Bereavement occupies a central position in the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as a clinical phenomenon, a theoretical proving ground, and a cultural anthropological datum. Bowlby’s treatment remains foundational: he frames bereavement not as a discrete pathology but as the inevitable consequence of irreversible separation, an extension of separation anxiety that unfolds through identifiable phases—numbing, yearning and searching, disorganization, and reorganization. His theoretical architecture derives its authority from empirical studies of widows in London and Boston, lending bereavement research an unusual combination of clinical depth and sociological breadth. Worden translates this framework into a task-based therapeutic model, emphasizing that clinicians must distinguish normal grief from major depressive episode and that intervention risk stratification is both possible and necessary. Neimeyer introduces a constructivist corrective, repositioning bereavement as a meaning-reconstruction process rather than a linear progression toward acceptance. Running beneath these major schools is a persistent tension between the universalist impulse—the search for invariant phases or tasks—and the culturalist recognition that mourning practices, funeral rituals, and the social role of the dead vary dramatically across human societies. Pargament adds a further dimension by examining how religious belief systems mediate the bereaved person’s confrontation with loss, particularly through funerary ritual and afterlife belief. Across all these positions, the literature converges on the view that bereavement, left unaddressed or socially unsupported, carries measurable psychiatric and somatic risk.