There are obvious links between sadness and grief, grief being what most people experience at some time over the loss of something highly valued, usually of course a loved person . Theoretically, the problem with grief is that, although it might be seen as a discrete emotion, it might also be seen as more than an emotion. The predominant emotion in the experience of grief is sadness, but other emotions are also generated by grief: anger, for example, and fear and shame.
In parallel with the predominant emotion in grief being sadness, the most common psychological problem associated with it is depression. From the differential emotions theory perspective, depression is a pattern of basic emotions, including sadness, anger, disgust, contempt, fear, guilt and shyness. Here though is not the place to consider theories of depression. Interestingly, as with happiness and anger, Averill (Averill & Nunley, 1988) has made a cogent social constructionist analysis of grief. In brief, this rests on the assumptions that:
- Emotions are made up of cognitive appraisals, intervening processes and behavioral expression;
- All three of these are partly determined by the beliefs and values of the culture; and
- Emotional syndromes reinforce these same beliefs
Averill and Nunley describe grief as involving shock, protest, despair and reorganization, sometimes seen as stages, but with considerable overlap and the possibility of occurring in other orders. Within the terms of a systems approach to emotion, they regard grief as a biological system that is related to attachment. It is as though the purpose of grief is to help maintain social bonds. So, it seems to have to work through its course even though it is so full of anguish - in the case of bereavement, for example. However, from this perspective grief is not simply biological, separation (bereavement) having societal implications as well. So, most societies have developed ritualized mourning practices. As well as having a place in biological and social systems, grief also is involved in the psychological system. Some symptoms of grief are related to the disruption to behavioral possibilities, cognitions and so on that result from the loss. Moreover, grief has its own rewards, people often assuming some of its more public aspects for the effects this might have. In other words, the outward expression of grief can be socially useful.
Typically, Averill breaks down emotional roles in the way in which he would also break down social roles. First, the privileges of grief act to allow some feelings to be displayed publicly and to permit the person not to undertake a wide range of social roles that would normally have to be assumed. Second, grief puts certain restrictions on a person: not to laugh too soon or not to grieve for too long, for example. Third, usually a bereaved person has obligations: to mourn in particular ways, for example. And, finally, the manner in which grief can be expressed varies according to age, sex, and the nature of the prior relationship with the deceased person. Formally, the emotional role of grief has certain entry requirements.
Averill andNunley also offer an alternative account of grief: as a disease. In their turn, diseases can be conceptualized via biological, social and psychological systems, and grief fits all the criteria to be included as a disease. Why then, asks Averill, should it be viewedas an emotion? He sees the essential difference as the emotion of grief being part of the moral order of whatever systems (political, religious, etc.) that help to define a society, whereas disease concepts lie within the system of health care. He judges that, eventually, grief will come to be treatedlike other diseases. In the end, Averill is concerned to ensure that emotions are treated in relation to social as well as biological andpsycho logical systems of behaviour. Grief considered either as an emotion or as a disease illustrates this.
