Remembering

On the anniversary last week of the Columbine tragedy, I read two newspaper articles that gave me pause. They were writing about how young people who had been wounded on that day coped with the impact of what they had been through. One reporter regretted that we did not understand Post Traumatic Stress as we do now. This understanding might have been helpful to these young people and prevented the damage in their lives that they now experience day to day.

There were no case examples in this article. The second report focused on several survivors and how Columbine does remain a part of their lives, but no longer haunts them. These interviewees talked about how they lived through this experience thinking of themselves as victors, not victims. They described how they were changed by what happened to them that day in Columbine, and how they have moved beyond their pain, and are finally feeling good about themselves and their life now. I was relieved to read the second article. I always wonder why -- when we talk about grieving people -- we so often see the consequences in pathological terms.

This brought to mind the question I was often asked by parents before they agreed to be interviewed in the Harvard/Massachusetts General Hospital Child Bereavement Study. These were newly widowed parents of school-age children, identified by the funeral directors who had served them after the death of their spouse. Many parents said they would be glad to be part of the study (which involved interviewing them and their children over the age of six) if we would then tell them whether or not their child was going to be okay. What did they mean? They were very worried that their children would be emotionally damaged permanently, because their parent died. I suggested that of course their children would not be alright at this time. We could expect that they would be sad, somewhat anxious, and unsure of what the future would bring. They were grieving just as their parents were.

Most parents were reassured that we wanted to learn more about what this experience was like for their children and their family, but that we did not anticipate inevitable pathology, or for that matter any pathology at all. They could not explain to me where their fear came from. On my part, I could understand their fear as they now had to look at a new way of living in their world, with their own grief and their new role as a single parent. I thought of them as being influenced by those around them who focused on how damaging this could be for their children. I leave it for another time to write about the problems we did identify with some families. However, the large majority of the children were changed by this loss in that their lives took on different qualities as they grew in a single-parent family, but basically they were emotionally okay.

For now I want to ask why the emphasis was, and to some extent still is, on the negative? Is it more dramatic to emphasize problems? Is it in the language we use to describe grief that sets the stage for this approach? We talk of "symptoms" and recovery, as if grief is an illness and with the proper treatment people will be cured, returned to life as it was before. This is not a view of grief that is consistent with reality. There is no recovery. Life will never be the same. Young families are not prepared for the changes they need to make. Recent research has identified resilient families, like the survivors of Columbine mentioned above, focusing on those positive qualities in families that get mobilized and see them through these difficult and painful times.

One of my goals in doing this blog is to point to ways in which we can help grieving people to understand their pain, live through it, and find ways of living in their changed world. I talk about promoting competence -- that is, to help the bereaved mobilize the information and resources that aid them in coping. Is this what the Positive Psychologists are talking about? This approach leads to finding the resilient qualities in those who are grieving, whether young or old. Helpers need to take this perspective. We should learn from these Columbine survivors: use them as examples. This may be the best way we can find to honor those who died.