Modern vs. Postmodern Bereavement Theory Compared

Introduction

Bereavement is a universal human experience — every person encounters the loss of a loved one at some point in life, yet each individual experiences it in a unique way. It is an undeniable truth that to be human is to grieve. The death of a loved one can be difficult, overwhelming, and deeply painful for any person. When faced with such circumstances, many individuals — especially older adults — gradually learn to endure their loss over time. For others, however, forgetting and living without a loved one is not so easy. Some people find it extremely difficult to cope with grief-stricken situations, experiencing sorrow of greater intensity or duration (Hansson & Stroebe, 2007). A number of theorists have advanced views on grief, mourning, and bereavement since the discipline of psychology was established. Among the most significant is Freud, who was the first to present a modern, systematic account of grief.

This paper presents both modernist and postmodernist perspectives on grief and bereavement, with the primary purpose of drawing a contrast between these two theoretical paradigms. Central to this argument is a challenge to one aspect of Freud's modern grief theory — specifically, the belief that a healthy life requires a person to completely sever his or her relationship with deceased loved ones. The paper disputes the modernist claim that an individual cannot live a healthy, satisfied, and fulfilling life if he or she continues to grieve and maintain a spiritual connection with the departed.

In contrast to the Freudian position, this paper supports the postmodern view of grief developed by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, as well as the theorists who have built upon their work. The argument here is that maintaining a relationship with deceased loved ones is not only normal but genuinely important — and that compelling a bereaved individual to sever those bonds can, in many cases, cause serious harm.

The paper also incorporates the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) developed by Bartholomew and Horowitz, which extends the postmodern tradition — particularly the work of Bowlby and Ainsworth — into a systematic attachment classification model.

What Is Bereavement?

Bereavement is the term used to describe the condition of having lost someone or something significant. It is sometimes defined as a period of time, a process, or a set of particular experiences associated with loss. According to Tom Attig, a well-known philosopher, "When those we love die, we embark on a difficult journey of the heart. We begin by suffering bereavement. We 'suffer' in the sense that we have been deprived of someone we love" (as cited in Hedtke, 2010).

Modernist Theory of Bereavement

According to the grief work hypothesis of modernist bereavement theory, grief must be fully worked through. This view advocates that all stages and tasks of grief must be completed and that all negative feelings associated with loss must be processed. The hypothesis holds that grief is an intrapsychic process — one that the individual undertakes alone. It also asserts that grief is time-limited, with a clear beginning and a clear end. Most critically, this hypothesis requires the individual to conclude the grief process by destroying all bonds with the deceased. In short, the modernist bereavement theory holds that recovery is achieved only when mourning follows a prescribed course.

The modernist paradigm of bereavement theory has strong epistemological roots in logical positivism. This framework prioritizes scientific rationality, goal-directedness, and efficiency, setting aside emotional connectivity. Philosophically, logical positivism rests on empiricism. As Silverman and Klass (1996) explain, empiricism "sees a rational order in the world, with one fact leading to another" (p. 21). When applied to bereavement, this leads to the assumption that universal truths about how human beings grieve can be identified through scientific investigation (Rosenblatt, 1996). Since the beginning of the twentieth century, this grief work hypothesis — rooted in logical positivism — has dominated both bereavement research and clinical practice.

Freud's Severance of Bonds to the Deceased

Modern psychological research has been profoundly shaped by Freud's contributions to the field. With respect to bereavement and grief, Freud argued that it is healthy and necessary for an individual to sever all spiritual bonds with a deceased loved one. He viewed prolonging or maintaining any bond with the dead as abnormal behavior. His theory held that the deceased are essentially non-existent objects and that any continuing connection with them is incompatible with healthy psychological functioning (Hogan & Schmidt, 2009). Freud conceived of mourning as a reaction to the loss of a loved one or a meaningful association, and he argued that the grieving process should have an endpoint — one at which bereaved individuals become capable of overcoming their grief and detaching from the deceased.

As already noted, Freud regarded prolonged grieving as a departure from reality and an unreasonable condition. He repeatedly associated extended grieving with an abnormal state of mind throughout his work (Hedtke, 2010).

Virtually every human being experiences the pain of losing a loved one — whether a parent, spouse, child, or friend. Death is a universal reality from which no one can escape, and acceptance of this truth is generally regarded as the healthiest response. It is entirely normal for the loss of a loved one to produce an immediate emotional reaction followed by melancholy and grief. Bereaved individuals often lose interest in the outside world and social activities, withdrawing into detachment and isolation. They may also experience a diminished sense of self-worth, closely tied to their attachment to the deceased, and may find it difficult to form new close relationships or invest emotionally in others. Some individuals, however, remain in this stage of sorrow with more extreme symptoms — a condition that Freud theorized in depth (Freud, 1917).

In Mourning and Melancholia, one of his earliest treatments of grief, Freud distinguished between grief and depression and coined the term "grief work." He believed that "mourning was essentially a task in which the libido's energy is taken away from the lost loved one and redirected to another area or person in life" (Doughty & Hoskins, 2011). He argued that breaking all connection with the deceased was necessary for a healthy resolution of grief. In this modernist view, grief had a definitive endpoint that would allow the bereaved to move forward without looking back (Rosenblatt, 1996). He also held that the bereaved must confront each memory and expectation associated with the departed in order to resolve the loss. "Grief work," in Freudian terms, was understood as an emotional catharsis in which the grieving individual must emotionally release the deceased. Failure to achieve this catharsis, he believed, resulted in melancholia or clinical depression (Weiss, 2001).

Despite Freud's contributions, many twentieth-century researchers have challenged the assumption that emotional catharsis is a universally beneficial strategy for grief. Research has shown that a number of bereaved individuals recover effectively when emotions are suppressed or when distraction strategies are employed (Bonanno, Keltner, Holen, & Horowitz, 1995). Most people use a combination of emotional and cognitive-behavioral strategies to manage loss. A rigid emphasis on emotionally cathartic grief work may therefore complicate the natural grieving process for individuals who rely on other coping methods. As Doughty and Hoskins (2011) note, an emotional catharsis strategy can hinder rather than help a bereaved individual's recovery.

Freudian theories of grief have been widely criticized, particularly by scholars supporting postmodernist perspectives. Nevertheless, Freud's theories retain significant value, remain applicable, and continue to be taught and practiced in academic and therapeutic settings. Losing a loved one is an experience shared by all, and life does continue despite that loss. Although it is difficult to accept the reality of death or to transfer emotional investment to new relationships, life must go on. Those who remain fixated in grief often struggle to function, suffer from low self-esteem, lose the capacity to love, and withdraw from the world. They may become self-critical and, at times, may even hallucinate the presence of the lost person. Freud proposed that, with time, a person moves through mourning and is able to redirect psychic energy toward new attachments. Those experiencing melancholia, however, require therapeutic intervention in order to resume a normal life.

Postmodern grief and bereavement theories have grown out of a social constructionist understanding of the world. This perspective holds that human beings understand reality through what they collectively and individually believe to be true, meaningful, and reasonable. Those who have written about bereavement, grief, and mourning have each constructed their own truths in different ways, leading to the postmodern conclusion that there are multiple valid perspectives on any given subject. Each theorist has postulated what he or she believed to be true within the context of their particular cultural and historical background, unique experiences, and individual insights. Postmodernists have attributed particular meanings to the life, death, and relationships of the deceased and have reflected deeply on the grieving processes of the bereaved (Walter & McCoyd, 2009).

The Evolution of Postmodern Bereavement Theory

Dennis Klass, Phyllis R. Silverman, Steven L. Nickman, Stroebe, and Michel Foucault are among the most prominent postmodern grief and bereavement authors, theorists, and practitioners. All of these scholars share the belief that a bereaved individual need not end grieving or sever ties with deceased loved ones in order to live a healthy and satisfying life. They have also concluded that maintaining continuing bonds with the deceased is helpful in working through the grief process. Importantly, these scholars were inspired by the work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, whose Attachment Theory serves as a foundational framework for understanding postmodern bereavement theory (Walter & McCoyd, 2009).

Although the study of mourning was initiated by Freud, it is only in the last three decades or so that serious attention has been given to bereavement research. A number of new models and frameworks have been developed to support the bereaved. One might reasonably ask: why are these models needed now, given that people have experienced bereavement throughout human history and managed without them? The answer lies in the discovery that "grief reactions can have physical, emotional, cognitive, behavioural, sexual, and spiritual components, varying in length and disruptiveness" (Dent, 2005). It has therefore become important to support the bereaved through a range of models and theories — ones that help people work through grief without compelling them to sever their connections with those they have lost.

Central to understanding the foundations of postmodern bereavement theory is Bowlby's Attachment Theory, in which he accounts for the human tendency to form strong, warm, and loving bonds. In his view, attachment is a reciprocal relationship that develops through long-term interaction, beginning in the early years between a child and his or her parents or guardians. Bowlby held that grief is an inherent, universal response to separation. He was supported by Colin Murray Parkes — a British psychiatrist and author of several books on bereavement — who suggested that "grief is a predictable orderly pattern of responses to a death" (Dent, 2005). Parkes viewed grief as a process: a sequence of reactions to the death of someone close.

William J. Worden developed a somewhat different model of grieving from those of Bowlby and Parkes. Rather than viewing grief as a fixed state, Worden described it as a process through which bereaved individuals must work in order to fully adjust to their circumstances. He identified four overlapping tasks that a grieving person must undertake. The first requires the bereaved to "work through the emotional pain of their loss while at the same time adjusting to changes in their circumstances, roles, status, and identity" (Dent, 2005) — in other words, to accept the reality of the loss. The second task is to move through the pain of grief itself. The third is to adjust to a world in which the deceased is no longer present. The fourth is to find a continuing relationship with the deceased while simultaneously building a new life. These tasks are considered complete when the bereaved person has integrated the loss into their ongoing life and found a way to maintain an emotional connection with the departed that does not prevent forward movement.

Stroebe and Schut developed the Dual Process Model as an advanced framework for understanding contemporary grief. Their model acknowledges that whether avoiding grief is helpful or harmful depends on the individual's circumstances. It recognizes that feelings sometimes need to be expressed and sometimes need to be regulated. In this way, the Dual Process Model introduces a new understanding of coping with behavior, emotions, and sentiments. Grief is conceived as a dynamic process that simultaneously allows the bereaved to focus on the loss of a loved one and to redirect attention away from it. The model also emphasizes that temporarily setting aside the pain of grief can help a bereaved person manage daily life more effectively (Dent, 2005).

The five-stage model developed by Kübler-Ross is another widely discussed framework in bereavement theory. The five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance, each following the other in sequence. The model is intended to describe the range of responses to any significant and distressing change or loss. Kübler-Ross also rejected Freud's concept of disconnection from the deceased, asserting that everyone has the right to grieve and that this right cannot be taken away (Dent, 2005).

Dennis Klass has been involved in the study of bereavement since 1968. Silverman has worked with the bereaved for over four decades, including with the Harvard/MGH Child Bereavement Study. Nickman has been engaged with adoptees and their families for more than two decades (Klass, Silverman, & Nickman, 1996).

The Continuing Bonds framework represents an important development in grief theory. Klass, Silverman, and Nickman challenged the conventional view of grief's purpose by rejecting the idea that "the purpose of grieving was the reconstitution of an autonomous individual who could leave the deceased behind and form new attachments — in other words, 'break the bonds' with the deceased" (Dent, 2005). According to these three postmodern theorists, the true purpose of grieving is not to cut the bond with the loved one. Rather, it is to maintain a continuing bond with the departed while also sustaining healthy relationships with the living. In short, the Continuing Bonds theory holds that it is entirely normal — and in no way pathological (contra Freud) — for bereaved young people and adults to preserve an attachment to the deceased. The deceased are not non-existent objects; they remain meaningful presences in the lives of the bereaved, and maintaining that relationship can support growth and positive behavior (Hogan & Schmidt, 2009).

Conclusion

Postmodern bereavement theory is intricate, multifaceted, and quite difficult to understand. Since its emergence in the 1980s, the postmodern movement has generated numerous bereavement models, which have continued to branch in new theoretical directions. Postmodernism holds that grief is an extremely complex and varied phenomenon that resists simplification. The grief theories of the modernist era left a void that has since been filled by the central themes of postmodernism, which now stands as a genuine alternative to the modernist worldview.