The latest Journal of Clinical Psychology (sadly no free access) has the whole journal devoted to exploring ideas around the internal multiplicity of the self. Basically this is the idea that the self has or consits of multiple parts, aspects, object or persons rather than that the self is some type of unitary concept. Dimaggio and Stiles offer a very lucid and easy to udnerstand overview of this concept in the opening paper.
Internal multiplicity is present, if not always acknowledged, in
most systems of psychotherapy. It is expressed in such cognitive-behavioral
concepts as automatic or intrusive thoughts and self-talk or self-statements.
Self-criticism and self-blaming, for example, are forms of self-to-self
relationships in which a harsh part of the self criticizes or blames another
part that is submissive or inferior. Multiplicity is also assumed in such
psychodynamic concepts as internal objects and states of mind and in the
humanistic focus on contradictory aspects of self and unrealized potentials.
Multiple internal voices are central to dialogical accounts of the self , as
therapists try to distinguish from what positions patients speak and to
understand what parts of the self are suppressed and prevented from expressing
themselves. Multiple I positions are deliberately used in the service of
therapy, in the facilitation of reflective thinking, in the analysis of
reciprocal role procedures in cognitive analytic therapy, in empty chair work
and two-chair work in experiential therapies, in archetypal psychology, and in
narrative psychotherapy.
The value in this journal issue is not just a discussion of
a theoretical concept but a range of papers directly outlining the use of this
sort of model in actual therapy with specific
clients. Papers are presented from range of therapies using
individual case studies to illustrate the value of the multiplicity concept.
For me this multiplicity of selves has always been inherent
in my therapy particularly with borderline clients. One of my favourite sayings to my interns who
are working with these clients is that working with borderline clients is like
doing family therapy inside somebody’s head. To work effectively with a family you must get everybody in the room and
this is usually the first task in working with borderline clients, getting all
aspects of the self acknowledged and making it safe enough for each of them to
express their point of view and problems.
Clinicians who recognize the self’s multiple aspects may be more
empathic with their patients’ internal struggles and acute ambivalence. They
may exhibit more attunement or responsiveness, thus being more effective as
patients present different facets in different sessions or within one session.
To me this is critically important in the delivery of empathy. Neutrality becomes more of a balancing act in
ensuring that each aspects of the self is given some attention and understanding
rather than a stricter technical neutrality usually demanded in a psychodynamic
approach. While it is usually not possible
to offer a single empathic statement that acknowledges all aspects of the self
it is useful to think at least in terms of responding to which ever dyadic aspects
of the self are in the forefront at the time. In virtually all therapies including CBT there are at least two self
aspects present.
As respect and empathy are offered to each voice individually,
conflicting internal voices can hear and begin to understand each other, a
crucial step toward developing internal meaning bridges. On hearing conflicting
expressions, a therapist can reflect rather than try to encompass multiple
voices in an omnibus reflection. Reflections that address only one voice may
facilitate elaboration by the voice that was reflected, or, alternatively, they
may stimulate an opposing response from a voice that was not reflected. Either
client response may be productive. Trying to encompass multiple voices with one
reflection, on the other hand, is likely to lead to confusion, as it is unclear
which voice should respond. Accurate empathy can thus be understood as
facilitating conversation and hence mutual understanding among the client’s
internal voices as well as between client and therapist.