LECTURE XX(THE SAME CONTINUED)—THE A PERSONALITY

We may now return to C’s account of her dissociated life—to the point where she was about to describe the development of another personality, A, and at which I digressed.

Bear in mind that it is the B personality that now received the shock and that the revelation of the deception, therefore, was to a personality whose point of view was not that of duty or affection but of mere joy and pleasure.

After a period of a few weeks I received a second[292]shock, which was caused by the discovery of deception in matters[293]which my “obsession” had taken in charge. The revelation came in a flash,a strong emotionswept over me, and the state B,with all its traits, physical characteristics, and points of view disappeared, and I changed to another state which we have since called A. In this state my physical condition was much as it was before the first shock,[294]that is, I was neurasthenic. From a state of vigorous health I instantly changed to one of illness and languor; I could hardly sit up, had constant headache, insomnia, loss of appetite, etc. My mental characteristics were also different. As before, however, there was no amnesia either for the state when I was B or for my life before the first shock.

Now, though as A I was filled with most disproportionate horror at what had occurred during the weeks of my life as B, I was ruled by the same obsession, but with this difference: what I, as B, had done with a sense ofpleasure, I, as A, did with a sense of almost horror at my own actions, feeling that I was compelled to do so by what seemed at the time a sense ofduty. I felt that I must carry out certain obligations, and I doubt now, as I afterward expressed myself to you, if I could have resisted had I tried. [I. e., she was again governed as formerly by the B complex.] I would not refuse the demand for help which was made upon me because, as B, I had promised my aid, but in complying I was obliged to do things which seemed to me, as A, shocking and unheard of. I felt that my conduct was open to severe criticism but I had promised and must fulfil though the skies fell. It seems to me now, in the light of our present knowledge of B, that I, while in this A phase, was in a sort of somnambulistic stage governed by what I have learned were co-conscious ideas belonging to B; and that the impulses of the B complex were too strong to be resisted; but in my memory my ideas as B were at this time so curiously intermingled with my ideas as A that it is useless to try to analyze my mind more accurately. In mood, points of view and ideals I was A, but Ididthe things B would have done, though from a different incentive.

To fully appreciate the situation and in that light the meaning of A’s point of view in the preceding passage and in that which follows, we must remember that, when the original personality B. C. A., as the neurasthenic and a disintegrated self that we may call theA mood, was suddenly changed by the preceding “shock” to the B personality, for a few minutes the subject was angry, frightened and felt insulted. There can be no doubt that if the change had not occurred she would have resented any further continuance of friendly or philanthropic relations with the object of her resentment. When she came undermy observation later, as A, she was overwhelmed with (unjustified) humiliation and blazed with wrath at the mere thought of the episode. Her governing feeling was vengeful emotion. Even later as the normal C she could not forgive or forget.

Now imagine the scene: a person dominated by such feeling suddenly, without apparent rhyme or reason, completely changing in her feelings and point of view, regarding the episode as a lark, enjoying it and smiling and happy. And then in this frolicsome mood continuing to play for a month with the object of her previous wrath. Such a scene on the stage would be a most dramatic one. Imagine what must have been the bewilderment of the victim.

Then, after some weeks of this play, the B personality changes back to the disintegrated self, A. As A she remembers what she has done as B in complete contradiction to her previous feelings and views of the episode, herself and the object. She is overcome with horror on remembering her behavior (as B) and yet she finds herself ruled by a fixed idea of the B complex and going on doing, but from a different motive, the very things which had horrified her.[295]

Keeping this situation in mind we can understand A’s feelings and viewpoint bearing in mind that all was morbidly exaggerated.

For a few days I remained A and then owing, I think, to a lessening of nervous tension, I changed again to B [personality] and remained in that state for two or three weeks during which time I was physically well and happy again. At the end of this time, as a result of another realization of the actual situation, A reappeared and was the only personality for some weeks. These changes were due to successive emotional shocks.

The following passage which continues A’s viewpoint accurately describes her state of mind when she came under my observation.

When you first saw me I was A at my worst. I had no amnesia for the events of the preceding months when, as B, I had been filled with the joy of living. There was no thought on my part of any “change of personality”—I had never heard of such a thing—but I was like one slowly awakening from a dream. I was equally aghast at what I (B) had done forpleasure, and at what I (A), had done from a sense of duty; one seemed as unbelievable as the other.[296]

One of the most shocking things to me, as A, was the fact that I hadenjoyed myselfas B. Had I committed the most dreadful crimes I could not have felt greater anguish, regret, and remorse. I had been dominated by the fixed ideas and obsessions of B; I had felt that I must respond to any call for help made by this person [the drug-addict] even though it was against my inclination and judgment to do so; there seemed no choice for me in the matter—Ihadto;[297]I could see no point of view but my own. To do what seemed my plain duty I was willing to sacrifice myself in every way, but could not see that I (A) was now causing as much anxiety to my family as I had previously done as B; that I was sacrificing them also, and that my idea of duty was entirely mistaken. A, it would seem, was the emotional and idealistic part of my nature magnified a thousand times. My emotions and ideals as A were not different in kind from those of my normal self, but were so exaggerated as to be morbid.

As A I was full of metaphysical doubts and fears, full of scruples. I did not attend church because I felt that I could no longer honestly say the Creed and the prayers. The service had lost all meaning to me and so it seemed hypocritical to take part in it. I felt that I had utterly failed in the performance of every duty, and tortured myself with the remembrance of every act of omission and commission. I accused myself of selfishness, neglect, in fact, of nearly all the crimes in the calendar including, in an indirect way, that of murder.[298]My conversation was always of the most serious character,—religion (I believed in nothing), life after death (of which I found no hope), and I dwelt much upon the fact that no one should be judged by their deeds alone, that no one could tell what hidden motive had prompted any given act. This was because I had (as B) done so many things which (as A) I wholly disapproved of and felt might be misunderstood. I did not understand them myself but knew that my motive had been good. I was frightened,bewildered, shocked, agonized—concentrated anguish and remorse. During these weeks I suffered more than it ought to be possible for any one ever to suffer for anything, and always, over and over in my mind went the same old thoughts,—“Whydid I do as I did?Howcould I have done it? Why did it seem right? What would my friends think if they knew? I was mad!I was not myself.” Finally I decided to end it all—I could not live under such a weight of humiliation and self-reproach. I am sure, Dr. Prince, that you must remember how impossible it was to reason with me as A, for it was at this time and in this state that I was sent to you and you first saw me.

Summing up this statement a new personality had come to the fore—a personality that was the antithesis of B. The traits which characterized A had been left entirely out of B while those which had characterized B were left entirely out of A. Both sets of traits were to be found in C though less accentuated and less freely manifested. The gaiety, love and pleasure and joy of life, the absence of all thought of responsibility and care belonging to B had given place to seriousness, a sense of responsibility and duty, a feeling of apprehension, to doubts and fears and self-reproaches. Depression and sorrow had taken the place of exaltation and joy. The neurasthenic state had replaced buoyant health.

Now it should be noted that these latter were the traits of the subject C during the preceding four-year period of stress and strain, and the succeeding neurasthenic period, and represented a side of her character which was developed, systematized and intensified by the circumstances of her life. In accordance with these traits, habits of thought had been establishedand by constant repetition complexes had been built. It is of importance to note that it was against these very A traits that the “B complex” at that time had rebelled—that very complex which was to become the chief component of the “B personality,” and which was the other side of the original self. It was during the neurasthenic state that the A traits had become abnormally developed and belonged to the neurasthenic condition. When the personality changed to B these A traits became dissociated but still remained conserved as unconscious systematized neurograms; now the A traits were awakened once more, there was a conflict and the B traits, the lighter side of her character, were repressed, dissociated and subsided into the unconscious. A was, therefore, a dissociated personality. She was the original C, if you please, but now so shattered and shorn as to be but an abstract and wreck of her former self. The normal C possessing both sets of traits had been, and now, resynthesized to health, is able to compare, to weigh, to modify, to balance the judgments obtained from the point of view of the B system with those of the A system and thus keep a fairly equitable poise of mind. The one counteracted the other fairly well. The A and B phases being respectively deprived of the characteristics of the other, each exhibited its own traits in a highly intensified degree, and manifested excessive reactions to the environment. The dissociated state A was plainly a reversion to the stress-and-strain and neurasthenic period. The awakening of A was the awakening of a system of thoughts which had lain dormantduring the B state. Now the repressed B state was dormant.

It is of great significance for an understanding of neurasthenic disturbances that the awakening of the A system brought back all the neurasthenic symptoms that had as physical reactions accompanied this system at the time when it was dominant in C. The A system of thoughts, emotions, instincts, innate dispositions, etc., and the physical symptoms necessarily went together, for the latter are the expression or reaction of a dissociated personality that is deprived of its sthenic and exalting emotions. The moment the sthenic emotions were brought back (in C or A) the physical symptoms disappeared. The disappearance of the neurasthenia even in A when certain emotions were temporarily restored by suggestion was remarkable.

What caused the awakening of the A system? We have seen that the awakening of the rebellious B personality was an emotional trauma which was the same in kind as that which originally gave rise to the primitive “rebellion” as a reaction to the emotion. A similar trauma later awakened the same rebellion but one grown to the large proportions of the “B complex.” So in like fashion the new trauma to B awakened the A system as a reaction and associative phenomenon. What was the new trauma?

C in her written statement does not give the nature of the “strong emotion which swept over” her when the“revelation came in a flash.” It was very different in character from the other. It wasapprehension—the apprehension of moral disaster to the person whom she was trying to save. There was no resentment at the discovered deception, no thought of wounded self, no feeling of injury as might be inferred from the language of the writer, but only the thought of her ownresponsibilityin the circumstances, and ofdutyundertaken, and the feeling ofanxietyfor the future of this other person; and there was a sense ofdisappointment and failure. These erupted from the submerged A system.

It was this same system of ideas, but organized about her husband as their object, which had been dominant in C during the four years period of stress-and-strain and “neurasthenia.” They had lain dormant in the unconscious during the B period. Now they are struck and excited to activity. There is a conflict. The impulses from the conflicting A emotions, being the stronger, repress the B impulses and the A system is awakened as a personality.

The question at once comes to mind whether the object of B. C. A.’s solicitude was not a surrogate for her deceased husband, a sort of symbol, and had not become the object of the transference (to use the language of the psycho-analysts) of the solicitude which had previously been bestowed upon her husband’s health and future well-being; whether this new person had not been substituted for the ill husband in that A system of ideas which during four years had been characterized by responsibility, duty, anxiety, disappointment,failure, etc.; whether, indeed, it might not be held that the solicitude for the salvation of this drug addict was not a defense reaction against self-reproach for an imaginary responsibility for the illness of her husband. Such self-reproaches she describes.

If this were true, the awakening of the A system by the discovery of the deception (which was only the banal one of money matters) and realization of failure, disappointment, etc., would be all the more comprehensible in view of the very strong and close associations which the new object would have in the system. But if true I cannot see that it would have any further or deeper significance. There was no need for disguisement. Certainly solicitude for a husband, disguised in another person, needs no disguisement and could not be unacceptable. But painfulself-reproachesfor former failure could not be faced, and satisfaction could be found in the performance of a new duty as a sort of atonement.

Again was there any subconscious sex wish or urge that could not be admitted to herself and to which the change to A was a defense reaction? I have been unable to discover any. And if there were I am unable to see how the revelation of deception in money matters required a defense reaction against the fulfillment of this wish. That sounds like Alice in Wonderland.

But why did the revelation shock B, who with her traits would not have cared? I can answer this from my intimate and fuller knowledge of C’s and A’s ideas. It was a revelation of the truth. The true character of the object of their solicitude, “whom everyone elsehad given up as hopeless,” was revealed in a flash, and this “revelation” had struck, not B, but the submerged A (or C) system, which immediately emerged in an uprush from the unconscious. The shock was not to B but to subconscious A. And the reaction was “disappointment,” “failure,” “apprehension,” etc. Similar phenomena have been observed over and over again in psychological studies as I have frequently witnessed them in this case.

In a previous lecture[299]I called attention to the fact that emotions (instincts) innate dispositions and tendencies are fundamental to personality and I pointed out that in abnormal alterations the dissociation may involve one or more of these. Certain of these innate psycho-physiological systems were cited as having been repressed or dissociated in this case. It remains to study this phenomenon a little more closely.

Psychologists are generally agreed that of the emotions some are primary, or elementary, and others are complex, that is compounded of two or more emotions. Fear and anger, for example, are primary and the conscious elements, like all primary emotions, in biological instincts. These instincts serve a purpose in the preservation of the species. Of the complex emotions scorn and loathing may be taken as examples, the former, it is believed, being compounded of anger and disgust and the latter of fear and disgust. There is nota general agreement in regard to all the emotions that should be regarded as primary. Joy and sorrow, for example, are classed by some as primary and by some as complex. I made an effort to note and classify in a tentative way the emotions that were present and absent in the two personalities A and B and have arranged them in the following table. In this table the classification of the primary and complex emotions of McDougall has been followed in the main.

Of course it is very difficult to determine with certainty if any given emotion is absolutely absent, as it depends upon suitable conditions being present for its excitation. An emotion that is repressed might still be excited if the stimulus were sufficiently strong. Still, it is significant that emotions which would ordinarily excite a given emotion, say, tender feeling, or sorrow or fear, in the ordinary normal person, or did do so in this subject in the A personality, did not do so in the B personality, or would awaken in the latter only an emotion of joy or mirth. Under these circumstances, when the A and B personalities respectively came into being, these differences were easily observed, and it is noteworthy that then certain emotions were never in evidence in each respectively, whether potentially present or not.

It is interesting to note that when a primary emotion was absent, for instance in personality B, that a compound emotion which included this primary emotion was also absent. It is obvious that dissociation of personalities in which certain emotions are repressed offer valuable data for studying the problem of the classificationof emotions, more reliable than do the usual methods of introspective analysis.

PRIMARY EMOTIONS, INSTINCTS, FEELINGS AND INNATE DISPOSITIONS

COMPOUND EMOTIONS

As there were differences in emotions and pleasure-pain feelings manifested by the two personalities, so also the emotions and feelings organized with the same objects differed. That is to say, one and the same object often awakened different emotions or feelings. For example, the moon excited in A pain, in B pleasure; woods excited in A apprehension, in B pleasure; a lake, in A fear; in B joy; relatives, in A affection, in B indifference. Situations, too, that gave A sorrow, gave B joy, or, it might be, pleased A and bored B. Likewise with persons: Y—aroused intense hatred, scorn, etc., in A; in B pleasant feelings.

To return to the behavior of the B and A personalities; the B system, from the fact that it had become for a month, during the third period, segregated as an independent and autonomous system, had becomecrystallized and easily dissociated asa wholefrom the remainder of the personalities. The same happened with the A system after it had become emancipated as a result of the fourth shock. The two systems readily changed with one another and I had innumerable opportunities of observing the changes taking place before my eyes and of studying them. C makes the following statement of these alternations:

Shortly after I came to you I began to alternate more frequently between those two states, and it is well to emphasize that one marked change in the state of A developed. In this state I now hadcomplete amnesiafor my whole life as B; for everything I thought and did.[300]In other respects, however, these states were identical with what they had been. The presence of amnesia made no difference in the fact of change of personality. As I see it I was just as much an altered personality before the amnesia developed as afterward. As B, I had no amnesia.

The amnesia made life very difficult; indeed, except for the help you gave me I think it would have been impossible and that I should have gone truly mad. How can I describe or give any clear idea of what it is to wake suddenly, as it were, and not to know the day of the week, the time of the day, or why one is in any given position? I would come to myself as A, perhaps on the street, with no idea of where I had been or where I was going; fortunate if I found myself alone, for if I was carrying on a conversation I knew nothing of what it had been; fortunate indeed, in that case, if I did not contradict something I had said for, as B, my attitude toward all things was quite the opposite of that taken by A. Often it happened that I came to myself at some social gathering—a dinner, perhaps—to find I had been taking wine (a thing I, as A, felt bound not to do)[301]and what was to me most shocking and horrifying, smoking a cigarette; never in my life had I done such a thing and my humiliation was deep and keen.

The bearing of amnesia on the principle of multiple personality, perhaps, needs a few words. From the facts as they developed in this case it must be obvious that the presence or absence of amnesia in no way affects the reality of altered or secondary personality. B was quite as much a personality before the development of amnesia as afterwards. Before this appeared the patient as A in no way differed in characteristics (other than amnesia) from what she was afterwards, and the same is true of B. The amnesia simply made the contrast between the phases more obtrusive; that was all. If, therefore, following the amnesia eachphase can be rightly interpreted—and of this there can be no doubt—as a dissociated personality, the same must be true of it antecedent to loss of memory. Each phase had lost and gained certain traits and peculiarities, and what one had lost the other, to a large extent, had retained.

An analysis of the previous life history shows that each represented a constellation of mental complexes created out of the formative matter of the past conserved in the unconscious. On the other hand it is obvious that from another point of view each, before amnesia occurred, was rightly entitled to be considered as a highly developed “mood” with strong conative tendencies. In principle the amnesia does not affect the point of view. One frequently sees in lesser degree such moods in so-called normal people of a certain temperament. They are in fact really temporary alterations of personality, though it is not customary to speak of them as such. After amnesia develops the conditions in other respects are in no way changed. If such alterations of personality are combined with a neurasthenic condition it is customary to regard the phase as one of neurasthenia or hysteria, and, in fact, the state A was for a long time so regarded until the other state, B, was discovered.

It is not within the scope of this study to describe in detail the behavior of the two personalities A and B. Enough has been said to show that they differed in character so widely as to appear to be two entirely distinct persons, with contradictory traits, desires, feelings, points of view, habits, manners, temperaments,and attitudes towards their environment and towards each other. Alternating as they did, the situations in which A, at least, was placed were often dramatic and comparable to that of the case of Miss Beauchamp[302]with which some of you may be familiar.

A good general idea of the two personalities and their behavior has been given by the subject herself in the two articles from which I have freely quoted. For further details I would refer you to those accounts[303]which merit careful study.

Nor can I take up that phase of the problem of dissociation which involvesco-conscioussystems of thought. It is too large a subject and must be reserved for a later occasion. I will merely say that when A becameunawareof theB complexand became amnesic for her alternating life as B, the latter, B, continued during the A phase; or, in other words, the co-conscious life was a continuation of the B alternating life after the change took place to A (or C), but the latter was unaware of it.

This seems very difficult to comprehend for those who are not familiar with the phenomenon. Yet, as I see it, the mechanism and principle are very simple and the phenomenon is only an exaggeration of the normal. Otherwise and without a normal mechanism it could not occur. B has also given in her account a veryvaluable description based on introspection of the co-conscious life. This merits careful study.

You probably will have sufficient curiosity to want to know how the reintegration of the dissociated phases into a single normal personality was accomplished: that is to say how a cure was brought about and the original personality was obtained. It was very simple and can be told in a few words. The method was the same as that employed in the case of Miss Beauchamp.

Each of the dissociated personalities A and B could be hypnotized. When A was hypnotized she went into a state which we will callaand when B was hypnotized she went into a state which we will callb. Now both these states could be still further hypnotized. When the process of hypnotizingawas carried further a state was obtained which we will provisionally callx. When the process of hypnotizingbwas carried further a state was obtained which we will call provisionallyy. Now, when studying these two hypnotic states,xandy, they were found to be the same state. That is to say they had the same memories and other traits of personality. Furthermore they were found to be a combination of bothaandb, possessing all the memories, emotions and innate dispositions which were lost in A and therefore possessed by B and all those that were lost in B and therefore possessed by A. In other words, it was the complete normal personality but in the hypnotic state. This hypnotic state, therefore, whichhad been previously labeled bothxandywas now labeledc. All that remained to do, therefore, was to wake upcand the trick would be done, for we would then have, theoretically, the normal C personality. So this procedure was carried out and the normal personality was obtained.

292. Fourth according to the division of periods here adopted.

293. Money matters.

294. Second which brought the B personality.

295. Apropos of this B states: “I still continued, in a sense, as the B complex in the same way as during the time when C lived the life which was in accordance with my nature and opposed to hers, i.e., the out of doors life during the latter part of the second period; only, as a result of the time (period III) when I was the sole personality (though I did not think of myself as such) and had lived my own life, I had, it seems to me as I look back upon it, become more crystallized. There had before seemed to be a conjoining of two natures, and there was now, only the second one, myself, was more strongly integrated. C, or rather A, as I shall call this new phase, had no amnesia for the preceding period (III), and as before was still perfectly aware of the B complex. She was ruled by this complex, as C had before been ruled, and kept right on doing things in accordance with the impulses of the B complex. She was something like a somnambulist, I think, partly realizing the difference in her conduct, which seemed strange to her, and unable to help herself.”

296. At this time A had removed from the environment in which all this that has been narrated had taken place, and had come under my care; she was then A. There were no longer calls for duty to be performed, no longer responsibilities to carry out. B was dormant and it was impossible for the fixed idea to act, though undoubtedly if the former situation was restored the old parts would have been reënacted; as it was A looked upon the past as a closed chapter and she was able to judge herself as A and B. In the quiescence of her fixed idea she was able to see herself, though in a distorted perspective, and reprobated her conduct in both phases of personality, and as she says, was “aghast.”

297. Referring to the fixed idea mentioned above of saving this person.

298. Referring to her husband’s illness and death.

299. Lecture XVII.

300. This came about in the following way: One day while A was in hypnosis she suddenly and spontaneously changed to a different hypnotic state characterized by change of facial expression, manner, speech, etc. It was afterwards recognized that this was the B personality in hypnosis. I had not before seen or heard of the B personality as such. I had only known that the subject from her own account had been in a neurasthenic condition and had been through periods of improvement and relapses. I did not suspect that these phases of improvement and relapses represented phases of personality such as was soon discovered to be the case. A few days after the B personality had appeared in hypnosis this phase spontaneously waked and alternated as it had previously done, with the A complex. But now, as the writer says, there was amnesia on the part of A for B. The explanation for this is undoubtedly to be found in the fact that a new synthesis and more complete dissociation of the B complex had taken place through the experience of hypnosis. Analogous phenomena I have observed in making experimental observations but it would take us too far away to enter into this question here.

301. During the first weeks of my existence as B I pledged myself to drink no wine. The promise was made under such conditions that no reasonable person could have felt bound by it. As B I realized this and felt no obligation to keep it but as A, I could not feel so, though you had assured me over and over again that I was not in honor bound.

302. Prince: The Dissociation of a Personality, Longmans, Green & Co.

303. “My Life as a Dissociated Personality,”Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. III, Nos. 4 and 5.

Back to Index Next