Attachers and detachers

DID is sometimes described as an attachment disorder but of course it's not the only one of those.

Our system has a lot more alters whose skill or prominent habit is to attach to or detach from other people (often the same people, GAK!) than anyone we can identify using more common labels like introjects, protectors, persecutors or fragments. I can see it's related to our specific childhood but I'm wondering if attachers and detachers are even categories or identifiable roles in other systems. Thanks

Well, that's an interesting question. My first thought is that protectors tend to do so by detaching from others. That has been a main way that we have protected ourselves--by withdrawing from connections with others. The parts who are more anxious and introverted also detach from others--it's safer and calmer to be alone. Parts who are happier and more secure tend to want to attach, and so do parts who are, or prefer to be dependent on others (many of these are littles).

So, to me it seems like an aspect of different parts, based on their larger function in the system, rather than their primary skill or purpose.

Can you give an example of what you mean? Because I'm having trouble picturing how the main purpose or skill of a part could be attaching or detaching from others.

dunno about that one.
quite a few here have avoidant attachment style. so basically they avoid being dependent or having feelings for someone or needing help. that too is considered an attachment style though.
they say that this comes from neglect (lack of positive attention) while other styles come from abuse (negative attention) or a mix of it.
we are kind of good at dissociating attachment needs, so when someone leaves it doesn't hurt so bad. well, at least for some.
one of the big DID textbooks say that systems are split between those with 'attachment cry', going nuts over needs, and those who avoid it. like there rarely is middle ground and the system presents as unstable and gets misdiagnosed with BPD for the constant pushing and pulling, but it is based on switches.
L&Annett

This is interesting. I once tried to explain the parts as "developed action paths" in the brain, and mentioned approach and avoid. Both in the context of problems/situations as with people. We certainly have parts with different attachment styles, and some parts are more disorganized than others. I think it represents how *different* our life was at times and primarily the adults and how they acted. It was unpredictable and varied a lot.

Trigger warning: More descriptive stuff about it:

When I was about 14 I drew up my "different mums": three states she would go into that were completely dofferent from each other and each required wildly different behaviour from me. I'm pretty sure she had BPD. For example, she could be very hostile and preachy, but she could also be very "small" and needing help, or she could be very clingy and "loving" and then frustrated if I didn't trust it.
My dad could be very loving, but he could not tolerate anyone needing anything from him. So there was zero space for other people and their feelings. He could also explode in anger and he enjoyed trying to make people angry and having control, but it often seemed like later he had no recollection of it. He was also seriously neglectful.
I also had at least four other caregivers, who were mainly just as unpredictable.

End trigger warning.

I can see how a situation like that encourages the development of states that are equipped with dealing with all of these states in the adults. Including "attachers" and "detachers". In my case I think that the attachers are wishing and hoping for the small chance that they may be met by the responsive adult (possibly without awareness of the other stuff that happened), whereas the detachers thought the costs of trying were too high, were hurt, or simply gave up.

I have avoidant attachment style, to the point of having no relationships. That is changing slowly now in therapy to be more healthy kind. Sami, Rami and Anastasia are more avoidant as well. Lucas has plenty of healthiness in him, but it's not build on the solid ground. Ferro is both, he's an attention seeker in his ANP-mindset but really strongly independent what comes to his trauma side. About the new guy I can't really tell.

Fourteen who is our main trauma holder, and has therefor over 20 parts in his system to keep it all, has disorganized one, the one that pushes and pulls at the same time. When he got us in the hospital once, he was dx'd having borderline personality. He may appear like one, but isn't for real in my opinion, he is just switchy. Doctor didn't know she was diagnosing a part tho. Now it is very clear to me it was him back then. "I" had his eating disorder, was writing about different mes and thinking if I may have to kill the traumatized little one (still have no clue who exactly was I/he writing about), became very close friends with one teenage girl in the hospital, self harmed etc. All Fourteen's traits, not mine. Biggest difference is that he talks about his feelings and knows how to cry, I don't. He knows how to make friends too, with other teens, but with adults he always feels abandoned. He felt abandoned by the doctor and his "own" psych.nurse in there because of the things they said. I could go on and on about details that are absolutely not mine. His DID is more severe than mine, he has way more symptoms that can be seen from outside, so him being dx'd with BPD is not a surprise really, since they didn't recognize dissociation.

I think attachment style is one feature of a part, just like their age or gender identity. "Little" is not a job either, littles can have many purposes, but still we talk about them as one group. I've seen also "opposite gender parts" defined to be a one typical group of parts, so I don't see why you couldn't speak about your parts based on their attachment styles like that too. Fictives or factives are not jobs either, also introject is more of a description of how a part was born (copying someone) than a job. Introjects can be caretakers or abusive persecutors.

I think it's kind of misleading to speak about jobs and groups of parts like mentioned above like they were somehow in same continuum. If you don't think your parts really fit into the groups of typical jobs, maybe they don't. Every system is unique, maybe you share jobs rather than have parts specified in one area. In the end all parts are protectors, they just have different methods to do that job.

definitely tracks for us.

Becky and Rose attach. Roger and Snow cut those off.

I think it is a trust issue. parts that attach are trusting people and the ones who detach do it for safety because they dont trust anyone.

but very few of us actually fit that way. and I wouldn't say its roles. some feel a desire for connection. and some feel safer without it. so we always have that little push/pull.

I'd be interested if it is possible for a child to have disorganized attachment style without structural dissociation. There seems to be so clearly two "opinions" on the same (BIG!) thing, and switching between them. Opinion is not a good word, it totally undermines the fundamental nature of it, but I hope you get my point. It has it's roots in trauma, and child needs to create two separate coping strategies to survive from where they couldn't survive otherwise. Isn't that pretty much how structural dissociation starts?

This discussion is helpful. I can see how both attaching and detaching are protective. Looking at skills always brings us to the conclusion that except for the infants, we're all protective in some way, which makes that label not so helpful for us.

The point of view of our attachers is that you need allies in life, people who feel they have a connection to you, from "that's my neighbor, always pleasant but we don't talk much" to "he's my friend and I trust him with my secrets." Beyond that, they cultivate bonds of love so that the same come back to us. That said, the latter hasn't been a smooth highway but more a sometimes scenic road filled with potholes.

We don't really have anyone who thinks "avoid people because they'll hurt you," though several do think "avoid that person for now or for good because they hurt us." These are our detachers.

There's a lot of push-pull between these two in our system. Our attachers are so committed to making alliances, friends, acquaintances, positive interactions, that they'll go overboard and allow disrespect or being taken advantage of in some way. They don't feel the full impact of hurt because it's dissociated and they're inclined to accept a lot of infractions from others. Nobody is attach-at-all-costs though, we're all wary to some degree.

Detachers correct the imbalance the above can create. At best, they get rid of someone unhealthy. At worse they use a sledgehammer when a ball-peen was needed, so attacher returns to correct the overcorrection. Detachers ignore or suppress the need to connect for a while.

I agree this is also a trust issue. Our attachers trust first, detachers distrust in general (mostly just people we had trusted). Our detachers are involved when an attacher makes usually a series of mistakes or it's perceived they did. Otherwise, they don't care, some about anything.

A healthy non-multiple can do both of these from moment to moment based on real-world feedback. Gosh we hope to attain that some day.

Our attachers do other stuff too but so much behavior and resources are focused on maintaining attachments with people, that attacher seems the best descriptor or label for what they do.

Our parents were multiple, each with good and bad alters. Others in their orbit could be both kind and abusive. So attaching and detaching was an overactive cycle for us. We didn't go the full avoidant route because we didn't have to. Some attach-worthy adult (or parent alter) would always return and some adults around us were completely safe.