Well, the terminology and definitions aren't uniform across the entire online multiple community, and in fact there isn't just one such community, there are many. We have a glossary on our website, but it mainly contains pragmatic terms like co-running. Perhaps it should include things like parts and alters, for while many healthy multiples dislike such terms as demeaning, others find them useful. After all, plurality has many origins and natures. Terminology can be empowering in giving one the words to express one's experience; it can also be frustrating, and a good deal of patience is required.
Parts: I think of this as referring to situations in which one or more members of a multiple group feel that they are actually fragments of a single individual. They don't each have their own separate sets of feelings, ideas, beliefs, likes and dislikes -- those things we usually think of as comprising what is generally termed personality --, but rather specialise in one area (e.g., "my angry part," "my compassionate part".) Perhaps they seek to integrate back into what they perceive to be a unified whole, or stay separate and work as a gestalt.
Alters: This is a slippery term at best and derives from alter egoes, Latin for other selves. As such, it could be applied to a single person who simply has aspects or masks, as well as to members of a plural group. New-wave or multiple liberationists have expressed the sentiment that they don't care for alters as a term because they perceive it as making the people in the group seem less than some real or imagined main person, true self, etc. It also provides a way for the singlet population (including many therapists) to distance themselves from the reality that persons in a multiple group can be, and often are, persons in their own right.
In addition, both parts and alters are terms used by the mental health industry, and in my opinion, we'd do well to disconnect multiplicity as much as possible from the therapy culture in the public mind. I want to emphasise again that this does not mean I don't believe in therapy if it's actually helpful. I do think the culture at large should be guided away from associating multiplicity always with psychiatry, therapy, hospitals &c., as if it were impossible to be multiple (or self-recognise as multiple) without such things.
As for people, I generally assume that persons in a multiple group are people -- that is, complex, fully formed persons in their own right -- unless they tell me differently.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Regarding terminology
Date: 2004-02-13 02:02 am (UTC)Parts: I think of this as referring to situations in which one or more members of a multiple group feel that they are actually fragments of a single individual. They don't each have their own separate sets of feelings, ideas, beliefs, likes and dislikes -- those things we usually think of as comprising what is generally termed personality --, but rather specialise in one area (e.g., "my angry part," "my compassionate part".) Perhaps they seek to integrate back into what they perceive to be a unified whole, or stay separate and work as a gestalt.
Alters: This is a slippery term at best and derives from alter egoes, Latin for other selves. As such, it could be applied to a single person who simply has aspects or masks, as well as to members of a plural group. New-wave or multiple liberationists have expressed the sentiment that they don't care for alters as a term because they perceive it as making the people in the group seem less than some real or imagined main person, true self, etc. It also provides a way for the singlet population (including many therapists) to distance themselves from the reality that persons in a multiple group can be, and often are, persons in their own right.
In addition, both parts and alters are terms used by the mental health industry, and in my opinion, we'd do well to disconnect multiplicity as much as possible from the therapy culture in the public mind. I want to emphasise again that this does not mean I don't believe in therapy if it's actually helpful. I do think the culture at large should be guided away from associating multiplicity always with psychiatry, therapy, hospitals &c., as if it were impossible to be multiple (or self-recognise as multiple) without such things.
As for people, I generally assume that persons in a multiple group are people -- that is, complex, fully formed persons in their own right -- unless they tell me differently.
Hope this helps.
Anthony Temple, Astraea