Complicated Bereavement: A Commentary on its State of Evolution

Abstract

We have reviewed the articles submitted by Walter (2006), Neimeyer (2005–2006, this issue), Stroebe and Schut (2005–2006, this issue), and Prigerson and Maciejewski (2005–2006, thiss issue). Walter (2005–2006, this issue) assumes a social constructivist perspective of complicated grief. His article focuses on a number of issues that we believe to be extrinsic to the primary issue of the definition of complicated grief. We do not view the movement toward a new diagnosis of complicated grief as a normalization of grief as a construct of psychiatry (“psychiatric medicine” is a redundant term), an operational requirement of “bereavement agencies,” a concept through which society can discipline the bereaved, a label applied to those who actively resist cultural grieving norms, a product of societal obsession with risk, or a result of “negotiating participants in the bereavement field.” We also do not assume that complicated grief is a “psychological disorder” but, rather, a type of psychopathology (without reference to professional discipline).