What could a democratised pathway to support a person’s grief look like?
Political implications and Socially Incongruent Grief
This article was written for therapists, psychiatrists and mental health practitioners. Since other readers may also find it helpful it has been slightly modified.
In two previous articles (MC Issues #94 and #96), I described Socially Incongruent Grief (SIG) and gave a brief background as to how this new grief theory came about. In those previous two articles, I also made reference to the significance of knowing that grief occurs within a psycho-social and historical political context and is socially and politically regulated (e.g., Fowlkes, 1990). The purpose of this article is to illustrate how SIG is not just a micro matter. That theoretically, it is applicable at both a micro (individual) and macro (public) level.
Socially Incongruent Grief (SIG) can be encapsulated in three words: Gaslighters contaminating grief. However, the following offers a more nuanced understanding.
SIG occurs as a result of cognitive dissonance and gaslighting generated by those who have a different set of objectives contrary to the griever’s best interest (see MC November 2023 #96). It is both personally and sociopolitically perceived as an “illegitimate grief” (Misrachi, 2012). It is personally experienced and deeply felt in the hearts and minds of each SIG sufferer within their social milieu as, incongruent.
Grief is not just an individual and solo experience. Health care professionals cannot afford to ignore the essential role that social influence and its psycho-emotional impact plays out within grief processes. There are too many sources of influence that pervade daily life, no matter what culture. Ignoring the significance of this and its overall impact on health and illness would be at our peril.
SIG is about an inability to reach mourning completion due to cognitive dissonance and gaslighting. This causes the griever to constantly live alongside a sense of internal yet socially-generated incongruence. This incongruence remains stuck in the sufferer’s heart, mind and sometimes even physically inside their throat as, for a variety of reasons, a SIG sufferer is often unable to articulate to others what is happening to them. Consequently, that in and of itself energises the cognitive dissonance cycle to persist. In that context, SIG goes beyond a profound sense of lacking the right to feel sadness or to mourn. Its continuation potentially sets off a chain reaction or vicious cycle which further feeds off, exacerbates and entrenches grief within an individual or a distinct group, digging deeper into each SIG sufferer’s being. Henceforth, naming and describing this grief would be critical.
After receiving international feedback post introduction of SIG, it became increasingly evident that the implications of SIG extend beyond individuals within, for instance, the family unit as an institution. Its meaning, principles, and implications for individual grievers and their assisting practitioners potentially extend to a variety of institutions and groups. This encompasses any context where individuals have historically, culturally, or intergenerationally developed a strong sense of belonging, that intimately connects to their personal identity. Such contexts include, but not limited to, religious and non-religious groups, hospitals, the military, political organisations, indigenous groups that have experienced colonisation, migrant and refugee communities, vulnerable countries, schools and universities, professional associations, and more.
Since its introduction, it became increasingly apparent that SIG has broader global applications than initially understood. That is, potentially manifesting not only at the individual level but also at macro levels, such as in the success or failure of government initiatives or policies. Australia’s 2023 Indigenous Voice to Parliament serves as an example (e.g., Duggan, 2023). This referendum failed to recognise Australia’s First Nations peoples in the Constitution. The subsequent consequences and implications for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their supporters potentially put them at risk of experiencing SIG. For instance, post referendum results, the potential for cognitive dissonance to arise due to those who chose to deny, belittle, minimise, or gaslight the potential reality of losses and grief felt by Australia’s indigenous communities and their supporters who wanted a “Yes” outcome became clear. Awareness of SIG as a unique grief would likely benefit all Australians.
SIG lends itself to cultural sensitivity. By making no assumptions regarding what an individual identifies with or owns, SIG as a therapeutic notion carries respectful boundaries, separating and distinguishing the individual from whatever belongs personally to others residing within their orbit, including clinicians or politicians. In this sense, it is ‘ethically-friendly’, while enhancing cultural competence and diversity thinking that supports inclusive and equitable communities. As one non-indigenous Australian healthcare worker high up in the medical hierarchy sharply observed:
The concept of Socially Incongruent Grief in many ways reflects the more harrowing aspects of the conversation on colonisation and its consequences.
There are many instances when survivors are made to feel their feelings of loss are illegitimate in the “scheme of things” that are otherwise socially endorsed.
Including a recent conversation I had with a teacher who commented that colonisation brought people together in shared languages like French and English. No mention of the grief that comes with losing community languages as we have seen in this and many other countries. SIG is a really apt term.
It comes as no surprise that the above insights would be felt and echoed by various indigenous people. For example, Professor Peter Anderson, Director, Indigenous Research Unit, Griffith University, in an interview called, Indigenous voices are now embedded in curriculum, so are the history wars over? made reference to his personal feelings as a young indigenous person to “gaslighting” and “cognitive dissonance” with “disjointed” stories causing “internal tensions” between the truth his family spoke of, which as a child kept Professor Anderson grounded, against what his primary school presented to him. His school used words such as “savages”, “nomadic”, etc., all while communicating “you’re the problem”. One is left wondering, did he have to become a “professor” to be taken seriously and if so what became of all the other “non-professors”? (See: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/lifematters/anna-clarke-hey-history-history-wars-indigenous-history/104081490. Source: ABC RN|Program: Life Matters,11 July, 2024).
SIG can happen to any individual (micro level) or to any group or entire populations (e.g., our indigenous people). Whether consciously or unconsciously scapegoated by those incapable or unwilling to be accountable or responsible for their contribution to SIG, this type of grief can meanwhile sit anywhere on the micro-mezzo-macro spectrum. Accordingly, SIG lends itself to potential research to inform clinical practice across a broad spectrum of different population groups, as well as policies that inform action plans for various communities. Despite universal application to all individuals experiencing SIG across all groups and cultures, ultimately it cannot be guaranteed as applicable to everyone and every group due to its lack of recognition or comprehensive articulation in the existing grief literature — at least not yet. But clinical practice indicates that as long as the two elements integral to identifying “Socially Incongruent Grief “ (SIG) are present; (1) cognitive dissonance; and (2) gaslighting, SIG is a relevant grief concept, potentially applicable to a wide range of individuals.
Often isolated and alone in their thoughts and feelings, grievers of SIG never question their capacity to grieve. They are instead denied permission to openly grieve by those with a different set of intentions. Often such intentions go against the health and well being of the SIG sufferer. Consequently, SIG sufferers are under threat of becoming scapegoated by any number of gaslighters. They therefore depend on an appropriate external and more objective witness to ethically and empathically support them through and out of a “crazy-making” grief maze. It’s a maze not of their doing. But without help and validation, they can initially and unconsciously become trapped. This type of trap is often artificially induced and negatively driven by the griever’s psycho-social-political environment. In this context, SIG is a form of trauma which gradually infiltrates or drip-feeds into the individual sufferer’s psyche or the collective psyche of a particular group. SIG can thus be viewed as a form of psychological torment or in extreme cases, psycho-emotional torture. The stronger the force, political or otherwise, the more convoluted and deeper the psycho-social-emotional trap becomes.
But here is the good news. Although reliable grief research is scarce due to ethical complexities (e.g., Stroebe, et al., 2003; Misrachi, 2012), evidence from real-life experiences or observations, regardless of cultural or political identity, can be nonetheless collected (Kumar, 2011). This is partially due to the fact that most human beings generally do not like hanging on to the discomfort and distress which cognitive dissonance and gaslighting often perpetuates. This gives hope for future research about SIG. For instance, qualitatively, SIG seems ‘research-friendly’ due to it being: (1) a non-physical-death type of grief; (2) seen and understood as bringing relief to people whenever explained or described while offering empowerment via shared clinical insights; and (3) applicable to those with sufficient mental clarity, cognitive capacity and self-awareness to grasp the basic knowledge or understanding of SIG. In their book Establishing a Research-Friendly Environment: A Hospital-Based Approach, Brockopp and colleagues (2020), note that “hospital-based clinicians make superb researchers… [and carers] regardless of educational preparation, [can] design and conduct studies and also publish their findings” (p.vi). Therefore, SIG potentially lends itself to a structured ethical inquiry into the field of new and essential grief knowledge. This would be important because the notion of a “Socially Incongruent Grief”, as illustrated above, also carries strong political implications with the power to influence outcomes.
Nobody has a monopoly on somebody’s grief. But because grief is politically regulated (e.g., Fowlkes, 1990), SIG as an approach, provides grievers with a welcoming therapeutic space that honours the uniqueness of their truth and their authentic ownership of their voice. It also grants them choices and influence, enabling their participation within a shared power dynamic. In this regard, it can be argued that SIG serves as a more democratised pathway to supporting a person’s grief.
Provocative questions remain unexplored regarding SIG and its relationship to existing grief theories:
- How would SIG fit in with other currently available grief theories? In other words, are there grief theories that already align with the experiences of people dealing with SIG? If so, which specific grief theories potentially hold most relevance, support or dovetail SIG?
- Could a combined approach drawing from multiple grief theories that already exist be beneficial in developing potentially useful clinical interventions for SIG?
- What insights from existing grief theories can be incorporated into our clinical approach to promote recovery or resolution of SIG?
Such questions are addressed in the brief article: “Which Grief Theories speak to and support ‘Socially Incongruent Grief’?” See you then!
This article was originally published in Mind Cafe, September, 2024, Issue 104. (Some modifications were made to the original article to suit a general readership).
REFERENCES
Duggan, M., 2023. Voice Referendum: Understanding the referendum from a human rights perspective, Australian Human Rights Commission. Australia. Retrieved from https://policycommons.net/artifacts/4776362/c-australian-human-rights-commission-2023/5612624/
Published: 8 Aug 2023. CID: 20.500.12592/swpntd.
Fowlkes, M.R. (1990). The social regulation of grief. Sociological Forum, 5, 635–652.
Kumar R. (2011). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Misrachi, S. (2012). Lives Unseen: Unacknowledged Trauma of Non-Disordered, Competent Adult Children of Parents with a Severe Mental Illness (ACOPSMI). Department of Social Work Melbourne School of Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, from http://hdl.handle.net/11343/37852
Stroebe M, Stroebe W, Schut H. (2003). Bereavement research: methodological issues and ethical concerns. Palliative Medicine.17(3):235–240.
