Loss and Connection: A Systemic Reading of Absence, Ritual, and Community

Introduction

Loss — whether it concerns a loved one, a significant role, a relationship, or a life phase — is an inevitable part of human experience. Although every loss is experienced deeply at an individual level, systemic psychotherapy reminds us that no one grieves alone; every absence affects the whole: the bonds, balances, identities, and meanings that constitute a system (Neimeyer, 2012).

In this context, loss is not merely an event but a relationship — a relationship that transforms. As Frankl (1959) highlights, meaning represents the deepest form of resilience: even amid grief, humans can seek ways to find significance and continuity.

This article aims to illuminate loss through a systemic lens, linking it with the notions of ritual and community, as described by Byung-Chul Han in The Disappearance of Rituals (2020). Through this connection, we explore how loss may find space, voice, and companions — not to be “overcome,” but to be metabolized with respect and meaning.

1. Loss as a systemic event

1.1 Disruption and Reorganization of the System

When a member departs, the system loses more than presence: it loses part of its organizing structure. Roles shift, communications change, and a new balance must emerge. Loss acts as a “rupture” in the flow of the system’s life; the therapeutic process seeks to help the whole reorganize the meaning of this rupture (Neimeyer, 2012).

Research shows that grief is not an exclusively individual process; it affects the network of relationships and the sense of identity of the entire family or social unit (Roberts et al., 2020). Therefore, loss is a systemic event — a dynamic shift within the web of relationships.

1.2 From Absence to Continuity

Loss does not cancel the relationship; it transforms it.
The systemic view proposes moving from the «I lost him/her» at «remains within our system in a new way». Memories, narratives and symbolisms function as ways of preserving the continuity of the bond without ignoring the absence (Neimeyer, 2012).

This approach connects to the concept of continuing bonds, in which grief does not mean separation but the creation of a new form of connection with the deceased (Wagner et al., 2020).

1.3 Loss as an Opportunity for Meaning-Making

In the process of grief, meaning-making is a crucial mechanism of psychological resilience (Frankl, 1959). Meta-analyses show that interventions focusing on meaning-making, narrative, and collective processing of grief significantly improve mental health and functioning among individuals and families (Avis et al., 2025). Meaning-making does not erase pain; it situates it within a story that continues, allowing the gradual reorganization of the system around the new reality of absence.

2. Ritual as a bridge: The contribution of Byung-Chul Han

2.1 The Disappearance of Rituals

In The Disappearance of Rituals (Han, 2020), the Korean philosopher argues that modern humans live in an era where rituals have receded. Rituals, he notes, were not merely formal acts but techniques of dwelling in the world — ways of creating shared meaning and rhythm. Their absence leaves human experiences without a common framework of meaning, particularly transitional ones such as loss and grief.

2.2 Loss without ritual

When rituals disappear, loss becomes a private affair. A society oriented toward speed and productivity struggles to endure the stillness and silence that mourning requires (Han, 2020). The result is often a silent pain — one lacking social recognition or symbolic framing (Williams, 2019).

2.3 Ritual as an act of connection

Ritual functions as a shared act of meaning-making. It creates time, rhythm, and participation. In grief, ritual can take many forms: a letter read aloud in community, an act of remembrance, a shared meal, a narrative, or a symbolic gesture such as planting a tree. What matters, as Han (2020) emphasizes, is not the form but the intention: the collective acknowledgment of absence and the transformation of silence into a shared presence.

3. The Systemic Proposal: Restoring and Recreating Rituals

3.1 Loss Within the Therapeutic Relationship

In systemic psychotherapy, the therapist acts as witness and companion to absence. Loss is not treated as a problem to be solved but as a transitional event requiring space and care. Practices such as creating a family ritual — a letter, a joint ceremony, or a symbolic object — strengthen the sense of continuity and connection (Neimeyer, 2012; Roberts et al., 2020).

3.2 The community as a therapeutic factor

Community offers the context in which grief can be expressed without shame or isolation. The restoration of communal forms of ritual can serve as protection against isolation and enhance collective resilience (Avis et al., 2025). As Han (2020) notes, ritual is what transforms communication into community — a togetherness that requires no explanation.

3.3 Creative forms of contemporary rituals

Rituals can be personal and creative:

• Annual remembrance gatherings or tree plantings
• Works of art, collages, or collective letters
• Recurrent moments of shared silence
  Research indicates that the presence of symbolic or ritual acts contributes to the reduction of prolonged grief symptoms and the strengthening of psychological resilience (Williams, 2019; Wagner et al., 2020).

4. Loss as an invitation to community

Loss isolates, but it also invites. It invites meeting, shared storytelling, and new forms of coexistence. In the therapeutic room, the presence of another already constitutes a ritual in itself — a safe frame where absence can be heard and understood. In society, every collective act of remembrance — from a ceremony to a shared silence — has a therapeutic effect because it returns to loss its human dimension of participation (Roberts et al., 2020).

Here, systemic thought and Han’s philosophy converge: Ritual is the form that relationship takes when words are no longer enough. Connection is the form that resilience takes when pain cannot be erased.

Epilogue

Loss is not an ending but a transformation of relationships. By recognizing it as a systemic phenomenon, we can shift from “what is lost” to “what is changing.” Ritual acts as a gesture of connection: it restores time, collectivity, and belonging. In an era where, as Han (2020) points out, rituals are fading and loneliness thickens, perhaps their rediscovery offers a path not only toward reconciliation with loss but also toward reconciliation with life itself.

References

Avis, K. A., Missler, M., van Deursen, D., Lenferink, L. I. M., & Stroebe, M. (2025). The efficacy of bereavement interventions: a systematic umbrella review. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 33(3), 127-148. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000424

Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man's search for meaning. Beacon Press.

Han, B.-C. (2020). The disappearance of rituals: A topology of the present (D. Steuer, Trans.) Polity Press (Original work published 2019)

Neimeyer, R. A. (2012). Techniques of grief therapy: assessment and intervention. Routledge.

Roberts, K. E., Walsh, L. E., Saracino, R. M., Fogarty, J., Coats, T., Goldberg, J., & Lichtenthal, W. G. (2020). A systematic review of treatment options for grieving older adults. Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry, 6(4).

Wagner, B., Rosenberg, N., Hofmann, L., & Maass, U. (2020). Web-based bereavement care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, Article 525. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00525

Williams, A. (2019). Psychological interventions for grief in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychological Medicine.