Plurality as Embodied
posted on May 5, 2025
Many of the guides we encounter about plurality, whether they're aimed at fellow plurals, singlets, or questioning folks, tend to describe methods and experiences as "bodyless." This framework is common because it is often useful; many with plural and/or alterhuman experiences do not relate to human bodies or find discomfort or distress in having to inhabit or use one. But for folks whose experiences are different, this framework can exclude them, making it harder to understand themselves and relate to others; we struggled with ourself without resources that described experiences we could relate to! And, counterproductively, it can accidentally reinforce the idea that selfhood relies on having or using a body at all.
What is "bodyless"?
For our purposes, we're going to define "bodyless" as not relating to a human body, divorcing from a human body, separating self/selves from a human body, and/or conceptualizing mental experiences as abstract and therefore not physical. If you're familiar with the concept of mind-body dualism, you can say that bodyless refers to prioritizing the experiences of the mind and separating bodily experiences.
The guides mentioned earlier tend to rely on "mind power" for things like switching. For example, "visualize a table, and then..." or "imagine yourself stepping back and your system mate stepping forward." There's also the classic car metaphor for fronting. Common descriptions of switching use a framework of "trading places" or "turn-taking." There can be a lot of leaning on the inner world as a literal place where your alters can go when they are not fronting, to get other needs met, or to have their own lives.
In the paradigm of bodyless, a human body is a vessel or channel used to interact with the outer world. In order for multiple entities to exist in one human body, they must divorce themselves from this body, or only allow a limited number of system members to claim identity with this body.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this paradigm if it works for you. But if it doesn't...
Imagine that you're new to all this
It is tempting to simplify plurality and/or multiplicity as the experience of more than one distinct entity sharing a single human body, living in a single human body, or living in the same brain. It's useful to do this; you may want to direct the people you're educating away from assuming the insiders less frequently encountered are somehow imaginary, less real, or less autonomous and complex beings than the more frequent fronters, or host if the system has one. In other words, this functions to assert the agency of members of a system (not to be conflated with humanity, of course).
Unfortunately, without additional context and nuance, this can carry another implication: that the body is a passive vehicle that receives fronting members like possession, and that others who are not fronting or not co-conscious are literally "somewhere else" or "gone." This can elicit fear from those unfamiliar (and we're not going to say to make this your problem, if you don't want to). It can prompt concern and confusion for folks newer to their systemhood who are expecting a specific experience, not getting it, and therefore assuming that they are permanently front-stuck or cannot switch or don't have inner worlds. (No, we're not asserting that these things are not real; they are.)
What specific experience? Well, back in our first round of plurality, when we thought we were a singular entity and had a gateway system, I thought I couldn't switch out because I was always aware of the outside world. I always had a continuous narrative. I did not find my awareness transported to the inner world, experiencing it in the same way as I would a location in the outer world. While there was a degree of possessive switching, I never really "left" in the way I expected to, based on how it was described to me, so I assumed I wasn't able to switch. I didn't "go anywhere" or "come back." I didn't dissociate from my/our body. I also thought I was not able to switch because I heard so much about other folks being able to have lives in their inner worlds and get most or all of their needs met there. That is not true for us.
I've encountered other plurals who seek guidance about things like accessing their inner worlds or switching, saying that they are struggling and the guides they've encountered don't seem to work for them. The guides they refer to are often built on a bodyless framework. Especially for folks newer to understanding their systemhood, or who've had a consistent main fronter for the majority of their lives, it can be upsetting and alienating when these frameworks seem not to work for them, leading them to believe that perhaps they have no inner worlds or that they cannot switch.
Just to emphasize: We know there are systems who do not switch and/or do not have an inner world. It might be upsetting to folks to assume they are a system like that, if they do not have other perspectives that show them other possibilities besides a bodyless framework.
What's the harm?
Not to be reductionist, but uh, prescriptivism is bad, actually.
Having a narrow set of narratives and experiences to learn from is limiting. It robs systems of ways to understand their experiences and their others. They may not understand that for them, switching might be less about "trading places" and more about "becoming" one another. Maybe their inner world is less of another dimension and functions more like a memory palace. But without those frames of reference, how would they know? So these folks lose out on ways to exist as a system, ways that might work better for them if they knew that trying them was available after all!
Without a diversity of frameworks or narratives, how can plurals relate to other plurals?
"Am I really plural?"
"I can't relate to this; I feel left out."
Language is how we describe our experiences; describing experiences is how we connect to others and learn from others. Communicating not just with discussions based in words, but also art, stories, and memes is how we discover others and in turn ourselves.
How often have you heard of folks figuring out that they have a certain type of experience after reading about the experiences of others? "Oh, so that's what autism can look like; maybe I'm autistic?" "Oh, so that's what trans-ness can look like; maybe I'm trans?" "Oh, so that's what being asexual can actually be; could I be ace?"
Hell, we struggled to figure out ourself because we expected being Chameleons to be like having the gateways system from before. It wasn't the same at all. It's good that we had community spaces where we could ask around and get perspectives, but a resource that described experiences I-we could relate to sure would've been nice!
Finally, as beings who might be working to deconstruct the assumption that a body defines a self, or the boundaries between the self and others, relying only on the bodyless framework can have the opposite effect-- reinforces the idea that attaching oneself to a body means there is only room for one entity to inhabit it or identify with it. This comes with it more problematic assumptions, such as there being a central system member or "host matters most," which just excludes other insiders even more. In short, it's the opposite of what this language is trying to do.
Make room for embodied experiences
The asks here, truly, are simple:
- Don't assume that all experiences of plurality are bodyless. That there's a parallel life in a headspace or inner world for all systems. That there's an insider/meatsuit-pilot binary that all systems are working with.
- Examine and deconstruct how mind-body dualism is limiting your understanding of selves and others.