Leighton Park School, Reading, United Kingdom.
Omega (Westport). 2012;66(2):97-119. doi: 10.2190/om.66.2.a.
Two aspects of the concept of disenfranchised grief are examined: its binary assumption that grief is either enfranchised or disenfranchised; and its emancipatory agenda that grief should not be socially regulated. Focusing on the mourner's relationship to the deceased, we argue that social norms about the legitimacy of bereavement are not binary (yes-no), but are scalar or hierarchical, or even more complex still. We report on a tool for identifying hierarchies of loss, and describe the hierarchy identified by this tool in one British study. If norms about loss are not binary but hierarchical, how has disenfranchised grief--which claims to be a theory of norms--become an uncontested concept within bereavement research and clinical practice? We point to its rhetorical value in the postmodern politics of grief and its seductive emancipatory symbolism within the clinic; its value both for clinical practice and for empirical research into bereavement norms, however, may be limited.
其一,悲伤要么被赋予权利,要么被剥夺权利,这种二元假设;其二,悲伤不应受到社会规范,这种解放议程。本文聚焦于哀悼者与逝者的关系,认为关于丧亲之痛的合理性的社会规范不是二元的(是/否),而是标度或等级的,甚至更复杂。我们报告了一种识别损失层次结构的工具,并描述了该工具在一项英国研究中确定的层次结构。如果关于损失的规范不是二元的而是等级的,那么声称是规范理论的被剥夺的悲伤是如何在丧亲研究和临床实践中成为一个无争议的概念的?我们指出了它在后现代悲伤政治中的修辞价值,以及它在诊所中诱人的解放象征意义;然而,它对于临床实践和对丧亲规范的经验研究的价值可能是有限的。