Hi All

I am currently reading Hypnosis for Inner Conflict Resolution by Roy Hunter.

I have never really done much parts work, other than the occasional Visual Squash or 6-step Reframe, but I am currently investigating methods and approaches that I don't use in order to broaden my range.

In Hunter's version of parts therapy, you talk full on to the part in a way that seems to dissociate it fully from the clients identity, using language such as:

"John (client) is willing to listen to whatever you (part) have to say"

For me this is whole frame is like "you have another person inside you who is not you".

Hunter also has the part name itself. The name may be 'happy' or 'cautious' but it also may be 'Mike' or 'John'.

Now, I have to say that I feel quite uncomfortable with all this. BUT, it has got me wondering if this kind of extreme dissociation of parts from identity can be useful in some contexts, and if so, what contexts?

It doesn't strike me as a particularly healthy solution long term, but I am wondering if it could fit in as a step towards a more 'wholesome' (interesting word choice) solution.

If you have a view on this, I would love to hear it. Here's my question again:

Can 'extreme dissociation' of parts from identity be useful in some contexts, and if so, what contexts?

Any takers?

All the very best

James

James,

Let me put the question back to you. You must have in mind some situation (or situations) where you're guessing "extreme dissociation of parts from identity" might be useful.

What are the situations you have in mind?

Venus

Hi James,

Interesting thread in many ways. I should say from the start that I have not read the book to which you refer.

However, it was using "extreme" disassociation as you call it that I first learned about parts work, before I came, or on the way if you like to finding NLP. I have been a client and facilitator for this kind of stuff, under the banner of Gestalt training and practice and as a participant in some Gabrielle Roth 5 Rhythms workshops - not actually with Roth herself but with trainers trained by her.

I would say that this kind of work can be incredibly powerful and therapeutic so long as it is done well. By that I mean that a safe space can be created and held by the facilitator/coach while the emotional or relationship work is acted out.

The full on separation of parts I would say is useful for the purposes of working. It is I think a bit like some of the other threads on NLPC at the moment about conscious vs unconscious mind. These distinctions are artificial but useful in some contexts, i.e. for the purposes of learning/changework. I am sure your author also talks about some kind of integration or ownership at the end of the process. I would agree with your reservation that to create such a scenario might not be a good way of life. This is like the fifth Roth rhythm - "stillness" - after the change or the upset, the new and integrated construct coming home to roost as a unit.

I think this kind of stuff can work well with any kind of enduring stuckness experienced by the client. It works well with anxiety states, low self esteem and other personality organisation difficulties.

Personally I would not take on working this way with acute psychotic states where perhaps internal dialogue has become so split as to be experienced outside of self. Further to that, I would worry about working this way with people on significant doses of psychotropic medication or who were otherwise intoxicated. Although already partly disassociated they might struggle to achieve the full disassociation that is useful. It works well however with many victims of some kind of abuse who "hear voices" - on further examination the voice(s) are frequently those of the abuser, and related to high anxiety states.

The purpose I think of separating out the different parts of personality is multifold. Firstly each split part can be given free reign to express. Secondary to that, the facilitator and the client can critically examine the relationship between the parts and begin to make more functional adjustments. It is by teasing out the parts from incessant internal chatter that greater clarity of intention and communication can be made evident.

However it is a slightly different form of coaching/facilitation that is required to achieve the best effect I think, to the one we are encouraged to adopt through exclusive NLP filters. Initially at least positive support needs to be given to the split parts, like they are distinct entities, before an integrative approach is useful. The facilitator first needs to encourage the split prior to any kind of reconciliation, and that does not necessarily feel comfortable for either part or the worker. I have found having a co-facilitator useful at times.

My experience is that the period after the full disassociation before the final integration can get quite messy, i.e. lots of high intensity expressed emotion, tearfulness, anger etc. Not that we should be scared of that as facilitators though IMHO. This equates to the "chaos" phase of the Roth 5 rhythms.

One of the keys to this kind of work is I think the worker's confidence (and competence) that the process may be difficult but will also be worthwhile, in the end.

It's interesting I think how we all come to the same place from different backgrounds. I warmed to NLP in part because I felt that the processes inherently offered the chance for the client to retain greater dignity and emotional control during the messy (at times) bit in the middle. You are now examining these approaches as an extension of an NLP background, it seems.

It is all well and good to talk about "empty chair" work in Gestalt, but I came to the conclusion some time ago that the days of working with folk in two (or three) chairs aligned at an appropriate non threatening angle should have ended some time ago. I would respectfully suggest that many of the consulting rooms we are obliged to use really are too small for this kind of work sometimes. It can also take a long time, and to try to achieve such work in a timed hour might be ambitious.

The metaphor of movement is a powerful option and to utilise the full separation of conflicting parts, the venue has to be large enough to both facilitate the extreme disassociation and all the postures, movement etc that the disassociated parts need to enable full expression of intention and response to the other. The extreme disassociation, or separation can be enabled not just through dialogue, but through posture. animation and other creative art forms also.

The greater the separation and identification (VAK) with the split parts the better (IMO), but only for the purposes of working and subject to subsequent ownership and integration. This is where I think the Roth stuff scores as the metaphor of dance/movement offers a similar "content free" context to explore "stuff" as the process orientation suggested by NLP. You do not have to be a "good" dancer to get the benefits from expression through movement I feel, and it is of course a great way to get in touch with previously suppressed, deleted or otherwise denied emotions.

I am sure that with your caliber of communication skills and awareness of the moving body that being able to offer this kind of working to certain clients is only an extension to what you already can do, James. I do not think this kind of work is for everyone, but as an element in the toolbox of anyone working experientially with folk, very useful at times.

I would respectfully suggest that one way to deal with any doubts would be to put yourself in the role of a client, with someone in whom you have confidence in enabling this kind of working.

Hope this helps

MH

Malcomb

Thank you for taking the time to write such an extensive reply. The Roy Hunter approach does have an integration phase at the end.

One reason that parts therapy holds interest for me is the experience I had stopping smoking. I read the Allen Carr book, and it frames up cravings as a 'little monster' living inside you. That dissociation was useful to me because it meant that I wasn't smoking because I wanted to, it was because the 'little monster' wanted me to.

You say this work can be good when there is 'enduring stuckness' - this was my feeling that brought me into looking at it more closely. I think there are some situations when people may think that they are bad or weak or whatever, and by dissociating 'them' from the 'badness' or 'weakness' this could create the space necessary to move them forward.

Now my old thinking would say "this is giving them license to abdicate responsibility", but I don't think that this is necessarily so.

Thank you Malcomb, you have helped me out a lot with this and it is much appreciated. I need to re-read your post and ruminate a bit.

Speak soon

James

Hi Venus

If you read my reply to Malcomb, you should get your answer!

Many thanks

James

Hi James

jamesrolph wrote:

Malcomb

Thank you Malcomb, you have helped me out a lot with this and it is much appreciated. I need to re-read your post and ruminate a bit.

You are most welcome. I am glad what I wrote struck a chord with you and look forward to further discussion on this interesting thread.

Regards

MH

It’s kind of a metaphor again really- like the unconscious mind. Sometimes it helps to split up our personality this way because it helps us realise exactly what the different parts of us want.

Something I find extremely useful (I discovered it a few months back) is to split myself into ''Creative'', ''Organiser'' and ''Critic''. I use this when writing stories (a little hobby of mine).

Previously I would sometimes get stuck in the writing process because I was criticising my work too much. This prevented me being creative. But then when I was being creative I was sometimes writing rubbish. So now, if I get stuck I let each ''part'' of myself act in turn (rather than all competing).

Hi Steve,

Enlightenment Steve wrote:

Something I find extremely useful (I discovered it a few months back) is to split myself into ''Creative'', ''Organiser'' and ''Critic''. I use this when writing stories (a little hobby of mine).

I think you may be referring to a variation of a similar strategy that was introduced to me as the "Disney Creativity Strategy" as originally put forward by Dilts...or so I was told. The three states taught to me were labeled as "Dreamer", "Realist" and "Critic" and I am sure you can see along with me the similarity.

Part of the story (useful lie ?) that came with the training was that good old Walt, by virtue of living in a mansion had a different room for each of the descriptive functions.

Can I ask you, firstly, do you break state or move around to adopt each of these roles, or do you just do it in your head ? Secondly, are you aware of any differences in the strategies you employ to fulfill the different functions ?

I agree that it is a useful exercise. I am however curious about how you use it and how you make a final satisfying decision about what you want for your finished product.

Regards

MH

malcombhead wrote:

Hi Steve,



I think you may be referring to a variation of a similar strategy that was introduced to me as the "Disney Creativity Strategy" as originally put forward by Dilts...or so I was told. The three states taught to me were labeled as "Dreamer", "Realist" and "Critic" and I am sure you can see along with me the similarity.

Part of the story (useful lie ?) that came with the training was that good old Walt, by virtue of living in a mansion had a different room for each of the descriptive functions.

Can I ask you, firstly, do you break state or move around to adopt each of these roles, or do you just do it in your head ? Secondly, are you aware of any differences in the strategies you employ to fulfill the different functions ?

I agree that it is a useful exercise. I am however curious about how you use it and how you make a final satisfying decision about what you want for your finished product.

Regards

MH

Hi,

I read it in an NLP book, I forget which one. I will check and let you know later.

Its interesting to know its linked to Walt Disney!

Actually, I only needed to consciously do the process once or twice. I followed a sequence. Firts I allowed myself to be fully creative, without hearing the voice of the realist or critic. Then I allowed the critic a voice, and finally the realist.

Once I'd done that a few times, it broke the pattern.

Steve