Why Modern Grief Feels So Overwhelming: A Reflection on Loss, Ritual, and Community

Grief is as ancient as breath. It has always accompanied love, attachment, and the inevitability of change. Yet in our contemporary world, many find themselves disoriented by its intensity—isolated, unprepared, and unsure of how to move through it. Why does grief feel so overwhelming today? To answer this, we must look back—at the communal roots of mourning, the rituals that once held us, and the cultural shifts that have shaped our present experience.

From Communal Mourning to Individual Burden

Historically, grief was not a solitary endeavour. In many traditional societies, mourning was held collectively—through shared rituals, storytelling, and embodied practices that allowed for co-regulation and emotional resonance. The grieving person was not expected to “cope” alone; they were witnessed, supported, and honoured.

As Western societies shifted toward individualism, these communal containers began to dissolve. The loss of shared grieving spaces has left many without the emotional scaffolding needed to process profound loss. Healing, as relational beings, happens best in community. Without it, grief can become fragmented—misunderstood, pathologised, or prematurely silenced.

The Disappearance of Ritual

Rituals once served as sacred markers of transition. In the Victorian era, mourning bands signalled to others that someone was grieving—a visual cue that invited compassion and patience. Today, such symbols have largely disappeared, replaced by a cultural expectation of rapid return to “normalcy.” The grieving person is often expected to resume professional and social roles with minimal disruption, regardless of their internal state.

Yet rituals are not mere formalities. They are psychological and spiritual tools that help us metabolise loss. They offer structure in chaos, meaning in pain, and a way to honour what was. In many Indigenous and non-Western traditions, mourning rituals remain central—providing continuity, connection, and healing. Their absence in dominant Western culture may contribute to the rise in complicated grief presentations.

The Pathologisation of Grief

The recent inclusion of Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD) in the DSM-5-TR has sparked both relief and concern. On one hand, it validates the suffering of those whose grief does not follow a linear or time-bound trajectory. On the other, it raises critical questions: Are we medicalising what is, in part, a cultural failure to support grief? What does it mean to diagnose grief in a society that offers so few spaces to mourn?

Rather than viewing PGD solely through a clinical lens, we might consider it a mirror—reflecting the unmet needs of modern mourners. The absence of ritual, community, and cultural permission to grieve deeply may be contributing to the very complications we now seek to treat.

References:

Bergsmark, L. P. S., & Ramsing, F. (2023). Pathologizing the pathological and the place for grief: Reply to Brinkmann. Theory & Psychology, 33(6), 879-885.

Klass, D. (2006). Continuing conversation about continuing bonds. Death studies, 30(9), 843-858.

Neimeyer, R. A. (2001). Meaning reconstruction & the experience of loss. American Psychological Association.

Nicole, G. (2024). Grief is a Human Experience, Not a Diagnosis That Needs Fixing: Clinicians Must Modify Their Thinking and Ways of Grief Therapy. International Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.47604/ijp.2794.

Rosenblatt, P. C. (2008). Grief across cultures: A review and research agenda.