BODY DISOWNERSHIP IN COMPLEX POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER Yochai Ataria Body Disownership in Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Yochai Ataria Body Disownership in Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Yochai Ataria Tel-Hai College Upper Galilee, Israel ISBN 978-1-349-95365-3 ISBN 978-1-349-95366-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95366-0 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018937874 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover image: © Richard Wareham Fotografie/Alamy Stock Photo Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Nature America, Inc. part of Springer Nature The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A. Dedicated with great love to Adi, Asaf, Ori and Shir For making life worth living. The publication of this book coincides with the fortieth anniversary of Jean Améry’s suicide and is dedicated to him and to all those like him who were sentenced to life but chose death instead. F oreword What happens at the most negative extremes of torture and trauma? What happens to our bodies and to our selves? Yochai Ataria, in Body- Disownership in Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, provides analyses of a variety of body-related orders and disorders, with special focus on trauma and the effects of torture. He works first hand with those who have suffered such extremes, and who witness to that first-person expe- rience they lived through, and continue to live through. His analyses are fully informed by phenomenology, especially the work of Merleau-Ponty, as well as by recent science and research in psychiatry. The phenomeno- logical difference between the body-as-subject or lived-body (Leib) and the body-as-object (Körper) is a basic distinction informing Ataria’s anal- ysis. He also builds on a number of other distinctions drawn from both phenomenology and neuroscience—for example, body-schema versus body-image, and sense of agency versus sense of ownership. From a particular perspective, these distinctions line up in paral- lel, where on one side there are connections between body-as-subject, body-schema, and sense of agency, and on the other side connections between body-as-object, body-image, and sense of ownership. With respect to these relations, however, Ataria uses the mathematical sym- bol “ ,” which means more or less equal or approximately equal. This ≈ is an important sign of qualification. These concepts are not equivalent. Indeed, their lack of equivalence and their varying degrees of ambiguity, as well as the cross—and sometimes close—connections between the two sets of parallel concepts, provide them with their explanatory power. ix x FoREWoRD The analyses provided by Ataria are thus nuanced and complex in significant ways. Take for example the distinction between sense of agency and sense of ownership. Each is complex and a matter of degree. Moreover, in typical everyday experience, these two pre-reflective aspects are tightly integrated. It’s difficult to pull them apart, either phenome- nologically or neurologically. In terms of neuroscience, both experiences depend upon sensory integration processes (some of which are likely cor- related with activation in the insula). They involve vestibular sensations, proprioception, kinaesthesis, vision, and perhaps other sensory inputs. The sense of agency also requires the integration of efferent processes involving motor control. In the case of involuntary movement, one starts to see how sense of agency and sense of ownership can be distinguished, since in the case of involuntary movement it is still my body that is mov- ing, but I am not the agent of that movement (in such cases, no effer- ent processes are involved in the initiation of the movement). This is the simplest case that provides a dissociation. But in most cases of voluntary action or involuntary movement, the situation is much more compli- cated, and Ataria explores a number of other complex and in some cases paradoxical dissociations. The enactivist conception of action-oriented perception—the idea that we perceive things in terms of what we can do with them—is cen- tral to Ataria’s argument. Trauma leads to breakdowns in this pragmatic know-how that typically informs our perceptions and actions. These are breakdowns in the relational integration of body and world and therefore breakdowns in the affordance structures of our everyday lives. Problems are not confined to just this kind of sensory-motor know-how; however, the problems are equally of an affective nature. Emotion and mood play major roles in constituting our way of being-in-the-world. Across per- ceptual, motor, and affective dimensions, we find deep transformations in the extremes of the kind of trauma associated with war, violence, rape, torture, and even the slow effects of solitary confinement. In connection with traumatic effects, one might not think of the unu- sual experiences of autoscopy, heautoscopy, and out-of-body-experiences, and specifically experiences that have been replicated experimentally both by direct neuronal stimulation and by the fascinating use of virtual real- ity (this is the important work of olaf Blanke and colleagues). But this is just what Ataria does. He shows the resemblances of these phenom- ena, which are seemingly like the effects of quantum indeterminacy, but on the level of bodily experience. Can I really be at two places at one FoREWoRD xi time, and can that really offer a kind of self-protection; or do they signal a dissolution of self? These are some of the most paradoxical and perplex- ing experiences possible. Ataria considers dehumanization in the form not only of being reduced to a merely animal status, for even animals live through their bodily existence in a way that is not too distant from the human; but a dehumanization in the form of being reduced to a mere thing. The inhuman conditions in Nazi concentration camps, for example, resulted in the development of a defensive sense of disownership toward the entire body. The body, in such cases, is reduced to a pure object. At the extreme, this body-as-object, which had been the subject’s own body, is experienced as belonging to the torturers and comes to be identified as a tool to inflict suffering and pain on the subject himself. In this situation, robbed of cognitive resources, the subject may have no other alternative than to treat his body as an enemy, and accordingly, retreat, or disinvest from the body. This kind of somatic apathy is an indifference involving a loss of distinction between the self and the nonself. It too often leads to suicidal inclinations, even after liberation from the camp. Ataria thus explores, the mind’s limit, to use a phrase from Jean Amery. He follows a route that leads the mind to a dead end in the body, taken as pure object. The body, which is not other than the mind, comes to be so, and so alien, through torture and specific kinds of trauma. Such experiences have the potential to destroy all aspects of self: the physical, the experiential, the cognitive and narratival, and the profoundly inter- subjective. The question then is: What is left? What resources might the subject use to recover? That’s a challenge that many victims and survivors face, and it is well worth trying to understand. Memphis, USA Shaun Gallagher A cknowledgements In 2014, Shaun Gallagher invited me to attend a conference in Memphis titled “Solitary Confinement: Phenomenology, Psychology, and Ethics.” At this conference, I raised the ideas put forward in this book for the first time. Not only do I want to thank Shaun for inviting me to this confer- ence. I am also grateful for his continuous support during my doctoral studies, for our joint writing, and for our ongoing dialogue. I cannot imagine this book being written without his major contribution. I began writing this book during my doctoral studies, and it is based in part on research I conducted while working on my thesis. I wish to thank Yemima Ben-Menahem and Yuval Neria, my two doctoral advisors. I could not have asked for better advisors. Special thanks to Koji Yamashiro, Shogo Tanaka, and Frederique de Vignemont, who read the book in depth. I could not have reached the point where I am today without their challenging and important com- ments. I also want to thank Peter Brugger, Eli Somer, Roy Salomon, Iftah Biran, Mooli Lahad, and Eran Dorfman, who read some of the chapters and made a major contribution. I engaged in ongoing dialogue about some of the ideas in the book with colleagues—omer Horovitz, Ayelet Shavit, Eli Pitcovski, Thomas Fuchs, Amos Goldberg, Mel Slater, and Amos Arieli—and I am grateful to them for their patience and understanding. I claim full responsibility for any errors that remain in the book. This book underwent many changes as a result of lectures I gave over the past three years, and I thank all those who attended my seminars at xiii