Part 43

Now it should be noted that these latter were the traits of the subject C during the preceding four-year period of stress and strain, and the succeeding neurasthenic period, and represented a side of her character which was developed, systematized and intensified by the circumstances of her life. In accordance with these traits, habits of thought had been established and by constant repetition complexes had been built. It is of importance to note that it was against these very A traits that the “B complex” at that time had rebelled—that very complex which was to become the chief component of the “B personality,” and which was the other side of the original self. It was during the neurasthenic state that the A traits had become abnormally developed and belonged to the neurasthenic condition. When the personality changed to B these A traits became dissociated but still remained conserved as unconscious systematized neurograms; now the A traits were awakened once more, there was a conflict and the B traits, the lighter side of her character, were repressed, dissociated and subsided into the unconscious. A was, therefore, a dissociated personality. She was the original C, if you please, but now so shattered and shorn as to be but an abstract and wreck of her former self. The normal C possessing both sets of traits had been, and now, resynthesized to health, is able to compare, to weigh, to modify, to balance the judgments obtained from the point of view of the B system with those of the A system and thus keep a fairly equitable poise of mind. The one counteracted the other fairly well. The A and B phases being respectively deprived of the characteristics of the other, each exhibited its own traits in a highly intensified degree, and manifested excessive reactions to the environment. The dissociated state A was plainly a reversion to the stress-and-strain and neurasthenic period. The awakening of A was the awakening of a system of thoughts which had lain dormant during the B state. Now the repressed B state was dormant.

It is of great significance for an understanding of neurasthenic disturbances that the awakening of the A system brought back all the neurasthenic symptoms that had as physical reactions accompanied this system at the time when it was dominant in C. The A system of thoughts, emotions, instincts, innate dispositions, etc., and the physical symptoms necessarily went together, for the latter are the expression or reaction of a dissociated personality that is deprived of its sthenic and exalting emotions. The moment the sthenic emotions were brought back (in C or A) the physical symptoms disappeared. The disappearance of the neurasthenia even in A when certain emotions were temporarily restored by suggestion was remarkable.

II

What caused the awakening of the A system? We have seen that the awakening of the rebellious B personality was an emotional trauma which was the same in kind as that which originally gave rise to the primitive “rebellion” as a reaction to the emotion. A similar trauma later awakened the same rebellion but one grown to the large proportions of the “B complex.” So in like fashion the new trauma to B awakened the A system as a reaction and associative phenomenon. What was the new trauma?

C in her written statement does not give the nature of the “strong emotion which swept over” her when the “revelation came in a flash.” It was very different in character from the other. It was _apprehension_—the apprehension of moral disaster to the person whom she was trying to save. There was no resentment at the discovered deception, no thought of wounded self, no feeling of injury as might be inferred from the language of the writer, but only the thought of her own _responsibility_ in the circumstances, and of _duty_ undertaken, and the feeling of _anxiety_ for the future of this other person; and there was a sense of _disappointment and failure_. These erupted from the submerged A system.

It was this same system of ideas, but organized about her husband as their object, which had been dominant in C during the four years period of stress-and-strain and “neurasthenia.” They had lain dormant in the unconscious during the B period. Now they are struck and excited to activity. There is a conflict. The impulses from the conflicting A emotions, being the stronger, repress the B impulses and the A system is awakened as a personality.

The question at once comes to mind whether the object of B. C. A.’s solicitude was not a surrogate for her deceased husband, a sort of symbol, and had not become the object of the transference (to use the language of the psycho-analysts) of the solicitude which had previously been bestowed upon her husband’s health and future well-being; whether this new person had not been substituted for the ill husband in that A system of ideas which during four years had been characterized by responsibility, duty, anxiety, disappointment, failure, etc.; whether, indeed, it might not be held that the solicitude for the salvation of this drug addict was not a defense reaction against self-reproach for an imaginary responsibility for the illness of her husband. Such self-reproaches she describes.

If this were true, the awakening of the A system by the discovery of the deception (which was only the banal one of money matters) and realization of failure, disappointment, etc., would be all the more comprehensible in view of the very strong and close associations which the new object would have in the system. But if true I cannot see that it would have any further or deeper significance. There was no need for disguisement. Certainly solicitude for a husband, disguised in another person, needs no disguisement and could not be unacceptable. But painful _self-reproaches_ for former failure could not be faced, and satisfaction could be found in the performance of a new duty as a sort of atonement.

Again was there any subconscious sex wish or urge that could not be admitted to herself and to which the change to A was a defense reaction? I have been unable to discover any. And if there were I am unable to see how the revelation of deception in money matters required a defense reaction against the fulfillment of this wish. That sounds like Alice in Wonderland.

But why did the revelation shock B, who with her traits would not have cared? I can answer this from my intimate and fuller knowledge of C’s and A’s ideas. It was a revelation of the truth. The true character of the object of their solicitude, “whom everyone else had given up as hopeless,” was revealed in a flash, and this “revelation” had struck, not B, but the submerged A (or C) system, which immediately emerged in an uprush from the unconscious. The shock was not to B but to subconscious A. And the reaction was “disappointment,” “failure,” “apprehension,” etc. Similar phenomena have been observed over and over again in psychological studies as I have frequently witnessed them in this case.

III

In a previous lecture[299] I called attention to the fact that emotions (instincts) innate dispositions and tendencies are fundamental to personality and I pointed out that in abnormal alterations the dissociation may involve one or more of these. Certain of these innate psycho-physiological systems were cited as having been repressed or dissociated in this case. It remains to study this phenomenon a little more closely.

Psychologists are generally agreed that of the emotions some are primary, or elementary, and others are complex, that is compounded of two or more emotions. Fear and anger, for example, are primary and the conscious elements, like all primary emotions, in biological instincts. These instincts serve a purpose in the preservation of the species. Of the complex emotions scorn and loathing may be taken as examples, the former, it is believed, being compounded of anger and disgust and the latter of fear and disgust. There is not a general agreement in regard to all the emotions that should be regarded as primary. Joy and sorrow, for example, are classed by some as primary and by some as complex. I made an effort to note and classify in a tentative way the emotions that were present and absent in the two personalities A and B and have arranged them in the following table. In this table the classification of the primary and complex emotions of McDougall has been followed in the main.

Of course it is very difficult to determine with certainty if any given emotion is absolutely absent, as it depends upon suitable conditions being present for its excitation. An emotion that is repressed might still be excited if the stimulus were sufficiently strong. Still, it is significant that emotions which would ordinarily excite a given emotion, say, tender feeling, or sorrow or fear, in the ordinary normal person, or did do so in this subject in the A personality, did not do so in the B personality, or would awaken in the latter only an emotion of joy or mirth. Under these circumstances, when the A and B personalities respectively came into being, these differences were easily observed, and it is noteworthy that then certain emotions were never in evidence in each respectively, whether potentially present or not.

It is interesting to note that when a primary emotion was absent, for instance in personality B, that a compound emotion which included this primary emotion was also absent. It is obvious that dissociation of personalities in which certain emotions are repressed offer valuable data for studying the problem of the classification of emotions, more reliable than do the usual methods of introspective analysis.

PRIMARY EMOTIONS, INSTINCTS, FEELINGS AND INNATE DISPOSITIONS

Personality A Personality B Anger Present (marked) Never observed, although sometimes she felt “provoked” Fear Present (marked) Never observed Disgust Present (marked) Never observed Hunger Slight _Absent (?)_ Sexual Present _Absent_ Curiosity Present Present Joy _Absent_ (present only Present (marked) when excited by suggestion) Sorrow Present (marked) _Absent_ Parental, Tender- Present _Absent_ feeling Affection, etc. Self-assertion—Elation Present (in pride) Present Self-abasement—Subjection Present (marked) _Absent_ Play _Absent_ Present (marked) Pleasure-feeling tones _Rare_ Constant (marked) Pain-feeling tones Present (marked) _Absent_

COMPOUND EMOTIONS

Personality A Personality B Admiration Present ? Reverence ? ? Gratitude Present (marked) ? Scorn { Anger Present (marked) _Absent_ Disgust { Loathing { Fear Present (marked) _Absent_ { Disgust Envy ? ? { Anger Reproach { Tender- Present _Absent_ { emotion Jealousy Present _Absent (?)_ Vengeful emotion Present _Absent_ Shame Present _Absent_ Bashfulness Present _Absent_ Pity ? _Absent_ Happiness _Absent_ Constant

As there were differences in emotions and pleasure-pain feelings manifested by the two personalities, so also the emotions and feelings organized with the same objects differed. That is to say, one and the same object often awakened different emotions or feelings. For example, the moon excited in A pain, in B pleasure; woods excited in A apprehension, in B pleasure; a lake, in A fear; in B joy; relatives, in A affection, in B indifference. Situations, too, that gave A sorrow, gave B joy, or, it might be, pleased A and bored B. Likewise with persons: Y—aroused intense hatred, scorn, etc., in A; in B pleasant feelings.

IV

To return to the behavior of the B and A personalities; the B system, from the fact that it had become for a month, during the third period, segregated as an independent and autonomous system, had become crystallized and easily dissociated as _a whole_ from the remainder of the personalities. The same happened with the A system after it had become emancipated as a result of the fourth shock. The two systems readily changed with one another and I had innumerable opportunities of observing the changes taking place before my eyes and of studying them. C makes the following statement of these alternations:

Shortly after I came to you I began to alternate more frequently between those two states, and it is well to emphasize that one marked change in the state of A developed. In this state I now had _complete amnesia_ for my whole life as B; for everything I thought and did.[300] In other respects, however, these states were identical with what they had been. The presence of amnesia made no difference in the fact of change of personality. As I see it I was just as much an altered personality before the amnesia developed as afterward. As B, I had no amnesia.

The amnesia made life very difficult; indeed, except for the help you gave me I think it would have been impossible and that I should have gone truly mad. How can I describe or give any clear idea of what it is to wake suddenly, as it were, and not to know the day of the week, the time of the day, or why one is in any given position? I would come to myself as A, perhaps on the street, with no idea of where I had been or where I was going; fortunate if I found myself alone, for if I was carrying on a conversation I knew nothing of what it had been; fortunate indeed, in that case, if I did not contradict something I had said for, as B, my attitude toward all things was quite the opposite of that taken by A. Often it happened that I came to myself at some social gathering—a dinner, perhaps—to find I had been taking wine (a thing I, as A, felt bound not to do)[301] and what was to me most shocking and horrifying, smoking a cigarette; never in my life had I done such a thing and my humiliation was deep and keen.

The bearing of amnesia on the principle of multiple personality, perhaps, needs a few words. From the facts as they developed in this case it must be obvious that the presence or absence of amnesia in no way affects the reality of altered or secondary personality. B was quite as much a personality before the development of amnesia as afterwards. Before this appeared the patient as A in no way differed in characteristics (other than amnesia) from what she was afterwards, and the same is true of B. The amnesia simply made the contrast between the phases more obtrusive; that was all. If, therefore, following the amnesia each phase can be rightly interpreted—and of this there can be no doubt—as a dissociated personality, the same must be true of it antecedent to loss of memory. Each phase had lost and gained certain traits and peculiarities, and what one had lost the other, to a large extent, had retained.

An analysis of the previous life history shows that each represented a constellation of mental complexes created out of the formative matter of the past conserved in the unconscious. On the other hand it is obvious that from another point of view each, before amnesia occurred, was rightly entitled to be considered as a highly developed “mood” with strong conative tendencies. In principle the amnesia does not affect the point of view. One frequently sees in lesser degree such moods in so-called normal people of a certain temperament. They are in fact really temporary alterations of personality, though it is not customary to speak of them as such. After amnesia develops the conditions in other respects are in no way changed. If such alterations of personality are combined with a neurasthenic condition it is customary to regard the phase as one of neurasthenia or hysteria, and, in fact, the state A was for a long time so regarded until the other state, B, was discovered.

It is not within the scope of this study to describe in detail the behavior of the two personalities A and B. Enough has been said to show that they differed in character so widely as to appear to be two entirely distinct persons, with contradictory traits, desires, feelings, points of view, habits, manners, temperaments, and attitudes towards their environment and towards each other. Alternating as they did, the situations in which A, at least, was placed were often dramatic and comparable to that of the case of Miss Beauchamp[302] with which some of you may be familiar.

A good general idea of the two personalities and their behavior has been given by the subject herself in the two articles from which I have freely quoted. For further details I would refer you to those accounts[303] which merit careful study.

Nor can I take up that phase of the problem of dissociation which involves _co-conscious_ systems of thought. It is too large a subject and must be reserved for a later occasion. I will merely say that when A became _unaware_ of the _B complex_ and became amnesic for her alternating life as B, the latter, B, continued during the A phase; or, in other words, the co-conscious life was a continuation of the B alternating life after the change took place to A (or C), but the latter was unaware of it.

This seems very difficult to comprehend for those who are not familiar with the phenomenon. Yet, as I see it, the mechanism and principle are very simple and the phenomenon is only an exaggeration of the normal. Otherwise and without a normal mechanism it could not occur. B has also given in her account a very valuable description based on introspection of the co-conscious life. This merits careful study.

REINTEGRATION OF A AND B INTO A NORMAL PERSONALITY C

You probably will have sufficient curiosity to want to know how the reintegration of the dissociated phases into a single normal personality was accomplished: that is to say how a cure was brought about and the original personality was obtained. It was very simple and can be told in a few words. The method was the same as that employed in the case of Miss Beauchamp.

Each of the dissociated personalities A and B could be hypnotized. When A was hypnotized she went into a state which we will call _a_ and when B was hypnotized she went into a state which we will call _b_. Now both these states could be still further hypnotized. When the process of hypnotizing _a_ was carried further a state was obtained which we will provisionally call _x_. When the process of hypnotizing _b_ was carried further a state was obtained which we will call provisionally _y_. Now, when studying these two hypnotic states, _x_ and _y_, they were found to be the same state. That is to say they had the same memories and other traits of personality. Furthermore they were found to be a combination of both _a_ and _b_, possessing all the memories, emotions and innate dispositions which were lost in A and therefore possessed by B and all those that were lost in B and therefore possessed by A. In other words, it was the complete normal personality but in the hypnotic state. This hypnotic state, therefore, which had been previously labeled both _x_ and _y_ was now labeled _c_. All that remained to do, therefore, was to wake up _c_ and the trick would be done, for we would then have, theoretically, the normal C personality. So this procedure was carried out and the normal personality was obtained.

Footnote 292:

Fourth according to the division of periods here adopted.

Footnote 293:

Money matters.

Footnote 294:

Second which brought the B personality.

Footnote 295:

Apropos of this B states: “I still continued, in a sense, as the B complex in the same way as during the time when C lived the life which was in accordance with my nature and opposed to hers, i.e., the out of doors life during the latter part of the second period; only, as a result of the time (_period III_) when I was the sole personality (though I did not think of myself as such) and had lived my own life, I had, it seems to me as I look back upon it, become more crystallized. There had before seemed to be a conjoining of two natures, and there was now, only the second one, myself, was more strongly integrated. C, or rather A, as I shall call this new phase, had no amnesia for the preceding period (_III_), and as before was still perfectly aware of the B complex. She was ruled by this complex, as C had before been ruled, and kept right on doing things in accordance with the impulses of the B complex. She was something like a somnambulist, I think, partly realizing the difference in her conduct, which seemed strange to her, and unable to help herself.”

Footnote 296:

At this time A had removed from the environment in which all this that has been narrated had taken place, and had come under my care; she was then A. There were no longer calls for duty to be performed, no longer responsibilities to carry out. B was dormant and it was impossible for the fixed idea to act, though undoubtedly if the former situation was restored the old parts would have been reënacted; as it was A looked upon the past as a closed chapter and she was able to judge herself as A and B. In the quiescence of her fixed idea she was able to see herself, though in a distorted perspective, and reprobated her conduct in both phases of personality, and as she says, was “aghast.”

Footnote 297:

Referring to the fixed idea mentioned above of saving this person.

Footnote 298:

Referring to her husband’s illness and death.

Footnote 299:

Lecture XVII.

Footnote 300:

This came about in the following way: One day while A was in hypnosis she suddenly and spontaneously changed to a different hypnotic state characterized by change of facial expression, manner, speech, etc. It was afterwards recognized that this was the B personality in hypnosis. I had not before seen or heard of the B personality as such. I had only known that the subject from her own account had been in a neurasthenic condition and had been through periods of improvement and relapses. I did not suspect that these phases of improvement and relapses represented phases of personality such as was soon discovered to be the case. A few days after the B personality had appeared in hypnosis this phase spontaneously waked and alternated as it had previously done, with the A complex. But now, as the writer says, there was amnesia on the part of A for B. The explanation for this is undoubtedly to be found in the fact that a new synthesis and more complete dissociation of the B complex had taken place through the experience of hypnosis. Analogous phenomena I have observed in making experimental observations but it would take us too far away to enter into this question here.

Footnote 301:

During the first weeks of my existence as B I pledged myself to drink no wine. The promise was made under such conditions that no reasonable person could have felt bound by it. As B I realized this and felt no obligation to keep it but as A, I could not feel so, though you had assured me over and over again that I was not in honor bound.

Footnote 302:

Prince: The Dissociation of a Personality, Longmans, Green & Co.

Footnote 303: