The current discussion about the status of “complicated grief” as a concept reflects not only a scientific process of validation and justification for a new diagnostic entity, but also a social process of reality construction. It is for this reason that the various professional, scholarly, religious and lay groups that advance competing discourses regarding “normal” and “abnormal” grief can be expected to continue to debate and challenge any given formulation, at least to the extent that pluralism is respected and dialogue is valued.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DokaK. J. (2002). Disenfranchised grief (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
2.
FoucaultM. (1970). The order of things. New York: Pantheon.
3.
KellyG. A. (1955/1991). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Routledge.
4.
MaChadoN. (2005). Discretionary death: Conditions, dilemmas and normative regulation. Death Studies, 29, 791–809.
5.
NeimeyerR. A. (1998). Social constructionism in the counselling context. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 135–149.
6.
NeimeyerR. A., & JordanJ. R. (2002). Disenfranchisement as empathic failure. In DokaK. (Ed.), Disenfranchised grief (pp. 97–117). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
7.
RaskinJ. D., & LewandowskiA. M. (2000). The construction of disorder as human enterprise. In NeimeyerR. A. & RaskinJ. D. (Eds.), Constructions of disorder (pp. 15–39). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
