Sybil Exposed

Man, this book is controversial, perhaps because of the subject matter? Although it's kind of shocking to me to read the reviews, since I came of age in a time where no one really believed in multiple personality disorder the way that it was portrayed in the Sybil case. When we learned about it as an example of the fallibility of memory it seemed intuitively true to me that while we all have different facets of identity, no one is truly multiple people. Additionally, Nathan has clearly researched the heck out of this topic -- nearly every sentence she writes directly cites the personal written records of one of the protagonists.

But why is multiple personality disorder something that speaks to so many people? I think it's because of the way that feeling fragmented into multiple parts of self is such a core part of the human experience, while the myth of the continuity of a single self still dominates the human narrative. For instance, rushing from work, I summarized my day to my husband and we both noticed at the same time that in clinic, I am calm and collected in a crisis, while only minutes later, in a different context: late to daycare, I easily become anxious and struggle to quickly make a plan. I think the story of Sybil speaks to that.

And I think the story behind the story of Sybil speaks to so much else: the way in which psychologic manifestations and the perception of self is contagious; the way in which uncertainty about gender roles can subconsciously be subverted into ways to get women back out of the work place (first post-WWII with MPD, a very neat analogy for the way women were torn between the work place and home, but also, as it hit epidemic levels, a way to get women back out of the workforce; and later, during the recession of the 80's with the satanic panic vilifying daycare); the way in which things that we take for granted, like a scientific approach to medicine and professional ethics, had to evolve and belong to a place and a time.

And honestly, that's really what this story is about: that things that seem "normal" and perpetual to us belong to a place and a time. Nathan makes the point that MPD, a disease of middle class white women during the 50's-70's belongs in the back of the DSM with the other "exotic" disorders that only occur in cultural contexts. So does the psychiatry of Dr. Wilbur's age -- giving the patient excessive amounts of barbiturates, amphetamines and other psychoactive drugs, then hypnotizing them -- clearly barbaric to our eyes. But Nathan treats her very sympathetically, making it clear that Dr. Wilbur pioneered a field, enjoyed all of the professional accolades of the time and did scholarly work. The point is not character assassination, but rather to cause us to question what modern precepts only exist within our cultural context. I found it very interesting reading.