User:Lenunn/sandbox

Note to Readers: This is a class graded assignment. I am going to be going through and making suggested additions marked in bold. Text that is marked through are things I think should be removed.

Disenfranchised grief is a term describing grief that is not acknowledged by society,and therefore cannot be appropriately mourned in public or validated by others. The term was first coined in 1985 by Dr. Kenneth Doka, Professor of Gerontology at the College of New Rochelle.

Three aspects of the mourning process were identified by Doka as potential areas that could become disqualified. The first is through relationships that are deemed atypical or inappropriate. The second is through losses, which could range from the loss of a pet to the loss of a job. The final example is the person who is grieving becoming potentially disenfranchised because they are not viewed as being capable to grief, such as a young child or someone with a mental illness. The concept of disenfranchised grief is useful and applicable to counselors and researchers as they attempt to critically analyze the ways people are disregarded.

Certain events that are often circumscribed by social stigma can also cause disenfranchised grief, such as the breakup or loss of a secret relationship (e.g. an extramarital affair), botched cosmetic surgery procedures, the diagnosis of a sexually transmitted infection, loss of a job, as well as other events.

Even widely recognized forms of grief can become disenfranchised when well-meaning friends and family attempt to set a time limit on a bereaved person's right to grieve. For example, the need to regulate mourning and restore a state of normal work activity severely impacted the grieving process of victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, according to American scholar Edward Linenthal. Grieving for lost children was redefined as post-traumatic stress disorder if parents were not "over it" within two weeks.

Background

In life, all people inevitably experience the death or loss of someone that they love. The human response in these times is to mourn the loss of life at hand. In many cases, grief is acceptable, and psychologists have even identified five typical stages of the grieving process. While there is a consensus about the process of grieving, this typical process is assumed to be taking place when public mourning is acceptable and supported. Not all losses or deaths are viewed as acceptable to mourn over in society, thus the idea of disenfranchised grief was conceived. Kenneth Doka, Ph.D., first introduced the term disenfranchised grief in 1985. The concept originated from a graduate level course that Doka taught on aging in the 1980s. Through conversations with students about experiencing a loss that was especially painful, he began to formulate this idea of grief that was unrecognized and unacceptable. Doka has written two books on disenfranchised grief, and the concept is widely researched through a critical research lens. A central focus of this research lens is to deliver the right to grieve to people who have felt it is not acceptable. Current research aims to equip grievers with the capacity and knowledge to properly deal with their emotions and feelings.

Loss and Grief

For grief to become disenfranchised the first thing that must occur is some sort of loss. Loss is one of the most common experiences that brings about grieving, and although this is often viewed as normal, there are times when it is disqualified. Relationships are the core of human interaction, and it is loss in one of our various relationships that causes a person to grieve. It is society that judges and categorizes the different relationships and responses that people have to instances of loss, and decides what should and should not be worthy of grieving over. While loss and grief may occur through material things or over loss of life you could have, the majority of disenfranchised grief is a result of a loss of relationship.

To properly deal with and cope with personal and relational loss, there is a need for social and societal support. Doka makes the case that each society has certain rules and expectations about what loss is acceptable to mourn over. These expectations govern who is allowed to grieve and the way in which is would be acceptable for them to grieve. The implication is that some people will be stripped of their right to grieve based on the society's rules and this may be damaging to the individual who is experiencing loss.

In cases of acceptable loss and grief, people are offered social support that may be necessary to cope with their time of mourning. In cases of disenfranchised grief, it is likely that social support from work, friends, and in some case family will not be present to help with the grieving process.

Contexts for Disenfranchised Grief

Disenfranchised grief is expressed in a wide variety of ways, and can be brought on by different forms of relational and material loss. Examples of events leading to disenfranchised grief are the death of a friend, the loss of a pet, a trauma in the family a generation prior, the loss of a home or place of residence particularly in the case of children (children generally have little or no control in such situations, and their grief may not be noticed or understood by caregivers). Other instances include aborted/miscarried pregnancy, a mother's loss or surrender of a child to adoption, a child's loss of their birth mother to adoption, or even the death of a celebrity.Traditional forms of grief are more widely recognized even in nontraditional living situations. However, there are few support systems, rituals, traditions, or institutions such as bereavement leave available to those experiencing disenfranchised grief. Listed below are some of the most well understood examples of contexts in which disenfranchised grief occurs. For example, following the death of a partner in a homosexual relationship societal supports can tend prioritize the immediate family, invalidating the significance of the romantic relationship and loss for the grieving partner (McNutt & Yakushko, 2013).. Another example may be a former partner, such as the death of an ex-spouse (a person who the griever was previously married to, but eventually divorced). The death of an ex-spouse does not typically receive the same recognition as the death of a current spouse.

• Grandparents: Loss of a grandchild can be extremely difficult for a grandparent, but the grandparent’s grief is often disenfranchised because they are not part of the immediate family. Attention and support is given to the child’s parents and siblings, but the grandparent’s grief is two-fold as they have not only grieving the loss of their grandchild, but are also grieving for their adult children who have lost the child. This phenomenon is termed “double-grief” by Davidson and she explains that this makes bereavement even more difficult.
• Ex- Spouse: Another example may be a former partner, such as the death of an ex-spouse (a person who the griever was previously married to, but eventually divorced). The death of an ex-spouse does not typically receive the same recognition as the death of a current spouse. The grievers experience guilt and thoughts of “what might have been”, similar to those of widows. This example of the loss of an ex-spouse was one of the first that sparked this thought process of Doka when he was first proposing this concept.
• Same-Sex Relationships: For example, following the death of a partner in a homosexual relationship societal supports can tend prioritize the immediate family, invalidating the significance of the romantic relationship and loss for the grieving partner. The stress of being a sexual minority puts same-sex couples under more pressure and social stigma which relates in a large amount of disenfranchised grief among them when they lose a loved one.
• Foster Parents: Foster parents are in a unique situation because they are tasked with temporarily caring for children who have most likely been through abuse or neglect. The goal of children in the foster care system is for them to find a permanent place to live, and this could be through adoption or ultimately through reuniting with their birth parents. Foster parents are in a position in which they potentially have harsh feelings towards the birth parents of their foster children because of any harm that may have been caused in the past. Foster parents frequently express disenfranchised grief at the time when their foster children leave their home because of the bonds that have been built over time, and the lack of social structures in place to support them.
• Mothers of Adopted Children- Women who give up their children for adoption typical suffer from long term psychological problems. Loss of a child by adoption is often disenfranchised because the decision to give a child up for adoption is voluntary, and therefore it is not acceptable by society to grieve. Birth mothers lack support, and are expected to just move on and pretend the child doesn't exist. Many birth mothers experience regret and have thoughts of what might have been or of reuniting with the child. Lack of support for mothers in the hospital setting is the beginning of the disenfranchisement process for these mothers, and needs to be altered to better serve this population.
• Online Relationships: Relationships formed online are often not recognized or validated by society, for example where friendships are made through online games and social media. However, when one person dies, the griever or person that did not die in the relationship will often experience disenfranchised grief
• Parasocial Interactions- Parasocial relationships occur when someone feels like they have a real connected relationship with a someone famous who does not know they exist. This is common in younger children, and in the event that a celebrity dies, the child will most likely have a strong reaction of mourning. In these cases it is typical for parents or other family members to discount the child's feelings, thereby disenfranchising their grief.
• Homelessness- Loss of home and security of well being have been studied in a population older homeless people. Homelessness was found to result in a loss and disenfranchised grief because of the inability to grieve properly under those circumstances. The homeless population attempt to not look needy and be a burden on others, but inevitably are not able to properly express their grief positively.
• Pet Owners- With over 30% of American households having pets, it is inevitable that pet owners form strong bonds with their pets and in some cases treat them like members of the family. Pet owners often have their grief disenfranchised because of the societal views that the grieving process should be quicker than if it were grief over another person. Also with the loss of pets, children often grieve more than adults and are disenfranchised because of their young age.

Responses

There are many models for dealing with grief. The Kubler-Ross model describes grieving in five steps or stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance (Kubler-Ross, 1969). In other words, in order to begin grieving one must first endorse the loss, and then express emotion. The griever must then accept the loss and adjust to the change the death or loss caused in his or her life (Cordaro, 2012). Over the years, however, how grief is conceptualised has moved away from predictable stages that lead to 'recovery' or 'closure', towards an understanding of grief that addresses the complexity and diversity of the grieving experience (Australian Psychological Society, 2016). Models such as Worden's tasks of grief (2008) and the Dual-Process model (Stroebe and Schutt,1999) offer frameworks for dealing with grief in a way that enhances the self awareness of the grieving person (Australian Psychological Society, 2016).

Disenfranchised grief presents some complications that are not always present in other grieving processes. First, there are usually intensified reactions to death or loss. For example, the griever may become more depressed or angry due to not being able to fully express his or her grief. Secondly, disenfranchised grief means society does not recognize the death or loss; therefore, the griever does not receive strong social support and may be isolated. As disenfranchised grief is not legitimized by others, the bereaved person may be denied access to rituals, ceremonies, or the right to express their thoughts and emotions (McKissock & McKissock, 1998). When supporting someone through disenfranchised grief it is important to acknowledge and validate their loss and grief (McKissock & McKissock, 1998)

Application

Despite the wide reaching nature of disenfranchised grief, the scope of research done on the topic is fairly narrow. Psychologists and bereavement specialists are among those who will be able to most practically apply these concepts at work and help the populations that are enduring their grief without support. Practitioners will continue to encounter cases of disenfranchised grief and it is through a better understanding of this phenomenon that they can better care for troubled patients experiencing grief and loss. Grief and bereavement scholar Thomas Attig believes that disenfranchisement of grief is a failure of our society. Thomas argues that it is often times and abuse of power by those in control in believing that they understand the emotions of the person experiencing grief. In many ways this puts the onus on those in power such as therapists, leaders of families and ministers to understand ways in which grief can differ based on the person or situation. By responding positively and with attention to those who are experiencing grief, all people are able to prevent grief from becoming disenfranchised.

Critique

One criticism of the disenfranchisement of grief, is that loss can be categorized in a hierarchy. This stance discredits the binary stance that is usually associated with disenfranchised grief. It is typically either acceptable by society or it is inappropriate. The binary model allows for no differentiation between examples of grief disenfranchisement and does not address that some grief may not need to be socially accepted in all ways. In the hierarchical viewpoint, the disallowed grief is not something normative, but something that is felt because the mourners expectations have not equaled reality. Examining grief in a hierarchical manner leaves room for judgement on a case to case basis. Researches Patricia Robson and Tony Walter make the argument that not all disenfranchisement of grief is necessarily negative. For example if all people received bereavement leave when their pet ran away or died, then it would be impossible to manage these expectations properly in the workplace. In their research, Robson and Walter found that research subjects were able to grade who experiences the most grief in a given situation. This shows that grief disenfranchisement is not necessarily binary because of different levels of acknowledgement of grief seen by society. Robson and Walter argue that the concept of disenfranchised grief carries substantial weight in the clinical world of psychology, but should be reexamined because of its exclusive binary nature.