The Spokes of the Singlet-Busting Umbrella

[lb_lee]

Rogan: What I call "multi" for lack of a better, more concise term is more like an umbrella with a bunch of spokes that together might be best described as "anything that breaks the singlet norm of one person/soul/spirit stapled to one body for life (and possibly after)." There's a LOT of wiggle room in that definition, and a lot of overlap with things like people/souls/spirits WITHOUT meat bodies (ghosts, spirits, etc.), animism... and stuff like conjoined twins' experience of personhood.

So here's some of the spokes of my research umbrella, the shit I have dug into:

• MPD/DID (where we started, way back in middle school)
• soulbonding (and other "my character talks to me" stuff)
• what I call the "medical backlash" multis, who only had MPD/DID for reference even as they tried to throw out the stuff they didn't like: empowered multiples, natural multiples, endogenic multiples, etc.
• median/midcontinuum folks
• online communities of the above (though we've long since become outdated and fallen behind; we can't keep up)
• imaginary companions
• shamanism (not always relevant BUT SOMETIMES IT IS)
• various forms of spirit possession (which vary a LOT; the Brazilian spiritualists are not the USA spiritualists are not the voudisants are not the demon-possessed Catholics are not the kinksters...) (this has led to me reading a bunch of stuff that isn't relevant to my research purview but is still amazing, like the whole "demons are made entirely of ill-spent jizz" thing)
• different cultures' way of seeing personhood (the singlet norm IS NOT UNIVERSAL!)
• disabled personhood
• spirit marriage
• paracosm stuff
• I don't even know what to call Xavia Publius's idea of meatsuit realness and machine possession except "yes good."

I really feel like expanding my idea of what felt "multi" to me, even though many people would NOT consider marrying a lwa or talking to Bugs Bunny multi at all, was not only useful for learning about how sprawling being a being really is, but also getting me to break out of the teapot tempests and terminology flame wars. I've also gotten a lot out of digging deeper into the past, where the screaming fights are more distant and less soul-crushing. (And also, every once in a while I trip over something old that is still very relevant and interesting--Alma Z., or Gmelin mentioning how he could control Caroline H.'s switches but at times feeling he should give up that power because he got the sense she "needed" to be in her "changed state" and that forcing her into her "normal state" would be bad.)

Plus I'm just a lot happier.

I used to have zero multi books on my shelf. Now I have a box just for research stuff.

Comments

[wolfy_writing]

I'm curious about how your idea of disabled personhood fits into this. I can follow the connection for a lot of this, but that one I'd like to know more about.

[lb_lee]

I mean, one day I'll find a memoir by conjoined twins that goes into their sense of shared personhood, but til then, the main thing I was thinking of when I wrote that was from Eiesland’s classic of disability liberation theology, the Disabled God. Eiesland quotes one disabled woman, Diane DeVries, about her own sense of feeling her sister’s body: “Ever since Deb [the sister] could walk, she was taking care of me. I saw her body move from childhood’s awkwardness to adult gracefulness and strength. But not only did I see this, I felt her movements. In a sense, part of her body was mine too” (37-38). Eiesland (herself disabled), comments, “To suggest that she embodies not only her own, but her sister’s body as well, does not fit the ‘normal’ understanding of the world and may sound pathological to some. [But] her experience reveals a transformed understanding of independence, premised not on physical detachment but rather in relatedness and solidarity” (pg. 38).

[wolfy_writing]

That's interesting, I haven't thought of it that way. Thanks!

[lb_lee]

Yeah, it's just this little glimmer and who knows how it pans out elsewhere, but it's got me thinking and wanting more! Maybe one day, I'll find it!

[incorrecthorse]

we've noticed some multigender folks' gender experiences also sound plural, and somewhat similar to how our plurality is (we feel like we share some aspects of personhood and not others, making us simultaneously multiple people and one person)... though maybe the "right now i'm one person and other times another" stuff is a metaphor sometimes? though there's probably also not exactly a boundary between metaphor and not metaphor here...

[lb_lee]

Oh definitely, IIRC there was a trans article called Multiple Personality Order that went into that, back in the 90s or 00s! Should try to refind it...

[lu_hyperfixates]

Reminds me of the queer elder I met who described themselves as identifying with "we/they" pronouns.

[lb_lee]

@_@ Joyous. I love knowing this.