Peer pressure and multiplicity

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

After some comments in a few recent threads, I was thinking about the issue of peer-pressure as it relates to multiple systems, and people feeling that their systems/groups/etc "should" be a certain way simply because other people's are.

Have people felt inadequate for having 'too few' people in their systems, or for not having a world or a place where they go when they're not fronting-- that they're 'not multiple enough'? (Or, conversely, depending on where you go, for having too many people or too large a subjective world?)

I know that during the time when the MPD/DID model was the only game in town, a lot of ideas about "what MPD is" derived from the media or from highly influential cases, and a lot of what seemed to be standard or universal aspects of multiplicity were actually the result of patients being told that "everyone has (x)" or being surrounded by other patients who did. If you're pressured for long enough and told "but every multiple has an ISH," eventually you're going to fabricate one just to end the demands, and even believe in it if you have to, if you're sufficiently invested in the doctor continuing to take you seriously.

I don't believe this is going on to the same degree as it was during that time, but the fact that I see people asking questions like "I think there are more people in my system, how do I find them?" fairly regularly makes me wonder why they think there are undiscovered others, and if they're basing it off their own evidence or on the numbers they see in other systems. Or "where is our internal world"-- same deal. (This also works in reverse-- that is to say, attempting to change your system because you think it's 'too weird'; you might want to be careful who you tell about it if you think that's the case, but we've certainly seen the messes which can be left to clean up if you try to bend someone too far.)

I tend to agree with spookshow_girl's comment that trying to force your system to be something it isn't (as distinct from agreed-upon, cooperative change) is an unwise idea. I know there's still the widespread perception that high numbers mean you're "more multiple" than if there are two or three of you, thanks to ideas about "degrees of fragmentation" (and a way to prove you suffered if more abuse = higher numbers). It's a perception I wish I could erase, and in any case, trying to increase the head count often seems to lead to nothing more than labelling someone's separate moods as new people. Trying to change one's system because you feel it 'should' be a certain way, and not because everyone involved wants to work towards change, rarely produces any good results, if the cases I've seen are any indication.

Comments

[unknown-tales.livejournal.com]

I've seen both sides of the number issue (never directed at anyone personally, really, but general remarks). I've seen people say more is better, and then I've seen people say that those who have a larger number of people are wrong because they don't get the same amount of intimacy you would if there were only a handful of people in the system.

?

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

Let's presume the second part is true. Depending on the amount of time and effort people are willing and able to put into developing intimate relationships with individuals, it can be, both internally and externally. What does that have to do with the first? When did intimacy, internal or external, become a requisite for multiplicity? I mean, I'm not cool with neglect amongst system members, but sometimes you don't have the time to pay the attention to each other that might be warranted by your relationships. In some systems, like large gateway systems, it's impractical to assume that everyone must be intimate friends, just as it is incorrect to assume they cannot. If they can, more power to them, if they can't, it doesn't make them less multiple.

I might be misunderstanding the statement here. Am I missing something?

--Me

Re: ?

[unknown-tales.livejournal.com]

No, you are right. I've just seen people with that mindset, and don't believe it myself.

Re: ?

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

I was attempting to understand the mindset behind the statement, and figured unknown_tales might be able to clarify what they saw, or correct me if I misinterpreted their description. I was aware that they themselves weren't of that opinion.

--Me

Re: ?

[unknown-tales.livejournal.com]

I happen to agree completely with you, and I apologize if my statement was vague. I've never seen intimacy as a requisite of multiplicity, and in fact there are several members in my system that will probably never get along with one another. We take it as a given that anytime you get a group of people together in such close circumstance there are going to be problems.

I have seen a couple of comments from those with small systems who say that it cannot possibly be good for everyone involved when there are large numbers of people within a system. I've heard things like "Well how do you manage to keep track of everyone..." or "The relationships you have with your system members couldn't be as strong as those I have with mine because you have more people."

Now, granted, more people does mean that it is more necessary to divide time equally, and make sure that no one is treated unfairly. However to me quantity does not equal quality in any way, and so by saying that more members equals lesser relationships is absurd, but I have heard it. There are even a few hints of it in some comments on this thread, that more people must mean more work and more troubles and therefore it is best to keep things small. I've never found it to be that way.

I'm not sure if I made anything clearer with that or not. I was not saying that I agreed with either side, and in fact I don't seem why numbers matters at all.