http://spr.sagepub.com/RelationshipsJournal of Social and Personal http://spr.sagepub.com/content/24/2/225The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0265407507075412 2007 24: 225Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsMaureen P. Keeleyconversations in close relationships`Turning toward death together': The functions of messages during final Published by: http://www.sagepublications.comOn behalf of: International Association for Relationship Research can be found at:Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsAdditional services and information for http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts: http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: http://spr.sagepub.com/content/24/2/225.refs.htmlCitations: What is This? - Apr 16, 2007Version of Record >> at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on July 25, 2012spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from‘Turning toward death together’:The functions of messages duringfinal conversations in closerelationshipsMaureen P. KeeleyTexas State University, San MarcosABSTRACTThe author explores final conversations from survivors’perspectives using a communication framework. Utilizingretrospective interviews, 55 people discussed their final con-versations with a loved one who has since died. As a way tounderstand the survivors’ end-of-life experiences, the authoridentified five types of messages that appear to be importantfor survivors and that satisfied numerous relational functions.The primary messages were love, identity, religion/spirituality,routine/everyday content, and difficult relationship issues. Thefunctions that appear to be central to each of these messages(e.g., the confirmation of love, altering and bolstering ofidentity, validation of religious/spiritual beliefs, maintenanceof the relationship, and stepping towards reconciliation) shedlight on the value that each of the messages had for survivors.KEY WORDS: communication • end of life • everyday talk • identity• love • maintenance • reconciliation • spiritualityJournal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2007 SAGE Publications(www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 24(2): 225–253. DOI: 10.1177/0265407507075412The author thanks Valerie Manusov, as well as Dawn Braithwaite and Dan Perlman for theirinsightful feedback and guidance during the revision process. In addition, the author appreci-ated the candidness and willingness of the participants who agreed to be interviewed for thisstudy. A version of this article was presented at the National Communication AssociationAnnual Conference in Boston, MA in November, 2005. All correspondence concerning thisarticle should be addressed to Maureen P. Keeley, Texas State University-San Marcos, Depart-ment of Communication Studies, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666–4616, USA[email: [email protected]]. Valerie Manusov was the Action Editor on this article. at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on July 25, 2012spr.sagepub.comDownloaded fromLevine (1984) suggests that an impending death forces people to let go ofeverything but the most important things in life. Likewise, McQuellon andCowan (2000) assert that ‘in order to tap the depth of meaning available tothose facing death together, we must embrace what we mortals fear andordinarily avoid with every fiber of our being. We must turn toward deathtogether’ (p. 318). Turning toward death together highlights the opportunitythat the dying and their loved ones (e.g., relational partner, significant other,family member, and/or close friend) have to find meaning through conver-sation in the face of impending mortality (McQuellon & Cowan, 2000). It isin this togetherness that end-of-life communication becomes an importantrelational phenomenon.In choosing to converse and face death together, people have the capabil-ity to influence their relationship with one another in potentially profoundways. End-of-life communication with loved ones can strengthen closerelationships, because people can deal with the past and talk about thingsthat had been difficult or impossible to talk about with one another previ-ously (Nussbaum, Pecchioni, Robinson, & Thompson, 2000). It is a chanceto share important moments (Callanan & Kelley, 1992) and to say a mean-ingful and heartfelt goodbye (Shames & Barton, 2003). Communication atthe end of life can also be an opening for people to acknowledge their fearsand concerns about death and about a life without one another (McQuellon& Cowan, 2000). Moreover, end-of-life conversations are a last opportunityto forgive past hurts, deepen their love, and resolve conflicts (Doyle, 1994),allowing survivors the opportunity to achieve closure in their relationshipsin a way that is not possible with unexpected deaths (Fieweger & Smilowitz,1984).Yet, choosing to turn toward death together through communication canbe a difficult task for the dying and for their loved ones. Avoiding talkingabout or dealing with death is a common part of US culture (Yingling,2004), at least in part because death as it is generally represented in the USis shrouded in fear, doubt, loss of control, and feelings of awkwardness anddiscomfort (Levine, 1984). As well, knowing that a loved one is dying usuallyelicits immediate pain and anguish for those who will survive (Moller, 1996);such emotion may make it more difficult to talk with the dying. Relationalpartners also have to deal with the future loss of the relationship and theaccompanying social roles that will be lost with the death of a loved one.Thus, despite their potential benefits, final conversations are likely to bedifficult for both the dying person and his or her relational partner.In spite of these challenges, McQuellon and Cowan (2000) assert thatauthentic conversations at the end of life have the power to enhance howpeople deal pragmatically with death and can enlighten and deepen themeaning of life for those dying and their loved ones. Whereas this premiseis largely well accepted, it is less clear how such conversations areconstructed and what they help to accomplish. What is talked about?What specific functions are served through these conversations? With adescription of these end-of-life messages and the ends they appear to serve,relational scholars’ understanding of the process can better represent what226 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24(2) at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA