Over the years, I have come across a number of different ways to see and understand parts. None of these are absolute truths. They just offer a framework that makes it easier to understand a certain aspect of parts and it helps with overcoming challenges. Depending on the situation, one framework might be more useful than another.
Parts as ‘Holders‘
When we imagine DID as a system of parts, then these parts hold certain characteristics, abilities and personality traits. What belongs to the Whole was divided and stored in the vessels of different parts. One might hold our ability for math while another one is good at sensing the body and the next is holding our anger for us. All that is found in any human being is stored somewhere but it is not all stored in the same vessel. The division makes access harder. To overcome challenges that are based on dissociative barriers this framework helps us to understand that we need to connect, communicate and cooperate to make the necessary content available where it is needed. We ask ourselves who is holding on to a memory, skill or function and then we can attempt to work with this part directly so they can share what they are holding on to with others who need it. Our effort towards integration is supposed to make it easier for the whole system to access the things parts are holding. That way we don’t have to put so much effort into functioning smoothly. This is a simplistic way to understand parts and we have to be careful not to limit parts to being the holder of something (like trauma memory) and make them solely responsible for it. Holding things separately is an old strategy that we are trying to overcome, not an identity.
[I don’t think this is attributed to anyone specifically. That’s just the basics of structural dissociation]
Parts as Storytellers
Parts can also be understood as the storers and tellers of stories. Every part has a personal story to tell. The memories and aspects of experiences they remember will differ from those of other parts. The whole story of the system cannot be told without the many storytellers who contribute what they know. They can share the realities that they experienced in the past and maybe also those they still experience inside. This will explain how they made sense of events and how that impacted their views today. This knowledge is locked inside their stories that need to be heard. All the stories put together will help us see a new and more complete picture. The small stories get connected and also separated from each other to become a big picture that is a lot more complex. The meaning parts made from their own story might change when the big story becomes available. Sometimes parts share stories that are roughly about the same events but one might tell the story from the position of the mind, another from the emotional perspective and the third might tell the story of the body in that situation. Whenever a story is told and it seems a bit flat because an aspect is missing we might find additional storytellers who can fill in the gaps. Sometimes parts tell different stories about the same situation because experience is complex and it can all exist next to each other.
We need parts as storytellers when we try to process and integrate our own life history. The big picture does not become available until we listen to the stories it is made of. We really don’t know that much without them. The integration of our history is a big task that might take us a while. Pacing is important when listening to stories. We can’t hear them all at once. Sometimes there are people in the outside world that can tell us how they experienced a time in our life. But nothing will replace hearing our own story from ourselves as we put it together. It can be very hard to listen to these stories. Making peace with the big picture is worth it.
[The concept of working with storytellers is common but specifically promoted by Ana Gómez in the context of EMDR with dissociative children and youth]
Parts as Agents
I cannot help myself, I always imagine a super secret agent for the government then I think of parts as agents. Silliness aside, the word agent comes from the same latin root as the word action. It literally translates as Do-ers or Act-ers. Within this framework we understand parts as entities that act and that have their own will that drives them to act. They are more than an inner voice or an emotion or even a memory. They have a core that wants something. We pay attention to their will when we face actions that are creating trouble. The term ‘action‘ is understood broadly here. Anything that is caused by parts that is creating distress can count as an action. That explicitly includes physical symptoms like paralysis or seizures that are caused by the internal actions of parts. It might be useful to understand more of the ‘treatment-resistant‘ phenomena as actions of agents.
Understanding that something is caused by a part and then learning why they feel the drive to do that can be a key to resolving complex problems. Oftentimes, actions can be negotiated. We will not be able to eliminate the will that drives parts though. It is a normal element of who we are and we don’t benefit from trying to stop it. It belongs. When we separate the will and the specific action, we create new possibilities for grounding, realization and negotiation.
This approach is a very stabilizing one. It does not look for stories of trauma. It stays in the present and only works with the actions that are hindering. Changes are made in the present by offering new actions. Old stories of how things made sense in the past will come up but they are met with integrative actions, not a confrontation or desensitization.
Some of the most explosive power struggles we find in DID are based on a battle of wills. The forces that drive parts to act seem to be opposing each other and there seems to be no way that everyone can get their will. Working with agents who have good reasons for wanting things and exploring their realities makes DID therapy safer and a lot less dramatic. It is also more gentle for the whole system. Less big battles. More serious negotiations of actions and reality today.
[The concept of agents is based on ideas by Ellert Nijenhuis]
All of these perspectives are useful. They are also not separated in any way. Parts hold actions, agents will tell stories, action systems are divided between different vessels. That gives us the freedom to abandon one perspective if it is not working and try another one. There are probably a lot more ways to look at parts but these are the ones that are most useful to me.