Grief is a challenging process, for our internal psyche involves a rupture and a loss of a significant figure. The object relationship associated with the figure is lost, and the integration of our identity related to those figures is threatened by the reality of loss.
The complexity of loss involves different spheres in a person’s life and goes through different stages, so as practitioners, we have to approach in a conscious and caring way, to try and understand that, as our clients, their process of grief is individualized and different from others.
Although they share common grounds, the different elements, factors, and experiences related to the loss are symbolized and understood differently by each person, so trying to categorize them could be a reductionist attempt from the side of the practitioner.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), NPD is characterised by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, a constant need for admiration, and a lack of empathy (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). While narcissism exists on a spectrum, individuals with pathological levels often experience deep insecurity beneath their confident exterior.
From a psychoanalytic perspective, narcissism is seen as a defence against underlying feelings of shame, emptiness, and fear of dependency (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971). Heinz Kohut described narcissistic behaviour as an attempt to protect a fragile self that never received adequate mirroring or validation in childhood. Otto Kernberg, on the other hand, suggested that narcissism arises from splitting, a defence that separates idealised self-images from devalued aspects of the self, preventing emotional integration (Kernberg, 2016).
In relationships, this dynamic often presents as idealisation and devaluation: the narcissistic partner initially adores and idealises their partner, often referred to as being put on a “pedestal”, but later withdraws affection (e.g., withholding physical touch, compliments, empathetic conversation) or criticises them when they feel emotionally threatened or disappointed (Campbell & Foster, 2002).
The Stages of Grief: From Shock to Acceptance
So, how as the support team we can approach this? As Kubler-Ross (1969) explains, grief and loss go through different stages. For this author, there are five different stages of grief, which are denial, anger, negotiation, depression, and ultimately get to acceptance(1969). On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan). Taking this into mind, and because we approach our clients in their daily living, the reflection of the grief is going to be present in our sessions, and we are going to be transiting and supporting our clients in their process.
Providing empathy and comprehension goes a long way, enduring and helping our clients in their loss means being empathic and open with every twist and turn in which the process can be manifested.
That is why, as practitioners, we have to be aware of the theoretical framework related to this, and because we know our clients and interact with them constantly, we have insight into the different reactions that could be manifesting in this process. If there is avoidance, projection, or even ambivalence, this is going to mean different elements of the process, in their effort to integrate and understand the loss.
Who We Are Through Others: Identity and Significant Relationships
Trauma and loss elaboration takes time, energy, and a lot of effort, because it involves losing part of our identity, of ourselves, and in the process of recomposing our idea of self, there are going to be a lot of open wounds, a lot of loose ends, and that can cause grief.
According to Otto Kernberg’s object relations theory, personality identity comes from the integration of multiple internalized relationships with significant others; in other words, how we internalize our relationships with others. This identity has a dynamic element, which is shaped by ongoing interpersonal experiences, and a stable core that is continuous across time. Because we develop in social environments, our internalized object relations become part of our sense of self; we build and redefine who we are through the relationships that have shaped us.
Rebuilding Our Minds: Cognitive Schemas and Meaning-Making
Now, and intending to avoid reductionism, I feel relevant to relate the process of grief, the loss of a relevant figure, and the structure of cognitive schemes.
According to Marty (1984), cognitive schemas are stable cognitive structures that organize meaning and guide the interpretation of experience; when disrupted by major life events, they require reorganization to restore coherence. In other words, cognitive schemes are sustained, constant psychological structures, steady through time that help us process what things are around us and their significance with our own beliefs and ways of thought, which means that it is a steady structure that is related to our identity.
And when a relevant relationship in our life passes away or leaves, our identity suffers a loss, and therefore, our way of structuring reality changes; now we are in an effort to cope and find a new way of understanding the reality that accompanies it.
We Are Not Alone: The Power of Social Support
That, as individuals, opens the door to start analyzing, re-signifying, and restructuring those schemes. Through the grief of loss and the transformation of our identity, we can analyze cognitive pathways related to this relationship and bring a sense of awareness and introspection.
This is a complex process, involves recognizing our emotions and our beliefs, and starting to accept the loss in order to transform it; for that, it is very relevant to sustain our support networks. Having people around us helping us transit these emotions and endure together the process of challenging these beliefs helps us to retain our stability and empathically endure this process.
Written by Michael Martin (Psychosocial Support Worker)
References
Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. Macmillan.
Kernberg, O. F. (1976). Object relations theory and clinical psychoanalysis. Jason Aronson.
Marty, G. (1984). La naturaleza de los esquemas cognitivos. Universitat de les Illes Balears.
COPE Centre of Psychological Enrichment
📞 (08) 6556 6460
📧 [email protected]