Review of the Grieving Models

At university, we studied various theories of grief. As a young student, these were all new to me, and I had a different perspective of the world. As an adult, with more life experience, I gained more knowledge beyond what was taught in school. This led me to notice patterns that were not consistent with these theories. In the real world, I saw the actual grieving process of people, which differed.

What I have noticed with these theories is that most claim to be “new” and different from the rest. They portrayed a sense of “being better” than the other. In my opinion, they appear to be just variations of each other with a slight difference perceiving themselves as “new.” I also found that most of the authors were either colleagues, attended the same schools or were connected in some way.

Most of these theories are criticized for lacking evidence and support. Additionally, each author has criticized the other by describing them as too linear or not linear enough, too simple or too complex. Either way, most people don’t fit into any of these models. Which brings me to the next point. We are all different coming from different backgrounds, experiences, culturals and religious. This point is not taken into consideration with most theories. The ones who mention it tend to do just that, mention it but they don’t go much further than that. It seems to me that they do this in a detached manner, which is a common practice in academic thinking. I've also noticed, that they don't give much consideration to theories that existed before 1800s, as if they never existed at all.

Five Stages of Grief model: This is the most widely known model for grieving, which may surprise you to learn that it is not widely accepted. Initially, the criticism was directed towards its simplicity and linear grieving process. Following the initial criticism, the model has evolved and it has changed with the new criticisms. Furthermore, many viewed this model as outdated but it did seem to improve over time. The one thing I found different about this model is that it discusses more about the dying process as opposed to the other models that focus more on grieving.

Mourning and Melancholia model: Sigmund Freud is probably the most famous psychologist but what is often overlooked is that he is also one of the most highly criticized. Some of these criticisms include lack of evidence and support, oversimplifying complex issues, biases, reliance on subjective interpretations etc. Most of these criticisms can also apply to this theory such as putting people in two simple boxes to explain a complex idea. As well, his theory is impersonal, detached and lacking any real hope. In addition this model differs from the rest as it is a theory rather than a model. Unlike the other authors, he doesn’t discuss a process that an individual can follow. His writings, in my opinion, resemble academic ramblings.

Four Tasks of Mourning model: This model has the same approach as the five stages of grief and can be seen as an extension. For example, the five stages of grief ends with acceptance and this one starts with it. This model is also simple and linear. However, these tasks are only a small portion of the author’s book. Making the simplicity understandable since it only focuses on the process. Even though I do find the authors writing to be surfaced, he does give a good introduction to grief, touching on all the different aspects of it. He also includes lots of references to other works, theories etc

Four-stage Model: This seems to combine the five stages of grief and the four tasks. As such, my criticism is the same as the other two. Where it differs is that the author makes connections to attachment theory, making this one a little more complex. Just like the four task model, this model is a small portion of the book. He also gives a good introduction with lots of references to other works, theories etc. This work is more about types of mourning and how people respond.

Meaning Reconstruction model: This model focuses on finding new meaning and rebuilding rather than “moving on” and “recovery”. In my view, this is paraphrasing. This model makes the assumption that our modern understanding of grief offers compassion and is better. However, the author doesn’t give evidence to these claims. He does mention that this model should be used alongside other models.

Dual model: This model is very simplistic. It is a non-linear model that seeks to address the shortcomings of prior models. To me, this model doesn’t have much thought behind it but is just looking to fill in the gaps.

In conclusion these models seem to be an academic view and don’t really line up with human experiences. These theories are very detached. They are not warm, compassionate or hopeful. They can leave people feeling like they are ‘not giving properly’ or that they are ‘not doing it right’. Grieving is personal and everyone is different. We all come from different backgrounds, cultures, religions and experiences. These are not taken into consideration as much as they should be. Nor is there any mention of theories prior to the 1800s. Most of these theories state or intimate that healing can’t be done without some form of professional support. However, in most cases people receive help with the grieving process via the community. In my opinion, we should be focusing on strengthening and creating healthy communities. These theories contain good information that we can learn from, but at the end of the day grieving is personal and complex. It can’t be boiled down to a checklist. We should take the good and leave the bad.