Erica Palmer
Toronto, ON

Erica is a student in the field of art therapy currently working within the GTA. Erica completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Guelph majoring in psychology and studio art in April 2019, and is currently enrolled at the Toronto Art Therapy Institute. She has been volunteering for over 5 years in a hospice setting, working with groups focusing on grief and bereavement. Erica has encountered multiple losses in her own life, and has witnessed numerous individuals close to her experiencing ongoing medical conditions that have contributed to her personal experience of grief and loss. She is inspired to bring attention to this area of need, with dedication and intention to continue building the presence and access to art therapy in community settings. Erica hopes to build connections in the field with other art therapists working in hospice, hospital, and palliative care environments to expand these dialogues and identify strategies for broadening access to art therapy.

As a student in the field of art therapy, I currently have a keen interest in working with needs around death, dying, grief and bereavement. I hope to extend this experience to working at the bedside of those receiving palliative care. With this work, I would like to address issues in society related to the experiences of dying and grieving. Western society (note, not specific cultures within western society), is generally death-phobic, with ideologies of capitalism, individualism and productivity contributing to this landscape. In my work I hope to facilitate moments of peace, dignity, empowerment and community-building opportunities, and connections for people who are grieving, and for people who are dying.

In their critical analysis of grief and Western society, Darcy Harris (2010) identifies social rules that dictate how people are expected to grieve. Bringing these sometimes unspoken and unwritten rules into awareness could greatly impact the practice of art therapy, understanding clients, and what might be interfering with their ability to access support. Harris calls to attention norms that exist around who has permission to be identified as bereaved, whether or not the relationship to the deceased is valid according to social expectations, how long grief can last, how grief can and should be manifested, and if the manner of death is considered ‘acceptable.’ or if it is a loss with some stigma attached to it according to ones orientation in Western society. I highly recommend this reading to anyone working in an environment where they may encounter individuals who are grieving.

Individual experiences with death, dying, grief and bereavement are all impacted by a range of social issues. I will specifically look at classism and ableism for the purposes of this article. In Western society, classism plays a major role in who has access to dignity in death and dying, and who has permission, time, and access to resources to support their grief journey. Members of the working class are likely to have reduced access to paid sick days, little to no paid time off for mourning, less financial freedom to take time off work for personal reasons, and less likelihood of having the option of taking an extended leave of absence while retaining job security. Such conditions do little to support the wide variety of cultural practices that occur before, during, and after death, or the range in lengths of time individuals require to process grief and loss. Individuals in more precarious financial situations may be forced to ‘carry on’ immediately after loss with little support, whereas those in higher socioeconomic standings may have more freedom to take time to grieve and participate in events related to the loss. This contributes to a divide in Western culture, where society places expectations and parameters on what is an ‘acceptable’ way to grieve that may correlate with someone’s social position or standing in society. Significant loss should always be addressed as such — significant, regardless of the nature of the living relationship. However, a loss being significant is not always validated by society. This can present in the disparity that exists in funeral arrangements — there exists a great difference in what an individual accessing social assistance can have arranged compared to that of a person with more financial means. What does this say about the worth of people based on class? Does having more monetary value, allowing for more ‘respectable’ funeral or end of life proceedings, really equate with what that person was worth, or what their family and friends who are grieving are worth? Harris (2010) comments on this equation of worth, and further refers to Brookfield (2005) who identifies that capitalistic societies categorize human worth “in economic terms by the elevation of materialistic values over the human values of compassion, skill, or creativity” (p. 162). The nature of the relationship also often determines the time provided to employees for grieving, and could be interpreted as a capitalist societal evaluation of worth. With some employers, only 3 days are given, and there might not be any time provided to someone processing the loss of a companion, an extended family member, a pet or other experiences of loss. This is a classist approach, the oppressive effects of which is further compounded and perpetuated by the emphasis of productivity, and an aversion to discussions around death and dying in Western society.

Ableism and ageism also often play a role in how people are treated during their grief journey. A very salient example of this is the frequent exclusion of children from this dialogue. There seems to be misunderstanding and a reductionist approach in society, limiting who has access and even permission to grieve, where a person’s level of cognitive functioning or understanding is viewed as a determinant to how exposed they can be to the process of death and dying. This is often veiled under the reasoning that they are being protected from harm, when really this rhetoric perpetuates the exclusion and exiling of those that are too young, too different, too much of anything not deemed acceptable by mainstream society. This does not equate with helping or reducing harm. Developmental stages may play a role in the language used to help people understand what is occurring, but should never be used as a reason to completely exclude entire groups of people from being supported after loss. 

Witnessing the experiences of grief and ongoing medical conditions in my own life has made me keenly aware of the wide range of abilities people experience, how suffering can often happen in silence in ways not outwardly visible, but that this does not mean they are not there. I have my own ongoing health issues, new to this year and last, and feel very empathetic towards the lives of people with ongoing medical conditions, where daily feelings of overall wellness can drastically change from day to day and impact how and what services are accessed connected to one’s wellbeing. Living with a disability can further complicate the experience of grief and bereavement when we think back to classism, and the potential that some individuals may have to consider taking limited time off work to manage an ongoing health condition, leaving little opportunity to then take time for personal reasons, while also experiencing ongoing financial strain. Classism and ableism still shape my understanding of the world when I find myself at times viewing productivity as a measure of success. As I learn and grow more into my new roles I am continually reminded that it does not have to be this way.

Feelings of impatience and frustration emerge when considering these forms of oppression as they relate to death, dying, grief, and bereavement. I want systemic oppression to change more quickly, but I know it will take time, and collective effort to get there. To counteract this impatience, I ended up taking my time with my creative response. I spent approximately 3 hours working in a state of loose focus and imagination. I imagined a more fluid way of being, transitioning away from the rigidity that can come with a strict productivity and competitive focus, into a way of being that is centred in community and real connection with others. I leave a lock in the “past” at the left side of the image, and bring a skeleton key into the “future” that will help unlock doors for others and myself. The left side of the image might be the past, or the dark, while the right side of the image is brighter and in the light of day. This is symbolic of bringing these topics into the light so that they can be discussed more freely moving forward.

This brief reflection is only but a touchstone into this area of work. I hope those reading can take time to contemplate how their own encounters with loss have been impacted by systemic oppression of all kinds, possible beyond classism and ableism, and take the time to reflect on how their position in society may have impacted what level of access to support they were permitted to engage in. How much time did you take to process and grieve the last time you experienced a significant loss? What about a friend or acquaintance of yours, with circumstances different from your own? Does anything come to mind that could have made you feel more supported than you or your friend were during that time? I invite you, if you have the time, to read Harris’ critical reflection cited below, and create your own creative reflection to what you have contemplated today.

References:

Brookfield, S. D. (2005). The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching. Jossey-Bass.

Harris, D. (2010). Oppression of the bereaved: A critical analysis of grief in western society. Omega (Westport), 60(3), 241-53.