Skip to main content

Basic Terminology

The plural community's terminology can vary to a large degree but we have done our best to cover it in a simplified manner while trying to acknowledge how others' may use terms differently. The terminology on this page is how we will use it throughout the site, though you may see more specific terms introduced in other articles. This page covers basic terminology only — terms like member roles or types can be found on other pages.

First, what is plurality? Plurality is an umbrella term for the experience of having multiple consciousnesses within one brain and body.(Tulpa.io, 2018) Plural people may describe themselves as plurals, systems, and/or multiples, and may have different interpretations of the consciousnesses within them. Many plurals identify with the concept of being multiple people in one body, while others define it more along the lines of autonomous parts making up an individual. All human minds have parts to them, including singlets (people without systems), but the difference between a singlet and a plural is that singlet parts do not have autonomy outside of the whole individual. A singlet may argue with themselves or feel conflicted about something, but their parts cannot self-govern themselves the way a plural's system members can.

It is important to respect other plurals' self-identification and how they view themselves, and remember that their own self-identification does not invalidate or validate plurals besides themselves. For the purpose of this site, we will use "plural", "system", and "multiple" interchangeably, and will stick to "system member" to refer to consciousnesses within a system. You may see other people use terms like headmate, alter, personality, part, etc. to refer to their system members.

Plurality has multiple possible causes, known in the community as origins. These origins can vary from "just being born this way" (protogenic), forming to cope with trauma (traumagenic), being created on purpose (parogenic, also known as creating tulpas), forming spontaneously, spiritual origins (spirigenic), and more. Endogenic is the umbrella term for all non-traumagenic origins. Sometimes, the term natural system is used to describe endogenic systems, but this is not accurate to how traumagenic formation actually works. Traumagenic systemhood is as natural as endogenic systemhood as it's a built-in coping mechanism the brain can use to protect itself, so the term "natural system" should be avoided. Note also that some systems have mixed origins or do not wish to identify their origins.

There are many other ways system can vary from one another. One way is the spectrum of singlet to median to partitionary (also sometimes referred to as a spectrum of singlet to median to multiple, but we use multiple as an umbrella to all plurals here). As discussed earlier, singlethood is the state of one consciousness in one body. Partitionary is on the other side of the spectrum, with consciousnesses being highly separate from each other. In the middle is median, where system members are structured more like (semi to fully) autonomous aspects of a central identity. Medianhood is experienced and described by different medians in various ways. The two most common descriptions I've personally seen are:

  • Similar to a solar system's planets orbiting a sun. They are still separate to some degree, but are reliant on the gravity of the sun.
  • Parts or facets that each have some degree of autonomy that then make up a singular identity. Systems may have some median and some partitionary system members.

Sometimes, systems will have duplicates or copies of the same system member without these system members necessarily being median. Duplicates can have some differences, such as maybe system member A is an adult and system member B is that member except at a younger age. Groups of duplicates may make a subsystem (a system within system) or not.

Subsystems can be as varied as the main system (and do not have to be made up of median and/or duplicate system members). The distinction between a subsystem and the main system may be defined by cliques but usually there are more concrete boundaries, such as amnesia, some degree of communication barriers, the subsystem sharing a body in headspace, and/or some other trait that makes this group feel "contained". A sidesystem is a similar term for a system that is "next to" the main system.(Sidesystem, n.d.) Some people use subsystem even if sidesystem could be an applicable term, others differentiate the two.

Within a system, members can vary a lot from each other, or be quite similar. Some systems are even composed solely of duplicates of one members, perhaps having different roles, but sharing major personality traits and/or appearances. Some of the ways they can — but do not have to — differ is:

  • names
  • memories
  • outlooks/opinions
  • ages
  • genders
  • sexualities
  • internal appearances, including skin/hair/eye color or even species, which can extend to a different perception of the body's appearance
  • skills
  • role in the system

System members may even have psychobiological differences (meaning body stuff that can be influenced by the brain, basically), an example being allergies. One system member may be able to consume strawberries and another may have an allergic reaction.(Alter Identities in Dissociative Identity Disorder (MPD), OSDD and P-DID, n.d.)

Headspace or internal worlds are places within the mind that system members can access. Singlets can create them too (usually called “mind palaces” or something similar). These spaces can be used to share memories or other information, as well as generally interact with one another, and may be interpreted as where system members stay when not in control of the body. Not all systems have headspaces. Some systems may end up creating their own, and others go on without one entirely. These can also be modified, usually through meditative practices.

Another important set of terminology is terms related to proximity to controlling the body. Fronting refers to when a system member is in control of the body (with co-fronting referring to when two or more system members are in control). Systems can usually switch between fronters but other systems may never switch, with one system member in control permanently. Switching may be a conscious, voluntary activity, or it may be involuntary. Some systems cannot easily identify switches, but others may actually feel it happen (which can feel something like “becoming” the next fronter, or swapping places, or something else entirely).

Sometimes, systems will have front triggers, things that may cause a switch to happen (usually, but not always, to a specific system member). It is common for systems who are new to understanding themselves to catch switches as they happen (or at all), so try not to fixate on perfectly noting each switch.

Co-consciousness (also known as cocon/co-con) is similar to co-fronting, when one or more system members are fronting and another member(s) is present but not in control. You can think of the body like a car with the fronter in the driver seat and any passengers as co-conscious. Co-conscious members may be able to comment on what the fronter is doing, or even nudge them into certain actions. Passive influence is when a non-fronting system member influences a fronter without explicitly taking control or telling the fronter what to do. It is very common for systems to have at least some degree of passive influence and is not a sign of faking.

We will go into terminology for specific roles a system member can play, but I do want to mention that host refers to a system member who fronts the most. Some systems have multiple co-hosts, or others may identify as having none or a shifting series of hosts.

While not necessary to have DID, P-DID, OSDD, or UDD, it is common for plurals to experience one of these disorders. Dissociative plurality (systems that have one of these dissociative disorders) and non-dissociative plurality (systems without a dissociative disorder) are both equally valid and may come with different expressions of plurality. Some plurals with a dissociative disorder still consider their plurality/system itself to be “non-disordered”, and instead consider the disorder to refer to the dissociation and dissociative barriers they suffer from, whereas others do consider their plurality a disorder. It varies from system-to-system.

Dissociative disorders are usually, but not always, caused by trauma. The DID DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, or dissociative identity disorder, requires that 1) two or more system members are present, 2) there is some degree of forgetfulness beyond “ordinary forgetting”, 3) these symptoms cause clinically significant distress in important areas of functioning, 4) these symptoms are not a part of an accepted cultural or religious practice, and 5) these symptoms are not attributable to substance use (such as black outs from alcohol consumption). DID used to be known as MPD (multiple personality disorder).

P-DID, or partial dissociative identity disorder, is similar. It is rarely used inside of North America, and the main difference is that there is a singular “dominant” system member at front with other system members manifesting in the form of thought intrusions, comments, and passive influence, usually infrequently.(“Fact Sheet IV - What Are the Dissociative Disorders?,” n.d.) Other specified dissociative disorder (OSDD) has multiple specifiable diagnostic types, with type one being relevant to plurality. OSDD-1 can be diagnosed for dissociative systems who either a) have amnesia symptoms but with only median system members or b) have at least some partitionary system members but no amnesia symptoms. Lastly, unspecified dissociative disorder (UDD) is a diagnosis for when someone has dissociative symptoms of some sort but the psychologist doesn’t wish to or can’t yet specify what type.

System Responsibility

System responsibility is one of the most important concepts to learn about and practice in regards to plurality. System responsibility is when the system as a whole takes on the consequences of each individual member’s actions. It is not optional, even if it may not always feel fair to specific members. It is crucial to managing your collective life and all of your relationships with external people, and each other. Because every member is in the same body, the body will face every (positive or negative) consequence for every action, which is also why DID cannot be used as a legal defense.(Should Alters Share Responsibility in the DID System? | HealthyPlace, n.d.)

An example:

System member A breaks some rule of a community. Member B switches in to see Member A got into trouble. System responsibility would be Member B managing and accepting the consequences of A’s actions, even though B was not directly at fault.

A good way to practice this is:

  1. Take responsibility for the actions without deflecting blame or making excuses.
  2. Apologize for the actions (there are some great resources online for how to construct a decent apology).
  3. Create a plan within your system and with your external relationships for how to prevent this mistake in the future. (Noting that you should accept if a mistake is irreparable and has completely burned a bridge)

Related to system responsibility is how plurality intersects with relationships. When it come to friendships or romantic relationships, it is important the whole systems come to some sort of agreement with these dynamics even if individual members do not all participate in each relationship in the same way (or at all). When it comes to romance specifically, make sure to define the relationship style clearly. You can argue that if a system member dates only dates one singlet that it is monogamy, but if the singlet wants monogamy as in one body with one body, that needs to be respected as a boundary. Neither definition is invalid, it is just important to be on the same page as your partner(s).

If one system member really likes an external person, and another system member really dislikes this same person, have an honest conversation with one another about what is expected. Ask questions to each other like:

  • Why do you dislike/like this person?
  • Is there a safety concern?
  • What would you like out of this relationship with them?
  • Is it possible for certain system members to not interact with this person? Or minimize these interactions?
  • How strongly do each of you feel about it?
  • What are your ideal boundaries?

Keep in mind the external person’s feelings should be considered, too. If a host system member is against a relationship, and a system member that barely fronts wants to start one, this can lead to a very neglectful relationship for the external person. Sometimes this is possible with consent and coordination, however! While we have mostly framed this in regards to romance, it applies to friendships, too. Acting hot then cold can lead to damaging a relationship and confuse or hurt them. This is still true even when you’re open about your plurality to some extent (though your friends should be supportive of differing opinions).

Authors

References

Please note Plurality for Dummies does not necessarily endorse all the of the following sources as a whole, and warns that triggering content may be found within the sources.

Alter Identities in Dissociative Identity Disorder (MPD), OSDD and P-DID. (n.d.). Trauma Dissociation. Retrieved March 17, 2024, from http://traumadissociation.com/alters

Fact Sheet IV - What are the Dissociative Disorders? (n.d.). ISSD. Retrieved March 17, 2024, from https://www.isst-d.org/public-resources-home/fact-sheet-iv-what-are-the-dissociative-disorders/

Should Alters Share Responsibility in the DID System? | HealthyPlace. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2024, from https://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/dissociativeliving/2018/04/sharing-responsibility-within-the-did-system

Sidesystem. (n.d.). Termora - Plurality. Retrieved March 17, 2024, from https://termora.org/term/113

Tulpa.io. (2018, September 24). Terminologies. Tulpa.Io. https://tulpa.io/terminologies