You don't have to 'let go' to heal – continuing bonds are healthy
There's an outdated idea that the goal of grief is to 'move on' from the person who died. Modern bereavement research recognises that maintaining a connection with the deceased is not only normal but often deeply beneficial.
Talking to them, visiting meaningful places, keeping rituals alive, holding them in your thoughts – these aren't signs of complicated grief. They're signs of enduring love.
The distinction is between bonds that comfort and bonds that distress. If your connection brings you meaning or closeness – that's healthy. You can carry someone with you and still build a life. Those two things aren't in conflict.
Comments (12)
sarah this is such an important post. i've seen so much damage done by the 'let go and move on' narrative. people come in feeling guilty for still loving someone, for still missing them, as if there's a deadline on grief. continuing bonds work changed everything for me as a practitioner. it gave me a way to say to people – you don't have to stop loving them. you just have to find a new way to carry it
absolutely helen. that phrase 'find a new way to carry it' is so much more compassionate than 'let go.' i think a lot of people hear 'let go' and what they actually hear is 'forget them' – even if that's not what the person means. and that's a terrifying thing to be told when someone you love has died
i can't tell you how many times people told me to 'let go' in the first year. they meant well. but every time it felt like they were asking me to erase him. this idea that you can stay connected and still heal – i wish someone had told me that three years ago. it would have saved me a lot of self-doubt
that's such a common experience margaret. the well-meaning advice that actually makes things harder. the research is really clear that people who maintain bonds – through memory, ritual, internal conversation – tend to adjust just as well as or better than those who try to cut the connection. 'letting go' was never the goal. integration is
this makes sense with what i shared the other day about talking to my son. it's a continuing bond. didn't have a name for it before
i've had people tell me i should be over it by now because it was 'just' a friend. like there's a hierarchy of grief. this post makes me feel like my bond with him is allowed to continue even if other people don't get it
jamie there is no hierarchy of grief. none. the depth of your pain isn't determined by a label – it's determined by the depth of the bond. and a best friend can be one of the most significant relationships in a person's life. anyone who says otherwise just hasn't had that kind of friendship. your grief is valid, full stop
jamie, the 'just' drives me up the wall. there's no 'just' anything when it comes to losing someone. your friend mattered. your grief matters. don't let anyone shrink that for you
what you're describing is called 'disenfranchised grief' – grief that isn't fully acknowledged or socially supported because the relationship doesn't fit neatly into the categories society expects. it's incredibly isolating and unfortunately very common for friend loss, pet loss, and many other types. your grief deserves space regardless of anyone else's understanding of it
More from #livingwithloss
3.9K members
Long-term grief, meaning-making, and continuing bonds with those we've lost. Not about 'moving on' – about learning to live alongside loss with honesty and connection.