Final answer:
Criticism of Kübler-Ross's theory centers on its individual-focused approach, which may not align with collectivist cultural views or acknowledge different cultural and religious coping mechanisms. Collectivist cultures often see death as part of life's cycle, faced with serenity, or commemorated festively, contrasting with the personal stages of grief outlined by Kübler-Ross.
Step-by-step explanation:
Kübler-Ross's theory on the five stages of grief, drawn from her work On Death and Dying, has faced several criticisms, particularly relating to cultural perspectives on death. Collectivist cultures may find the individual-focused process of grieving less important, as communal and familial considerations often take precedence. For example, Native American views of death see it as a part of the larger cycle of life, and thus, death is to be faced with serenity and continuity rather than as an isolated event marked by personal grief. In Mexican culture, the Day of the Dead celebrations epitomize the view of death as a continuation of life; death is commemorated with festivity and remembrance, illustrating a collective approach to the end of life.
It is also essential to recognize that not every person or culture may follow the model outlined by Kübler-Ross. Indeed, her work emphasized a pattern observed within a certain scope of Western patients facing terminal illness and may not directly translate to other cultural or religious contexts, where beliefs in afterlife, spiritual continuation, and community support offer different coping mechanisms. The stages of grief proposed by Kübler-Ross may present as a guideline but are not universal in their occurrence or sequence.