University at Buffalo
Pet Loss and Disenfranchised Grief
Kevin Deng
kevinden@buffalo.edu
UB# 50046183
Spring 2017
CEP410: Introduction to Grief and Loss
Instructor: Donald E. Nowak, Jr.,
Pet loss may not commonly be known as a type of disenfranchised grief in normal conversation but it is in other words familiar to us as a loss that is not socially recognizable, otherwise known as an unsanctioned loss. Typically, people mourn over primarily common losses like the death of a loved one through “normal” standards like the death of a heterosexual lover or a biological family member. When we become separated from a loved one, there is a broken attachment and a physical and psychological loss of a character. To experience the grieving process in a healthy manner, those who grieve have the option of seeking help from a counselor/therapist or informally seeking support from family or friends. Losses like the death of a loved one are common examples of a loss that is accepted by society’s standards. However, there are often situations within the context of the death that renders it an unsanctioned loss such as the loss of a pet or a prenatal death. The purpose of this paper is to examine pet loss and its place within the spectrum of normal grief and disenfranchised grief. A few of the important things to consider are: empathic bridging to diminish empathic failure, the lack of consideration and undermining of the importance of a pet, and the similarities manifested between the standard death and the death of a pet.
Disenfranchised grief branches off from the umbrella term, “empathetic failure”.
Neimeyer and Jordan (2002) described this empathetic failure as one that “subtly or obviously invalidates the bereaved person, family, or community’s distinctive narrative of the loss” (p. 95)
In other words, the death of a pet fails to be recognized within social support systems because people are unable to empathize and understand in depth the relationship between the human and the pet. The lack of experience and understanding of such a relationship ostracizes and marginalizes the loss of pet even though there is no significant difference between the loss being that of pet or that of a human being. For example, Gerwolls and Labott (1994) assessed the grief scores of owners’ post-losses through a longitudinal study. They analyzed the scores of those who lost a pet and those who lost a human companion and concluded that there are no significant differences between the two groups. This study is a small but important indication that the disenfranchisement of grief is a result of the failure to consider the similarities between the loss of a pet and the loss of a human being within social support systems. To further examine pet loss, the authors conducted a study that utilizes the concept of continuing bonds (CB), labeled strictly within pet bereavement literature. (Carmack & Packman, 2011) This study was cross-cultural and pertinent to the understanding of expression of grief and use of CB between two different cultures, U.S. and French-Canada. This study, comprising of multiple online assessments, measured the percentages of samples between both countries to identify the mutual responses to pet loss within a “broader conceptual framework of disenfranchised grief”: lack of validation and support; intensity of the loss experience; the nature of the human pet relationship; and continuing bonds/coping with loss. Because the online survey consisted of a written section that was randomized at the end of the study, it constituted an “empathic bridging” that allowed participants to anonymously discuss their grief benevolently and also assess their own emotional responses to the grief. As a result of the assessments, there were high values within these four areas which are indicative of the strength and value of the relationships between pet and human being. What readers are able to take away from these studies is the important perception of “absent validation” and support for a pet’s death as well as the therapeutic effects of empathic bridging. Disenfranchised grief evidently suppresses the grieving process and can hinder a person’s recovery from loss; it prohibits a griever from dealing with the loss appropriately because their social support systems become neglecting, and it’s indicative that the uses of platforms like online surveys or pet loss discussion groups can be beneficial to the diminishing of the empathic failure.
People don’t often ponder such thoughts, but the similarities between the death of a pet and the death of a human are vital to consider. “Pets are capable of having similar traits and characteristics that resemble that of a human to a child.” (Albert & Bulcroft, 1987) In studies that examine the relationships between pets and children but also pets and adults, there is sufficient evidence to state that the effects of pet loss and the relationship between pet and human almost mimic that between humans. One of the similar elements shared across both types of relationships is attachment relationships. Bryant (1990) conducted an observational study with children of the ages of 7 – 10 and learnt that they’ve developed emotional dependency with their pets. In a study of human and pet relationships, the attachment relationship suggested that family pets can maintain similar emotional bonds to that of a mother or father. (Lagoni, Butler, & Hetts, 1994) These studies led to an observation that there were similar responses and behaviors as a result of loss, be it that of a human or that of a pet. Another important element of the similarities between both types of losses is the symptoms of bereavement. For example, Carmack (2011) discussed the several factors making up grief such as anger, difficulties eating, sleeping, and concentrating. The common responses to grief as we know can be anger, sadness, and regret, and based on the universal concept of the stages of grief by Kubler-Ross, it’s evident that both the losses of human or pet can induce overlapping responses as well as the experiencing of those stages of grieving despite that each stage may not be experienced consecutively. In a study conducted by Quackenbush (1985), research indicated that “more than 93% experienced disruption in daily routine, and 70% endorsed a decrease in social activities since the death of their pet…found that a majority of these cases experienced similar impairments in functioning as adults grieving the loss of a human.” Based on this study, there is confidence that there are similar acute symptoms of bereavement through consistency of common symptoms across both types of grief. A third similarity between the loss of pets and humans is the idea surrounding the structure of family. Based on statistics from 1983, 87% of families considered their pets “an emotional being and part of the family.” For the most part, families were seen to incorporate their pets in family photos – their pets being the focus of attention and conversation as well as taking on a particular role within the family. Similar to the role of an actual family member, the pet has an incredible influence on the family’s routine as well as individuals’ behaviors. Albeit the pet is a pet in itself, it carries a specific role which may vary per family but commonly, they’re seen to provide unconditional love and comfort. Pets also promote more positive cognitive and emotional development, especially within children and adolescents, and can lead to be a source of dependency. Therefore, the death of a pet could potentially disrupt the ecosystem of the family, leading to “a likelihood of increased tension and disruption in communication, creating conflict and intense negative emotive responses within the household” (Sharkin & Knox, 2003), and such grief responses could be no different from the death of an actual family member.
Speaking of the family ecosystem, the pet plays a vital role that would greatly affect the structure and well-being of the family if the pet were to die. Pets are often seen as sources of dependency and support. Similar to the responses to the death of a human being, the grieving process for many deal with a loss of meaning, loss of security, deterioration of self-worth, and others. At this point, mental health counselors are beneficial to the recovery of families or individuals who are in need of support. One of the major factors that categorizes pet loss as a disenfranchised grief is the inability to speak of the death of a pet. Unknown to people who have never experienced the effects of disenfranchised grief, grievers are unable to appropriately cope; they cannot openly discuss their loss nor can they find the support or expect the same support that would arise from the death of a human being. For example: when we lose a loved one, we’d expect mutual friends or family members to pay visits in consideration of our past relationship. However, in cases of disenfranchised grief, there are rarely any occasions where the same support group would pay visits for the death of a pet. Additionally, grievers cannot perform traditional post-death rituals like holding funerals and must turn to covertly grieving and mourning their loss. We often overlook the significance of pets and it leads to the disenfranchised grief that many experience. The way in which we perceive animals as pets undermines the bond that could be established between pets and humans and the role which pets play within the family because like a social stigma, there’s a lowered degree of importance attached to the pet as a part of society. If we think about the significance of a pet within the strict confines of a pet and individual relationship, the pet loss will most likely induce harsher grief levels compared to a relationship between humans because the idea of a pet is to establish a relationship of codependency. Commonly, war veterans suffer from PTSD and rely on the help of pets. Though pets don’t actively do anything with intentions of helping, the bond, trust, and security established between the human and pet eases the veteran and gives him/her peace.
Those who suffer losses are often not in the position to appropriately mourn their loss. And typically, the loneliness that derives from an unsanctioned loss can worsen the process of grieving. Pet loss is a loss that isn’t accepted by society’s standards, and though the value of a pet may mean more to us than any other human beings, the relationship between individuals and pets are often overlooked. But like any normal relationship, the strength of the bond determines the acuteness of the grief. Though there aren’t enough studies on the subject of pet loss, there is sufficient evidence that indicates the similarities existing across both types of relationships such as the responses to grief and the grieving process. The purpose of this paper is to determine where pet loss exists on the spectrum of normal grief and disenfranchised grief. I believe that pet loss exhibits all things associated with normal grief, but what makes pet loss distinctive from normal grief is solely the subject that was lost, here being a pet. It is important to remember that all things that are loss vary in importance and strength in bond. People within social support systems and even professionals often are ignorant of such detail and it hinders the grieving process of those who are struggling with these types of losses and are in need of acceptance.
Citations:
Dando, J. (2012). Pet loss support in veterinary practice. Veterinary Nursing Journal, 27(1), 28-29. doi:10.1111/j.2045-0648.2011.00131.x
Gerwolls, M. K., & Labott, S. M. (1994). Adjustments to the death of a companion animal.
Anthrozoös, VII(3), 172-187
Packman, W., Carmack, B. J., Katz, R., Carlos, F., Field, N. P., & Landers, C. (2014). Online Survey as Empathic Bridging for the Disenfranchised Grief of Pet Loss. Omega: Journal Of Death & Dying, 69(4), 333-356. doi:10.2190/OM.69.4.a
Schmidt, M. A. (2015). Pet loss and continuing bonds with children and adolescents (Order No. 3737812). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1748053128). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/docview/1748053128?accountid=14169
Cordaro, M. (2012, October). Pet loss and disenfranchised grief: implications for mental health counseling practice. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 34(4), 283+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=sunybuff_main&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA306514845&sid=summon&asid=27b53bfb5a1ccca3bcf9cd0811c2f1d4
Doka, K. J. (1989). Disenfranchised grief: Recognizing hidden sorrow. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Kübler-Ross, E., & Kessler, D. (2005). On grief and grieving: Finding the meaning of grief through the five stages of loss. New York: Scribner.
Packman, W., Carmack, B.J., & Ronen, R. (2012). Therapeutic implications of continuing
bonds expressions following the death of a pet. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 64(4), 335-356.
Packman, W., Field, N. P., Carmack, B. J., & Ronen, R. (2011). Continuing bonds and
psychosocial adjustment in pet loss. Journal of Loss and Trauma,16(4), 341-357. doi:
10.1080/15325024.2011.572046
Quackenbush, J. E. (1985). The death of a pet: How it can affect owners. The Veterinary
Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 15, 395-402.
Neimeyer, R. N., & Jordan, J. R. (2002). Disenfranchisement as empathic failure: Grief
therapy and the co-construction of meaning. In K. Doka (Ed.), Disenfranchised grief
(pp. 95-117). Champaign: Research Press.
Bryant, Brenda K. “The richness of the child-pet relationship: A consideration of both
benefits and costs of pets to children.” Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of
The Interactions of People & Animals 3.4 (1990): 253-261.
Albert, A., & Bulcroft, K. (1987). Pets and urban life. Anthrozoös, 1(1), 9-25.
doi:10.2752/089279388787058740
Sharkin, B. S., & Knox, D. (2003). Pet loss: Issues and implications for the psychologist.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(4), 414-421.
doi:10.1037/07357028.34.4.414