ABSTRACT
As a field of inquiry, chronic sorrow has much to offer. Not the least of the research questions is why so many clinicians and researchers have avoided knowledge building, theorizing, and exploration of this life-span phenomenon. Do the nature and morphology of chronic sorrow "disinvite" clinical interest and concern? Why have we tended to avoid the murky waters of unrelenting loss? Do we dread having to deal with the jetsam and flotsam that might wash up if we are open to seeing it? Why are there so many studies of other types of grief and mourning while there are so few of chronic sorrow? Western contemporary culture thrives on obtaining the competitive edge and on attainment of status and power, self-sufficiency, wholeness, attractiveness, bravado, and winning. Do we imagine that our cultural identity will be compromised, or will we ourselves become "less," if we open ourselves to knowing about human ruination and unrelenting grief? Is chronic sorrow part of our shadow identities as human beings, compeling our resistance, denial, and rejection? It was once said, "If we didn't have these mental hospitals, we wouldn't have so many mental patients." This twisted correlation has materialized. With the closing of psychiatric hospitals throughout the land, there are fewer mental patients; they are now among the homeless. (According to some estimates, one-third of homeless people suffer from mental disorders or mental deficiencies [Simon, 1993].) Do we, as clinicians and researchers, use this type of thinking to deter ourselves from knowing the extent and severity of chronic sorrow among us? If we don't know about it, will it shrink?
