With this autoethnography, it is my intention to explore experiences of bereavement and loss through the diffractive lenses of cultural intra-actions with literary texts, narratives, and sensory affordances. Bringing my own biographic experience of grief into these pages allows me, as a researcher, to make sense of death and its rituals, fundamental for healing purposes. I wonder: What does the affective materiality of bereaving do? My lived experience helps me to connect empathically and compassionately to events by looking at how society went through the impossibility of delivering care to the dead and their families during COVID-19 lockdowns and by questioning the “crisis of care.” To conclude, I reflect on how autoethnography can be a sensemaking process, leading to healing, opening to reflexivity, and reaching out to socially relevant questions about practices and ethics of care.
BraidottiR.BignallS. (Eds.). (2018). Posthuman ecologies: Complexity and process after deleuze. Rowman & Littlefield.
8.
CacciatoreJ. (2017). Bearing the unbearable: Love, loss, and the heartbreaking path of grief. Simon and Schuster.
9.
ChemiT. (2020a). Kreative Læreprocesser og Æstetiske Perspektiver: (Ud)dannelse for det Hele Henneske [Creative Learning Processes and Aesthetics Perspectives: Education for the Whole Person]. Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
10.
ChemiT. (2020b). Possible in performance and performing arts. In GlăveanuV. P. (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of the possible (pp. 1139–1145). Springer.
11.
ChemiT. (2021). It is impossible: The teacher’s creative response to the Covid-19 emergency and digitalized teaching strategies. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(7), 853–860.
12.
ChemiT.FiringK. (2023). Visiting death and learning to live through theatre in military education. In ChemiT.BratticoE.FjorbackL. O.HarmatL. (Eds.), Arts and mindfulness education for human flourishing (pp. 141–156). Routledge.
de FreitasE.TrumanS. E. (2021). New empiricisms in the anthropocene: Thinking with speculative fiction about science and social inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(5), 522–533.
15.
de la BrenaD. E. M. (2022). “Caring matter”: A love story of queer intimacies between (her) body and object (her cigarette). In KolehmainenM.LahtiA.LahadK. (Eds.), Affective intimacies (pp. 27–44). Manchester University Press.
GabayG.TarabeihM. (2022). Death from COVID-19, Muslim death rituals and disenfranchised grief–a patient-centered care perspective. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying. https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228221095717
21.
GaleK.PeliasR. J.RussellL.SpryT.WyattJ. (2012). How writing touches: An intimate scholarly collaboration. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
22.
GlăveanuV. P. (2020). A sociocultural theory of creativity: Bridging the social, the material, and the psychological. Review of General Psychology, 24(4), 335–354.
23.
HansenL. L.DahlH. M. (Eds.). (2021). A care crisis in the Nordic Welfare States? Care work, gender equality and welfare state sustainability. Policy Press.
24.
HarawayD. J. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness (Vol. 1, pp. 3–17). Prickly Paradigm Press.
25.
HarawayD. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.
