|
TPA audio player
|
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) has a long and complex history that has shaped our understanding of the condition and the terminology used to describe it. From early conceptions of “dissociation” and different “personality states,” to the use of terms such as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), Alternate Personalities or Alters, Parts, Identities, Personality States, and Self States, the evolving language created by singlets to describe the Multiple-Plural experience, has often minimized the multiplicity of those living with DID.
This can be harmful, as it denies the autonomy and [possible] personhood of the individuals within a system. It is crucial to acknowledge and respect the diversity of experiences within a DID system, as well as between DID Systems, as well as the right of those individuals to choose their own language and self-definition(s).
In this article, we explore the history of DID terminology, the impact of singlet-centric perspectives on multiplicity-plurality, and the importance of recognizing and validating the personhood of those [who want it] living with the condition.
- Early conceptions (late 19th to early 20th centuries) – Pierre Janet’s work introduced the idea of “dissociation” and the concept of different “personality states” within an individual, laying the foundation for our modern understanding of DID.
- Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) (1980) – In the DSM-III, the term “Multiple Personality Disorder” was used to describe the condition, emphasizing the presence of multiple personalities within an individual. Some individuals with DID appreciated this terminology, as it acknowledged their multiple-plural experience.
- Alternate Personalities or Alters (1980s-1990s) – The term “alternate personalities” or “alters” became popular, which still recognized the multiplicity-plurality of individuals with DID. This terminology shifted the focus to the idea that each personality within an individual is an alternate version of their core self, without denying the existence of separate experiences.
- Parts (1980s-1990s, gaining popularity in the 2000s) – The term “parts” was used in the context of DID as early as the 1980s and 1990s. It gained more widespread popularity in the 2000s, following the introduction of the Theory of Structural Dissociation by Onno van der Hart, Ellert Nijenhuis, and Kathy Steele in their 2006 book “The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization.” The theory emphasized that all aspects of a person with DID (OSDD, Borderline, PTSD, etc) are still part of the same individual. This shift in terminology led many plurals to feel invalidated in their unique experiences and personhood.
- Identities (1990s-2000s) – The term “identities” emerged, acknowledging that each aspect of a person with DID represents a unique and complex identity within the same individual. However, this terminology started moving away from the multiplicity aspect, which some individuals with DID found concerning.
- Personality States (2013) – In the DSM-5, the term “personality state” was added, further shifting the focus from separate personalities to different aspects of an individual’s identity. This change was seen by some as an erasure of the multiple-plural experience, and a denial of the complexity and autonomy of each aspect within a DID system.
- Self States (2010s-present) – The most recent term, “self states,” emphasizes even more that all aspects of a person with DID belong to a single self, rather than being separate entities. While some professionals and individuals with DID support this terminology, others argue that it erases the multiple-plural nature of DID systems and can be harmful to those living with the condition.
It is crucial to recognize that plurality is a spectrum, and the individuals within a system deserve personhood, if they desire it. Denying the existence of separate experiences can be harmful and may not facilitate healing. Acknowledging and respecting the multiplicity-plurality of individuals with DID is essential for promoting understanding, acceptance, and support.
Individuals with DID are often marginalized due to the complexity and stigmatization of their condition. DID has been historically misunderstood and often misdiagnosed, leading to invalidation of individuals’ experiences and increased feelings of isolation.
Moreover, the evolution of terminology surrounding DID has often been driven by singlet-centric perspectives, which can further minimize the multiplicity-plurality of those living with the condition. By acknowledging and validating the diverse experiences of individuals with DID, we can promote greater understanding, acceptance, and support for those living with the condition.
It’s important to understand and accept the diversity of experiences within a DID system, and to respect each person or part’s right to choose their own language and self-definition.
- Erasure does not equal healing – Erasing the unique experiences and autonomy of people within a DID system by using terminology that emphasizes a single self can be detrimental to the healing process. While fusion integration aims to merge the people within a DID system into one identity, other healing approaches such as functional multiplicity, empowered plurality, or harmony within the system celebrate and respect the personhood of each individual. These approaches do not require denying autonomy and personhood to the people within a DID system to achieve a healthy and fulfilling life.
It’s up to the people in the DID system to decide what healing looks like to them, and they have the right to make informed decisions together about what they want, together as people in a System, not what others want or expect from them. Acknowledging and validating the multiplicity-plurality of individuals with DID can promote understanding, acceptance, and support, which are essential for healing.
- Singlets took the Multiple out of Multiplicity – The changes in terminology over time, driven primarily by singlets (people who are one person in one body), have often minimized the multiplicity-plural experience of individuals with DID. This shift can be seen as an attempt to conform to a singlet-centric view of the world, which may not be helpful or accurate for those living with DID.
- Plurality is a spectrum and so are the peoples in our systems – The experiences of individuals with DID vary widely, as do the unique people within a system. It’s crucial to recognize and respect this diversity, rather than trying to fit everyone into a single, narrow definition of what it means to live with DID.
- We deserve personhood – Each person within [some] a DID system has unique thoughts, feelings, and experiences, possible memories, lived experiences and more, that contribute to the overall System. By acknowledging and validating these distinct people as deserving of personhood, we can foster greater understanding, acceptance, and support for those living with DID.
- Our existence doesn’t hurt anyone, but denying it harms so much – The existence of distinct people within a DID system does not inherently cause harm to others. However, denying or minimizing the multiplicity-plurality of individuals with DID can lead to feelings of invalidation, isolation, and even self-doubt, which can be harmful to their well-being and healing process.
- Choice of language and self-definition – It is essential to emphasize that people within a DID system have the right to choose the language and terms they use to describe and label their unique and individual experiences. This choice extends to those who identify as different people in one body, as well as those who see themselves as parts of the same person. Plurality is a spectrum, and all these experiences are valid and real. Respecting each person’s or system’s choice of terminology is a vital part of understanding, accepting, and supporting the diverse experiences of individuals with DID.
It’s important to note that the experiences of individuals with DID are unique and diverse, and each person or system may have their own preferences for terminology and self-definition. The most important thing is to listen to and respect each other’s perspectives and experiences. By acknowledging and validating the multiplicity-plurality of individuals with DID, we can create a more inclusive and supportive community that fosters healing and growth.
In conclusion, it is essential to understand the history of DID terminology and its impact on the multiple-Plural experience. The evolving language has often been driven by singlet-centric perspectives that can minimize the multiplicity-plurality of those living with DID.
By acknowledging and validating the diverse experiences and personhood of individuals within a DID system, we can promote understanding, acceptance, and support. It is crucial to respect the choice of language and self-definition of those individuals and systems, as they navigate their healing process in a world that often invalidates their existence.
The path to healing involves recognizing and celebrating the unique and autonomous experiences of those living with DID, as well as working towards a more inclusive and accepting society for all.
Simple text summary: This article is about Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). A disorder is something that is hard to live with. Most times, people have one person in their body, but people with DID can have multiple people or parts in one body. If it’s not hard to live with multiple people or parts in one body, it’s called Plurality, and some people with DID also call themselves Plural because they can decide if the label matches their experiences. Each person or part in a DID system can have their own thoughts, feelings, and memories. Sometimes people with DID forget important things, like their name or where they live. This can make life difficult because it can be hard to keep track of everything. People with DID might have different names or ages for each person in their system. It’s important to understand and be okay with the differences people with DID can have. We should also be kind and let each person or part choose how they want to talk about themselves and who they are, they get to make their own choices about the language they want to use to talk about themselves.
As always, we encourage you and your System to follow your own truth, to soul search, to find words, labels, visions, theories and communities that aren’t only within your values but also match your lived experience and/or long term goals, so that you might find belonging and don’t have to try to fit in.
Thank you for investing the time to read this article. Please, feel free to leave comments or feedback in the comment section.
The Plural Association is the first and only grassroots, volunteer and peer-led nonprofit empowering Plurals. Our works, including resources like this, are only possible because of support from Plurals and our allies.
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation.
Together we empower more Plurals!
Disclaimer: Thank you for reading our peer article; we hope it was empowering, informative and helpful for you and your System. There are as many Plural experiences, as there are Plurals. So not all information on this website might apply to your situation or be helpful to you; please, use caution. We’re not doctors or clinicians and our nonprofit, our work, and this website in no way provide medical advice, nor does it replace therapy or medication in other ways.
About the authors
The Stronghold System are the proud volunteer founders & CEO of The Plural Association Nonprofit. They are from the Netherlands and reside in a 30-something-year-old body, are nonbinary, parents of an amazing child & 3 cats. They got diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder over 10 years ago & also self ID as Plural.