Discursive approaches to ambiguous loss: A theory of community-based care after enforced disappearance – a review of Robbins’ article

The article discusses the concept of ambiguous loss, as coined by Pauline Boss, and its application to coping with losses marked by uncertainty, particularly in cases of disappearance or absence resulting from conflict and political violence. Ambiguous loss is defined as a condition arising from uncertainty regarding the status of a loved one, who may be alive or dead, present or absent. Families of missing persons often search for information about their loved ones and long for closure, making disappearance a complex issue that requires both theoretical understanding and practical solutions.

The author notes that in many cases, enforced disappearance—defined as the deprivation of a person’s liberty combined with the concealment of their fate—has become a tactic used by states and other armed actors in order to create social and political manipulation. In this article, the author seeks to advance the theoretical understanding of ambiguous loss while emphasizing the deliberate use of enforced disappearance as a policy tool. The article proposes a discursive approach, examining how social and political factors shape the experience of ambiguous loss, and how social interactions can influence perceptions of loss and therapeutic responses to it. Furthermore, the author raises the need for a community-oriented approach to coping with ambiguous loss and highlights the importance of developing a theoretical framework for this purpose.

Ambiguous loss is a particularly challenging issue to treat. Research indicates that ambiguous loss predicts symptoms of depression, anxiety, and family conflict. However, traditional therapeutic interventions are often insufficiently effective in addressing ambiguous losses because they fail to account for the ongoing psychological significance of coping with uncertainty. This is partly because closure is often unattainable in situations of ambiguous loss, and attempts to achieve closure may even worsen the coping process. As an alternative, the author proposes therapeutic interventions that take into consideration the broader social and political context of disappearance in order to support families coping with such loss. In particular, attention should be paid to the dynamics of political power that shape interpretations of the loss, as well as to the stigmas that may become attached to missing persons.

The theoretical framework proposed by the author—the discursive approach—is grounded in the ideas of the philosopher Michel Foucault, who referred to the concept of “discourse” as a way of constructing knowledge intertwined with power relations and social practices. Discourse represents the social, epistemological, and rhetorical characteristics of a particular group, and therefore serves to construct truth and knowledge within that group. In relation to ambiguous loss, the dominant discourse within society and culture shapes the ambiguity, meaning, and understanding of the loss. In therapy, it is possible to create a new discourse that reconstructs the meaning and understanding of the loss and the uncertainty associated with it. The dialogue between therapist and patient can generate a new “reality” through the creation of new meanings or the reconstruction of the narrative.

The author describes six guidelines identified by Pauline Boss for the treatment of ambiguous loss and expands upon them through the discursive approach:

1. **Finding Meaning** – The loss of a loved one drains life of meaning, and finding meaning is particularly difficult in situations of ambiguous loss. From a discursive perspective, all meaning is understood as socially constructed through interaction, and therapy can help individuals rediscover it.

2. **Moderating Mastery** – The feeling that one has control over one’s life serves as a stress-buffering factor in Western society. However, since families of missing persons have little control over the ambiguity of their loss, the search for control may paradoxically intensify feelings of helplessness. Boss therefore suggests moderating the pursuit of control. In the discursive approach, the goal is to foster the understanding that while social discourse is not within our control, we can shape our own subjective discourse and thereby construct our understanding of relationships and of life more broadly.

3. **Reconstructing Identity** – Ambiguous loss threatens the identity of family members. For example, wives of missing persons may be uncertain whether they are widows or still married. This experience is confusing unless the individual can reconstruct her identity in other ways. From a discursive perspective, the author argues that identity is not fixed and stable throughout life, but rather changes according to social discourse and the ways individuals are perceived by their environment. Identity construction is therefore discursive.

4. **Normalizing Ambivalence** – While ambiguity refers to the cognitive state of not knowing, ambivalence refers to the emotional state of experiencing contradictory feelings (for example, despair alongside hope). Recognizing this is considered the best way to cope with these confusing emotions.

5. **Revising Attachment** – Revising attachment means learning to live with the ambiguous loss of a significant person while also finding new meaningful connections. This does not mean severing the emotional bond with the missing person, but rather continuing to love the person while at the same time not denying the reality of the loss.

6. **Discovering Hope** – The focus of all these guidelines is to find new ways of experiencing hope.

The author suggests that all of the guidelines described by Pauline Boss demonstrate the compatibility of the discursive approach with the treatment of ambiguous loss, since they are all rooted in socially constructed understandings shaped by discourse. The author argues that any therapeutic intervention with individuals who have experienced ambiguous loss should promote resilience, empowerment, and the discovery of new meaning and new hope, without denying the loss itself. Alongside individual and family therapies that encourage the reconstruction of discourse within families, the author recommends integrating community-based interventions in order to transform the broader social discourse surrounding ambiguous losses.

The author proposes four goals for community-based interventions in the context of ambiguous loss:

1. **Shaping the Discourse** – Community-based interventions should aim to reshape the community’s social perceptions regarding the ambiguity of the loss and the families of missing persons. By promoting empathy and understanding, communities can ease the burden on families and support them. Shaping discourse can be achieved through media campaigns, outreach to community leaders, or indirect methods such as establishing memorials or organizing events for the missing while emphasizing that their fate remains unknown, thereby challenging communities that assume the missing are dead.

2. **Empowerment** – Community-based interventions should promote the empowerment of individuals, families, and groups affected by ambiguous loss. This empowerment may include creating spaces in which these groups can express themselves and voice their demands to society (for example, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum). In some cases, legislation and public struggles are necessary in order to secure rights (for example, changes in laws concerning recognition as victims of hostile acts).

3. **Addressing Gaps Between Discourses** – Differences in perceptions of the loss between the missing person’s family and the surrounding community may create significant difficulties. Community-based interventions can serve as a tool for bridging these gaps.

4. **Rewriting Stories and Identities** – Although this goal is usually associated with individual or family therapy, community-based interventions can also facilitate this process.

On a practical level, the author suggests that community-based interventions require clinical expertise, and therefore professionals should take part in them. Ideally, however, the families themselves should lead these interventions as agents of change. The intervention should include two components: one focused on community discourse, and another focused on establishing support groups in which families can meet, engage in internal dialogue, and receive guidance, counseling, and support. These support groups would discuss ambiguous loss and its social meanings, focusing less on treatment itself and more on creating discourse and a space for interaction among families in order to generate new meanings and identities. Ideally, the support groups would continue functioning even after the community interventions have ended, accompanying families over the long term in order to promote resilience and hope.