I have been asked to participate in a pubic television documentary on DID in Hong Kong. While I think a locally produced documentary is an excellent idea for public education in a city of 7 millions in Asia, where DID is considered nonexistent by the mental health care system, I have reservations about it. There are already many MPD documentaries (and movies) in the public media, whether it be on television, YouTube or otherwise.
The effect in the past has been that the public sees DID as a curiosity, a circus show. So far, all the movies about DID continue to create the false impression that it is a rare condition. The movies and most documentaries portray it as a very curious and, for those not afflicted by it, entertaining illness. Marketing clips, for example show an adult professional women suddenly turning into a 4 year old girl so that the viewer will think, “how extraordinary – I must watch this!”
The result is that the public is impressed for the wrong reason. The DID community will never overcome the prejudicial idea that DID is very rare. The media focus is on the display of alters rather than the root cause of horrific early childhood abuse. That is where the (sometimes) bright light of documentary journalism needs to focus.
DID only appears to be rare. It is a hidden phenomenon, based on very private and confidential personal histories. It is not like a skin rash that someone on the outside immediately sees. Individuals with DID often include hosts that do not know their alters exist, or hosts that consider this kind of splitting as something private. They don’t even want their doctors to know for fear of ridicule, disbelief or being insulted.
I personally know of psychiatrists who simply “don’t believe” in DID, as if it were an issue of faith. For those psychiatrists, the sudden appearance of an alter as a 4 year old girl sitting on the floor in their consultation room is suppressed. It is met with “Go back to your chair and behave like an adult. You are not four, you are thirty-four.” But, DID is not an issue of faith. It is a diagnostic category that has been included for decades in multiple editions of the DSM.
There are several psychiatrists in apparent authority who promulgate their mistaken view. For example, there is a well-known authority, a university professor holding a chair in psychiatry, who proclaims that although he has been in his authoritative position for decades, he has never come across a genuine case of DID. Most laymen, and psychiatrists as well, do not challenge his view. They do not challenge that apparently authoritative statement. It can be scary to confront a so-called authority who has the power to belittle you, to attack you. No wonder society cannot get rid of the idea that DID is a very rare condition.
Most psychiatrists in Hong Kong have never seen even one case of DID. I would argue that the psychiatrists have almost definitely seen DID individuals because, statistically speaking, research shows it to be as common as schizophrenia – which virtually all would acknowledge having seen. What is the argument one can use with them to help them understand that it isn’t that they haven’t seen DID, that they have simply failed to recognize DID? It is to point out that statistics don’t lie.
Busy psychiatrists looking for symptoms to a pigeonhole a patient into a particular diagnostic box of depression, bipolar disorder or perhaps borderline personality disorder, will see how they can fit the patient into their familiar basket of diagnoses. In other words, their index of suspicion – which excludes DID – will lead them to what they are most comfortable identifying and treating. As a result, DID will not be recognized and therefore not get diagnosed. When that happens, the patient will likely decide that it would be no use to let such a psychiatrist to know of the true nature of their affliction. The consequence is that there is once again no feedback and once again a psychiatrist fails to recognize the disorder.
There isn’t much to be gained in showing an adult speaking as a child on the screen. It becomes another cycle of entertainment, rather than an exposé of an extremely serious public health and social issue; the issue of early childhood trauma. This is the point to stress. It is critical that the public be educated about the widespread nature of such trauma along with its tremendous and wide-spread ramifications to the individuals traumatized and to society in general.
I understand that movies and television shows seek to show something impressive to grab viewers. Unfortunately, what they think is impressive (and more palatable to viewers) is the display of alters rather than the heart of the issue, which is abuse.
I have not yet confirmed my willingness to participate in the documentary as I am still pondering these points.
