Category Archives: Mythology

multiple personalities, stigma, grains of truth, trauma, memory

In Memory of Anne Jackson

Three years ago today local Deputy Sheriff Anne Jackson was shot and killed in the line of duty. Her killer, Isaac Zamora, was a mentally ill man she was familiar with and was attempting to help when he killed her. As a civilian with a mental illness this story touches me on many levels, and still angers me today.

I’m angry that this man had a diagnosed, severe mental illness and had fallen through the cracks in the mental health system. I’m angry that his family was desperately trying to get him the help he so badly needed, to no avail. I’m angry that his mother called 911 the day Anne and five other people died, which is precisely what a worried mother witnessing her son’s increasingly bizarre behavior should do, and yet she has to go to bed every night knowing her son is a murderer. Continue reading

Lessons in Vulnerability

I wrote an article titled Why The Courage to Heal Isn’t on My Recommended Reading List with full expectation that some members of my primary audience, i.e. those with Dissociative Identity Disorder, might take offense to my criticisms of the book. Bearing that in mind, I made a concerted effort to present a balanced, respectful commentary. It never occurred to me that anyone might suggest I wasn’t being critical enough. But someone did. And as I read through his second comment, I realized that I hadn’t just tried to show respect, I’d edited my thoughts on The Courage to Heal to some degree. Why? Because I know firsthand what happens in the survivor community when someone questions the integrity of books like that, acknowledges that false memory research has a valuable place in discussions of trauma and dissociation, and expresses anger at the pain and suffering misguided approaches to memory have caused. I’ve seen compassionate people vilified and treated like mouthpieces for the False Memory Syndrome Foundation simply because they voiced their opinion that memory isn’t as reliable as Bass and Davis suggest. In an attempt to shield myself from that same response, I held back. In doing so, I misrepresented myself.

And so I learned the following lesson about vulnerability:

Choosing my words carefully out of respect for others’ sensibilities is one thing. Doing the same thing out of a desire to protect myself from vulnerability is another. The former has merit, the latter is pointless. Particularly when you consider that if you make an argument, take a stance of any kind, someone somewhere will perceive you as disrespectful.

Sybil Can’t Swim

My Mental Health Is Declining

The hardest thing for me about the Sybil Myth – all the stereotypes and misconceptions about Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) and those of us with it – is that it blossomed from grains of truth. As much as I hate to admit it, sometimes I am Sybil. And these past several months I’ve been furiously kicking and gasping and gulping and crying and barely keeping my head above water. I want to believe that dissociation has allowed me to keep up appearances, but I know there have been some cracks in the veneer here and there. At home there’s no passing for normal … I’ve been a flailing wreck. A walking cliché.

I hate that I can’t be a big kid and swim in the deep end, but there you have it. Back to the kiddie pool I go.

Speaking of Crazy …

I want to be nonchalantly amused by the phrase “it’s just semantics.” I think I’d look cool and impervious instead of what I actually feel – infuriated. Semantics is, by definition, the study of meaning. How anyone can expect to communicate effectively without considering linguistic meaning is utterly beyond me. Meaning matters. And because I have Dissociative Identity Disorder, both the meaning and usage of crazy matter to me. Continue reading

Why I Love Skeptics: Exhibit A

I respect faith,
but doubt
is what gets you
an education.

-Wilson Mizner

My willingness to consider provocative ideas increases in proportion to my passion for the subject matter. I’m dedicated to broadening and deepening my understanding of Dissociative Identity Disorder and the mythology that surrounds it. To that end, I find that some of the most educational material comes from those who reject the diagnosis altogether. Skeptics provide valuable information that helps expose the roots of misconceptions about Dissociative Identity Disorder. Continue reading

I Have Better Things to Do

It’s taken some time, but I’ve learned to discern the difference between anger and bitterness. Despite what an overwhelming majority of people would have me believe, anger is a valid, helpful emotion. Like physical pain, it notifies me that something is not right and needs my attention. It’s a call to action that, when heeded, burns out on its own. Unlike anger, bitterness obscures rational thought. Like a virus, it replicates, spreads, and corrupts. Dissociative Identity Disorder was a source of bitterness for me for a long time. I hated having DID and hated almost anything most people had to say about it. If I had to have DID, it was damn well going to be precisely what I allowed it to be and woe to anyone who shared a different perspective. Times have changed.

Dark Garden

I once had a
garden filled
with flowers
that grew
only on
dark
thoughts
but they need constant attention and one
day I decided I had better things to do.


Brian Andreas

Continue reading

Dissociative Identity Disorder: Not Trauma’s Purple Heart

I’ve talked a lot about the causes of DID over at the Dissociative Living blog. It’s awfully difficult, I think, to understand the nature of DID without considering its origins. But unless you really do your research, the only factor in the development of DID you’ll ever hear much about is trauma. I find that really frustrating. Yes, DID is a trauma disorder, and that deserves acknowledgment and discussion. And I get why trauma is the main focus: it’s the key factor, the main ingredient, the raison d’être. But ignoring other developmental factors limits understanding of DID and that’s where misconceptions take root. I’ll always be on a learning curve when it comes to DID, but when I was first diagnosed I had almost no information. So I went hunting for it. I found a lot of what I now know is mythology; mythology that went a long way towards terrifying me into rejecting my diagnosis. One of the scariest ideas? DID is evidence of the most heinous, unimaginable trauma; evidence of that, and nothing else. Continue reading

Alters, Broken Windows, and the Proverbial Grain of Truth

Last week I  had the opportunity to be a guest on the HealthyPlace Mental Health TV Show. It was the first time I’ve ever been interviewed publicly about DID. So I wasn’t too surprised to find myself a little emotional after the fact. Nor did it surprise me that a lot of that emotion centered around a short clip from the movie Sybil that aired just before my interview began. What surprised me was how I felt about it.

In the clip, one of Sybil’s alters breaks a window with her arm, destroying the glass. Her therapist, Dr. Wilbur, expresses concern about her arm saying that windows are easier to fix than little girls. The alter responds with what looks like surprise, saying, “Little girls are more important than windows?” This exchange stuck with me, because no matter the sensationalistic nature of the movie, no matter the mythology it helped to perpetuate, this exchange at least was emotionally honest. And it left me feeling bereft.

How pathetically ridiculous to not know that you’re more important than a window. How tiny and sad that is. How I’d like to feel patronizingly sorry for the character, shake my head and mutter, “Poor thing has no sense of her own value.” Instead I feel grief.

I try very hard to make having DID be ok. I focus relentlessly on normalizing it. I am caught off guard by things that remind me with painful clarity that, despite the fact that those of us with DID are more normal than we are abnormal, having DID cannot be included in the wide range of experiences we classify as normal. And having alters pop out, break windows, and then wonder incredulously at their own well-being taking precedence over the condition of a window isn’t normal either. What I’d like is to point to that as an example of the mythology entertainment media perpetuates about DID. But it isn’t an example of that. It’s an example of what living with DID is truly like sometimes.

I now wonder if part of the reason the mythology surrounding DID is so adhesive is that there’s a grain of truth in all of it. No, we don’t have make-up artists and costume designers waiting in the wings to accentuate the shifts in self-states. No, our lives aren’t jam-packed with moment after moment of the kind of drama seen in film and television depictions of DID. But there is some genuine truth in the emotional impact of many of those portrayals. I wasn’t upset because the movie clip got it wrong. I was upset because it got it right.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I am not Sybil. My life isn’t a reflection of the legacy the book and movie left behind. But I’d be lying if I said there haven’t been moments in my life that were strikingly similar to the one from Sybil I described above. And I’d be lying if I said that didn’t hurt.

About that Door

A friend of mine is fond of quoting from an Adrienne Rich poem entitled Prospective Immigrants Please Note, “The door itself makes no promises. It is only a door.” Indeed, opportunity is only that. No matter the preparation, there is no way to know what life will be like on the other side of any door until we actually cross the threshold.

I’ve thought a lot lately about disclosure; and while there is relief in considering coming out of the closet as someone with DID, I can’t predict with real accuracy whether doing so will truly be the relief I envision.

Every mental health professional I’ve ever seen since being diagnosed with DID has advised me in no uncertain terms to be very wary about disclosing my diagnosis. Each of them would strenuously caution me to reveal my diagnosis only to those on a need-to-know basis, and only after objectively considering if they genuinely need to know. I seriously doubt any of them would support even blogging in anonymity. After all, true anonymity is a hard thing to come by.

Are all these professionals simply overly cautious pansies? Hardly. These are people who have helped many a client to remember their worth after disclosing their diagnosis and experiencing a painful rejection as a result. They also know better than most the very real stigma that accompanies mental disorders and how marginalizing that stigma can feel.

Then there’s the other side of the coin: fascination, which is a form of rejection in and of itself. When others express interest in me because of DID, they are seeing DID first and me second. Or third. Or fiftieth. And that kind of fascination begs the question: if I didn’t have DID, would they be this interested in me?

Beyond all of that is the reality that I am not my diagnosis. And with a diagnosis as heavily laden with mythology as DID is, it’s easy for both someone with DID and those that know them to lose sight of the very real human being at the center of the large shadow their diagnosis casts.

Let’s also not forget that awkward and sometimes humiliating faux pas, the overshare. It’s important, I believe, to pay attention to the line between appropriate candor and outright exhibitionism. Authenticity is one thing. Attention-seeking is quite another. Motive is important.

With all of this in mind, the question becomes not, “What’s on the other side of the closet door?” but “Can I continue to thrive on this side of the closet door?” If my shoes are too small, I cannot wear them. It doesn’t really matter whether I’ll like a larger pair or not, whether a larger pair will suit me or if all I can find are some embarrassing clunkers that go with nothing I own. I don’t have the option of wearing shoes my feet can’t fit into. Neither do I have the option of living in a way that has become too small for me.

Many or One?

One of the more confounding things to me about understanding DID was my struggle to conceptualize a severely fragmented identity. What stymied me most was the suggestion that I get to know these other parts, respect them, have gratitude for them, all while recognizing that, in fact, we’re really all one person. This utterly perplexed me. Everywhere I turned for help I was told to communicate internally, begin a dialogue with these parts. But these same people and books also instructed me to remember that I don’t really have other people living inside of me.

So let me get this straight – you want me to accept that there is not only one in this body, but you want me to do so with the understanding that yes, there’s only one in this body?

It felt akin to making a promise with my fingers crossed behind my back. There I was, asking questions like, “What’s your name?” and “How old are you?” Questions that attest to the separateness between us.  And all the while, I was trying to remember that these parts whose names I didn’t know were really me after all. To say this confused me is understating things to the extreme.

From smashed vases to ripped up rose bushes there are plenty of metaphors to help illuminate the experience of being many. But none of them have ever come close to satisfying for me the duality – the experience of being many and the contradictory and yet parallel experience of being one.

I’ve finally managed to make sense of this apparent paradox for myself by thinking of DID as a microcosm of humanity. Throughout the ages mystics and spiritual leaders have taught us that we human beings are one. Yet we experience ourselves as distinctly separate. If we ignore the very real connection we have with all human life, we diminish our ability to see beyond ourselves. Conversely, if we ignore our individuality and uniqueness in favor of the idea of oneness, we lose the opportunity to learn from each other. And in both scenarios we limit our capacity for compassion and empathy.

So it is with DID. If I see us exclusively as singular beings without recognizing the larger organism that together we make up, I limit my view to a degree that will eventually eliminate the possibility of further growth. This is not seeing the forest for the trees. If I focus on us as one without truly considering what separates us from each other, what is different and particular about each of us, I am blind to vital aspects of who that one larger organism is. This is not seeing the trees for the forest. Both perspectives, while essentially true, are finite. Like humanity as a whole, the person with DID is both many and one. And it is in that duality, in those seemingly incongruent states, that the vast potential for wholeness lies.