Let me know what you think! | Next chapter | Back to home |

Chapter 3

A Framework for Study

Overview of the theory

Multiplicity can exist in non-pathological states in adulthood, and dissociative personality structures naturally occur in the general population. Neurological models provide a concrete theoretical background to study this normative multiplicity (NM) as well as multiple identities that result from childhood abuse.

I find the best way to conceptualize identity, is as a dynamic consciousness system (DCS) that corresponds to a neurological framework. Several theories of dissociation use a model of either the executive self (Watkins & Watkins, 1979) or a host personality that is the central self, while the other identities are peripheral (Putnam, 1985). Using the term DCS emphasizes that the system as a whole is organizing the responses to abuse, not just one aspect of consciousness.

Dissociative Identity Disorder is a result of an adaptive response, which I refer to as the Multiple Identity Response (MIR). The MIR is not static, but is constantly changing over time. For most of its cycle, the MIR does not result in a state that could be termed Dissociative Identity Disorder. Eventually, the MIR can resolve itself to a stable, adaptive and productive system.

The criteria for examining Dissociative Identity Disorder are too narrow to understand the life history and developmental aspects of the MIR, resulting in rigidly defined models of dissociation that reflect culturally-bound assumptions of the nature of self.

To summarize my theory:

1. The embodiment of alternate identities is an acceptable principle of psychological organizing, that can exist without the presence of pathology. This is called normative multiplicity (NM).

The model for basic psychological structure, which can develop into a variety of organizational patterns, is called the dynamic consciousness system (DCS).

2. The DCS forms a response to abuse, called the multiple identity response (MIR), which has definite stages and follows a developmental history. The MIR is a constant blend of resistance and submission to stressors. Factors in adulthood affect the course of the MIR.

3. The MIR is an adaptive response to social oppression and cultural demands, as well as to the individual abuse. The individual experience of abuse is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the formation of the MIR.

4. The diseases of adaptation present in the MIR include internalized oppression and amnesia. Multiplicity itself is not a disease of adaptation, but a normative condition.

5. The diseases of adaptation can be resolved outside the context of therapy. The MIR is an adaptive response that changes with time, and can result in healthy, stabilized structures.

6. The appropriate response to abuse is both personal and political.

Let me know what you think! | Next chapter | Back to home |

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page