Functional (Healthy) Multiplicity

Loud voices by StepDesigns
Make Custom T-Shirts at zazzle

I consider myself a functional multiple - now. This is, alas, without a great deal of credit to the psychological community or a the "Support Community" that was helpful at first, but quickly seemed to become invested in keeping multiples stuck and wallowing in childhood traumas at the expense of living actual lives.

I was always somewhat baffled by the rather voyeuristic nature of the interest. For me, realizing that I was multiple was something of a relief. "Oh, well, that explains it, then," I/we thought, and from there, the obvious direction was to figure out how to go about it with an absolute minimum of fuss and bother. Once I got over the initial resistance to the issue (with a little internal encouragement), I found that it made life easier, rather than more difficult. So, I participated in the community intensely at first, but later tapered off as my attention turned toward more currently relevant.

I think this is as it should be - but it recently occurred to me that by doing that, I and many of my "generation" of multis - were leaving a lot of more recent multiples swinging in the wind, as it were, for hysteria has in that time morphed into near-absolute denial that the phenomenon exists at all - at least, in any of the places someone who's in a crisis situation would first think to look, within Internet areas dealing with Mental Health.

There was a huge explosion of interest in Multiple Personality back in the early to mid-90's that coincided with the whole Ritual Abuse flap and panic, which was in itself a continuation of an earlier, more general panic about and reaction against the idea that parents did indeed abuse children in the most appalling sexual, physical and emotional ways. It was initially thought that "MPD" was the result of such abuse.

No, let's not say, "thought." It was much more a gut reaction put into practice with the goal of making the victim behave "normally," which is to say, as if they had not been abused or traumatized. If the effect is "cured", well, then the cause need not be examined. Of course, the cause presumed was severe (and probably satanic and sexual) child abuse, so, depending on your political and semi-religious preferences, either ALL multiples were the victim of SRA (or sexual abuse at the very least) or ALL multis were either deluded, lying, or trying to Get Attention at the expense of long suffering, "selfless" parents.

My personal reaction to all of this was bafflement, for in my personal understanding at the time, and as it has evolved, some of each and none of each was more the case; particularly in regards to how a multiple must act in order to be "real."

I'm autistic, and have far less than the usual need to fit into any given group, particularly when the "fitting in" comes with a price that doesn't seem to bring some tangible reward other than "fitting in."

I've never been able to see that as a flaw, though I'm assured that it is, if not an outright disorder, certainly some variety of sinful willfulness.

O, Fortunate Sin!

I'm not sure of this, but it seems likely that I was among the first to start questioning the utility and general applicability of conventional wisdom in regard to the origin of multiplicity. It's not that I questioned the idea that children might be abused, and might well be abused for religious or experimental ends. Those are, sadly, very common occurences.

My question was far more along the lines of "If So, So What?"

I was not at all interested into reliving every single trauma and rewriting it into memory in a way that I could "know" what "really happened." I remember very little of my childhood and I am reliably informed by people who do know that there are exceptionally practical reasons for not remembering, related to tying shoes, brushing teeth and living a life that is not featured on Nightline. There are aspects of it that I've never forgotten that give me an accurate enough impression of the parties involved and the probable nature of the various traumas to tell me enough; further, a little internal archeology and the nature of issues that have been addressed or still challenge us imply rather more.

More current views on traditional child-rearing challenge the foundations of the unspoken assumptions that got in the way of dealing with the direct and implied issues sensibly. Alice Miller is noted for her merciless views of how the denial of the inherent and obvious cruelty of traditional child-rearing is responsible for many of the ills in our society.

Her seminal book, "For Your Own Good; Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence is now available on the web, and is certainly illuminates the reason why people on all "sides" of the issue preferred to try to isolate people or phenomena to blame, rather than seriously dealing with the issues presented.

It quickly became clear to see that for many the very existence of multiples, especially the existence of multiples that were essentially created by trauma at the hands of parents were a phenomenon they were not prepared to accept, and were prepared to take almost any measure imaginable to externalize.

The treatment of multiples was a reflection of the more general political culture of our times; if a problem manifests, the proper reaction is to find someone or something to blame, and then smash that something or someone repeatedly with the largest available hammer until it is unrecognizable and unrelatable to anything in one's own personal history.

I wax sarcastic, but I don't think it an inaccurate, if overly succinct observation. Moreover, it's clear from the history available to us that these issues became politicized LONG before anyone involved could have possibly formed a usefully informed opinion on any axis. It was as if multiplicity were a screen that others were projecting their worst nightmares. It becomes particularly ugly if the one most immediately terrified is the person who suspects or knows themselves to be multiple!

I've since seen this phenomenon repeat itself toward autistics, little of which ends up with any structure or social wisdom that is even slightly useful for autistics or their families, and much that is unethical or even potentially crippling. This tells me that regardless of what my personal issues are, this really is not about me, and if you are multi, it's not actually about you, either. A LOT of the problems need to be addressed with firm personal boundaries and some tactical discretion regarding disclosure.

Of course, that's the trick, isn't it?

I found this to be particularly true within the "mental health" and "support" communities. Instant experts kindly made themselves available and the snake oil offered was as useless and toxic as bogus cures usually are.

But the alternative was accepting that one could have many personalities and still function. That challenges every common assumption about personality and soul that religion presents. This can make a religious multi a little nuts.

The idea that people COULD and DO have more than one personality and that parents and trusted caregivers COULD abuse their children sexually was and remains deeply troubling to many people. The same reactions, by the by, are clearly visible when expressed toward "The Plague of Autism." Much of the rhetoric is interchangeable, while the "science" involved is equally faith based. Like Multiplicity, some combination of coercion or exorcism, scientific or religious is often suggested as an appropriate "cure."

As a matter of practical value to the person(s) seeking help, well, such help is not all that helpful. For instance, it's fairly typical for a multiple first presenting and finding the initial realization that they are, in fact, multiple challenging, to be told that they will "of course" require intensive therapy for a decade with no hope whatsoever of career or family. Not, at least, until they can "act normally."

For many of us who were wrestling with practical implications of multiplicity and the practical difficulties that arose, coping with them with help from people who were experiencing similar issues, this reaction seemed both disproportionate and counterproductive.

But even now, the idea that there might be more than one way of experiencing reality - is so troubling that they are quite willing to dispose of any actual people that happen to mention it. It's a pretty normal reaction, if by normal we mean the most common initial reaction to a surprising, unexpected difference.

But then, it used to be quite "normal" to hang black folks what got "uppity." There are still some who will tell you that "tolerence" that allows "mixing of the races" is a great evil... but we know it for what it is - xenophobia, violently expressed.

Well, that same reaction to a mental difference that is just that - a mental difference that has pros and cons, but is on the whole inherently no better or worse save for risks run by those who must hide those differences as the price of social participation, well, that's no different than the days of Jim Crow and Eugenics.

Seriously.

It's worth repeating Astraea's top of page note

Note: Just because a book appears in this list does not mean we recommend it. Most of them present multiplicity strictly in terms of multiple personality disorder, dissociative identity disorder, or MPD/DID -- which is not our view.

The problem with most if not all books on MPD/DID is that if you've read one, you've read them all. In each case you've got a bewildered frontrunner, a "fascinating cast of characters", a well-meaning though often just as bewildered therapist, hundreds of pages of grueling depictions of child sex and violence (often bordering on "pornography of the victim"), and a bittersweet, Hallmark Classics ending of integration -- with few exceptions.

Continue on to Astraea's Bookstore.