Saturday, May 9, 2009

 

P.S. to the Mother's Day Post...

...I wrote very early this morning at the main journal, something I forgot to mention:
    While I was waiting in line at the Post Office, yesterday (always try to avoid the post office on the Friday before Mother's Day), to requisition a U-cart for transporting (Mom's and) my food donations to the managing office, I noticed a display of the two types of Passport applications and, having nothing better to do and being in a line of people who didn't seem particularly amenable to casual chat, decided to peruse a copy of each (application in person and application by mail). Strange but true, although the geographical parameters of my life range over half the globe, including crossing U.S. political borders, I've never needed a passport so I've never had one. As I read the application an alternate mind-track teased me with travels in and out of the U.S. that I've considered since December 8, 2008: Wandering the world to research how elders are incorporated in a variety of societies; Seeking work and residence in a socially democratic country with a decent universal health care system; Learning a new language (several possibilities have arisen since Mom died and I'm continuing to investigate which to pursue first) then visiting the country in which the language is spoken in order to sharpen my skills; acknowledging and taking up the invitations of a few online journaling friends to visit them and their areas; visiting famous high rain areas like Milford Sound, New Zealand, and Mt. Wai'ale'ale, Kauai.
    Once I'd been admitted to the post office office (sorry, I couldn't resist the redundancy) I noticed a camera set-up through an open door into another area. After the impromptu Food Donation Celebration wound down, I asked the office manager about applying for a passport. Aside from reviewing the obvious technical information (hours applications are accepted, who to approach first, etc.) she offered me several helpful tips:    Although I'm sure the passport application display has been ubiquitous at our local post office since the USPS became an "agent of application" on behalf of the U.S Department of State, I think it is not incidental that I didn't notice it until five months, to the day, of my mother's death. I think it's also a landmark in my grief process. By chance, the Hospice Grief Counselor called me Thursday. As we chatted, I mentioned to her that between her last call and this one I'd begun to read through selected books on grief, especially pertaining to losing a spouse, since I identified more with this than with losing a mother. I also told her that, around the time I decided to do some in depth reading, I wondered if I might be a candidate for "complicated grief" and wanted to read more about that.
    "You're not," she said, and went on to clarify that people experiencing complicated grief tended toward silence. She didn't find it necessary mention that grief silence is not my problem. It's obvious.
    I told her that I was aware of this because one of the books I'd checked out was what amounted to a text on "Complicated Mourning" by Therese A. Rando, the contents of which clearly indicated that the chief hallmark of complicated mourning, blocked mourning, didn't apply to me, although I was finding the book extremely helpful in understanding my grief process. I asked her if she'd heard of the book. Only cursorily, she mentioned, but as we discussed the book I realized I hadn't absorbed as much from scanning through it as I thought I had. When our conversation ended I opened the book and reviewed its peculiar and distinctive definitions of, among other aspects of loss, mourning. Rando, in Chapter 2, which includes a section of "Definitions", Rando devotes a little over three pages to defining mourning, versus a little over a page defining grief. She distinguishes the definition included in her book from the traditional definition of mourning, "the cultural and/or public display of grief through one's behaviors", thusly: She emphasizes "the psychoanalytic tradition of focusing on intra-psychic work, expanding on it by incuding adaptive behaviors necessitated by the loss..." [all quotes from Treatment of Complicated Mourning copyright 1993 by Therese Rando].
    In addition, she devotes a majority of the chapter to a further, meticulous elucidation of mourning, including "The Six 'R' Processes of Mourning". As I reacquainted myself with these, I realized that my food donation experience, including my writing about it afterward, fell into a variety of categories:    Although I've listed these categories in order, my experience of them through this one experience was all over the map, another accepted hallmark of mourning: The processes, as observers of grief and mourning have labeled them for better understanding, don't happen in any particular order, nor do they necessarily end; they evolve, sometimes into another process, sometimes into a regurgitation and/or refinement of the same process.
    The main reason why I wrote the post to which the title above links is that, after yesterday's food donation episode was over and I was reviewing the experience, I noticed a new and distinct difference in the way I am handling my mother's death. It feels like a movement, although not necessarily along a grade like "better/worse", "higher/lower" "more/less competent". The reason I took note is that, previous to yesterday, I've experienced my grief process, for lack of a better analogy (although please assume that this one isn't exactly right, either), as centrifugally closed. Yesterday, I felt as though I'd begun to spiral...not out of anything, but to an area that, hmmm...allows me to reach for more...does that make sense?
    Specifically, yesterday was the first time since Mom's death that I "talked" to her for so long a time and with so much concentration. I didn't feel as though Mom was "there", in the same sense as I took for granted that she was "there" with me when she was alive, at home and I was out doing errands. There was none of the palpable psychic impress that her alive existence engendered in me when she was at home and I was not. She was, however, with me in a way to which the phrase "in memory" does only paltry, demeaning justice. I'm at a loss for words, here, but I suspect that other survivors will understand what I mean.
    It's the first time I can remember, too, that I've taken an "alive" and common episode in our lived together lives and adapted it successfully and joyfully into my present survivor experience. Finally, as I did so, I autonomically leapt from adapting an old experience to considering new experiences that have nothing to do with Mom's and my lived together life. It felt hopeful...not as though I was leaving anything behind but as though the world around me was widening in a way I hadn't expected.
    That's a Survivor's Mother's Day with which I can live. Gladly.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


Wednesday, April 22, 2009

 

TRIG-gering Grief

    Despite my amusement with the concept behind the Texas Revised Inventory of Grief [TRIG] I am, at heart, a product (sometimes a proud product) of my industrial-civilized upbringing and usually can't pass up the opportunity to take a self-"help" test, which is one of the possible uses of this particular grief assessment. I'm not alone in this. Meghan O'Rourke, whose series of articles about grief in Slate brought my attention to the TRIG (she mentions it and provides the same link to it I've posted above, in the ninth paragraph of the third article in her series, which is linked to the above reference to Slate) also found the assessment intriguing enough to "take".
    Punching the name of the assessment into Google unrolls a list of 27,200 references. If you surround the phrase with quotation marks, the list narrows to 1,310. This, I think, speaks on behalf of the popularity of the assessment, if not its reliability. Most sources advise professionals to use the assessment with circumspection. There has been at least one adaptation of the assessment with an eye to grief involving the loss of a child. This assessment is interesting because it rewords the statements to apply to losing a child and adds a third section, entitled "Related Facts", the statements of which are evaluated on a simple "True/False" scale and are designed to add further insight into the long term grief process of the assessee.
    The unadulterated assessment is divided into two lists of statements, Past Behavior and Present Emotional Feelings. Participation requires the assessee to rank her/his agreement with each statement on a five level scale as follows: a = completely true; b = mostly true; c = neutral; d = mostly false; e = completely false.
    It's hard to find any specific information about scoring on the internet. This may be because distributors of the test are wary about its use for self-assessment. The most complete explanation I found is on page 2 of 6 when this article is opened in one's Adobe Reader; the journal in which the article appears lists the page number as 516. This explanation is particularly interesting because it compares responses to Part I with responses to Part II in an attempt to assess the possibilities of delayed grief and prolonged grief. Pages 10 an 11 of this Power Point article (which opens as a pdf file) presents a scoring explanation which is down and dirty, thus easier to understand and utilize casually. Essentially, when rating one's answers, one scores one's a-e selection on a five point scale, giving one point to "a" answers and sequentially upgrading to five points for "e" answers. The lowest to highest score one can accumulate on Part I is 8 - 40. For Part II: 13 - 65. Informally speaking, the higher one scores, the lower is one's experience of grief. In my research of the TRIG (which was admittedly brief, confined to maybe an hour and a half of clicking into links from my Google search and scanning the articles) I found no evidence of anyone using the assessment to determine levels of "healthy" or "unhealthy" grief. I find this a relief, as it indicates to me something advocated by some of the grief literature I've lately perused: That grief is a highly individual experience and the meaning of ease or difficulty with grief must be considered within the unique circumstances of each Grieving One's life.
    The assessment (and its adaptation) is meant to be administered to the grieving survivor a fair while after the death. Although I found nothing specific to suggest the following, my guess is that Part II and Part III of the adaptation, depending on the circumstances in which the assessment is used, can be and probably are administered multiple times. In the original TRIG, Part I focuses on memories of fresh grief responses immediately after the death; Part II attempts to assess how one has moved through grief and where one is "now" in the process.
    Although it is meant to be used in a formal setting, no doubt proctored and evaluated by a professional, I found that self-(ab)use (I couldn't resist), reading the statements, considering them, even assigning a number to one's grief and comparing it to highest and lowest scores, can be enlightening. On April 14, 2009, when I discovered the TRIG, I decided to take it "straight". My results on Part I were 26 out of a possible 40. My results on Part II were 43 out of a possible 65. Considering that I scored about the same (by percentage) in Part I (65%) and Part II (66%), I surmised that this might indicate that I am handling my grief about the same now as I was when my mother died. This surprised me because it has seemed to me that I am grieving more than I did right after Mom died. As I looked back over the statements and rummaged through the thoughts that each statement aroused when rating them according to how they applied to me I realized that what is likely happening is that I am expressing my grief more freely and understanding it better than in the immediate death wake; responses the TRIG doesn't differentiate in terms of "more" or "less" grief.
    Because I am obsessively self-analytical, I thought it would be entertaining (more for me than you, I suspect) if I include here a review of thoughts I had as I rated the statements, along with how I rated them. Keep in mind that the statements (which I'll display in this color) were developed by Thomas R. Faschingbauer, Richard A. DeVaul, and Sidney Zisook and copyright by TRIGs publisher, American Psychiatric Press:    What did I find "enlightening" about self-administering this assessment?
  1. Although I knew that, for me, there exists a dichotomy between my mother's death and Death, I didn't realize, until performing this assessment, that there isn't professional grief counseling acknowledgment of this dichotomy, why it might exist and what the consequences are of allowing it.
  2. Previous to assessing myself I suspected that I was not handling my need to grieve as well as it seems as though I am.
  3. The assessment informed me about aspects of grief and allowed me to confront them as specific events, sometimes isolated from other grief events, rather than thinking of grief as one amorphous event. The former approach makes grieving easier, for me, anyway, because it helps me locate myself within the process. The latter approach tended to make me feel as though I was traveling through a labyrinth, one out of which I might never emerge.
  4. It helped me realize what, about my behavior, might be specific to grieving and what isn't. Although my confusion about this wasn't overwhelming, it was barely noticeable, in fact, the added clarity was welcome.
    The TRIG appears to be a tool fairly widely used by professionals dealing with those of us ensconced in grief. This suggests that it is useful. It isn't the only tool. I've run across another, the G(rief) A(nd) M(ourning) S(tatus) I(nterview) [and] I(nventory) [GAMSII], especially applicable to complicated mourning, that is equally intriguing and upon which I will probably comment in a later post because it promotes a decidedly different and more personal method of assessment. Since I'm not a professional counselor, let alone a grief counselor, I'm not inclined to criticize the TRIG, despite my critique of Item #8 in Part II. I can see that it's a good organizational tool for thinking about someone who's grieving and seeking information about unique grief profiles. I'm not worried that it might be misused by encouraging counselors to ignore the eccentricities of one person's grief in favor of simply locating them, à la psychological GPS, in The Forest of Grief. I think that viewing grief is an experience that is most likely to provoke awe from any observer, professional or not, and would tend to cause a professional counselor to be more, rather than less, careful about soliciting information and giving advice.
    Would I recommend self-administration of this assessment to people? I would to people who tend toward and enjoy rigorous self-examination and are not prone to diffuse and critical worry about whatever psychological state in which they might find themselves at any particular time for any particular reason. I would to people who tend to harbor a lively and objective curiosity about themselves even if they aren't particularly self-conscious or self-absorbed. I would not to people who might tend to frighten themselves unduly with discovery about their psychological states or if they were normally intent on being oblivious to their psychological states. I also would not recommend it to people who seemed, at the time of the consideration, emotionally fragile, no matter what their previous behavior revealed about their normal emotional profile and self-interest.
    If you're as intrigued as was I, though, give it a go. It's involving and fun, yes, fun, if nothing else.

Labels: , , ,


All material copyright at time of posting by Gail Rae Hudson

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?