ENDOGENIC SYSTEMS
Quick Introduction!
About time I’m talking about this one! I will try my best to do full and broad research on this subject as I see LOTS of misinformation out there about endogenic systems! We’ll also be answering a few questions here. ALL resources will be at the end.
“Systems can’t form without trauma.”
“How can a system form without trauma?”
“Endogenic systems are systems that don’t remember their trauma.”
First, lets start with the basics. Endogenic is an umbrella term for systems formed without trauma. No, they are NOT systems that claim to have trauma-based disorders as trauma based disorders are exclusively for systems formed with trauma. Endogenics do not claim to have that.
According to the ICD-11 it says “The presence of distinct personality states or dissociative intrusions does not always indicate the presence of a mental disorder. In certain circumstances (e.g., as experienced by “mediums” or other culturally accepted spiritual practitioners) the presence of multiple personality states is not experienced as aversive and is not associated with impairment in functioning…” Clearly mentioning that systems can exist without trauma. The presence of alters or headmates does not always indicate a mental disorder.
Endogenic systems can form without trauma, that doesn’t mean they don’t have trauma, they simply didn’t form because of it.
Now, onto our resources:
“Endogenic is an umbrella term that refers to all systems that are not completely traumagenic in origin, it encompasses many experiences. It is often seen as the opposite to the pathologized views of plurality, although it can exist in harmony, even within the same system.
The creation of this term can be found on this Tumblr blog in mid-2014, in addition to several other terms using the concept of “genesis” as a base. In this post, the definition of endogen / endogenous is formation without any known external cause, while contrasting protogenic in that there is a clear time of forming.
Beyond the original coiner’s creation, the term has become an umbrella for any non-traumagenic origin.
Even earlier, “natural system” was used for any system that was not caused through trauma. It referred to the “natural” development of multiplicity in some individuals, often of spontaneous or spiritual formation (as purposely created headmates like tulpas often had their own communities and weren’t commonly seen).”
“Yes, endogenic systems are valid. An endogenic system is one where the individuals within the system are not formed or created through trauma, but rather are the result of natural or voluntary processes. In other words, the system members (often referred to as “alters”, “personas” or “headmates”) emerge due to the individual’s internal processes, preferences, or needs, rather than as a response to trauma.
The legitimacy of endogenic systems has been a point of debate, especially because trauma-based systems (such as those seen in dissociative identity disorder, DID) are more widely recognized in clinical settings and the public consciousness. However, endogenic systems are just as valid as trauma-based systems because:
1. Multiplicity and Identity Are Diverse Experiences
The human psyche is complex, and different people experience their identities in different ways. Some people may experience different parts of themselves as distinct, with individual personalities or roles that emerge over time. This can happen without trauma and is simply a natural expression of the diversity within one’s self-concept.
2. Self-Creation and Volition
For endogenic systems, the formation of different aspects of identity can happen voluntarily or for reasons such as creativity, personal growth, or practical organization. These systems can arise as a way of managing different roles or parts of the self (e.g., handling different tasks, navigating different aspects of life). The fact that a system’s formation is not trauma-based does not make it any less authentic or valid.
3. Recognizing the Spectrum of Mental Health
Mental health experiences are not monolithic. Just as some people experience mental health in ways that involve trauma, others may experience it in more developmental, non-traumatic ways. Similarly, the existence of multiplicity doesn’t have to be tied to distress or trauma. People can form systems for various reasons, and this should be recognized as valid, even if it doesn’t fit traditional medical or psychological paradigms.
Why Some People Still Question Their Validity
Despite the validity of endogenic systems, some people might still question them because:
- Cultural Biases: Trauma-based narratives are more entrenched in public consciousness and clinical psychology, making it harder for some to accept non-trauma-based multiplicity.
- Lack of Scientific Understanding: Mental health science is still exploring and defining experiences like multiplicity, and there is not universal consensus on what constitutes “legitimate” or “real” multiplicity.
- Misunderstanding of Plurality: Many people don’t fully understand or are unfamiliar with the concept of endogenic systems, which can lead to dismissive or invalidating views.
In short, endogenic systems are just as valid as trauma-based systems.
Everyone’s experience of identity, multiplicity, or dissociation is personal and unique, and different people will have different ways of experiencing and expressing those aspects of themselves. Just because a system isn’t trauma-based doesn’t invalidate it or make it any less “real.” It’s essential to recognize the diversity of experiences that exist and respect people’s personal and self-defined identities.”
“There is a common perception that endogenic systems feel like plurality would be a fun game to play; in our experience, this is an inaccurate assumption. Many endogenic systems have experienced trauma that has impacted their systems, and most have gone through many years of soul searching, research, and conflict in accepting themselves. Both are true for us.
–There were plenty of plural systems who felt their origins had some sort of spiritual component. They, like us, often struggled with medicalized versions of plurality and how it related to their systems.
They, along with systems who felt like their plurality wasn’t the result of trauma– perhaps not spiritual in origin, but simply not the result of trauma– formed the part of the community that back then was usually called “natural multiplicity”. They had been part of the plural community for the entire time we’d been aware of plurality, with websites and communities going back to the 1990s. Of course, there were always people within the community that had disagreements on plurality and how it could form, but in general, all parts of the community worked together. If you were more than one, or median, you were welcomed under the plural umbrella. Soulbonders and people who purposefully fostered mental/emotional connections with “others” within their mind were often welcomed as “naturally multiple”.
After the terms started to gain traction, the anti-endogenic part of the community began using traumagenic to mean “real systems” and endogenic to mean “fake systems”. It was sad to see “traumagenic” become some sort of badge of authenticity, and to see “endogenic” become something shameful.
Get Cyan’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
“Endogenic” wasn’t created to mean “DID without the trauma”. It was created to mean systems that felt their plurality was due to a neurodivergence, from a psychological cause other than DID/OSDD, from some sort of spiritual cause, with a friendly outlook towards tulpamancy or soulbonding. Literally, it’s inclusive of any and all systems or plural folk that do not attribute their plurality to trauma. It has nothing to do with pretending to have a clinical disorder, or mocking anyone. It is simply a single word for many, many ways to be plural. It includes a lot of different opinions and beliefs. It includes a lot of different systems with different levels of communication, varying ability to function, and “symptoms” that can and do overlap with traumagenic systems. The image that has been projected of endogenic systems being happy go lucky rays of sunshine with no worries and no problems isn’t an accurate image.
Nor is it accurate that endogenic systems take resources from systems with DID/OSDD. Just as there are trans people who don’t feel the need to undergo surgery or hormone replacement treatments, there are systems– endogenic and traumagenic alike– who don’t feel the need to seek therapy or enter DID/OSDD only spaces. Systems cannot be stealing resources that they aren’t seeking. Endogenic systems, by definition, do not form from trauma and so are less likely to need the same resources that traumagenic systems may require. at least as far as their plurality is concerned.
Hatred thrives in ignorance. It is vital to understand that all systems, regardless of their origins, are trying to survive and thrive in a world that often is hostile to the concept of plurality. Traumagenic systems, endogenic systems, and other types of systems, all have a valuable place within the plural community, and much of the infighting seems to stem from a lack of understanding of plural history and refusing to listen to one another. Thankfully, most systems support one another and are comfortable sharing spaces that are identified as inclusive. Many systems are making an effort to preserve community history, compile accurate information on plurality, and advocate acceptance regardless of labels.”
“Endogenic systems, according to the name, should refer to all systems that formed due to internal causes (that’s what the prefix “endo” means), but in the community this term is often used to describe all systems that formed for reasons other than trauma.
In DSM-5, the American classification of disorders, the diagnostic criteria for dissociative identity disorder include criterion C, which excludes from the diagnosis all systems that do not experience distress or significant problems in everyday functioning due to the presence of alters and amnesia, and criterion D, which also excludes systems whose plurality is normative for a given culture.[1] ICD-11 also requires that symptoms cause significant impairment in important areas of life or that maintaining adequate functioning requires substantial additional effort.[2] If that is not enough, in the section “Boundary with Normality” we read: “The presence of two or more distinct personality states does not always indicate the presence of a mental disorder. In certain circumstances (e.g., as experienced by ‘mediums’ or other culturally accepted spiritual practitioners) the presence of multiple personality states is not experienced as aversive and is not associated with impairment in functioning. A diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder should not be assigned in these cases.” Functional impairment is also required in the case of OSDD-1[3] and pDID.[4] Apart from that, neither classification requires the presence of trauma to diagnose these disorders, nor sets a strict age limit at which they can develop (which is outside of the scope of this article, but it is also a common misconception that is worth correcting).
Theory of Structural Dissociation
“There is absolutely nothing about endogenic plurality in the theory of structural dissociation. So why is it included in this article at all?”
If you were unfortunate enough to encounter the more toxic part of the system community, you probably know that this fact is often used as an argument that systems can only form through trauma. The absence of discussion of non-disordered plurality in the theory has not gone unnoticed in the scientific community as well, and by some people it has not been received very favorably. Two of the authors of the theory, Nijenhuis and van der Hart, addressed this topic in a paper in which they attempt to defend their definition of dissociation against (considerable) criticism. They acknowledge that while they define dissociation exclusively as a “division of personality” in the context of trauma, they are aware that some definitions of dissociation also include other contexts, such as mediumship and hypnosis, and that there is evidence that dissociation in these other contexts is also best understood as a division of personality.
But what if the theory of structural dissociation actually contradicted the possibility of non-traumagenic plurality? If you accepted that fact uncritically, then to remain intellectually honest you would also have to accept just as uncritically that we are only parts of a single personality, which this theory states very explicitly. And as I mentioned, I have encountered many endophobic systems that, despite this, consider themselves to be multiple persons inhabiting one body. Additionally, as I wrote in “The Theory of Structural Dissociation — an Absolute Truth?” (not yet translated to English), in psychology the word “theory” is used much more loosely than in the field of natural science. The theory of structural dissociation is not a beyond all doubt experimentally confirmed model that reflects our best understanding of reality, like for example the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity. Many people do not realize that apart from this one there are numerous other, sometimes contradictory models of dissociative identity disorder, for example the four factor theory of etiology or the theory of functional dissociation. And some of them, for example the internal family systems theory, explicitly state the existence of non-disordered plurality.”
“Endogenic plurality is plurality (the experience of being more-than-one) that arose without trauma, and often without purposeful creation. Those who are endogenic find that they have another person, soul, or identity sharing the same brain as them, often adding input, communicating and alternating control of their physical body. Unlike clinical forms of traumagenic plurality (some well known forms are Dissociative Identity Disorder and Other Specified Dissociative Disorder-1), when someone has another person or identity with them directly due to repetitive traumatic events, endogenic plurality often exists independent of trauma.
It may be tempting to dismiss endogenic plurality as something that should be some sort of pathology, or as some sort of grab at attention, but the condition has been around for a while, and experiences similar to it have been around since the beginning of recorded history.
In cases of endogenic plurality, the person (or people, if you will) are plural regardless of prior trauma or personal feelings on the subject. A person who experiences themselves as being more-than-one may collectively refer to themselves (their group that shares one body) as a collective or system. The amount of members a system can have varies widely, with some systems being as small as two people, and others containing hundreds of people. Some systems have non-human members (alterhumans) and even members from media (fictionkins, otherkins), while others happen to have completely human members. This is normal for people who are part of endogenic systems.
The thoughts and causes behind this mode of plurality are vast, and every system has a different theory as to how they came about. There are those who believe that it’s a quirk of neurology and that as consciousness developed in the brain more than one formed, in much the same way it would for a cognitively singular individual. Some hold to specific psychological theories to explain this, such as E.R. Hilgard’s neodissociation theory (Kirsch, 1998), or the theory of structural dissociation (although modified to explain a non-traumagenic system and way of functioning) while others may adhere to different theories. A system may forgo psychological explanations, choosing instead to think of spiritual or metaphysical reasons for how they came about. Some may believe they were all reincarnated in the same body, while others may feel they walked into a body and became a system that way. There may even be systems whose members hold different opinions and cannot agree one way or another on a reason, or do not care to think about it!
Endogenic plurality encompasses a variety of “more-than-one” experiences that can be roughly categorized as non-traumagenic and spontaneous. It is nothing new, and while it may be strange to encounter, it is a legitimate experience and condition like any other.
- “Plural identity is a self-reported identity, not a specific clinical diagnosis. Some, but not all, plural people dissociate, or have a psychiatric diagnosis of dissociation.”
- “Plurality is a newer, more inclusive term that our study uses to describe the broad range of experiences of having more than one person or entity sharing one body. It has been used in the scientific literature as well as the self-advocacy community, and is an addition to the related terminology of dissociation and multiplicity.”
- “There is a recent call to abandon [the theory of structural dissociation] and replace it with a multifactorial model with less emphasis on trauma history.”
- “Plurality and dissociative identity disorder are not exactly the same. Being plural, or having two or more people existing in one body or space, is just one part of the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder. Many people who are plural do not experience distress from the existence of others within themselves although dissociative identity disorder and plurality are frequently associated with trauma, there are those who are plural and report no history of trauma. The case presentation in this chapter describes someone with severe trauma, but this is not a definitive or universal reason for the existence of plurality.”
- ”Plurality makes up just one part of the larger diagnosis [DID] and does not necessarily cause distress. Although many people who are plural have a history of trauma, there are just as many who do not.”
- “Plurality refers to what many mental health professionals know as dissociative identities. Plurality is not the same as dissociative identity disorder but makes up one part of it. Plurality is not necessarily caused by trauma, although trauma can be part of the overall picture.”
- “Some people have a different experience of identity construction, experiencing themselves as multiple — having more than one self in the mind and body. Ribáry et al. suggests the experience of multiplicity is best understood on a continuum ⁷between ‘identity disturbance’ and ‘dissociative identity disorder.”
- “The current system surrounding DID/Other Specified Dissociative Disorder being the focus within mental health support is not adequate or appropriate for those who do not feel they fit within the diagnostic criteria used. These diagnostic terms are also synonymous with the experience of ‘disorder’ or ‘distress’, which was not always seen as relevant for the respondents.”
- “Not all multiplicity is based on trauma.”
- “Dissociation in Hypnosis and Mediumship: Our definition of dissociation pertains to a division of the personality in the context of trauma. We are aware that this division may also occur in hypnosis and mediumship, that several other definitions of dissociation also address these other contexts, and that there are some indications that dissociation in these other contexts is also best understood as a division of personality.”
- “A large number of writers report vivid experiences of ‘hearing’ their characters talking to them, talking back to them, and exhibiting an atypical degree of independence and autonomy”
- “Almost two thirds of writers in our sample reported hearing their characters’ voices. In the majority of cases, this was clearly related to the sense of the character’s voice or appearance having distinctive characteristics. ‘I hear them in my mind. They have distinct voice patterns and tones, and I can make them carry on conversations with each other in which I can always tell who is ‘talking’.’ “
- “One important caveat, however, is that some writers who had ever had a hallucinatory experience in their lifetime stated that these experiences were noticeably different from their experiences of their characters’ voices.”
(there are actually so many quotes you can just check it out here: https://www.tumblr.com/guardianssystem/789039410128814080/endogenic-plurality-research-information-20
“Conversely, while systems experiencing multiplicity often report the presence of two or more selves sharing one body, multiplicity does not tend to incorporate amnesia, distress due to a lack of integration of thoughts or feelings, or impairment in functioning (Ribáry et al., 2017). People aligning with the non-clinical explanation of multiplicity indicate their ability to live well in relation to memory, perception of the environment and consciousness, supporting the notion of a continuum of experiences (Eve et al., 2023).”
“However, prevalence rates of multiplicity-spectrum conditions are difficult to extrapolate due to limited reporting and identification, although suspected to be between 4.6% and 46% (Loewenstein, 2018). Indeed, Ross et al. (2002) acknowledged many individuals do not meet clinical criteria as a result of a lack of negative impairment; however, they do align with other descriptors of dissociative experiences. Thus, there is a need to understand the wide spectrum of experiences multiplicity encompasses to consider how an awareness of multiplicity can exist outside of an illness model, reducing stigma and thus stigma related distress surrounding multiplicity (Eve & Parry, 2021; Parry et al., 2017).”
“Respondents discussed that there is a lack of understanding regarding how multiplicity develops without a basis in trauma. For respondents who did not have a trauma history, they described feeling ‘left out of the conversation’ and ‘unable to access support’ or resources. Many people discussed multiplicity in terms of being an experience and a part of their lives, rather than being a ‘disorder’ which needs to be treated or cured. Respondents highlighted the need within medical settings to be ‘suffering to be seen as valid’, which ‘discredits’ and ‘invalidates’ their experiences. People mentioned that while they may lack what is seen as traditional suffering, having experiences of multiplicity still impacts their psychosocial functioning and their day to day living, but this is overlooked currently. A greater level of understanding and resources were mentioned as being needed within both research and practice. Having easy to understand resources concerning multiplicity would allow both professionals and support networks to have a clearer understanding of the experiences. Respondents also mentioned having such information would allow them to feel comfortable talking about their experiences with other people. Therefore, finding a balance between providing trauma-informed approaches and providing treatment that is not automatically trauma-focused seems an important development for support.”
“Because non-traumagenic plural experiences rarely affect functioning, they have fallen very much under the radar of researchers, academics, and mental health professionals. The existing body of research on non-DID plurality is limited to online surveys and theory, and this must change. The lack of social, scientific, and medical awareness and understanding of plurality causes stigmatization, misdiagnoses, and mistreatment. Further research is a necessity to counter this. In-person psychiatric assessments, longitudinal research, and neuroimaging studies are all more than warranted towards building a greater scientific understanding of plurality.
By allowing people with multiplicity a safe space to explore and develop their inner communication and relationships, they can live a positive and fulfilling life with their multiplicity. This research helps to inform the gaps in understanding so that people with multiplicity can begin to share their experiences without fear of judgment or misunderstanding, seek support as required, and live well.”
