Tag Archives: death

“Time is no longer a river”: Reflections on life, death, and youth in the digital age


This post is part of the Life Course Collaborative Research Network blog exchange, also available on the website of ACYIG. To see all of the posts in the series, click here.

In a recent editorial about how our “overdocumented lives” are making it more difficult to let go of the past, Susanna Schrobsdorff writes:

Most of us type more than we talk these days. And the more we live in this parallel digital world, the blurrier the line gets between present and past. Because when nothing is lost, nothing is past. Even if you want it to be. Unbidden, Facebook’s Memories function has started posting photos of a meal you ate seven years ago with people who may not even be alive anymore. And those images sit in your feed along with photos of the mimosa brunch you’re having on vacation right this very second. Time is no longer a river; it’s a looping series of digital paths.

While human beings have long found diverse means of organizing and traversing the flow of time, Schrobsdorff’s observation raises interesting questions for anthropologists today: How are “digital paths” and practices changing the way people navigate and experience the life course? How is the contemporary obsession with documentation and digital connection altering our relationship to time, memory, and even death? How might digital technologies and social media be reconfiguring the experiential boundaries between life and death, and reshaping practices of mourning and memorialization? Finally, how might the youth, the most avid users of such technologies be particularly affected by these developments?

These are questions I am just beginning to explore in my new research on death in the digital age. For instance, I have come across very moving examples of bereaved children using online memorials to communicate with a deceased parent even months and years after the death occurred.  As one ten year-old girl posted several months after her father’s death, “Hi Daddy! It’s me again! I miss you so much! Tell God I say Thank you for taking care of u for us!” Two years later she began another post with, “Dear Daddy, I got into the spelling bee and made it to the second round.”

This girl’s appropriation of social media for the purpose of mourning and memorialization is becoming increasingly common among youth. Some observers interpret it as evidence that digital technologies are playing a key role in “democratizing” the mourning and memorialization process. Others suggest that online memorialization among the youth is generating new intergenerational conflicts about who has the authority to mourn, memorialize, and even communicate with the deceased. Indeed, a number of scholars studying “virtual mourning,” have observed that messages posted on online memorials typically take the form of a letter or message written directly to the deceased. This has led them to conclude that in the digital age, biological death is less and less congruent with social death. The deceased are often kept alive, or at least in circulation through the postings of online friends and others, and in many cases, as Lim has found, “the dead are either assigned, or else presumed to have active social roles” (Lim 2013).

“…perhaps these ongoing and prolonged attempts to communicate with the dead could be conceptualized as a digital drying of the bones. Perhaps, they reflect not only a desire to maintain connections with the dead, but also provide the bereaved with a way to ferry the deceased to the other side.”

This raises further questions for anthropologists about the functions that online mourning and memorialization serve. Are such practices providing young people with a way to transcend the embarrassment of grief and more effectively cope with loss? Or alternatively, as Hartman has proposed, does cybermourning recharge “the libidinal cathexis to the object” launching it “into ever-new iterations such that the ego is no longer impelled to give up the object”(Hartman 2012:463- 465)? Could the current popular fascination with the “Walking Dead” be reflective of a digital society where the dead do not so much disappear, as linger on in varying states of animation?

It might be tempting to conclude that in a society of networked selves and hyper-connectivity, the human fear of disconnection has become exacerbated. After all, “nomophobia”- the fear of being separated from one’s cell phone is now recognized as a legitimate disorder among younger generations. And a recent report by CNN found that teens currently spend about nine hours a day on social media and check their Facebook pages approximately 100 times!

And yet it is also clear that the attempt to maintain connections with the deceased is as old as humanity itself. As such, anthropologists might also consider how digital technologies are providing the bereaved with new means for pursuing a very old desire- continuing bonds with the deceased.

From my vantage point, examples of online memorialization by children are interesting not only because they suggest that the digital age is enabling bereaved children and youth to play a much more active role mourning but also because these examples suggest fascinating parallels with many other ethnographic contexts where extended mortuary processes and the double burials are the norm. As Robert Hertz noted long ago, “We cannot bring ourselves to consider the deceased as dead straight away: he is too much a part of our substance, we have put too much of ourselves into him, and participation in the same social life creates ties which are not to be severed in one day” (Hertz 2004:209-210).  Considered from this perspective then, perhaps these ongoing and prolonged attempts to communicate with the dead could be conceptualized as a digital drying of the bones. Perhaps, they reflect not only a desire to maintain connections with the dead, but also provide the bereaved with a way to ferry the deceased to the other side. Perhaps writing and posting messages to the deceased does provide contemporary Americans with a ritual means through which the deceased are rendered dead, and ultimately incorporated into a collective world of ancestors.

To be honest, I am not sure what to make of all of this yet. But I do know that if time is no longer a river but rather a looping series of digital paths, as Schrobsdorff suggests, then anthropologists should be actively considering what the entailments of this change are. How is the digital age shaping the way youth navigate the life course and deal with matters of life and death?

Works Cited:

Durkheim, Emile. (1912) 1995. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, translated by Karen Fields. New York: Free Press.

Hartman, Stephen. 2012. “Cybermourning: Grief in Flux From Object Loss to Collective Immortality.” Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 32: 454-467.

Hertz, Robert. 2004. “A Contribution to the Study of the Collective Representation of Death” In Death, Mourning, and Burial: A Cross-Cultural Reader edited by Antonius Robben pp.197-212. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Lim, Ming. 2013. “The Digital Consumption of Death: Reflections on virtual mourning practices on social networking sites.” In The Routledge Companion to Digital Consumption edited by Russell Belk pp.396 -403. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Schrobsdorff, Susanna. February 2016. “In our overdocumented lives, letting go has gotten a lot harder.” Time Magazine. 59. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/health/teens-tweens-media-screen-use-report


Jenny Huberman is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. She is the author of Ambivalent Encounters: Childhood, Tourism, and Social Change in Banaras, India. Her current research explores how experiences of loss, mourning, and memorialization are changing in the digital age.


Read the AAGE member companion to this post on “Death and the Life Course” by Cristina Douglas

Return to Life Course CRN Blog Exchange list

Growing old and growing up: Teaching and learning about death

Romanian funeral

(Photograph by Cristina Douglas, do not reproduce without permission)

This post is part of the Life Course Collaborative Research Network blog exchange, also available on the website of ACYIG. To see all of the posts in the series, click here.

In 2004, as part of my research regarding the beliefs in ‘strigoi’ (a term referring to dead people who come back to harm and even kill the most loved relatives who survive them) in a Romanian community, I observed the roles in funeral rituals performed chiefly by older women and young children. Later, I became interested in the teaching and learning about death as components of both the processes of growing old and growing up, which are strongly intertwined. As a child, growing up in Romania with my maternal and paternal grandmothers around, I learned my own community’s view of the good way of both ageing and dying.

(Photograph by Cristina Douglas. Do not reproduce without permission)

(Funeral gifts create bridges between the living and the dead. Photograph by Cristina Douglas. Do not reproduce without permission)

For older people in Romania, “successful ageing” refers to the maintenance of an active life, the avoidance of becoming physically dependent on other and dying “in full awareness.” The inevitability of death at the end of a long life and its “serene” acceptance (what Philippe Ariés (1974) called the “tamed death”) is supposed, culturally, to come with age. Good death, associated with dying in old age, is the death that finds someone “fully prepared” as part of this acceptance. After their retirement, Romanian older people’s savings are destined mainly to support their own funerals, and the shopping list will include the funeral gifts (towels, hankies, scarves) for the potential participants in their burial. These gifts (some of them offered specifically to children) are considered payment for the 44 customs that the soul has to cross in its journey through the underworld, where malefic creatures will try to make it lose its way unless they are paid. From an anthropological perspective, these gifts create “bridges” between the living and the dead, the old and the young, and they assure the deceased’s remembrance for as long as the material objects exist?.

In rural parts of Romania, growing up as a child is intertwined with the process of the ageing of their caretakers, the discourse of dying well, the performance of funeral rituals and being taught to manifest personal and cultural grief.

Both of my grandmothers, long before they passed away, made sure that all of the ritual funeral gifts and the clothes they wanted to be buried with were bought early enough so that death wouldn’t find them ‘unprepared’. Other older people from my village were going yet further, buying their own coffins and using them for the storage of cereal, before eventually being used for their intended scope. Another way of preparing for one’s own death in old age is the ritual called “alms while living” (“pomana de viu” in Romanian), which is performed only by older people while still alive. These people either don’t have any successors or feel like they need to take “extra measures” in case their successors don’t properly organize the traditional funeral feasts at 40 days, 1 year and 7 years after their death (during which the soul is traveling in the underworld). They participate as an “absent presence” in their own funeral feast as if already dead – serving and observing the others, rather than eating themselves. Conversely, at the funeral feast after someone’s death, a person of the same sex and age will wear the clothes of the deceased offered as funeral gifts, announcing his/her (absent) presence as if still alive.

(Photograph by Cristina Douglas, do not reproduce without permission)

(Passive learning about death. Photograph by Cristina Douglas, do not reproduce without permission)


The acceptance of death and the preparation for it also manifests in its inclusion in daily conversations between older people and potentially anybody else. This represents another feature of the Romanian cultural model of manifesting one’s appropriate old age, and it is quite often brought into discussions between grandparents-grandchildren. Several psychologists (see Corr 2000; Corr and Corr 2013; Kastenbaum 2000) argue that coping with death, loss and absence is an implicit part of growing up. In Romania, children learn how to face loss, how to grieve and how to remember (make present) the absent dead as part of learning how to show affection, take care and behave “maturely.” Passive learning about death (hearing adults’ talking about death; observing funerals, see Astuti 2011) is supplemented by an active teaching, both conceptually (what happens with the body and with the soul) and ritually (gestures to be performed). This “teaching about death” role is a key feature of Romanian intergenerational relationships and an important component of the kinship system of caring: while children learn how to take care of the elderly from their parents caring for their own parents, grandparents take care of their grandchildren by teaching them about how to age and die “with dignity” (according to the community’s cultural norms), and how to care for the dead. From an anthropological perspective, teaching children about death is part of an elderly caretaker’s role, and becomes an assurance of the maintenance and transmission of culture.

In many communities from the South of Romania, the teaching goes even further by interchanging various roles in funeral rituals. ‘Bringing the water for the dead’, a funeral ritual meant to assure the soul’s water for its journey through the underworld, can be performed either by a young girl ‘who didn’t meet men’ or by an old ‘clean’ woman (a woman who has entered menopause and does not have sexual relations anymore, usually a widow). Both groups – the children and the elderly – are represented as having a ‘fringe’ social status. Thus they are considered to have a higher capacity for communicating with the other world through ritual because of their proximity to it through life cycle. It is this status of children and the elderly in the funeral performance that reflects death as a manageable condition and doesn’t allow it, ritually, to damage the community.

(Photograph by Cristina Douglas. Do not reproduce without permission)

(Photograph by Cristina Douglas. Do not reproduce without permission)

While helping her to sew her own funeral towels, I remember Machi (the way we used to call my maternal grandma – a diminutive of the word “maica” used for grandmothers, meaning ‘old mother’) giving me instructions about which scarf or towel should be given to whom after her death. She often asked me to light candles for her and to cry at her funeral, somehow training me as a child to imagine how my life will continue in her absence and how, ritually and emotionally, I should face my encounter with her death: acknowledging the pain that her death would cause me, but grateful that this came during her old age so she could die prepared and believing that this is yet only one step in her continued existence in another world. In rural parts of Romania, growing up as a child is intertwined with the process of the ageing of their caretakers, the discourse of dying well, the performance of funeral rituals and being taught to manifest personal and cultural grief.

Sometimes I wonder, just as Jason Danely pointed out in the first essay of these collaborative posts, whether my interest in the anthropology of death and dying would have been the same in the absence of this early learning about death from my grandmas. The following years of education and research seem often as if they just added further structure to my approach of a subject I was initiated into by the elderly people around me ever since my very first years of existence.

 I would like to thank Jason Danely for his invitation to write for these collaborative posts and also for his and Elise Berman’s helpful comments, suggestions and assistance.

Works cited:

Ariès, Philippe (1974). Western Attitudes toward Death: From the Middle Ages to the Present. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Astuti, Rita (2011). “Death, Ancestors, and the Living Dead: Learning without Teaching in Madagascar”. In Children’s Understanding of Death: From Biological to Religious Conceptions edited by Victoria Talwar, Paul L. Harris and Michael Schleifer, 1-18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corr, Charles (2000). “What Do We Know About Grieving Children and Adolescents?”. In Living with Grief – Children, Adolescents, and Loss, edited by Kenneth J. Doka, 21-34. Hospice Foundation of America: Brunner/Mazel – Taylor & Francis Group.

Corr, Charles A., and Donna M. Corr (2013). Death and Dying, Life and Living. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Kastenbaum, Robert (2000). “The Kingdom Where Nobody Dies”. In Living with Grief – Children, Adolescents, and Loss, edited by Kenneth J. Doka, 5-20. Hospice Foundation of America: Brunner/Mazel – Taylor & Francis Group.


Cristina Douglas is a PhD candidate (awaiting examination) in cultural anthropology at the University of Bucharest, Romania. Her main interest is focused on the anthropology of death and dying in relation to cultural transmission, representations of good/bad death and beliefs in immortality. Recently, she focused on researching the New Zealand institutional settings for the dying (end of life and palliative care). Currently she works in two projects: one dedicated to the imaginary of (shameful) death, diseases and hygiene in the political discourse of anticommunism, and another one that explores the medical learning of the body through the use of cadavers.


Read the ACYIG member companion to this post on “Death and the Life Course” by Jenny Huberman

Return to Life Course CRN Blog Exchange list

AAGE guide to the meetings: American Anthropological Association, Dec 3-7, 2014

Every five years or so, the AAA meetings fall a little later in the year, making us wish the meetings were some place warm (remember New Orleans 2010?) rather than a city with an average December HIGH of about 47F degrees (remember Philadelphia 2009?).

Nonetheless, it is sure to be a good turnout this year, with hundreds of sessions, posters, exhibitors, installations (including the always thought provoking Ethnographic Terminalia), and a keynote speech by Bruno Latour.

If you are a member of AAGE or the AAA on Anthropology of Aging and the Life Course Interest Group , the first things to put on your itinerary are the Interlocutor Session, the Interest Group business meeting, and the dinner.

Dec 5 (Friday) 1:00-2:15PM, Wilson A Marriot Wardman Park

Interlocutor event with Mary Catherine Bateson about “Adulthood 2.0” and reception for recent book authors (Bianca Brijnath, Jason Danely and others). While an accomplished writer and educator, Mary Catherine Bateson is perhaps best known for her work on aging, including Composing a Life (1989) and Composing a Further Life (2010). In the latter, Bateson (who turns 75 on December 8 of this year), takes up the challenge of adapting the psychosocial life course development theories to current realities of longevity and diverse trajectories, proposing a new stage in life that she calls “Adulthood 2.0.”

Jay Sokolovsky organized the event and he and Athena McLean will be asking her about this and her other work on aging and anthropology.

 Dec 6 (Saturday) 1:00-2:15, Wilson A, Marriot Wardman Park

AAGE/AAA Interest Group Business meeting

Learn about what the group is up to, raise your voice and get involved in decisions and new projects (including contributing to the website!). This group relies on a lot of individuals, and we invite anyone (members or not) to attend and get to know us!

 Dec 6 (evening) – AAGE/Interest Group dinner (8PM, location and details  TBA)

PrintNow for the panels
I did a quick search for relevant terms and topics (aging is still not a key word for the AAA program), then I solicited responses via the Facebook page, and listserv.  If I did not list your panel, and you would like to advertise it here, I highly encourage you to write a comment below. In the interest of space, I will not include full abstracts, but I will list date, time, location, and titles/presenters. If you are a AAA member, you can login and use the links to add these panels to your personal scheduler.

Wednesday, December 3

12-1:45pm, Thurgood Marshall North


This workshop, co-chaired by AAGE member Mark Luborsky (Wayne State) and Linda Hunt (MSU) is bound to be full of practical information from anthropologists with a track record or NIH funding.

Thursday, December 4

2:30-4:15pm, McKinley


Chair: Elana D Buch, University of Iowa
Organizer: Jason A Danely, Oxford Brookes University, and Elana D Buch, University of Iowa
Discussant: Paul E Brodwin, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Circulating Compassion: Claims of Deservingness Among Chicago Home Care Workers- Elana D Buch, University of Iowa

Compassion in Action?: Love, Pity, and Distraction in Thai Buddhist Eldercare- Felicity Aulino, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Practicing Compassion: Worthy Suffering Among Older Persons in the Netherlands- Jolanda Lindenberg, Leyden Academy on Vitality and Ageing

Compassionate Subjectivity: Producing and Managing Ethics and Affects of Family Caregivers of Older Adults in Japan– Jason A Danely, Oxford Brookes University

This panel was the result of discussions Elana and I had about the concept of “compassion” as it has been used in clinical and social care settings and the need to understand and practiced differently in different cultural contexts. While I was at first interested mostly in how Japanese Buddhists practiced compassion in secular contexts, Elana was suggested that we needed to pay attention to political contexts, including the role of anthropologist as a potential producer of compassion. This is also the first of many panels about “care,” some organized by AAGE members as well, but I did not list all of them here if they did not relate to aging or the life course (for example, 2-04060 TEMPORALITIES OF CARE; THE LABOR OF CARE  )

6:30-8:15PM Suite C


Chair: Ender Ricart, University of Chicago

Emerging Ontology of the Aging Society Crisis in Japan: Differentiation of Care and Prevention and the Re-Figuration of the Aging Process, Old Age, Sociality, and Life-Worlds– Ender Ricart, Univ. Chicago

Friday, December 5

2:30-4:15 PM


3-3:15 PM   Policy “Trickling up”: Hurricane Preparedness Policy for People with Alzheimer’s Disease or a Related Dementia –Janelle J. Christensen, Palm Beach State College

Saturday, December 6

9:00-10:45am Jackson


Organizers: Sarah E Lamb, Brandeis, Jessica C Robbins-Ruszkowski, Wayne State U
Discussant: Susan R Whyte, Institute of Anthropology, University of Copenhagen

Ageless Aging or Meaningful Decline?: A Critical Anthropology of “Successful Aging”– Sarah E Lamb (Brandeis)

A Model of “Success”: Aging in a Catholic Convent– Anna I. Corwin (University of California, Los Angeles – Dept of Anthropology)

Stratification and Heterogeneity of Successful Aging Constructs in Thailand and USA– Mark R Luborsky (Wayne State University) Chulanee Thianthai (Chulalongkorn University)

Education, English, and Embroidery: The Sociality of Aging in Poland– Jessica C Robbins-Ruszkowski (Wayne State University)

Should Auld Acquaintance be Forgot: Friendship in the Face of Dementia– Janelle S Taylor (University Washington)

Deja vu? Nope, this was the panel that was so good, it was worth doing twice (see the guides to the GSA). Obviously something worth paying attention to is in the works here. This time Janelle Taylor, who has been doing more and more work in medical anthropology and dementia joins Sarah Lamb and the others.

11-12:45PM, Wilson A


Chair: Cheryl Mattingly, University of Southern California
Organizer: Bjarke Oxlund, University of Copenhagen and Lotte Meinert, Aarhus University
Discussants: Julie Livingston, Rutgers University and Ayo Wahlberg, University of Copenhagen

The organizer, Bjarke Oxlund is a member of the Anthropology & Aging editorial advisory board and a longtime AAGE member. Julie Livingston was part of the interlocutor session at a previous AAA. The panel (along with part ONE) is packed with big names who take generations seriously.

11-11:30 AM Jackson


From Cure to Care: Becoming Old and Diabetic in Tanzania– Peter M Van Eeuwijk, University of Basel

Combating Ageism in the Tanzanian Health System: From Painful Exclusion to Social Participation-Brigit Obrist van Eeuwijk, University of Basel

Die Suddenly or Die Knowing Her/His Remaining Lifetime: What Is Imagined As Good Death in Contemporary Japan– Hideaki Matsuoka, Osaka University

The Good Life at the End of Life: the Ideal End-of-Life for South Korean Elders Living in Toronto, Canada– Christine Moon, Brown University

Social and Material Entanglements in Institutional Long-Term Care: The Making and Unmaking of Personhood in People with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias– Jayne M Yatczak, Wayne State University

So if you went to the “Successful Aging” panel, stay in the room for this one on end-of-life care! A nice variety of approaches and regions represented here.

2:30- 4:15 PM, Wilson A


Chair: Chloe Silverman, Drexel University
Organizer: A. Elizabeth DeLuca, University of California Irvine, and Aaron T Seaman, University of Chicago
Discussant: Janelle S Taylor, University Washington

Giving Care?: Exploring the Analytic of Care through an Examination of the “Caregiver” – Aaron T Seaman, University of Chicago

Care, Risk, and Haunted Subjectivities- Matthew Furlong, University of Chicago

Honeybee Health, Uncertain Illnesses, and Medical Care– Chloe Silverman, Drexel University

Affective Labor and the Limits of Care: Reflections on Caretaking, Abuse and Intersubjectivity-Elizabeth DeLuca, University of California Irvine

Am I My Brother’s Keeper? Theorizing Accountability in Care Under Globalization and Neoliberalism– Athena McLean, Central Michigan University/ Andrea P Sankar, Wayne State University

Yes, there is more to say about care!! While Athena, Andrea, and Chloe have been working on issues of care and culture in medical contexts for a while, organizers Elizabeth and Aaron, and Matthew Furlong are graduate students doing some really exciting work. This is bound to be a very stimulating panel.


2:30 PM – 4:15 PM, Marriott Ballroom Salon 3- White

GENERAL POSTER SESSION: Body Image and Menopause: The Objective and Subjective Story

Lynn Morrison, University of Hawaii at Hilo, Daniel E. Brown, University of Hawaii at Hilo, Lynnette Leidy Sievert, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Angela Reza, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Nichole Rahberg, University of Hawaii at Manoa

2:30- 4:15 PM, Roosevelt Room 2


Chairs: Devin Flaherty, University of California, Los Angeles, Emily Anne Lucitt, University of California, Los Angeles – Dept of Anthropology
Organizers: Devin Flaherty, University of California, Los Angeles, Emily Anne Lucitt, University of California, Los Angeles – Dept of Anthropology

Discussant: Cheryl Mattingly, University of Southern California

Imagining and Caregiving:Hospice in Two “American” Cultures– Devin Flaherty, University of California, Los Angeles

Sunday, December 6

10- 11:45 AM, Thurgood Marshall West


Chair: Bjarke Oxlund, University of Copenhagen
Organizers: Monika Palmberger, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Azra Hromadzic, Syracuse University
Discussant: Michele R Gamburd, Portland State University

Migrants of Privilege: American Retirees and the Imaginaries of Ecuadorian Care Work– Ann Miles, Western Michigan University

Late Life Choices: Feelings of Ambivalence Among Aging Labour Immigrants– Monika Palmberger, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity

“Where Were They until Now?” Aging, Care and Abandonment in a Bosnian Town- Azra Hromadzic, Syracuse University

Where Home Is Not the Same: Emerging Notions of Reciprocity, Dependency, and Concepts of Person/Self in Tuareg Intergenerational Experiences of Migration- Susan J Rasmussen, University of Houston

Who Cares? Ageing, Transnational Care Arrangements and the Question of Morality- Yvon Van Der Pijl, Utrecht University

“I Do Not Expect to Become frail” – Transnational Aging Experiences from a Civil Servants Milieu of Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania– Andrea Patricia Grolimund, University of Basel

Of the four AAGE heavy panels (Producing Compassion; Successful Aging; Aging, Elders and End-of-Life; and this one), aging and migration has the most explicit focus on the aging experience in the developing and impoverished world. This is not “retirement migration,” it is concerned, in the words of the abstract, with “transnational responsibility; competing ideas of personhood; morality and “good aging;” social security; and economies of care as they materialize in these diverse yet converging contexts of aging, migration and care.”

12- 1:45 PM, Thurgood Marshall South


12:45 PM

Senescence, Aging, and Allostatic Load in Sakiyama, Japan– Rachael Elizabeth Leahy, The Ohio State University; Douglas E. Crews, The Ohio State University; Yoshiaki Sone, Mimasaka University; Aiko Iwamoto, Osaka City University; Yosuke Kusano, Nagasaki Wesleyan University; Takahiro Maeda, Nagasaki University; Kiyoshi Aoyagi, Nagasaki University

Last, but not least, a bio-cultural life course perspective!

See you in DC!


(if we missed your panel, leave us a comment below!)