IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v35y2025i4p586-619_5.html

Whose Grave’s This, Sir? An Ethico-Political Critique of Organized Resting Places

Author

Listed:
  • Pianezzi, Daniela
  • Tyler, Melissa

Abstract

What can we learn about organizational ethics from studying cemeteries as organizational/organized manifestations of our mutual, embodied vulnerability? How does, and how should, the ethico-political imperative of death and the deceased materialize in the cemeterial space? With reference to a comparative analysis of two island cemeteries, Venice’s San Michele and New York’s Hart Island, this paper makes three contributions to the emerging literature on organizational ethics of life and death. First, it makes an empirical contribution based on an organizational study of two “resting places” that highlights the importance of understanding organizational life and death with reference to ethics. Second, it makes a theoretical contribution to scholarship on the organization of death and on grieving as embedded in a politics and ethics of recognition. Third, the paper shows how our desire to be recognized as valid, viable subjects comes to be organized, and situated, in ways that perpetuate precarity and vulnerability, a point that is illustrated with reference to cemeteries as ethically significant organizational settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Pianezzi, Daniela & Tyler, Melissa, 2025. "Whose Grave’s This, Sir? An Ethico-Political Critique of Organized Resting Places," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(4), pages 586-619, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:35:y:2025:i:4:p:586-619_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X25000132/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:35:y:2025:i:4:p:586-619_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.