The Truth of Grief

Running head: THE TRUTH ABOUT GRIEF

The Truth About Grief

Alissa Wulff

The George Washington University

1


I think it’s only appropriate to begin my analysis on The Truth About Grief by

Ruth Davis Konigsberg, with the blunt notion that she is very skeptical of the grief

culture Western Society has built and those who specialize in the field. Despite her

undergraduate background in Psychology, it’s difficult to label the critical journalist a

qualified mental health educator and expert, but I will keep an open mind.

Konigsberg began her questioning into the grief industry through analyzing how

grief has evolved throughout time based on different cultural and timely events that

shaped the modern grief stricken society. Through her various examples the public

visibility seemed to keep increasing throughout time from the extension of mourning

periods, changes in mourning rituals, extended preservation of bodies, physical

manifestations of mourning such as founding organizations in a deceased honor or

building memorials, and dialogue about death itself. This was reflected as she quoted

French philosopher Philippe Aries “one must avoid – no longer for the sake of the dying

person, but for society’s sake, for the sake of those close to the dying person – the

disturbance and the overly strong and unbearable emotion caused by the ugliness of

dying and by the very presence of death in the midst of a happy life, for it is henceforth

given that life is always happy or should always seem to be (pg. 31)”.

Another facet of grief which Konigsberg believes our modern culture has created

additional anxiety pertaining to death from promoting the belief that “grief is necessarily

lengthy and debilitating; the only way out is to work through it – in a series of stages,

steps, tasks, phases, passages, or needs (pg. 40)”. The beginning of this quote is a bit

extreme to generalize that is how our society draws out grief, but I do question the

models presented in stages. I appreciate the belief that we all go through various tasks

2


and needs during the grieving period, but not in a prescriptive or consistent manner.

There are typical hardships one would assume comes with death and loss that we all

experience to varying degrees. To say we emphasize the longevity and severity of grief as

a culture is taking it a step too far; only in certain circumstances as depicted in the 10-

15% of mourners who reach those debilitating levels of complicated grief. To get back to

her point though, there are various first hand accounts, plays, movies, etc. which are

published that fantasize and dramatize death and the grieving process. These types of

examples work towards building and reemphasizing stereotypes for those who have not

dealt with such issues before and have no other point of reference.

As society constantly evolves, the current events of that era will inevitably impact

and change the diagnosis and terminology for grief as seen in post-war eras, the AIDS

crisis, and even most recently as post 9/11. As a society that’s what we do. Major events

happen during those times the way society views or reacts to certain circumstances

fluctuates the way we react to grief. Although the inevitability of death has and will never

change, the impact of handling such can be viewed through various lenses.

Konigsberg believes that this specialized focus on the long grieving process is

something that mental health professionals have created to give meaning to their own

losses by cathartically providing help to others, but in doing so can benefit financially.

“Grief counselors are, by large, not a sinister bunch out to make a buck off other peoples

misery, but they do, in the interest of self-preservation, have a stake in convincing us that

grief is long, hard, and requires their help (pg. 39).” This is a very bold statement to

make. The only partial truth is about helping professionals getting into this niche from

experience they’ve had with such loss and grief. Grief counselors do believe that people

3


are resilient and can heal themselves, but sometimes need the guidance or outlet of an

unbiased and non-grieving outsider to help give them perspective. For those working in

the counseling field, most go into this line of work for passion, not for a hefty paycheck.

When you review compensation for counselors and social workers, they are paid very

low compared to other industries and a large amount of the people providing

bereavement and grief support are volunteers. There are numerous non-profit agencies

that aren’t in the business of making money and getting rich. She would argue that Dr.

Alan Wolfelt was another type of profit seeking professional who is compensated for

extending and dramatizing the process of grieving.

To Konigsberg’s credit though, the example of the funeral seminar she attended

with various funeral service vendors with lectures on helping give selling points to push

the importance of holding a viewing of the body, having wakes, and associated burials

did stand out to me. Specifically, when she mentioned that across from the Grief Inc.

stand which offered promotional DVD and CD’s with bereavement materials there was

an Otis Spunkmeyer cookie stand with the promotion slogan of “funerals and wakes

bring families together. Fresh-baked cookies offer the same warmth and nostalgia the

bereaved seek during this trying time, (pg. 65).” If Konigsberg is going to accuse anyone

of making money off extended grief and the norms our society has blown up with this

inevitability, she should look elsewhere to such other tenets of the industry outside of the

helping professionals.

Konigsberg provides a clear understanding that she is not a fan of Elizabeth

Kubler-Ross’ work and at times seemed to show a personal disdain towards her. She is

extremely critical of the attention and misapplication of Kubler-Ross’ fives stages of

4


grief. The stages were written and intended for the perspective of a dying patient rather

mourners and those facing loss. In Konigsberg’s defense and as she explains in the book,

it does appear that Kubler-Ross did not emphasize or correct this common

misinterpretation of her published interviews. Kubler-Ross never expanded, nor did she

reject people’s application of these principles of denial, anger, bargaining, depression,

and acceptance to the reactive behavior of those facing losses. Konigsberg did provide

realistic commentary of the lack of supported, peer reviewed evidence to be found in

Kubler-Ross’s publications. They were based on interviews and speaking with those

dying, not empirically tested and tried in a research setting.

In general, Konigsberg does not believe that the effectiveness of bereavement

counseling has been proven through empirical evidence or practicality. This is clear

through the following passage in which Konigsberg writes, “forty years ago, there was no

such thing as a grief counselor … [t]hat role was usually played by someone in a person’s

existing support network, or perhaps a priest of psychotherapist (pg. 115).” I agree with

Konigsberg that the majority of the time those types of supports already exist in a persons

support network, but not until I faced a difficult loss in my life did I see how imperative

having a non-grieving, outside support was. It was crucial for my family and myself to

have others we could vent to about our mourning who weren’t also going through the

emotional and psychological changes and adjustments to the situation. I understand her

aversion to treating normal grief as pathology given that humans are created with a

resilient and natural survival instinct, but believe there needs to be more flexibility when

it comes to complicated and other serious maladaptive grief issues.

5


In conclusion, I don’t believe this book has made any advancement in the field,

but raises very critical questions about the nature of grief and loss and our society’s

reaction. There will always be anxiety and fear surrounding death due to it being an

inescapable aspect of life that we all face. Some will have the resiliency in which

Konigsberg harps upon, but there are some who cannot handle such hardships and require

the help of others to navigate such drastic changes. By wanting to provide help and

support to those suffering is not to say we are pathologizing a normal emotional response

to life, but in extreme cases making sure individuals have the support and coping skills

needed to pass through such trials and tribulations. Hopefully in the future research can

find more qualitative ways to support the efficacy of bereavement counseling, but until

then we must continue to see the immeasurable human spirit that brings us all together.

Science can prolong life and help cure disease, but there are some aspects of life that it

may not ever be able to prove or answer.

6


Reference:

The truth about grief: The myth of its five stages and the new science of loss.

Konigsberg, Ruth Davis. New York, NY, US: Simon & Schuster. (2011). 258 pp.

7

Documents

The Truth of Grief