Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 3:34:45
(viii) Gestalt Switches and Change in Perspective
The problem of how we should conceive of alters can thus be recast as the problem as to whether we should adopt a single or multiple systems interpretation of a given subject’s behaviour. While the reality constraints would seem to dictate that the single systems stance is appropriate for the prediction and explanation of the behaviour of the majority of intentional systems; other systems seem to exhibit behaviour that is clearly more amenable to multiple systems theory. In the majority of ‘potential’ cases it would seem that there is a genuine indeterminacy between a multiple or single systems view.
While the diagnosing clinician clearly believes that what I have called the multiple systems interpretation is appropriate, other clinicians show a clear preference for insisting on the single systems view. The post-traumatic model considers that alters are not distinct selves, rather the self is the summation or fusion of all the alters. Such supporters might consider that alters do not constitute distinct selves, and might be hesitant to even consider them to be distinct intentional systems. In order to work with the alters to access their memories for the treatment goal of integration or fusion, however, it would seem that the clinician is required to ‘get to know’ them as distinct intentional systems. Spanos, (1994) maintains that the very act of listening to alters’ pronouncements of separateness and continuing the charade by using alternative names etc is what serves to reinforce the disorder. The main criticism from sceptics is that while supporters maintain that in theory alters are not separate or distinctive selves they treat them as such in practice.
It would thus seem that there is a decision to be made as to whether one adopts a single or multiple systems interpretation of these subjects’ behaviour. While one might consider that such a decision need not be made I think that in practice it must as we unavoidably interact with one another on the intentional level. Every modern theorist that I have encountered seems to consider it an absurdity to consider that selves are real and that alters are selves. The main argument against supporters is that this is what they are doing in practice. Multiple systems theory, however, considers that there is a realist aspect to the self (the behaviours that legitimate our attributions), and that alters, as intentional systems are indeed as real as any self could be #2
#2 The main argument against the ‘reification’ of alters seems to be an aversion to the legal consequence that we could not hold one alter responsible for another in a court of law. I do not think that considering alters to be selves logically entails this, however. Perhaps a distinction could be drawn between selves (to do with a psychological criterion) and persons (to do with a bodily criterion). I am grateful to XXX [privacy - sorry] for the suggestion that the subject be considered a corporation for legal purposes. Corporations are (sometimes) considered legal persons and thus the corporation as a whole can be held accountable despite the innocence or otherwise of particular employees (selves) that constitute the corporation. While I am just providing a hint of a response here I suggest it so as to illustrate that considering alters to be selves does not entail legal immunity.
[There now - that was easy. You would not believe how crucial people take this issue to be. Paper forthcoming if we ever get around to it... ;-)]It would seem that there is no way around making a decision; we are required to do so in our interacting with others on the intentional level.
This being said, the intentional stance demystifies the notion of a self or personality as an intentional system; and we need no longer make room in our explanations for a fixed and immutable Cartesian soul. Adopting an interpretation at one time would not seem to preclude adopting a different interpretation at another time. Such a change in interpretation could be considered something of a gestalt switch that is facilitated by a shaping in behaviours so where a duck may once have been legitimate a rabbit is more appropriate now. Supporters consider that working with alters is the best way to facilitate behaviours more amenable to what I have called a single systems view. It would seem that supporters and sceptics both are united in a common goal – altering these subjects’ behaviour so that the single systems interpretation is the most natural, plausible, predictively adequate account of these subjects’ behaviour. The disagreement would seem to be over the best way to achieve that.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:476616
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050321/msgs/476616.html