Phoenix_RisingSenior Contributor
The use of language around borderline personality disorder
Hi,
A post came up on my facebook feed this morning re. borderline personality disorder (BPD) and it included something that has always bugged me ever since I was diagnosed with BPD 20 years ago. It said something about the person's emotional responses not really being "her" but "the illness" talking. I am diagnosed with BPD. That means that by definition, "experts" deem that my personality is disordered. Well guess what? My personality is ME. I AM my personality. There is no entity called "me" that is seperate to my personality. If I had a different personality, I would be a different person. I am my personality, my personality is me. So what the heck do people mean when they try to distinguish my personality from me???
I strongly believe that BPD should have been renamed in the DSM-V. I know there was a lot of discussion around this, and yet the name was retained. This means that right now, in the 21st century, BPD is still regarded as a disorder of the personality. You simply cannot call something a personality disorder and then try to say that the "disorder" is distinct from the person.
I can see how with other MIs it makes sense to distinguish the person from the illness. For example, if someone experiences episodes of depression, then I can see how the depression is distinct from the person experiencing it, and the person continues to be the same person during the periods of depression and the periods between those episodes. However, this language simply doesn't make sense to me in the context of defining someone's personality as disordered. As I said, there is no "me" underlying my personality. I AM my personality and my personality is me. You cannot say that my personality is disordered but that I myself am ok and shouldn't feel defined by that label.
I am curious to know how others make sense of this puzzle???