Social vs. Biological Views of Death in Bentley and Churchon
This essay examines two personal essays—Toni Bentley's "The Bad Lion" and J. Churchon's "The Dead Book"—as contrasting meditations on death. The paper argues that each author's reaction to death is shaped by her underlying conception of what a "life" is. Bentley treats life as fundamentally social, interpreting the lives and deaths of lions through the lens of human relationships, family bonds, and moral transgression. Churchon treats life as fundamentally biological, focusing on the body as a vessel whose animation defines personhood. The paper analyzes both perspectives in turn, then critiques them as ultimately incomplete, noting that neither account addresses the ineffable dimension of existence that death most clearly reveals.
- Introduction: Death and Social Convention: Social norms shape how we discuss death
- Bentley: Life as a Social Phenomenon: Bentley reads lion lives through human social bonds
- Churchon: Life as a Biological Phenomenon: Churchon equates life with bodily animation
- Analysis: The Limits of Both Views: Both views miss death's ineffable dimension
- Conclusion: Essays are insightful but ultimately incomplete
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens with a clear, arguable thesis: that one's conception of "life" determines one's reaction to death, which gives the comparative analysis a unifying purpose.
- Each author's perspective is introduced and then illustrated with direct quotation, keeping the argument grounded in textual evidence rather than abstraction.
- The analysis section steps back from summary to offer a critical evaluation, noting that both essays represent "ultimately limited views" — a move that elevates the paper beyond mere description.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative textual analysis: two source texts are examined not in isolation but in dialogue with each other, organized around a shared conceptual question (what is a life?). This structure allows the writer to highlight meaningful contrast without simply alternating summaries.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a clear three-part structure: an introductory framing section establishes context and thesis; two parallel body sections (one per author) develop each perspective using quoted evidence; and a combined analysis-and-conclusion section critiques both views and gestures toward a broader understanding of death. The parallel structure makes the comparison easy to follow and reinforces the central contrast between social and biological conceptions of life.
Introduction: Death and Social Convention
Death is a profoundly sensitive topic in our society — one we do not fully understand, yet one that is governed by clear social conventions. When death occurs in the presence of others, we are expected to be solemn, reflective, and tender. We are also expected to focus on the deceased person rather than on the phenomenon of death itself.
The essays by Bentley and Churchon are valuable precisely because they record reactions to death that were not performed in front of others. As a result, those reactions are less bound by convention, making them more honest and, admittedly, more unsettling. Unsettling, however, is exactly how most people privately experience death — so the effect is entirely appropriate. How one reacts to death depends largely on what one understands "life" to be. Bentley and Churchon take two very different approaches to the meaning of death in their essays, and those approaches are shaped by their respective understandings of what a life is. For Bentley, a life is a social phenomenon; for Churchon, it is primarily a biological one.
References
Bentley, T. (2009). The bad lion. New York Review of Books (November 5, 2009).
Churchon, J. (2009). The dead book. The Sun (February 2009), 43–45.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.