You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
We are accustomed to regarding bereavement as the loss of an important other, an object loss. Different languages or perspectives have been used to capture the dimensions of object loss and the restorative process of mourning. Traditional drive theory depicts the initial hypercathexis of the object (corresponding to the intense yearning for the deceased so painfully familiar during grieving); this is followed by decathexis of the object when attributes of the beloved may become part of oneself through identification and psychic energy is liberated to enable new, important ties (e.g., Freud, 1917; Furman, 1974; Pollock, 1961). Bowlby's (1969, 1973, 1981) bio-evolutionary model understands both the establishment and mourning of attachments as inborn, instinctive (as opposed to instinctual) processes that humans share, to a very large extent, with other primates. Object relations theory views mourning as a painful recapitulation of early depressive fears of one's inner world being bereft, without the comforting presence of benevolent figures (Klein, 1940). As opposed to all these paradigms that highlight the fate of the internal experience of the other, interpersonal interpretations (e.g., Klerman, Weissman, Rounsaville, & Chevron, 1984; Parkes & Weiss, 1983) focus on the role transition that needs to be made in one's social world due to bereavement and the acquisition of new, satisfying relationships.