Cheerful reading before bedtime.

I've been critical of Kübler-Ross's grief stages mostly because it's been detrimental to my recovery from the loss of my parents.  I didn't really pay much attention to the stages personally, but those around me expected me to follow this strict guide of when and how to feel.  I know this is a gross misapplication of the grief model, but the misapplication is societal.  In both deaths, when I wasn't following the prescripted stages I was questioned and bullied over it.  What this ended up causing was for me to retreat further within, thinking I was experiencing death the wrong way.  Eventually I just shut it out entirely and it festered like an infected wound for years while I consciously tried to bury it deeper.  My whole issue comes from the way grief models are presented.  They're usually listed, and even with warnings ("please don't use this as a list!"), we still do.  Perhaps if the model was some sort of visual graphic it could better represent the seemingly universal moods that we can all connect with.  I don't doubt there isn't a fair set of emotions we all may feel, but we all experience bereavement so radically differently I fear even suggesting, say "anger" (one I haven't personally encountered) as an emotion present in grief will present a problem for people who haven't felt it.

Lauren J. Breen and Moira O’Connor[1] note the fundamental structure of grief through psychology analysis also fails to consider grief doesn’t always align to specific functions.  They posit that this creates a paradox for complicated grief: a cyclic interference in what may actually be healthy grieving following a delineated path.  By medicalising grief, and assigning a diagnostic category, we create a self-fulfilling prophesy of damaged individuals.  This does not, in fact, prove that complicated grief isn’t a thing, rather, it proves its existence by default.  Until a society can understand death, we will not have the correct capacity to deal with it.  

[1] Breen, L. J. & O’Connor, M. (2007) “The fundamental paradox in the grief literature: a critical reflection.” Omega: journal of death and dying. 55 (3) 199-218.

In a study of bereaved individuals, it is noted that of the two different styles of attachment theory, avoidant-attachment can be used as a coping mechanism for bereavement.  (Delespaux, et al. 2013)[1].  Avoidance in usual circumstances is healthy, as it plays a role in facilitating the healing process.  The emotional pain can be severe enough that respite helps manage the worst of the symptoms.  (Shear, 2010)[2].  Usually this is temporary, but prolonging this state can result in complicated grief, where the sufferer no longer adapts to change.

‘Complicated grief’, previously known as ‘traumatic grief’, is a condition that arrests the sufferer’s ability to function appropriately in society. (Hensley, Clayton. 2008)[3] It usually manifests itself as anger, disbelief, preoccupation with the deceased, and/or avoidance of reminders of the deceased. It is the latter ability to avoid loss that sits at the heart of my research interests.

Through practice-led research I aspire to detail a practical and theoretical exploration of the role of erasure in dealing with complicated grief.  My initial pathway into research, Derrida’s Aporias (1993)[4], considers the personal psychological implications of death (spectres and ghosts) and this supports the kind of absent-presence I have often attempted in my own photographs. On the other hand, Derrida recognises the broader societal issues involved – ‘there is no politics of death’ he writes, as if loss of life is itself without prefix, without cultural mediation. (Derrida, 1993: 59). On this basis my research project creatively exploits the ‘compromised sense of purpose, significance, security, and control’ of bereaved individuals.’ (Neimeyer, et al. 2002: 241)[5]

I am investigating how grief and avoidance impact upon, and motivate, the production of artworks that themselves manifest ‘compromised purpose’ through technical or procedural erasure. Given my emphasis on personal loss I am concerned with the tensions between public and private knowledge within practices that currently explore audio recordings of data transfer (voice, handwriting, typing), visualisations of voice sound waves, and obscuring of text.

This compromising of information illustrates the absent-presence that engages my current research project and addresses the impact complicated grief has on decisions within my studio practice.  I strive to create a sensation of something lost, not found but almost there: an indexical trace of moments and memories left to me.  This becomes the trace of complicated grief: a practical exploration of erasure.

REFERENCES
[1] Delespaux, E. et al.. (2013). Attachment and severity of grief: the mediating role of negative appraisal and inflexible coping. Omega: journal of death and dying. 67 (3), 269-290.
[2] Shear, M. K.. (2010). Exploring the role of experiential avoidance from the perspective of attachment theory and the dual process model. Omega: journal of death and dying. 61 (4), 357-370.
[3] Hensley, P. & Clayton, P. J. (2008) “Bereavement-Related Depression”. Psychiatric Times. Available online at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/bereavement-related-depression [Accessed: 27 Feb 2014]
[4] Derrida, J. (1993) Aporias. Stanford, CA: Stanford Press.
[5] Neimeyer, R. A., et al. (2002) “Mourning and Meaning”. American Behavioral Scientist. 46 (2), 235-251