Theory of Structural Dissociation Doesn't Support Endophobia

Chase (host) (he/him) | posted 29.11.2024 | translated 20.12.2025

I could explain that the theory of structural dissociation doesn't say anything about existence or non-existence of endogenic systems. That even if it said anything, it could be wrong, since science is a proccess of discovering reality, and not getting absolute answers right away. That, in spite of the beliefs of some, there are quite a lot of studies dedicated to endogenic systems (check out our scientific publication list with “non-disordered plurality” filter on). That theory of structural dissociation very clearly states that “many people in one body” are not a thing, but somehow many endophobic systems don't have a problem with ignoring it in this regard. But a painful experience teached me that it doesn't do anything. It's really hard to convince a person with arguments, when their views are rooted in emotions.

The theory of structural dissociation is very important for most of the sysmedical groups. Some even treat it like their holy scripture and not just one of the models that attempts to make something simpler and easier to understand out of multifaceted plural experience. So they probably regard authors of this theory as big authorities in the topic of dissociation. What if it turned out that two of the authors publicly stated that existence of non-traumagenic systems is possible?

I recently got my hands on a link to the article Dissociation in Trauma: A New Definition and Comparison with Previous Formulations, written by dr. Ellert Nijenhuis and dr. Onno van der Hart. I won't say anything, I'll just qoute a fragment. You may check out the last section of the article if you don't trust me.

[qoute begining]

Our definition of dissociation pertains to a division of the personality in the context of trauma. We are aware that this division may also occur in hypnosis and mediumship, that several other definitions of dissociation also address these other contexts, and that there are some indications that dissociation in these other contexts is also best understood as a division of personality. For example, Hilgard's well-known “hidden observer,” as found in some highly hypnotizable subjects, involves a dissociative part of the personality that is endowed with consciousness and self-consciousness, but the phenomenon is disputed (e.g., CitationKihlstrom, 1998; CitationKirsch & Lynn, 1998). Mediumship may involve conscious and self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality (CitationBraude, 1995). However, dissociation in mediums is in several regards different from dissociation in DID (CitationMoreira-Almeida, Neto, & Cardeña, 2008). The possible involvement of consciousness and self-consciousness in dissociated controls in hypnosis and in dissociative parts in mediumship needs to be examined in more detail before a conclusive general definition of dissociation can be formulated.

In this contribution, we have thus focused only on dissociation in trauma. Difficult as the definition of a construct can be, it is required for theoretical advancements, classification, the formulation of clear and effective approaches to treatment, the development of sophisticated measurement instruments, as well as the design and interpretation of scientific studies. The definition of dissociation in trauma and dissociation in other contexts is no exception.

[qoute end]

Do I hope that it will change someone's mind right away? Maybe a little. Naively. But I hope that it will at least plant a seed of doubt. Because if two doctors from this field, who you owe theory of structural dissociation and in consequence almost all of your argumentation, don't automatically exclude the possibility of existence of endogenic plurality, why do you think you may do it?