pPERSECUTORY
ALTERS A.'\O EGO
STATF.S: PROTECTORS,
FRIEXOS. A.'\0 ALLIF.S
Lisa Goodman. C.S.w.
Jay Pele~ C.S.\\'.
Ijsa Goodman, C.S.W.• is DircclorandJa), J~ctcrs.C.S.W. o is
aSta£fPsrcllotherapi~ at Vieu m Se....ices· Crime Victims Center,
in Bronx. Nt:w York.
For reprints wrile Lisa Goodman, C.S. W., Victim Sen;ces.
2530 Grdlld Concourse. ith Floor, Bronx. NY 10458.
ABSTRACf
Pmm/torallm i Iltlis.wrifltillf" id,ulily Ilisonln-(Irt! II IliJonnl)' desailw/
in bthavioml tnms as b'.llign-nlt. abusilot'. and viohnt. IVhik most
authors agrn thai jJn's«lItors bq;i" lI.J htdpers lhoe is no COl/setlSUS
about th";,. filler droe/QjJln,.", or flUldion witl.;n th,. S)'stnn. Tlljs
paP" PrtSi:lIU {/ thl'Orttiaz/ mod,./ of th,. diolOf!J' and dnxlopllle1/(
oJ/J"MCldor llitm. It tlucit/flUs lIu: IIl1lt~lJ;lIg {j/ul continuously
prot«tj1Jf! Iwlurt oj tlu' (1111'T which btCOflll!S nlftskl!fJ by the flIJ/Hlr-
nlll)' M~C11loryM bt-hllvior.
Using clinical examples which built! 011 IIwir aI/predation oj
tlte positiw JI/flction oj IJf'I"Sf'ilJtor altn"s the (Iullwr!i Im!.rentlllPir
trmlmrnttedlllique.f, w!lirh illrhu!P: fIlKag""umt, building rapport
wilh Ihe II mlerl)'ing protecliveJUllctio/l, pS)'dwedllCalioll oJthealler,
and finally, filillil)' Ihp'mll)' 5/)'11' 1/1'/,'VlifllitJTIs oj roko.f, f').1)f'clfllioll.~,
anti "oli/lfl(Jrie.~.
nit! paper colldud(!5 wilh (1/1 examillation oJ Ihe COIIlIll'r-
Imll·Yl'fI:llce i.\·JlleI wltirll rO/lllllOllly flriSI' ifl worRillg with /JerwfII-
lor a/tn"S (llld IhPi,. iml)(/rl (JIl Ihl' rlinirial1 alld Ihe therapeulic Imh.
INTRODUCTION
~ She should die, she de~l'Il~stodie. She 'sa loser
aud has beell all her life ami that's wh), J tried
to kill her. W (Christille, speaking" of the hose)
Therapists workillg with dlhn dissociative idelltil)' dis-
order (nil) (Americall Ps)'chiatricAssociation. 1994) or ego
SI<Ue disorder (Bloch.I99I; Watkins & Watkins, 1993, 1992)
recognil.c this ,11I~p)' \\".Iil as coming frolll a ~pcrsecutOl-- or
~malevolenl~OIlier or ego slale. Such alters arc preselll in
somewhere bet....·een 50 :md 84 percelll of Dissociative
Identil)' Disorder ctSt..'S (Pulmlln, 1989; Ross, 1989) and C.1I1
pose considerable risk 10 Ihe hOSI, frequentl), disnlpt the
therap)'. and often scare both host and therapisl with their
\ehemence and determillation.
Most oflhe literature on the de,"e1opment of these per-
seCUlor)' ahers reports lh;III1u.1' usually begin life as protec-
lors and then, for some l"eilSOIl, Iurl! on the hOSI, becoming
persecutor)'. The theorelic;t1 reasons given for this change
:u'c numerous. Il isdue lO eithera ~masochisticIUrning inward
of expressions ofhoSlilc ..lTecl~ (Kluft, 1983, p. 183) or all
idelltific.llion .....ith the aggressor (Bloch. 1991) or the ~iden­
tilication .....ith the evillllotiv.llions of OlllCrs W (Bloch, 1991,
p.29).
After rt.....iewinJ; the current liter.llure on perseCUlory
"hers \\'e will auempt to formulale a de..c1opmelllalllleo'1'
which makes clear the persecuturs' llilderlying positi\'e role
wilhin the S)'Stcm. We will lhell tUnt to the lreatme!ll impli-
cations .....hich result from lhis perspective. Finall)', we will
explore sornt: COlnlllOll COllrll,ertr.ulsft:rellct: respOllSt..'S to per-
secutor alters and their dfect on us as lhcr.lpisLS and on lhe
work we do.
IkJore we begirl, howt:\·er, we are faced with an illsur-
mOllntable problem. 111 the literawre there is no cOllsislent
nomenclature or system ofdassil)'ing persecutor ;:illers. Man)'
,uullors have est;lblished dillct"ellt categories of aggressive
alters. I\luch calls thelll either persecutory or malevolent
(1991). Ileahrs (1982) differentiates betwcen persccutors
and demur IS, while Ross plact:s them ill subgroups OfUllCO'
()penlli\'e alter.~, arll-PY adoksccllts, or in1enwl delll011s who
"really want10 be contained and loved" (1989, pp. 255-257).
TIle cat.egorical criteria or descriptive differences cadI
aUlhor uses is dilTcrerJl from lht: other authors.
In addition there appear to be aggressive alters who ~ma)'
be sadistic sex lIlurdel'ers who have cOllll11iUed 11UlIlerous
crimes ami be IJC)'0I1d rehabilitaliOll- (Ross, 1989, pp. 239.-
260). While Ross. like I'mnam (1989), groups these alters
togetherwilh the perseclllOrswe arc 1101 cOllvinced that the)'
art: dymllllicall), :\11(1 fUlIClionally Ihe same. In this papcr we
are nOI talkingalx'ltltthosc alters who are trul)'~beyondreha·
biliwtion, ~ but r.llher about persecutors who, as we shall sec,
arc described as Illalcable, ch'lIIging from childlu)(x:! pro-
tector to persecutor and thell. with proper lreatmelll, back
illlo forceful all)'.
Finally. each author proposes quite dilTerent lrcaunCIlI
approaches for IheirdilTerellt persecutor types. This is rem-
iniscent of Ross's crilique of lhe personalit)' disorders field
ill which one expen's -1X)rdedine wis anolller's ~narcissislw
--~- 91
....
PERSECUTORS AS PROTECTORS
who would do poorly if treated like a "borderline" (Ross,
1994).
We believe this confusion and uncertainty both warrants
and necessitates further study and the establishment ofa sys-
tem of differen tial diagnosis of aggressive alters so that in
both clinical and forensic settings therapists can accurately,
consistently, and safely differentiate the types of aggressive
alters.
At present we must simply heed Ross' advice to "enter
negotiations with persecutors cautiously, with eyes and ears
open" (1989, p. 260) and, through the techniques we out-
line here, to assess the function of the behavior. Through
this assessmen t the true nature of the alter will emerge as
well as its capacity to form a treatment alliance. In the vast
majority of cases this capacity appears to be excellent once
understanding has been mutually achieved. It should not,
however, be assumed without careful assessment.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Description ofPersecutor Alters
In the literature on DID and ego state disorder (ESD)
the description of persecutor alters' behavioral manifesta-
tions is remarkably consistent.
"On first meeting theywill be fearsome, loathsome, demon-
like entities totally committed to the malicious harassment
and abuse of the patient" (Putnam, 1989, p. 205). Watkins
and Watkins (1988) describe them as "loaded with rage, they
may be both suicidal and homicidal. They slash the patient,
strike at others, initiate bizarre behavior and threaten all,
including tJ,e therapist" (p.68). They may initiate "headaches,
internal bullying, increased blank spells, interference with
function, or imposition of unpleasant states on the host per-
sonality" (Ross, 1989, p. 255). In a word, they are abusive
toward the host and often toward other alters (Bloch, 1991),
the therapist, family members, and other people.
In addition to tJ,e physical abuse of the host there are
otherformsof"torment"which are "inflicted" on the patient:
"Self-mutilation by persecutors to punish the
host or other alters is common.
'The host may also find threatening notes or
even more graphic warnings of future mutila-
tion ... for example, ... a threatening message
written in ... blood on [the] bedroom wall."
(Putnam, 1989, p. 206)
The harassment and abuse also frequently take the form
of internal talk by the persecutor. 'These voices will berate
and belittJe the patient, tJ,reaten or urge suicide, and sar-
castically and gleefully taunt the patient about their total
control over him or her" (Putnam, 1989, p. 206). The voic-
es will also often demean and belittJe tJ,e therapist and urge
92
the host to drop out of therapy.
Finally, the persecutors engage in numerous behaviors
which compromise the well-being of the host. These include
such things as alienating friends and family (who frequent-
ly withdraw) and anti-social behavior for which the host is
then responsible.
Taken together, "the various forms of harassment and
the patient's reactions to them constitute a major source of
torment for an MPD patient" (Putnam, 1989, p. 205) as well
as very real threats to the health and well-being of the host.
From observations ofthe patterns of "harassment" and from
tJ,e life histories of the persecutors, theorists have attempt-
ed to create explanatory developmental and dynamic mod-
els which we examine in the next section.
Origin and Development ofPersecutory Personalities
It is generally agreed in the literature that persecutors
start out as friendly, in fact, protective alters. This is sup-
ported by Kluft's findings that in childhood OlD "persecu-
tor personalities... are notable fortheirabsence" (Kluft, 1985,
p. 183) and Bliss' observation that "all of the personalities
begin as friends and allies ... " (quoted in Putnam, 1989, p.
208).
The most common explanation in the literature of the
childhood protective function, with several variations, is that
the persecutor started life as some kind of repository for var-
ious painful experiences and emotions. Watkins and Watkins
state that dissociation leads to plitting off tJ,e rage into a
separate ego state which "lays the basis for forming an uncon-
scious destructive, malevolent ego state divorced from nor-
mal super-ego controls" (1988, p. 69). Ross also speaks of
the persecutor alter as "carrying all the anger" (1989, p. 256).
Kluft describes the persecutors as initially "taking all the suf-
fering for the others" (1985, p. 185). Elsewhere they are
described as con taining the "affect and energy the depressed
and apathetic host cannot sustain" (Putnam, 1989, p. 208),
asa "personification ofthe patient's vital life energy" (Beahrs,
1982, p. 141), and finally as sel'\~ng "as [a] crystallization of
the client's aggressive, destructive impulses" (Bloch, 1991,
p.55).
There is less agreement in the literature about why this
initially protective container or repository later directs this
energy at tJ,e host, becoming persecutory. It has been
described as the result of the alter's "becoming impatient"
(Bloch, 1991, p.55) or "resenting suffering forotJlers" (Kluft,
1985, p. 185). The implication here is that due to the level
of distress the alter turns on the host. Alternatively, it has
also been suggested that the alter changes from protector
to persecutor through "a masochistic turning inward ofhos-
tile affect ... identifYing with the aggressor" (Kluft, 1985, pp.
183-185), and similarly, tJuough a process of identification
"with tJ,e evil motivations of others" (Bloch, 1991, p. 55).
Finally tJ,e process is explained as occurring, "when later
repression breaks down, this [malevolen t] state emerges, takes
D1SS0CIATlO:O;. Vol. \11[. :0;0. 2.Jun, 199;
allies .lIId can playa major rolc ill the healing of the patient-
(I·utllarn. 1989, p. 205).
Inourwork with these alters we find 110SlICh mallcabilit}'
of chr.lcter. The protectors arc still and alwars prOiectors.
What challges is the fonn of lhe protective beha,ior which
110 longer looksorniousl}' protective :uld "'hich may. in actu-
ality be harmful and lif(:·..threatening to the host.
Though he is wriling aboul the de,'e1opment ofaggres-
sion. hostililY. and hate in childhood. we lind Parens' for-
mulations helpful in understllllding thcdt..'vclopment oflhesc
feelings in pcrseclL10r alters. Ilostility. Parens writes. is not
inbonl bllt ratherresulLSfrom c\'cntsill thechild'slife, Mill\~J.ri_
:tbly object related. whidl or/' /'xJH'TiI'lH:l'd (1,1· /'X(£.UiT!/'I)' !mi"pll
uy Ih/' (hif,f' (Parens, 1994. p. fl:8. italics oriKinal). The exces-
sive pain transforms natural :tgg-rcssioll illtO hostility bUl c\'ell
so, the hostility Mhas as iL~ basic aim to act upon, assert 0I1L"
self ovcr, and control wthe oth-.:r person in an effort to SlOp
the pain (1\lrells, 1994, p. 81). Ilostilit}' is thus instrumen-
tall)' used in an effort 10 protect the self from excessive pain.
This, we bclie,·e. perfectly dcscribes persecutory ahers' hos-
tility to",<.rd the host.
In our ,'iew, the most important change in the devel-
opment of persecutor alters is that in adolescence or :tduh-
hood the protector perceives the host or the host's actions
<IS the source of the threat (the object to be controlled) and
consequentlyacLS to protect the s)'~tcm from him or her. To
understand the change from childhood protector to ado-
lescent or adult persecutor. \\'e rl<."t:d therefore to look 1I0t
at the aher but at the host. We shall do this in the next "Cc-
tiull but a preliminary case \ignetle may be helpful. In an
J11\0 special on MPD (Miercndorf. 1993). a persecutor alter
WllO identifies herselfolllyas -r-,·Ie. Mysclr isqllestioned about
her Illutilation of the host:
Thempist: Wh)'d )'ou do that?
Therapist: What did she do?
O,"er executivc control of the bod}' and venLS iLS rage on the
patiCI1I 01' OlhersM(Watkins ;md Watkills. 1988. p. 69).
Functiolls of Perseclltor Alters
Finallyin our re...iewofthe Iileratureon persecutoraltcrs
we Jluticed a conspicuous g'dP. In DII) and E$I>. alters and
ego ~tale~ arc gellerdlly seen as having certain roles. func-
tions, or purposes \\ithin the system (Bloch. 1991). Whilc
we ha\c noted somc mention in thc litcralllrc of initial or
childhood fUllctioll, Putnam and Ross ar'C alonc in their dis-
cussion of pcrsecUlor's later roles.
Putnam ( 1989) st~lIes that persecutors Mcontain the encr-
gy alld an"ccu LllaL tile depressed alld apathetic host cannot
sustain M(p. 208). I-Ie also states that throLlg-b their lhreal-
euing behavior persecutors preserve the st.:Cl'eL~ of the past
allll'l:. In additioll to protecting the facl.~ of the abusc the
pcr~c'clltorMscrves to keep noxious reminders of the expe-
rience at a distance M(p. 208) from both ther.lpist and host.
It accomplishes both goals by Mere:!ting such an uproar in
therdpy thatthc therapist never has a chance to focus on the
past W (p. 208).
It should be noted that this isag'din ,I bch:wioral descrip-
tion in which the m'erarching fUllction of. or reason focthe
beh:nior is hinled at but newrstah.-d, III an earlY\\'ork Helen
Watkills. while not outright sa)'ingwhat we thin k is the impor-
lalit discovery she has made. alludes to her increasing under-
swndinK that a persecutor is -blindl}' protecting [the client)
according to its dew of ilSClf and its ol"iginally created pur-
pose forexisting fl (\\'alkins. 1978. pp. 368-369). Ross isalolle
in formulating the concept that -the hostile behavior isactu-
all"prOlecth'e w(1989. p. 259) or more generally Ihatthe per-
scclilOr whas a good reason for what she is doing and that
h-.:r hcha\'ior makes scnse from her point ofvicw fl (p, 258),
III thelollowillgscClionsweshal1 follow Ross's lead and attempt
to look al persecutor or malc\'olcllt ahers not so much in
t-':r"lIIS of what they do. but wh)' they act as the)' do, the MpOS-
itj\,c illlenlioll'" We shall attempt to distinguish between
meansalldellrl. behaviorand int.ent. \\'eshall begin by propos-
illg a theory of persecutor's etiology and de\·elopmenl.
ETIOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT OF
PERSECUTOR ALTERS
Pro/edor Initially Formed in Otildhood
\\'e agree clllirelywith the obsel1;ation that persecutors
I.:'oh·e Out ofhclpcror protector personalities who firsl come
into cxistcncc ill lhe hosl's childhood or C;lrl)' adolescence,
We diS:lgree. howe\·('r. with the implication in the literature
that the l>ersccUlOrs undergo a tnUlsfornmtioll of identity to
Mbecome fl a male\'olelll entity. This as.'Iulllcd malleability of
t"S.'>Cllce is taken further in the literatul'c whell authors Lalk
ahout therapy with persecutors and llote that the persecu-
tor Gill be MtLll"llcd into [a] COllstructive force fl (\Vatkins.
1~78. p. .'-\97) and become Mone of the therapist's strongest
Patient:
Patielll:
Patient:
Iwould dO,HI)'thillgirltheworld to destroy
anything she did ;llld hurt her an)' way I
could, I used to be one of those inside
who would Ix:littlc Ilcr :\Ild GlUed her names
and swear at her. luscd 10 Cllt the shit out
of her - and I'm vel)' good at it. I'm the
one who .severed the artl.:l}' and four tell-
dons, W
I wanted to kill her.
I stopped growing at 14 becausc thai W:IS
when she begml becoming interested in
bors. and dates, and all thai [she
u'lilsolT]. and I hatcd itand I didn't want
allY part ori!. So I qLlit. I I\'asn'! y;oing to
________----'_L- _ 93
IPERSECUTORS AS PROTECTORS
be any more than 14 'cause nobody was
ever gonna touch me " [she u-ails off
again]. And whenever that would happen
with Gretchen [the host] it would hurtme
and 1 would hate it and I'd hate her, and
I'd hate her for letting that happen ... so
I'd cut her.
The Change to Harassment: Changes in Host's Behavior
With the increased agency of adolescence and adult-
hood the host now starts to engage in behavior which the
protector assesses to be dangerous. To protect the host he
or she must be conu·olled. The means of that control are
the same aggressive thoughts, feelings, or acts which may
have previously been directed toward others (in the pro-
tective role) but which are now experienced as "persecuto-
ry" as theyare directed at the host. TalUrally, given the under-
lying protective role of the persecutor, this ego state may
also feel genuine and intense hostility toward the host for
putting the system in danger, "for letting that happen."
The following discussion of specific host behaviors
which elicit this change in the protector's focus of control
is not intended to be exhaustive but rather suggestive of the
possible range. Risk-taking behavior is an obvious uigger of
the protector's efforts to con trol the host. 'Traumatized peo-
ple relive the moment of trauma not only in their thoughts
and dreams but also in their actions. In their attempts to
undo the traumatic moment, survivors may even put them-
selves at risk of further harm" (Herman, 1992, p. 39). Now,
in adolescence and early adulthood, the host has much more
opportunity than in childhood to put herself at risk. He or
she has increased mobility, more unsupervised time, and
vastly expanded exposure to potential victimizers.
The host increases her exposure to potential abusers
and revictimization not only through her increased expo-
sure to other people but also through what Kluft has termed
the "sitting duck syndrome" which leads to frequent involve-
ment in exploitative and abusive relationships (Kluft, ] 990).
In a context of such ongoing victimization it is only natural
that there will be an increasing load of hostility within the
system.
Even non-abusive relationships may provoke the pro-
tector's vitriolic reaction if the relationship takes on a mean-
ing which feels threatening. Simply feeling the possibility of
closeness to another person may be u1e trigger because of
the protector's prior learning that trust and dependency lead
surely and inevitably to abuse and hurl. The history of rela-
tional violation leads to the equation of relationship and vio-
lation. Another factor may be the perceived threat of sex.
To protectors like "Me, Myself," all sex may be experienced
as invasion and abuse.
Another threat to the system which the host may pose
in adolescence or adulthood is ofbreaking the silence about
the abuse and/or the multiplicity. This threat is often raised
to the level ofcrisis when the host enters treatment. We then
wiU1ess the protector's desperate attempt to control the client,
to "save her" from the expected dire consequences of reveal_
ing the secrets.
While these perceived threats appear to us to be origi-
nating from the external world the protector perceives them
as caused by the host, as under the host's control. In the
same way that the victim usually blames herselffor the abuse,
so, too, the protector blames her. Therefore the protector's
abusive behavior is directed at the host in an effort to con-
trol her behavior.
Finally, the host is often perceived as a threat for what
he or she is not doing; for not protecting herself, for not get-
ting out ofan abusive relationship, for not taking better care
of her body, for not sticking up for herself, for not express-
ing anger, and for a thousand other things which we well
know are frequenuy difficult for survivors. What she is not
doing is the fuel for the protector's charge U1at she or he is
a hopeless "wimp."
In conclusion, we agree with the common belief that
persecutors start out as protectors; we disagree, however,
with the idea that their basic identity changes and that they
"become" persecutors. We think that in fact these supposed
persecutors have not changed at all and that they are still
protectors. What has changed is what needs to be protected
against. In adolescence or adulthood the host him- or her-
selfis perceived as the threatand the protector sh ifts its aggres-
sive behavior toward the host in order to protect the system.
In the next section we shall focus on treatment of persecu-
tors and how we can help them carry out their underlying
protective function more appropriately.
TREATMENT OF PERSECUTORS
There is a lot ofvaluable literature on the treaunent of
DID, ESD, and other varieties of dissociative states (Beahrs,
1982; Bloch, 1991; Kluft, 1991; PUU1am, 1989; Ross & Gahn,
1988; Ross, 1989; and Watkins & Watkins 1992,1993). Most
of this speaks directly to working with persecutor alters. In
this section we shall augment U1at body of work and focus
on specific techniques which we find useful.
Watkins and Watkins, in their work with covert ego-states,
have evolved a treatment model which is distinguished by
"the use ojgroup and Jamil). therapeutic techniques Jor the resolu-
tion ojconflicts between the various ego states that constitute a Jam-
ily ojself' within a single individual" (1992, p. 29, italics origi-
nal). We use this model extensively and in this section expand
on their ideas.
In our view, treatmen t of tl1e "family" with a persecutor
can and must be divided into two broad stages. In the first
stage the therapist creates an alliance with U1e "family" and
helps all parties (tl1erapist, host, and alter) come to a more
accurate assessment of the problem. In our experience tl1e
"multiple family" with a persecutor alter is much like the
94
D1SS0CLHlO:\.1'01. \111. :\0. 2. Jon, 199;
·j. GOODMAN/PETERS
ramil} \\ ho prCloClllSWil.h an acullg-<H1( adolescent child whom
they laocl as the idcnuficd paticlIl (II'). alld the entire source
of lhc problem. In both -fumilics- there is IIsuall)' illlra.s)'So
ICnl agrCl.'rnCIll that ("vef)1.hing wQuld be JUSt fine if they
could change or cXl.mdc the IP. Clearly we must resisl. the
tcmp':Ition 10 join the -family'sM \'1C\\' of the problem and.
as in family tller...p)'. must therefore challenge the system
and shiflthc focus off the IP and onto the broada issues of
system roles. (IIne,ions, :md boundaries (Minuchin, 19i4:
Napicr.19i8). This is quite similar 10 Ross who -Iell[s} the
persecutor lhat I aSSUllle she has a good rcasoll for what she
is doil\~( and -,hat I assume she is there fill' a good reason-
(Ross I~89. pp. 258 & 256).
Orlcc' illllore rcalistic appraisal ol"llic problem has been
reached (oftcn no lIlinoraccolII plisllllll':J1I), I he St.:cond stage
COllllllellces in which conflicting" 1J(.:t.:ds arc negOlialed and
hamulII}' amOllg the ~familymembcl'sR is increased (\Vatkins
& Watkin ... 1992).
During both ofthese SI<Ig:CS there are two cssClltial rcq ui rL'"
nl(~nL' for clTectivc lrcaunent ofpersecUlor alters. The thcr-
apisl mll~t clltcr thc work with an unassailable faith in the
underh'ing posith'c function of the aher. Theil. for those
times whell that faith ine\;tably cmmbles he or she necds
acceq to a supervisor with thc same faith inL."lcl. With these
requirements met. the therapist will Ix: able toa\'oid tile mis.-
takes which we most frequemly see: failinK (0 recognize Ihe
posili\·e and protectivc fliliction of the alter 01' agreeing witll
Ihe S\'Stem thalthe MJpM really is the problem ami that C\"cl)'-
thing would be just fine if they could extrude this trouble-
sOllie memher.
Stage OtIC: Redefilling the Problem
\Vith nul' assum pliorl Ihat the persecutor is not the prob-
lem firmly in haml we can begin til(' engagcmcllt phase ill
which our lirst goal is to explore the function of the perse-
cutOI'. AI this point we discovcr there arc gcncrally IwO types
of perseclltors. First. there are those who kllow why they per-
secute thc host (Ml punish her so she won't tcll about the
abu~ 'call~ then hc·d kill us~).
CaM A~ Su.sall allli Shadow
5uS;ln isa 31-yeal'"'Old woman who calnc in lor treatment
"hen shc Sianed recovering memories of inccst which had
begun in carl)' latency with fondling and proceeded to rape
just prior to adolescence. Susan reponed a host ofdissocia-
ti\ e ~)'InptOlllsaswell <L~ feeling <L~ ifshe had a Millollsterinside
me who won't nOt allow me 10 heal. ~
One da)'Sus;m sudden I)' began talkingextensi\'e1),aboul
the abuse. The therapisl (L.G.) sllccessfull)'slowed herdown.
but even so. as Susan left the building she started ha\111g sui~
cidaltllOllghtssuch as throwing herselfin frOlllofan oncom-
ing bus.
Beforc the next session the ther~lpisl recei\'ed a leuer
from all ego Slate lIamcd Shadow. Thc leuer detailed how
big and fiercc Shadow was and how she w.ts .lillpposcd to be
feared. havc control. and all the power.
In the next session Shadow re\'caled that she had been
usillgfe:lr 10 prt.,\·enl SUS<l11 from disclo.liing the abuse. Shadow
firmly believed Ihal Sus;m·s father would kill them if the
abuse werc di.sclosed. Shadow would therefore usc either
ph)'Sic:l1 ailmelll.li or terrif)1ng suicidal ideation to distr.lct
Sus.,n or scare her out of lalking
With t.1:0 stales such as Shadow it is relalivel), cas)' to dis.-
cern their underlying function Olmito clarify this to the altcr
and to the s),stem as a whole. Here, si mpl)' ~pointingout that
apparelltl)' destructive actions are actuall), meant to be pro-
tccth'e soft ells thc tough stancc~ (Ross. 1989. p. 259).
Unfortllnately there arc ,,1St) persecutors who do rlul
havc atlY awareness of the pllrposc of their bchavior (MSI1C'S
a wimp who dcsen'cs 10 die~). 111 this second case both alter
and hosl often firmly bdicvc that the perscculOr·s function
is simply to torment the hosl. The persecutor can be seen as
an II' who has comc LO belie\'c that he or she reall), is the
prohlem and is proud of it. A ellS(' example. followed b)' matt....
rial from subsequent supen;sion Will make this dear.
UISL IJ: Mm)' alld 1'iclol'
Mal)' is a 39-)"ear-<lld woman who prcsentcd with the
cJ;:lSSic histol)'ofph)'Sical, emotional. and sexual abusc lead-
ing 10 01 O. 500n alter persomllities Ix:gan wl'iting to the ther-
apisl U.I'.) and communicating: illlernall)'with Mar),. Ascach
statc first communicated it would announce how -bad- and
dallgefous it was. and th:1I it intended to hurt the host ~e\'el)'
day of hcr lifc.-
After succcssfull), working with three ofthesc prOlccti\'e
alters, each more vitriolic and abusivc than the lasl, Victor
emerKcd. Victor announced himselfas ~totallrevil.~ Hc t..alkcd
\\'ith glee and gusto about how he likcd to hun women and
hllw milch he elljo),ed it whcn Mary was physically abused
by her husb;ll1d. ~lliked it whcn his fisl.~ hit her f;lce.~ He
also ~Iiked itRwhen she had been faped as ~it was good for
11l~r, she got what she desen'ed. R
When asked about his role amI function Vietor could
on I)' talk "bout his plans to take ovcr the whole S)'Stelll. 10
kill off all the ~good alters~ illld. in the cnd to kill Mal)'.
{;t,M SII/XW;.l;O": CaM fl, Mal] alld \';(Ior
Following his initial mecting ,,'ith Victor. the therapist
came into supcl'\;slon visihly lIel'\'OIlS. shaken. dislrdught.
alld angl)'. He announced: MYOll know our theol)' about per-
SCCIlIOI)' alters, well forget it, it docsn·t hold up. The guy I
just met has no redeeming positivc \';;lllIes. This guy is cvil.
e\·il incal'llatc. ~ He felt Q\'cl"\\'hehned b)' Victor·s aURcr and
his naked s"dism. -rherc·s no ·positive illtention· in there.
hejust lovcs the pain he causcs Mary. It "~dS like sitting with
a totall)' unrepentant rapist in ),our onlcc while he hoasted
ahlllit hiscl'imes. Conscience, nOlle; repentance, none. This
j.{uy has j.{nt to g:o. ~
D1SS0CLmO\, \01 \111. \0 !'jlU1l' 199i
PERSECUTORS AS PROTECTORS
The supervisor (L.G.), in contrast, sat there allowing the
therapist to struggle with his feelings, struck by how successful
the alter had been in inducing those feelings in her super-
visee, but feeling absolutely no animosity toward Victor. In
fact she felt a strong liking of Victor, an attraction and kin-
dred recognition that stemmed from subtle cues that the
feelings stirred in the therapistwere being intentionally engen-
dered and did not reflect the essence of the ego state's rela-
tion to the host. Victor was inducing those feelings Jor a rea-
son.
To untangle those subtle cues the supervisor repeatedly
asked not about the behavior but about the effect ofVictor's
behavior on Mary.
"So what does she do differently because she's so scared
that Victor will come out and kill somebody?"
Gradually it emerged that Mary's fear ofVictor "forced"
her to limit the visits from her abusive ex-husband to situa-
tions where she was not alone within him and tllerefore he
could not physically or sexually abuse her, to set increasingly
appropriate limits on her exploitative adolescent child, to
be more angry and self-protective with her still abusive par-
ents, and, in order to protect the therapist, to distance her-
self from tile therapy which was seen as threatening the sta-
bility of tile system.
This supervision highlights a number of quite common
themes in workingwith persecutors. The persecutorfrequently
protects the host through scare tactics: through fear and
intimidation. In order for this scare tactic to work the host
must be convinced of the persecutor's capacity and willing-
ness (even desire) to usc the utmost in force and desu'uc-
tiveness. The persecutor must, in short, be viewed as Pumam
described: "a fearsome, loathsome, deamon-like entity"
(Pumam 1989, p. 68).
When confronted witll threats to the system arising from
the host's behavior the persecutor appears to say to the host:
''I'll do such and such horrible thing if (or unless) you do
tlms and so." When the danger posed comes [rom outside
the system as is the case in the clinical example, the perse-
cutor uses the same scare tactics, trying to impress the intrud-
er (in this case the therapist) with his or her ferocity and
proclivity to \~olence.
This case is also one in which the host, throughout ado-
lescence and into adulthood, maintained contact Witll her
abusers. The persecutor therefore becomes increasingly load-
ed with hostility toward the host, to the point were the orig-
inal protective function is lost to consciousness.
Finally, it should be obvious that the persecutor who
uses threats ofviolence to protect the host may be quite wor-
ried about either the host or therapist uncovering the under-
lying protective intent [or to do so is, in essence, to disarm
the power of the threat.
In therapy, as in supervision, we u)' to get at the inten-
tion of this type of persecutor's behaviors by reviewing spe-
cific incidents and the results that follow. We look primari-
96
Iy for the effect of the behavior on the system and those Who
impact the system. Whether conscious or not, it is this effect
which the persecutor is after. Thus, even as Victor bragged
about his total commitment to malice and torture we looked
at the consequences of the behavior instead of the behavior
itself. Using this approach the therapist listened carefully to
Victor's offhand comment that his viciousness "kept all those
men away" including tile abusive husband. Understanding
tile intention, the therapist asked: "Oh, so you keep her from
getting abused?" When the alter agrees to this sort of refram-
ing ofhis or her aggressive acts we move quickly, asking about
other times he or she had "protected" the host and then mir-
roring back the intent, divorced from the means. At the same
time we begin moving from the specific intentions to the
general formulation of the role: "So, it seems like your job
is to protect her."
While this psychoeducational reframing may, as noted
above, be met with some initial resistance by the ego state
which is afraid of your very understanding, in our experi-
ence the persecutor usually relaxes considerably at this point
and so begins what many authors have noted as the rapid
conversion from (appearing) enemy to forceful ally. As one
alter told her therapist (J.P.): "Since I've been coming in
here and talking\l~thyou and you've been explaining things
to me, I've been feeling a lot better, I haven't been wanting
to hurt her (the host)."
Our second goal in this stage is often achieved simulta-
neously with the fir t and consists of an empathic joining
Witll the underlying emotional state of the persecutor alter.
As Ross notes: "The most powerful way to form a treatment
alliance with hostile alters is to divine their pain and sadness
andcommenton it" (Ross,1989, p. 227). In addition to strength-
ening the treatment alliance the empathicjoining allows us
to now mirror back not only the alter's function but also the
feelings attached to tile role and the internal relationship.
Joining these two elements inevitably has a profound cog-
nitive impact on the alter and frequently resolves the alter's
initial resistance, facilitating engagement.
There are several emotional themes which reoccur in
our experience. Frequently the persecutor is tired to the
point of exhaustion. He or she feels overburdened by the
task, undervalued for tile results achieved, and lacking in
adequate resources. The persecutor is also frequen tIl' angry;
angry wi til people who are perceived as abusing the host and
angrywith the host for his or her lack o[cooperation in assur-
ing the safety of the system. Finally, as Pumam notes, while
the alter displays "extreme contempt toward the host," para-
doxically, "the dominant emotion ofthe persecutor may real-
ly be love" (1989, p. 207). In fact, it is this very love which
propels the persecutor in tile harassment of the client
through which they are doing tile very best that they can to
protect her. At the same time the persecutors "act tough but
want to be loved" themselves (Ross, 1989, p. 227). ,
Empathicallyjoining with these feelings is usually quite
DlSSOCIATIO:\. Vol. \111. :\0. 2.JII" 1995
I GOODMAN/PETERS
easy for us rorwho :\lnonK us has 1101 fell fr\lstr.lled and angl)'
"t'ilh the host whell she f,lils to protect herself; who among
us docs nOI occilsionall)' feci exhausted and undervalued by
our eglHilalc clients; alld who :1I110I1g LIS does not simull..."1-
neousl)' feel love for them?
Using these COlllllcrtnulsfcrClilial ft.-clillbFSOIlC ofus 0.1).)
was able. al lhe end of a long session wllh an initially vitri-
olic persecutor. lO Sa'l}' honestly: kYOli must be exhausted,
fighting for her all the time as you do.~Thc prott.'Clor sighed.
appeared 10 relax her vigil.mec. and said simply: "Yeah, I
wanl a rcst. M
Gelling at the 1I1ldcriring CIIlOUOII which the persecu-
lor feels for the host is a crucial step in the successful rreat-
mcnl of these ego states. Orten this opportunity arises while
Yl'C arc rcrraming the me:llling of the persecutor's bcha\ior.
Afler the aher told the the"'pi~t that she "''::lIlted a resl he
continued empathiz-ing",ith how tired she must be. how hard
she was working for the host. how her exhaustioll reflected
just how hard she worked, all<lthat all this ....·ork must mean
that she re:'llIy cared what happened t,o the host, Illust real-
ly lo\'e her. Touched ill this, her most \'ulne",ble spot, she
burst out crying and ....~dS finally able, with all the appropri-
ate affect, to ullk about her 100ing, protecti\'e relationship
with the host.
TIle other feeling which the therdpisl must be able to
resonate with is the pleasure a\":tibble to the persecutor in
being aggressive. With an adolescent persecul.Or who talked
about the joy of the aggression LG. responded: "Yeah, it's
cool to be powerful. fl The cont",distinction to feelings of
helpless \1Jlnerability in herem ill the past abuse were unsaid
but undersl.Ood belwcenthelll. What is bcing\~dlidated here
is the pleasure in illstrumentaillsc of aggression and hostil-
it)' for a pllrpose. Thus, the therapist empathicall)'joins with
both the pleasure ami purpose of the hehavior.
Be)'olHl building Ihe treatmelll alliance, empathicall)'
joining with the full range of emotions of the persecutor is
important ill the de\'elopilletlt (lfatnbivalence. As we usc the
term, ambivalence is Mthe experience ofcoexisting feelings ..
toward an object" (Parens, 1994, p. 98). The de\'elopment
of ambivalence was previollsly hindered by the fact that lhe
dilTerelll feelings (Io\'e/hostility, maslery/fear) were expe-
rienced by different aspects of the personality so lhat the
simUltaneity necessary for the development ofambivalence
was 110l possible (Kemberg, 1994, p. 214). Through our
empathic attunelllent we arc thereJore encouraging C<H:OlI-
sciousness of previously dissociated affective stat,es first with-
in a segment of the personality and then within the per-
sonaliry as a whole.
Stage Two: Moving Otl
Now, with a finn working alliance grounded in a trul)'
positi\'e appreciation of the role and emotional stale orthe
alter, the host, persecutor. and lherapist are ready to mO\'e
on to the next sl.,se of the family therapy which has as its
go.ab Millcreascd harmony, COllllllullication, ,II1d cooperatiOil M
(Bloch 1991, p. 71). Quil.e often reaching this !{oalmeans
host and pCrSCCl110r nUlSI negotiate dil1erences. resolve long-
standing cOllllicts, and ovcrcollie past hurts (bOlh rcal and
imagined).
During this stage of treatment we find that most of our
interventions consist ofsomc \'crsion of the <jllestiOlls: -What
do }'Oli need;M M\Vlmt docs e\'c'1'one necd;fl or M How can ""1.'
make sure e\,c'1'olle's needs are met?- Ob\'iously the perse-
cutor usually needs the host to be safe. The host needs to be
able to eng'dge iu an increased range of activities without
interference 01' rCI:lliation from the protector. Through the
repealed aniculation and resolulion of me question -What
do you nced Mwe nOl.e an often rapid reduction of hostilil)'
bclweell host and perscclllor. It appe"'drsthat as the host increas-
ingl)' understands the illlerreialiollship between his or her
beha\'ior and the persecutor's responsc a working alliance
dc\·c1ops. The perscclllor's perception of the host as li.sten~
ing and laking seriously the persecllIor's perceptions seems
to be the key factor. The host docs nOl ha\'e 10 agree com·
pletcl)' with the persecutor's definitions of risk or danger.
he or she must simpl)' listen and act respectfully.
In this sl."l.ge of treatment \\'C, like many olher amhors,
Ilote the persecutor's rcad)' s""itch to positi\·e. helpful. and
Iift...prollloting beha\ior. We underst.'1nd this switch asdemOll-
strating that the previousl)' abusive beha\'ior did nOI renect
an underl)'ing cha'dcter structure forllled through idemifi-
C:llion with the aggressor and masochislic Illrning inward of
hoslile aflects for such :1 character structure would nOI be
alllellable to such rapid chanl{cs. Illstead, we understand lhe
change as dcmonstr:lting :l past adaptive illsu'umcntal use
of \'iolellce and all iL~ trappings ill an attempt to preserve
the syslem ill lhe face of percei\'ed lhreat.
COUNTERTRANSFERENCE ISSUES IN WORKING
WITH COVERT PROTECTORS
Work wilh perseculors evokes profound and oftell pro-
loundl}'dislJ'cssillg couiltel'tr.llisfercnce responses in the ther·
apist. Persccutors force us lO confrOllt a mullitudc of issues.
Ou onc h:lIld. dcspilC all the injunctions that wc not ha\'e
favorites,unong lhe alters, \\'1.' often feel inlense angcr toward
this alter for the pain. sullering. and humiliation hc or shc
inflicts on our client. We may also ....'::lIlt to savc our clicnt
frolll this -:lbuscr M as \\'e \,'ere not able to S:1\'e her from the
original abuse. thus expiating our ~sur\"i\"or'sguill. - Al the
s."l.IIlC time. and 1Il0st threatcning of :111. we may sharc somc
of lhe flpersccutor's~fedillgs of hatt:', disgust, :mger. fms-
t,,-nion. and dis.'ppointlllent toward our diem for nol. pro-
tecling herself.
Coulltenr:lnsfcrential feelings SllCh as these toward an)'
client are difficult for the therapist to deal with. Whcn held
toward the victim of chrOllic :md often sadislic abuse they
1x.'Collle illwlcr:lble. To the (k-grt.-e that we em neither express
97
D1~socuno\.\01. \lIL \0 !.]_lfti
PERSECUTORS AS PROTECTORS
nor sit with these feelings, we must defend against them.
Projection, in which "consciously disowned aspects of the
selfare rejected or disowned and thrown outward and imput-
ed to others (White & Gilliland 1975) comes to our rescue
with a ready target in ule "persecutor alter." It is ule alter,
not us, who has these intolerable feelings toward the hosl.
The parallel process at work here should be noted. In the
same way that the persecutor served originally as a contain-
er for the host's split off, unacceptable thoughts and feel-
ings, it now serves that same role for the therapisl.
As a result we are then unable to resonate with the true,
protective aspects ofthe persecutor alter because ofour invest-
ment in maintaining the persecutor as the container for our
own uncomfortable abusive feelings toward the hosl. We there-
fore join the host in resistance to integration.
To aid in this process we go a step further and create a
theory in which the persecutor is seen as undergoing a trans-
formation from an initially helpful alter into an abuser. Now
the persecutor is the bad guy while we, on the other hand,
can prove ourselves the "good guy" by rescuing our client
from the persecutor's reign of telTor. Theory is thus creat-
ed and defended in ule service of our countertransference
resistance. Unfortunately this process assures that we remain
blinded to the underlying positive function and unable to
truly empathize with this personality.
Overcoming this countertransference resistance and its
negative consequences demands that:
''Therapists must be prepared to acknowledge
that the capacity to abuse, and be abused, is a
recurrent and tragic feature of the human con-
dition, and that the pain of bearing witness to
this reality resides in our own vulnerability to
aggression. That is to say, that our patient's vic-
timization conti'onts us not only with the evil
in the world around us, butwith our own capac-
ity to be intentionally or unintentionally hurt-
ful. (Marcuse, 1994, p. 36)
Working widl persecutors requires that we check our
responses carefully, putting our feelings aside until, through
looking at the effect of the persecutor's behavior we come
to fully understand ilieir protective role. We may well then
discover that our feelings of fear and loauling were exacdy
ilie effect the persecutor wished, in their endeavor to pro-
tect the host from the uneat ofour understanding, our con-
cern, and our closeness.
CONCLUSION AND AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY
In conclusion, persecutors start out as protectors. Then,
in adolescence or adulthood, the host'sactionsare perceived
by this protector as a dlreat to the system and the protector
shifts its aggressive behavior toward the host in order to con-
98
trol him or her.
In treatment we look steadfasdy at the effect of the per.
secutor's behavior in order to get at the motivating inten.
tion. We then fornl a bridge between that intention and ilie
concept ofa protective role and from that role to dle under.
lying affective state. This bridge allows the alter and host to
begin real communication and negotiation about their often
conflicting needs. This communication shifts the previous-
ly split off function ofilie protector back into the host's ego
sphere leading to integration of the previously split of pro-
tective function.
Some areas in need offurdler study and understanding
have already been mentioned, such as dlC need for a uni-
fied system of nomenclature for aggressive alters. Such a sys-
tem of naming will require that there first be a reliable sys-
tem ofdifferentiation oftypes ofaggressive alters. The problems
of establishing reliability and validity of such a system are
enormous but would be of equal importance through help-
ing us identifY those alters (such as dle persecutors we have
discussed in this paper) who are quite amenable to treat-
ment from those for whom treatmen t is not indicated in this
time of scarce clinical resources.
In this paper we have proposed a developmental theo-
ry of persecUlor alters in which uleyare seen as protectors
who change the techniques used to carry out that role but
not the underlying role. While this formulation appears to
challenge current psychodynamically oriented develop-
mental theories of persecutors, we hope dlat other writers
will be able to syn thesize our ideas widl dlese dleories, result-
ing in understandings ofgreater complexity and richness as
well as enhanced clinical utility.•
REFERENCES
American Psychiauic Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual, fourth edition. Washington, DC: Author.
Beahrs,]. O. (1982). Unity and multiplicity: Multi/evel consciousness oj
self in hypnosis, psychiat.ic disorder and mental health. New York, NY:
Brunner/Maze!.
Bloch,]. P. (1991). Assessment and treatment ofmultiple personality and
dissociative disorders. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Herman,]. L. (1992). Trauma and recavery. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Kernberg, O. F. (1994). The psychopathology of hatred.joumal of
the American Psychoanalytic Association, 39 (Supplement), 209-238.
Kluft, R. P. (1985). Childhood multiple personality disorder:
Predictors, clinical findings, and treatment results. In R. P. Kluft
(Ed.) Childhood antecedents of multiple persona/it)' disorder (pp. 167-
196). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press
DlSSOCLHlO\. 1'01. IlII. \0. 2.Jlme 1995
. GOODMAN/PETERS
.
KJufl. R. J'. (1987). Fir~l-ml1kS) mplollls as a diagnostic clue to lI1ul-
tiple per~()n,tljl)' di\Ordcr. A /1U'I1(/I/I jlJltnltll of 1~~)'rhi(lt')'. 144. 293-
298.
K1ufl. K. I'. (I 9CXI). IIl('e~t :1.11£1 ,1l1>SeclllCIlI rc\·icljlll;lalion: The case
Oflh('"rapi~l - p:uit'n1 "f'xual ('xploitalioll. with a description ofl.hc
sitting £lurk wndmnl('. In j.L I'. Kluft (Ed.). I"r~t-rdtlIM JJlldromn
ofMull p!YrhnptJlholog)' (pp. 26:~~87 ). Washingtoll. 1)(;: American
psychiatric Press
Klnft. R.I'. (1991). Mullipk I'CI'ltOII;llit\ Oi~rdc..-. In A. G. Tasman.
& S. Goldfillgcr, Rn,/nll of M"rillotry: l'aI,uM f() (pp. 161-188).
Washington, DC: Amcric;t/l I'~'\chiau'ic I'n..'SS.
Man:::usc.J.J. (1991). !)uwo(Jlu)p/ (md "Itlclmnlt: Qnmlmmmf~«
~dnaliQlu j" UIO,.k u~/h atlllil JlI1l1I1't:ln' of a/mg. Paper presented
;'11 \\illi.un Alan"oll \\1,il<: 11l~liIlIlC. NL"\\ Vurk. NY.
Minllchin. S. (1974). r"ami/in alld family lJu·w/J'J. CllJlbridg~ . .\l..\;
Ha(\"3rd lllli\"(~·f"\if}'l'r('S!i.
Mit'f('mIOlf. J'ol. (I'rocl\lc~r. nireClor, 8. Wriler). (1993). Mullipk
/Jt"lCnalltu:s: Til'Sftlrtllfurdnuily _onn.AmcriGl Under(o\"(~rSeriC$.
r\eo.. Yorl.., NY; 1I0IlIe Box Office.
Napi~I"..\. "ilh \\1Iit:lk~l".C. (1980). nil famIly rruribh. New York;
Balll..ml Books.
Par~m. II. (1991). A I"ic\\ of 1Ile d~\dopIIIC\l1 of hO~lilil}' in carl}'
life.JOII nlaloft}"A /III'fl(flIl/'Jythl)(I/lIIl)lIt ,1.uoci(11IOIl. 39 (SupplCTll~III),
75-101(
PUlnam. F. W, (191'19). J)illgrIOJi.1 flllfltlt/ltmlllllJf Jnllitipit pn-svlUdity
dlwrdn. i\"(~W York. NY: The Guilford I're:;.s.
Ro~,. C. A.. & (;ahl1, I'. (191'11'1). <:Ognilil't" all'II)'sis ofmullipk ]Xf·
oonalil\ disor{Jc... Amm(flnjollmfll of /')yrlwtlrnull)·. 32, 22'90239.
Koss. C.. A (1989). Mull'/II'IH'nollfllif)' duon/,.,.: Oi"j(llUsiJ. dillim[fNl-
IUrf.l. 111411 IINIIIIlI'III. Nc\\' York, NY:Johrl Wiley & Sons.
Ross. <:. A. (1991). TIll: ,(ielll ifit s1:11'- of Ille disso(iati\'c disorders
field. Trmlili/{AbuM 1iJ(/II)'. 3(5). '1_9.
\\'<ltkins, I I. II. (1978). E!-:v-~lale 1hcnlpy hr fideI) 1-1. Watkins. [n
J. G. W;"it kills (Ed.). Tlrf IlImljR1l/i( ulf: JJt1¥4vjlillg rI'-smwI/cl'-kf)' 10
flff(/itOl' rl'/(/liollJlli/l.1 (pp. 360(397). New York, NY: 1-I11l1l;l11 SciCII(CS
Pre,s.
W;ukiHs.j. G.. & \\"llkiIlS,II.II. (19M). The management ofmale\'-
uktu egO\laleS in multiple 1>cI"SOlmlil)'disordcr. lJISSOClA TlON, l( I),
fi7-72.
W;ukills.j. C., & \\'alkim.lI. II. (1!)9:~). Egll-'ll'IlC lherap)' in the
lJ"catmenl ufdi~i'lli\"ediwrders.lllR.I'. Klufl. C.uhcrincG. Fine.
(Eds). (l;,/;wl fK»P«tli'f3 01/ lilli/liP" I_"ably diMmln (pp. '1.77-
29'9). \\'ashillgIOIl, DC: Americ.1II I's)chi.uric I'ress,
"alkins.J. G.. & Watkill~, II. II. (I!~l). IIJfmosu alld tp-slau Ibn-
aJ1l. ImullNI/;ol/j i" d,m((l/ jJmcl/u: ,\ smlfUbooI! (1'01. /0) (pp. 23-37).
Sarasola. FL; I'rofc'iSional RdQurce Exchange.
\\llite, R. R.. 8. Gilliland. R. ~I. (1975). EJnnmls ofprychopalhobJgy:
711, IlU'(har//j1lU ofdifl'1/SI. Ne'I'I' yo,'k, NY: Cmne 8: StmUon.
99
DlSSOCUTIO\. \at \TIL \0 !.J_I">