The System Types Primer
#collective – #general #introductory #infoposts
Last updated: 6/7/18
This is a continuation of our 101 + Glossary, breaking down some plural labels and communities a little further along with a few that we hadn't included in the glossary. If you're unfamiliar with the concept of plurality itself, we recommend you start there.
Just like with the 101, this primer is neither complete nor absolute. It does not capture every facet of every community or subcommunity. It is not a reflection of the one true way these labels are used by all people, nor does it include every labels that has been coined, nor does it dictate what the “correct” labels are. It is our attempt at sharing what we've personally gathered and understood over our years in the community, and is thus subject to change as we gain new understandings and the community itself changes. Labels shift in meaning, usage, and connotations; communities merge, split, and bicker; there will always be edge cases, overlaps, and those for whom categories simply do not apply. We strongly encourage anyone deeply interested in the subject of plurality to not stop their learning here.
(Content notes: some brief discussion of integration, drama over labels.)
Endogenic: Systems who were created neither through trauma nor tulpamancy—in other words, they did not have plurality foisted upon them by trauma, nor did they induce their plurality consciously.
Explanations for why endogenic systems exist differ from system to system, and sometimes even within systems. Some see it as a neurological phenomenon caused by from-birth variations in brains and the genetics that shape them. Others see it as a spiritual phenomenon involving many souls being incarnated into the same body, or contact with spirits from different planes. Though some endogenic systems have experienced trauma, it is not the cause of their plurality.
While an endogenic system might not carry the baggage of traumagenesis (or in some cases, trauma at all), it is possible for them to still experience problems with involuntary switches, memory difficulties, in-system conflict, and various other plural complications. Some endogenic systems may even wish they weren't plural, though even these systems may express distaste at the idea of integration or any other measure to induce singlethood.
Endogenic systems, as one might expect, make up a significant portion of the non-clinical multiplicity community, and have carved out a number of their own spaces on various social media platforms and private forums.
Traumagenic: A system whose plurality originated as a result of trauma. Many traumagenic systems consider their plurality neurological in basis, but some see it in a more spiritual light—the fragmenting of a soul into more souls, or a tormented child inadvertently calling spirits to them to protect them.
Although many traumagenic systems also identify under the DID and OSDD diagnoses, some do not for a variety of reasons. Some disagree with the clinical view of multiplicity, to the extent that they refuse to associate themselves with any clinical terms. Some do not feel capable of self-diagnosing, and are putting identification on hold until receiving a formal diagnosis. Others do not find their plurality a source of distress, danger, or dysfunction, and thus feel that they do not fit the DID/OSDD diagnosis. Many of these systems do not participate in exclusively DID/OSDD spaces and instead take up residence in endogenic or broader plural spheres.
DID/OSDD: Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder, and still called that in some places of the world) and its close relative, Other Specified Dissociative Disorder. The forms of plurality that the layperson is most likely to be familiar with.
These terms apply to a subset of systems with trauma*, who have been diagnosed with and/or have chosen to identify under the clinical diagnoses. Reasons for this may vary—many DID/OSDD systems may experience disorder related to being plural, whether from uncontrolled dissociation, involuntary switching, memory loss, or in-system strife. Others may not experience so much disorder from the plurality itself but struggle with their trauma history, and experience their trauma history as irrevocably entwined with their plurality. Still others may find the diagnostic terms crucial descriptors for ways in which their system behaves under extreme stress or retraumatization.
The difference between DID and OSDD can be described most simply as: DID systems have relatively differentiated members and experience amnesia. OSDD-1a systems do not have very differentiated members, but experience amnesia, while OSDD-1b systems have relatively differentiated members, but do not experience amnesia. Both DID and OSDD systems tend to struggle with comorbid disorders such as PTSD, depression, and BPD.
Some DID/OSDD systems value being plural, even if it causes them difficulty, and choose to continue living as a system. Others experience their plurality as solely a disorder, with some working towards integration. Still others fall in-between.
DID/OSDD communities tend to be apart from other plural communities, and focus upon different topics—finding a therapist, stabilizing a system, trauma support and recovery, and other clinical topics. However, some DID/OSDD systems do venture into broader plural spheres from time to time, with some also preferring to take up residence in non-clinical plural spheres.
The term “alter” is a term generally used to describe DID/OSDD system members (and occasionally members of non-DID/OSDD traumagenic systems) although there are some who find the term distasteful. Always check with a system before using the term for them.
Tulpamancy: An odd duck even in plurality, tulpamancy stands out in that it is a type of plurality that is consciously, and often voluntarily induced, and thus a way by which singlets may become plural. Most system members who are tulpas are deliberately created—however, it is possible to accidentally create a tulpa by going through the steps to make one without realizing what one is doing. A significant portion of the tulpamancy community consists of such systems—those who developed their tulpas accidentally, after speaking too long to an imaginary friend, finding dream characters lingering after waking, or experiencing fiction writing characters coming to life.
Tulpamancy is seen in both a psychological and a metaphysical light, with the majority of the community seeing it as psychological. Both viewpoints frame tulpamancy as the creation of an entity through focused effort, with psychologically-minded members viewing it as reshaping one's brain to create another person and metaphysically-minded members viewing it as the manipulation of energy instead.
Tulpamancy systems differ from other systems, especially traumagenic systems, in a number of ways. Many tulpamancy systems do not delve into switching, and many who do will not switch extensively. For the most part, the tulpamancer lives life as always before, with them holding front all or nearly all of the time, while their tulpa lives in an inner space or hangs out with them as an observer. In addition, extremely few tulpamancy systems experience uncontrolled dissociation, involuntary switching, memory loss, etc, with the worst that many experience being disagreements in-system. There also often exists a significant power imbalance in favor of the tulpamancer as a result of them being more deeply entrenched within the body, although many systems have found ways to work it out. There are many other, more subtle cultural differences, but that is a topic for another time.
The tulpamancy community largely developed as its own entity, unknowing of other plural spheres, and thus in the process developed its own language, culture, and history. The community only became more aware of other forms of plurality in recent years, after a number of tulpamancy systems were introduced to the endogenic community by several endogenic and traumagenic systems who had come over to the tulpamancy community. Nowadays, the tulpamancy community today is much more mixed, with a significant number of members not falling into the traditional model of tulpamancy. There are a number of traumagenic, endogenic, and other systems from across the plural experience who visit in order to adopt tulpamancy techniques for everything from improving in-system communication to creating new headmates who can assist in the system's stabilization. Some of these systems have taken up permanent residence in the community, posting information on their own experiences and helping those who discover different origins find their way to resources. Traffic flows the other way as well, as some tulpamancy systems find themselves dissatisfied with the community's ways of thinking, and set out into wider plural spheres to find new ways of experiencing their plurality.
Soulbonding: A community that, for the most part, has been absorbed into the endogenic community. For the longest time, however, soulbonding was its own community, with its own language, culture, and history. Some soulbonding groups to this day do not identify under the plural spectrum for a variety of reasons, and there are some standalone soulbonding communities undergoing a revival.
Most soulbonders are extremely metaphysical in outlook. In their soulbonding tradition, members of collectives do not always coinhabit a head. Rather, soulbonds are seen as people in different worlds who are connected to the soulbonder across the ether, or who have moved in with the soulbonder after leaving their original world. Many soulbonds in this tradition are characters from media—whether created by the system or by people outside—with the view being that many worlds depicted in media exist in parallel to our own, and that one can connect with the people in these worlds after establishing a strong emotional bond with them.
A minority of soulbonders are psychological in outlook. In this tradition, soulbonding is seen as a psychological phenomenon in which familiarity and emotional closeness with a character brings a soulbond to life. It bears many similarities to tulpamancy, and many soulbonders and soulbonds of this slant have taken up residence in the tulpamancy community.
Most soulbonds are not deliberately created/connected to. However, deliberate soulbonding does exist, whether it is framed as creating a connection across worlds, or infusing the idea of a character with life.
Regardless of origin, something that soulbonds typically have in common is a pervasive feeling of having come from somewhere else—of having had a life before coming to this world, with all the memories, both good and bad, involved. Some soulbonds are able to come and go from their original lives at will, while others are unable to as a result of having died in their original life, having been exiled, etc. Psychologically-minded soulbonds use non-metaphysical explanations for their experiences, such as originating from a detailed (but still entirely mental) inner world or having their memories procedurally generated by the brain, but do not consider their identities and memories any less important to who they are. As one soulbond once said, “It may not have happened, but it happened to me.“
Many of these views and experiences are shared by some endogenic systems, and subsequently some soulbonders and soulbonds identify also as endogenic plural systems.
Gateway: This term refers as much to a way of functioning as it does to an origin. Gateway systems possess extremely elaborate inner worlds, generally seen as metaphysical in nature, that have their own histories, cultures, natural laws, etc. The members of a gateway system originate from these inner worlds, and consider these worlds their actual homes, with the body and front just being interfaces they can access to interact with this world. Not every person of a gateway system's world will front—many live out their whole lives in the other world, some none the wiser that this one exists.
Median: A term that relates more to topology than to origins, median systems are systems in which individual system members are less separate from each other, forming facets of a central identity rather than being separate individuals with their own identities.
There are many ways in which a system can experience medianhood. This can range anywhere from there being one core person with different facets, to a collection of largely differentiated members who share an identity. It is important to note that median system members are as real as any other kind of system member and should be treated with as much respect.
Median systems can be endogenic, traumagenic, tulpamancy, etc, and can be diagnosed/identify as DID or OSDD. It is also possible for there to be a median subsystem within a larger system.
Polyfragmented: Another topology term, seen almost exclusively in the DID/OSDD community. The term is used in several senses—perhaps the most general way to define a polyfragmented system is one having an extremely large number of members, often with more fragmentary members and intricate, layered, and highly fluid inner structures.
One example of a polyfragmented system would be a system composed of many “top-level” members who are each composed of many fragments of self associated together under one identity, along with some “free-floating” fragments. Some systems of this nature possess the ability to (deliberately or otherwise) refragment their members into free-floating fragments, and then reassemble those fragments in different reconfigurations to create new members, or on a less intensive level, share fragments of various members among themselves to create smaller shifts in ability and identity.
Different polyfragmented systems feel differently about their inner structures. For some, polyfragmentation is highly distressing, as identities and senses of self constantly shift, break apart, and reconfigure, with little stability as a result. Some polyfragmented systems struggle with additional memory issues or difficulties processing trauma as a result of their fragmentation. Other polyfragmented systems find it a source of strength and adaptability, as they see their polyfragmentation as granting them a level of flexibility unavailable to singlets or even other, non-polyfragmented systems.
Mixed-Origin: Just as the name implies, there are many systems who are not homogenous in their origins. For example, a DID system may create tulpas to assist in their stabilization. A tulpamancy system may receive endogenic walk-ins. There are many possible configurations.
Some of these systems will elect to identify under a more specific label for their own reasons—for example, a DID system with tulpas may still elect to identify as DID instead of mixed-origins with DID, as their DID is the core of their identity and experience of plurality.
Unsure/Questioning: Origins are not always entirely clear. A system may settle into one identity, only to unearth new ways of thinking or previously buried personal history that cause them to question the way they identify. This is a normal part of self-discovery, and there is no shame in discovering that you need a new label.
Quoigenic: Almost an anti-label of sorts, quoigenic is sometimes taken to mean “we don't know or care”, but also often emphasizes “this isn't helpful” and “why does it matter anyway?” and “it's none of your business.” It was coined as a reaction against the idea that plurals must submit their identities to others for scrutiny and nitpicking, that everyone must fit into a neat box in order to be valid, and that even then certain boxes are less valid than others.
*While we typically refer to DID and OSDD as traumagenic disorders, the actual picture is a little more complicated. The overwhelming majority of DID/OSDD systems are traumagenic, with a smaller group who were plural beforehand and then had trauma drastically change their functioning. There are also some systems who are unsure about their history, and a very small subset of DID/OSDD systems who do not have trauma at all. As such, there is some debate over whether the diagnoses should only be applied to traumagenic systems, traumagenic and trauma-influenced systems, or any system who meets criteria. We are planning on writing a more detailed post on this at a later date.