The Denial of Death

Becker's Pulitzer Prize-winning work addresses the fundamental drive of the human condition, delving into societal institutions, pathologies, and irrational behaviors. In his exploration, Becker presents a profound psychological argument for the pan-cultural religious impetus compelling individuals to merge with a beyond while also seeking individual distinction. He astutely illustrates the illusory nature of seemingly secular cultures, shedding light on the structural similarities they share with outgrown religious beliefs. Embedded within his argument is the rejection of truth as a highly valued principle in statecraft, compelling readers to reconsider their perception of societal realities. Through a three-part exploration, Becker skillfully navigates the complex human dilemma, offering a detailed outline of the problem, common solutions, and an incisive analysis of society through this framework. The fundamental struggle faced by humans, according to Becker, stems from a unique dichotomy that only humans grapple with. This symbolic identity places individuals in an existential dilemma; they are both capable of comprehending abstract concepts, such as infinity and atoms, yet they must confront the objectively meaningless nature of their lives and the prospect of their eventual demise. Becker suggests that one aspect of the fear of life lies in the overwhelming awe, fear, and incomprehensibility that comes with existence. In confronting the complexity of one's own existence, there arises a fear of being insignificant, leading to a struggle to find meaning in an incomprehensible world. These dual fears of life and death contribute to the heroic urges that Becker describes, urging individuals to strive for transcendence and create their own sense of significance even in the face of potential meaninglessness. One of the qualities of Man that fascinated Becker was how we have an instinctive sense to "be good." But what is goodness? The twin urges of Agape and Eros are a reflection of Man's pursuit of transcendence and individual significance. Agape is the reflex against the impermanence from death, seeking meaning through merging with an ultimate beyond. On the other hand, Eros is the reflex against the insignificance from life, striving for uniqueness and importance. This concept explains the dual motivations behind human behavior and the innate drive to create distinctions between Good and Evil in order to carve out meaning in the world. Both Agape and Eros enable us to navigate the complexities of existence by providing a sense of direction and cultivating individual greatness. However, there's a profound tension in this process as these twin urges can often be antagonistic to each other. In Becker’s view, character defenses, represented by identity and narrative, assist in giving individuals the sense of control and unique identity essential for functioning in the world. Becker also discusses the use of transference objects as a way for individuals to find grounding and direction in the complexities of life. These objects provide a source of identification and direction, helping individuals navigate the overwhelming awe, wonder, and fear that existence often brings. Both character defenses and transference objects serve as coping mechanisms to grapple with the terrifying dilemma of human existence. Becker’s view on how cultural elements play a role in our lives is insightful and intriguing. He discusses the concept of leaders as transference objects, emphasizing how the crowd's fascination with leaders highlights the hypnosis of power and the desire to merge with omnipotence. Beyond leaders, he delves into the idea of lovers as transference objects, explaining how romantic interests take on the role of encapsulating power, immortality, and the designator of good and evil. In both these cases, Becker demonstrates how cultural elements serve as symbolic structures fulfilling the innate human urge for heroism through Agape and Eros. This comprehensive analysis provides a deeper understanding of how individuals seek meaning and significance within cultural dynamics. Becker’s analysis of the effectiveness and benefits of religion highlights how it directly addresses the problem of transference by expanding awe and terror to the cosmos where they belong. It provides a framework that takes the problem of self-justification and removes it from the objects near at hand, allowing individuals to lean on powers that truly support and do not oppose them. However, the failures of modernity as outlined by Becker point out that globalization and analytical ability have rendered people cynical, depriving them of the ability to have faith. The diversity in ideology poses a threat to heroism, and it becomes disheartening to see 'authorities who are equally unimpeachable hold opposite views.' Becker's comparison of cultural heroes and societal outcasts sheds light on the existential dichotomy faced by those who venture into the realm of creativity. His contention that artists and societal outcasts are only separated by a small degree of "talent" implies that creativity and madness share a connectedness. Conferring cultural heroes with creative genius, Becker's analysis illustrates how the innovators who attempt to furnish an entirely new meaning to creation and history shoulder the weight of justifying previous and potential alternative meanings alone. As a result, the burden of fabricating one's own religion, as argued by Becker, leads to a hypervigilant state, facing the fear that no beyond can prevent creatives from exhausting every bit of themselves in the artistic process.

The following sums up the central theme of this Pulitzer Prize-winner: "For now, it is enough to invoke Marcia Lee Anderson's complete scientific formula: `Stripped of subtle complications [i.e., of all the character defenses - repression, denial, misconceptions of reality], who could regard the sun except with fear?'"(p.66) Hereafter I'll quote extensively, as opposed to paraphrasing, in order to make it as beneficial for the interested individual as I can. Ernest chose a title that he knew would resonate with the public: The Denial of Death. But the book should have been called `The Denial of Life', because people not only repress their inevitable demise, but even more so their lives. The book is centered on the philosophy that every person starting in childhood creates an imaginary world where, to put it simply, everything is better and the people are nicer, so not to perceive the intricately problematic reality. Ernest aptly summarized prominent thinkers and students of human nature of the past 150 years, including Soren Kierkegaard, Otto Rank, Norman Brown, and Sigmund Freud. One might rightfully say that some of the latter men's conclusions were repudiated by modern thought. However, their fundamental findings - such as Freud's narcissist, Kierkegaard's `introvert', or Rank's artist - on characters of man are timeless. Details, tactics, and strategies of how to approach the very complex study of human nature change, but the nature itself doesn't. As much as I wish to discuss this book at length, I won't do it for lack of space. I'll succinctly outline the work of one philosopher, who is one of the most astute men in history, and briefly summarize two others, Sigmund Freud and Otto Rank. The 19th-century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard analyzed man's inner characters. Even though more than 150 years have elapsed, his ingenuous analysis can readily be applied to our modern society. The immediate man - the modern inauthentic or insincere man - is someone who blindly follows the trends of society to the dot. Someone who unthinkingly implements what society says is "right." "He recognizes himself only by his dress,...he recognizes that he has a self only by externals." (p.74) He converts frivolous patterns to make them his identity. He often distorts his own personality in order to "fit into the group". His opinion means nothing even to himself, hence he imitates others to superficially look "normal." The introvert, the one "who tries to cultivate his interiority...he is a little more concerned with what it means to be a person", he who "enjoys solitude and withdraws periodically to reflect." (p.82) He enjoys reading and thinking about the deepness of life, human relations, and the universe in general. But Ernest wrote that introvert "is not an immediate man, but not a real man either, even though he gives the appearance of it." (p.83) And finally "the one who asserts himself out of defiance of his own weakness, who tries to be a god unto himself, the master of his fate, a self-created man." (p. 84) But "the ugly side of this Promethianism is that it, too, is thoughtless, and empty-headed immersion in the delight of technics with no thought to goals or meaning." (p.85) The aforementioned personalities are not what Ernest considered "real" men. Ernest, by interpreting Kierkegaard, regarded "the true individual, the self-realized soul, the 'real man,' is the one who has transcended himself." (p.86) (When he talks about self-transcendence throughout the book the text understandably becomes abstract.) He is the one who has admitted that his essential character has been a big lie, created to protect the self from the difficult reality of life. In order to psychologically survive such a realization one has to surrender oneself to the Ultimate Power of Creation, or so Ernest recommends. The book also talks at length about Freud, "perhaps the greatest psychologist who ever lived." (p.256), the man who was "like a Biblical prophet, who spoke a truth that no one wants to hear...whose pessimism [was] grounded in reality, in scientific truth." (p.94) He was a cynic who did not deceive himself about the man's "basic creatureliness," his inner animal. He was hated by many for unveiling that the fundamental nature of every man is weak and self-deceptive. He was the mentor of Otto Rank, who was a brilliant psychoanalyst. Eventually Freud severed his relationship with Rank due to irreconcilable disagreements. It seems that Becker worshipped Rank religiously. When Rank was 21, he impressed Freud so much with his intellect and insight that Freud made him a part of his inner-circle of confidants. Rank's most monumental work was his `Art and Artist'. In it Rank contemplated the creative type of man, who is the one whose "experience makes him take in the world as a problem...but when you no longer accept the collective solution to the problem of existence, then you must fashion your own...The work of art is...the ideal answer..." And now I'll briefly express my disagreement with Becker's ultimate cure for man's despondent predicament of "real" life. I certainly am not as knowledgeable as Becker and my opinion towards life will definitely change during the years, but now let's not be "the modern mechanical men in Russia, the near-billion sheeplike followers in China, and the brutalized and ignorant populations of almost every continent." (p.281) Even though Becker didn't advocate any particular religion, "finding god" unavoidably decays one's mind and leads him to Christianity, Islam, etc. The fact that can't be refuted is that religion in general, Christianity in particular, has been the most efficient and cruel oppressor of intellect for millennia. And, because it has also been the most potent restraint upon progress, one would only shrink and limit his horizons by adhering to it. And what I deem especially interesting about Ernest's prescription for a god is that it was a way to battle one's fear and dejection. Fear, that indelible and prevalent emotion of men in any culture was relied on by religion to compel men to follow man-made Biblical laws. I'm not an advocate of atheism. But I'm a proponent of full and interesting life, something that religion takes away by promising to arrange an eternal afterlife. Notwithstanding some of the Becker's conclusions that I don't agree with, this book is the best work on human nature that I know of; somewhat superior to `On Human Nature' by Edward Wilson. I must warn though that having read it thoroughly will not only alter your outlook on life and your relationships with your peers, but it will also make you sadder...but wiser.

I would like to give it 3.5 stars. There are many interesting portions and some of the underlying ideas have generated very good theories. The problem is that this book did not deserve a Pulitzer Prize and had ideas that were known to be false even when published. He constantly states we have no argument against certain statements (which we absolutely do possess). He also states things have been definitively argued, when those ideas have been mainly or completely debunked since his time. He tries to call psychoanalysis a science, hinting it as a hard science, when it is a social science at best. He also calls great historical thinkers great men and states that an average man cannot act as well as these men. This is arrogant and untrue. Despite his contribution to terror management theory, his Pulitzer Prize winning book has much dribble in it. It has some interesting historical context with additional insight into existential concerns. Ultimately, it still has too many out of date concepts and arrogant assumptions to wholeheartedly recommend.

A very challenging book to read, because I found layers of my own death denial being peeled away as I went through each chapter. And after you've seen your own denial mechanisms at work, you begin to recognize them in everyone else, and start to understand their daily behavior and motivations. Some of my favorite quotes: "When you get a person to look at the sun as it bakes down on the daily carnage taking place on earth, the ridiculous accidents, the utter fragility of life, the powerlessness of those he thought most powerful--what comfort can you give him from a psychotherapeutic point of view?" "Man's very insides - his self - are foreign to him. He doesn't know who he is, why he was born, what he is doing on the planet, what he is supposed to do, what he can expect. His own existence is incomprehensible to him, a miracle just like the rest of creation, closer to him, right near his pounding heart, but for that reason all the more strange." "I think that taking life seriously means something such as this: that whatever man does on this planet has to be done in the lived truth of the terror of creation, of the grotesque, of the rumble of panic underneath everything. Otherwise it is false. Whatever is achieved must be achieved with the full exercise of passion, of vision, of pain, of fear, and of sorrow. How do we know ... that our part of the meaning of the universe might not be a rhythm in sorrow?" "It can't be overstressed, one final time, that to see the world as it really is is devastating and terrifying. It achieves the very result that the child has painfully built his character over the years in order to avoid: it makes routine, automatic, secure, self-confident activity impossible. It makes thoughtless living in the world of men an impossibility. It places a trembling animal at the mercy of the entire cosmos and the problem of the meaning of it." "We might say that psychoanalysis revealed to us the complex penalties of denying the truth of man's condition, what we might call the costs of pretending not to be mad." "What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself." "The prison of one's character is painstakingly built to deny one thing and one thing alone: one's creatureliness. The creatureliness is the terror. Once admit that you are a defecating creature and you invite the primeval ocean of creature anxiety to flood over you. But it is more than creature anxiety, it is also man's anxiety, the anxiety that results from the human paradox that man is an animal who is conscious of his animal limitation. Anxiety is the result of the perception of the truth of one's condition. What does it mean to be a self conscious animal? The idea is ludicrous, if it is not monstrous. It means to know that one is food for worms. This is the terror: to have emerged from nothing, to have a name, consciousness of self, deep inner feelings, an excruciating inner yearning for life and self expression - and with all this yet to die. It seems like a hoax...Culture is in its most intimate intent a heroic denial of creatureliness."

Excellent reading

I picked up this old book randomly, just based on the title, for a light weekend read. I did not expect to pause so many times to reflect on the nature of existence itself and how much of what we call life is shaped by what we try not to face. I am not one of those who usually agree with older models of thinking, yet this one caught me off guard with how deeply it questioned the modern idea of meaning. Some parts were brilliant and insightful, while others felt bound by the limits of their time. It carries moments of genuine brilliance, but at times the thinking feels too confined, too certain of its own conclusions. Still, even with its closed perspective, it provokes reflection in ways that few books manage to do. It is definitely something worth reading.

Ernest Becker’s The Denial of Death is an intellectual tour de force that delves into the paradoxical nature of human existence: our simultaneous longing for immortality and the inevitability of death. Drawing on a rich tapestry of psychology, philosophy, and cultural anthropology, Becker’s Pulitzer Prize-winning work offers a profound meditation on the human condition. At its core, the book interrogates the mechanisms by which individuals and societies repress the awareness of mortality. Becker’s argument—that much of human endeavor is a symbolic defense against death—is both disquieting and illuminating. His analysis of “heroism,” whether expressed through artistic creation, religious devotion, or the pursuit of power, is nothing short of revelatory. Becker exposes the fragility of human motivations while granting them a kind of tragic nobility. Stylistically, the prose is clear yet dense, carrying the weight of its subject matter with a balance of intellectual rigor and empathetic insight. Becker draws heavily on the works of Freud, Kierkegaard, and Otto Rank, synthesizing their ideas into a cohesive narrative that challenges the reader to confront their own existential anxieties. The result is a work that oscillates between the clinical and the poetic, mirroring the tension between reason and emotion that lies at the heart of the human psyche. While undeniably profound, the text demands patience and engagement. Its dense arguments may feel unyielding to readers unfamiliar with psychoanalytic or existentialist frameworks. Yet, for those willing to grapple with its challenges, the rewards are immense. The Denial of Death is not merely a critique of human delusion; it is an invitation to transcend it, offering glimpses of authenticity and meaning in the face of life’s ultimate finitude. Becker’s work is a vital contribution to existential thought, a book that deserves its place among the great philosophical inquiries into the nature of existence. For those ready to face life’s most unanswerable questions, it is nothing less than essential reading.

I am 19 years old and this is the most amazing book I have ever read in my life. I am a sophomore in college and discovered this book very indirectly while doing some reading for class. The author of said book had quoted a couple lines of Becker's and just from those sentences I said to myself, "I have to read this book. Now." I was hoping the rest of the book would be as mind-blowing as those quotes, but I was skeptical as no book has ever "blown my mind" before. The Denial of Death did; it completely turned my world upside down (or rather made it right-side up, I'm not sure which). Everything that I have ever known/thought/felt has been analyzed by Becker and makes so much more sense now. I am no longer groping in the dark trying to figure out why the world is so messed up, why people make the horrible decisions they do, why people behave in ways that seem "for no reason." I will say that this book came at a time in my life when I was already wondering about these things and thinking some of them myself (without being able to put them into words) and I really do think that if I had not been emotionally ready to think about these ideas I would not have been able to understand or enjoy this book nearly as much. While my first sentence says otherwise, this review is not meant to idolize Becker or say that he is perfect - in fact, a lot of what he says is quite harsh and judgmental, even if true - but there is no denying that Becker is a man who is coming off of a HUGE knowledge base, synthesizing his arguments from a meta-analysis of centuries of thinkers and if taken for what it is, provides a wow factor with every sentence. Because the things he is saying are SO TRUE, it is tempting to have hindsight bias and say "I already knew that," as naturally things that are very logical do seem like common sense. I often chided myself throughout the book with "How could I not have realized this before?!" After reflecting though, I realized that perhaps this was not as much a question of why I had not realized these things before but more a revelation that so many vague feelings about life/the world that I have felt pretty much since I can remember - and of which I have been slowly becoming more cognizant (such as feeling like I am "missing something") - Becker has successfully put his finger on. Lastly, do not expect a solution to the problem of existence. I was expecting a "So What Now?" section, but no cigar. There is no happy ending. However, there is hope in the unknown, as backwards as that sounds. Becker does not try and state whether or not there really is a God, for instance, or what the meaning of life really is; this is not for him or any human to decide and he knows this. His book is purely an analysis of how human behavior can be explained by death denial and all the different ways in which this manifests itself. This book actually contains no new revelations, only truth in its modern form that exposes us to all previous revelations that have surfaced again and again across history without much attention. It's high time we listened.

My lowe starts is on the author not the sold product... Topic abit out dated

I am terrified of dying and I don't understand why no one else seems to think about it as much as I do. It's because they're all working on their, 'immortality projects' as Becker calls them. Like earning lots of money and having kids you feel more and more immortal. But you're not. You're just doing everything to try and ignore the fact that soon you will cease to exist and nothing you're doing now will mean anything to anyone!

Not so much about death, rather about dysfunctions in life and reviewing the works of other great philosophers and psychologists of 19th & 20th century. It is an easy read, not necessarily easily digestable (or concievable). Its definitely not a self help book, instead it might just force you to rethink happiness, fear, arousal, hope, imagination, scizophrenia, homosexuality, perversions, etc. 👍🏼 Its a classic.

A little tough to get into but extremely insightful, and a valuable read. Well worth your time.

Un'opera fondamentale di un grande antropologo e, nel suo ambito, forse tra i libri di maggior rilievo della seconda metà del XX secolo. Sebbene le argomentazioni principali non siano del tutto nuove, scrittori “esistenzialisti” (un'etichetta terribile) come Kierkegaard e Heidegger hanno sempre sottolineato l'importanza di riconoscere, accettare e abbracciare la realtà della propria finitudine, Becker porta questo tema in profondo territorio psicologico (Sigmund Freund, Otto Rank, Norman O. Brown), presentandolo al contempo in un linguaggio molto accessibile: Più cerchiamo di esorcizzare la morte dai nostri pensieri coscienti, più essa torna a perseguitarci, sia come individui che come società, sotto forma di comportamenti dannosi, violenza, dipendenza e un senso generale di disperazione e vuoto.