You're not grieving incorrectly; grief just has a marketing problem.
Why we need to talk about grief frameworks.
Grief has a marketing problem. No one wants to talk about it because, frankly, it is the opposite of sexy. This means that any information that could help grievers is usually hard to find, overly simplistic in nature, or just flat out wrong.
Those outside the grief discussion (non-grievers - sometimes our friends or other loved ones) tend to think Kubler-Ross’s Stages of Grief is the only game in town, because it is the only one that is talked about. It’s the most palatable way to think of grief because it has a starting point and an ending point. These people {very kindly} suggest we may be doing things wrong, or that maybe we should look at how we might be “stuck”. They are coming from a good place, but they don’t realize that there are other ways to grieve that are much more encompassing of the whole experience of grief. Why would they? We don’t talk about it.
This leads grievers to feel a whole lot of unneeded self-judgement. They feel lost and alone and assume they are doing something wrong based on the reactions of the people who love them most.
Grief educators and Thanatologists like me are here to tell you, there is NO WAY to grieve incorrectly - and science supports this.
Your process is your process, and that is it. It doesn’t mean your process is better or worse than anyone else’s. It’s just yours. Just like your fingerprint is your fingerprint.
For the past 60 years, Thanatologists have “discovered” (that’s a bad way of saying it, but I can’t think of another word) some specific frameworks that we tend to gravitate towards when we grieve. The Stages was the first, but many more have come about in the 50 years since Kubler-Ross’s research. Here are 3 of the different models, including my favorite:
Dual Process Model of Coping with Bereavement by Margaret Stroebe and Henk Schut: This model suggests that grieving individuals alternate between two types of stressors: loss-oriented stressors, focused on confronting the reality of the loss, and restoration-oriented stressors, focused on adapting to life changes resulting from the loss. The model emphasizes the importance of moving between these two processes for effective coping.
Task-Based Model of Grief by J. William Worden: Worden's model proposes four tasks of mourning: accepting the reality of the loss, experiencing the pain of grief, adjusting to life without the deceased, and finding a way to maintain a connection with the deceased while moving forward. This framework provides a structured approach to the grieving process, emphasizing the need to actively engage with and work through grief-related tasks.
Continuing Bonds: My favorite! Developed by Klass, Silverman, and Nickman in the 1990s, this perspective challenges the notion that grieving involves a complete detachment from the deceased. Instead, it emphasizes the enduring nature of the bond between the bereaved and the deceased individual, suggesting that individuals find ways to maintain a connection with their loved one even after death. As a medium, this is one I wholeheartedly embrace, but the connection doesn’t have to be communicating with them. It can be keeping their photos up, having conversations with them in your head, talking about them and their adventures, etc.
This framework acknowledges that the relationship with the deceased evolves over time but remains an integral part of the bereaved individual's identity and emotional well-being. By fostering continuing bonds, individuals can find meaning in their grief journey, integrating the presence of the deceased into their ongoing lives rather than seeking closure through detachment.Continuing bonds theory offers an understanding of grief that recognizes the ongoing nature of the grieving process and the enduring impact of relationships even after death. It encourages a more compassionate approach to bereavement, affirming the importance of maintaining connections with loved ones while adapting to life changes in the wake of loss.
So, when we talk about different grief frameworks, we strive to shine a light on the fact that there are options for your own personal grief process out there. By exploring these different approaches, people dealing with loss can find something that resonates with them and helps them make sense of their experience.
Ultimately, it's about breaking down the stigma surrounding grief and giving people the tools and support they need to heal. By embracing the variety of frameworks within Thanatology, we create a more compassionate understanding of every individual’s unique grief path—one where grief isn't something to be feared or ignored, but something to be acknowledged and embraced.
The more we talk about grief and its individuality, the less alone we will feel.
Yes
My relationship with Bill is ever forever.
When we last spoke he promised that he would wait for me.
(Bruce Springsteen and his wife singing “If I Should Fall Behind” was our song)
The reason the subject of grief is not a popular topic is that, 1 person in the conversation has to be the vulnerable & thus weaker & as a society we are conditioned to never be vulnerable but instead show confidence & strength. Coming from that position one opens themselves up to ridicule, pity & even shunning by those who lack sensitivity. Grief is a maze of undetermined length & experience. Plus all grief is 2-part, for the departed & for oneself over the future that never will be the same.