Family Therapy

Kaimi of Kaimialana

Multiplicity, the sate of sharing headspace with one or more people, is something I experience personally in every conscious moment, and many of my unconscious ones. As such, this paper speaks from a biased perspective, of multiplicity by a multiple system, and furthermore of healthy and empowered multiplicity as a regiment option. I am radical in the sense that I disagree with the MPD/DID diagnosis, that I choose not to see my, OUR condition as a disorder, illness or pathology in need of “curing”. I also frown upon the idea of any integration that does not occur naturally or with full consent of all system members. While some plural systems may need help in understanding their multiplicity, and may decide over all they are happier as a singlet, this does not mark the condition of plurality as something medical and unnatural. To force integration, essentially destroying people, not personality quirks, but people with lives, dreams beliefs, values, goals, friends, people who grow and love; this is akin to murder. My system and I see it as not something similar to murder but murder itself.

For theses reasons and more I will be seen by the medical profession as something contrary controversial. To the uninformed, we would seem alone among the DID masses yearning to be treated, or a faker, a joke, not the “real thing”. Furthermore, how could we be a real plural system we have non of the outrageous antics most people associate with our kind? We are quiet and secretive about ourselves, as are all plurals seeking to outwardly function as normal (if such a thing exists). We are not alone, we are many, but invisible. Others have come before me to state their case for healthy multiplicity; they have been prolific in their writings on the subject. Currently one such system is writing a book, the first instance of an entire plural system attempting such a thing. Furthermore, this book will be about multiplicity, for multiples, another first. Their outlined ideals closely match my own, therefore I will allow them to develop these ideas further elsewhere, as they have and will continue to seek acceptance. The above has been simply to provide a background on my personal and obviously strong views on these things as a basis for my purpose in this paper.

In the past, multiplicity has been seen as an illness, with the primary treatment being many years of emotionally damaging therapy sessions, where the therapist attempts to integrate (eliminate) all “alters” into the “host personality” (usually the person who fronts the most and/or is most similar to the “original personality”). Ignoring for the moment that these terms do not often fit plural experience and to an empowered plural system may seem downright offensive, lets focus instead on the forced nature of this integration process. As I have already stated, I see any forced integration of system members as murder. Furthermore, there is evidence that these forced integrations seldom, if ever, create a fully integrated being. I go one step further in saying I believe no human experience is fully integrated, that even a singlet's consciousness operates at many levels. Popular culture iconography of the angel and devil consciences is one example of a binary deliberation in singlet mind which has distinctly plural or median attributes. Sigmund Freud's concept of the Id/Ego/Superego complex yet another example of how singlet minds can operate at many levels and in ways that are akin to plural experience. If not even singlet experience is fully integrated, then the validity and naturalness of other non-singlet states is much more plausible, even for those in the psychiatric profession.

Currently, healthy and natural plurality are not accepted as legitimate states of being by the medical profession. What makes things even more difficult is that their terminology does not match plurality as plural systems experience it. Many plural systems have no experience of originating trauma or of a central “host” person. Others simply do not fit the classical MPD/DID model of dissociation and lost time. Some slide between integrated (singlet) and non-integrated (plural or median) states freely. Others plural groups possess shared memory where all members are aware of the status of the body. The plurality of plural experience is diverse and cannot fit any single definition, as diverse as singlet experience. To expect every plural system to act alike is as insulting as expecting every singlet to act alike. To expect every member of a plural system to fit a role (protector, seductress, scared child, etc), thus severing their individuality and the fullness of their reality and experience as a person is as dehumanizing and arrogant as describing singlets as pathologies. We are all real in our own right, we are all valid and worthy of existence, and, as some wise soul once uttered, “I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore”.

The first step in movement towards therapy for healthy and empowered multiplicity is the acceptance of the plurality of human experience, and the treatment of every system member with the respect deserved of them as a conscious entity, endowed with their own will and deserving of inalienable rights as any other person. Once this becomes a reality within therapy, the session is no longer a fight against destruction, but a movement towards stability.

My personal understanding of family, like plural experience, is not conservative. In this modern world with the vast levels of communication, numbers of people, pluralism of cultural experience, and mass suffering, the nuclear family unit of the past consisting of biologically related members is often as destructive as it can be healing. For me, a person coming into the world without a past in my mid 20s, I felt no attachment or empowerment from my headmate's biological family. Instead, I sought personally to find a family for myself, to become part of. A family does not need to consist of biologically related members. It is often thought that this biological component makes the nuclear family strong, but from how often they are torn apart internally, it seems this is not the case. A healthy family model for me would be a group of people who live together and interact with each other daily, supporting each other with love and joy. Unfortunately, families are often unhealthy in their interactions, so I will simplify my family model to be that of individuals who live in close proximity, interact on a daily basis, and rely on each other for mutual support, as unhealthy as some interactions may be.

In this sense, a plural system has a set up much like a family. Members live in close proximity, fronting and cofronting, sharing the inner space, interact on a daily basis with each other, and rely on mutual support in order to function in the physical world. These members may love or hate each other, in the same way the members of a more conventional family may like or dislike a sibling. Plural systems also often consist of members at many stages of life, from children to old age. Some may take on the responsibility of a parent, or an older sibling, teaching the younger members. A few systems actually use familial terms of mother and father, sister and brother. Even the term headmate feels nearly synonymous with sibling to me.

In modern conventional therapy, there are a great deal of practitioners that use family therapy to promote cooperation between family members, while at the same time help individuals with their own lives via interaction with the whole. For smaller systems (ie under 20 members), this seems to be a perfect route to aid internal cooperation between members in a plural system while also recognizing the individual needs of every individual. It also takes into understanding the personhood of every member in a plural system, while conventional techniques still claim personhood for only one member, recognizing their unique talents and helping to cultivate them for everyones benefit. Furthermore, it recognizes the family like structure of many plural systems and works with that structure to move people towards healthy plural interactions and social functionality in the physical world.

There are some instances where this therapy will not work. First, large gateway systems with many members, sometimes worlds full of people, and very little interaction between individual members, do not fit the structure of family therapy well. For such things it seems other types of therapy would be needed, mostly for individuals rather than groups. Second, a plural system must, internally understand their situation as members of said system and be able to interact with one another for family style therapy to be even possible. Any therapy that occurs before this point should be based upon working towards better communication between members. As the system becomes more stable in its communication, then the style of therapy can change. If there are members in denial, that is something that needs to be worked through so they can understand their situation.

Lastly, there will be concern about dangerous members in plural systems, or dangerous systems in total. While I find forced integration vile, if the situation is truly a disordered thing, where all members are hostile and cannot be redeemed to work together, or be social and functional without being dangerous to themselves and others, I am sorry to say this may be the only route.

In conclusion, family therapy is an exciting new model for plural therapy, at least I find it so. This will allow plural systems in therapy to work towards healthy multiplicity where members cooperate and where individuals are people and are recognized for their unique abilities. Treating a small plural system like a family unit fosters the bonds that will allow members to be functional and social people in our modern world.