The Case of Jane Roberts and Seth, and its Relevance to Endogenic Forms of Plurality
Hello everyone! Last night we finally managed to finish reading New Age ‘Channeling' And Theories Of Dissociation: Applying A ‘Structural Dissociation Of The Personality' Model To The Case Of Jane Roberts. It's an older thesis, but it’s a really cool read.
For those who aren’t aware, Jane Roberts was a medium who often channeled an entity called Seth, who would go on to write several books about the nature of consciousness and the universe. He appeared to her one day quite out of the blue when she was in her thirties, and ever since that day she channeled him and he was able to write about his beliefs. The two of them were the catalyst for a lot of New Age and paranormal beliefs, and she often gave classes on ESP and channeling.
As I was reading, I noticed that there was a lot that may be relevant to the plural community here, particularly the endogenic and tulpamancy community. The whole thesis is a good read, but there are some parts that stuck out to me.
"Seligman and Kirmayer argue that around the world, dissociative experiences take place in three main contexts. One of these is "(1) in response to acute stress or trauma," but the other two are not trauma-related at all. These are: "(2) in socially sanctioned rituals and healing practices that are associated with religious meaning systems, or in artistic performances: and (3) as spontaneous fluctuations in ordinary conscious experience that often go unrecognized or unmarked unless they resonate with local systems of meaning." They point out: "It is often assumed that dissociation across these different settings involves the same underlying psychophysiological mechanisms. However, this remains uncertain given the state of current knowledge about both the mechanisms and functions of dissociation."" (page 29-30)
Interestingly enough, these are also the three main ways of being plural seen in the community. 1 would be traumagenic, 2 could be soulbonds, gateways or tulpamancers (I know none of those are religious per say, but they are socially sanctioned groups that often have “ritualistic” elements or in the case of gateways and soulbonds, spiritual meanings), and 3 could be the endogenic or quoigenic systems who don't fit into any other category. Obviously this is a major oversimplification and may not apply to all systems, but you do tend to see these three categories in the community more often than not.
They also go on to argue that the theory of structural dissociation is very focused on a Euro-American way of healing, namely the "speaking about and owning your traumas" way of healing, which is not always applicable in other cultures and contexts and may not always be desirable or necessary. They also seem more focused on a complex view of dissociation involving culture, context, and origin all influencing each other instead of the simplistic origin=pathology view often seen in research.
Additionally, it would seem as if the creators of the theory of structural dissociation never intended their theory to be taken as a set-in-stone proposition, especially for other forms of dissociation.
They actually acknowledge that: "Our definition of dissociation pertains to a division of the personality in the context of trauma. We are aware that this division may also occur in hypnosis and mediumship, that several other definitions of dissociation also address these other contexts, and that there are some indications that dissociation in these other contexts is also best understood as a division of the personality.{...}However, dissociation in mediums is in several regards different from dissociation in DID.{...]The possible involvement of consciousness and self-consciousness in [...} dissociative parts in mediumship needs to be examined in more detail before a conclusive general definition of dissociation can be formulated." (page 36)
In other words, they know it is possible to be plural/have multiple identities in other contexts without it being DID. They acknowledge this. The creator of the theory of structural dissociation never intended for it to be used in other contexts, and it does not explain how dissociation works in general.
When applying it to the case of Jane Roberts, the theory of structural dissociation also fails to explain a large portion of her experiences with Seth and why they are non-pathological/relatively benign in comparison to the pathological manifestations often seen in DID. Likewise, it also fails to explain why channeling is often non-pathological and positive. (Note that the theory of structural dissociation itself treats DID as necessarily maladaptive; this is not what we’re personally saying but what the thesis states.) The author of the thesis believes that if one is to apply it to other forms of dissociation you need to be extremely sensitive to the fact that it’s not made to explain those types, and may not adequately explain much of how those types work.
It’s a very long thesis, so you might wanna reserve a few hours to read and digest the material. Hopefully this is as interesting to you all as it was to us!
