cooperative switching: how did you get there?

In thread DID Forum: Alter in love was a mystery to me, Una brought up the idea of allowing a switch to provide comfort for an alter. I started thinking about how for decades I could not make the distinction about how to do that, switch cooperatively, even though I had done it with a little.

Until last year I didn't know anything about having an alter take over the body. I knew it had happened, without my consent, if only once that I was aware of. I was co-conscious that one time but know now there were thousands of switches in childhood and sporadically during adulthood that I was not aware of. But voluntary switching was beyond my idea of what was possible. I had let Little John take over the body while I watched over him, which actually was quite voluntary, but I never was clear he was an alter so wrote it off as something else.

Last year, as I came to realize this was probably DID, one alter took the lead in switching out. Being young and previously quite experienced in taking over, he tried to do that for weeks until he succeeded. I would feel sudden pressure, at therapy, elsewhere when I thought about certain issues, or just whenever. I could tell I was "holding on" to the body somehow and I sensed there was someone trying to take over but couldn't be sure. The experience felt unpleasant, invasive, icky, confusing, and sometimes terrifying. When Jack finally did take over control of the body, it was basically him pushing hard and me just giving in, which was a combination of relaxing the body and a conscious choice.

After that, a light went off. Like, oh, yeah, I know this, I know what switching feels like. It returned as body memory mostly. We switched back and forth a few times that day and it grew easier over time. I realized, importantly for my system, that it was entirely non-threatening. The others were just as careful as I was not to be obvious to anyone and no one seemed to be trying to steal the body for good or anything.

It was tougher with littles because coordination from both sides seemed necessary and the youngest didn't get what was happening. Most of us switch on a dime now, though it's still less smooth with the youngest. Switching because somebody really wants to come out is easiest. Switching because we need to -- a younger alter is out, say, in a store, they don't understand what someone's saying to them and need an older alter to step in and complete the transaction -- can be slow and sloppy (probably noticeable). Switching in an emergency -- coworker suddenly in front of us, we need to be John now! -- is usually immediate.

For us, the experience begins with an awareness someone else is there, near the front, wanting to step into the body. We can also call to someone to come forward. Once the alter is near, whoever is in front relaxes the muscles, the mind goes sort of blank, and "lets" the other come forward. I'm putting into words what is usually automatic. Of course, lots of switches just happen. Suddenly I realize someone else is forward and it's not always clear why they came. A cartoon on TV, bluegrass music, a mystery to investigate -- anything of interest to a particular alter can pull them forward really quickly. Sometimes it's "wait, why am I (a particular alter) now up front!?"

I'm sure some systems are designed with more checks in place to prevent "unauthorized" switching. Is there an alter (like a gatekeeper) or a group of alters that directs switches? We had to identify that cooperative switching existed and I had to experience what it felt like in order to make the distinctions about how to do it. For a host, I think you also have to look really closely at whether you really do want to allow someone to take over your body from you. I know that for decades the idea, when I did consider the possibility I had DID, was mostly kind of horrifying, but that was because I didn't understand. I love it now because it can take pressure off of me.

I do not think cooperative switching is a universal need or a goal. Every system is different. But I do think it's one possible aspect of the larger process of cooperation, and that should be a universal goal in my opinion. I'm wondering if others might want to share their own development or discovery of cooperative switching.

Johnny-Jack
I understand what you are saying here.I do not speak will in public.Well, I do not speak at all in public if possible.Then again Clair and Thomas Lee have no probelm with it.I do a lot was out reach to children, on science, in my community.I cannot speak but I can let Clair and Thomas Lee front and every thing works well.I only take care of the tech side of our out reach.Clair works very well with the children and Thomas Lee can explain concepts and take it to a level the children can understand.It does feel a little strange at first stepping back like this and being the observer but it relieves the panic and fear that I get speaking publicly and is much easier for the whole system.Also the littles like coming out and being with other children so it does work out in being a positive.
Us

I will add that there was another ingredient for us, a strong intention. I wanted to get to know my alters and talking with them while they're inside was just not very clear. It was like tuning in a radio station that can go in and out of range. Also Jack is not a cerebral being given to pontifications. He is a talker but he's a kid and a part that lived in the world a lot, a curious kid who wants to do things, not talk about doing them. And he's not content to simply watch others doing things. Most of us aren't like that.

Most of my alters are world-oriented, they like doing and moving around, investigating, living. Not to give them that option made me feel like a dominant warden of a prison. They all suffered enough at the hands of people who very very sick and they did nothing to deserve that. If they wanted to be in the body in order just to be who they are -- ultimately, in order for us to be who "I" am (the ultimate me) -- I felt I had better let them. There is no way better for me to get to know them and for me to really understand who I am than to let them run the body while I observe.

Cooperative switching feels like listening to myself. It feels like the opposite of blocking. When I don't switch, my mood starts to take a nose-dive fairly quickly.

Your description is quite helpful. We are still struggling with volitional exchange. We have discovered we can cooperatively switch during therapy, but it still requires a large period of "warm up" (akin to stretching before exercise). Outside of therapy, there is a good deal of co-consciousness/co-presence and a few unexpected/automatic switches (as perceived by the host). However, there is almost no cooperative switching as necessitated by the host's motherhood role. The contrary inclinations between an attachment avoidant host (and another protective part) and the younger parts' attempts to seek connection with the therapist seems to be the main challenge in cooperation. Switching back at the ends of sessions is still disjointed, but follows more quickly and naturally (for the host to come back) than allowing vulnerable parts to come out and interact with their therapist.

It absolutely requires, in our case, a sort of acceptance, permission, intention and desire on the part of the host, for which she is unfortunately largely (though often unconsciously) uncooperative. While others of the executive committee will sometimes intervene for reasons of safety, the problem is almost always the host. It is a combination of oppositional attachment patterns, a sort of phobic response to closeness, and an unavowed/unconscious unwillingness to witness, experience, share in or receive traumatic experiences and affect from the most vulnerable younger parts. It is interrelated, in this case, because those experiences recreate the dilemma, a necessity for care, comfort, supportive connection, which is the contrary to the design of the host, who came to exist while still entrenched in an environment where needs were literally a psychological threat. When she agrees to step aside, another protector (of an even more avoidant, detached disposition) almost automatically takes over in keeping the "gate" (host) shut. It is not all connection that elicits such response. Relationships of a caretaking nature, in which she is the object, rather than the object-seeker, are not problematic. As a result, for 14 years of hosting, nearly every relationship has been unconsciously designed with that dynamic. Interdependency was deemed to be a trigger and avoided. A flawed design, but necessary lacking safety and resources with which to address the source of the confusing messages and traumatic experiences.

Our major, if not sole, focus in therapy as of late, with my direction, has been to overcome the host's phobia of emotional intimacy, dependency, support, encouragement and other aspects of human connection. Cooperative switching and eventual integration are impossible without her willingness to acknowledge and bring into conscious understanding the automatic responses that maintain the dissociative walls between herself and other parts. It has been an extremely disorienting process for her, but more progress has been made in the last month than all previously combined in terms of accepting and experiencing belonging to one another, mostly between the host and younger parts who do not hold the most threatening experiences. I should qualify that those experiences which are most threatening are not simply the most horrific abuse, but those which created the largest unresolved dilemmas (inability to find a consistent strategy to employ, due to caregiver instability and a series of aborted attachments as the result of parental relational instability).

We know JJ to be aware of these things already, but because disorganized attachment has been identified as a potential key feature of DID and is certainly the case within our system, we deemed it potentially helpful to share with others who may be looking for a way to increase cooperation internally. Fortunately, our host has been very (albeit slowly) responsive to the suggestions on a conscious level, despite her unconscious resistance. On a Friday call, she finally relented to share with the therapist my suggestion of several weeks to implement an immediate greeting routine, including eye contact, akin to our parting routine, to interrupt her automatic detachment which occurs within the first few minutes of sitting down, usually while the therapist is out of the room. Although she disagrees with the suggestion (a fear-based reaction, rather than a logical conclusion), she shows tremendous determination to heal in her willingness to attempt what will undoubtedly be an experience of extreme discomfort, attempting an immediate connection when her disposition is to entrench herself in avoidance before young parts have the opportunity to move forward for acknowledgement and support. Perhaps we will report on the outcome eventually.

I am being asked to make apologies for my tendency to err toward prolific exposition in order that others may understand as completely as possible.