As a relational being, individual and his/her psychological survival is very much affected by the social environment which may be less than optimal for adjustment. Hence, the integrity of human consciousness and the autonomy of the individual's mind are densely interwoven with psychological trauma and its consequences. Psychological trauma refers to psychological injury, wound, and pain. The present paper proposes that analogous to the physical response to overwhelming threat to homeostasis, the psychological response to traumatic stress comprises protection of vital parts of the psychobiological system, even at the cost of other parts, until the threat is over. Thus psychosocial adjustment, in developmental periods of life in particular, may constitute arrest or delay in realization of one's unique and authentic potentials which necessarily leads to a division of mind. The consequence is disavowal of or inability to develop one's integrated self-identity with the possibility to subsequently re-claim it under favorable conditions.
Healing of the psychologically wounded individual is based on the congruent sequence of discourse, theory, model, technique, and application, where none of these can replace any of the others. Hence this paper begins with theoretical assumptions before addressing empirical material in the later sections. Several hypotheses are revived in the context of chronic developmental trauma, the very trajectory which constitutes a threat to psychological survival of the individual.
Trauma and “Split-Mind”: Functional Dissociation of Self
In an inquiry into the interface between individual and society, Şar and Öztürk (2007, 2013) proposed the concept of the personal “Sociological Self” as part of a theory which addresses both non-clinical and post-traumatic conditions. According to their theory of “Functional Dissociation of Self,” expansion of the individual's sociological self due to developmental traumatization (e.g., childhood neglect or abuse) and additional factors (e.g., overadjustment to social demands of benign or malevolent types) leads to a detachment in the individual's internal world. This theory claims that this division has a protective aim; i.e., individual's “sociological self” is devoted to save his/her “psychological self” from annihilation (where the latter represents the unique and authentic aspects of the individual).
In his famous study “Sickness Unto Death” (published in 1849), Danish philosopher Kierkegaard (1849/1983) assumed that the human existence was based on relation (although not necessarily an interpersonal one): “A human being is a spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation relating itself to itself in the relation” (Marino, 2009). To augment Kierkegaard's statement, one could better say that, an “integrated self” is nothing else than the harmonical relation between the “sociological self” and “psychological self” of the individual as proposed and conceptualized by Şar and Öztürk (2007, 2013). After detaching from sociological self, the “psychological self,” however, becomes frozen and lacks the resources for further development. In addition to the detached “sociological” and “psychological” selves, the “trauma-self” Şar and Öztürk (2005, 2007) emerges and remains in a perpetual status of help-seeking. In fact, this is the “symptomatic” self (Öztürk and Şar, 2016a) which may be explicit in daily life.
Self and/or identity disturbance, emptiness, and fear of abandonment seem to reflect such conditions (Meares et al., 2011). The central state is “painful incoherence” as observed in a “dissociative depression” (Şar, 2011a). Alternatively, while describing loss of connection to the “psychological self,” the Turcic poet Yassawi (1093–1166) stated: “I can not get news from myself.” Similar testimonies also feature in the text Feeling Unreal: Depersonalization Disorder and the Loss of the Self (Simeon and Abugel, 2006).
In fact, the idea of “split mind” and potential co-existence of healthy and pathological parts is not new as Bleuler's (1911) concepts of “schizophrenia” and “double book-keeping” and Winnicott (1965) conception of the “false self” reveal. The Theory of Functional Dissociation of Self (Şar and Öztürk, 2007) is contrasting however in not regarding such division as necessarily pathological or maladaptive; i.e., a harmonical relationship between sociological and psychological selves is possible and, even, healthy. Hence such dual development may also have normative (“non-traumatic”) aspects. Description of the optimal trajectories of both selves throughout each phase of life remains an important task which exceeds the aims and limits of the present paper.
Complex Trauma and Psychiatric Consequences: Personality or Disorder?
Cumulative relational traumatization in the early years of life has been differentiated from acute stressful events as “complex trauma” (Herman, 1992; Van der Kolk, 1996; Courtois, 2004). Research shows that chronic relational traumas (e.g., childhood abuse and neglect) are as damaging to mental health and relationship outcomes as the non-relational and acute ones (Anders et al., 2012). Various types of complex clinical constellations may emerge in the aftermath of relational trauma such as complex posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dissociative depression, dissociative identity disorder (DID), and “borderline” phenomena (Şar, 2011b, 2014, 2016).
Due to their pervasive and enduring character, these syndromes were for most of the twentieth century considered by mainstream psychiatry, psychology, and psychoanalysis as disturbances of personality. Unlike earlier theories which assumed a strong relationship between personality and maladaptation (Kernberg, 1987), I propose a clear demarcation between unique aspects of the individual and trauma-related psychological process which “intrudes” and/or “possesses” the subject's “internal world.” Nor is this merely a point of scientific curiosity; I further contend that development of a clear vision about this demarcation line by the traumatized individual is necessary in treatment. The associated “damage” is principally reversible in conditions where “repair” (i.e., appropriate treatment) is available.
To consider this theoretical stance, and to inquire into various aspects of such trauma-generated mental division of this kind, the paper reviews findings from a limited series of hypothesis-generating empirical studies which gathered data on lifelong consequences of childhood trauma in various clinical and non-clinical populations. I hypothesize that chronic developmental traumatization leads to a functional re-organization of the mind into enduring “parallel-distinct structures” which operate side by side without being fully integrated with each other in aim, content, and process. Such re-organization serves in buffering the traumatic breach in and between external reality and internal world. Although devoted to protection of the individual's unique psychological aspects (i.e., rather than constituting a mere fragmentation in the face of relational trauma), such division of the internal world may undermine the enduring experience of a coherent self-identity. It may also lead to crisis-proneness due to loss of mutuality between “parallel-distinct structures.”
Stimulus Modulation and Trauma: Broken Boundaries and Loss of Integration
Due to his professional background in physiology, Freud (1920/1975) assumed that the central nervous system was protected by a “shield” (“Reizschutz”) in the sense of a stimulus barrier defending from excessive stimulation. In traumatic conditions, the barrier is suddenly and violently breached, overwhelming the nervous system with an influx of stimuli it cannot handle. Recent neurobiological research has documented the fact that traumatic stimuli trigger two types of reaction (Lanius et al., 2010). One is primarily avoidant, and constitutes emotional overmodulation based on excessive corticolimbic inhibition. This can lead to subjective disengagement from content of the traumatic memory. The other is predominantly intrusive, and a hyperaroused type of response which comprises undermodulation of emotions which may lead to re-experiencing the traumatic event in the “internal world.”
Stimulus modulation is an idea with diverse repercussions. From a physiological perspective, chronic overstimulation may lead to habituation or exhaustion. In contrast, denervation and other forms of stimulus deprivation cause an increase in the magnitude of subsequent responses (a phenomenon commonly referred to as denervation supersensitivity).
From a psychological perspective, stimulus deprivation may weaken the individual's orientation to reality because the person is not buffered against the predominance of “internal stimuli.” Disproportionate stimulation interferes with the mental capacity to develop links between thoughts, emotions, and behaviors; i.e., it provokes dissociation (Şar and Öztürk, 2013). Hence, stimulus modulation is essential for maintaining homeostasis and healthy adaptation; i.e., keeping the “integrative mode of consciousness” alive (Winkelman, 2011).
Psychological Survival by Mental Avoidance: The Vicious Cycle
Much of the trauma-related dysfunctions are “attempted solutions to dilemmas which are more focused on survival than recovery” (Briere, 2002). For instance, when confronted with an imminent life-threat for which flight-or-fight is no longer an option to counter danger, the organism may shift to immobility. To escape the threatening situation as well as the internal distress and arousal, the response of “shutdown dissociation” may be adaptive for survival (Schalinski et al., 2015) leading to freezing or submission.
Many traumatized patients continuously wish to “forget” their disturbing experiences without being able to do so. In fact, intrusion and avoidance constitute a vicious cycle rather than totally independent phenomena. Representing a “rebound” phenomenon, avoidance or suppression can counterproductively lead to the state of mind one had hoped to avoid (Wenzlaff and Wegner, 2000); i.e., an increased tendency to experience mental intrusions as well as diminished behavioral control (Abramowitz, 2001). Suppressing thoughts can lead to an increase in behavior related to the formerly suppressed thought (Erskine, 2008; Erskine and Georgiou, 2008). Thought suppression has been implicated as an etiological and/or maintaining factor in depression, generalized anxiety disorder, specific phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and PTSD (Purdon, 1999). In a general population study, suicidality, substance abuse, dissociation, and problematic activities such as self-injury and dysfunctional sexual behaviors were all indicators of a robust latent variable; namely, dysfunctional avoidance (Briere et al., 2010).
Avoidance and intrusions of traumatic mental content constitute the basic clinical components of PTSD. These usually co-occur on an individual basis as do the two types of response. As the bipolar character of the constellation represents a detaching of mental contents or even somewhat enduring “structures” which are “phobic” to each other (Van der Hart et al., 2006), some authors claim that PTSD is, in fact, a dissociative disorder (Nijenhuis, 2014). Alternatively, a dissociative subtype of PTSD has been proposed (Lanius et al., 2010) to delineate those post-traumatic conditions which are characterized by overmodulation of emotions. The latter conceptualization has been adopted in the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) on the basis of depersonalization and/or derealization experiences as accompanying symptoms of PTSD. Debate on the accuracy of these two stances is still ongoing. This is, because, like PTSD, dissociative disorders are characterized not only by avoidance (“negative” dissociative symptoms) but also by intrusions (“positive” dissociative symptoms).
Alternatively, identity alterations observed in dissociative disorders may be considered an elaborated version of trauma-related mental intrusions and avoidance which correspond to the basic mechanism of PTSD. Unlike in PTSD, however, in DID and its subtreshold forms, traumatic memories are widely “decontextualized” (Brewin, 2001) and processed to retain internal and external balance (Öztürk and Şar, 2016b). Further, this leads to formation of “discrete behavioral states” (Putnam, 1997) each with their own sense of self and agency, personal history, and mission, subsequent to an elaboration based on trauma-related cognitions, compensatory structures, and emotions assigned to them. Namely, DID and PTSD may precede each other chrononologically or may be co-present depending on the status of the patient in the spectrum between avoidance or intrusion.
Anxiety-laden PTSD can also account for treatment-seeking in a state of crisis in context of DID. For example, in a case of “vampirism” with coexisting PTSD and DID, the “host personality” was suffering from flashbacks due to PTSD while a disillusioned-traumatized “child” alter personality triggered violent attacks to be carried out by an aggressive part (Sakarya et al., 2012). Being unaware of the inner cycle, the patient was suffering from temporary loss of control following increased “appetite” for blood. Diminished dissociative barriers may also lead to emergence of PTSD symptoms during treatment of DID which were lacking initially.
Dissociation is a constant feature of post-traumatic conditions independent of the main psychiatric diagnosis (Şar and Ross, 2006; Şar, 2011b). For example, peritraumatic dissociation is known as a predictor of PTSD (Van der Hart et al., 2008). While acute trauma can induce peritraumatic dissociation, complex trauma leads to chronic dissociation more readily (Ogawa et al., 1997). In a study on the general population, while childhood interpersonal (complex) trauma was related to altered self-capacities (interpersonal conflicts, idealization-disillusionment, abandonment concerns, identity impairment, susceptibility of influence, affect disregulation, and tension reduction behaviors), non-interpersonal traumas and adult traumas were typically unrelated to the scales assessing these features (Briere and Rickards, 2007). The main reason for this different effect is adaptation to trauma in the developmental years—a response of the whole organism—which has vital importance for the survival of the growing individual.
In tandem with the notion of a protective detachment of mind proposed in the present paper, Schimmenti and Caretti (2016) state that “…dissociation may paradoxically protect the traumatized child from a fragmentation of the self through multiple disconnections in the self, occurring at both mental and bodily levels.” In fact, such paradox can be explained only by a duality-based model of mind allowing detachment in a level other than alternate personality states: i.e., it is the detached “sociological” self which is fragmentedŞar and Öztürk (2005, 2007). Bromberg (1998, 2011) has proposed that dissociation could be considered as a proactive strategy used by children to protect themselves from developmentally traumatic interactions with caregivers that disrupt the sense of continuity in the self regardless of its natural multiplicity.
A recent MRI study (Mutluer et al., in press) conducted on adolescent girls with PTSD due to severe sexual abuse yielded bilateral decrease in volumes of amygdala, anterior cingulate, hippocampus, and diminished thickness of prefrontal cortex compared to the healthy controls. However, analyses within the PTSD group revealed a tendency of lateralization in findings showing significant negative correlations between clinical symptoms of Simple and Complex PTSD and volume changes of the right hemisphere subcortical structures. A significant positive correlation was shown between core dissociative phenomena (depersonalization, derealization, and identity alteration which fit the dissociative subtype of PTSD or DID) and left frontal cortical thickness. These findings led the authors to support the idea that dissociation may be neuroprotective (Ross et al., 2015) at least until adolescence. In the healthy group, the structures of right and left hemispheres were better correlated with each other. In support of the observations previously made by Farina et al. (2014), this symmetrical appearance of correlations suggested better connectivity of the brain in the healthy group. Unlike dissociation, denial or minimization of childhood trauma seemed to be “toxic” in that it was negatively correlated with the thickness of the right prefrontal cortex (Mutluer et al., in press).
Dissociation to “Parallel-Distinct Structures” and Narrowed Consciousness
The cardinal feature of dissociation is disruption of usually integrated mental functions of consciousness, memory, identity, emotion, perception, behavior, cognition, and/or motor activities (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Such disruption may lead to discontinuities in sense of self and agency which cause a disturbance of self-identity. In his 1889 dissertation, “L'automatisme psychologique,” Pierre Janet stated that automatisms were the most elementary form of psychological functioning (Van der Hart and Horst, 1989). Adaptive operations of the evolutionarily bestowed simple and complex psycho-biological action systems (e.g., attachment, sexuality, care-taking, socialization etc.) constitute the functioning of both normal and dissociative individuals (Van der Hart et al., 2006). From a contrasting point of view, post-traumatic dissociation may disrupt both sensori-motor, and cognitive-emotional functions. The so-called BASK (behavior-affect-sensorium-knowledge) model of dissociation underlines this separation of mental functions from each other (Braun, 1988).
I propose that dissociative disruption leads to emergence of “parallel-distinct” mental structures rather than to simple disaggregation. In contrast to the BASK model, such parallel-distinction may have a vertical or horizontal character as valid for the organization of the nervous and mental system in general (Echarte, 2016). The horizontal dissociation points to the altered relationship between higher and lower order brain structures, changing the status of the hiearchical control. Vertical dissociation, however, points to the networks covering all levels of complexity in hierarchy; i.e., from automatisms including sensori-motor responses to the upper levels of consciousness such as sense of self (Meares, 1999; Bob and Faber, 2006).
As well as compartmentalization, dissociation may also lead to detachment. Examples of symptoms of detachment are: emotional numbing, depersonalization-derealization, out-of-body experiences, and dissociative amnesia due to encoding deficit. Those related to compartmentalization are functional neurological (conversion) symptoms, hypnotic phenomena, “made” actions (Schneiderian experiences), multiple identities, and dissociative amnesia due to retrieval deficit. Identity confusion, on the other hand, is a symptom that can be associated with either detachment or compartmentalization (Brown, 2006). Schimmenti and Caretti (2016) have stated that “compartmentalization and detachment are two sides of the same coin; that is, the psychobiological dysregulation deriving from early relational trauma and the development of competitive self-states that cannot be integrated into consciousness.”
Recognition of detachment and compartmentalization as distinct types of dissociation has implications for treatment as well. Namely, recent evidence suggests that cognitive behavior therapy, which utilizes an adapted anxiety-disorder model, is an effective treatment for pathological detachment (Hunter et al., 2005). Other forms of treatment may be more appropriate for pathological compartmentalization (Holmes et al., 2005).
Narrowing or alteration of consciousness may also be considered as types of dissociation. In order to differentiate pathological dissociative experiences of “trauma-related altered states of consciousness” (TRASC) from what they considered to be nondissociative forms of psychological distress (that is, symptoms that can be readily experienced within “normal waking consciousness”; NWC), Frewen and Lanius (2014) operationalized a four-dimensional symptomatology called the “4-D model.” This model highlights four dimensions of consciousness affected by traumatic stress, whether in TRASC or NWC-distress form. These are time-memory (e.g., flashbacks vs. reminder distress without reliving), thought (e.g., voice hearing vs. negative self-referential thinking), body (e.g., disembodied experiences of depersonalization vs. embodied experiences of distress), and emotion (numbing, affective shutdown vs. non-dissociative forms of negative emotionality such as fear, anxiety etc.). While markers of TRASC and NWC predicted social and occupational impairment in a follow-up study on the acute aftermath of traumatic events, contrary to hypothesis, childhood trauma was more strongly correlated with the symptoms of NWC-distress than with TRASC (Frewen et al., 2015).
The latter finding can be explained by the observation that long-term consequences of chronic developmental traumatization such as Complex PTSD may be represented predominantly by depression and subtle disturbances of self perceived as passive-influence experiences (Şar, 2011a). Constituting resistances of the “trauma-self” (Öztürk and Şar, 2016a), such relatively subtle and chronic phenomena are associated with NWS (i.e., that the individual appears “normal” but not crisis-prone in daily life) rather than TRASC which is related to more explicite dissociation. This condition reflects the secondary phase (“Trauma-Illness” as opposed to “Inflammation” and “Estrangement” phases) of post-traumatic process in the proposed “Tri-Modal (T-MR) Reaction Model of Protection” (Mutluer et al., in press) as inspired by findings of a recent neurobiological study on adolescent girls with PTSD due to severe sexual abuse.
Childhood Neglect and Abuse: Distinct Tracks of Post-Traumatic Response
Childhood traumata can arguably be classified into two types is proposed: those of interpersonal omission (neglect) and intrusion (abuse). This suggestion is consistent with contemporary understanding of the bimodal nature of neurobiological response to traumatic stress, where overmodulation and undermodulation of emotions are operative (Lanius et al., 2010). Both dichotomies correspond to the bipolar clinical character of all trauma-related syndromes including PTSD: namely, intrusion and avoidance of the traumatic mental content. Treatment needs to take place in the context of a “therapeutic window” between overwhelming exposure and excessive avoidance (Briere, 1996, 2002; Porges, 2011).
Four issues seem to prevent researchers from identifying the distinct impacts of omission and intrusion. First, the naturalistic co-presence of these patterns for a majority of studied populations deflects attention from their distinct cognitive-emotional and sensori-motor consequences. Second, the discrepancies in results of self-report and clinician-administered assessment raise questions about the reliability of these tools. In fact, such discrepancies may represent the “real” condition; namely that both the subjective experience and the objective mental status of the evaluated individual may differ between personal and interpersonal settings. The latter possibility would be consistent with the very nature of dissociation as an interpersonal experience sensitive to betrayal, attachment, and perception. Third, different tracks of post-traumatic processing may be pursued by sensori-motor and, alternatively, by cognitive-emotional dissociation. Fourth, timing of childhood maltreatment (Schalinski and Teicher, 2015) may account for considerable variance in psychological consequences. Therefore, distinct post-traumatic phenomena should be assessed and handled separately even if they occur concurrently.
The partial phenomenological overlap between borderline personality disorder (BPD) and dissociative disorders -which both have a trauma-related origin- has been well-documented by empirical research (Korzekwa et al., 2009; Brand et al., 2016). For example, in a controlled study of a high-functioning college population (Şar et al., 2006), a significant overlap between the two syndromes was substantiated: 72.5% of those with BPD had a dissociative disorder in contrast to only 15.0% of the non-BPD controls. Although some authors consider BPD a dissociative disorder (Meares, 2012), and others take an opposite stance by regarding dissociative disorders in the realm of BPD (Lauer et al., 1993), such overlap does not necessarily discard the possibility of existence of two qualitatively distinct entities.
The question arises whether such overlap is also related to co-existence of different types of developmental trauma. To test this hypothesis, a multivariate statistical analysis allowed Şar et al. (2006) to calculate the distinct relationships between the two syndromes and reports of various types of childhood trauma separately. According to this study, BPD was predicted by overall severity of childhood trauma, childhood sexual abuse (SA), emotional abuse (EA), physical abuse (PA), and physical neglect (PN). Dissociative disorders, on the other hand, were predicted by childhood emotional neglect (EN) and denial (minimization of trauma including idealization of parents) of childhood adversities. Apparently, BPD was related to the intrusion (both bodily and psychological) and bodily omission whereas dissociative disorders were related to the psychological omission only. The two clinical response patterns did not markedly interact according to any childhood trauma measure. Although both syndromes have their own important histories of conceptualization, the existing empirical data do not rule out the possibility that they represent two types of post-traumatic response.
Apart from a potential personality disorder, a similar pattern can be observed at the more severe pole of the psychopathological spectrum. In a study on patients with schizophrenic disorder (Şar et al., 2010b), those patients who had high scores of dissociation (and who had elevated negative symptoms, childhood trauma total, and childhood EN scores) were divided into two further subgroups in cluster analysis. The first was characterized by childhood EA (psychological trauma of intrusive type) and predominantly had symptoms associated with DID and positive symptoms. This group, who reported dissociation directly, had earlier age of onset and longer duration of the disorder. The second group was characterized by childhood PA and SA as well as by PN (“bodily trauma” of both intrusion and omission types). The latter group had more BPD criteria, somatic complaints, and general psychiatric comorbidity which represented dissociation indirectly.
A recent follow-up study on patients with bipolar disorder (Çakir et al., 2016) documented that among patients who received anticonvulsant treatment, those with elevated childhood EA and PA scores (intrusion) had poorer outcome in terms of relapse (a trait measure). Among omission types of trauma, while PN was related to mean severity of the mood disorder episodes and psychotic features, EN was related to suicide attempts. Hence, unlike the unipolar (dissociative) depression described below, omission type of trauma predicted the severity of the state. The childhood trauma total score was related to psychotic features, the number of lifetime comorbid psychiatric disorders and the number of courses of antidepressant drug treatment. The latter was also associated with comorbid diagnosis of lifetime diagnosis of PTSD. Unlike for the anticonvulsant treatment group, lithium non-responders were more common among patients with lifetime diagnosis of PTSD.
Apparently, nosological fragmentation (increased general psychiatric comorbidity) is one of the outcomes of developmental traumatization which is facilitated by total severity of childhood abuse and neglect in bipolar disorder and bodily type of childhood adversity inschizophrenia. This phenomenon requires further addressing via epigenetical research. While reported observations on patients with schizophrenia replicated findings on the relationship between EN (omission) and dissociation in non-clinical populations (Ogawa et al., 1997; Şar et al., 2006), different types of intrusive traumatization (for instance, emotional vs. bodily abuse) seem to have distinct clinical consequences. While bodily intrusion may lead more readily to indirect symptoms of dissociation, emotional intrusion, however, seems to be related to positive symptoms (e.g., hallucinations of voice-hearing type) which constitute the third person perspective of consciousness according to the 4-D model (Frewen and Lanius, 2014).
Embodied Trauma and Bodily Dissociation: Clinical Implications
Şar (2011a, 2015b) has proposed the term “dissociative depression” for a complex post-traumatic condition which may involve features of BPD and transient feelings of loss of control in addition to the symptoms of unipolar depression and dissociation. In a study among women in the general population, dissociative depression (current major depression comorbid with lifetime diagnosis of dissociative disorder) was predicted by educational deprivation and childhood SA (Şar et al., 2013a). In the same sample, childhood PA, lifetime diagnosis of major depression and/or dissociative disorder predicted functional neurological (conversion) symptoms (a type of sensori-motor dissociation; Şar et al., 2009). While dissociative depression was related to a combination of omission and bodily intrusion of sexual type, PA (bodily intrusion of non-sexual type) added sensori-motor dissociation to this condition possibly due to unassimilated sensori-motor reactions; i.e., somatic memory).
A different appearance was obtained in a study (Kiliç et al., 2014) of women with a physical illness which explored the relationship of post-traumatic anger and cognitive-emotional and sensori-motor dissociation to unipolar depression. The diagnosis of lifetime depressive disorder (a trait measure) was predicted by sensori-motor dissociation whereas cognitive-emotional dissociation was related to current severity of depression (a state measure). The former track was associated with childhood neglect while the latter was related to abuse. While similarly leading to depression as the final common pathway, the consequences of childhood neglect (omission) and abuse (intrusion) were associated with distinct trajectories.
A study on women with back pain or headache (Yücel et al., 2002) found no relationship between childhood adversity and cognitive-emotional dissociation. However, sensori-motor dissociation was predicted by EN; hence the statements “the body keeps the score” (Van der Kolk, 1994) and “embodied” dissociation (Lanius et al., 2014) are valid. The question arises whether the relationship between childhood adversity and its consequences follow a different track among patients with a somatic illness. However, the special relationship between childhood neglect and body perception was reported in a non-clinical college population as well: Both childhood PN and EN were associated with symptoms of bodily depersonalization while childhood abuse did not (Şar et al., 2017b).
A recent case report describing “unperceived (total denial of) pregnancy” (Şar et al., 2017c) ends with the words of the affected young woman who underlines the connection between loss of trust and the feeling of being abandoned by one's own body:
“It is really hard for me to describe how I feel about the denial of pregnancy. I know that, in the weeks following the birth, I asked myself a lot of questions about it. I felt betrayed by my body. I felt like my body was a part of me that I can't control. I thought that if my body did this to me, and hid all these things from me, I could not be certain about anything that I felt, or anything that I thought about me. The main feeling that I had, was to not trust myself anymore.”
Kierkegaard, while inquiring mind-body relationships, was inspiring about the potential protective nature of mental division and dissociative depression. He described “unhappiness” (alias depression) as “a suffering which must have its basis in a mis-relation between…mind and body, for it has no relation to (one's) spirit, which on the contrary, because of the tension between…mind and body…gain(s) an uncommon resiliency” (Marino, 2009, para. 9). Vice versa, in his well-known presentation (“Television”), French psychiatrist Lacan (1974/1990, p. 6) pointed to the associative mission of the body in conditions of a detached internal world:
“In fact the subject of the unconscious is only in touch with the soul via the body, by introducing thought into it: here contradicting Aristotle. Man does not think with his soul, as the Philosopher imagined. He thinks as a consequence of the fact that a structure, that of language—the word implies it—a structure carves up his body, a structure that has nothing to do with anatomy. Witness the hysteric. This shearing happens to the soul through the obsessional symptom: a thought that burdens the soul that it doesn't know what to do with. Thought is in disharmony with the soul.”
Nevertheless, one has to be careful in interpreting Lacan's usage of the word unconscious which he anchores in external reality: “There is no unconscious except for the speaking being,” …“the others, who possess being only through being named—even though they impose themselves from within the real-,”…“it speaks, does the unconscious, so that it depends on language” (ibid, p. 5). The research on embodied trauma and bodily dissociation, however, has the potential to illuminate the lost link of communication between “unformulated experience” (Stern, 1997) and the illness as expression of it: the psychosomatics.
Being “Unable to Speak”: In Search for a (Common) Language
Indeed, trauma explicitely disrupts the capacity to develop consistent narratives of experiences (Van der Hart et al., 2006) for reasons which include dissociative amnesias (Şar et al., 2014a). The dual representation theory of PTSD (Brewin, 2001) assumes that many details of the traumatic experience are retained in the “situationally accessible memory” (SAM) rather than the “verbally accessible memory” (VAM). According to the multiple code theory of emotional processing, inhibition of a transition from the subsymbolic (patterns of sensory and visceral sensations and motoric activity associated with states of emotional arousal) to the symbolic (images and words) level of thinking (Bucci, 2007) which hinders the integration between emotion and cognition.
While Lacan's interest in trauma and the impact of “the real” was part of a meta-psychological model, Ferenczi (1932/1995) attempted to directly solve a clinical problem.This is shown in his Clinical Diaries (Kirschner, 2015). In his well-known paper which considered the interpersonal dynamics of the condition, (Ferenczi, 1932/1988) referred to the “confusion of tongues” between adult and child in the context of sexual abuse. Lacan's approach to trauma as the presence of the effect of unsymbolized real physical experiences seems to be in accordance with Ferenczi's notion of the unprocessed foreign body in the psyche (Garon, 1993 cited by Kirschner, 2015). Like Ferenczi's concept of foreign body (Kirschner, 2015), the Lacanian concept of an inassimilable “real” that cannot be contained in the symbolic (of speech) suggests an implantation of otherness in the psyche that produces effects.
According to the “Theory of Functional Dissociation of Self” (Şar and Öztürk, 2007), depressive phenomena, loss of interpersonal mutuality and functional somatic experiences are resistances of the “trauma-self” (Öztürk and Şar, 2016a). They require resolution in psychotherapy to repair the detaching of “sociological” and “psychological” selves. This is the point at which therapist and patient meet each other. In order to be therapeutic, such meeting should facilitate establishment of a “common language” not only between therapist and client but also between and across sociological and psychological selves (of both parties).
Dissociation and Attachment: Personal and Interpersonal
Dissociation is not only an intrapsychic and psychosomatic (embodied) but also an interpersonal phenomenon (Liotti, 2006). The latter contributes to the dynamism of dissociation in terms of the contextual factors affecting the condition of the individual. Hence both Liotti (2006) and Barach (1991) have underlined the role of interpersonal attachment disturbances in DID. Liotti (2006) proposes that pathological dissociation should be viewed as a “primarily intersubjective reality hindering the integrative processes of consciousness,” rather than as an intrapsychic defense against mental pain. Additionally, early defenses against attachment-related dissociation may lead to interpersonal controlling strategies that further inhibit the attachment system. Dissociative symptoms emerge as a consequence of the breakdown of these defensive strategies when exposed to events that activate the attachment system.
In the view of Liotti (2006), it was Bowlby (1973) who first hinted at the relationship between attachment processes and dissociation. Namely, Bowlby proposed that inadequate care-seeking interactions with primary caregivers could lead the infant to develop multiple internal representations of self and attachment figures (which he called Internal Working Models; IWM). One IWM becomes dominant in regulating interpersonal relationships in a certain context, while the other IWMs remain separated from mainstream conscious experience. The latter surface in stressful situations to regulate emotions and cognitions in a way that may be perceived as alien to the person's usual sense of self. In addition, sense of agency is influenced by this alteration.
Liotti (2006) suggests that the shifts among the multiple IWMs correspond to the drama triangle elaborated by Karpman (1968); i.e., the interactions between the main characters oscillate between the roles of the benevolent rescuer, the malevolent persecutor, and the helpless victim. The link between attachment theory and the drama triangle is represented in the model of attachment to the perpetrator (Ross, 1997) which allows the victim to achieve a subjective sense of control in the abusive condition. Hence, according to Liotti (2006), psychotherapy for pathological dissociation should be a phase-oriented process focused primarily on achieving attachment security, and should only secondarily deal with trauma. Therapeutic interventions aimed at disavoval of the “attachment to the perpetrator,” both inside the internal world and in external reality, are necessary to eliminate such destructive bonds. Disavowal of the attachment to the perpetrator, however, may require some type of trauma work.
Although the therapist would try to act as a secure base to improve alliance and symptom control (Cronin et al., 2014), this does not mean that the therapist's security would necessarily lead to the patient's security. Before treating trauma, the theapist cannot know what the client may perceive as sufficiently safe (Bromberg, 2006). Individuals who report high levels of dissociative experiences also present a negative view of themselves in attachment and close relationships (Şar et al., 2010a; Schimmenti, 2016). This may limit their potential to trust in themselves and to improve the quality of their relationship including the relationship with the therapist. Hence, if developmental trauma is not processed; i.e., a better level of integration and wholeness is not attained, attachment security may be difficult to achieve by highly dissociative individuals. This requires elimination of the resistances of the trauma-self (Öztürk and Şar, 2016a). The conception of the “sociological self” (Şar and Öztürk, 2007, 2013), however, serves to fit the needs of interpersonal attachment. The aspect of self desribed by this term is prone to fragmentation due to the conflictual demands of the external world. Hence, the trauma-self should be liberated from “guardianship” of the sociological self to operate in a problem-solving manner and on the basis of reality (Şar and Öztürk, 2005).
In his schema on three levels of object (interpersonal) relationships, Battegay (2008) mentioned “fusion” (a basic feeling of being “one” with the “object,” or as an alternative explanation, an intense feeling of attachment), “active performances (defense mechanisms) of ego” as two levels before a “mature” (reality-oriented) contact is possible. Projective identification serves as a regulator of interpersonal distance (e.g., by inducing anger as an aversive factor) in conditions where fusion becomes unbearable (Battegay, 2008). In fact, projective identification is based on interpersonal dissociation where the subject of emotions, thoughts, and behavior becomes contentious (Howell, 2003). The capacity of fusion may turn to a threat to individual autonomy in certain conditions, leading to loss of boundaries. We can observe this both in relation to crowds, communities, but also small groups (“group en masse,” Battegay, 2008) when they are under the influence of mass affect (which liberates capacities for fusion).
1. Carlson EA, Egeland B, Sroufe LA. A prospective investigation of the development of borderline personality symptoms. Dev Psychopathol. 2009;21(13):11‐1334. [PubMed]
2. De Bonis M, de Boeck P, Lida‐Pulik H, Feline A. Identity disturbances and self‐other differentiation in schizophrenics, borderlines, and normal controls. Compr Psychiatry. 1995;36:362‐366. [PubMed]
3. Jorgensen CR. Identity style in patients with BPD and normal controls. J Pers Disord. 2009;23(2):101‐112. [PubMed]
4. Lynum LI, Wilberg T, Karterud S. Self‐esteem in patients with borderline and avoidant personality disorders. Scand J Psychol. 2008;49:469‐477. [PubMed]
5. Nejad AG, Kheradmand A, Toofani K. Identity disturbance and substance‐dependence in patients with borderline personality disorder. Addict Health, Winter‐Spring. 2010;2(1‐2):35‐40. [PubMed]
6. Westen D, Betan E, DeFife JA. Identity disturbance in adolescents: associations with borderline personality disorder. Dev Psychopathol. 2011;23(1):305‐313. [PubMed]
7. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA, USA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
8. Wilkinson‐Ryan T, Westen D. Identity disturbance in BPD: an empirical investigation. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(4):528‐541. [PubMed]
9. Fuchs T. Fragmented selves: temporality and identity in borderline personality disorder. Psychopathology. 2007;40(6):379‐387. [PubMed]
10. Locke J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1690. ‐4/1979.
11. Strawson G. The self. J Conscious Stud. 1997;4(5/6):405‐428.
12. Strawson G. The self and the SESMET. J Conscious Stud. 1999;6:99‐135.
13. Olson ET. There is no problem of the self. Models of the self 1999;49‐61.
14. Strawson G. The phenomenology and ontology of the self In: Zahavi D, editor. , ed. Exploring the Self: Philosophical and Psychopathological Perspectives on Self‐Experience. Vol.23 Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing; 2000:39‐54.
15. Zahavi D. Subjectivity and Selfhood: Investigating the First‐Person Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT press; 2008.
16. MacIntyre A. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press; 1981.
17. Taylor C. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1989.
18. Parfit D. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press; 1984.
19. McMahan J. The metaphysics of brain death. Bioethics. 1995;9(2):91‐126. [PubMed]
20. Ricoeur P. Time and Narrative III, trans. K. Blamey and D. Pellauer. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1988.
21. Schechtman M. The Constitution of Selves. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1996.
22. Bruner J. Life as narrative. Soc Res. 1987;11‐32.
23. Dennett DC. Why everyone is a novelist. Times Lit Suppl. 1988;4459:1016
24. Sacks O. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat: And Other Clinical Tales. London: Simon and Schuster; 1998. [PubMed]
25. Schechtman M. Staying Alive: Personal Identity, Practical Concerns, and the Unity of a Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
26. Michaelian K. Mental Time Travel: Episodic Memory and Our Knowledge of the Personal Past. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2016.
27. Zahavi D. Self and other: the limits of narrative understanding. Roy Inst Philos Suppl. 2007;60:179‐202.
28. Zahavi D, Gallagher S. The Phenomenological Mind. London: Routledge; 2008.
29. Strawson G. Against narrativity. Ratio. 2004;17(4):428‐452.
30. Korsgaard CM. Personal identity and the unity of agency: a Kantian response to Parfit. Philos Publ Aff. 1989;101‐132.
31. Scheffler S. Ethics, personal identity, and ideals of the person. Can J Philos. 1982;12(2):229‐246.
32. Rovane C. The Bounds of Agency: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1997.
33. Hurley SL. Natural Reasons: Personality and Polity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.
34. Radden J. Multiple Selves In: Gallagher S, editor. , ed. The Oxford Handbook of the Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
35. Prebble SC, Addis DR, Tippett LJ. Autobiographical memory and sense of self. Psychol Bull. 2013;139(4):815‐840. [PubMed]
36. James W. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt; 1890.
37. Kennett J, Matthews S. Mental timetravel, agency and responsibility In: Broome M, editor; , Bortolotti L, editor. , eds. Psychiatry as Cognitive Neuroscience: Philosophical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
38. Schechtman M. Empathic access: the missing ingredient in personal identity. Philos Explor. 2001;4(2):95‐111.
39. Adler JM, Chin ED, Kolisetty AP, Oltmanns TF. The distinguishing characteristics of narrative identity in adults with features of borderline personality disorder: an empirical investigation. J Pers Disord. 2012;26(4):498‐512. [PubMed]
40. McAdams DP. The psychology of life stories. Rev Gen Psychol. 2001;5(2):100‐122.
41. Holmes J. Narrative in psychiatry and psychotherapy: the evidence?Med Humanit. 2000;26:92‐96. [PubMed]
42. Ryle A, Kerr IB. Introducing Cognitive Analytic Therapy. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2002.
43. Holmes J. John Bowlby and Attachment Theory. East Sussex & New York: Routledge; 1993.
44. Dimaggio G, Popolo R, Carcione A, Salvatore G. Improving Metacognition by Accessing Autobiographical Memories In: Livesley WJ, editor; , Dimaggio G, editor; , Clarkin JF, editor. , eds. (2015). Integrated Treatment for Personality Disorder: A Modular Approach. New York: Guilford Publications; 2016.
45. Tulving E. Episodic memory: from mind to brain. Annu Rev Psychol. 2002;53(1):1‐25. [PubMed]
46. Tulving E. Episodic memory and autonoesis: uniquely human In: Terrace HS, editor; , Metcalfe J, editor. , eds. The Missing Link in Cognition: Origins of Self‐Reflective Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005:3‐56.
47. Gold N. Team Reasoning, Framing, and Self‐control: An Aristotelian Account In: Levy N, editor. , ed. Addiction and Self‐Control: Perspectives from Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
48. Gold N. The Person as a Team Over Time In: Bermudez J, editor. , ed. Self Control and Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; forthcoming.
49. O'Donoghue T, Rabin M. Doing it now or later. Am Econ Rev. 1999;103‐124.
50. Gold & Sugden . Conclusion In: Bacharach M, editor. , ed. Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.
51. Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O'Donoghue T. Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J Econ Lit. 2002;40(2):351‐401.
52. Gold N. Team Reasoning: Controversies and Open Research Questions In: Ludwig K, editor; , Jankowicz M, editor. , eds. Handbook of Collective Intentionality. New York: Routledge; in press.
53. Bartels DM, Urminsky O. On intertemporal selfishness: how the perceived instability of identity underlies impatient consumption. J Consum Res. 2011;38(1):182‐198.
54. Bartels DM, Rips LJ. Psychological connectedness and intertemporal choice. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2010;139(1):49 [PubMed]
55. Williams HL, Conway MA, Cohen G. Autobiographical Memory In: Cohen G, editor; , Conway MA, editor. , eds. Memory in the Real World. 3rd ed. Hove, England: Psychology Press; 2008:21‐90.
56. Tulving E. Memory and consciousness. Can Psychol/ Psychol Can. 1985;26(1):1‐12.
57. Tulving E. The Origin of Autonoesis in Episodic Memory In: Roediger HL III, editor; , Nairne JS, editor; , Neath IE, editor; , Surprenant AM, editor. , eds. The Nature of Remembering: Essays in Honor of Robert G. Crowder. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2001:17‐34.
58. Suddendorf T, Corballis MC. Mental time travel and the evolution of the human mind. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr. 1997;123(2):133‐167. [PubMed]
59. Schacter DL, Addis DR, Buckner RL. Remembering the past to imagine the future: the prospective brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007;8(9):657‐661. [PubMed]
60. Schacter DL, Addis DR. The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: remembering the past and imagining the future. Philos Trans R Soc, B: Biol Sci. 2007;362(1481):773‐786. [PMC free article][PubMed]
61. Addis DR, Wong AT, Schacter DL. Remembering the past and imagining the future: common and distinct neural substrates during event construction and elaboration. Neuropsychologia. 2007;45(7):1363‐1377. [PubMed]
62. Hassabis D, Kumaran D, Maguire EA. Using imagination to understand the neural basis of episodic memory. J Neurosci. 2007;27(52):14365‐14374. [PubMed]
63. Hassabis D, Maguire EA. Deconstructing episodic memory with construction. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007;11(7):299‐306. [PubMed]
64. Buckner RL, Carroll DC. Self‐projection and the brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007;11:49‐57. [PubMed]
65. Klein SB. Autonoetic consciousness: reconsidering the role of episodic memory in future‐oriented self‐projection. Q J Exp Psychol. 2016;69(2):381‐401. [PubMed]
66. Northoff G, Heinzel A, de Greck M, Bermpohl F, Dobrowolny H, Panksepp J. Self‐referential processing in our brain—a meta‐analysis of imaging studies on the self. Neuroimage. 2006;31(1):440‐457. [PubMed]
67. Zhao W, Luo L, Li Q, Kendrick KM. What can psychiatric disorders tell us about neural processing of the self?Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:485 [PubMed]
68. Gerrans P, Kennett J. Neurosentimentalism and moral agency. Mind. 2010;119(475):585‐614.