Grief is a normal human reaction to a loss from our life and we usually feel this powerful emotion following an event of significant magnitude such as the death of a loved one. In this post, I would like to propose an adjustment to the theory of grief and grieving first proposed in her book, Death and Dying, by Elisabeth Kbler-Ross. According to the Kbler-Ross model, the grieving process involves the individual passing through a number of separate stages in a sequence that eventually ends with the acceptance of the situation. My proposal is that grieving is, in fact, a much longer process than has been traditionally accepted and that the model might be adjusted to include an additional final stage that we may call 'normalisation'.
There are two problems with this argument. First, the empirical data is too weak to lead to grand generalizations: grief is just too multi-dimensional and unruly. Second, the empiricists could be right when they claim that today's counselors do not shorten the grief cycle, but they erroneously conclude that "grief work" is not necessary. Let me explain.
What I would like to add to the discussion is my own observations about the grieving process. Take them for what they are - just my thoughts and ideas, not the conclusions of any kind of scientific study. Personally, I think that grief is experienced in waves. Sometimes the first wave is not instantaneous, but when the emotional reaction comes, it is like a wave of feeling that rises in intensity and then eventually passes. What then happens is that eventually, another wave of intense emotion arises; again the experience is like a wave of rising and falling intensity. As grieving continues, the waves come and go periodically. But the intensity of each wave gets progressively less and the frequency of the waves gets longer. It may even be years after the event that triggered the grieving process that another wave of emotion might be experienced, but the waves get further and further apart and each time, they are of lesser intensity. This process continues until the waves are so far apart that they finally cease to arrive at all.
It can take years, but eventually, we are adjusted to the new situation. Time has indeed played its part and is, eventually, the great healer. In this model, the emotion gets progressively less intense over the course of time and so, gets progressively easier to bear. The grieving process is much longer, I believe, than has often been suggested, but the increasingly lengthy interval between waves makes it seem as if the grieving process has ended when, sometimes, it has not.
Helping other people through the process typically involves helping them to cope with the high intensity of the early waves of emotion. Naturally, this can only be done by sharing, listening and being empathic. There is nothing we can say that makes people feel any better, so that's something we need to accept, but we can be there for them. Being there is exactly that - your physical presence is what really counts, not anything you might say.
Counseling, though readily available, is resisted by many, who believe that no one could possibly understand what they are feeling, nor do anything about the outcome. Speaking from my own experience of anticipatory grief due my husband's terminal illness, I initially had these feelings and it was with some trepidation that I went to my first counselling session. Upon hearing my story, the counsellor cried, further strengthening my opinion that she could not possibly help me. I was mistaken; after a few visits I began to see the benefit of these sessions and looked forward to seeing her each week. Here, for a short time at least, I could stop acting as if everything was okay - when nothing was okay, here I could take off my brave face and let my defenses down.
I was able to improvise a grief-work based solution, while in the midst of the debilitating pain of losing my soulmate. I see no reason for grief theorists not to come up with their own creative prescriptions for measurably reducing grief. If they fail, the empiricists will have won the war; those who grieve will be collateral damage.
There are two problems with this argument. First, the empirical data is too weak to lead to grand generalizations: grief is just too multi-dimensional and unruly. Second, the empiricists could be right when they claim that today's counselors do not shorten the grief cycle, but they erroneously conclude that "grief work" is not necessary. Let me explain.
What I would like to add to the discussion is my own observations about the grieving process. Take them for what they are - just my thoughts and ideas, not the conclusions of any kind of scientific study. Personally, I think that grief is experienced in waves. Sometimes the first wave is not instantaneous, but when the emotional reaction comes, it is like a wave of feeling that rises in intensity and then eventually passes. What then happens is that eventually, another wave of intense emotion arises; again the experience is like a wave of rising and falling intensity. As grieving continues, the waves come and go periodically. But the intensity of each wave gets progressively less and the frequency of the waves gets longer. It may even be years after the event that triggered the grieving process that another wave of emotion might be experienced, but the waves get further and further apart and each time, they are of lesser intensity. This process continues until the waves are so far apart that they finally cease to arrive at all.
It can take years, but eventually, we are adjusted to the new situation. Time has indeed played its part and is, eventually, the great healer. In this model, the emotion gets progressively less intense over the course of time and so, gets progressively easier to bear. The grieving process is much longer, I believe, than has often been suggested, but the increasingly lengthy interval between waves makes it seem as if the grieving process has ended when, sometimes, it has not.
Helping other people through the process typically involves helping them to cope with the high intensity of the early waves of emotion. Naturally, this can only be done by sharing, listening and being empathic. There is nothing we can say that makes people feel any better, so that's something we need to accept, but we can be there for them. Being there is exactly that - your physical presence is what really counts, not anything you might say.
Counseling, though readily available, is resisted by many, who believe that no one could possibly understand what they are feeling, nor do anything about the outcome. Speaking from my own experience of anticipatory grief due my husband's terminal illness, I initially had these feelings and it was with some trepidation that I went to my first counselling session. Upon hearing my story, the counsellor cried, further strengthening my opinion that she could not possibly help me. I was mistaken; after a few visits I began to see the benefit of these sessions and looked forward to seeing her each week. Here, for a short time at least, I could stop acting as if everything was okay - when nothing was okay, here I could take off my brave face and let my defenses down.
I was able to improvise a grief-work based solution, while in the midst of the debilitating pain of losing my soulmate. I see no reason for grief theorists not to come up with their own creative prescriptions for measurably reducing grief. If they fail, the empiricists will have won the war; those who grieve will be collateral damage.
0 komentar:
Post a Comment