Grief and Bereavement
Grief Doesn't Have Stages — It Has Weather
The most influential theory of grief ever published was based on observations of terminally ill patients, not bereaved ones — and its author spent her later years trying to walk it back.
The Idea
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross introduced her five stages of grief in 1969, and the model lodged itself so deeply into cultural common sense that it became the unofficial script for loss. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance — in that order, toward resolution. The problem is that this is not how grief actually works, and Kübler-Ross herself eventually acknowledged it. The stages were descriptive, not prescriptive; observed in people facing their own deaths, not derived from systematic bereavement research. What grief researchers now understand is considerably messier and, in a strange way, more reassuring. Grief is not a linear passage through predictable emotional territory. It is oscillatory. Grief theorist Margaret Stroebe described it as a 'dual process': bereaved people move back and forth between loss-orientation (actively grieving, missing, longing) and restoration-orientation (attending to life, adapting, even finding moments of lightness). Both are necessary. Neither is a detour from healing — they are healing. The word 'closure' is similarly misleading. Most contemporary grief researchers reject it. The goal is not to stop carrying a person but to integrate them differently — to find a way to hold the relationship as part of who you are, rather than sealing it behind a door. This reframe matters enormously, because it removes the implied deadline. Grief is not something you finish. It is something that changes shape.
In the World
In the 1990s, psychologist George Bonanno began studying bereaved spouses through Columbia University, tracking them across years with interviews and psychological assessments. What he found upended the assumption that intense, prolonged grieving was the normal and healthy response to loss — and that anything else signalled either shallow attachment or emotional suppression. Bonanno identified a pattern he called resilience that was far more common than the field had expected: a significant proportion of bereaved people showed relatively stable functioning even in the immediate aftermath of loss. They grieved, yes — but they also laughed at things, enjoyed meals, returned to routines. The prevailing clinical assumption had been that this was a red flag, a sign of avoidance or denial that would surface as delayed grief later. The longitudinal data showed otherwise. Delayed grief, it turned out, was rare. People who looked resilient early on mostly continued to be resilient. This did not mean they hadn't loved deeply, or that their grief was thin. It meant that the spectrum of normal grief is far wider than the cultural script allows. Bonanno's work helped legitimise something many bereaved people already felt privately but were afraid to admit: that functioning, even flourishing, in the presence of loss is not a betrayal. It is one of the many valid shapes grief can take.
Why It Matters
If you've ever grieved and found yourself measuring your own experience against an invisible standard — wondering why you weren't more devastated, or why you were still devastated years later, or why you laughed at something the week after a funeral — that dissonance often comes from inheriting a grief script that was never accurate to begin with. Understanding that grief is oscillatory rather than linear, and that resilience is not the same as not caring, gives you something valuable: permission to trust your own experience. You don't have to perform a particular kind of mourning to prove the relationship mattered. You don't have to be 'over it' by any particular point to prove you've healed. This also changes how we show up for others. The impulse to help someone 'move through' grief, to nudge them toward acceptance, often reflects our own discomfort with witnessing pain rather than their need for direction. Sometimes the most useful thing is simply staying present, without a map.
A Question to Ponder
Is there a loss in your life — a person, a version of yourself, a future you'd imagined — that you've been treating as something to finish rather than something to carry differently?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable