date_range
Wednesday 03 Jun 2026
LOCAL EDITION
close
LOCAL EDITION
Us humans have always sought connection. Across cultures and throughout history, romantic relationships have served as sources of companionship, security, intimacy, and social belonging. Yet, the way in which these relationships are formed, maintained, and dissolved has changed dramatically over time. Today, many individuals find themselves navigating a dating landscape characterized by unprecedented choice, constant connectivity, evolving social norms, and increasingly ambiguous relationship structures.
While these transformations have created new opportunities for connection, they have also introduced new forms of emotional vulnerability. One of the most overlooked consequences of modern dating is the emergence of what psychologists refer to as “Disenfranchised Grief”—a form of grief that is real and deeply felt but often denied social recognition or validation.
The phenomenon raises an important question: are contemporary relationships becoming inherently more fragile, or have social and cultural changes simply created new forms of attachment and loss that society has not yet learned how to recognize?
Note: I got the idea to write about this topic via an Instagram post by: @thesoftening__
The evolution of dating: From structured relationships to relational ambiguity
Historically, romantic relationships were often embedded within relatively clear social structures. Courtship rituals, community involvement, family expectations, and cultural norms provided individuals with a roadmap for relationship development. While these structures could be restrictive, they also established relatively clear definitions of commitment, exclusivity, and relational status.
Contemporary dating operates under significantly different conditions.
Digital technologies have transformed the process of partner selection, communication, and relationship maintenance. Dating applications allow individuals access to an almost limitless pool of potential partners. Social media facilitates continuous interpersonal observation and interaction. Communication has become instantaneous, transcending geographical limitations and enabling relationships to develop at unprecedented speeds.
At first glance, these developments appear overwhelmingly positive. More opportunities should theoretically increase the likelihood of finding compatible partners.
However, sociologists and psychologists have increasingly questioned whether greater choice necessarily produces greater satisfaction. Barry Schwart’z concept of the “Paradox of Choice” suggests that an abundance of options can create decision paralysis, increased anxiety, and chronic dissatisfaction. Applied to dating, this theory proposes that the perception of endless alternatives may discourage individuals from fully investing in existing relationships. The possibility that someone “better” exists just beyond the next swipe can make commitment feel riskier and less rewarding.
As a result, modern dating has become increasingly characterized by ambiguity.
Relationships often exist in undefined spaces between friendship and partnership. Terms such as situationship, talking stage, and exclusive but unofficial relationship have emerged to describe forms of connection that previous generations may not have recognized. Emotional intimacy frequently develops without the structural certainty traditionally associated with romantic commitment.
The consequence is not necessarily weaker relationships. Rather, it is the emergence of relationships that are emotionally significant but socially difficult to categorize.
Understanding disenfranchised grief
The concept of disenfranchised grief was developed by grief researcher Kenneth Doka, who defined it as grief that is not socially acknowledged, publicly mourned, or openly supported.
Traditionally, grief has been associated with losses that society collectively recognizes as legitimate, such as the death of a spouse, parent, sibling, or close friend. In these situations, social rituals and support systems provide individuals with permission to mourn.
Disenfranchised grief occurs when that permission is absent.
Individuals may experience profound grief following the loss of an ex-partner, a situationship, unrequited love, infertility, estrangement, or even the collapse of imagined futures. Yet, because these losses do not fit conventional expectations of grief, they are frequently minimized.
The issue is not that the grief itself is less intense.
The issue is that society often struggles to recognize its legitimacy.
This creates a secondary psychological burden. Individuals are not only grieving the loss itself; they are also grappling with the perception that they should not be grieving at all.
Why situationships can hurt as much as relationships
One common assumption surrounding modern dating is that informal relationships should produce less emotional pain because they lack formal commitment.
Psychological evidence suggests otherwise.
“Attachment Theory”, initially developed by John Bowlby, proposes that human beings are biologically predisposed to form emotional bonds with significant others. These attachments are not created through labels or legal agreements. Rather, they emerge through repeated emotional interaction, trust-building, vulnerability, and perceived availability.
This distinction is critical.
The human attachment system does not necessarily differentiate between a spouse, a long-term partner, or a situationship. What matters is emotional investment. If an individual communicates daily with someone, shares intimate aspects of their life, relies on them for emotional support, and envisions a future with them, attachment processes are likely to occur regardless of the relationship’s official status.
Consequently, when the connection ends, the resulting grief reflects the loss of an attachment figure rather than merely the loss of a relationship label. This challenges a common cultural narrative that unofficial relationships should be easier to move on from.
In many cases, the opposite may be true.
The absence of clear boundaries can complicate both the relationship itself and the grieving process that follows.
Ambiguous loss and the search for closure
Another framework that helps explain contemporary dating experiences is Pauline Boss’s theory of “Ambiguous Loss”. Unlike traditional losses, ambiguous losses lack clarity and finality. They leave individuals uncertain about what exactly has been lost.
Ghosting provides a particularly relevant example.
When someone disappears without explanation, there is often no identifiable event that marks the end of the relationship. No conversation takes place. No closure is offered. The relationship simply ceases to exist.
From a psychological perspective, ambiguity can be more distressing than certainty. Human beings possess a strong need for cognitive closure. We seek explanations because explanations allow us to organize experiences into coherent narratives. When explanations are absent, we generate our own. Unfortunately, these self-generated explanations frequently involve self-blame.
“Perhaps I wasn’t attractive enough.”
“Perhaps I was too much.”
“Perhaps I wasn’t enough.”
Without external clarification, we often internalize responsibility for outcomes we may not fully understand. The result is grief complicated by uncertainty, self-doubt, and unanswered questions that keep us awake at night.
UNRELATED (but somewhat related): A brief note on friendship breakups and platonic loss
Although discussions of heartbreak often focus on romantic relationships, meaningful losses can also occur in platonic ones. And that is exactly why—despite it not being the main theme of this article—I wish to include a small section for friendship breakups.
Friendships frequently involve many of the same psychological processes found in romantic bonds: trust, emotional support, shared experiences, vulnerability, and a sense of belonging. Yet, when friendships end—whether through conflict, drifting apart, betrayal, relocation, or changing life circumstances—the resulting grief is often overlooked.
Unlike romantic breakups, friendship breakups rarely come with established social scripts. There are no widely recognized rituals for mourning the loss of a best friend, nor is there always social permission to express the depth of that pain. As a result, friendship loss can also become a form of disenfranchised grief.
For some individuals, the end of a close friendship may be just as destabilizing as the end of a romantic relationship. The loss is not merely of a person, but of a shared history, a source of support, and a version of oneself that existed within that connection.
Modern dating and the validation economy
The influence of digital culture extends beyond relationship formation itself. Contemporary social environments increasingly operate as what some scholars describe as a validation economy, where social approval becomes visible, measurable, and quantifiable.
Likes, matches, comments, views, and follows function as forms of social feedback. While validation has always been a fundamental human need, digital platforms have amplified both its accessibility and its psychological significance. Within this environment, romantic attention can become intertwined with self-worth.
A match becomes evidence of attractiveness.
A message becomes evidence of desirability.
A relationship becomes evidence of value.
Consequently, when relationships dissolve, individuals may experience not only interpersonal loss but also threats to their self-concept.
They are grieving the relationship, but they may also be grieving the version of themselves that felt wanted, chosen, understood, or validated within it. This dynamic helps explain why some contemporary breakups appear disproportionately painful relative to the duration of the relationship itself.
The loss extends beyond the individual partner.
It encompasses identity, affirmation, and belonging.
Zygmunt Bauman and the Theory of Liquid Love
Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman offers another compelling perspective through his concept of “Liquid Love”. He argued that contemporary societies increasingly prioritize flexibility, mobility, and individual freedom. While these values create opportunities for personal autonomy, they can also make long-term commitments feel burdensome or restrictive. Relationships become subject to the same logic that governs consumer culture. Connections are maintained as long as they remain satisfying and are abandoned when they become inconvenient.
Although some critics argue that Bauman’s theory romanticizes the past, his observations raise important questions about contemporary relationship culture.
Has modern society become less tolerant of relational discomfort?
Are individuals encouraged to repair relationships or replace them?
Has commitment become more frightening because modern culture places greater emphasis on personal freedom than collective obligation?
The answers remain contested. However, these questions help illuminate broader cultural tensions surrounding intimacy in the digital age.
Are we facing a relationship crisis?
Popular discourse often frames modern dating as evidence of societal decline. However, such claims deserve scrutiny.
Every generation has experienced anxiety about changing relationship norms. Previous eras witnessed concerns about women’s increasing independence, declining marriage rates, online dating, and countless other social transformations. What appears to be a relationship crisis may instead represent a transition.
The challenge is not necessarily that people have become incapable of love, commitment, or intimacy. Rather, our social frameworks may not have evolved quickly enough to accommodate new forms of connection. We have developed new ways of meeting people, communicating with them, and forming attachments.
What we have not yet developed are equally sophisticated ways of understanding the losses that emerge from these relationships.
Beyond labels: Recognizing the reality of emotional loss
Perhaps the most important lesson offered by disenfranchised grief is that emotional significance cannot be measured through labels alone. Relationships do not become meaningful because they are publicly recognized. They become meaningful because they shape our lives, identities, expectations, and emotional worlds.
A situationship may not appear significant from the outside.
A talking stage may never become official.
An online relationship may never have existed in physical proximity.
A friendship may have ended without a dramatic falling out.
Yet, these experiences can still alter how individuals understand themselves and others.
As modern dating continues to evolve, society may need to expand its understanding of grief accordingly. Not every loss arrives with a funeral. Not every heartbreak is accompanied by public recognition. Not every attachment can be neatly categorized.
But the absence of a label does not negate the presence of loss.
And perhaps one of the defining challenges of contemporary relationships is learning to acknowledge that some of the deepest griefs emerge not from what was, but from what almost was.
If you want to read more on the types of emotional losses and attachment theories, check out the links below: