Parts vs. Alters
Feb. 22nd, 2007 02:11 pmI wanted to start this strand out in the open, as it was embedded in comments regarding a book.
This is an interesting post, because I've become very comfortable describing our system as parts. This is my way of rejecting the terms normally associated with a strict DID medical model. I find the term alter extremely problematic for us. We are not being taken over. We work together and have a great deal of co-consciousness. No problem with others using these terms, I'm just interested in your perspectives on this issue. All of my parts understand that they are whole individuals with separate identities that are validated and that they are concurrently part of a system that the outside world recognize as a whole. In terms of the trauma model, we are certainly a product of some attachment disruptions, but in terms of clinical literature, certain trauma models such as IFS are actually developed in response to the idea that dissociative phenomena are inherently pathological. This type of model hypothesizes a spectrum of multiplicity. No apparant physical/sexual trauma experiences here.
This is an interesting post, because I've become very comfortable describing our system as parts. This is my way of rejecting the terms normally associated with a strict DID medical model. I find the term alter extremely problematic for us. We are not being taken over. We work together and have a great deal of co-consciousness. No problem with others using these terms, I'm just interested in your perspectives on this issue. All of my parts understand that they are whole individuals with separate identities that are validated and that they are concurrently part of a system that the outside world recognize as a whole. In terms of the trauma model, we are certainly a product of some attachment disruptions, but in terms of clinical literature, certain trauma models such as IFS are actually developed in response to the idea that dissociative phenomena are inherently pathological. This type of model hypothesizes a spectrum of multiplicity. No apparant physical/sexual trauma experiences here.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-22 07:57 pm (UTC)-Butterfly
no subject
Date: 2007-02-22 10:33 pm (UTC)I think "alters" is pretty insulting because it implies ownership, like everyone belongs to one certain person. The only term I hate more is "ego states." Whoever thought that one up needs to be beaten with some sort of blunt object.
-v2 with a little help from Sanji&Cherry
no subject
Date: 2007-02-22 11:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-22 11:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 12:10 am (UTC)My system at this time is not striving for further individualization rather cooperation, respect, love and allowing natural expression which means if I'm out walking and someone else wants to do that, I let them come up.
The word alter in not something we use at all.
Long ramble ahead!
Date: 2007-02-23 12:34 am (UTC)The thing was, when we interacted in here, in-system, even though the books insisted that these were dissociated pieces of an original, the way in which we interacted really didn't seem to bear that out. It really was just like a bunch of separate people who'd gathered in a room to talk. But we tried, for a while, to keep thinking of them as parts who'd all be merged back into some kind of uber-self someday, even though we actually liked the feeling of having a team in here, despite nearly all The Books saying that everything would be better after integration.
I think that's why we switched over at one point to saying "these are my characters who live in my head"-- it felt slightly more right to allow them that degree of autonomy than to decide they'd split from an original, even if it wasn't fully accurate either.
However, that's our experience. If someone really does experience the presence of others as splits or parts of an original, I don't object to their using the terminology for themselves.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 01:09 am (UTC)For other persons, I try to use "people" or just say "your system" or "your group", if it's more appropriate. I wouldn't say "parts" or "alters" to another person unless that person used the term to describe themselves first.
But then, I don't have DID. I tend to use the words I've found in the multiplicity glossary or, in some cases, that I've made up myself.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 01:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 03:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 03:45 am (UTC)Johnny
no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 03:56 am (UTC)Alters was definitely out for us for various reasons.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 04:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 06:19 pm (UTC)Parts doesn't work for us, and alters reminds me of an anime I don't like, so lol...
I don't really think of innerworld people as parts, tbh. It seems mildly offensive to me.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 10:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 12:28 am (UTC)Johnny
no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 06:13 pm (UTC)That anime is so lol. Sadly, its the sort of thing Tyb likes XD
The others refer to us as the collective, or just by name. Rach calls Tyb "the meathead" but otherwise...