The saying hallo metaphor as alternative approach to death ...

The saying hallo metaphor as alternative approach to death-related
counselling

Introduction

In this paper it is suggested that therapeutic endeavors designed to aid clients who are
struggling with protracted grief and mourning over the loss of a loved one might be
enhanced by the incorporation of the saying hallo metaphor. This metaphor is proposed as a
reversal of the currently dominant narrative on death, which suggests a need to say goodbye
to the deceased. The inherent shortcomings in the latter approach are discussed, and
alternative practices, informed by the saying hallo metaphor, such as the use of the
imagination, letter writing, re-membering, rituals, and dreams are explored.

The saying goodbye metaphor

A natural part of life for most people involves dealing with the death of a loved one.
Although this experience is usually traumatic and painful for the individuals involved,
many people are eventually able to adjust to the loss and find a degree of resolution to their
grief. However, many other individuals find themselves unable to deal with the loss and are
unable to resolve their grief. In such instances, many of these individuals turn to
psychologists, therapists, counselors, priests, rabbi’s etc. for assistance.

In response to this situation, a variety of therapeutic models and interventions have been
developed in the field of the social sciences in order to address this need for grief related
counselling. However, although these methods have proved helpful to many individuals,
they often seem to be ineffective in assisting clients in the resolution of their grief; and at
times even produce counterproductive outcomes (White, 1988). This suggests that there is a
need for an alternative approach to death-related counselling which could be utilized when
current, normative approaches fail.

Prompted by these observations, the researcher, adopting a social-constructivistic approach,
set out to examine and uncover the discourses that underlay the most prominent theories
and models of grief counselling. From a social constructivist approach, reality is viewed as
being socially constructed. This perspective questions our ability to arrive at any final and
objective truth claims about reality. The implication of this is that all theories, rather than
being reflective of any ultimate reality, are reflections of certain socially agreed upon
definitions and conceptions of reality. The map is not the territory. Furthermore, discourses
exert a powerful effect on our emotional and behavioural experience and reactions to events
and situations. From a social constructivist perspective then, many of the typical reactions
that individuals have in response to the death of a loved one, such as grief and mourning
(Benokraitis, 1996: 523) are viewed as being the result of the discourses that these
individuals hold on death.

In examining various major approaches to grief related counselling, the researcher found a
remarkable consistency in the underlying assumptions upon which these models were
constructed. Most models of grief counselling, despite differing methodologies, were
constructed upon the belief that death implies a total and final loss and separation and that
the adequate resolution of grief is dependent upon acceptance of this loss, and on “letting

go” of the deceased. Most models of grief counselling viewed counselling as successful
when the person was able to resume his life without the loved one.
As such, the metaphor of saying goodbye has been chosen as an apt description or label to
refer to this discourse on death.1

It is important to mention that it is not the intention of the researcher to in any way imply
that the saying goodbye discourse is invalid or somehow incorrect. Rather, the intention is
to point out the limitations and possible dangers inherent in the discourse, and to suggest an
alternative approach that might be utilized in cases where normative approaches prove
ineffective.

The assumptions inherent in the saying goodbye discourse, which are for the most part not
questioned but implicitly accepted, act to shape therapeutic interventions in many ways.
The therapist’s discourses on death and death-related counselling act as a receiving context
for how he understands, evaluates, and responds to a client’s problem. Most obviously, the
saying goodbye discourse gives rise to the idea that the client has to learn to “let go,” to
work through his grief and to “put it behind him.” Rituals and other practices are often used
to “help” the person accept the finality of death by saying goodbye to the loved one who
passed away. These ideas are implicit in many approaches to grief counselling (e.g. Rogers,
1979; Louw & Gerdes, 1984: 520; Wallace & Wallace, 1989: 362; Glouberman, 1995:132).
Conversely, as has been shown in a previous section, an inability to “say goodbye” will be
construed as being undesirable and inappropriate.
The death-as-final discourse precludes the possibility of seeing or of using such an inability
to “say goodbye” in a positive, more constructive way. In therapy, the result is often a
battle, where the person has to fight his lingering feelings of attachment to the deceased
loved one in an attempt to “let go.”

A social-constructivist approach would not accept the saying goodbye discourse as being
reflective of any inherent or objective truth about the nature of death. Rather, it would view
such a discourse as a set of ideas that were socially constructed, and which could by
implication be challenged and reconstructed in a different way.
There is a tendency to lose sight of the fact that these discourses are socially constructed
rather than reflective of some natural way of being. As such this leads to a tendency to
close down alternative ways of seeing, understanding and reacting to the problem (Monk et
al., 1996: 42).

Considering the power of discourses to shape our perceptions and responses to reality this
implies that there could be great potential for dealing with protracted grief by adopting an
alternative discourse pertaining to death and grief resolution.

The saying hallo metaphor

The researcher located a reference to such an alternative discourse in an article written by
Michael White (1988). In this article, White referred to what he termed the saying hallo
metaphor. This approach suggests that the relationship with a deceased person can be re-

1 The researcher does not suggest that this is the only Western discourse on death; there are undoubtedly
many others. Yet the saying goodbye discourse is arguably one of the most dominant discourses that permeate
current thinking on the matter, and, as will be shown, it also has many potentially insidious implications for
grief counseling.

established and strengthened in a therapeutic context, thereby paradoxically assisting an
individual to resolve protracted grief. From this perspective, the loss of a loved one need
not be final and total. Although there is indeed such a loss as far as the physical presence of
the deceased is concerned, on other levels the influence, memories and legacy of the
deceased will continue to exert an influence in the life of those left behind. Such memories
or words of wisdom can continue to be a source of strength, comfort and inspiration in the
future. The saying hallo metaphor invites people to recognize, validate, honor, expand and
even celebrate their relationship to the deceased.

Unfortunately the article was brief and directed mostly at a limited audience of narrative
therapists. In addition, the idea was presented mostly conceptually and apart from two case
studies, little idea was given as to the various ways in which this discourse might be applied
in a practical manner during the course of grief counselling.
The researcher saw a lot of untapped potential inherent in the saying hallo discourse and
expanded upon the basic idea underlying this discourse in order to develop and propose
specific alternative strategies for dealing with protracted grief. The specific interventions
that were developed from the saying hallo root discourse included the use of letters,
employing visualization, rituals, the use of collages, memento’s and photographs, the use of
symbols and shrines, visiting the grave and dreams. Although many of these approaches are
commonly used in therapeutic contexts, this is often done from a saying goodbye
perspective.

The following section serves to provide a brief overview of the way in which these
approaches might be utilized as extensions of the saying hallo metaphor within the context
of grief related therapy. It is hoped that these suggested models might serve to provide an
alternative approach to grief counselors in instances where conventional approaches fail.

Using letters in grief therapy to facilitate a saying hallo process

The use of letter writing in therapy can be a very powerful means to effect therapeutic
change, and as such, is often used in the context of general counselling (White & Epston,
1990: 33-34; Kennedy, 1997: 92). The saying hallo metaphor can be integrated very well
within the context of letter writing, and this section examines some of the ways in which
this might be accomplished.

Therapists’ letters to clients

There are many options for therapists in writing letters to clients suffering from death
related grief that may be therapeutically beneficial. Therapists can send summary letters
after sessions in which the loss, with its concomitant pain and grief is voiced and
acknowledged, and any process of saying hallo that has taken place in therapy can be
summarized, thus adding weight to it. The letter can become a document that the client can
refer back to when he wants to do so. This can greatly extend and enhance the therapeutic
potential of any other techniques used in therapy.

Therapists could also include “saying hullo” questions in a letter so that the client can
contemplate them at his or her own leisure. The reflexivity induced by questions that are
carefully structured according to a saying hallo perspective can serve to put the client more

in touch with the memory of the deceased person and to thereby instigate or further the
saying hallo process. Examples of such questions are: “What are the most important things
you have learned from X?” “How could you honour X’s memory and influence in your
life?”

Writing a letter to the deceased person

In some cases, clients can be encouraged to write a letter to a deceased loved one in order
to facilitate a “saying hallo again” process (Kotze, 1993). No set rules are given for this
type of letter, as this would be restrictive and counterproductive. In this type of letter the
client simply expresses his feelings, hurt, fears, unsaid issues, etc to the deceased person as
if he really were actually talking to that person. This can be accomplished in any format
that the client finds personally meaningful. It is important that the client expresses himself
honestly and authentically, and not dampen any distressing feelings, even if these are
negative emotions such as anger or hurt.
Writing these things down in this fashion, creates a channel of expression for thoughts and
emotions that otherwise might have gone unexpressed. As such, clients often experience
the mere act of writing such a letter as helpful in a therapeutic sense.

Commonly, when writing such letters, clients often experience significant shifts in their
grief as they write these letters, as well as a sense of increased connectedness with the
deceased, which enables them to bear the pain of the loss much better (Kennedy, 1997: 77).

The client writing a letter to him or herself from the deceased person

Clients can also be invited to write a letter to themselves from the deceased person. Such a
suggestion often follows the writing of a letter to the deceased person by the client (Kotze,
1993). The client basically answers for the deceased person. These letters are intended to
instigate a position of reflexivity in the client from where he can perceive his own situation
from a new perspective (in this case, that of the deceased), a process which is often
generative of therapeutic change.
Through writing such a letter, the client is extricated from his own vantage point. He is
prompted to see and experience his own situation differently. New insights and realizations
that might have been invisible before, may now present themselves. Understandings that
were obscured by his previous vantage point may now emerge more clearly. With this, new
opportunities for change arise. New meaning is created around a particular situation related
to the death of the loved one.

A variation of this approach that may sometimes be preferred by those who are so inclined,
would be to capture their own feelings or the perceived feelings of a deceased loved one in
a poem or story. This written document can then be kept with them and read at times when
comfort is needed.

Using the imagination to say hallo again

The use of the imagination to re-establish a connection with the deceased person builds on
a natural tendency inherent in people after the death of someone they love. People often
spontaneously engage in conversations with such a person. “Many of us secretly or

unconsciously attempt to carry on a lost dialogue with a loved one. For example, a person
might talk to a deceased spouse over morning coffee. A grieving mother might converse
with her deceased child while sorting through his toys and clothes. Often, people keep these
communications secret for fear of being misunderstood by the living. They hold these
conversations without any understanding of the rich possibilities for healing. If dialogue is
so critical to our well-being and existence, how can we recover a dialogue that has been lost
through the death of a loved one? How can we transform an absence into a presence? The
answer is by vitalizing our urge to communicate with our developing imagination”
(Kennedy, 1997: 17-18). This technique therefore validates and builds upon people’s
natural inclinations, needs and responses to the death of a loved one rather than imposing
an unnatural process.

Technique for using the imagination

A method proposed by Kennedy (1997: 108) suggests using visualization and relaxation
exercises to put oneself in a more inwardly attuned state and to then visualize an interaction
with the deceased person. Very often, the person does not appear or act the way in which
the person might have expected him to. The client is asked to just stay in the situation and
let the interaction unfold of its own accord. In this stage the client can share his
unexpressed feelings, thoughts and questions with the loved one and allow him or her to
answer back. The person can share his regrets, anger, love or anything else that he chooses
to. The person is encouraged not to edit or interfere with the process but to follow it
wherever it might go. When there is a sense of a “shift” having been made, the person can
choose to close the meeting and exit his imagination. The client might want to reflect on
this experience and continue to have regular internal conversations with the image of the
deceased person until he or she no longer feels the need for such interaction. Glouberman
(1995: 137-140) describes a similar process and also suggests the additional possibility of
the client imagining the deceased person sitting in a chair opposite him or her, and then
holding a conversation with this person. The client, after having asked a question, moves to
the opposite chair and then answers for the deceased person. This conversation is carried on
until some sense of resolution is reached.

The imagination is a very powerful tool for reconnecting with a person’s inner relationship
with a deceased loved one. This connection takes place on many levels at once, making it a
profoundly moving and transforming experience. This process often initiates a healing
process that can transform the grief and pain of the client. This process would be very
unlikely to occur within a context of therapy that is informed by the saying goodbye map,
for such a paradigm inevitably closes down possibilities for working on what would appear
to be a lost relationship. Utilizing the imagination in accordance with the saying hallo
metaphor might serve as a powerful antidote to this.

The use of symbols, photographs and shrines in re-establishing a lost relationship

There is considerable potential in utilizing symbols, photographs and shrines to facilitate a
saying hallo process in grief therapy. “People who have had a significant loss may find new
significance in possessions belonging to the deceased. People may use photo albums,
mementos, household furnishings, and other possessions to define . . . their relationship to
each other. . . These articles may also help in the search for new meanings that will take the
loss into account” (Bergmann, 1999: 36-37).

A symbol or photograph, through its images elicits and contains many memories that relate
to the person or place being depicted in the photograph. In this way one can think of the
symbol or photograph as a gateway for accessing and connecting to experiences, emotions
and narratives that might have been pushed aside or buried. This process can be particularly
useful in grief therapy in order to facilitate a reconnection with a lost relationship.

Symbols are often used as a means towards generating therapeutic change (Freedman &
Combs, 1990). In the context of this work, there are many ways in which symbols can in
themselves be used ritually to facilitate a reconnection to the deceased. A person might for
example be asked to find, create or buy something that will serve as a symbol for the
deceased or for the client’s relationship with the deceased. This might take the form of a
special watch or ring, a precious stone, a photograph of the deceased, a piece of the
deceased’s clothing, a letter or card, etc.

By carrying these symbols with him, the deceased is kept alive in the client’s mind. This
serves to provide the client with a sense of connection to the deceased person, and to reduce
the sense of loss and isolation that commonly accompany the death of a loved one.

A client might also wish to construct a shrine for the deceased. Such a shrine would be
composed of objects and symbols that are personally meaningful to the client with regard to
his relationship with the deceased person. The construction of such a shrine can be left to
the wishes of the client. It might include photographs of the loved one, candles, flowers or
anything else that would be significant to the client. The presence of the shrine serves to
establish and maintain a sense of connection to the deceased which again serves as an
antidote to the sense of loss caused by the parting of the beloved.
Interestingly, from the saying goodbye discourse, enshrinement is often frowned upon as a
sign of maladaptation to the loss of the loved one. It is often interpreted as a sign that
people are unable to “get over” the loss and say goodbye to the loved one. Yet, as was
argued before, from a social constructivist perspective the idea that one necessarily has to
say goodbye to a deceased person is questioned.

This section could only provide a very basic overview of the utilization of symbols,
photographs and shrines to facilitate a saying hallo process. Many other possibilities exist,
and in actual practice each ritual will have to be constructed in accordance with the specific
situation and requirements of the client.

Making time to remember the deceased with other people.

Another potentially effective ritual, that might prove especially useful in helping a family
cope with extended grief involves the setting aside of time together to remember the
deceased person. The particular format of this ritual is best determined according to the
specific context of the particular family (such as the ages of the members, the nature of the
death, unresolved issues and so on.)

From a social-constructivist perspective, reality is seen as being socially constructed. It
follows from this that having several people participate in such a saying hallo endeavor
would be a great aid towards the development of an alternative, more preferred story
surrounding the deceased person and his or her relationship with the living family

members. A story that was co-generated with others will have a greater chance of survival
than a story that was generated alone (O’Hanlon, 1994: 26).
Kübler-Ross, (1991: 74) echoes this general idea when she says that: “If families can cry
and talk together about the happy memories they share of the missed person, the real
process of bereavement can be greatly enhanced . . . If relatives can go through the pages of
a photograph book and share memories of places, vacations, incidents, and laugh and cry
together, much can be done to . . . get through the mourning process without scars.”

This ritual can be combined with any of the other approaches suggested here. A family
might for example use this “remembering” time to make up a collage together, or they
might choose to visit the deceased’s grave together, a ritual that will be discussed in the
following section.

Visiting the grave as saying hallo ritual

A potentially very useful ritual for facilitating a saying hallo process involves the client
visiting the grave of the deceased. Although many people are naturally drawn to do this and
this approach is sometimes used by counselors, it is often done within the context of the
saying goodbye discourse. That is, the intention for the visit to the gravesite is often that of
assisting the client to come to terms with the finality of their loss and to move to a point of
acceptance where they can say goodbye to their loved ones. However, from a saying hallo
approach, the same ritual can be carried out in a fundamentally different manner with the
purpose of facilitating the re-membering of the deceased person.
The details of such a ritual can take many forms according to the unique situation and
desires of the client. The client might simply choose to visit the gravesite on a daily,
weekly or monthly basis. Alternatively he might choose to visit it only when he feels the
need to do so. During these visits the client might hold a conversation with the deceased,
perhaps sharing his thoughts and feelings, saying what was unsaid before. (In this regard
the process bears similarities to the technique of using the imagination to talk to the
deceased.). In addition, the client might also wish to express and maintain his sense of
connection by putting flowers on the grave regularly. Many other possibilities exist to
extend and adapt this ritual, and, as before, the client’s specific situation should be the
determining factor in this regard.

Dreams as way to say hallo again

After the death of a loved one, people often experience very vivid and lucid dreams, which
often feel more real to the dreamer than waking reality, in which the deceased person
appears and awake from these dreams feeling as if they really were with the person they
had loved and lost (Delaney, 1997: 97; Kennedy, 1997: 47). Mostly, these interactions are
quite emotional experiences for the dreamer. Many people write these dreams off as
nothing more than the ruminations of a grieving mind. While this may be true in some
cases, the researcher believes that there are more to these dreams than mere rumination.
Instead of rejecting such dreams offhand as inconsequential, or relegating them to the level
of wishful thinking, it is suggested that they might be a valuable source for healing.

Considering the degree of realness and emotional intensity of these dreams, it is easy to see
their immense potential for assisting the person to say hallo again to their loved ones. It

helps to sustain a sense of connection which acts as a powerful antidote to the often
overwhelming sense of despair and loss that people commonly experience after the death of
someone they treasured.

The therapist can utilize these types of dreams in a very powerful way to facilitate the re-
incorporation of a lost relationship into the life of a grieving client by validating these
dreams and by encouraging the client to remember, honor and record the dream in some
meaningful way.
Therapists might for example inquire into the “deceased-person dreams” of a person
trapped in feelings of grief. By encouraging a client to discuss these dreams, they are
invited to recount the experience more fully. This enhances the subjective realness of the
dream experience and also powerfully contributes to the generation of an alternative
account of the client’s life in which the deceased person is not lost forever, but present in
many ways. Often a therapist needs to do little more than this, for the very fact that these
dreams often feel so real and are so emotionally intense and reassuring results in a situation
where clients usually have no difficulty accepting the value of these dreams. The therapist’s
role in this regard is therefore primarily one of validating the experience and acting as an
audience for the full telling of the dream experience.

Alternatively, the dream might be celebrated in some way, or built into a ritual. These
approaches have in common the intention to enhance the subjective weight of the dream
experience and to contribute to its survival as a sustaining and comforting force in the
client’s life. The client might wish to find or create a symbol that encapsulates this dream
experience and carry it with him or place it on his desk, etc.

Dreams of the deceased have an immense, yet mostly underutilized potential for assisting
clients in dealing with their grief. Such dreams can powerfully instigate a saying hallo
process in therapy which can be built upon by other methods in order to aid the client in
reincorporating the lost relationship back into his or her life. Ignoring such dreams would
be to unnecessarily deprive the client of a valuable connection with the deceased, and a
powerful opportunity for healing.

Concluding remarks

This paper suggested that, at least in some cases where normative approaches to grief
counselling, oriented by the saying goodbye map have failed, alternative strategies founded
upon the saying hallo map of therapy might be fruitfully employed to break this impasse
and engender positive therapeutic change. The researcher hopes that this might serve to
open up new possibilities in grief counselling.

However, in the final analysis, each person experiences the loss of a loved one in his or her
own individual way. Consequently, there can be no single technique, no set formula, for
dealing with issues related to death and dying. Even the saying hallo metaphor should be
seen as only one possible strategy amongst many others. The specific context of the
therapeutic situation should be the determining factor in the choice of therapeutic approach.
Certainly, we need to be conversant with various therapeutic strategies related to grief
counselling, but perhaps even more importantly, we need to be sensitive to our clients as
individuals, and tailor our therapeutic endeavors to fit in with that individuality.

LIST OF SOURCES

BENOKRAITIS, N. V. 1996. Marriages and families: changes, choices, and constraints.
New Jersey : Prentice-Hall, Inc.

BERGMANN, F.C. 1999. Exploring death and loss: a social constructionist perspective.
Unpublished MA (psychology) dissertation. Johannesburg : RAU.

DELANEY, G. 1997. In Your Dreams: Falling, Flying, and other Dream Themes. San
Francisco : Harper Collins Publishers.

FREEDMAN, J. & COMBS, G. 1990. Symbol, story, and ceremony: Using metaphor in
individual and family therapy. New York : Norton.

GLOUBERMAN, D. 1995. Life choices, life changes: Developing your personal vision
with imagework. London : Thorsons.

KENNEDY, A. 1997. Your loved one lives on within you. Berkley : New York.

KOTZE, D.J. 1993. “Dear Father”: Writing letters as a means of concluding conversations
cut off by death. Amsterdam. Paper given at 3rd IFTA conference, May 1993.

KüBLER-ROSS, E. 1991. On life after death. Celestial Arts : California.

LOUW, D.A., GERDES, L.C. & MEYER, W.F. 1984. Menslike Ontwikkeling. Pretoria :
HAUM.

O’HANLON, B. 1994. The Third Wave. Networker, 18 (6), 18-29.

ROGERS, D. 1979. The adult years. New Yersey : Prentice-Hall.

WALLACE, C.W. & WALLACE, D.W. 1989. Sociology. Boston : Allyn and Bacon.

WHITE, M. & EPSTON, D. 1990. Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York :
W.W. Norton & Co.

WHITE, M. 1988. Saying Hullo Again. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 2, 29-36.

Contact Details

Mr H.W. Nell
Lecturer in Sociology

Department of Sociology
School of Behavioural Sciences
Faculty Vaal Triangle

North-West University: Vaal Triangle Campus
Hendrik v Eck Blvd
Building no 7
Room 7-116
P O Box 1174
Vanderbijlpark
1900
South Africa

[email protected]

Phone: +27 016 910 3427 Fax: +27 016 910 3424