Perpetrator-imitating personalities: A framework for understanding & practice

1. Perpetrator-imitating personalities: A framework for understanding & practice Sue Richardson Attachment-based psychotherapist. SueRichardson1@compuserve.com

2. Aims of presentation • To share & increase our understanding of parts of the personality with an internalised perpetrator identity. • To build a profile of these parts. • To share practice experience.

3. Therapeutic context • Coerced, and then internalised perpetration is one of the darkest shadows of the human experience ( Schwartz 2013 p. 20). • 84% of 236 people with DID found to have internal persecutor alters ( Ross, 1997, quoted in Miller, 2012, p. 135). • victim-perpetrator paradox: No perpetrator is without his/her weakness & pain. No victim is without his/her cruel ,sadistic & aggressive side(Schwartz 2000 p. 414).

4. External context The atrocity triangle (Solinski, 2017): choosing not to speak, see, expect.

5. Common terms • Abuser personalities (Lacter, endritualabuse.org) • Perpetrator introjects (Vogt, 2012) • Perpetrator implants (Vogt, 2012) • Perpetrator self-states (Schwartz, 2013) • Perpetrator replicas ( Phoenix, 2007) • Perpetrator imitating personalities (van der Hart et al quoted in Vogt, 2012)

6. Definition • States who have stored the perpetrator’s energy, violent structure & intent (Vogt, 2012) • --- traumatic encapsulations of perpetrator approved, imitated and/or coerced behaviour (Vogt, 2008)

7. Survivor perspective We were bonded together in murder, in a gang bond from which there was no escape. ---. I had also become a torturer.--- I was also cruel because I had experienced so much utter cruelty, contempt & isolation.

8. Processes & types 1. Identification with the aggressor . Self generated in a relational context via normative processes. Purpose: Maintains an illusion of attachment, identity & empowerment via shift of ‘locus on control’ ( Ross, 1997) from victim to victimiser. Any perpetration : A re-enactment of dissociated, unprocessed trauma.

9. Victims’ moral, physical & emotional helplessness lead to automatic, instantaneous mimicry of abusers; illusory positive attachments to the abuser are maintained while the malevolence of the abuser disappears as an aspect of the victim’s external reality. ( Schwartz, 2013 )

10. Processes & types(cont.) 2. Coerced defensive identification: Self generated via prolonged, repeated trauma under conditions of helplessness. Purpose: Ensures survival under life-threatening conditions e.g child soldiers, ghetto model of dissociation (Frankel & O’Hearn, 1996). Any perpetration: Result of indoctrination, brutalisation, powerlessness & enforced submission.

11. Survivor perspective: Coerced identification via threats and entrapment I did not want to do it. I hated ( the group) for all their pomposity, crazy ceremonies and for hating girls and women. I hated all their signs & symbols & rituals. I hated middle-aged men. But ( father) threatened to kill x , and they had already killed y. I had no choice. I became their High Priestess.

12. Processes & types (cont.) 3. Installed: Perpetrator generated via torture, mind control & manipulation of attachment needs. Given specific tasks & identites e.g commanders, soldiers, robots, non-human entities e.g ‘demons’. Purpose: Perpetrator replicas installed by perpetrators for own agenda Any perpetration: Activated & engineered by torture-based programming, mind control, threats & entrapment for which other parts likely to be amnesic.

13. Survivor perspective: Mind control I am a clone of myself - lost among other clones, not knowing which, if any, holds the kernel of individuality. I am made up of shells of people which all contain blank slates for abusers to write on & a programmed affiliation for these. There is no me.

14. Sharing practice What kinds of perpetrator imitating parts have you come across in your work? - self-generated via normative process of identification ? - self-generated via coercive conditions? - perpetrator-generated ( installed)? - All three!

15. A question What can we gain from an encounter with perpetrator imitating parts?

16. What can we gain from an encounter with perpetrator imitating parts? • A window into the ‘icy core of perpetration’ & the level of malevolence, sadism, helplessness, terror, rage, annihilation experienced. • The nature & degree of emotional, moral & spiritual injury inflicted. • Key issues for therapy: repair of above traumatic injury& attachment trauma; shame; internal restructuring.

17. Common features of PIPs • Fixed in past traumatic experiences; little or no awareness of the present. • Absence of attachment representations: origins in traumatic subjugation v. attachment • Socially, psychologically, morally & spiritually isolated. Avoided or rejected by other parts with whom stark contrast. • Pairing of pain & arousal (e,g Sinason, 2017) • Lack & resist empathy & compassion

18. Survivor perspective (Evans, 2010) Being taught to pair pleasure & pain Despite all the pain The abuse gave a lot of sexual pleasure and delirium --- We were also taught that we liked this That ‘real women’ like rape and ‘real men’ We were fed a lot of lies, had a lot of brainwashing To make us feel we liked and served this life

19. Survivor feedback! Resistance to empathy Don’t try giving me any of that Velveteen Rabbit crap!

20. Additional features of installed PIP’s • Limited identity, existence & function. • Little or no experience of ordinary life. • Brainwashed into believing abusers all powerful, all knowing. • Powerless in external world but hold power in internal world. • Hidden in a separate system: quarternary dissociation. • Contained in hierarchical structures. • Dominated by their fear system

21. Survivor insight They do their jobs because of fear!

22. Neurobiological processes • Priming of biological systems for defence/fight v. social engagement. • Encoded in separate neural circuitry via neurochemistry of fear. • Pre-frontal cortex off-line: overridden by fear conditioning via the amygdala. • Left & right brain processes highjacked & separated. Left hemisphere not in control. • Neural circuitry of PIP & therapist out of sync!

23. Common features of PIP’s Anything to add? Any questions or comments?

24. A typology of PIPs (Schwartz, 2013) 1. Hostile- depressive: superficial identification with perps - went along to survive; cynicism, bravado, disdain; no loyalties or exp. of benevolent attachment. 2. Grandiose- contemptuous: mirror the perps. Designed to threaten, punish. Present as defiant, arrogant, intimidating. Flood system with traumatic memories, commands to self injure/suicide. Attack attachment. • Robotic-vacant: Zombie-like, feelingless, non-relational. Created for specific tasks. For more on installed PIPs see Lacter’s website

25. Survivor perspective The driving force is a survival need: the need to be on the surviving side of that dynamic. So the very word ‘survivor’ means ‘willing perpetrator’. When feeling under threat & in personal danger, that is when perpetrator parts kick in & lash out & take over our frontal brain by making us go back to save our own skins.

26. Profiling exercise Spend a few minutes making a drawing representing any PIP you have come across in your practice. We will evaluate this together as a comparative exercise.

27. Sharing practice In your experience, what kinds of behaviour do perpetrator imitating parts carry out in the external world? Buzz in pairs using your profiling exercise – 5 minutes

28. Comparative exercise 1. Behaviours in external world Ritual sacrifice; preparing others for sacrifice; choosing someone for sacrifice; sex trafficking; courier for drugs & weapons; abducting children; picking up homeless people for ‘snuff’ movies; breaking & entering; planting incriminating evidence; threaten/complain against therapist.

29. Sharing practice In your experience, what kinds of behaviour do perpetrator imitating parts carry out in the internal world? Buzz in pairs using your profiling exercise – 5 minutes

30. Comparative exercise 2. Behaviours in internal world Rape; kidnap; flood with traumatic images & memories; trigger self-harm & other internal punishments; shout; threats; denigration; destruction of belongings; attack & undermine helping relationships; forgetting; silencing; spinning; create madness/psychiatric symptoms; spread suicidal impulses; threats to kill; nausea; physical pain; show pornography; sado-masochistic sex; paedophilia.

31. Sharing practice What functions do the activities of perpetrator imitating parts serve for the perpetrators in the external world? Buzz in pairs using your profiling exercise – 5 minutes

32. Comparative exercise Functions served for perpetratorsin external world Control; compliance; silence; punish disclosure; reinforce programming; enable access by perpetrators; disrupt relationships & prevent attachment; discredit survivor e.g make appear mad; carry out criminal acts; financial gain e.g from drugs & pornography.

33. Sharing practice experience What function do the activities of perpetrator imitating parts serve for the perpetrators in the internal world ? Buzz in pairs using your profiling exercise – 5 minutes

34. Comparative exercise Functions in the internal world Protect from punishment by abusers; avert threat/belief that others will be hurt or killed; experience adrenalin rush; control & gate keep the system; monitor; prevent or punish disclosure;, trauma bond, influence & belief system; block processing & access to truth; maintain structural division of the personality; maintain perpetrator’s presence ( real or illusory).

35. Survivor perspective Maintaining the perpetrator’s presence Dad’s dead but they do it because they think he’s here to make them think he’s still here

36. Some systemic functions of PIPs • Prevent exercise of agency &autonomy: immobilise other parts & keep system frozen in fear. • Prevent internal collaboration & communication & maintain structural dissociation. • Maintain an additional level of dissociation (installed/quarternary). • Disrupt/sabotage any helping relationship/attachment e.g therapy!

37. Sharing practice How are perpetrator imitating parts activated? Buzz in pairs using your profiling exercise – 5 minutes

38. Comparative exercise: Activation • Perceived threat ( inc. therapy!). • Installed internal triggers: e.g remembering; disclosing; engaging in therapy; calendar dates; features in every day life. • Deliberate external triggers e.g phone calls, messages • ‘Accidental’ triggers embedded in everyday life: words, touches, sounds, sights. • System deciding therapist can help/cope!

39. REFRESHMENT BREAK 15 MINUTES

40. Therapeutic issues Summary of remainder of workshop • Facing the challenge: disequilibrium & conflicting internal working models • Overview of therapeutic tasks • Survivor example of work with her PIPs • Space to reflect /process

41. Facing the challenge 1 Regardless of the form, the emergence of perpetration dynamics and enactments significantly challenges the therapeutic alliance and disturbs any equilibrium which has been achieved in treatment. Schwartz (2013) p. 136

42. Facing the challenge 2 The co-existence of victim and perpetrator identities Survivor perspective: Piebald Criminal and victim live in me (Phoenix, 2007)

43. Facing the challenge 3 Impact on the therapist How does this poem make you feel? i.e being presented with highly conflicting internal working models & the ‘fusion, confusion & collusion of victim perpetrator & collaborator positions’ ( Schwartz, 2000, p. 410)

44. Therapeutic tasks: Overview Create: • Therapeutic conditions to admit to PIP’s existence, allow them to emerge, engage in dialogue re purpose & function. • An internal team/alliance to work with you. Provide: • Psycho-education to disrupt beliefs, make cognitive, behavioural & relational shifts: what benign attachment is; choice & free will; abuser’s tricks; alternative values; human rights • Orientation to the present – time of peace not war (if that is the case). • Changed role & place in an internal community

45. Therapeutic tasks: Overview (cont.) Deactivate, debrief & change state of mind: • Bring PIPs into awareness • Identify how came into being • Engage in dialogue • Help system own v. disowning & self-hatred • Develop new theory of mind re perps. • Explore & devise what needed to heal toxic experiences: e.g creative ‘demobbing’ • All within the context of experience of a benevolent & shareable relationship

46. Key therapeutic challenge Difficult as it may seem at first, the survivor must come to believe that the therapist/therapy relationship could actually be as powerful as the perpetrators, or more so – & that the therapist’s power is accessible & shareable & not aligned with subjugation or sacrifice Schwartz ( 2013, p. 174)

47. Installed PIPS : Extra considerations • Need their own treatment programme. • Can be impervious, unresponsive or react negatively to an empathic therapeutic relationship - respectful neutrality can be better. • Need re-orientating & deactivating via turning around identity, mind-set & changing ‘jobs’. Need for reparation? • Key: Address & reduce their fear e.g in alliance with less fearful parts & creation of safety (!)

48. Putting ‘deprogramming’ in context Deprogramming should not be considered something outside of, or adjunctive to, psychotherapy or psychoanalysis, nor should it be mystified or  associated solely with cult-related phenomena. Critical thinking, healthy assertion and agency, and the capacity to belong to, and relate to, others out of choice and not out of desperation ( or command injunctions) are goals of therapy that cut across all modalities and all symptomatology  (or diagnoses). The patient needs to establish a strong empathic bond and a relatively stable  trust  (where distrust can be safely discussed) with a therapist  who is seen as both powerful  and compassionate. Schwartz ( 2013, p. 187)

49. Survivor perspective Examples from a survivor’s work with her ‘perpetrator replicas’ Sources: • Evans, K. ( 2006) Healing Mantras and Verses for Multiples • Phoenix (2007) Little Poems of the Healing Road. Ariadne Press. • Evans, K. (2010) The Healing Road: Poems to aid recovery from Dissociation. All self-published – may be available via DABS www.dabs.uk.com if not out of print

50. Recognising the co-existence of PIPs We need to connect with the urge to violence within us -ugly, irrational, unpleasant, cruel, demanding – not to act on it, but to accept it is there That we too, have the seeds of abuse in us.