Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Diagnosed with Complex Trauma and a Dissociative Disorder, Emma and her system share what they learn along the way about complex trauma, dissociation (CPTSD, OSDD, DID, Dissociative Identity Disorder (Multiple Personality), etc.), and mental health. Educational, supportive, inclusive, and inspiring, System Speak documents her healing journey through the best and worst of life in recovery through insights, conversations, and collaborations.
Over:
Speaker 2:Welcome to the System Speak Podcast, a podcast about Dissociative Identity Disorder. If you are new to the podcast, we recommend starting at the beginning episodes and listen in order to hear our story and what we have learned through this endeavor. Current episodes may be more applicable to longtime listeners and are likely to contain more advanced topics, emotional or other triggering content, and or reference earlier episodes that provide more context to what we are currently learning and experiencing. As always, please care for yourself during and after listening to the podcast. Thank you.
Speaker 2:In the previous episode, we share an article we had written. Here's what happened next.
Speaker 1:That is the article I submitted to the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation. After submitting it, I was required to make edits three different times. So the version that I read and that is on the blog is the edited version after that series of edits. This is very common and normal and appropriate for publishing an article in a journal. Once it was then accepted for review, the article went to reviewers who are not disclosed to me, but these readers review the article and suggest edits prior to publication or deny the article for publication.
Speaker 1:After the reviewers send their feedback back to the editor of the journal, then that editor lets us know if the article is accepted or denied for publication. And if it is accepted, what edits are required prior to it being published. So I am really proud of us because we went through that entire process, and we made it all the way to the reviewers, and we did all the work of editing and editing and editing. This took about three months, the entire process. But in the end, it was denied publication, and I will read that denial.
Speaker 1:05/01/2021. Dear Doctor. Christensen, I received reviews of your submission, Ethics Cultural Competency Regarding the Online Community of Plurality. The reviews are pasted below. Both of the reviewers felt that you had some interesting concepts in this paper but had significant concerns about the suitability manuscript for JTD.
Speaker 1:I agree with the reviewers that you have some intriguing and potentially important ideas, but I find that the manuscript is not well suited for the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation. Therefore, after careful consideration, I am unable to assign your submission sufficient priority to allow publication in the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation. I do trust you will find a different venue for this work that is better suited for this important set of issues. I am sorry that this is not better news for you. Unfortunately, the Journal of Trauma Dissociation receives many notorious submissions it cannot accept.
Speaker 1:I appreciate receiving your manuscript and having the opportunity to consider it. I hope these comments will be useful to you as you continue to pursue these issues. Thank you for considering the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation for your work. And that is from the editor who I didn't realize was the editor. And then I felt terrible because the editor was someone I was trying to get on the podcast because I think she has a good story that should be included as part of our historical narrative on the podcast in gathering the history and talking about the gaps between clinician and survivor.
Speaker 1:Right? Except now she cannot be on the podcast because I submitted an article and I can't pay her to be on the podcast anyway. So all of those pieces came into clarity for me understanding who was who and I felt terrible. I had bothered anyone about it. But the article was important and I tried to share it.
Speaker 1:The issue now is that the article cannot be published. And here is why. Because the topic is so specific to DID, the other journals denied it and suggested the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation. But the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation is being so quantitative that a qualitative article like this is rejected and for the other reasons about suitability and the correct venue. So the only venue I'm left is Frontiers, which would have included more academic but also qualitative kinds of articles and reflections, but that is not published anymore.
Speaker 1:So I'm, like, years too late to be able to share what is important to share right now. So really, the only venue I have left is my own, which is the podcast. So what I'm going to do is read the article on the podcast, which you've now heard, and I'm going to publish it on the blog so people can reference it. And I'm going to submit it to the listserv so people can read it because I literally don't know what else to do. So if I did something wrong or inappropriate, I apologize, But I don't know in this scenario how else to reference it.
Speaker 1:So I cannot research because I don't have associations with a review board. I cannot publish because what I'm saying is qualitative instead of quantitative and the suitability and venue becomes an issue. So the only thing I have left, I have two choices left. One, I can continue to present to those who will listen, and I can do that on the podcast and at conferences. So really, that's just where I'm gonna focus.
Speaker 1:Like, I am going to just put my energy into doing those things well because that is my lot in life. And instead of arguing about it or getting super upset, I'm gonna go with the roses and the thorns. Right? And I can accept both things, that both things are true, that these are all good people, but they have a very specific and limited focus, which I think is unfortunate and disagree with. But that also makes for a really high quality journal, and that is also true.
Speaker 1:And so I will take my high quality elsewhere, and I will just do it in the ways that I can. So what I have access to are the podcast and presenting to those who will listen in all kinds of conferences. I don't just mean ISSTD, although, obviously, they're my current favorite because they have done so much for me personally in their presentations and the courses that they taught and how much I've learned about DID and how much I've been able to help my own clients. Like, this is good stuff. And so I'm just gonna go with it, and I'm just gonna keep going forward.
Speaker 1:And I apologize if sharing any of this was inappropriate, but if they officially reject my article, then it's still my article. And so this is my venue. So if I'm supposed to find an appropriate venue, then this is it. And I'm sharing it here, and I'm going to publish it on the listservs just so that it's out there and it can be referenced, and they can reference it as a personal communication if they want to. I'm going to put it in my book.
Speaker 1:We have already started our next book. We are doing a workbook for survivors, and we are doing a clinical book about what we have learned. And so we're just gonna put it all there and keep doing our own venue that way. But I'm really proud of us for trying because that was brave. I've never done that before.
Speaker 1:I had to learn about the process and how it works. And even though we were rejected, miserably rejected, we did it and we tried and we submitted and we spoke up, which was brave and took courage. And I will be my own institution of courage. And I am really proud of us. I'm proud of me that we did it and that we tried and that we did the work of all the editing.
Speaker 1:And, it's not perfect. And, it could be edited more. And in fact, we got good reviews. So the first reviewer said, this is really interesting paper on important development for research and practice in the dissociative disorders, the development of online networks of people living with or identifying with DID. However, I think the paper requires further development, which I will.
Speaker 1:I'm going to turn the paper into a book. I just wanted people like, there are people doing research right now, and we could save so much time if we just get the language in. It just the language has to be there to be able to be referenced for there to be research about it. Like, it's a ridiculous, intellectually elite, oppressive, aggressive loop that is so mirroring of the abuse dynamic. It's not even funny.
Speaker 1:And so we'll just keep going, and we'll write our own book, and then we can develop it there. So I I I totally agree. I totally agree. They said the paper would benefit from significant restructuring and revisioning. The author should self reflexively situate herself in terms of her role within the plural community.
Speaker 1:The principle of self is important when an author is writing on topics they are actively involved in shaping. I don't even know what that means. I'm gonna have to look that up and figure out what they're talking about. Opening the article by acknowledging the positionality of the author and her role in this community would reduce confusion. I think that's true.
Speaker 1:I can agree with that. I the reason I chose not to for two reasons. One, people who are interested in this narrow of a topic know who I am. And so when I have a limited amount of words, like my paper can only be so many words, then I'm not going to spend the opening paragraphs talking about myself. Like, don't have time.
Speaker 1:I don't there's there's not time to just devote a lot of words to explaining who I am and why it matters. And so in this context, that's why I chose not to, and I think that was the right choice. In a book, I would have all the space that I want, and I can do that more directly. So I totally accept and agree with this point, but it was not possible in the confines of the article with the edits and the word limit. The second reason that I opened the article differently is because I can't just walk into a clinical community and say, hey.
Speaker 1:Y'all are treating us wrong, and that's not okay anymore. It's not gonna work. I can't do that. What I had to do was lay the foundation of why it ethically matters that clinicians have cultural humility in regards to plurality. And so what I had to do was literally step by step from an actual even dictionary definition of ethics, like, out why it matters and what evidence there's already there because the whole point is bridging the gap.
Speaker 1:The gap is the online community and the plurality culture and what are we gonna do about it or not. Like, everyone is so scared and so tiptoeing around it. No one is addressing it. And it's going to like, it's gonna be ugly if we don't address it directly. And we are grown ups.
Speaker 1:We don't need to be afraid of it clinically. And as a community, we can't be bullies. There are ways to do this appropriately and professionally to bridge that gap and get the sites talking. And we should know this as therapists who do this very thing in therapy and other relationships. It's the same with our communities.
Speaker 1:We should be able to talk about it. And so I made it an ethical issue, a competence issue, and a cultural humility issue. And that's where I opened it. Because if I can't connect what I'm trying to say to the clinical community itself, then it doesn't stand a chance in being said. It has to be said in that context, and those are the links that are very real and valid.
Speaker 1:And that's why I open with that. But the reviewer said, at the moment, the paper is pitched as a clinical and ethical guidance but regularly shifts into insider discussion about the dynamics of plural community. I appreciate that the author has a dual role as a self identified plural as well as a clinician, which only strengthens the argument for a more self reflexive piece. And, again, I really think that was be I agree. That's totally right and accurate what they're saying.
Speaker 1:First of all, that's very plural. Like, how very plural of you to write an article that bounces between voices. Like, that makes sense that that would happen. Right? But I think I can do what they're saying more effectively from my own book without word limitations because I can't do it in the same way clinically, but also giving information.
Speaker 1:Like, there's a gap there. That's the whole point is that there's a gap. And if you wanna talk about integration or fusion, like, we have to blend this together. And so there's going to be some bouncing back and forth, but I think we can do that. Like the like the editor said, in a different venue, we can do that more effectively.
Speaker 1:Secondly, the article needs to address its own assumptions. The article hinges on the assertion that the online networks of people living with DID constitute a single culture and community. I think it is more accurate to say that the internet and social media has enabled people living with DID to meet each other, interact, and form networks and organizations in a way that wasn't possible before. However, a dissociation hashtag on Twitter is not a community in the same way that a subreddit or nongovernment organization is a community, nor do these different communities share the same members and the same culture. I think that that is false.
Speaker 1:Think that is someone who doesn't understand hashtags on Twitter. It's not just that they're trending. It is that these people literally meet every week for a live discussion and know each other and get to know each other and have done this for years and years and years. So if your consult group is a community, then someone who goes to hashtag DID chat on Twitter every week for a decade, that is also a community. Like, I'm just gonna disagree with that.
Speaker 1:It's well recognized in digital sociology and humanities that different online platforms promote different kinds of cultures and appeal to different groups of users. YouTube is different from Reddit, is different from Twitter. I absolutely agree with that, but I also said in the article that like never before, these platforms came together and the leaders of the communities came together and talked about these issues across platforms and across cultures. So saying the online community as a whole, referencing and acknowledging these subgroups, I think that the paper did do that. They say some online cultural dynamics can be quite destructive, such as YouTube can make a spectacle out of mental health conditions by privileging users with dramatic switches between alters, while users with less dramatic presentations receive fewer views and less attention.
Speaker 1:I absolutely agree with that, and I talked about that in previous versions of the article, but it was part of what was cut in the word limits and the editing process. So, again, I can expand on that in a longer context and when I'm able to talk about it as a book or without such limitations. They say the formation of personal identity around psychological conditions can also have counter therapeutic impacts. For instance, I've seen Tumblr posts from people with DID that have given other users tips on how to dissociate and become dissociative where dissociation is almost fetishized. I've spoken to clinicians treating young people who have presented in an unusual fashion for treatment, insisting that they have DID, although they don't meet criteria for it, after spending considerable time in online DID communities.
Speaker 1:I also agree with that, and that is also part of what was cut from the paper. And, again, with a longer context, I think we could talk about this differently and is part of what I already had in it. The paper treats culture and community as a wholly positive and opposes any critical view as lacking cultural competency. The paper would benefit from more nuance and complexity in this respect. I don't think a a critical view of the online community is dismissed in the paper at all.
Speaker 1:I think the limitations of that are stated. And, again, in a longer context with more words, we could absolutely expand on that. But the point of the paper was acknowledging that it even exists. So we can't criticize what doesn't exist. We first have to agree that it does exist, and then we can look at the pros and cons.
Speaker 1:That's the issue with the paper. Three key clinical implications presented by the paper are useful, but they need further development. The paper reads as a defense of a particular community rather than providing evidence based explanatory guidance. The note on linguistics is a case in point. Clinicians should be familiar with the terminology of plurals if that is how their client identifies, but most people living with DID do not use this term and have no connection to the online plural community.
Speaker 1:That's absolutely true. But there's also thousands and thousands and thousands of people who are and understanding that and understanding what's happened, even the critical pieces. I'm not saying everything that's happening is good. I'm saying some of it is really dangerous. And if we don't know what to do when we get that person who doesn't actually have DID that is coming in saying that they are or coming in thinking that they are because of the online community, that's as dangerous as not having any community at all or as it's as complicated and there are layers and that the criticisms are absolutely valid.
Speaker 1:But if clinicians don't even know it's happening, they're not gonna understand when it shows up in their office. That's the point. Furthermore, the paper itself presents statistics showing that more people identify with DID than plural in the online community. I agree. I totally agree.
Speaker 1:That is part of what's significant. Like, you not think that's dissociative? That 23,000 people came together and voted on the use of the word plural, and then only a third of them actually claimed it. Like, that is an indicator of dissociation. There's incongruence there.
Speaker 1:There's a separation between what they did and what they said. There's something there. Like, that's what we need to talk about. I totally agree with what this reviewer is saying. The paper's claims about plurality as a culture are further contradicted by the statistic that seventy two percent of people living with DID do not see it as part of their cultural expression.
Speaker 1:I agree. That's my whole point. So what so I think these are indicators that we can use when these people come to our office or when we're talking with people who are asking about the online community or have been part of it. We need this in the discussion. The paper presents no evidence that fictives are synonymous with introjects.
Speaker 1:Introjection refers to an unconscious process where a fictive identities are present in online role playing communities and other contexts which suggest a more conscious element. That's what I'm saying. That is part of the differentiation diagnosis I think. I think that is part of how we can determine some of what's actually going on with a client. And I think that that is part of what we need to be teaching clinically and discerning in our offices and why I put that in the paper because it is.
Speaker 1:And again, absolutely we can develop that as part of the paper, I mean, in a broader text, in a different venue where we have more room to do so just like the editor said. So I'm agreeing. Roses and thorns, these people are alright in what they're saying and in the feedback they're giving. They said, the paper is strongest when it is explaining the online communities of people living with DID and the implications for treatment. The development of a group of people with DID who are advocating for improved and respectful health care is an exciting development.
Speaker 1:By and large, the final ethics section of the paper is the weakest and reads as a grab bag of issues and assertions. It is simply wrong to argue that therapists who are unaware of the author's preferred online community are engaged in maleficence. Okay so I want to disagree with that point. I'm not saying my preferred online community. I'm not even involved other than I do the podcast and have gone to that meeting with the leaders of different platforms and different groups.
Speaker 1:And we went, we have been very clear on the podcast, although not in the paper apparently, about us going through the communities in the very early stages when we were learning what things mean and that other people also have it, but then for safety and healthy relationship reasons, had to withdraw from those communities. And so we've not been involved directly in that way as far as a participation person for four years or more. So, like, things are even by the time I can actually get this published somewhere to even get people started talking about it, things are going to be so changed and different even by then. On page 13, the author makes a series of claims about the progression of people in DID through phase based treatment without any evidence. Some references are unclear and other issues are raised without order or context.
Speaker 1:Because plural? I'm just kidding. No it's good editing. Like that's the problem with writing. Right?
Speaker 1:There's always more editing to do. But it helps it's good feedback, I think, for us to be able to write our book and the things that we want to say. It helps us to see what needs to be very, very clear for people who don't know anything about these topics which is why it's so so important. They said the article is a very promising start and I think the article would be much improved if the author presented history of the online plural community and its clinical implications, acknowledging both the pros and cons of online networks. So that's another option is I could try to rewrite it from that context and instead of trying to just educate.
Speaker 1:Maybe I tried to do a presentation in an article, and that didn't work. So maybe I could do that. But see, this is learning from feedback, learning from the rejection, learning from the experience rather than it stopping us or overwhelming us or destroying us. Like, we got this huge rejection after all of this work, and, also, we are okay. We are just fine.
Speaker 1:The second reviewer said, thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The manuscript raises issues related to the use of the term plurals in online communities and the need for clinicians to be aware of and prepare to work with people from this cultural group. The focus and goals of this paper are not clear. You guys, basically, this means I need more therapy, that we are not integrated enough despite our efforts, and we are not, like our presentation is still all wobbly and switchy like that's what's coming out more than anything is that we're trying to say too many things at once which is fine on a podcast not so fine in a fancy journal article. The first few paragraphs focus on ethical principles, which gives readers an expectation the paper will focus on research into those principles.
Speaker 1:The manuscript then shifts to focus to online communities of people who identify as plurals and issues such as their linguistic preferences. Later paragraphs return to ethical issues. Other parts of the manuscript focus on the process by which an online community evolves their approaches. The flow of the manuscript is hard to follow without a clear articulation of the focus on goals of the paper and organization to support accomplishing those goals. So that makes sense because that's literally what I did.
Speaker 1:So I can see that it made them uncomfortable. It did not flow well in the article because that's exactly what I tried to do was this is what ethics are. This is why it applies to this. Here's what's happening over here, and here's why ethics matters to what's happening over here. But I think especially with the editing process and so much getting cut, I think the transitions did not flow and too much was lost so that the final article was as choppy as it felt for editing.
Speaker 1:But to give the original version, they never got to see that, and I think it just didn't translate. Transition I mean, it didn't translate well. Like, too much got cut, and so it came out extra choppy and then did not feel as coherent in the step by step. Let's walk through why it matters, what matters, and what to do about it. So I can't smooth that out in a limited space.
Speaker 1:So again, it's the wrong venue, which is why I'm sharing it here. The author assumes reader familiarity with knowledge of specific online communities relevant to DID and plurals as well as some aspects of the history of the dissociation field, which is a problem for readers not familiar with these communities or history. Totally agree. So that's information that that has to be included in our book, which means it will get a taste of nerdom because that has to be included as part of the process. So it helps outline and flush out flush out flush flush out.
Speaker 1:It helps flush out what we want to say in our book. The manuscript describes results of a public survey conducted in conjunction with the Plural Positivity World Conference and reported previously in a conference paper. I am not clear on the purpose of sharing these survey results in part because the focus of the paper is unclear, because it was an example of the community organizing as an actual culture and evolving to declare these things for themselves as an overall group across platforms. But again, I think that was lost in the cuts and the editing. The politics subsection seems to be the author's observation about the online community.
Speaker 1:It's not clear on the methods used to gather these observations. For example, what qualitative analyses were conducted to arrive at the observations and conclusions? I'm also not clear on whether the communities observed were all public. If not public, were communities informed of research being conducted on them? This was just from the surveys which they knew were public and they knew would be published.
Speaker 1:That was a disclosure at the beginning. It was part of the development of the survey that I was asked to do. It was part of the development they did before they asked me to do that part. So I think that part's okay. It just needs to be more clear in presenting.
Speaker 1:So this is the beginning of something even though it's still a hot mess, which feels a lot like myself. So there's an accurate reflection. But we wanted to share. We'll post the article on the blog, and we will keep working on it and keep moving forward and trying to improve it. So as always, thank you for your support.
Speaker 1:Thank you for your encouragement, and we will keep going. We've got to do this and help in the tiny ways we can. And kudos to my anonymous reviewers and the editor who rejected me with such finesse. But seriously taught so much and helped me see what needs to be outlined differently, structured differently, and transitioned differently to be more clear and coherent. Because like always, it doesn't matter what I want to say if I can't say it effectively or coherently.
Speaker 1:And so that's really meaningful to me, and I appreciate it. No drama. No hurt feelings. Like, it was really fantastic feedback and at least my first effort. But since I can't publish it, I'm gonna share it as it is in all its messy glory.
Speaker 1:And and you can share in the rejection and maybe learn something or share it with someone, and we will keep working on our next book. And thank you so much for listening as always for real. Really, really. Thanks.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much for listening to us and for all of your support for the podcast, our books, and them being donated to survivors and the community. It means so much to us as we try to create something that's never been done before, not like this. Connection brings healing. One of the ways we practice this is in community together. The link for the community is in the show notes.
Speaker 2:We look forward to seeing you there while we practice caring for ourselves, caring for our family, and participating with those who also care for community. And remember, I'm just a human, not a therapist for the community, and not there for dating, and not there to be shiny happy. Less shiny, actually. I'm there to heal too. That's what peer support is all about.
Speaker 2:Being human together. So yeah, sometimes we'll see you there.