{"title":"The Metaphor of Dissociation: Teleological, Phenomenological, Structural, Dynamical","authors":"E. Nijenhuis","doi":"10.3280/QPCOA.V0I44.8150.G416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dissociation as used in psychology and psychiatry is a troubled conceptual metaphor. The main problems include conflicting definitions and a lack of internal consistency of some of these formulations. Trying to mend the situation, Van der Hart, Nijenhuis and Steele (2006) revisited Janet's original definition of dissociation, and referred to it as \"structural dissociation of the personality\". This term is not meant to suggest that \"structural dissociation\" involves a particular kind of dissociation as is sometimes thought. To prevent or repair further misunderstanding, in the present article I highlight four inherent features of dissociation of the personality: teleological, phenomenological, structural, and dynamical. The article alsoaims to bridge some metaphors that are commonly described and understood as dichotomies, implying dualisms that plague philosophy, science, and clinical practice. For example, personality is understood as an organism-environment system, involving subjects and \"objects\" (that may be other subjects) as co-dependent and co-constitutive partners. Regarding matter (brain/body) and mind as attributes of one substance reflects an attempt to avoid the problems of philosophical (substance) dualism, as well as the one-sidedness of philosophical materialism and idealism. The generation, maintenance, and elaboration ofdissociation is analyzed in terms of causing, that is, the mutual manifestation of a network of reciprocal powers. The joint analyses involve an enactive approach to life, and intend to achieve further conceptual clarity and consistency of the metaphor of dissociation.","PeriodicalId":117083,"journal":{"name":"QUADERNI DI PSICOTERAPIA COGNITIVA","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"QUADERNI DI PSICOTERAPIA COGNITIVA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3280/QPCOA.V0I44.8150.G416","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Dissociation as used in psychology and psychiatry is a troubled conceptual metaphor. The main problems include conflicting definitions and a lack of internal consistency of some of these formulations. Trying to mend the situation, Van der Hart, Nijenhuis and Steele (2006) revisited Janet's original definition of dissociation, and referred to it as "structural dissociation of the personality". This term is not meant to suggest that "structural dissociation" involves a particular kind of dissociation as is sometimes thought. To prevent or repair further misunderstanding, in the present article I highlight four inherent features of dissociation of the personality: teleological, phenomenological, structural, and dynamical. The article alsoaims to bridge some metaphors that are commonly described and understood as dichotomies, implying dualisms that plague philosophy, science, and clinical practice. For example, personality is understood as an organism-environment system, involving subjects and "objects" (that may be other subjects) as co-dependent and co-constitutive partners. Regarding matter (brain/body) and mind as attributes of one substance reflects an attempt to avoid the problems of philosophical (substance) dualism, as well as the one-sidedness of philosophical materialism and idealism. The generation, maintenance, and elaboration ofdissociation is analyzed in terms of causing, that is, the mutual manifestation of a network of reciprocal powers. The joint analyses involve an enactive approach to life, and intend to achieve further conceptual clarity and consistency of the metaphor of dissociation.
在心理学和精神病学中使用的分离是一个令人困惑的概念隐喻。主要问题包括相互冲突的定义和其中一些表述缺乏内部一致性。Van der Hart, Nijenhuis和Steele(2006)试图改善这种情况,重新审视了Janet最初对解离的定义,并将其称为“人格的结构性解离”。这个术语并不是暗示“结构解离”包括一种特殊的解离,就像人们有时认为的那样。为了防止或纠正进一步的误解,在本文中,我强调了人格分离的四个固有特征:目的论、现象学、结构和动态。本文还旨在弥合一些通常被描述和理解为二分法的隐喻,暗示困扰哲学,科学和临床实践的二元论。例如,人格被理解为一个有机体-环境系统,涉及主体和“客体”(可能是其他主体)作为相互依赖和共同构成的伙伴。把物质(脑/身体)和精神看作同一实体的属性,反映了一种试图避免哲学(实体)二元论问题,以及哲学唯物主义和唯心主义的片面性。从起因的角度来分析解离的产生、维持和细化,也就是从一个相互作用的力量网络的相互表现的角度来分析。联合分析涉及对生活的主动态度,并意图实现进一步的概念清晰度和分离隐喻的一致性。