Classification of Dissociative Parts using Action Systems

 

The attempt to describe dissociative parts of the personality most accurately led to the incorporation of the concept of action systems into the theory. Action systems are considered the most basic subsystems of our human behavior. Actions toward the survival of the species, energy management, attachment, caretaking and social interaction, exploration, play, reproduction and various defense strategies are considered action systems.

They exist in humans from early on and bring forth adaptive responses to the environment. Nijenhuis also calls them ‘will systems’, with the more philosophical claim that there is a basic inborn ‘will’ that drives our actions and when we break down human behavior we end up with these action systems that seem to exist for their own sake.

 

Healthy people are able to access any action system when it is needed, even if it isn’t always smooth and easy. Imagine a company with a number of departments. Employees are able to move around between departments and use their data and appliances to make the company function smoothly.

In structural dissociation these action systems get divided, with parts having access to some actions and not others.That is why no part qualifies as full personality. Employees can only access certain departments and then run out of options for adaptive behavior. Then another employee with access to other departments has to take over to make sure we can meet the demands of the situation or we will end up responding with the dysfunctional actions we do have access to.

The division between action systems is what makes disorders of structural dissociation different and sets them apart from ‘endogenic’ systems or what is considered ‘healthy multiplicity’. Integration can lead to a re-organization of employees and departments so the company can function without disruptions.

 

 

Individual action systems

The first big group of action systems refer to daily life. In terms of the polyvagal ladder they exist in the biospychosocial realm of the safe&social system. If we think in terms of approach vs avoidance behaviors, they are on the side of approach. If we think in terms of ignorance, control and fragility, they represent ignorance. These action systems are traditionally covered by ANPs, with only some EPs engaging in one or the other action.

 

Everyday life/survival of the species sums up actions that are a normal part of our life, like going to work, buying groceries, cleaning your home, adulting etc

Energy management: includes actions like eating and drinking, taking breaks, sleep to restore energy when needed and moving/being active when there is more than enough energy available. Some basic needs are covered here.

Attachment: this goes two ways. Attachment seeking of children toward caretakers or attachment of caretakers toward the child. We will see attachment seeking behavior in many child parts and it can be argued that it is a way to secure protection from threat.

Social interaction: all the bits of social interactions with other people that humans need to be healthy and regulated. That can include appeasement behavior to turn a tricky situation into a social situation.

Exploration: a fancy word for being curious, trying out new things or discovering new places. Feeling safe is a key condition for these actions. Learning is a fundamental human action we shouldn’t neglect.

Play: this is a basic action humans, like other mammals, will engage in naturally. We tend to unlearn it when we get older but it is surprisingly important. Play more!

Reproduction: includes attraction, the whole dance of dating and enjoying sexual interactions. A lot of traumatized people struggle with this or feel like they are out of control or outside the norm here, so it is worth examining.

Caretaking: could be focused on our offspring, but a lot of people express this in taking care of animals, plants or other people (though sometimes only in the context of video games).

 

 

On the other side we have defense responses, meant for the survival of the individual. They cover hyper- and hypoarousal on the polyvagal ladder and are usually found in EPs who are stuck in these responses and have little to no access to action systems of daily life. They are, roughly speaking, on the side of avoidance and represent either control or fragility.

 

Attachment cry: the attachment needs suddenly become overwhelming and desperate, fear of abandonment makes us cling to people for safety. Many young parts experience attachment cry.

Appeasement and social submission: it is unclear if this is a defense or social behavior, but the tendency to give in and allow others to get their will while being the ‘good girl’ seems to be related to freezing and prevents greater harm.

Hypervigilance: we do this before we encounter a threat. It is marked by being tense, easily startled, and always watching out for potential threats. A lot of protectors score high here and might engage in this more often than in actual fight.

Flight response: upon the encounter of a threat we might run and hide or otherwise try to escape the situation. A lot of trauma-holding parts engage in this. It is accompanied by different levels of fear.

Fight: others use fight to fend off threats. This state is marked by aggression, the use of different forms of violence and the goal of dominance and control. Abuser-imitating parts are often stuck in that pursuit of dominance.

Freeze: this is a highly energetic state of immobility, marked by the readiness to spring forward to engage in flight/fight. Parts stuck in this are highly alert and tense but frozen in place, observing what is happening.

Shutdown: this is ‘post-strike’ behavior, playing dead, typically accompanied by the shutting down of (pain) awareness and high levels of dissociation. Like the others, this is sensitive to conditioning and can become a default response.

Recuperation: after getting hurt badly, it is natural to socially withdraw, lick the wounds, enter a deep fatigue and sleep. Sometimes parts are stuck in that too, and it is good to be aware that this could be the source of some of the unexplainable fatigue we experience.

 

When we get traumatized these defenses happen in a sequence and one or more parts hold the actions while it all gets divided from daily life, so a part of us can continue as if nothing happened. In addition to these sequential parts there can be a parallel division, with a part who observes everything. Unlike the ANP that part will know about the trauma but isn’t touched by it, so it exists parallel to the stress responses. Observing parts can be incredibly useful when it comes to putting together dissociated pieces of an experience.

 

 

Looking at systems through the lense of action systems

In simple PTSD we can expect an ANP acting within the daily life systems and an EP with access to the defense systems active during the trauma.

In more complex trauma there will be several EPs that could be identified as either engaging in hyperarousal or hypoarousal. It seems harder to find parts who cover both because these systems got separated more clearly and are often opposing each other. Research comparing ANPs with hyperaroused EPs shows different physiological reactions to the same stimulus. We respond to our environment within our action systems. Controlled switching to hypoaroused EPs turns out to be a lot harder, so there isn’t good research on that.

In DID even daily life actions sometimes got divided between 2 or more ANPs. One ANP might engage in caretaking and social interactions while another one is better at managing work, organizing and mental actions. The exact divisions between action systems depend on the personal history and are highly individual.

 

When we get to know our parts it is worth the effort to check which action systems they can engage in and what is beyond their ability. A lot of fragile EPs will only engage in flight or shutdown. Some protectors mainly act within hypervigilance but do have access to some social interactions, so they tend to dissolve tricky situations with a rough joke or other de-escalating behaviors.

*****trigger warning sexual parts and practices*****

What is often called a ‘sexual part’ obviously works within the reproduction system, but it helps to understand if attachment seeking behavior is activated or if they basically engage in submission and shutdown. General numbness and submission can explain the need for more extreme sexual experiences like in BDSM, which is not a rare thing in chronic trauma survivors.

***** end trigger warning*****

Some systems have a part that seems unharmed by trauma, they engage in play and exploration and attachment seeking, but they are still child parts. They are often called ‘originals’ although we know today that there is no such thing as an original. Once there is trauma and a split, all parts are influenced by trauma and that split, even if it shows in ignorance for trauma. But it is possible that this is a former ANP who at some point failed to integrate major changes in life, like the shift between being at home and going to school, so they are left behind unintegrated. In cases where ANPs are out of touch with basic needs these kids can often help. Action systems don’t just go away, they have to be somewhere in the system.

A lot of DID Littles do not engage in play. They are not just normal children stuck in an adult body, they are dissociative parts and in that, limited to their action systems, which are often stress responses and not play. That is normal. And it can change with time, they can learn to engage in new actions.

 

The lines between ANPs and EPs aren’t perfect and there will be parts who engage in action systems across the categories. That is why we personally prefer to think of parts in terms of their action systems instead of using fixed roles. I myself as the part writing this am deeply engaged in hypervigilance and exploration as my main action systems, I can’t stand play and I avoid fight at all cost. I pass as ANP, but a very very tense version of an ANP. Looking at our life history, that makes perfect sense, as I began my existence in the context of learning and education in a constantly threatening environment.

I would encourage you to take some time and go through the parts you already know and see if you can figure out what departments in the company they have access to. What sort of actions are available to you?

 

Maybe you have seen us criticize Janina Fisher’s approach to working with parts in DID. She just calls every defense system that shows up a new part. When we are aware of action systems we will understand why this doesn’t make sense. One part can access more than one action system and more than one part can access the same action system. Not every defense response means that this is a separate part or always the same part. Some parts don’t act within defense systems at all, they engage in daily life, play or exploration, but they are still dissociated parts. This won’t matter so much when treating simple structural dissociation, but when it gets as complex as DID it does matter. Fisher’s theoretical foundation gets too inaccurate to represent the reality of DID parts.

 

 

Practical use

All this gives us a system to classify parts and their abilities. We need to know what parts are good at and what they are incapable of when we try to learn how to cooperate to make the best of every situation. If we know who is good at social interaction these parts can shine when they are needed. If we know who is the most effective when we are facing threat we know who can take care of tricky situations for the system. If we struggle with eating or sleeping regularly, we know whom not to approach for help in this. If we know who needs the most protection because they are stuck in a passive defense we can make sure to distract or keep them safe when we expect stressful situations and prevent them from engaging when it isn’t adaptive today. This is the foundation of smooth cooperation. We might not be able to access every department yet, but we can switch between tasks so that the part who is in charge is the one who has access to the skills needed in that situation. I hope it gets very clear why the outdated concept of having only the host front at all times is not adaptive. Life demands that we can access all that we are capable of, not just actions of daily life. Switching as needed is the way to go.

Understanding the will system a part is stuck in is invaluable when it comes to finding things that can help. We can support the strengths that these parts already have to make it more adaptive and teach them skills that help them to cope better. We can even partner them with another part who can cover their weakness. Our interventions can be targeted more precisely at what is needed. The simple questions ‘what are they good at and what are they unable to access?’ can give us direction toward future goals and our next steps. It can also make clear what kind of integrative action (realization, personification or presentification) is most needed.

Since parts with very different action systems usually don’t like each other a lot or are even phobic for each other, knowing where they stand can help us realize who needs to make peace with whom to foster integration. Overcoming the phobic avoidance of parts who are opposite in nature is one of the big milestones in therapy and knowing the concepts of action systems can make it clear why it is existing and maybe help us to understand and accept that this is us, a system of parts that contain different will systems that are divided but really belong together to make up the full human experience. Just because we work in different departments doesn’t mean we have to be enemies or afraid of each other.

Thinking in terms of action systems could help therapists too. It can make them better at guessing what to expect from a part and where their limitations are, predicting who might be fronting in response to a certain situation and it helps to sort through the different parts that need to get involved in trauma processing. Our inner phobias will make more sense to Ts if they understand the avoidance pattern. I very much recommend including the concept of action systems into the process of mapping. I think it is superior to using fixed roles like ‘child part’, ‘trauma-holder’ or ‘protector’ because they are both more accurate and more flexible and therefore better suited to describing complex experiences.

 

The concept of action systems is a bit theoretical but it is worth the effort because it helps to sort through the chaos of a DID system and explains a lot of the individual experiences and abilities of parts without limiting them to certain roles. I would love to see this applied more often in the context of therapy. I think it fosters understanding and acceptance.

 

You can find this in the theory of structural dissociation