After being diagnosed with DID, I went on a self-discovery journey to try to make meaning out of what I was experiencing. This led me directly to the work of William James, a turn-of-the-century psychologist and philosopher, whose first book The Varieties of Religious Experience has greatly influenced the way I conceptualize my own internal experience. James' work helped me realize how much ones' internal experience is mediated by their own cultural influences.
In his seminal work on psychology and philosophy, William James introduced the distinction between “percepts” and “concepts” as a way of understanding how humans experience and interpret the world. A percept refers to the raw, immediate experience—what we directly see, feel, hear, or sense in the moment. It is unfiltered, vivid, and tied to the present. In contrast, a concept is an abstraction, a mental framework or idea we use to organize and give meaning to our percepts. Concepts allow us to categorize our experiences, connect them to prior knowledge, and communicate them to others. While percepts are individual and transient, concepts are shared, stable, and often shaped by culture and language.
William James, often regarded as the father of American psychology, was deeply interested in how people construct meaning from their experiences. His ideas about percepts and concepts were central to his exploration of human cognition and consciousness. According to James, the interplay between these two elements—what we experience directly and how we conceptualize it—is a fundamental aspect of how we navigate and make sense of life.
Percepts, concepts, and DID#
Dissociative identity disorder (DID) offers a compelling lens through which to explore the relationship between percepts and concepts. At its core, DID is characterized by dissociative experiences—perceptions of fragmented consciousness, memory lapses, or shifts in mental states that feel discrete and disconnected. These are the percepts: raw, immediate internal experiences that can feel disorienting or inexplicable.
The concept of DID, as a diagnostic classification, provides a framework for understanding and organizing these dissociative percepts. It offers a culturally sanctioned way to interpret fragmented internal states, often describing them as “multiple identities” or “parts” within a single individual. However, as with any concept, it is just one of many possible ways to make sense of these experiences. DID is not the experience itself—it is a construct that attempts to explain and contextualize those experiences.
The feedback loop between percepts and concepts#
One of the most fascinating aspects of the relationship between percepts and concepts is the feedback loop they create. When someone has a dissociative experience, they encounter a percept: an internal sensation, thought, or state that feels distinct or separate from their usual sense of self. To make sense of this, they often turn to a concept, such as DID, which provides a structured explanation for their experience.
Once the concept is adopted, it begins to shape how they view their past and future experiences. For example, if someone interprets their dissociative percepts through the lens of DID, they might reframe past experiences of memory loss or emotional detachment as evidence of “different parts” or “identities.” This reframing influences how they interpret future percepts, reinforcing the concept and creating a cycle of validation.
Over time, the concept can become so deeply embedded that it actively shapes the percepts themselves. A person might unconsciously adjust how they experience and report their internal states to align with the concept of DID. This dynamic highlights the powerful influence of concepts on human experience: they are not passive explanations but active forces that shape perception and behavior.
Nearly a century later, similar observations of feedback loops between diagnostic labels (“concepts”) shaping the phenomena they describe (“percepts”) specific to what we now call DID were described by the late philosopher Ian Hacking in his book Rewriting the Soul. Hacking explored how diagnostic labels do not merely describe phenomena but actively participate in shaping them, a process he referred to as “looping effects”. I write more about Hacking’s more applied conceptualizations here.
The role of culture and individual choice#
It is crucial to recognize that the concept of DID is not a universal truth but a cultural construct. Other societies and historical periods have understood similar dissociative experiences through entirely different conceptual frameworks. For example, some cultures might interpret dissociative states as spiritual possession, while others might view them as manifestations of divine inspiration or moral weakness. The concept of DID, as it exists today, is deeply rooted in Western psychological, medical, and cultural traditions.
This cultural specificity underscores the multiplicity of ways to conceptualize dissociative percepts. While the concept of DID has provided validation and relief for many individuals by offering an explanation for their experiences, it is not the only possible framework. Recognizing this opens the door to exploring other ways of understanding and contextualizing dissociative percepts, whether through personal, philosophical, or alternative cultural lenses.
Moving beyond a singular framework#
Understanding the interplay between percepts and concepts is essential for anyone navigating or studying dissociative experiences. While concepts like DID can offer clarity and structure, it is important to remain aware of their limitations. No concept can fully capture the richness and complexity of percepts, and clinging too tightly to a single framework can obscure other possibilities for understanding. This is why I am explicit in stating that I do not subscribe to any singular conceptual framework in understanding and describing my dissociative experiences—none adequately capture dissociative phenomena in a way that truly honor my internal experience.
By acknowledging the dynamic relationship between percepts and concepts, we can approach dissociative experiences with greater openness and curiosity. This perspective encourages individuals to explore multiple frameworks, remaining flexible in how they interpret their internal experiences. It also invites broader discussions about how cultural narratives shape our understanding of mental health and identity.
In the end, percepts and concepts are two sides of the same coin—one provides the raw material of experience, while the other gives it structure and meaning. For those living with dissociative experiences, recognizing the interplay between these elements can be a powerful step toward self-awareness and agency.
Contact me