How Our Views on Grief have Changed

To better understand our tendency to avoid or minimize grief, it can be helpful to look at how our societal ideas about grief have changed over time. We have gradually shifted from a “just get over it” perspective that became necessary in the early 1900’s, to a softer and more welcoming willingness to process, heal and grow. We can see how these views have evolved and expanded by chronicling the history of grief models and theories. Most of us are introduced to grief subjectively. Viewing it objectively can lead to increased understanding and comfort with the topic at large. It can lead to reduced fear, smoother conversations, and increased compassion and consolation for those who feel alone in their struggle.

The first known publication on grief titled On Mourning and Melancholia, was written by Freud in 1917, at the height of WWI, when 20+ million people had died. Downregulating emotion had become a matter of national survival. Freud, known as the Father of Psychology, delineated grief (Mourning) from depression (Melancholia) and asserted that the “work” of grief was to “decathect”. Decathexis is the term for withdrawing or removing focus, thought, and energy from emotional bonds and redirecting that energy toward something new. In historical context, this was a necessity and offered a coping strategy for dealing with widespread trauma. The “keep a stiff upper lip” and “carry on” slogans were fostered. While we are no longer facing widespread trauma, this stoic adaptation prevailed and continues to reverberate through current times. It is easily apparent in our older population.

From 1944 through 1988 John Bowlby, a British psychologist, published multiple works on relationships and loss. To better understand the increasing prevalence of maladjustment in youth and skyrocketing rates of juvenile delinquency following WWII, he and Mary Ainsworth began to seek answers by studying emotional bonds formed in infancy and childhood. During the war, the British government instituted protective programs where children were sent off to the countryside to live with their relatives or their appointed caretakers, where it was deemed safer. The rupture to family life, and secure bonds, combined with the subsequent death tolls, devastated families and impacted the abilities of children and adolescents to connect, trust, and bond well in future relationships. His Attachment Theory is often associated with how one copes with grief. There is conjecture that the 10% of people who suffer from complicated or prolonged grief also struggle with long-standing attachment problems.  

No longer facing the widespread trauma of the WWI and WWII, fear and anxiety around death began to decrease and new grief models arose espousing a softer, more personal approach. We began to allow ourselves a curiosity around how we cope with death, and an inquisitiveness around processing grief.

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, a Swiss-American psychiatrist studying near-death experiences offered us a new perspective. She recorded her observations of dying patients in her book On Death and Dying, which offered descriptive accounts of her patients’ common experiences and reactions. It quickly became popular with the public who viewed this as a linear guide for gauging their grief journey. Meant to be descriptive it was taken as a prescriptive program. The publication of this book offered those who were uncomfortable discussing death, a conversational entryway. They could place themselves visually on a continuum with an endpoint. The critique of this approach, which Kubler-Ross later agreed with, was that many do not experience all 5 stages (denial, bargaining, depression, anger, acceptance) linearly, if at all. If the goal of reaching Acceptance in the final stage is not attained, people can be left feeling they have failed. This model maintains a strong foothold in our society and persists because of its simplicity. The 5-step format is appealing. We like clearcut, linear steps because they chart a course that implies a finish line.

In his Four Tasks of Mourning William Worden proposed that the work of grief includes: 1) Accepting the reality of the loss, 2) Processing your grief and pain, 3) Adjusting to the world without your loved one, and 4) Maintaining a connection while moving on. His teachings are well known among grief counselors.

Margaret Stroebe and Henk Schut developed The Dual Process Model. I like this theory because it emphasizes the need to take breaks from grief. These researchers promoted the idea that we should oscillate between a focus on grief and the daily requirements of life. While the early days of grief are often accompanied by a fear of forgetting the person, this model gives permission to inch forward, as we are ready, without guilt.

Lois Tonkin’s contributed her Growing Around Grief model which asserted that people don’t “get over it”. Her point was that grief does not get smaller or disappear, but that as our lives grow bigger, the grief begins to feel smaller. It gives permission to add to our lives. Moving forward does not have to mean moving away from the deceased. The loved one, the memory of the loved one, remains present amid daily life, but the context of life becomes larger.

Robert Neimeyer has written several books on grief including Meaning-Reconstruction and the Experience of Loss. He encourages us to rewrite the narrative, thereby mentally reorganizing the relationship with the deceased so that we may benefit from enduring bonds. These ideas mark a dramatic turn from Freud’s idea of decathexis.

Mary-Frances O’Connor, neurobiologist and author of The Grieving Brain offers interesting research using imaging studies to help understand what is happening biologically inside the griever’s brain. She asserts that we can rewire our neural pathways and hasten healing by purposely layering grief with learning new skills, and enjoying new experiences.  You can read more about this here, in my May Newsletter on Neuroplasticity and the Grieving Brain.

We can see how historical context once required that we turn away from grief as a matter of survival, but this is no longer our reality. It is unfortunately and most painfully the reality in other parts of the world today, including Ukraine, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa. We fortunately find ourselves in a position to allow ourselves the emotional time and space to process our personal losses, and to be open to, and gentle with the grief of others. We have work yet to do, for the roots of avoidance run deep.

For the sake of our grieving family members, friends, neighbors, and society at large, it falls upon each of us to educate ourselves and to overcome our discomfort and hesitation. Learning more about grief through reading, listening to podcasts, utilizing tools such as journaling and other expressive therapies can increase our comfort level. It can allay fears. It can help us prepare for our own future needs, and allow us to be more fully present to those who need consolation and understanding.