argued that the grave site serves as an emotional surrogate for the pet owners. In other words the pet owner continues the bond with their pet through the visitation of the grave site. This visitation then has the potential to ease the pet owner’s grief as the bond is continued rather than severed.

“I suppose you don’t really think about it too much and then when you do it does still hit you. Um, I, I do miss her but when, when I was still in Cape Town I did used to go and visit her grave every now and then and just sort of say hi and think about her for a while and then leave. Um, but it’s not really something that comes out unless you actively talking about it.” (Participant 7).

“We later buried her in the bot gardens.” (Participant 12).

“P took her and he buried her...my daughter came home in April and then we went to the, where P had her buried. And put some flowers. And we were all fine you know we were fine about it.”

(Participant 13).

Participant 2 and her family chose to cremate Beatie and decided to “hold onto her” as they were not ready to part with her. Beatie had been such a big part of participant two’s life and had been there for her through several transitional phases in her life.

“Once Beatie came back from the crematorium, we got like this really ridiculous little zip lock back with about, and you know you sort of think really tubby, she was not big boned, she was actually fat,

quite a fat little dog, um, fits into this teeny- tiny zip-lock, and you know that it is just a token amount that you get cos you will never get the whole of the person or animals that you cremated, um and then they put her in this little, what looks like a little sandwich, cardboard sandwich box, with a little handle with a certificate saying, you know that was your Beatie and you sort of, we had her in the car its seems strange because Beatie loved to be in the car. So Beatie drove around with us for a few months after that and we thought ok, we actually gonna have to do something we can’t just live with Beatie in the car um and we used to go down to (place name) quite a bit with her and she used to frolic in the lagoon so we (teary) basically put her there.”

The above statement indicates that while participant 2 worked through her grief she did not have the heart to let Beatie go, however, once some time had passed she laid Beatie to rest at her favourite place. The fact that participant 2 felt that it was time to lay Beatie to rest does not indicate that she had finished grieving but rather indicates that participant 2 had come to terms with Beatie’s death and felt that it was time to let her go. It is important to emphasize at this point that participant 2 was still in mourning to a certain degree at the time of the interview.

It is evident that for some of the participants burial rituals are necessary for closure and to maintain a continuing bond with their pet in the afterlife. Furthermore the grave site offers comfort to the pet owner as their pet remains close to home. However for some of the participants what happens to their pets remains is unimportant as the essence of their pet is no longer there and therefore they see no point in burying and ‘empty shell’. Whether pet owners feel burial rituals are necessary or not the point of the matter is that the participant found their own way to remember and honour the life of their pets, many holding onto their pet’s personal items to remind them of their pet in the years to come.

“I mean I ’ve still got her little, um, she had a little collar that I took that was engraved and I ’ve still got it in my jewellery case.” (Participant 12).

An interesting finding was that the majority of the participants attempted to maintain their bond with their deceased pets to varying degrees. This was achieved by holding on to the pet’s belongings and memorialising their pets. This finding is consistent with those of Packman et al. (2011) as they reported that the ongoing attachment between owners and the deceased pet can be maintained in several ways such as through searching behaviour, memories, and keeping memorabilia. Illusionary phenomenon can also occur.

“I ’ve still got her little, um, she had a little collar that I took that was engraved and I ’ve still got it in my jewellery case.” (Participant 8).

Closure is a key aspect in the healing process as it enables the acceptance of the loss more easily.

Closure can be grouped under primary and secondary closure. Primary closure in this case refers to instances in which pet owners are present when their pet is euthanized. While secondary closure stems from burial rituals. According to Packman et al. (2011) and Tzivian et al. (2014) both forms of closure are important for pet owners to move on after their loss. It can be argued that the duration of the grieving period can be negatively influenced for pet owners that only experience secondary closure.

Furthermore when neither form of closure is attained, as in the case of participant 4, both the intensity and duration of grief are negatively influenced. This is clearly illustrated in the following statement.

“Um like she wouldn’t understand why I wasn’t there. Um it’s just going to be like really weird when I go home again she won’t be there, cos it doesn ’t really feel like she is gone, but ja just wish like, I just wanted to be there so she would know that I care cos like I can’t really explain to her like I ’m at Varsity or whatever, so, ja it was just like difficult... I don’t know what actually happened to her, I assume they left her at the vet and then I don’t know what happened to her there”

Stephen and Hill (1996) indicate that the majority of pet owners prefer to bury their pets at home, as opposed to cremation. It could be argue that this relates to the fact that there is no indication of formal pet cemeteries in South Africa, whereas the literature clearly notes over 600 pet cemeteries in America and Japan (Brandes, 2009; Stephens & Hill, 1996). As such the findings do not corroborate or debase Stephen and Hill’s (1996) findings but rather the present findings are neutral as home burials appear just as common as cremation. Therefore it is important for future studies to look into the concept of pet cemeteries in the South African context and weather they would be utilized.

The following section focuses on how societal views surrounding pet loss and the ensuing repression of grief may influence an individual’s grieving process and potentially lead to disenfranchised grief.

It should be noted however that the majority of participants had strong support systems and were therefore not affected by societal views regarding pet loss.