[00:00:05] Henry Emmons, MD: Hello, I'm Henry Emmons, and welcome back to Joy Lab.
[00:00:10] Aimee Prasek, PhD: And I'm Aimee Prasek. We are in our Element of Letting Go, and we're talking about letting go of a myth that can be really complicated: the myth of closure. So, the idea here is that the complex stuff we deal with in life, like the death of someone close to us; a relationship that ended. Middle school is an example — anybody else have a tough time in middle school? — getting laid off from a job. Whatever it might be, the idea is that it's a myth that we can process, "figure out," solve, this stuff in such a way that in an appropriate amount of time it'll be like it never happened, and we can go back to some previous state or, you know, like an always-better, next version of ourselves. It's just not how life works, and so that is the myth of closure.
[00:01:16] Henry Emmons, MD: Mm-hmm. I like describing that as a myth. The myth of closure. Also, I do understand the appeal of it, I mean...
[00:01:27] Aimee Prasek, PhD: Oh, absolutely, hahaha.
[00:01:29] Henry Emmons, MD: Who wouldn't wanna be a better version of themselves, or enlightened, or — who doesn't wanna wrap up the messiness of life in a nice little bow? I do.
I think that this myth of closure is very similar, maybe tied, to the myth of perfection. You know, this idea that we can perfect our lives somehow, [create] the best version of ourselves, whatever that is. And it's hard to let go of that idea, that if we just try hard enough, maybe with a little luck along the way, you know, we can create almost a perfect life; get rid of suffering, get more of the good stuff, however we define the good stuff.
So closure, resolution, fixing, perfecting. I think a lot of us have the idea that's what life is about. But what if it's not? What if it's more important that we stay with our life situations longer without pushing for a resolution to our so-called problems? What if there's more to discover by allowing the time and space for that, instead of really rushing into problem-solving mode?
[00:02:59] Aimee Prasek, PhD: You're sounding like one of the great philosophers, I'd say, Henry.
[00:03:01] Henry Emmons, MD: Oh, ooh, which one?
[00:03:03] Aimee Prasek, PhD: I don't know. All of them. Haha.
[00:03:05] Henry Emmons, MD: Oh, okay. Hahaha.
[00:03:08] Aimee Prasek, PhD: They just keep asking questions. But yeah, what if that's not what life's about? Just like, fixing things, you know, we think should be fixed or trying to solve problems, you know, whether or not they're really problems. But sitting a little bit longer with these things. And I think you, like, nailed the draw of this as well. Of course, we want Hallmark endings for everything, and perfection, and enlightenment. It just feels like it would be better, when we're in the trenches with stuff. And there's also no shortage of messaging around this or suggestions that it's possible.
Take Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross's pioneering research and insights. Her work got warped into [that] five stages of grief model, you know, that — it has been miscommunicated as if grief is this clean, predictable process that ends with a sunny, all fixed, everything's back the way it was, kind of ending. And early psychotherapy approaches, even some current approaches, taught that, to successfully grieve and get closure, that we would need to kind of eliminate the person from our consciousness as if they never existed. As if we could ever do that.
And Freud, I think, had a role here. As I understand Freud, he suggested that when it comes to loss, like grieving the death of someone, we needed to sever all ties — all emotional ties that we have to that loss — sever the expectations, the memories; remove all of those pieces of that person, or that loss, from our lives as if, like, we just mop them out of our brain. This approach of Freud has been translated as decathexis. [It] sort of essentially means to remove the occupation, essentially. Now if we did that, Freud thought, then we could use that open space, that energy, and then we could replace them, and then closure could happen.
And I bring up Freud because Freud's work has had a huge impact on modern psychotherapy; on modern, sort of, pop psychology as well, for good and for bad. This would be an example of where I think he was way, way off. And I think he even thought so too, when it came to his own life. Not in his work — I don't think it ever got, sort of, updated, his model. But he had written after his daughter died that the initial pain of the loss had eased, but there was always this inconsolable, irreplaceable loss that continued to exist. So he experienced the opposite of decathexis, and maybe — maybe Freud thought that was like a failure of some sort on his part, you know, because it did contradict his ideas. I don't know. But I think he was inching toward as well, or experiencing, what we're talking about now, which is this desire for closure that we all have, and the reality that maybe it doesn't exist.
[00:06:32] Henry Emmons, MD (2): Mm-hmm. Yeah, I am no expert on Freud, but I think you're probably right about him working toward this severing of emotion after a loss. I just think of him as being very much in his head and not so much in his heart. But, you know, that also could be me just projecting, 'cause I don't really — I'm not that familiar with his work, really.
I do think he had a strong influence on psychotherapy. Certainly when I did my training, you know, 30 to 40 years ago — I think his influence, at least in psychiatry, was still strong. But I think since then, there have been so many heart-based and mindfulness-based therapies that have kind of come to the fore that work with grief in a much more integrative way. And I'm personally much more drawn to that.
I also agree with your take on Kubler-Ross' stages of grief work. My own experience with grief is not nearly as linear as it's laid out in her stages; it's not as cut and dried. And I don't see it as something that you go through and then it's done. Although, you know, I think we as a culture do have this idea that the memorial service and the graveside burial — it's kind of a, sort of, final closure, you know? I don't know. But it — to me, it seems as though there are about as many ways of going through grief as there are people. I am not against closure, by the way, but sometimes I see it as one more way to avoid what is true, which is often that there is no final ending. It's really a process and it takes as long as it takes.
[00:08:38] Aimee Prasek, PhD: Yeah. Yeah, there is no final ending. There's something else you said that just got me thinking. Well, one thing: we did a whole Series on Grief, so I'm gonna link that in the show notes. So if you're really resonating here, we got nine more Episodes waiting for you, and they're really good. So, the other thing: because I brought up Freud, I'm gonna bring up his rival, Carl Jung, who — speaking of dicathexis, man, those two severed all ties, got real gnarly and salty. Hahaha.
[00:09:15] Henry Emmons, MD: Do you think they really ever got over each other though? Haha.
[00:09:18] Aimee Prasek, PhD: Right? Isn't that so funny? Yeah, they, like — "Oh yeah, we've severed ties." You know every day he's like, "I'm gonna write this and it's gonna..." you know, like, "I'm going after Freud with this," [and] "I'm going after Jung this." Oh yeah. It was like a big, you know, I don't know, who's the big rivalry?
[00:09:32] Henry Emmons, MD: Hmm, yeah maybe. Iowa and Minnesota, how about that?
[00:09:34] Aimee Prasek, PhD: There you go. Yeah, you can't sever ties.
So I really like Jung's idea about insoluble problems, and it relates to this myth of closure. In _The Secret of the Golden Flower_ Jung wrote, "I had learned in the meanwhile that the greatest and most important problems of life are all in a certain sense insoluble. They must be so because they express the necessary polarity inherent in every self-regulating system. They can never be solved, but only outgrown."
So I know it's kind of heavy there, but there are three pieces in there that are really worth digging into. First, the most important problems in life are insoluble. Second, these insoluble problems contain a polarity. And third, these problems cannot be solved, but only outgrown.
So the first distinction is that most important problems are insoluble. So he's drawing a distinction here. There are simple problems that do have a solution; that do haveclosure, like completing a puzzle. You get all the pieces in and you're done. Or your car won't start, and so you, you know, maybe just need a new battery and it's fixed, it's done. Those problems are essentially gone with simple answers. Closure can exist there. But the greatest and most important problems of life, as Jung describes, are very different. Like love; finding meaning; working through depression, or anxiety, or sadness, or navigating a loss. These aren't just fix 'em and forget 'em experiences, or problems.
Which relates to Jung's second point about opposites or the polarity. For example, ending a marriage or a relationship. You might feel that love still, or even just a sense of duty or responsibility. That exists with the opposite needs and values. Like, for example, you know, this is a relationship that isn't offering something you value, like honesty, or communication, or equal distribution of labor, whatever the case. There are often just these pulls from opposing sides. And so insoluble means that we can't just come to a super clean, simple answer that doesn't include a cost or some kind of loss. And it doesn't mean that we don't make a decision or take action. It means that these decisions, these actions, if we want the best ones, are built on the integration, the holding of those opposites. So we make the best decision we can without actually solving the problem, which is really hard.
So Jung, in a different essay, writes more about these insoluble problems. He notes, "If ever they should appear to be solved it is a sure sign that something has been lost." So these problems can only be outgrown. That's the third point of Jung's perspective. We can't get clean closure, and if we think we did, then we likely just rejected one side. Something was sacrificed and shut out. So the call to action here is to create more space for these problems; to hold it all; accept that closure is not the goal or even possible at times. And so we make space for the opposites, you know, for the love and the pain, the acceptance and the rejection, the joy and the sorrows, the losses, the gains. And we build our awareness and acceptance of those opposites, and then we can build these skills that enable us to grow around these complex experiences and problems. Never really solving them, but growing around them or even beyond them.
[00:13:43] Henry Emmons, MD: Hmm. Well, you know, I like playing around with words and their meanings a little bit, and so I'm wondering if there's a difference between closure — which implies some sort of perfect ending — versus a sense of completion, which to me means you've done what you need to do; you are replete; you're okay with it. I love the idea that life's big problems can only be outgrown. And that's a really different conversation from this idea that they can be fixed. We ourselves do not need to be fixed. We need to remain steady; to accept some ambiguity — you know, the subtleties, the paradoxes that life presents us — we need to hold steady until we change, we grow. And then what had seemed like such a big problem might not even be relevant or important to us anymore.
I think about having young children, you know, when you have young kids it's wonderful and it's hard. And on the one hand you know — you know intellectually that your time with them is short, but when you're in the thick of it, you think it's gonna last forever. And that's a paradox. Or even, you know, thinking about your work life — let's say when you're establishing your career. The challenge of that seems all-encompassing, all-important. But later in your career, once you've moved way beyond that or even after you've retired, all that gnashing of teeth you did when you were getting started just seems unimportant; maybe even trivial.
I like the way that Eckhart Tolle talks about our life situations, and he says: whatever your current circumstances are in your life, they are perfect for your spiritual development. Not because they need to be fixed, but because they're just the right thing for your growth at this point in your life.
[00:16:04] Aimee Prasek, PhD: Yeah, I like, actually, thinking of that Eckhart Tolle idea with Jung's idea, because there's a tendency to dismiss loss with the idea that, you know, we had to endure it for our spiritual growth, or it was part of God's plan. And I don't think that's what either of them would be saying there. I think the invitation is that we don't have to solve everything, you know, these losses, harms, and unfair, terrible stuff. They also don't have to control us. And so, you know, against all odds, we can still grow around these things, and that's powerful — not that we deserved it or we needed it, but that we can outgrow it; we can grow around it.
And I love playing with these words here — with completion. Closure feels like I need to control it. Completion feels like it's something that's kind of moving, maybe into a next chapter. And just because something is completed, I think it's important to remember that it doesn't mean it disappears. It also makes me think, you know, as you noted — like, how helpful rituals, and memorials, or other activities can be. The idea that this closure is a myth doesn't mean we should stop those things or not do the work of grief. We can do those things alongside letting go of this need for some kind of clean closure. And this conversation is also making me think of the first law of thermodynamics.
[00:17:42] Henry Emmons, MD: Okay. Really? Hahaha.
[00:17:44] Aimee Prasek, PhD: Yeah. I think it's because I've been reading so much Freud. I think Freud was super into this. I need to...
[00:17:51] Henry Emmons, MD: Really?
[00:17:51] Aimee Prasek, PhD: Yeah. So I think it explains...
[00:17:53] Henry Emmons, MD: You've gotta explain this to me, I forget.
[00:17:56] Aimee Prasek, PhD: Okay. I think it explains his whole decathexis idea. So, first law: energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only be transferred or converted from one form to another. So, all right, in this context — the things we want closure from, the things we wanna be free from — they can never be destroyed, but can only be transferred or converted from one form to another.
[00:18:21] Henry Emmons, MD: I like it.
[00:18:23] Aimee Prasek, PhD: Yeah, and I think Freud and Jung both kind of leaned on this. I think there's something — there's something in here too for our psyche to think about, for our mind. Freud and Jung thought about it very differently, I think, and more in line with how Jung saw it — I'm putting this all into Jung's — haha, Jung didn't say this, I should be clear. I'm saying what I think Jung...
[00:18:44] Henry Emmons, MD: You like Jung though, don't you?
[00:18:45] Aimee Prasek, PhD: I do, I kind of lean — yeah.
[00:18:46] Henry Emmons, MD: So do I, haha.
[00:18:47] Aimee Prasek, PhD: Yeah. I think he got it right. But — so to take it out of the physics language though, there's actually work on what's called continuing bonds. I think it makes it more practical. So continuing bonds was coined by three researchers, Dennis Klass, Phyllis Silverman, and Steven Nickman. And this work really challenged the idea that we need closure and had to essentially sever ties with folks in our lives who had passed, so that we can move on. You know, the idea that we could destroy that energy, right? So instead, continuing bonds [suggests] that it can be healthy, normal, even adaptive to remain — well, to maintain a sort of ongoing, but changed or evolving, relationship with someone who has died.
And I think we can even extend this to someone who we've lost through divorce, or some kind of cutting off, or something. Even if we never see them again — and maybe for good reason if we've cut them off for, you know, a good reason — we still don't need to rid their existence from our mind or heart; nor can we. And I think that's a huge relief for someone who has lost a loved one, and they've gotten that question of, "When are you gonna get over this?" — in so many words. The idea here is that you don't have to get over this. You can be with this. And I'm not saying that, like, prolonged grief disorder or grief that just buries us for years is the way to go. If you're feeling that, that is a sure sign to reach out for support — and not because you're doing anything wrong and need closure or something. It's — it's because harnessing resources and extra support is, you know, how we can grow beyond.
And to clarify these bonds a little bit more maybe, the research has kind of refined this by identifying internalized bonds as the more helpful kind. So this would be about, kind of, keeping the memories of this person and a kind of inner sense of their presence, compared to externalized bonds where we might be, like, literally waiting for them to come back, for example. You know, we haven't accepted that they are actually gone. Which can really hold us back if we're in a kind of paralysis, just like waiting for them to return. So the idea is that we can still have joy; you can still flourish, and you don't have to reject, or suppress, or replace what you've lost. We have to accept the loss and do the work of grief. And it is work. And our relationship with that person can continue in a new way. It can transform, and we can grow around it.
[00:21:47] Henry Emmons, MD: So I'm gonna share some personal experience here, because I think it's really related to what you're saying, Aimee. When we did our Grief Series, I did talk some about my wife having early onset Alzheimer's disease. I'm sure she has had it for at least 10 or 15 years in retrospect, but it was formally diagnosed right at the start of the COVID lockdown, so about six years ago. And she's been living in memory care for just over a year now.
There are many cruel things about Alzheimer's disease, but one of them is the long, slow, relentless nature of grief, where closure just is not possible. Each decline, every loss of function, is another thing to be grieved. And it's not like you can finish grieving one of them and then get ready for the next thing. It's a much more continuous, dynamic, constantly changing process that, quite frankly, challenged every fiber of my being, and it still does. But that idea of continuing bonds that you brought up, I find to be really helpful. Our relationship, of course, has changed. And so now I can choose how I respond to that change.
And in light of that — oh, about a year and a half ago, when it was really getting clear that I could no longer keep her at home, there was no sense of closure about that. And I'm glad for that because what did happen was so much richer. It actually led to a sort of spiritual awakening for me. I had already accepted that I couldn't fix this, but I was just beginning to accept that I had to let go of our life together. I just had to. And in that moment, I made the conscious —the very conscious, kind of empowering, decision that I was going to live fully. I was going to love again. I was going to find joy where I could. And as I think about it, it's a little bit like your Carl Jung quote. This was definitely an insoluble problem. And when I gave up trying to solve it — which, I did try for a long time, but when I finally gave up, then I was able to outgrow it in a way. It's still a work in progress, believe me, but it is happening.
[00:24:53] Aimee Prasek, PhD: Henry, your experience is making me think of Dr. Pauline Boss's work. So Pauline Boss wrote a book — actually wrote a book called _The Myth of Closure, _but also, a book called_ __Ambiguous Loss_. So, essentially this is a kind of loss that doesn't have a clear ending, or clear facts even. And this came out of Boss's research work that wasn't actually about death, but like, two other types of loss.
So one being when someone is physically present but psychologically changed. So, for example, someone in your life with Alzheimer's, or someone with addiction, or traumatic brain injury, or even serious mental illness. So the person is there physically, but your relationship is changing so much — or the way you knew them, and how you were once with them, is massively different and keeps changing — as you've described.
The other type is when the person is physically gone but psychologically present. So this could be, like, a missing person, or a divorce — where the relationship ends and a parent is no longer in the picture. Maybe someone goes no contact with us, or somebody goes to jail, or when someone's deported. So they're out there somewhere, but we might not know where, or you know, we might not know when they'll return, or we can't be with them the same way we used to be.
And because these are ambiguous losses, those same rituals we use after, like, a clear event or a loss, get kind of overlooked. So you don't get the cards, the rituals, the memorials — those kinds of practices that can help us acknowledge a loss and move with it, and, you know, bring in some support. Boss says, "There's just no closure with these kinds of ambiguous losses."
And I love the T.S. Eliot line, he wrote, "What we do not know about a missing loved one becomes all we know about them." Yeah, I feel that when I think about those ambiguous losses in my life. I don't know if that resonates with you as well, Henry.
[00:27:27] Henry Emmons, MD: Mm-hmm .
[00:27:30] Aimee Prasek, PhD: It's like the unknowable just takes over, and so you can't get closure from an unresolvable loss, and so we have to grow around it. She suggests that, you know, something that can be helpful in these cases is to use both/and thinking.
So for example, she's here and she's gone. Which is really kind of close to Jung's idea of holding opposites. And it reminds me exactly of what you just described, Henry. You know, like, when you're able to hold that — that reality, that this is what's happening and also the relationship has changed; she's still here, but it is very different. Something that I'm drawn to as well, and why I love challenging this idea of closure, is that it also invites us to witness more. To make space for the people and experiences in our life to grow, and to evolve, and change, without trying to control them so much. And so I think it's really fitting that next Episode we'll dig into letting go of control.
So this myth of closure — I hope some of what we've gotten into today can help you to loosen your grip on it, like, to let go just a bit on the pressure you might put on yourself to solve insoluble problems. And the Experiment for this Episode will help us to hold those kind of both/ands, and these insoluble problems, in such a way that helps us loosen our grip and that kind of understandable pining for closure that we might feel. So head to JoyLab.coach, if you haven't joined us yet for Experiments, so you can learn more.
And to close our time today, I think some Parker Palmer wisdom is really on point right now. Here's what he wrote: "The human soul doesn't want to be advised or fixed or saved. It simply wants to be witnessed — to be seen, heard and companioned exactly as it is."
[00:29:51] Thanks for joining us!: Thank you for listening to the Joy Lab podcast. Be sure to rate and review us wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.
Please remember that this content is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical advice and is not a replacement for advice and treatment from a medical professional. Please consult your doctor or other qualified health professional before beginning any diet change, supplement, or lifestyle program.
Please see our terms for more information.
