defining pluralmisic host-centricism, and why you should never assume shit
an accidental essay by a guy who was formed specifically to write this essay
as a system without a host, surrounded by systems without hosts, who gets fed up with host-centricism often, sometimes i have to remind myself that like. having a host isn't necessarily bad and when deconstructing pluralmisic host-centricism in plural spaces, to not shit on systems with hosts. let me explain.
the definition of a host, according to pluralpedia (which as we all know is the pinnacle of accuracy /sarc, but i doubt they'd get this one wrong) is:
"the headmate who is most active, most responsible for day-to-day activities, or otherwise is fronting most often."
now let's look at some systems that are most likely to have a host based off of that definition:
median, proxy, p-DID, and otherwise mid-continuum systems who may have trouble switching, having others front other than their host, and may have frontstuck hosts. often associated with denial or not feeling "really" plural because of their hosts.
systems who consist mostly of headmates who can handle daily life, and headmates who hold emotions or trauma. a very common way for traumagenic, especially CDD, systems to be structured.
systems with a lot of headmates who can't function and make decisions in everyday life, and a few who can, who become or are hosts.
all three of those system types either need to have hosts in order to function, or literally can't go without them in the case of type 1. and i'm sure there's more cases i'm forgetting. this is not host-centricism, it's literally how their systems are structured. we have to be careful when talking about host-centricism to not imply that no system should ever have a host or have their system revolve around their host, because that's simply... untrue.
so let's define what is host-centricism! (specifically as a subset of pluralmisia or singlet-centricism - i would refer to it as "pluralmisic host-centricism" in full, to avoid confusion with someone neutrally describing their own system's functioning as host-centric.) the most important part of an argument, of course, is defining your terms. so here's how i would define it in my own words:
"the implication of, insistence that, or expectation that all systems must have a host that is entirely capable of acting as a singlet, and that all other headmates are auxiliary."
this can take many forms, such as:
being asked randomly who your host is
being expected to have one headmate handling most tasks
all headmates being referred to solely by the "host's" name, pronouns, etc.
confusion when a headmate other than the "host" is fronting
assuming all other headmates must have a reason for existing or fronting
i would say this one overlaps with fictomisia and other forms of ableism against introjects, but assuming that introjects can't be hosts and must have an auxiliary role in the system
and more that i can't remember right now.
here's the important thing about host-centricism: you simply cannot accuse a system you don't know of hurting their own headmates just because they have a host. lots of systems have hosts and wouldn't function without them, it's just a fact. so i would like to remind everyone that the concept of a host is not pluralmisic. calling out pluralmisic host-centricism is mostly about removing it from the wider community's assumptions. as caine says about assuming, "it makes an ass out of you and of ming" - and by thinking that all host-centricism is pluralmisic, guess what? you would be assuming. you know, that thing that we all hate to see in plural communities because it's like the worst thing that could ever happen in these spaces where we're all so different from each other?
in conclusion: how someone else's system works is not a direct commentary on you, and while internalized pluralmisia is rampant inside and outside of this community, a system function is only ableist when people assume all systems function that way.
