Interview with Annika Jonsson

Andreas: You have a new book in Swedish, Continuing Bonds: How People Live with Their Dead. What is it about?

Annika: My book is primarily aimed at practitioners who work with the bereaved, but it can be read by anyone interested in the loss of a loved one and grief. Above all, it highlights that many bereaved people feel that the deceased person is present in some sense. This can be through symbols, such as a butterfly appearing when you think of the deceased or a plant suddenly blooming. It can also be a vague feeling that the dead person is nearby. It’s common for bereaved people to experience some form of presence. The concept of continuing bonds helps to normalize these experiences.

Andreas: Is this the first time the term continuing bonds has been used in Swedish?

Annika: No, it’s been briefly mentioned in a few earlier books, but it’s not a widely known concept. It’s primarily used by researchers in Sweden and the Nordic countries.

Andreas: Why should people working with the bereaved be familiar with the concept of continuing bonds?

Annika: It’s important because it helps normalize the experiences of presence that many grieving people have. Traditional grief theories often focus on “ending” the relationship with the deceased so that the person can move on. In modern, empirical research, we don’t see such opposition. The concept allows us to acknowledge and understand the experiences of presence and the various emotions grieving people may have without pathologizing them.

Andreas: How common is it for people to feel that they have continuing bonds with their deceased loved ones?

Annika: There are some large studies that show that 35-50% of the bereaved have experienced some form of presence from a deceased person. The numbers vary slightly because the result depends on how presence is defined in surveys and the like. In some studies, only the stronger experiences are counted, such as feeling that the deceased person is physically present, while more subtle experiences of presence are excluded. Some researchers have pointed out that the numbers could be even higher if more subtle experiences are included, such as the deceased somehow being associated with or connected to rainbows, butterflies, and similar things.

Andreas: You also mention collective continuing bonds in your book. What does that mean?

Annika: Collective continuing bonds occur when people in a group, such as a family or a circle of friends, share the grief over a person’s death. Together, they create a shared understanding of the deceased person and the loss. At the same time, people always have their own, personal continuing bond with the deceased, which is colored by the nature of their relationship. Sometimes tensions arise, for example, when everyone except one family member has a certain view of the deceased person. It happens that the dead are glorified in ways that may be offensive to those who had negative experiences with the person.

Andreas: What got you interested in continuing bonds in the first place?

Annika: I’ve thought about it a lot. Growing up, I noticed that in some families there was a lot of talk about the dead, while in others, they were barely mentioned. I had a friend who lost her mother when she was just a few years old, and people around her were silent about it - no one talked about her mother. That sparked my curiosity. How could people handle grief and the dead in such different ways? In some families, it was as if the dead were still there in some way. That’s perhaps where my fascination with continuing bonds began. I also wondered how these invisible bonds to the dead could continue to influence the living.

Andreas: You also write about digital remains. Can you tell us more about that?

Annika: It’s quite a large research area that focuses on how the bereaved use memorial websites and other types of digital resources. For some bereaved people, digital remains are very important—they can visit memorial pages to “visit” the deceased and maybe talk to others who knew the person. For others, it feels foreign and frightening, especially when social media interaction continues after the person has died. Research hasn’t really drawn clear conclusions about who benefits from digital remains and why. It’s a growing field, but more knowledge is needed in this area.

Andreas: You mention several sociologists in your book. Who are the key figures in research on continuing bonds?

Annika: Regarding continuing bonds specifically, I would mention Dennis Klass and Christine Valentine. Klass, although a psychologist by training, adopts sociological perspectives. Speaking more generally about death, I would mention Glennys Howarth, Tony Walter, and Allan Kellehear. They’ve worked extensively on issues related to how different societies deal with and construct dying, the dead, and the role of the bereaved. I think they don’t get the attention they deserve. Many in sociology refer exclusively to well-known sociologists like Bauman, Elias, and perhaps Strauss and Glaser when writing about death and grief. It’s a bit unfortunate, as the researchers I mention have really contributed to sociologizing the understanding of grief and various death-related issues. Grief isn’t just a state; the bereaved exist in social contexts where others, for instance, determine whether the person who died was a valuable person or not. The understanding of continuing bonds also varies greatly between cultural contexts—in some parts of the world, it’s natural to talk to your dead and relate to them as if they still exist in some way.

Andreas: Can death and grief reflect larger power structures in society?

Annika: Absolutely. I give an example in the book where a researcher compares how the same newspaper reported on different deaths. When a young white man dies in a car accident, it’s described as a great tragedy, and when three non-white young men die in a similar accident, it’s presented almost as something trivial and expected. Power asymmetries in society affect how both the dead and the bereaved are treated.

Andreas: You’ve talked to many bereaved people during the writing of your book. Are there any stories that have particularly affected you?

Annika: One of several stories that deeply touched me was that of an older woman who had lost her husband. When she had visits from her children and grandchildren, they expected her to be the cozy grandmother—baking fresh buns and being happy. None of them asked or wanted to talk about her grief, and it was incredibly hard for her. She felt trapped in a role where she couldn’t express her real feelings. She lived with double grief: she mourned her husband and was also sad about not being seen and understood by her loved ones.

Andreas: Finally, was there anything that surprised you when writing the book?

Annika: Initially, I thought I would just summarize existing research, but as I started writing, I realized I had a lot to say about it. I could also see my own research in the area in a slightly new light. So yes, I was surprised by how much I had to say. The book became more analytical than I first intended, which is only a positive thing.

Andreas: Thank you very much for this interview, Annika!