The Concept Of An Inner Child... Not Really Buying It

[anthony]

It's like if someone swore by a certain shampoo and told you it makes your hair so shiny, and you use it but it leaves your hair dull - it works for some, but not for others. Once you've tried it nd don't like it, there is no need to keep using it, just because someone else told you how great it was.

Awesome analogy, and so true.

I've read people on here doing inner child work in therapy, and the therapist has them naming the children. Low and behold, not too far down the track, the person is being diagnosed with DID because they have all these alter children they go into in their daily life as a behavioural method to look for something, or cope, when a specific action occurs.

If it works for you... great. Honestly, I think it's a crock of shit and should not be used with vulnerable persons who are already struggling to identify themselves, let alone all their thoughts and emotions due to traumatic events in their lives.

 

[Pencil]

to stop discussing something in a thread I started,

No, stop wondering whether you have inner children, or structural dissociation. If you did, you would know, but just because you don't, doesn't mean that it's not real for others, whether you buy it or not.

TB, you hit the nail on the head.

I am saying why beat your head against a wall trying to understand something that makes no sense to you at all. I

I've not read the posts in great detail, but I picked up that the validity of the experience of 'inner children' as separate STATES was questioned - THAT is what I'm commenting on, and not what model or analogy you want to use OR.

Just to make sure I'm expressing myself correctly: Drop the uncertainty, don't drop the thread, but please know that while such inner states don't exist for you, they do exist for others. I've noticed that the members for whom they are real, have not commented on this thread.

 

[Pencil]

TB, you're right, I don't have DID and will never think that I do - I, or the main me, or the ANP, or whatever it is called, is always 'there', although reduced in a way, when I REGRESS to a state. I don't become someone else, although that state 'hijacks' for want of a better word, my thinking, my behaviour, my emotions. But, it is difficult to explain, and not quite the point.

 

[Pencil]

Sorry if anyone is offended it was not my intention.

They're identities of a kind, but I wouldn't say separate.

Not for you, and if a model of sorts helps you in therapy, that's great, but what I'm trying to make clear is that they do exist for others, and while it is NOT DID, it is still very real. One could say it is on a continuum. I posted an article that would make it very clear ;)

 

[Hashi]

No, stop wondering whether you have inner children, or structural dissociation. If you did, you would know, but just because you don't, doesn't mean that it's not real for others, whether you buy it or not..

You don't seem to understand what I'm wondering, or why. I'm not going to explain again because I've already explained through the thread. The thread subject line makes it clear that I was seeing it as a concept and that I don't think I buy it. That's what the discussion is about. Even if you don't understand how I approach things, perhaps you could respect that it might not be the same way that you do?

I've never said anything wasn't real for others. I think people can see things in different ways. I'm feeling that you're not accepting that. You seem to think that one type of view/experience/application is the only one, and that it's a fact rather than a theory.

Drop the uncertainty, don't drop the thread, but please know that while such inner states don't exist for you, they do exist for others. I've noticed that the members for whom they are real, have not commented on this thread.

You seem to have completely missed the point of this thread.

If you read the posts, you'd see a number of people feel that inner child work is "real" in some way. You seem to be talking about a particular type of "real", which may or not be covered here, but yours is not the only way of looking at or experiencing things.

On top of which, you're actually telling me what to wonder about. Please present your view as your own view and no more. Please don't dictate to me what aspects of something to explore, wonder about or be uncertain about. Even if you did seem to understand what this thread is for, that wouldn't be appropriate.

 

[Hashi]

I am saying why beat your head against a wall trying to understand something that makes no sense to you at all. I am going to leave now.

tb, you're fine. I'm not beating my head against a wall, I'm finding it helpful to explore the sense of this to other people. I've said what I want to say above.

 

[Pencil]

Hashi, I'm re-reading this thread closely right now, and my views have not changed. Just give me a few minutes and I will come back with a non-aggressive response to explain my viewpoint on the theory, and the difference between accepted theory and viewpoints.

My previous responses were not well thought out, as I did it when I had too little time to read, reflect and clearly state my opinion. For that I apologise. But I DO see confusion on this thread between EPs and inner children and I DO think the distinction is an important one. I think it is very important for members to be able to distinguish between the two and to know which one they are referring to when discussing this.

 

[Pencil]

Hashi

Having read the thread, I'm still of the same opinion:

There is no common language and definition when referring to 'inner children', despite Pietro's best attempts at explaining the difference.

I think what I'm responding to is not how people experience it, or what works for them in therapy or how they relate to their inner thingies, it is the approach, evident in various places on this thread that 'if I can't relate to it, it doesn't exist.' I can examine myself for a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and then when I don't fit the bill, conclude that there is no such thing as schizophrenia. For the individual to see him/herself as a universal norm is a human foible.

We all have inner children and other inner thingies. I'm very fond of my inner poodle. My inner Zulu warrior is another matter. But this differs radically from structural dissociation. The reference I posted earlier in this thread explains it clearly. I goes something like this:

In PTSD, there is a split in the personality to form the main, existing personality, (Apparently Normal Personality or ANP) and a 'part' (Emotional Personality or EP) to hold the traumatic memory separate. The main personality continues and deals with daily life. This split is usually very effective until the person starts experiencing flashbacks or other PTSD symptoms, which means the dam wall is breaking, at which point they usually enter therapy and deal with it successfully by integrating the trauma memories into a coherent, manageable narrative; a reunion of sorts. Or, they go ballistic and start self-medicating in attempts to stop the interference of the EP, or attempt suicide OR - any number of things, really. And this is exactly what you were referring to when you said:

I experienced a trauma when I was 20, and I separated into two identities at that point, one which had no memory of the trauma and was very driven to achieve things, and one which occasionally emerged and reacted to people and events in a very damaged way, as having been through that trauma. No-one talks about my inner 20 year old or suggests I nurture her by doing things that 20 year olds enjoy. Instead, I'm encouraged to see myself at 20 as part of my past and the effects of that trauma as part of my present - which I think is a healthy and helpful approach.

I don't understand why childhood trauma isn't treated the same way.

And that is where things went south: Childhood trauma is not treated the same way for the simple reason that the EP splits into 2 or more parts. This is secondary dissociation. And this is the MAIN difference between PTSD and complex trauma.

In severe cases, the ANP splits further, to form DID. This is secondary dissociation. But, everybody on this thread agreed that DID is not under discussion, so we'll leave DID out of this.

But without this clear distinction, the discussion on this thread became a mixing and matching of inner thingies and EPs. And as a result, there was also a confusion between accepted theory (please note that I don't call it 'fact') and opinion.

The reason I entered this discussion was seeing Therapybankrupt first defending her position, (and her reality), then questioning both her reality and her therapist

Ok all the inner child work I have done is manipulation?

then citing her therapist's credentials, before finally capitulating

Ok I agree with you all!

, which I quite frankly consider damaging. And all of this due to lack of distinction between inner children and EPs.

No, Hashi, I'm not telling what to think or how to think about it. But I am asking you not to negate the existence of things because it does not fit in with your experience:

The more I read this thread, the more I think it's purely a concept, a model, rather than a phenomenon. It's only a way of looking at things. Other people may not agree, of course, but that's what I'm increasingly feeling.

The point is simply that on this thread people articulate their experiences, and those experiences are subjective, as experiences go.

Current theory holds that it is a phenomenon, and not purely a model, whether you buy it or not. And some people live with that phenomenon.

The previous paragraph perhaps comes across as harsh, while I don't intend that, I am just aiming at making a point. And I'm trying to contribute to an understanding of what 'inner children' might or might not be.

 

[JustBe]

OK. Now I'm thoroughly confused! Hashi, I support your right to explore whatever concepts help you to heal. Pencil, I respect your views and think that you are very knowledgable, but feel that you may be saying that Hashi is influencing others by exploring her own feelings.:confused:

 

[Eleanor]

Perhaps it would make sense at this juncture to try to identify three four senses of "inner child."

1) The inner child as an imaginative construct to use as a technique in therapy.
2) The inner child as a naturally occurring separate narrative self that comes and goes (DID)
3) The inner child as an artificially induced narrative self that happens as a result of therapy (False memory)

And then there is 4) the thing in between 1) and 2) where there is a "piece" of yourself (still clearly yourself) that is "stuck" at a certain place in your biography like Pencil was saying.

O.k. I guess there are four senses.

Even in DID the Core Self (the body) is still there, and the treatment is to get those separate narratives to "talk" and integrate themselves into a whole. So in "real" life there is only one actual Self. FWIW the whole notion of a "Self" in the sense of the autobiographical sense of self is - as David Hume said, "a convenient fiction." Really this is very tricky territory. And don't get me started on "existence;" one of the most abused and misunderstood predicates in the English language. (For a taste of what I mean here, notice how many ways one can mean this: "Sherlock Holmes exists."! )

So, Hashi, which bits are you buying or not, now? :)

 

[Hashi]

No, Hashi, I'm not telling what to think or how to think about it. But I am asking you not to negate the existence of things because it does not fit in with your experience:

Don't those two sentences contradict each other? Whether things fit in with my experience or not is a big part of how I think about things.

It's not like the schizophrenia example, because no-one has said that everyone has schizophrenia, or that schizophrenia always happens with PTSD. If they did say that, and I thought I didn't have schizophrenia, then it would be comparable because I would be questioning the idea.

I think we have different approaches and ways of thinking, and if you think I'm wrong not to be more influenced by what's currently accepted theory, then why not just leave me to it? I still don't understand why you seem to feel a need to correct or redirect me in one way or another rather than simply stating your different views and any evidence for them.

I don't think talking about this particular point is adding anything to the thread, it certainly isn't for me. I'm not going to post about it again.

 

[Pencil]

you may be saying that Hashi is influencing others by exploring her own feelings

No, I'm simply trying to separate the issue of inner children into two separate concepts, like teasing apart tangled wool, that's all. I'm saying two things were discussed as if the were one, and that is why there was confusion - and this confusion made TB, for example, feel 'wrong' for what she was saying.

It would seem as if Hashi doesn't have a sense of 'inner children' in the structural dissociation definition, and I'm happy for her that she doesn't. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I therefore thought it would make sense for her to abandon (drop it) that line of thought. At the same time I think TB, for instance, should not be made to feel she should question her reality.

The issue here is that of distinguishing between different uses of the terms 'inner children' - there is nothing personal in it. I think it will contribute to members' understanding of the term 'inner children' in therapy.