[“The terms “dissociation” and “integration” have long been synonymous with one another—meant to signify that the only reasonable goal in working with splitting and compartmentalization must be the fusing together of dissociated parts to create one single “homogenized” adult. Daniel Siegel, however, makes a strong case against defining integration as fusion. He asserts (2010a) a different view: “Integration requires differentiation and linkage.” Before we can integrate two phenomena, we have to differentiate them and “own” them as separate entities. We can’t simply “act as if” they are connected without noticing their separateness. But, having clearly differentiated them so they can be studied and befriended, we then have to link them together in a way that fosters a transformed sense of the client’s experience, facilitating healing and reconnection.
A part can be connected to the past, to a physical movement or body sensation, to particular emotions. Another emotion can be noticed, related to a younger or older part, and then linked to the reaction of other parts to those same feelings. In the wake of trauma, individuals need to be able to connect implicit memory to trigger and link the trigger to an explicit context. New information about the present must be linked with old perceptions shaped by the past. To feel safe today, a felt connection must be made between the “child I was then” and the “adult I became today.”
Trauma-related vulnerability feels less painful when it is linked to new body experiences of mastery or to a somatic sense that “it’s over—finally, now it’s over” (Ogden & Fisher, 2015). Using Siegel’s definition of integration, fusion is not necessary nor is it as empowering as coherence, collaboration, and overcoming self-alienation.
In this chapter, we will focus on how to foster integration by differentiating parts previously denied, ignored, or disowned, connecting to them emotionally, and providing experiences that replace self-alienation and self-rejection with self-compassion and secure internal attachment relationships. When the emphasis in the therapy is not on the recall of traumatic events but on identifying trauma-related parts connected to the implicit memories that still affect the client’s current experience, the need to disown the parts is diminished. When clients are helped to see their ashamed parts as “real” children of particular ages and to empathize with their littleness, their bravery, or their pain, disgust and fear give way to empathy. “She looks so little,” clients say. “He is trying so hard to be brave, but he’s really afraid.” “He’s too ashamed to let me own anything nice—because if it’s too nice, he’s afraid that someone will take it away because he doesn’t deserve it.” Moments before they made these observations, all three clients had been blended with their parts.
Diane described being appalled that she had burst into tears when her boss criticized her performance: “I can’t believe I humiliated myself by being so weak.” Josh had been trying to replace his old car with a brand new one, only to find that his ashamed part could not let him buy something “nice.” Mark came to therapy to talk about his “speechless terror” of speaking in public and the impact of this deficit on his professional life. In each case, the problem could be traced to a young part connected to particular times and events in the client’s lives. Interestingly enough, I have a very clear sense of those young parts, but many of the events that wounded them were never described to me. I let the symptoms and the parts tell the client’s story.”]
janina fisher, from healing the fragmented selves of trauma survivors: overcoming internal self-alienation, 2017
