Lessons from filial piety: Do we need ‘memorial social work’ for the dead and their families?

Introduction

During my fieldwork in Sydney, Australia, Mr Lee (78, Korean-born, name changed) gently asserted:

Well … I believe children have an absolute duty to respect and care for their parents as ‘givers of their life’ … thus, when the parent is alive, children have to look up to him [or her] as highly as they can … and when the parent dies, children have to bury him [or her] deeply [well] and remember him [or her] for ever …

Social work is a ‘worldly’ activity that focuses mainly on ‘living’ service-users, while paying less attention to the people who have died and their ongoing influence on descendants. Death is likely to be regarded as a subject to avoid and, if/when it does occur, then client engagement, for social workers, comes to an end. More specifically, there is an insufficiency of intercultural understanding about the importance of posthumous (after-life) reputations and ancestor remembrance in the current social work context. This ‘passive’ approach to death and ancestral memory may impede professionals from developing social work skills, knowledge and values that are relevant to practice in relation to both the dead and their surviving families. In this article, therefore, I focus my discussion on identifying a potential area for expansion of current social work practice concerning death, ancestors and subsequent implications for training and practice. To provide context for this exploration, I start with a brief explanation of filial piety in an East Asian sense, followed by a description of the present study undertaken in transnational settings. An illustrative selection of the research findings is then presented with a focus on relevant aspects of filial piety and ancestor remembrance. Finally, ‘memorial social work’ is suggested as a holistic way to help practitioners expand their horizons in working with death-related issues and beyond.

Brief explanation of filial piety

Filial piety is a culture-bound term describing a set of cognitions, affections and behaviours that involve respecting, supporting and caring for parents and ancestors (de Bary, 1998; Sung, 1990). In the Confucian view, children have duties, not only to provide care and support for their parents but also to respect them because, ‘in the practice of filial piety, nothing is greater than respecting one’s father [parents]’ (Mencius, cited in Ebrey, 1993: 66). This familism tradition has long been considered as the core value that shapes the basis of moral and social conventions in East Asian countries such as China, Japan and Korea (Lew et al., 2011). The family was always assumed to take precedence over any individual interests and benefits, and consequently, the maintenance of family hierarchy and reciprocity has had impacts on people’s attitudes and behaviours in interpersonal and intergenerational relations (Kim, 2007; Lee, 2004; Yeh and Bedford, 2003). The traditional concept of filial piety also incorporates the ritual of ancestor worship and/or remembrance where every child was expected to make an effort to remember and honour his or her parents, even after they die (Ng et al., 2002; Park, 2010).

Changes in the filial piety tradition are obvious and constant in modern cultures (Choi and Jang, 2010; Janelli and Yim, 2004). As societies modernise, the tradition has become an ‘easy’ object of criticism as a product of the premodern, patriarchal era (Park, 2007). Gender inequality in the extended family system has become a major issue fuelling controversy about the validity of filial traditions. The practice of family caregiving provided mainly by women (especially daughters-in-law) has now become less prevalent; concurrently the number of older people needing care is rapidly increasing (see Chui, 2012). Some aspects of filial piety observance are changing with the utilisation of government-provided social care and pension systems.

Despite this tendency for eroding filial piety, several East Asian societies continue to encourage adult children to refocus on the practice of traditional filial values. For example, the Korean Civil Act declares that children should attend to their duty to furnish support for their parents when their parents are unable to support themselves through their own financial resources or labour. In 2007, the Korean Act on the Encouragement and Support of Filial Piety was passed to encourage the practice of filial duties and responsibilities within the family unit, the community and in wider society. More recently, the People’s Republic of China on Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly (revised in 2012) stipulates that children should be concerned with the emotional needs of their parents, and those children who live apart from their parents should visit them on a regular basis. Through legislating for filial piety, these societies have strived to strengthen the moral and practical aspects of filial piety to promote family responsibility for older people (Park, 2015b).

Methodological background

The study that is the main subject of this article was undertaken to explore the present-day meaning of filial piety among Korean adults in different geographical settings. It was designed as a follow-up study based on the results of a mixed-methods research project on the issues of filial piety and elder mistreatment among Korean immigrant families in New Zealand. In the previous study, I identified a few elder abuse cases mainly caused by a loosening of filial norms and bonds in the transnational family context (Park, 2014). This hidden type of elder mistreatment has been conceptualised as ‘anomic abuse’ because it occurs when migrants are in a situation where previously held social norms and values cease to regulate their attitudes and behaviour towards their ageing parents (Park, 2015c). The findings from the previous study raised questions over how filial piety was perceived by people in changing cultural and geographical contexts. Building on the previous findings, therefore, the present study aimed to add further understanding about filial piety and its position in contemporary societies. The overall research questions in this study were ‘how do Koreans think about present-day filial piety?’ and, more specifically, ‘how has the meaning of this tradition and its multiple forms of expression been variously addressed in the current contexts in which they are embedded?’

The research project employed a qualitative research approach to exploring how people perceive, experience and understand the practice of filial piety within their current living contexts. Using a cultural interview protocol specifically designed as a mode of polite and engaged dialogue, semi-structured interviews with 61 Korean participants were undertaken between 2013 and 2014 in major cities in Australia (n = 19), New Zealand (n = 20) and Korea (n = 22). The study populations in both Australia and New Zealand were selected to compare their perceptions about filial piety to those of people living in their homeland. The study locations were chosen because, while the number of Korean-born residents is rapidly increasing in these two countries, there is a lack of understanding about their migrant lives and communities. The participants in this study were recruited using a convenience sampling technique through established contacts in these countries. Participants selected as key informants were those believed to have sufficient knowledge and experience of filial piety and family care in the community. These participants included community and religious group leaders, professionals, academics, government officials and adult children living with parents. The distribution of gender, age and location of the participants was relatively even across three nations, although the sample construction was not intended to reflect the demographic characteristics of each country. The ages of the participants ranged from 24 to 84, while the average age was 46.1. All participants were natives of Korea, regardless of their country of residence, and shared the same language (Korean).

Once data had been collected, these were analysed using a thematic analysis method to identify themes and patterns in a systematic and transparent way (Braun and Clarke, 2006). To enhance the validity and reliability of study findings, the initially identified themes from the analysis process were critically reviewed by the research advisory group of filial piety experts in Korea. The methodological approach of the study was approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee.

Interpretations from the participants’ narratives

The findings from this cross-national study indicate that filial piety is perceived by Korean participants as ‘something that they are still proud of’ but ‘that they are struggling with’ in today’s society. In most participants’ narratives, filial piety was defined as a ‘desirable’ norm in the family and the wider society, and therefore, it was considered that it should continue to be passed down to future generations. Some aspects of this tradition, however, were seen as ‘unrealistic’ in contemporary society where the provision of elder care services by the government becomes more available and more common than ever before. According to more than half of the participants, both co-residence with parents (especially parents-in-law) and in-home care for elders have become significantly reduced in current Korean culture.

More specifically, the practice of filial piety was divided, by one third of participants (mainly currently residing in Korea), into two different types: (1) filial piety towards living parents and relatives and (2) filial piety towards parents and relatives who have died (ancestor remembrance). Although detailed definitions varied widely, this twofold distinction in filial piety was again categorised into four dimensions: ‘showing filial piety towards living parents (expressing love and ongoing concern)’; ‘showing filial piety towards ancestors (honouring ancestors and continuing to uphold their posthumous reputations)’; ‘performing acts of filial piety towards living parents (providing care and regular visits)’; and ‘performing acts of filial piety towards ancestors (holding anniversary memorials and tending ancestors’ graves)’.

Participants’ perceptions about filial piety towards ‘living’ parents are basically related to the practice of family care and support (‘doing something’ good for parents), along with the expression of love and respect (‘being someone’ good for parents). A wider range of filial activities were identified, from caregiving, housekeeping and visiting, to the ritual celebration of the parent’s hwangap (birthday ceremony at 60th year), chilsoon (at 70th) or further ceremonies. These ‘being’ and ‘doing’ expressions of filial piety participants identified in this research are similar to those found in previous studies (Canda, 2013; Sung and Kim, 2003). Modern forms of filial piety were also mentioned by several participants living in Korea, such as ‘filial piety tourism’ (arranging parents’ domestic or overseas tours), ‘filial piety insurance’ (paying private insurance premiums on behalf of parents) and ‘filial piety phone’ (paying parents’ mobile phone bills).

Filial piety towards ancestors (particularly any late parents and grandparents) is likely to be a symbolic expression of respect and honour: such practices are also seen as requiring some action, not necessarily worship but more likely a form of remembrance. Family gathering for death anniversaries is a significant activity in which to express filial piety towards ancestors. An older participant living in Korea stated that, ‘we must remember our ancestors so that we know who we are and how we want to be remembered after death … thus memorial rituals for our ancestors should be kept as a very important part of our lives and our family history’. Another expression of filial piety towards ancestors is related to regular visiting and paying one’s respects at ancestral graves. Keeping a family genealogy book was identified as a meaningful tradition for the family’s continuity by a participant who is the eldest son in his family. He confirmed that, in addition to this family history book, he has also inherited ritual implements (such as special tableware for memorial ceremonies) and forest land (property for management of graves) since his father died.

Overall, the cross-national comparison in this study reveals that there are significant similarities in perceptions of filial piety towards parents among participants regardless of their country of residence. On the other hand, the practice of filial piety towards ancestors was rarely commented on by the participants in Australia and New Zealand. Although the reasons for this difference have not been explicitly explored in the present study, it could be interpreted that the filial tradition of ancestor remembrance (or worship in some cases) is less often performed by migrant families due, partially, to their geographical separation from extended families and significant sites in the homeland. Another possible explanation could be found in the fact that the majority of Korean migrants in Australia and New Zealand are affiliated to Christianity where ancestral worship is less acknowledged than in Confucian rituals.

Discussions and implications

Do the principles of filial piety have any implications for social work in response to a rapidly growing aged population? This question has been a subject of discussion for a few researchers who have highlighted the importance of respect in working with older clients in social work practice (see Sung and Dunkle, 2009). What has not been discussed, however, is whether the memorial aspect of filial piety (towards ancestors) has any specific implications for social work practice. In this paper, therefore, I intentionally have limited my discussion to the following questions: ‘Why do social workers need to consider people who have already died?’ and ‘What can social workers do for them and their families?’ These questions are timely, and I argue, sorely in need of exploration in the current social work milieu where death is largely regarded as taboo (see Reith and Payne, 2009), where people who have died are rarely accorded their deserved respect, and their families are deprived of possible support from the social work profession.

Upon the basis of the findings from my filial piety studies, I suggest a potential area of social work, namely ‘memorial social work’, which aims to not only serve those people who have already died but also to help people in preparation of their ‘after-life plans’ (e.g. planning for one’s own funeral, obituaries or ‘digital funerals’) and maintenance of ‘posthumous reputations’ (one’s reputation after death through, for instance, children’s memorial activities or family genealogy publications). The overarching aim of memorial social work is to ensure that people maintain a meaningful attachment to their descendants after death, and to assist surviving family members’ well-being through conveying ongoing connectedness with their ancestors. Memorial social work is also concerned with people’s behaviour and attitudes toward death and ancestors to enhance their holistic understanding of ageing and death issues. The practice of memorial social work is particularly pertinent, but not limited, to the following areas.

Firstly, memorial social work is a ‘person-in-history’ approach that emphasises ‘family continuity’ (among ongoing familial generations) as a key theme in social work practice for individuals and families. This family-centred approach potentially empowers living (and by association) and by proxy, deceased service-users to maintain their own social identity and promote their connectedness within their family and then, to the wider community and society. Practitioners could use memorial social work to articulate both historical and environmental factors surrounding clients and their families. The high utility potential of this social work, therefore, appears in the areas of family relationships, elder abuse and other family conflict and violence.

Secondly, memorial social work is a practical mode of the ‘social’ approach to death where death may be seen as an important stage of life, rather than just a biological event or the termination of longevity (Beckett and Taylor, 2010). Through this perspective, social workers can help people effectively to overcome negative attitudes about death, to prepare for death appropriately (including death education), to grieve properly for people who are dying and to remember people who have died. The focus on death and ancestor remembrance also aligns with spiritual social work where practitioners should place emphasis on clients’ spiritual and religious needs in practice (see Holloway and Moss, 2010; Mathews, 2009; Moody, 2005). The main difference between the two areas lies in the family-oriented principle that underpins memorial social work practice based on the cultural values of filial piety and respect.

Thirdly, memorial social work takes an ‘advanced’ lifespan development approach that involves life review (or reminiscence) and after-life plans (including preparation for one’s posthumous reputation) within biological, socio-emotional and environmental settings. Like celebrations of one’s 60th and beyond birthdays, eulogies and memorial ceremonies can be used as an opportunity to recall and review the meanings of one’s life and afterlife in the context of people’s historical and cross-generational connections. This advanced lifespan development approach could broaden social workers’ capabilities to engage with both the people facing death and by extension those who have died, and to help the living to cope with such challenges as bereavement, distress, loss and grief.

Fourthly, memorial social work is a theoretical framework that provides a philosophical foundation for family social work and therapies. For instance, the framework could underpin the genogram technique of mapping family history and relationships developed for the practitioner’s better understanding of clients and their families (see McGoldrick et al., 2008). While genograms are used mainly for professionals’ own sake, memorial social work focuses on the reputation and well-being both of late clients and their surviving families within their intergenerational context.

Memorial social work can be incorporated into practice using a variety of skills and techniques. Social work practitioners can use questions about older people’s after-life plans to assess their memorial needs and rights. Posthumous relationships between older people and their descendants can be discussed in family group meetings arranged for family reconciliation or mediation. Social workers can also engage in ‘well-dying’ education for older people to help their preparation for death and after-life events. It can be another important role for social work to advocate for people who have already died through providing supportive services within their living networks. Social work practitioners can also employ the intervention techniques commonly used in family support services, such as genograms and eco-maps to assess the memorial needs of clients or their families in practice.

In conclusion, social work in ageing societies demands new, expanded knowledge and theoretical constructs concerning death and the hereafter. There is also a need to understand cultural influences on social work in this field. The principles of filial piety, including care and respect for parents and ancestors, have meaningful implications for social work practice and more holistic gerontological training. In particular, a better understanding of ancestor remembrance and honour practices can allow social work to broaden its scope to the area of memorial social work which, as reflected on here, covers a range of issues associated with meanings and attitudes towards death, ancestor remembrance and a person’s quality of life and afterlife. Memorial social work is, therefore, critical for preparing social work professionals to enhance their interpersonal, counselling and advocacy skills for assisting people both facing death or who have already died, and their families and communities. Future research could promote and adopt a more strategic approach using methodological triangulation to obtain rich and in-depth information on people’s attitudes and behaviours towards death, after-life reputations and ancestor remembrance to advance this relatively underdeveloped field.