Chapter 9
The political act of healing
Few adults are willing to believe the extent to which burning, cutting, scalding, beating, mutilation, emotional terrorising, sleep and food deprivation and other abuses occur with regularity (Coons, 1988; Rivera, 1989). It is hard to understand the unwillingness of adults to believe a child's disclosure of abuse, when it is clear that abused children may be risking their lives in this act of resistance. Despite many threats from the perpetrator, some children do disclose their abuse. Unfortunately, their stories are frequently ignored, disbelieved or punished (Goodwin, 1985a; Kluft, 1984). Rivera (1991) reported that 36% of individuals with multiple identities had attempted to disclose their abuse as children to parents, child welfare agencies, police, teachers, friendly neighbours, pastors and doctors. In 77% of the cases of disclosure, the child was called a liar, beaten or disbelieved. Eighteen percent of the children were removed from their homes. In one case the abuser was jailed and in another case the abuse stopped but the family remained intact. In one woman's story "she tried to tell a neighbour who was kind to her what was happening in her home. The neighbour brought her home to her parents and told them the lies their daughter was spreading about them, and she was beaten severely. She told her favourite teacher who asked her if she was sure she wasn't imagining it. The next year she told the principle who told her to let them know if it happened again. She told him again, and this time he called the police, who charged her for a sexual offense that is no longer on the books and brought her to a maximum security juvenile detention facility to await trial" (Rivera, 1989).
Dissociation from the reality of child abuse is a socially congruent choice of defense for an abused child, because of society's persistent desire to dis/associate itself from the oppressed child's experiences (Rush, 1980). Accepting the fact of child abuse would threaten the patriarchal, child oppressive and heterosexist structures of the social order, beginning with the nuclear family as its point of indoctrination and socialization in lessons of oppression (Rush, 1980; Rivera, 1988). The colonization of the mind and body, are the heaviest weight of oppression. In a society that refuses to acknowledge child abuse, the survivors of this abuse come to doubt their sanity, disbelieve their own realities and blame themselves for their "problems." (Levine, 1989.
Currently, it takes three decades or more for the MIR to run its course (Ross, Norton & Wozney, 1989). This could happen within months with timely intervention in child abuse (Coons, 1986). The individual with Dissociative Identity Disorder did not "fail to" integrate (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), they have been actively prevented from doing so. Our society labels Dissociative Identity Disorder a dis/order because it challenges the social order, especially myths that dis/associate from the realities of childhood, child oppression, the family dysfunction and male domination (Foucault, 1972). However, by understanding MIR as a response to the demands of an oppressive family, which is the locus of an oppressive system, we can learn about resisting and surviving oppression.
Kluft (1985b) and Braun & Sachs (1985) noted than Dissociative Identity Disorder develops in the context of an unsupportive environment. Put another way, ongoing abuse can only occur in the context of an environment that supports such behaviour covertly or overtly. This social support for violence can also be named as oppression. If a child experienced trauma, but received immediate help from a supportive environment, the MIR would never emerge.
Further brutality and neglect in adulthood help maintain Dissociative Identity Disorder, despite the tremendous self-nurturing potential of the MIR. Carmen, Reiker and Mills (1984) studied 180 psychiatric patients and found that 43% had histories of physical and/or sexual abuse. Other studies targeting women in psychiatric populations, found that 72% (Bryer et al., 1987) to over 80% (Firsten, 1990) of women reported a history of abuse at some time in their lives. While the debate over the differential diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder and Dissociative Identity Disorder continues (Fink & Golinkoff, 1990), some research indicates that 86% of individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder experience childhood sexual abuse (Bryer et al., 1987). Rather than spending time classifying survivors of abuse, psychiatry (and its users) would benefit more from recognizing the links between oppression and psychiatric diagnosis. It may be that Dissociative Identity disorder has been recognized as an outcome of childhood abuse because it is particularly resistant toward pharmacological masking of its presence. While depression can be anaesthetized, although the depressing situation remains, multiple identities have proven resistant to the usually vigorous application of pharmaceutical intervention.
Therapy and crisis management is only one aspect of dealing with Dissociative Identity Disorder. The internalization of sexist and racist stereotypes, the internalization of violence, the lack of constructive models of anger, the widespread reality of child abuse and oppression and the continuing abuse women face as adults at the hands of male violence are all parts of the issue of Dissociative Identity Disorder that demand a political response. Amnesia about one's personal history of child abuse serves only the abuser and the society that prefers to ignore abuse. Many women have not had their first recollection of child abuse in the therapist's office, but in a political context, surrounded by other women unearthing their experience and sharing their stories (Rivera, 1988).
Political action is therapeutic, and it is quite likely that it is the locus of healing and support that some individuals with multiple identities need. Feminist politics has also been essential in recognizing the strength and courage it involves to survive abuse. Recognizing people as "survivors" as well as "victims" of abuse helps them put their experiences into perspective (Bass & Davis; 1988; Lew, 1988). A political understanding of child oppression and violence can help in dealing with issues of shame and low self-esteem. Reclaiming the concept of the victim may also be important, to overcome society's contempt for those who "allow" themselves to be violated. People who are seen as helpless may be pitied, but they are rarely respected. Recognizing that even such seemingly passive acts as submitting to the rape without a struggle is an act of strategy that may involve great courage and endurance, but was needed to avoid losing one's life, has helped many abuse survivors see themselves in a new light (Bass & Davis, 1988). One social aspect often internalized by the DCS is the social contempt and blame for the victim who "allows" the abuse, or even "asks for it." (Ross & Gahan, 1988) Challenging this myth is necessary in reducing the conflict evident between the child identities and other identities that adopt roles which are compliant with the abuse, and the identities which reflect the internalized oppression, such as internal persecutors. Such divide and conquer strategies are evident in broader forms of colonization, where degrees of affiliation with the oppressor create conflicts that serve to weaken direct resistance (Davis, 1981; Hooks, 1984). Recasting the behaviours as forms of resistance allows the disparate elements to unify and identify their oppression more clearly. Ross describes his view of the role of a therapist:
"The Osiris complex designates what I believe is the most important motif in psychopathology: the fragmentation of the self in response to external trauma. In the Isis-Osiris myth from ancient Egypt, Osiris is murdered by his jealous brother Set, who cuts him into pieces and scatters them far and wide. Isis then gathers them, and resurrects Osiris in a new form: this healing of the traumatized self is my task as a therapist" (Ross,1994, p.xiv)
Such as view reinforces the concept of the therapist repairing the inert victim. The role of abuse survivors in enduring and escaping abuse and participating in their own healing process is not acknowledged in this image. Just as the move from victim to survivor is empowering, so is the move from survivor to resistor. The pathology identified in individuals who have experienced abuse needs to be recognized as more than a consequence of abuse, but as a consequence of social oppression. To not acknowledge the mobilization of resource in individuals with Dissociative Identity Disorder is to undermine the strength and strategies used. The therapist is not the saviour of the helpless victim, but an ally in the struggle of resistance.
Feminist political methodologies can be used in dealing with Dissociative Identity Disorder. For example, the process and goal of therapy can be examined in a political light. Fusion implies that singularity is the ideal state of selfhood and integration infers that identities should be subject to a hierarchical "executive self". Is there another model? What about co-consciousness, a collectively oriented, cooperatively negotiated structure? How do people negotiate the embodiment of alternate identities? We can predict that individuals struggling to use this model of self-organization will face the same strengths and weaknesses that feminist collectives face. For example, the greater the differences between the identities, the more conflict they will face. Learning methods of conflict resolution and establishing covenants of trust between identities would be one of the first tasks. Some individuals may choose this system because of the insights it offers. Fusion, or singularity, implies a certain degree of illusion, that hides many aspects from the self awareness (Watkins, 1993). Similarly, the concept of the executive self also involve inhibiting "inappropriate" responses from awareness (Watkins, 1993). Taking on the challenge of full awareness of one's selfhood, and the selves that we can be under a wide variety of circumstances, is a daunting task.
Joesph Campbell (1968) argues that religion, philosophy and cultural myths tell a single, basic story of the search for our self. Our true identity is often hidden from view under the social constructions and roles we are trained to adopt. Searching for what lies underneath, exploring the fullness of what it means to live a human life, is a common core of religion and myth throughout societies. Choosing to remain in awareness of human multiplicity, refusing to live divided and alienated roles and trying to keep in touch with all of the selves is a valid personal and political choice for some individuals with MIR. The act of remembering abuse and maintaining conscious connections with all aspects of our selves is a political action.
"We are often forced to hide parts we would like to be free to express. With freedom to express, freedom to live as you choose to live, you gain your freedom to be whole. When you are whole, you can let your voice be heard. Let all your voices be heard." (E.B.,1990).
Get your own Free Home Page
