Which Grief Theories speak to and support “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.
“Socially Incongruent Grief” (SIG), a term coined by the author, arises in conjunction with cognitive dissonance or gaslighting. This being irrespective of whether or not, for instance, the gaslighting was a conscious or unconscious, covert or overt external act by members in the griever’s social environment. Whatever the case might be, SIG is nonetheless a damaging experience which unless support and understanding is received, sits silently and invisibly deep inside the hearts and minds of its sufferers.
To help people heal from grief when they can’t find words to describe their experience is particularly challenging. Conducting future qualitative studies dedicated to examining appropriate interventions, their applicability, the process and progression of SIG would yield significant value. Such studies could enhance our comprehension of SIG and offer insights for effective counselling and all forms of clinical practice. However, unlike trauma research, the domain of reliable grief research is considerably scarce, likely due to ethical complexities (e.g., Stroebe, et al., 2003). Nonetheless, it remains imperative for people to receive appropriate care commensurate with the psycho-emotional injuries suffered as a consequence of Socially Incongruent Grief. To assist in this type of care, this article focuses on insights from five grief theories. This may be helpful for anyone interested in learning and expanding their thinking around grief. Importantly, it will hopefully assist on how best to use words which may facilitate recovery from or resolution of SIG. This being for professionals and non-professionals alike. In fact, anybody working anywhere where people exist!
In summary, SIG is a grief theory that emerged from a fusion of my clinical practice experience and understanding of grief via my original conceptual research (Misrachi, 2012). SIG occurs when an individual, due to social tensions beyond their control, develops a feeling of being an “illegitimate mourner” (Misrachi, 2012). In essence, this entails a belief that they lack the entitlement to grieve their valid losses after enduring psycho-emotional trauma. However, by introducing SIG to the grief and grieving world, it is hoped that this sense of being an “illegitimate mourner” dissolves.
Ultimately, we all need to help each other appreciate and recognise the importance and value of expressing grief in a healthy way. For instance, this could involve elucidating that grief, on the whole, constitutes a normal response, that can be extended to include even non-human animals (e.g., King, 2013). Moreover, engaging in the grieving process often serves to prevent the accumulation of “unresolved baggage” throughout one’s life (e.g., Neimeyer et al., 2011) and across generations (Misrachi, 2012).
If our aim is to improve health outcomes, we have a long way to go to remove pervasive and structural misunderstandings of grief baked into our institutions and other systems. We would also need to narrow knowledge gaps about grief regarding how it relates to trauma. As stated by van der Hart et al. (2006), “[M]any [clients] have been retraumatized by therapists who had inadequate understanding and skills to treat complex trauma-related problems…” (p.224). A parallel observation can be drawn concerning the grief that inevitably accompanies psychological trauma (Brom & Kleber, 2000). Everybody need to broaden their understanding of grief theories beyond the discredited stages proposed by Kubler Ross, as these stages can lead them astray.
The overarching objective in treating people grappling with SIG would be to mitigate cognitive dissonance or gaslighting (whether conscious or unconscious, self-inflicted or not) while empowering them to grant themselves the time and space needed to gently name, define and mourn their losses within a genuinely supportive ecosystem. However, SIG can be difficult to explain to the uninitiated. It’s a grief that is not suppose to exist, yet does. Hence validation via the following five grief theories may help. Collectively, they aim to: (1) begin dissolving language barriers; (2) diminish any peculiarity; and (3) reduce potential isolation caused by ignorance. However, the challenge for all involved, including clinicians, lies in effectively comprehending how each of the following grief theories can support the SIG sufferer. Then, to effectively translate comprehension into action. Selected grief theories below offer the reader comfortable starter points. They act as trustworthy guides to answer the question: Which Grief Theories speak to “Socially Incongruent Grief”?
Disenfranchised Grief: The most pertinent and valuable grief theory for individuals who were grappling with SIG is Disenfranchised Grief (Doka, 1989). This is particularly relevant because, until engaging in grief-informed therapy and a verbal introduction of their SIG, their type of grief remained concealed and unacknowledged, often spanning decades. That is, historically “disenfranchised” because it was blocked or locked out of any specific verbally understood language. Previous to any appreciation of SIG, there were no words or descriptive account of such a unique and painful grief experience. It was silent and silenced. Therefore, there could be no start to any process or protocol available to them to heal. SIG sufferers remained alone with an open emotional and psychological wound. Now SIG offers a language with which to begin suturing such invisible wounds, purely by acknowledging, articulating, processing and entering a grief process which previously may have been disenfranchised. Awareness of when a person’s Socially Incongruent Grief is no longer disenfranchised is critical. This signals relief for individuals. Why? By becoming aware from deep within their grieving process that decent attempts (no matter how preliminary) of their grief is finally understood, reduces stress. In other words, their type of unique grief understood as “Socially Incongruent” (yet very congruent to their internal anguish), can now (by virtue of being named and described), be fully respected, i.e., no longer “Disenfranchised”.
Psychological Death: Kaplan’s concept of a “psychological death” (1995) is compatible with SIG. For instance, let’s consider the case of “Bill” (not his real name). As a boy, Bill suffered physical and emotional abuse by his father after his father returned from military service and was awarded medals. In his understanding, his relationship with his father, despite him being physically alive, felt like a psychological “death.” This perspective allowed Bill to normalise his grief. It diluted the intensity of his previous, painful and enduring grief and reduced the overwhelming emotional distress associated with his father’s abuse. The idea of a “psychological death” provided Bill with a clear and understandable framework as well as words to name the consequences of his father’s brutality, enabling him to acknowledge and express the losses he experienced. Kaplan’s concept of a “psychological death” aligns well with the experiences of individuals dealing with SIG.
Ambiguous Loss: Those who care should take the initiative to elucidate to the people they care about how Ambiguous Loss (Boss, 1991; 1999) might manifest within their internal landscape. This proactive approach would serve to demystify an aspect of their grief that could otherwise perplex those unfamiliar with this grief concept. For instance, “Bill” (in case study above) grasped the concept of Ambiguous Loss through his articulation of his ambiguity: I ‘sort of’ love my father. He is my father after all… but I don’t feel any connection with him. I don’t even necessarily feel any affection for him which I sort of hate… not sure why. It’s like he’s gone, dead. Yet he is alive… even admired by many in the military who do not know the full reality of his abuse of me as a kid. Ambiguous Loss, depending upon the SIG context, could be useful.
Chronic Sorrow, formulated by Olshansky (1962), could hold relevance close to almost any SIG context. Chronic Sorrow entails persistent feelings of sadness and loss that underlie one’s life experiences, potentially becoming all-encompassing due to their recurring and ongoing nature, lacking a clear psychological resolution. People may benefit from receiving psycho-education around this grief understanding, especially if they harbour concerns about the permanence of their grief. SIG as a grief theory can offer a stepping stone towards the normalisation that grief does not always have a set time table for all, particularly not within all cultures. The notion of a Chronic Sorrow fits in well with SIG as SIG does not appear to come on dramatically. That is, a person suffering from SIG does not necessarily feel a sudden shock or overwhelm as one would following a death by car accident. In the absence of any mental health concerns, neither would they feel enraged, helpless or suddenly distraught. SIG appears to be a slow-motion grief, i.e., a slow unfolding of what seems timeless and limitless. In many respects, it is not a completion process as one would anticipate when a loved one physically dies. It therefore, does not offer the griever any immediate promise of a cleansing state. However, to contextualise the experience, clinicians can incorporate an explanation about the temporal nature of trauma and its correlation with grief duration (e.g., Brom & Kleber, 2000). This perspective could alleviate apprehensions by underscoring that grief might seem continuous, yet with trauma/grief-informed support or treatment, the potential exists for transformation and healing over time.
Nonfinite Loss: The losses faced by individuals grappling with SIG are frequently about what “should have been” or about unfulfilled individual or social expectations. This concept converges with Bruce and Schultz’s (2001) notion of Nonfinite Loss, where grief takes on the attributes of chronic sorrow. In this context, the losses are also unanticipated; people never envisaged enduring such an array of losses. Consider “Bill” (introduced above) who never foresaw his father subjecting him to horrendous physical and emotional abuse. Consequently, losing his father due to the need for psychological estrangement, and encountering a lack of familial support, among other challenges, can be potentially understood as ‘nonfinite’. None of these scenarios were anticipated. Socially, they “should not have” happened. This grief theory readily accords with SIG.
The Dual Process Model of Grief (Stroebe & Schut, 1999) acts as a gentle reminder to people, urging them not to blame themselves or engage in self-criticism if they perceive limited progress over time. It emphasises that their journey through grief likely involved them naturally managing their emotions in healthy increments, even if they were not consciously aware of it. The model’s core principle of oscillation instils a sense of being patient and hopeful, thus normalising the grief process. Essentially, individuals undergoing grief frequently experience a dynamic process of shifting between a focus on their losses (loss-oriented immersion) and engaging in self-management or self-care aimed at restoration (restoration-oriented self-care). This model allows grievers to give themselves crucial “psychological holidays” softening and protecting SIG sufferers from pain they’re not yet ready to deal with. The Dual Process Model of Grief harmonises well with SIG. It therapeutically blends in to form a pleasing relationship. Metaphorically, it can be likened to gentle waves in an otherwise turbulent ocean.
In conclusion, an intangible grief like SIG, disconnected from physical demise, can potentially be an experience that leaves an indelible mark on a person’s soul. For those wrestling with this largely unfamiliar yet profoundly real form of grief, SIG can potently reshape the landscape of their internal world, unsettling the very bedrock of what they once viewed as stable, conventional. It can leave them navigating what can feel like an endless ocean of grief, alone. But by putting words to sadness, distilled and adapted from previous grief knowledge, anybody, including clinicians, can act as therapeutic catalysts increasing a person’s choices via increased awareness. Hopefully, the above five grief theories will open up an array of approaches for a possible language to help set such grievers free. Although there’s no one-size-fits-all solution, the above five grief theories embrace and support Socially Incongruent Grief. Each hopefully will inspire people’s thinking to effectively tackle and address SIG with compassion — grief must never remain alone.
This article was originally published in Mind Cafe, November/December, 2024, Issue 106. (Some modifications were made to the original article to suit a general readership).
References
Boss, P. (1991). Ambiguous loss. In F. Walsh & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), Living beyond loss. New York: Norton.
Boss, P. (1999). Ambiguous Loss: Learning to live with unresolved grief. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brom, D., & Kleber, R. J. (2000). On coping with trauma and coping with grief: Similarities and differences. In R. Malkinson, S. S. Rubin & E. Witztum (Eds.), Traumatic and nontraumatic loss and bereavement: clinical theory and practice. Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.
Bruce, E. J., & Schultz, C. L. (2001). Nonfinite loss and grief: A psychoeducational approach. Baltimore: Brooks Publishing.
Doka, K. J. (1989). Disenfranchised grief: Recognising hidden sorrow. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.
Kaplan, L., J. (1995). No voice is ever wholly lost. New York: Simon & Schuster.
King, B.J. (2013). How Animals Grieve. University of Chicago Press.
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
Neimeyer, R.A., Harris, D.L., Winokuer, H.R., Thornton, G.F. (2011). (Eds.). Grief and Bereavement in Contemporary Society Bridging Research and Practice. Routledge.
Olshansky, S. (1962). Chronic sorrow: A response to having a mentally defective child. Social Casework, 43, 190–193.
Stroebe, M; Schut, (1999). “The Dual Process Model of Coping with Bereavement: Rationale and Description”. Death Studies. 23(3): 197–224.
Stroebe M, Stroebe W, Schut H. Bereavement research: methodological issues and ethical concerns. Palliative Medicine. 2003;17(3):235–240.
van der Hart, O., Nijenhuis, E. R. S., & Steele, K. (2006). The haunted self: Structural dissociation and the treatment of chronic traumatization. W W Norton & Co.
