Customer Reviews

Creating Hysteria: Women and Multiple Personality Disorder

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Having been misdiagnosed with DID by three so-called experts, then experiencing the full internet DID subculture of support sites with 'littles', outbursts, and amateur experts self-diagnoising both themselves and other people, I was interested to read this book. I always found it interesting how people evolve at support sites on the web so they can fit into the typical DID mold. Once again with 'littles' who can read like an adult but make such an effort to spell badly it goes beyond how a young child would spell. Then the 'protector' who dishes out insults and attacks with ferocity whenever it suits and never is expected to take responsibility for their actions. Always a 'counselor' type who seems to oversee and understand the rest and is kind enough to offer explanations to rest of the ignorant world. The 'system' mapping is what I sometimes find unbelievable. It's like reading a playbill for a cast list of characters. Actually I do think that DID is a legitimate diagnosis, but not as widespread as some would have it be believed. I believe that it's become an epidemic, particularly on the internet. Having been suckered into the whole thing, I read this book with great interest but I was somewhat disappointed with it. I feel that in some ways the author's arguments are weak and almost as fantastical as the proponents of DID. She also does contradict herself in some places. I wish she took a more scientific, logical approach to writing the book and eased up on the heavy emotional perspective, but that's how I like to view things and life in general so I know I'm biased. I truly hope someone else writes a book on the subject, because I think there's a wealth of information out there that hasn't been fully explored or published. Still, the book is worth reading even if it falls short of being excellent. What else is out there after all? Many books supporting it but not much from the other side at all. Too bad. I hope that changes for those of us who've gotten labeled as such by the mental health community and would like some support for not embracing the dx whole-heartedly.

I think that all of the reviews (both pro and anti) missed her last chapter (I think some people probably reviewed the book without reading all of it, which is understandable, because the first chapters are provocatively written). Her point in the first part is that insofar as recovered memory syndrome, ritual satanic abuse, and multiple personality disorder are taken seriously, they apparently do little to help people recover from their unhappy states, and insofar as the claims of people suffering from these disorders are provably false in an objective sense, they discredit the professionals who diagnose them and the individuals who are diagnosed with them. Her more important point ( in my opinion) in the second part is that insofar as these phenomena have been discredited in the wider public, they lead to a distraction from or discrediting of related issues (sexual and other kinds of abuse of children and women, and more importantly, the circumstances of poor people, who are more likely to suffer certain sorts of abuse). Most likely no one will be able to settle many of the disputes over the accuracy of repressed childhood memories, but she points to an important problem--these particular trends in psychotherapy distract us from important social problems and yet offer no solution to them.

On a related theme: I visited a therapist in 1996 to be treated for depression--a therapist that my mother found for me--who insisted that I must have repressed memories and that this could be the only source of my longterm, episodal depression (she ignored my culture shock from a transcontinental move, my below-poverty-line income, the end of a serious long term relationship, my unfinished dissertation, and a troubled relationship with an alcoholic parent). When I pointed out to her that I have almost continuous memories of my life after the age of 5 (my friends are continually astounded that I can tell them what we ate at a restaurant meal in college) and that I felt it unlikely that I had repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse, she told me that I was in denial and that until I recognized the importance of recovering these memories, I would continue to suffer from episodic depression. When I repeated that I wanted therapy for my current problems, she accused me of being resistant to therapy and promptly volunteered to schedule me for three sessions a week to get me over this problem. I thanked her for her time and told her that I would no longer be requiring her services; when she immediately presented me with a bill (which she assumed my parents would pay) for $200 for her services, I pointed out to her that my father was unemployed at the time and I would have to pay the bill myself. Since she already knew about my income problems, this actively reduced her interest in treating me!

My point is this: if you go to a therapist with an open mind to asking for help in resolving problems and he or she tells you something that seems ridiculous, it probably is: therapists, despite their training and potential gift for insight, have no special intellectual powers--merely more degrees.

Contrary to what Ms. Feruggia believes, Acocella *does* discuss how some disorders are culturally-oriented. See Chapt. 2 for example.

I found this book to be compelling reading, and unlike some of the other reviewers, I felt she made a pretty strong case for her criticism of the psychiatric establishment's role in creating the whole MPD "epidemic."

This book shows how harmful recovered memory, MPD and satanic ritual abuse diagnoses can be to the client and how women make up the bulk of those diagnosed. It shows how too many practitioners see no need for outcome studies showing efficacy prior to widespread use of a modality of therapy, nor do they see the need to inform a client that a modality is controversial within the industry itself before commencing such therapies. This book, along with others are raising questions about inadequate training as to the new data on the workings of the brain/mind which is pouring into the world these days. It is appalling to me that old unfalsifiable theories originating with Freud, Janet and others still reign supreme in the training of so many psychiatrists and other MH therapists in this day and age. The book raises troubling questions in my mind of profit motive. It shows an attitude of too many in the industry of "anything goes as long as I decide it is therapeutic". That attitude can be dangerous to the client, and it implies an arrogance on the part of such therapists. I urge people interested in the mental health industry and the rights of clients to read this book and to give serious thought to the questions raised.

Ms. Accocella's "Creating Hysteria" would rank with some of Evelyn Waugh's most black-hearted comedies were it a book of fiction. Unfortunately, the frightening and unbelievable (how could anyone believe some of that nonsense?) events are well documented. Bennett Braun's and D. Corydon Hammond's speeches are models of paranoid loopiness. What sets her book apart from other critiques of the MPD/DID movement are the day-to-day behaviors of the therapists and movement leaders, as opposed to the highly stilted language with which their papers and books are written - seemingly, to make them appear "scientific". Highly recommended.

Three cheers for Joan Acocella, whose book "Creating Hysteria: Women and Multiple Personality Disorder" exposes MPD therapy for what it is: A family-wrecking therapy inflicted on vulnerable and suggestible clients. Especially revealing are the author's arguments that this bizarre phenomenon not only damages individuals and their families, but also threatens to undermine the women's rights movement and child protection services. In fact, this crisis has cast a destructive shadow over the entire field of psychotherapy.

Ms. Acocella provides a simple, short and highly readable summary of unscientific practices in psychotherapy which have destroyed thousands of (primarily) women and their extended families in psychotherapy worldwide. She avoids overly technical discussions and illustrates the junk science nature of repressed memory therapy and multiple personality disorder (now renamed disassociative identity disorder).

Perhaps most damning to the psychotherapy profession she correctly points out the near absolute refusal of the professional organizations to take any substantial actions against the practitioners of this psuedo-science which is so destructive. Importantly, she uses the publications and actions of the practitioners of RMT to illustrate its fallacies.

She is to be commended for having the moral courage to speak out against the unscientific practices. Practitioners of repressed memory therapy will probably try to punish her by reducing the use of her standard textbook on abnormal psychology.

In my opinion, she deserves an award for her willingness to sacrifice herself and suffer the criticism of the practitioners of repressed memory therapy when most of her contemporaries have simply sat silent and let women and families continue to be destroyed. O that we had a thousand like her!

The value of this book is that it brings up the issue of dysfunctional therapists doing dysfunctional "therapy", but that is hardly a problem confined to MPD nor does it indicate that MPD does not exist or that all MPD treatment is necessarily as ridiculous and dangerous as the author seems to want the reader to believe. This book is full of unfounded (though interesting) speculations on the part of the author who bomblasts MPD therapists for their failure to have scientific proof firmly established for every theory they have, as if psychotherapy has ever been an exact science like physics. The author seems to have her own agenda here, and wants her opinions accepted as facts, and MPD to disappear. There is probably some truth to MPD being overdiagnosed these days, but schizophrenia and other mental illnesses have been misdiagnosed ad nauseum, misunderstood, and patients subjected to destructive and inappropriate treatments in the past. This has not resulted in our throwing away the diagnosis as worthless. There have been many people suffering from MPD over the decades who have not been accurately diagnosed, as the author says, but maybe that is because an increase in the ability to recognize the disorder because of the current interest in it, and perhaps the reason why certain therapists find more individuals with MPD is because they're experts in that particular area and the majority of therapists are not. And there probably are people being misdiagnosed MPD as well. This is certainly a significant problem and has been ever since Freud invented psychoanalysis. It is a problem within the profession that deserves research, and in pointing that out, the author brings to light some real issues. But again, what does this have to do with MPD specifically? The author provides a bit of research information here and there, but takes it out of context in order to support her own prejudices and opinions. Information that contradicts is not included, nor is the information she offers as "scientific" necessarily complete. The author ties the recovered memory debate which she chooses to label a "movement" with MPD treatment, which she also defines as a "movement" ( but without any justification for doing so). I believe there are therapists trying to convince clients they have been sexually abused who have not been, and these problems originate in the disordered mind of the therapist with a self-serving agenda. This does not necessarily mean that there is no such thing as repressed memories of sexual abuse (but all the conflict has gotten a lot of researchers moving to unearth some scientific facts and that's good), as the author would have the reader believe. It may mean that too many therapists have not been properly trained and/or are not capable of behaving in the professional manner needed. But the author does not look at alternative explanations for things because she is intent on promoting her own agenda (like the foolhardy therapists she so skillfully ridicules). She raises the issue that MPD is scarcely seen in other cultures, as if that should be proof it doesn't exist and shouldn't be treated seriously by the mental health profession in this country. What she fails to point out is that culture has a powerful impact on how people express their discomfort, and there are mental illnesses common in other cultures (ie Japan) unheard of in the United States. I can't believe Ms. Acocella is a journalist because if she is she is slipping up considerably. While she speculates on feminist theories and their relation to MPD (as if they should have one) and the cultural conditioning of women, she skips over fertile ground for further investigation, such as the possible connection between the fact that Corey Hammond, who has spawned endless bizarre allegations of Satanic Ritual Abuse, happens to be a devout Mormon living in the center of Mormon political power (which is enormous, especially due to the great wealth of the Mormon Church and all the companies they own worldwide), Salt Lake City. As she points out, the FBI hasn't found support for SRA even after diligent investigations. So why is it still so firmly embraced by so manyand why has Dr Hammond never been considered psychotic and hospitalized? Maybe because the nonsense he's spouting is strongly supported by the convert-seeking Mormon Church? Who knows? Ms Acocella doesn't seem to want to find facts, only to press her own opinions as facts. She seems to want an entire group of seriously ill people who have finally come to the attention of the mental health profession to do without treatment. What she should have written was a book on the misadventures of dysfunctional therapists in general, and the politics involved in consumer-generated groups, such as the False Memory advocates who have turned psychotherapy into politics. This shows the powerful impact consumer grioups can have on therapy and therapists. Is it always therapeutic? Ms Acocella doesn't seem to care. This book was a disappointment.

Having had a friend become a victim of the hysteria in Northbrook Illinois, caused by organizations such as ISSD, it is a welcome thing to have such books expose these organizations and methods employed by those organizations to create the hysteria that has damaged many innocent people.

"Creating Hysteria" should inspire readers to seek out the author's orginal sources and compare them to her statements in this book. For example, the author mentions PBS Frontline's "The Search for Satan," a film produced by Ofra Bikel that depicts 2 retracters who filed civil suits against their therapists and who, after this film was aired in 1995, settled with their therapists' insurance carriers. I reviewed this film twice. Once in 1996 for "Treating Abuse Today"("Smoke and Mirrors") and again in 1998 ("The Search for Satan: Three Years Later"). In the 1996 article I documented numerous discrepancies in "The Search for Satan." In the 1998 article I compared the statements of Frontline interviewees retracter Mary Shanley, Shanley's friend Meredith Shriner and Spring Shadows Glen nurse Sally McDonald's statements in "The Search for Satan" to their testimonies under cross-examination in US v. Peterson. Under cross-examination, their claims in "The Search for Satan" were summarily impeached. Recently, PBS Frontline agreed to settle Judith Peterson's (one of the therapists named in "The Search for Satan") defamation suit against PBS Frontline for an undisclosed amount. Too often authors leave it up to the readers to make up their own minds. "Creating Hysteria" serves as a reminder that because it's "in print" it is not necessarily true. This book challenges readers to do their own investigation to determine if the written word is indeed accurate.