Grief: Disenfranchised Grief
It is time for another posting of In Due Course. Today, I will discuss socially unacceptable or inappropriate grief and mourning, also known as disenfranchised grief and mourning, and its impact on those who are subjected to it. Ken Doka has defined disenfranchised grief as “the grief that persons experience when they incur a loss that is not or cannot be openly acknowledged, publicly mourned, or socially supported.” In other words, in disenfranchised grief, a person who has suffered a loss does not have the right to act as if he/she is bereaved. Doka contends that society disenfranchises grief and mourners by not recognizing one or more of the following: 1) the relationship between the deceased and a survivor, 2) the importance of the loss, or 3) the need to be a griever.
The Relationship Between the Deceased and a Survivor
Disenfranchised grief based on the relationship between the deceased and a survivor is common. Two categories of relationship-based disenfranchised grief exist. The first one includes those relationships that are socially recognized, but are not “close enough” to justify a feeling of bereavement – friends, in-laws, former spouses, co-workers, etc. The underlying assumption is that only those who are next-of-kin are “close enough” to warrant the role of mourner. This is completely incorrect and, in fact, there are probably more instances of difficulties arising from unresolved grief for friends of the deceased than for his/her close relatives.
A second category of relationship-based disenfranchised grief is that resulting from unknown, past, or secret relationships that society does not recognize or sanction. Examples here include extra-marital lovers and same-sex partners.
The Importance of the Loss
This basis for disenfranchised grief rests on the idea that some losses are not significant enough for society to recognize as being worthy for mourning. These losses include perinatal losses, elective abortions, loss of a body part, loss of a pet, loss of a personality from dementia, etc. Dismissive comments such as, “You’re still young, you can have another baby.” or “It was just a mass of tissue.” or “Be glad you’re still alive.” or “My word, it was only a dog!” demonstrate how society considers these losses unimportant.
The Needs of the Griever
Unfortunately, and arrogantly, society may deem that certain people do not have the mental faculties or abilities to understand that they have lost someone, and therefore, are not entitled to mourn their loss. Typically, the very young, the very old, and the mentally disabled fall into this group. Here again, presuming what someone else is experiencing after a death is nearly always incorrect.
Intertwined with society’s creation of disenfranchised grief by its lack of recognition is society’s attempt to regulate how, when, and for how long we may grieve. Establishing what are proper and improper mourning techniques is another way of excluding certain individuals, thereby disenfranchising them and their grief.
In the end, society’s lack of recognition does not mean the relationship, the importance of the loss, or the needs of the griever simply goes away. Rather, it means cutting off the bereaved individuals from sources of support, forcing them to stuff their grief, and causing their problems to magnify. Disenfranchised grief often involves intensified emotional reactions, failed relationships, and other concurrent crises. Disenfranchising grief does not help society; rather, it exacts a heavy toll.
This posting concludes the major topics of bereavement, grief, and mourning that I wanted to present. Next week, I will reflect back on what we have covered over these past few months before I delve into our next topic – dying.
One of those griefs is due to the loss of abortion. This is probably most commonly denied grief. great post!
Thanks. I just checked out your blog and was glad to see the attention given to fathers. Talk about disenfranchised grievers!
Another example of disenfranchised grief is when the deceased has committed a terrible crime. Where I live, earlier this year, an ex-Olympic skier was murdered by her estranged husband, who also killed her brother, who was trying to protect his sister and seriously wounded her mother. He then went on the run but killed himself in a forest the same day.
His parents, grandparents of his now orphaned son, attended the highly mediatised funeral of the woman, their daughter-in-law, and her brother. The funeral was held on the same day and in the same church that the brother was to have been married. I so admired them for having the courage to do that. They were also mourning the loss of their own son, battling with the incomprehension of what he had done, but there was no public recognition of their grief at all and they could not speak about it.
Thanks for your blog.
You are so right! This is a perfect example of how our society many times refuses to recognize that the loved ones of a deceased social outcast/”bad person” have a right to mourn their loss, too.
Thank you for this. Someone I loved very much just passed. Her family and friends did not know how much she meant to me, so I feel like an intruder. It’s been horrible. I’ve been fruitlessly trying to tell them, but they can’t hear it and others have been callous, to say the least. Knowing I’m not alone has helped tremendously.
I think that pet loss is a big one. Some companies don’t allot for time off for those who lose their pet. I know that some people may need more time to grieve for a pet than even some family members! Maybe it’s because of the way in which we communicate with our pets – it’s all non-verbal. Great post!