The bearing of amnesia on the principle of multiple personality, perhaps, needs a few words. From the facts as they developed in this case it must be obvious that the presence or absence of amnesia in no way affects the reality of altered or secondary personality. B was quite as much a personality before the development of amnesia as afterwards. Before this appeared the patient as A in no way differed in characteristics (other than amnesia) from what she was afterwards, and the same is true of B. The amnesia simply made the contrast between the phases more obtrusive; that was all. If, therefore, following the amnesia each phase can be rightly interpreted—and of this there can be no doubt—as a dissociated personality, the same must be true of it antecedent to loss of memory. Each phase had lost and gained certain traits and peculiarities, and what one had lost the other, to a large extent, had retained.
An analysis of the previous life history shows that each represented a constellation of mental complexes created out of the formative matter of the past conserved in the unconscious. On the other hand it is obvious that from another point of view each, before amnesia occurred, was rightly entitled to be considered as a highly developed “mood” with strong conative tendencies. In principle the amnesia does not affect the point of view. One frequently sees in lesser degree such moods in so-called normal people of a certain temperament. They are in fact really temporary alterations of personality, though it is not customary to speak of them as such. After amnesia develops the conditions in other respects are in no way changed. If such alterations of personality are combined with a neurasthenic condition it is customary to regard the phase as one of neurasthenia or hysteria, and, in fact, the state A was for a long time so regarded until the other state, B, was discovered.
It is not within the scope of this study to describe in detail the behavior of the two personalities A and B. Enough has been said to show that they differed in character so widely as to appear to be two entirely distinct persons, with contradictory traits, desires, feelings, points of view, habits, manners, temperaments, and attitudes towards their environment and towards each other. Alternating as they did, the situations in which A, at least, was placed were often dramatic and comparable to that of the case of Miss Beauchamp[[302]] with which some of you may be familiar.
A good general idea of the two personalities and their behavior has been given by the subject herself in the two articles from which I have freely quoted. For further details I would refer you to those accounts[[303]] which merit careful study.
Nor can I take up that phase of the problem of dissociation which involves co-conscious systems of thought. It is too large a subject and must be reserved for a later occasion. I will merely say that when A became unaware of the B complex and became amnesic for her alternating life as B, the latter, B, continued during the A phase; or, in other words, the co-conscious life was a continuation of the B alternating life after the change took place to A (or C), but the latter was unaware of it.
This seems very difficult to comprehend for those who are not familiar with the phenomenon. Yet, as I see it, the mechanism and principle are very simple and the phenomenon is only an exaggeration of the normal. Otherwise and without a normal mechanism it could not occur. B has also given in her account a very valuable description based on introspection of the co-conscious life. This merits careful study.
REINTEGRATION OF A AND B INTO A NORMAL PERSONALITY C
You probably will have sufficient curiosity to want to know how the reintegration of the dissociated phases into a single normal personality was accomplished: that is to say how a cure was brought about and the original personality was obtained. It was very simple and can be told in a few words. The method was the same as that employed in the case of Miss Beauchamp.
Each of the dissociated personalities A and B could be hypnotized. When A was hypnotized she went into a state which we will call a and when B was hypnotized she went into a state which we will call b. Now both these states could be still further hypnotized. When the process of hypnotizing a was carried further a state was obtained which we will provisionally call x. When the process of hypnotizing b was carried further a state was obtained which we will call provisionally y. Now, when studying these two hypnotic states, x and y, they were found to be the same state. That is to say they had the same memories and other traits of personality. Furthermore they were found to be a combination of both a and b, possessing all the memories, emotions and innate dispositions which were lost in A and therefore possessed by B and all those that were lost in B and therefore possessed by A. In other words, it was the complete normal personality but in the hypnotic state. This hypnotic state, therefore, which had been previously labeled both x and y was now labeled c. All that remained to do, therefore, was to wake up c and the trick would be done, for we would then have, theoretically, the normal C personality. So this procedure was carried out and the normal personality was obtained.