NEW AGE ‘CHANNELING’ AND THEORIES OF DISSOCIATION:
APPLYING A ‘STRUCTURAL DISSOCIATION OF THE PERSONALITY’ MODEL TO THE CASE OF JANE ROBERTS
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTERS OF ARTS in
THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES by
Anna Preston
1 Introduction………1
2 Channeling……….2
Characteristics of the channeling experience……….4
3 The ‘New Age’: channeling in context………..6
The New Age: ‘secularized esotericism’ of the ‘cultic milieu’? ……….. 6
New Age ‘theology’………...8
Note on scholarly prejudice against studying the New Age………..9
Channeling, in American cultural context………10
4 Dissociation………..11
Current understandings……….12
Historical understandings……….13
Related theories: Freud and ‘repression’………..14
Related theories: Jung on the ‘collective unconscious’………16
5 Key terms & ideas………18
Hypnosis and trance states………18
Absorption………19
Disorganized attachment………. 20
6 Seeking conceptual clarity: ‘trauma-related structural dissociation of the personality’ theory………...21
Key point: conceptual overinclusiveness……….22
Key point: conceptual underinclusiveness………...23
Critique of the ‘anthropological-discursive’ paradigm………....29
Critique of the ‘psychiatric-adaptive’ paradigm………..……30
Problems with trauma-based models of dissociation……….……..31
Competing paradigms: a false dichotomy? ……….…33
Further discussion………34
8 Introduction to the case of Jane Roberts………..37
Characteristics of the channeling experience………...39
The ‘Seth material’………...39
9 Analysis of the case of Jane Roberts………41
Jane’s perspective……….41
Seth’s perspective……….43
Analysis: does the theory of ‘trauma-based structural dissociation’ make sense in the case of Jane Roberts? ………...45
Theory: (post-)modern dissociation and existential trauma……….50
Introduction
'Dissociation', in the most elementary definition of the term as it is used in psychiatry today, refers to the “splitting off of a group of mental processes from the main body of consciousness”1—it
fundamentally entails a 'division of consciousness' within one individual. This, already, is problematic for Enlightenment-based understandings of what it means to be an 'individual'. The origins of the word in Medieval Latin (indīviduālis)2 implies a certain fundamental 'indivisibility' which the modern
discipline of psychology shows to be simply not the case. Phenomena such as 'channeling', 'mediumship', or 'possession' pose the same challenge: how are we to comprehend the apparent existence of secondary, even multiple consciousnesses in one individual? What does this tell us about our understanding of identity, selfhood, and consciousness itself?
The research presented here aims at a modest beginning to answering these difficult questions, and is limited to a focus on the New Age practice of 'channeling'. The specific questions framing this research are: (1) What is the relationship between the concept of 'dissociation' and the New Age
practice of 'channeling'?; (2) Does the theory of 'trauma-related structural dissociation of the
personality' make sense in the context of New Age channeling?; and (3) Can the structural dissociation model be clarified or expanded to account for non-pathological, creative, and/or 'spiritual'
manifestations of dissociation? Using Jane Roberts and her 'Seth books'—widely regarded as a
cornerstone of New Age thought—as my main primary source and case study, I will explore the above questions using secondary sources discussing theories of dissociation, channeling, and the New Age.
The basic idea certainly isn't new—many authors have postulated a theoretical connection between channeling (or seemingly related phenomena such as mediumship and possession) and
processes of dissociation. This research is unique in that it attempts to rigorously clarify what exactly is 'dissociation', and to reconcile a clinical understanding of dissociative disorders with a more flexible understanding of dissociative capacity as it occurs outside of a strictly clinical-psychiatric setting. Such a clarification and reconciliation of 'dissociation' is much needed in the field of Religious Studies, where, as we will see, overly simplistic or overinclusive uses of the term abound. In the more specific study of Western Esotericism, as well, dissociation is a concept of vital importance—not only is it intimately related to a propensity to enter altered, sometimes 'mystical' states, but the very theory of 'divided consciousness' has close historical ties to early studies of mediumship and other arguably 'esoteric' phenomena.
1 “Dissociation,” Dictionary.com, accessed July 12, 2015, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissociation?s=t. 2 “Individual,” Dictionary.com, accessed July 12, 2015, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individual?s=t.
This research will begin with an overview of the 'channeling' phenomenon as it occurs in the cultural context of the 'New Age', then will move on to provide an introduction to the idea of
'dissociation' as it arose in the historical context of 19th century clinical psychology. A few other key
concepts will also be outlined before moving on to clarify a more exact definition of dissociation as it is treated in contemporary psychiatric practice—this is the 'trauma-related structural dissociation of the personality' model, referred to in the second research question above. This model will be described in some detail, as it represents a precise and rigorous approach to understanding dissociation—and posits a single causal mechanism underlying its occurrence; i.e. 'trauma'. The next section, however, will place contemporary psychiatric understandings in a larger, interdisciplinary perspective, and offer an extensive critique of the idea that trauma—or any other single mechanism—can be used to explain all cases of dissociation in the linear relationship of causality implied. Then we will attempt to bring all of these complex ideas together in an analysis of the case of the famous channel and founding figure of the New Age, Jane Roberts.
Channeling
In looking at the phenomenon of 'channeling', we should begin by comparing definitions of the term. Jon Klimo, in his seminal book on the topic entitled Channeling: Investigations on Receiving
Information from Paranormal Sources (1988), defines it thus: “Channeling is the communication of
information to or through a physically embodied human being from a source that is said to exist on some other level or dimension of reality than the physical as we know it, and that is not from the normal mind (or self) of the channel.”3 Closely following the publication of Klimo's book, Arthur
Hastings came out with his own study, With the Tongues of Men and Angels: A Study of Channeling (1991). He defines channeling as “... a process in which a person transmits information or artistic expression that he or she receives mentally or physically and which appears to come from a personality source outside the conscious mind. The message is directed toward an audience and is purposeful.”4
These two publications have provided the basis on which many subsequent definitions of channeling have depended. However, in his own voluminous study, New Age Religion and Western
Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (1996), Wouter Hanegraaff takes a very different
approach: “'channeling' is an emic term used in the New Age context to refer to the general etic
category of 'articulated revelations'. It is no more and no less than that. The attempt to present
3 Jon Klimo, Channeling: Investigations on Receiving Information from Paranormal Sources (The Aquarian Press, 1988), 2.
channeling as an etic term must be dismissed as an apologetic strategy for convincing the public of the validity of New Age channeling.”5 This definition takes into account the specific context in which
'channeling' occurs—namely, the 'New Age'. Outside of this particular context, in other words,
'channeling' cannot be said to exist as such. This insight is in sharp contrast to many scholars' accounts of channeling, which often characterize the phenomena as essentially and fundamentally the same as historical instances of 'mediumship', for instance, or more ancient accounts of 'prophecy'. One example of this tendency is apparent in Klimo's book, where he states, “In truth, channeling is not some recent faddish phenomenon. It is as old as human nature. Throughout history, channels have gone under names as various as shamans, seers, and mediums, although the process involved appears to be the same.”6 Hastings's study also exemplifies this view. He maintains, “What is currently called channeling
has existed since the beginning of recorded human history. […] This book uses the term channeling because it is current, but the process has been called prophecy, oracle, revelation, spirit communication, possession, and the inspiration of the muses.”7
As Hanegraaff has taken pains to point out, there is a dangerous tendency for scholars to unconsciously manipulate research to reflect certain assumptions and biases in our views. He explains:
Instead of regarding New Age channeling as an example of the general category of (articulated) revelations, there is a strong tendency to turn the argument around and claim that all revelations of the past are to be regarded as channeling. […] By studying the process of channeling in its modern manifestation, or so it is suggested, we will be able to find out what really happened to the Old Testaments prophets, to Muhammed, and many others. Channeling, in effect, is
perceived as the master key to understanding religion.8
Hanegraaff suggests the alternative term 'articulated revelations' as an appropriate etic category for scholars, instead of the unavoidably emic 'channeling'.9 Characterizations of channeling like Klimo's
and Hastings's, cited above, can have the unintended effect of projecting onto history an anachronistic conception of events; “these definitions are then used to jump to the arbitrary conclusion that the phenomena belonging to the category thus defined are essentially one, in other words, that there is one basic process responsible for the appearance of revelatory information.”10
The temptation to see in channeling a 'master key' to understanding religion is an
understandable one. There are significant parallels and, in some cases, historical continuities with 5 Wouter J. Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (Leiden,
The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1996), 27. 6 Klimo, Channeling, 75.
7 Hastings, Tongues, xi. 8 Hanegraaff, New Age, 26.
9 Note: I will continue to use the term 'channeling' throughout this research, henceforth with the understanding that it refers only to instances of 'articulated revelations' in the New Age context.
similar phenomena such as 'possession' and 'mediumship'. Beyond their obvious significance to the field of religious studies, moreover, these phenomena were of central importance to the emerging field of psychology in the 19th century. First, we will begin with an overview of some basic characteristics of
the channeling phenomenon.
Characteristics of the channeling experience
Channeling's “main ingredients,” according to Michael F. Brown in his book The Channeling
Zone: American Spirituality in an Anxious Age (1997), are “eclecticism, and improvisational
atmosphere, preoccupation with the future of humankind, and an emphasis on self-expansion.”11
Dureen J. Hughes, in her oft-cited study, 'Blending with an Other: An Analysis of Trance Channeling in the United States' (1991), aptly describes the outward social framework in which channeling sessions typically take place. One key aspect of this framework is that it is essentially secular in nature. She tells us, “Because trance channeling12 has no truly continuous history in terms of ritual framework (as trance
in many other cultural traditions has), the framework for its manifestations is drawn from, or mediated by, those secular interaction rules that are, in general, culturally pertinent to a particular society.”13 For
instance, in the United States and Western Europe, channeling sessions are usually held in the living room of the home, the public part of the house where guests are received, and are scheduled around participants' work weeks. “It can readily be seen that the underlying rules governing social interaction in a private channeling session are those that would pertain to any social gathering in a private home,” Hughes tells us; “These rules are secular in nature in that there is no specifically sacred ritual
demarcating the event.”14 More specifically, she explains, “The mode of interaction associated with
trance-channeling activities is also drawn from the secular realm and might be described as an
intellectual or philosophical conversational mode.”15 Participants sit quietly and converse; questions are
asked and answered; and experiences are examined and interpreted—typically in terms of New Age concepts and beliefs. She goes on to tell us that “Trance channeling is best described as a personal-growth or developmental activity.”16 This characterization is consistent with 'New Age' values
11 Michael F. Brown, The Channeling Zone: American Spirituality in an Anxious Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 18.
12 Hughes refers exclusively to 'trance channeling' in her work (as opposed to simply 'channeling'); this reflects an awareness that some channeling activities take place apparently without the use of trance. These cases will be touched on later, but for now it may be generally assumed that my references to 'channeling' imply some state of trance or otherwise dissociative alteration of consciousness.
13 Dureen J. Hughes, “Blending with an Other: An Analysis of Trance Channeling in the United States,” Ethos 19(2) (1991): 163.
14 Ibid., 164. 15 Ibid., 164.
generally, a topic we will return to in a later section.
As Hastings tells us, “The implication intended by using the word 'channel' is that the person simply transmits the messages from spirits, as an instrument or vehicle, without adding anything of his or her own material […] In modern usage, the connotation is the same: the individual ego mind steps out of the way, and the message comes through unimpeded and unchanged”; from a scholarly, etic perspective, however, “We can only say that the source claims to be a separate being or is experienced by the person in that way.”17 As he points out, “another part of the mind may be forming a secondary
personality, as with people who have multiple personalities, or there may be a dramatization of another aspect of the self”18—hence the obvious association with conditions of dissociation.
Channels today are well aware of the question of whether their channeled material comes from an 'outside' source, as is often implied by the entities themselves, or from 'inside' the channels’ own personalities. Most channels do not find this issue particularly problematic, at least in principle—as we will see in our discussion of New Age beliefs, dichotomous 'either/or' binaries such as 'outer'/'inner' do not hold any strong resonance in New Age ideas about reality. Nonetheless, in the nitty-gritty of
channels' daily lived experience of channeling—particularly when the channel is still new to the phenomenon and inexperienced—the question of how to distinguish 'revelational' knowledge from more ordinary 'unconscious' material can be problematic.
Klimo cites one channel who says that the “'subconscious has a grid through which the entity must express itself', [therefore] one must […] be prepared to consider that a certain amount of what comes through is only the unresolved parts of oneself.”19 “Experienced channeling teachers,” he says,
“are the first to tell us that most of what novice channels think is channeling is rather the product of self-delusion brought on as a result of psychic immaturity. Or, through a kind of self-hypnosis, some so-called channeling is simply imagination creating its own characters.”20 As Hasting concludes, “The
evidence suggests that the person is not purely a vehicle in this process. Whether the entity is from inside the self or from outside, its messages are certainly influenced, even skewed, by the language, beliefs, personality dynamics, and experience of the channel.”21
Hughes refers to this process as a kind of 'blending' of channel and entity. Many channels, too, prefer to describe the experience in these terms. As she tells us, “the channels use the term 'blending' to describe their experience because blending, or merging, both accurately describes to them the trance-17 Hastings, Tongues, 4.
18 Ibid., 4.
19 Klimo, Channeling, 136. 20 Ibid., 321.
21 Hastings, Tongues, 144; note that Hastings is in direct disagreement with Klimo's data when he goes on to state on p. 146: “The channel is rarely aware of this and often rejects the idea.”
channeling process and also connotes the harmony that exists between channel and entity.”22 In
channeling, there is almost never any sense of being 'dominated' by the entity (as in experiences of possession). As Hughes points out, “The idea of domination is qualitatively different from the concept of blending, both in terms of power differentials and choice or 'free will' implications.”23 The blending
process has a direct influence on the form and content of the channeled material; “This aspect of the blending is 'emically' referred to as the entity's use of the channel's 'tool kit', comprising the channel's vocabulary, imagery, symbol system, and other subconscious and unconscious mental structures, as well as the more physical aspects of the body, breath, pineal gland, and so on.”24
Later, we will explore the experience of channeling from an etic perspective based largely in the discipline of psychology and theories of dissociation. First, however, we should be sure to place the topic of channeling in its proper context within the larger New Age movement.
The 'New Age'; channeling in context
The New Age: 'secularized esotericism' of the 'cultic milieu'?
Following Hanegraaff's lead, I will begin a definition of the New Age movement with Colin Campbell's notion of the 'cultic milieu'. The 'cultic milieu', in brief, refers to the way in which 'cultic' groups are continually forming and disbanding with such frequency that any individual group appears “ephemeral and highly unstable,” defying sociological attempts at study and classification. However, the greater cultural milieu in which these groups come and go provides a steady stream of interested individuals to maintain the high membership turnover; “Thus whereas cults are by definition a largely transitory phenomena, the cultic milieu is, by contrast, a constant feature of society.”25
Members of the cultic milieu, however transitory their participation in specific 'cults' or groups, do share some 'unifying tendencies' which lend themselves to analysis. Campbell tells us, “At the basis of the unifying tendencies is the fact that all these worlds share a common position as heterodox or deviant items in relation to the dominant cultural orthodoxies.”26 As such, “there is a prevailing
orientation of mutual sympathy and support, such that the various cultic movements rarely engage in criticism of one another”; rather, they share a “common consciousness of deviance and the need to justify their own views in the light of the expressed ridicule or hostility of the larger society.”27 As a
22 Hughes, “Blending,” 166-7. 23 Ibid., 167.
24 Ibid., 169-70.
25 Campbell, quoted in Hanegraaff, New Age, 15. 26 Ibid., 15.
result of these social and other factors,28 “the fragmentary tendencies present in the milieu because of
the enormous diversity of cultural items are more than counteracted by the continuing pressure to syncretization.”29
These points about the cultic milieu are well worth noting because, as Hanegraaff discovers in his study of the New Age, “a survey of the secondary literature about the New Age movement tends to confirm the profile of the cultic milieu on every page”; his conclusion follows: “With all the available evidence pointing in the same direction, it is natural to conclude that the New Age is either
synonymous with the cultic milieu or that it represents a specific historical stage in the development of it.”30 He further elucidates this fundamental point by clarifying, “It would […] be more correct to say
that the New Age is synonymous with the cultic milieu having become conscious of itself as
constituting a more or less unified 'movement' (although not a 'New Religious Movement' in the normal
sense of the word).”31
Hanegraaff has another important insight to contribute to this definition, one which connects present-day manifestations of the 'cultic milieu' to the historical origins of New Age thought. Although “the New Age movement as a whole can be defined indirectly as based on a common pattern of
criticism directed against dominant cultural trends,” he tells us, “New Age religion formulates such criticism not at random, but falls back on a specific tradition: western esotericism.”32 This is a major
point, and worth quoting in full:
All New Age religion is characterized by the fact that it expresses its criticism of modern western culture by presenting alternatives derived from a secularized esotericism. It adopts from traditional esotericism an emphasis on the primacy of personal religious experience and on this-worldly types of holism (as alternatives to dualism and reductionism), but generally reinterprets esoteric tenets from secularized perspectives. Since the new elements of “causality,” the study of religions, evolutionism, and psychology are fundamental components, New Age religion cannot be characterized as a return to pre-Enlightenment worldviews but is to be seen as a qualitatively new syncretism of esoteric and secular elements. Paradoxically, New Age criticism of modern western culture is expressed to a considerable extent on the premises of that same culture.33
This definition of the New Age movement as essentially synonymous with the cultic milieu, and as a secularized form of esotericism, is extremely useful in understanding why the 'movement' appears
28 Campbell also credits here the common influence of 'the mystical tradition': “Since this tradition emphasizes that the single ideal of unity with the divine can be attained by a diversity of paths it tends to be ecumenical, super-ecclesiastic, syncretistic and tolerant in outlook.” Ibid., 15.
29 Ibid., 15. 30 Ibid., 16.
31 Ibid., 17. Italics and bold in original. 32 Ibid., 515.
so diffuse, diverse, and ephemeral. However, there is still some difficulty in identifying the
fundamental characteristics of such a diverse range of thought. The next section will briefly outline some key elements or principles common to most or all forms of New Age thinking.
New Age 'theology'
New Age thought, first off, is characterized by a kind of epistemological relativism; truth is seen as “ultimately personal and situational,” in Brown's words.34 This means that clear statements of dogma
or absolute belief will be difficult to find. “Yet,” he tells us, “even epistemological relativists must share some basic assumptions about the world. With patient probing, one can find enough common elements to piece together a moral and philosophical framework that qualifies as a theology in the most general sense.”35 Hanegraaff's probing came up with these five basic elements constitutive of New Age
religion: (1) This-worldliness; (2) Holism; (3) Evolutionism; (4) Psychologization of religion and sacralization of psychology; and (5) Expectations of a coming New Age. We only have space to very briefly outline these elements here (some of which will be given further attention in later sections).
'This-worldliness' refers to an experiential focus on 'this world' as opposed to another realm or an afterlife such as 'Heaven'. 'Holism' refers to a belief in the universal interrelatedness of all things, and 'evolutionism' Hanegraaff characterizes as the belief that “All intelligent entities […] are engaged in a process of spiritual evolution which will, presumably, ultimately lead them back to the Ultimate Source.”36 The 'psychologization of religion and sacralization of psychology' is somewhat
self-explanatory; New Age thinking understands religion in basically psychological terms—but since human psychology is viewed as 'sacred', in the sense of being a reflection of the ultimate divine Source, psychology is effectively sacralized. This ties into another important New Age principle, that of
'creating your own reality'—an idea with a solid basis in psychological theories of the relationship between perception, interpretation, and behavior. However, as Hanegraaff tells us, “What distinguishes the New Age belief is its radicality. We create all of our reality, and everything that happens to us has a deeper meaning with respect to ourselves. The only practical limits to our ability to create a perfect reality for ourselves are those imposed by the limits of our self-knowledge and understanding at any given moment.”37 As just mentioned, human psychology is seen as being a reflection of the divine,
therefore this ability to 'create our own reality' ties into the related principle of 'co-creating with God'; 34 Brown, Channeling Zone, 43. Brown gives this example on p. 43-44: “When channeled predictions of natural disaster
prove to be false […], the error is rationalized by speculating that those who believed the warning actually benefited by being jarred out of their complacency. […] False predictions, in other words, contain their own kind of truth.”
35 Ibid., 46-7. 36 Ibid., 123.
“The great goal of existence,” Hanegraaff tells us, “is for human beings to become fully conscious 'co-creators with God'.”38 (Hanegraaff, New Age, 124) Finally, the 'expectation of a coming New Age' is
again somewhat self-explanatory; New Agers often interpret the growth of their own movement as a sign that a 'New Age', representing a higher evolutionary stage in human psychic development, is just over the horizon.
Note on scholarly prejudice against studying the New Age
Certain aspects of the New Age movement are remarkably congruent with Euro-American culture and society generally. The cultic milieu represents a significant and abiding minority within the dominant culture. This is despite the above-mentioned historical roots in 'esotericism'—a catch-all designation for ideas that have often been relegated to 'the dustbin of history'.39 Perhaps this puzzling
popularity is simply due to the fact that these 'esoteric' ideas have been secularized to a certain extent, effectively obscuring their controversial origins. Or perhaps the well-known scholarly bias against seriously considering esoteric concepts is really just that—a scholarly bias, much less in evidence among the general population. If so, this might help explain the residual scholarly bias against studying New Age phenomena in general, despite its obviously tremendous cultural importance.40 Brown
formulates this bias in rather personal terms:
The academic mind, whether of the scientific or humanist persuasion, thrives on distinctions and particulars, whereas New Age thought seeks connection and universals, which are pursued with an enthusiastic holism that disorients thinkers trained in highly specialized disciplines. In those New Age practices that focus on self-improvement, critics see narcissism, political complacency, or victim-blaming. This hostile response may also reflect the similarities, as much as the differences, between New Age ideology and contemporary academic work. The New Age, for instance, celebrates indeterminacy and moral relativism. It has also embraced the rhetoric of personal empowerment that characterizes writing in the humanities today. For many academics, the likeness may be too close for comfort.41
Fortunately, the academic situation as it stands today is somewhat less polarized against 'esoteric' and related ideas than it was at the time of Brown's writing. Still, there appears to be some disconnect between the degree of cultural saliency of New Age thought, and the level of attention afforded the movement in the literature. Having presented an overview of the New Age movement in
38 Ibid., 124.
39 See Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Western Esotericism: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 13: “What initially sets [Western esotericism] apart is its modern status as 'rejected knowledge': it contains precisely everything that has been consigned to the dustbin of history by Enlightenment ideologues and their intellectual heirs up to the present, because it is considered incompatible with normative concepts of religion, rationality and science.” 40 For an historical account of the development of a scholarly bias against the New Age, see Hanegraaff, New Age, 381-2. 41 Brown, Channeling Zone, 10.
general, we will now examine this cultural saliency as it applies specifically to 'channeling'.
Channeling, in American cultural context
As we've seen, the goal of channeling is to connect to 'higher' spiritual planes or entities which can convey information relevant to the seeker's spiritual development. As Brown points out, “The actual form this connection takes, however, reflects characteristically American42 dilemmas about the
self—whether, for instance, it should submit to some authoritative master plan at the expense of personal autonomy or instead blaze its own lonely trail.”43 This is indeed a characteristically American
preoccupation. Brown goes on: “Most channels succeed in having it both ways by appropriating the language of higher authority and using it to exalt the self […]. If the spirit guides often sound like cosmic psychotherapists, laughing at human foibles but rarely offering reproach or criticism, it is because channels and their clients take the therapeutic ethos that so thoroughly permeates our age and project it onto the limitless screen of the universe.”44 We might relate this 'therapeutic ethos' to the
'sacralization of psychology' mentioned earlier as a key element of New Age thought—perhaps this element is also in evidence in the dominant culture, though lacking the more 'esoteric' or radical implications. Brown also cites another concept related to the therapeutic ethos, Robert Bellah's
'therapeutic contractualism'; “Therapeutic contractualism replaces questions of right and wrong with a focus on personal growth. Instead of asking, 'Is this morally right?' Americans increasingly ask, 'Will this meet my personal needs?'”45 This attitude is certainly congruent with the epistemological and moral
relativism of New Age thought, as well as its emphasis on personal growth.
Channeling, then, as opposed to the 'articulated revelations' of other times or cultures, may be seen to reflect typically American liberal democratic ideals of individual sovereignty, freedom, and equality. Brown cites one channel in his study as having “framed his quest in an American idiom when he described channeling as a way of 'redefining who we are'. 'The channeling process', he insisted, 'is about sovereignty.'”46 Hughes also makes a connection between the concept of 'blending' and American
values; she says, “It might be noted that 'blending' suggests a parity between the channel and the entity, which is consistent with 'democratic' ideals symbolic of American society.”47
This liberalism easily extends into the economic sphere as well. The secularized nature of New
42 Although parts of this analysis may resonate also within Euro-American or 'Western' contexts generally, this section will restrict itself to specifically American contexts, due to the sources' own restriction to this field.
43 Ibid., 37. 44 Ibid., 37. 45 Ibid., 139. 46 Ibid., 42.
Age thinking means that channels tend to have a pragmatic attitude towards competition and financial success. As Brown tells us, “A visit to any New Age bookstore reveals that the arena of channeled entities today is so crowded that none can establish a monopoly on cosmic truth. As if designed by Adam Smith, channeling offers a world of perfect competition.”48 Channeling, then, far from being a
'fringe' activity occurring at the edges of society, is actually quite congruent with a number of values absolutely central to American culture. Brown puts it well: “If channeling sometimes looks more like a boutique in the shopping mall of the New Age than it does a religious movement grounded in shared commitment and a sharply defined moral vision, it is because it mirrors so perfectly the society in which it has arisen.”49
Dissociation
We now arrive at the concept of 'dissociation', which is of central importance to the questions framing this research. As such, we are attempting to apply a psychological explanatory framework to the phenomenon of New Age channeling. As Klimo puts it, “Psychology is arguably in the best position to provide a relevant and reasonable contemporary explanation for channeling. It is the chief discipline through which the scientific, analytical mind can attempt to come to terms with subjective,
idiosyncratic material.”50 He says, “To examine channeling within the context of psychology triggers
questions such as: What is the nature of the individual? Where do we draw the line between self and not-self? […] How open or closed is the individual system in this interaction? And what is the unconscious mind?”51
These are indeed very good questions for psychology to address. However it is also important to recognize alternate approaches from other fields—e.g., sociology, anthropology, and religious studies. 'Dissociation' is a term that has been used by researchers across several fields, often in very different and sometimes incommensurable ways. These differences—between what some scholars have summed up as the 'psychiatric-adaptive' and the 'anthropological-discursive' approaches52 to studying
dissociation—will be explored in a later section, as will the conflicts of definition still very much in evidence within the discipline of clinical psychology today. For now, it suffices to describe clinical-psychological understandings of dissociation in a very general, inclusive sense.
48 Brown, Channeling Zone, 132. 49 Ibid., 173.
50 Klimo, Channeling, 208. 51 Ibid., 208.
52 See Rebecca Seligman and Laurence J. Kirmayer, “Dissociative Experience and Cultural Neuroscience: Narrative, Metaphor and Mechanism,” Cult Med Psychiatry 32 (2008): 31-64.
Current understandings
As it is commonly understood today, the degree of dissociation in an individual can vary widely along a spectrum—with widely differing, though fundamentally related, manifestations as a result. On one end of the continuum we may find relatively mild disturbances, such as mysterious, seemingly physical symptoms with no apparent physical cause (somatoform or ‘psychosomatic’ disorders); at the most extreme end is Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), formerly known as 'Multiple Personality Disorder' (MPD), in which the dissociated parts of the individual appear to manifest an entire personality of their own.53Before going any further, we should take careful note of one point: many
approaches to dissociation (particularly those working outside the clinical psychiatric framework) share a tendency to focus almost exclusively on its most extreme and dramatic form—namely, DID/MPD. Many studies refer to dissociation only as DID/MPD, which obscures the myriad manifestations that dissociation may actually take.
Other dissociative disorders, according to the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-V, include 'dissociative amnesia' (“fundamentally an
inability to recall autobiographical information that is inconsistent with normal forgetting”) and 'depersonalization/derealization disorder' (“experiences of unreality or detachment from one's mind, self, or body” and/or “experiences of unreality or detachment from one's surroundings”).54 The manual
also includes categories of 'other specified dissociative disorder' and 'unspecified dissociative disorder', which, one might guess, are not particularly helpful in clarifying what exactly is 'dissociation'. The
DSM-V only gives us a long list of what dissociation may be characterized by (i.e. “a disruption of
and/or discontinuity in the normal integration of consciousness, memory, identity, emotion, perception, body representation, motor control, and behavior”), and tells us that “dissociative disorders are
frequently found in the aftermath of trauma.” In this 5th edition of this widely-used and authoritative
manual, dissociative disorders “are placed next to, but are not part of, the trauma- and stressor-related disorders, reflecting the close relationship between these diagnostic classes.”55 This 'close relationship'
between trauma and dissociation has been in evidence from psychology's earliest investigations into mental disorder, as the following section will show.
53 While some of the authors cited in this text continue to use the outdated term 'Multiple Personality Disorder' or 'multiple personalities', it should be noted that the current term 'Dissociative Identity Disorder' more accurately represents the condition it points to; the problem with 'multiple personalities' is that it implies the existence of not only 'multiple', but fully distinct and complete, personalities in one individual, whereas 'Dissociative Identity Disorder' emphasizes that each of these seemingly distinct personalities are only parts of the greater whole of the individual. 54 American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (Washington, DC:
Historical understandings
The French psychologist and psychotherapist Pierre Janet is credited with pioneering the earliest studies into dissociative disorders. He developed his original concept of dissociation primarily through working with patients who were, at that time, labeled 'hysterical'. As one source tells us, “It was already well known that hysteria often followed stressful life events […] It was Janet, however, who explored and described the role that dissociation plays in posttraumatic hysteria.”56 He found
hysterical symptoms to be organized structurally around a fundamental 'division of the personality' of the subject, such that certain emotionally volatile material was separated and cordoned—incompletely, and only partially successfully—in another part of consciousness. An inner conflict occurs when this emotionally-charged material inevitably intrudes on the primary consciousness, which then reacts with phobic avoidance—generating a plethora of disturbing symptoms.57
Janet developed his theory also in the context of the 19th century Spiritualist movement—now
largely forgotten or overlooked in many accounts—with its attendant phenomenon of 'mediumship', which practically exploded as a widespread, widely-accepted, and politically powerful occurrence throughout Euro-American society.58 Many of the 'founding figures' of psychology were deeply
involved in investigating these phenomena, and developed some of their most enduring and influential theories accordingly. As one author tells us, “The study of mediumistic experiences was crucial to the development of ideas concerning unconscious and dissociative processes. Pierre Janet's classic 1889 study of dissociation examined several mediums; Carl Jung's doctoral thesis was a case study, and William James did meticulous research on the medium Leonore Piper.”59
This intimate historical and conceptual connection—between the origins of theories of
dissociation and the origins of the discipline of psychology itself—warrants a closer look at some of the related psychological theories and concepts of the time. What's more, this connection may be seen to lend a certain special status to dissociation as a potentially paradigm-shifting concept. In the recent publication of 'Exploring Dissociation and Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Roundtable Discussion' (2015), a host of current experts in the field discuss various issues and ideas relating to dissociation.
56 Onno Van der Hart and Rutger Horst, “The Dissociation Theory of Pierre Janet,” Journal of Traumatic Stress 2(4) (1989): 1.
57 Unfortunately there is not space here to explore Janet's early theories in-depth; for a detailed historical overview see the above-cited article by Van der Hart & Horst: 1-11; see also Frank W. Putnam, “Pierre Janet and Modern Views of Dissociation,” Journal of Traumatic Stress 2(4) (1989): 413-429.
58 For an in-depth study into Spiritualism as a political force see Ann Braude, Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women's
Rights in Nineteenth-Century America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989).
59 Julio Fernando Peres, Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Leonardo Caixeta, Frederico Leao, and Andrew Newberg,
“Neuroimaging during Trance State: A Contribution to the Study of Dissociation,” PLOS One 7(11) (2012): 1. For more information see also Carlos S. Alvarado and Stanley Krippner, “Nineteenth Century Pioneers in the Study of
This paradigm-shifting quality of the dissociation model is one topic that garners wide assent: Dissociative disorders, if you recognize and understand them, significantly threaten the core body of knowledge in which people have been trained. […] I sometimes think of dissociation like quantum mechanics versus Newtonian physics. If you're not ready to see it, you can't see it; it's conceptual. Once you see it, you can't ignore it; it's the way you think—and in a way that transcends the issue of whether it's a disorder or not.60
Another roundtable participant states, “I think it's reasonable to say as an analogy that
dissociative disorders are to psychiatry what syphilis was to internal medicine at the beginning of the 20th century. It is the great imposter. It shows up all over the place.”61 Dissociation, then, is an
exceptionally important concept in the history of psychology. It ties in with ideas about the nature of the unconscious and challenges some of those ideas in significant ways. “One of the things we're saying,” as one expert chimes in, “is that you can't really talk about this separate from the historical, social, political context.”62 With this in mind, we proceed to an overview of some historically
competing—and complementary—theories on dissociation and the nature of consciousness.
Related theories: Freud and 'repression'
For an overview of the history of the shifting paradigms of psychological theory regarding the 'splitting of consciousness', we will refer to an article by Richard J. Castillo. As he argues in 'Part 1: Theoretical Backround' of his study on spirit possession in south Asia, one major factor in the decline of dissociative theory was “the growing popularity of the psychoanalytic method […] which essentially denied the possibility of multiple consciousnesses, and discounted the value of hypnosis in therapy. Freud substituted the mechanism of repression for dissociation, thereby providing a coherent alternative conception for psychological phenomena observed in hysterical patients.”63 He goes on:
“[Freud's] interpretation of the splitting of consciousness was founded on the idea of active repression [which] implies the existence of psychological forces which produce and maintain a repressive barrier against recall of information that is somehow unacceptable to consciousness.”64 This may sound similar
to a theory of dissociation, but there are key differences. Repression is conceptualized as a regressive “defense mechanism, protecting the ego from unacceptable ideas and impulses”; whereas dissociation may be pathological, in Castillo's assessment “it is not a defense mechanism in the Freudian sense, and 60 Karen Hopenwasser, quoted in Sheldon Itzkowitz et al., “Exploring Dissociation and Dissociative Identity Disorder: A
Roundtable Discussion,” Psychoanalytic Perspectives 12 (2015): 58. 61 Richard Chefetz, Ibid., 61.
62 Hopenwasser, Ibid., 61.
63 Richard J. Castillo, “Spirit Possession in South Asia, Dissociation or Hysteria? Part 1: Theoretical Background,”
can be thought of as a psychological process adaptive for other purposes in varying social situations and cultural contexts, for example, religious practices.”65 Also, in repression, the Freudian unconscious
is only accessible through indirect means, such as dream interpretation; “By contrast, in dissociation theory, once the dissociated part of consciousness has been uncovered it is possible to converse directly
with the secondary consciousness.”66 This point in particular is significant for our later analysis of
channeling via dissociation theory. Castillo states the basic hypothesis clearly: “This is what occurs when one converses with a multiple personality, once the dissociated personality has emerged, and also, I will submit, when one converses with a 'spirit' or 'demon' possessing an individual.”67
Another key disagreement between Freud and Janet also involved the status of unconscious material. Castillo tells us, “[...] dissociation theory considers mental processes unknown to the primary consciousness with their own self-awareness and sense of identity as a separate secondary
consciousness. Freudian theory is unwilling to grant these psychological processes the status of a separate consciousness [...]”68 For Freud, Castillo argues, “consciousness had to be a functioning unity
and what is not known to the primary consciousness had simply been labelled by Freud the
'unconscious'.”69 As to cases of 'double conscious' or 'splitting of consciousness', as the phenomenon
was known then, this was simply a matter of the one unitary consciousness focusing itself within, or upon, one or another superficially cordoned group of mental activities in turn. However, as Castillo points out, this explanation neglected to account for observed cases of “simultaneous multiple consciousnesses.”70
One more major area of disagreement—and controversy, then as now—involves the empirical status of traumatic memories, especially those recalling childhood sexual abuse. Originally, Freud granted that 'grave sexual injuries' were inflicted on many of his patients in childhood, but later, as Castillo explains, he “had an abrupt change of reasoning and published a recantation of his earlier ideas. 'I overestimated the frequency of these occurrences. … I have since learned to unravel many a fantasy of seduction and found it to be an attempt at defense against the memory of sexual activities practiced by the child himself—the masturbation of children'.”71 In other words, Freud decided that, in
most cases, the sexual abuse his patients reported was mere fantasy. As Castillo explains, he “simply could not believe that such perverted acts against children could be so common.”72
65 Ibid., 10. 66 Ibid., 8. 67 Ibid., 8. 68 Ibid., 9. 69 Ibid., 8-9. 70 Ibid., 9. 71 Ibid., 10. 72 Ibid., 10.
This is significant, because Freud based his whole 'Oedipus Complex' theory on this assumption of the 'masturbation of children', with resounding consequences for the subsequent development of psychological theory and treatment. As one of the participants in the roundtable discussion mentioned earlier agrees, “Freud's early renunciation of his first etiology of hysteria in which he linked child abuse to the symptoms of hysteria and then renounced it in favor of the Oedipal complex... That's been hard for people to give up on.”73 We now know that the sexual abuse of children is disturbingly common.74
And virtually all patients with seemingly 'multiple personalities' have experienced such childhood abuse—either sexual, physical, or both—to an extreme degree.
Nonetheless, the Freudian paradigm of repression—and the particular ideas about the 'unconscious' it is wedded to—remains a dominant force to be reckoned with in accounting for phenomena of seemingly dual or multiple consciousnesses. As Klimo tells us, “Freud explained
channeling-like phenomena in terms of wish fulfillment and the reemergence of material repressed into the unconscious.”75 The voices and visions of channeling could be interpreted as “repressed material
unavailable to the conscious mind that seeks ways to get by the gate-guarding mechanism”; this material might then somehow present itself as a different self. However, as he points out, “Many cases […] do not fit this view easily, because the content channeled cannot be explained as part of the individual's repressed psychic material in any of the ways acceptable to the psychoanalytical view.”76
Related theories: Jung and the 'collective unconscious'
Next we will briefly examine Carl Jung's views on the nature of the 'unconscious' and on cases of the 'splitting of consciousness'. Jungian theories often do not garner much attention in the clinical literature, but they come particularly to the fore in popular accounts—especially of extraordinary cases such as channeling. Channels are certainly more likely to emically describe their experiences in Jungian terms than by way of any other psychological theory. New Age thought, in fact, frequently refers to Jungian principles—from which its 'sacralization of psychology' element might be partially traced.
Jungian psychology is known for its emphasis on the individual quest for wholeness (i.e. 'individuation'), and a focus on symbolic and 'mythical' forces at work in the human psyche. These 73 Howell, quoted in Itzkowitz et al., “Exploring Dissociation,” 61.
74 While assessing the frequency of childhood sexual abuse is complicated by many factors, studies consistently suggest that at least 4.5% of adults in the United States experienced such abuse. See Jon M. Hussey et al., “Child Maltreatment in the United States: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Adolescent Health Consequences,” Pediatrics: Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics 118(3) (2006): 933 -942. The frequency of sexual abuse is much higher for women
in particular, up to 32.4%. See John Briere & Diana M Elliott, “Prevalence and psychological sequelae of self-reported childhood physical and sexual abuse in a general population sample of men and women,” Child Abuse & Neglect 27(10) (2003): 1205–1222.
forces are thought to work primarily on an unconscious level. Neurosis results from a disharmony between the inner, unconscious processes and the outer personality; the goal of therapy is to bring problematic unconscious material to conscious awareness, as a first step towards total personality integration.77 Jung's perspective is highly relevant because of his characterization of consciousness as
naturally and inherently divided, regardless of any neurosis. Robin Robertson, in her article, 'Inner Voices: The Shadow and Other Inner Personalities' (2013), explains:
Though virtually all the literature on MPD treats it as exclusively a pathological condition […] Jung took a different stance. He felt that the psyche inherently organizes emotional issues into
complexes, which then inevitably took personified form. All change in the psyche takes place
through the formation of such inner figures and the conscious ego's engagement with them through dreams and fantasies. Without taking a personified form, there is virtually no way for consciousness to confront these issues.78
It is easy to see, then, how a Jungian paradigm might be an attractive framework in which to explain something like channeling. On cases of mediumship and spirit possession, Klimo informs us, Jung “concluded that 'spirits […] are unconscious autonomous complexes which appear as projections because they have have no direct contact with the ego'.”79 These projections might originate in the
famous Jungian 'shadow'—which one might easily associate with 'repressed' or 'dissociated' parts of one's own personality. However, Jungians maintain that the the shadow is “only partially composed of undeveloped parts of your own personality; it has a collective aspect as well.”80
This brings us to one other famous Jungian concept: the 'collective unconscious'. Jung's
'archetypes' (universal, primordial symbols in the human psyche) are thought to reside primarily in this collective realm, and “Channeling, by this view, might be the individual tapping into the material of this racial memory.”81 Another attractive feature of Jung's theory for New Agers, then, may relate to this
implied rejection of a firm duality between self/other, or individual/collective. This allows for a potential interface between the ordinary self and other, vastly different realms of being. Robertson's conclusion is typical of a Jungian perspective: “When active imagination causes us to encounter collective personalities who are clearly separate from us,” she tells us, “we are able to experience powers and abilities impossible in any other way.”82
77 For a Jungian therapeutic perspective on the treatment of dissociative disorders, see Donald Kalsched, The Inner World
of Trauma: Archetypal Defenses of the Personal Spirit (New York: Routledge, 1996).
78 Robin Robertson, “Inner Voices: The Shadow and Other Inner Personalities.” Psychological Perspectives 56 (2013): 293-4.
79 Klimo, Channeling, 216. 80 Robertson, “Inner Voices,” 306. 81 Klimo, Channeling, 217. 82 Robertson, “Inner Voices,” 307.
Key terms & ideas
Before continuing further, it may be helpful to clarify a few additional ideas which often appear in the literature on dissociation and channeling. These are: (1) the apparent similarity of trance states induced by hypnosis and trance states in channeling; (2) the concept of 'absorption' and its possible connection to dissociative trance states; and (3) the links between 'disorganized attachment', trauma, and dissociation. These points will be explored as briefly as clarity allows, since the main task of analyzing a proposed dissociative mechanism underlying the experience of channeling must still follow.
Hypnosis and trance states
There is a large body of literature exploring the nature of trance states induced by hypnosis.83
Many of the early pioneers of psychology also took a keen interest in hypnosis, which emerged as a therapeutic and experimental practice around the same time that theories of dissociation were being developed. Today, some researchers find in hypnosis a convincing explanation for how channeling might operate on a cognitive level. Hypnotic suggestion, so the argument goes, “can create a functional dissociation that reduces conflict between otherwise incompatible cognitive processes, allowing
potentially contradictory streams of information processing to peacefully co-exist.”84 Such a state of
'functional dissociation' might allow for other parts of the personality to manifest, which would
otherwise remain irreconcilable and thus hidden. “There is a possibility,” Klimo tells us, “that a channel is a self-hypnotized person communicating with sources that he, she, or others have suggested and that are unavailable to anyone else.”85 He quotes research psychologist Charles Tart as claiming: “From my
studies with hypnosis, I know that I can set up an apparently independent existent entity whose
characteristics are constructed to my specification. And the person hypnotized will experience that as if it's something outside of his own consciousness talking.”86 This is an extraordinary claim which,
unfortunately, we do not have the space to explore in this research.
Absorption
'Absorption' is another term that one frequently encounters in the literature, which also is linked to studies of hypnosis. The term was coined by Tellegen and Atkinson in their 1974 study of hypnotic
83 See, for example, any number of studies in The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, or The International Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
84 Seligman & Kirmayer, “Dissociative Experience,” 47. 85 Klimo, Channeling, 222.
susceptibility. Absorption is defined here as “a disposition for having episodes of 'total' attention that fully engage one's representational (i.e., perceptual, enactive, imaginative, and ideational) resources”; they go on, “This kind of attentional functioning is believed to result in a heightened sense of the reality of the attentional object, imperviousness to distracting events, and an altered sense of reality in general, including an empathically altered sense of self.”87 Another author tells us, “In other words, a
high absorption disposition signifies that the individual is prone to having his/her attentional system fully absorbed by whatever mental process that is under execution at any given moment, whether it be his/her own imagination or some external stimulus.”88 Hypnotic susceptibility has been closely linked
to this propensity for absorption.
This 'high absorption disposition' has also been invoked to explain non-pathological forms of dissociation, and as a proposed causal link between dissociation and channeling. A high capacity for absorption has been linked to both creativity (including 'mystical' experiences) and schizotypy.89 The
authors explain this by way of “the theory that absorption has two sides, an integrative and a more disintegrative side.”90 They tell us, “The mediation of absorption suggested that it is the capacity to
become intensely absorbed in both inner and outer experiences […] that allows them to have classical mystical experiences.”91
Another study looks specifically at absorption capacity in a New Age sample. The authors argue, “Phenotypically, the New Age movement is replete with activities, experiences, and beliefs that would seem to suggest that propensities for dissociation in general and absorption in particular are disproportionately common.”92 Examples of New Age activities related to absorption include
hypnosis-based practices, out-of-body experiences, and other deliberately-sought trance states. The authors conclude, “These examples illustrate not only that many New Agers may be personally disposed to experience an unusual degree of dissociation, but also that such states are encouraged and subjected to affirmative metaphysical interpretations within the realm of many New Age practices...”93 There is
actually some disagreement over whether absorption really should be considered as inherently dissociative, or as a separate, but related, capacity—this question will be addressed in greater detail later.
87 Auke Tellegen & Gilbert Atkinson, “Openness to Absorbing and Self-Altering Experiences ('Absorption'), A Trait Related to Hypnotic Susceptibility,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 83(3) (1974): 268.
88 Pehr Granqvist, Mari Fransson and Berit Hagekull, “Disorganized attachment, absorption, and new age spirituality: a mediational model,” Attachment & Human Development 11(4) (2009): 388-89.
89 See Kerri Michalica and Harry Hunt, “Creativity, Schizotypicality, and Mystical Experience: An Empirical Study,”
Creativity and Research Journal 25(3) (2013), 266-279.
90 Ibid., 274. 91 Ibid., 276.
92 Granqvist et al., “Disorganized attachment,” 389. 93 Ibid., 389.
Disorganized attachment
'Disorganized attachment' is the last key concept we should preemptively describe here, as it will be of great significance to our later analysis of the Jane Roberts case. An 'unresolved', 'insecure', or 'disorganized' attachment style refers to a particular, dysfunctional style of interaction between a child and his/her caregiver. This dysfunction originates in the caregiver, who behaves in a highly inconsistent manner toward the child—sometimes loving and affirming, sometimes neglectful or abusive. This sort of interaction can be severely traumatizing, especially if it occurs frequently and at an early
developmental age of the child.
Pehr Granqvist and colleagues, in their article, 'Disorganized attachment, absorption, and new age spirituality: a mediational model' (2009), describe “the behavioural paradox in which children find themselves when their caregivers are simultaneously the source of alarm (e.g., due to being abusive, frightening, or dissociative) and the only possible solution to it (i.e., because the offspring is pre-programmed to turn to his/her stronger and wiser attachment figure to deal with potential danger).”94
This paradox has serious consequences: “a positive feedback loop is created behaviourally, with inescapable fear (fear without a solution) as a likely psychological outcome.”95 This is exactly the kind
of early familial situation that research has shown to be prevalent in patients diagnosed with the most severe and elaborate dissociative disorder, DID.
Disorganized attachment, then, has been clearly linked to dissociative capacity and the failure to resolve traumatic events later in life. The authors of this study also link disorganized attachment to New Age beliefs generally; they say, “We argue that unresolved/disorganized (U/d) attachment in adulthood is linked to New Age spiritual activities and beliefs via a proposed mediator: the propensity to enter altered states of consciousness (absorption/dissociation).”96 Disorganized attachment in
childhood is linked to 'absorption/dissociation',97 which in turn is found to predispose the adult to be
attracted to New Age spirituality. Beliefs in the 'paranormal' are also rather tenuously linked to trauma in this argument; “as in the case of disorganized attachment, a disproportionately high percentage of individuals who have had paranormal experiences or who hold affirmative beliefs about the paranormal also have experienced abuse as well as other forms of severe trauma.”98
These conclusions may appear to reduce New Age beliefs to a matter of dysfunction and
pathology, but the authors are quick to offer alternative interpretations. “More generally,” they say, “the 94 Ibid., 386.
95 Ibid., 386. 96 Ibid., 385.
study findings illustrate how a failed resolution of trauma and the related propensity to experience an altered consciousness may be expressed in other life domains besides psychopathology, specifically in the domain of people's spiritual beliefs and activities.”99 They also suggest that, “given that
disorganized […] attachment tend[s] to stem from adverse attachment histories and to be associated with maladaptive outcomes […], it is possible that active involvement in the New Age movement may at least have buffered some negative effects that might have resulted in the absence of such
involvement...”100 This last point will be useful to recall later in our case study of Jane Roberts. Now,
we will move on to explore a particular theory of dissociation which has gained some prominence in current clinical understandings.
Seeking conceptual clarity: 'trauma-related structural dissociation of the
personality' theory
In their important and somewhat disputed article, 'Trauma-related dissociation: conceptual clarity lost and found' (2004), Onno van der Hart and colleagues argue that “Conceptual clarity regarding trauma-related dissociation is urgently needed.”101 They state this position very strongly
indeed, declaring, “There is pervasive misunderstanding of the nature of dissociation.”102 Henceforth,
the authors have consistently advanced their own variation of the theory of dissociation, termed '[trauma-related/-based] structural dissociation of the personality'. This research will give particular attention to the structural dissociation of the personality theory, as it appears to be the most clear and systematic approach to dissociation currently available in the literature.
Key point: conceptual overinclusiveness
First we will look at the authors' critique of how the term dissociation is typically used. As they tell us, “There are currently so many confusing and often contradictory definitions of dissociation that the concept has become very problematic. […] The range of symptoms that are now described as dissociative has become so broad that the category has lost its specificity.”103 For example, “in
contemporary psychology and psychiatry, the term dissociation can now pertain to (a) symptoms; (b) a presumed cause of symptoms, including a presumed function such as psychological defense […]; and 99 Ibid., 396.
100 Ibid., 398.
101 Onno Van der Hart et al., “Trauma-related dissociation: conceptual clarity lost and found,” Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry 38 (2004): 906.
102 Ibid., 906.
103 Onno Van der Hart, Ellert Nijenhuis and Kathy Steele, The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of
(c) normal and pathological alterations of consciousness, including hypnosis. It often remains unclear which of these possible uses is intended, and in most empirical and clinical studies the term goes undefined.”104 The upshot of this conceptual confusion is that a great variety of possibly related, but
fundamentally different, phenomena have come to be conflated with dissociation; “The term
dissociation is used not only to indicate 'true' dissociative symptoms, such as dissociative amnesia, but also non-dissociative phenomena, such as absorption.”105 Some of the sources cited in the discussion of
absorption above clearly fall into this category.
This kind of 'conceptual overinclusiveness', as the authors put it, is rampant in much of the literature. One major point of conflation involves the common characterization of dissociation as an 'alteration in consciousness'. “Phenomena such as absorption, spaciness, daydreaming, imaginative involvement, altered time sense and trance-like behaviour represent alterations in consciousness,”106 the
authors argue. Some such alterations—like 'spaciness', i.e., a vague and dreamy state—may occur frequently as a relatively ‘normal’ feature of shifting consciousness. Maladaptive or pathological alterations in consciousness are also quite common in a wide range of mental disorders, not all of which can be classified as 'dissociative'; “However,” Van der Hart and colleagues point out, “most authors regard these alterations as dissociative phenomena when they are related to traumatization, but they are not considered dissociative in other mental disorders.”107 In other words, the presence of
trauma is assumed a causal mechanism of dissociation to the extent that this alone might dispose the researcher to believe that the alteration of consciousness in question must be related to dissociation. While this might very well be true in many cases (the structural dissociation model is itself strongly 'trauma-based', as we'll see), the alteration of consciousness remains conceptually distinct from the underlying dissociative mechanism, according to this revised theory of dissociation.
This issue of alterations in consciousness also ties in to the question of whether there is such a thing as 'non-pathological' dissociation. In the literature, “Milder forms are referred to as 'normal dissociation' (as in temporary loss of concentration while driving) and extreme forms as 'pathological dissociation'.”108 A minor and short-lived alteration of consciousness certainly need not be considered
pathological. But again, the authors argue, the focus on alterations of consciousness is missing the point: “temporary loss of concentration, shifts in attentional focus and other alterations of
consciousness, do not in themselves imply the existence of dissociative parts of the personality, that is, 104 Ellert R.S. Nijenhuis and Onno Van der Hart, “Dissociation in Trauma: A New Definition and Comparison with
Previous Formulations,” Journal of Trauma and Dissociation 12 (2011): 417. 105 Van der Hart et al., “Trauma-related,” 906.
106 Ibid., 907. 107 Ibid., 907.
structural dissociation.”109
To sum up: “Alterations in consciousness […] typically accompany structural dissociation, but involve conceptually different phenomena. The former involves failure to attend to particular stimuli, such that they are never encoded, while the latter involves memorization of particular stimuli in a dissociative part of the personality, making these stimuli potentially retrievable.”110 Recall the early
conflict between Freud and Janet on the nature of 'unconscious' material; this is an old debate. In true structural dissociation of the personality, as it is conceptualized here, the apparently 'lost' memory or experience still resides in another part of the personality—and can, in theory, be directly accessed.
Key point: conceptual underinclusiveness
Van der Hart and colleagues also argue that common definitions of dissociation are
underinclusive in several important respects. They elaborate the difference between 'negative' and 'positive' symptoms—that is, symptoms seeming to indicate a loss of something (e.g., memory, motor control, skills), versus symptoms which are intrusive (e.g., voice-hearing, the intrusion of traumatic memories). They say, “Contemporary literature has recognized only a limited number of dissociative negative symptoms […] Few authors have identified their counterparts, that is, positive dissociative symptoms, but most have not.”111
This oversight is related to another set of key distinctions in the structural dissociation theory:
psychoform versus somatoform symptoms. The authors explain, “Most contemporary views of
dissociative symptoms only recognize psychoform dissociation, that is, dissociation of mental functions pertaining to memory, consciousness, and identity […] The fact that dissociative symptoms also pertain to functions of movement, sensation, and perception, that is, somatoform dissociation, has been largely overlooked for long periods of time.”112 Somatoform symptoms of dissociation can be negative (e.g.,
loss of sensation in certain parts of the body) or positive (e.g., feelings of physical pain or other sensations related to the activation of traumatic memories). Positive manifestations of somatoform symptoms are typically the least recognized as structurally dissociative in origin.
In contrast, Van der Hart and colleagues have consistently advanced a model of dissociation based strongly in the original theory, as they understand it, of Pierre Janet. Some of the main figures in this historical development have already been presented above, but there is another who has not yet 109 Ibid., 907.
110 Ibid., 908. 111 Ibid., 908.
112 Ibid., 908. The authors also mention here the discontinuity between early historical and current ideas of dissociative symptoms, noting, “This oversight is remarkable, since somatoform dissociative symptoms were regarded as major symptoms of hysteria and later, of shellshock in World War I.”
