Grief is the price we pay for love. And most of us do not handle it well. “As a culture, we seem to have an intolerance for suffering; we tend to want those who have experienced a loss of any kind to get on with their lives as quickly as possible. Often, by minimizing the impact of significant loss, pathologizing those whose reactions are intense, and applauding those who seem relatively unaffected by tragic events. We encourage the inhibition of our own grief.” The Complete Guide to Crisis and Trauma Counseling: What to Do and Say When it Matters Most, Dr. H. Norman Wright. 

Many Americans do not experience a significant loss until we are nearing middle age. Even then, death is often sanitized and compartmentalized. When a person dies, their remains are transported to a funeral home by professionals where they are received by other professionals who accomplish most of the responsibilities through cremation or burial. There was a time, however, when family shouldered most of the work of preparing the body and greeting those who came to the home to pay their respects. They were able to wrap their minds around what happened and accept the reality of the loved one’s death more quickly. We may all be able to use a smartphone, but few of us are equipped to to deal with death or properly mourn our losses. 

Grief Theory Overview

What follows is a brief overview of grief theory culminating in a short discussion of what has proven successful for many. In addition, at the end of the post, you will find some helpful information about selecting a bereavement support group.

In Mourning and Melancholia, Sigmund Freud described the successful mourning outcome as reaching a point where the bereaved is able to withdraw the emotional connection with the deceased and attach it elsewhere. That advice may often be helpful following divorce or when the death involves a companion animal, but not when a human loved one dies. For Freud, however, it was all about “letting go.” That view influenced grief therapy throughout much of the last century, even though it did not even work for him when confronting losses of his own.

From Freud’s theoretical beginning, J. William Worden developed his “Four Tasks of Mourning.” Worden’s four tasks include: 1) accepting the reality of the loss; 2) working through the pain of grief; 3) adjusting to a new environment (in which the deceased is missing); and 4) finding an enduring connection with the deceased while moving forward with life. 

Accepting the reality of the loss is not always as easy as it sounds. We might have been present when our loved one died, but we sometimes still “see” his or her face in a crowd, “hear” them walking down the hall or imagine they should be coming through the door any minute. People who experience such things often think they are losing a grip on reality, but they have no reason to be alarmed. It is a typical reaction. Accepting the reality of the loss and being able to discuss their loved one’s death without being overwhelmed by emotions will get easier; often as a result of time, talk and tears. 

This leads us to Worden’s second task, working through the pain of loss. Like grief itself, the work of grief is different for each person. Some of us are intuitive grievers. We feel to grieve; mourn by talking, feeling and expressing our emotions. Others of us are instrumental grievers. We think to grieve; mourn by thinking and doing and, only, as a last resort, talking.

Many of us exhibit a blend of both grieving types, although we tend to lean more in one direction than the other. Not everyone needs to talk about their loss, but we all need to face them in a way that is best for us. Sharing feelings may help some people, but being forced to talk usually isn’t so helpful. Grieving differently should not be interpreted as a measure of a person’s grief intensity or an indication that someone is not grieving at all. We all grieve in our own way. The important point is no one should tell us how or how long we ought to mourn our loss. Nor should we change how we want to mourn to meet the expectations of others.

This is a great segue into Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’ “Five Stages of Grief.” Those “stages” she described were observed in patients facing their own deaths, not people mourning the deaths of others. They were intended to be descriptive, but because they were easy to use and remember, they became proscriptive, thanks to public acceptance of her successful book, On Death and a Dying. Kubler-Ross described how her patients often felt, but our friends sometimes use her study to tell us how we should feel. Let me just say this, despite what you may have heard from well-meaning friends or others, this theory has never been scientifically proven and is gradually being discarded by grief and loss practitioners.

Let’s get back to Dr. Worden’s third task It is best exemplified by the wise words of a widow, “You never get over grief. You just get used to it.” Or, as Saundra Washington observed in, Settling the Storm, you learn to manage it. Most of us  know when we have finished as much as we are able of the first three tasks. And the good news is nearly all of us eventually get there, with or without assistance. However, participation in peer-facilitated, support groups often shortens the time necessary to reconcile with our loss. But please keep in mind that Dr. Worden’s tasks are not sequential and they are not always completely finished. 

His last task was a departure from the one he originally proposed, which involved letting go. Perhaps his later modification was in response to the work of Klass, Silverman and others who identified the importance of maintaining some sort of connection with the deceased they called “continuing bonds.” Continuing bonds means loving in absence. Ironically, many cultures figured this out centuries ago (eg. Dia de los Muertos). Continuing bonds are largely defined by the person’s memories of the deceased. Our loved one may be physically absent, but they remain in our heart and memory forever.

Robert Neimeyer built on “continuing bonds” while developing and expanding his theory of the importance of making meaning of our loss. Meaning-making is fitting the loss into our worldview or readjusting our worldview to accommodate the loss. For many of us, that might be as much a spiritual activity as an intellectual one and often entails reevaluation of much of what we think and believe. 

So, how does someone do all of these things when they still have lives to live and things to do? One approach that works for many people is Stroebe and Schut’s Dual Process Model, which encourages a shifting back and forth, or “oscillating,” between loss-oriented activities and restoration-oriented activities. For example, a person might spend some time feeling the pain of their loss, but then take a break from it by washing the car or balancing the checkbook.

.