Theories and Models about loss Grief

Click on the image to read the article.

The conventional view of grieving--encapsulated by the famous five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance - is defined by a mourning process that we can only hope to accept and endure.

In The Other Side of Sadness, psychologist and emotions expert George Bonanno argues otherwise. Our inborn emotions - anger and denial but also relief and joy - help us deal effectively with loss. To expect or require only grief-stricken behaviour from the bereaved does them harm. In fact, grieving goes beyond mere sadness and it can actually deepen interpersonal connections and even lead to a new sense of meaning in life.

Grief affects different people in different ways, most emerge from mourning in a healthy manner but for some the death of a loved one can cause intense emotional pain that is difficult to recover from. This type of grief can often surface as an underlying cause of physical and mental health problems requiring professional treatment

In The Grieving Brain, neuroscientist and psychologist Mary-Frances O’Connor, PhD, gives us a fascinating new window into one of the hallmark experiences of being human. O’Connor has devoted decades to researching the effects of grief on the brain, and in this book, she makes cutting-edge neuroscience accessible through her contagious enthusiasm, and guides us through how we encode love and grief. With love, our neurons help us form attachments to others; but, with loss, our brain must come to terms with where our loved ones went, or how to imagine a future without them.

First published in 1996. This new book gives voice to an emerging consensus among bereavement scholars that our understanding of the grief process needs to be expanded. The dominant 20th century model holds that the function of grief and mourning is to cut bonds with the deceased, thereby freeing the survivor to reinvest in new relationships in the present. Pathological grief has been defined in terms of holding on to the deceased. Close examination reveals that this model is based more on the cultural values of modernity than on any substantial data of what people actually do.

Dennis Klass, Phyllis R. Silverman, Steven L., Nickman