“Split” represents a unique mental health concern, the existence of which has been debated for decades. Portraying a character with the dissociative identity disorder (DID), the movie tells the story of abusive childhood and the resulting development of multiple personalities, which is a common representation of DID in media. However, the film lacks the focus on other aspects of DID development and manifestation, including genetic predisposition, behavior issues, and the related details. As a result, “Split” provides a gripping yet scientifically inaccurate story.
Previously known as multiple identities disorder, the dissociative identity disorder (DID) has sparked multiple controversies and heated arguments concerning its substantiation as a real phenomenon. The specified discourse has been reflected in popular culture, culminating in the production of a movie that has received unequivocal critical success. Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (2017), “Split” features a unique case of a DID generating 23 identities in Kevin Crumb, its main antagonist. Though the movie has been praised by critics and audiences alike, its portrayal of DID lacks depth and precision, relying primarily on common perceptions of DID.
Though its psychological substantiation is debatable, “Split” introduces a curious perspective on the issue. Applying the Nature vs. Nurture theoretical framework will show that the film is geared toward the Nurture framework, portraying Kevin developing DID as a defense mechanism against his abusive mother (Shyamalan, 2017). The specified stance aligns with the existing perspective on DID, which is believed to be the product of childhood trauma (Blihar et al., 2020). In turn, from the Continuous vs. Discontinuous dichotomy perspective, namely, the juxtaposition of developmental stages (Piaget and Erikson) and gradual development (Vygotsky), the movie represents DID as a discontinuous phenomenon, outlining the stages at which Kevin developed new personalities (Xu, 2019). Finally, in the Active vs. Passive framework, specifically, the choice-oriented model and the one denying the presence of agency in patients, the Passive perspective is integrated as Kevin is portrayed being possessed by the personalities that are contained within him.
Remarkably, the movie spends a significant amount fop time detailing Kevin’s background. The specified approach supposedly helps delve into the nature of the disorder. Namely, it is established that, as a child, Kevin lived with his abusive mother, who also suffered from DID. Finally, his mother forced him to leave his home, yet the premise for the further development of his mental health issues had been set.
The further examination of Kevin’s character indicates that the movie seeks to represent him primarily as the product of adverse circumstances. Specifically, “Split” offers extensive details about Kevin’s childhood, particularly, the traumatic effect of his mother’s abusive behavior on his mental health. The film makes it explicitly clear that Kevin’s first personality split occurs as a result of him trying to develop a defense mechanism against his mother’s abuse: “We will no longer be afraid. Only through pain can you achieve your greatness” (Shyamalan, 2017). Therefore, the character’s behavior is defined as environmentally induced, even though the presence of DID in his mother hints at the fact that a genetic predisposition might also have been in place. Thus, it is not quite clear whether Kevin would have been healthy if he had had a different childhood. Unfortunately, while “Split” does have important ideas to convey, it lacks the insight into the genetic aspect of DID development, as well as the further scrutiny of the condition.
Building its approach toward DID on common yet misconstrued ideas of the subject matter, “Split” provides a gripping yet quite inaccurate representation of DID. Specifically, the film fails to subvert common stereotypes regarding the subject matter and, instead exacerbates their presence in the public discourse. As a result, the mental health phenomenon that has been shrouded in mystery for most people remains misrepresented to the point where it becomes particularly difficult to recognize in real life. The specified outcome is particularly harmful to those who suffer from DID and the stigma surrounding it, which is why the movie, entertaining it might be, cannot be considered a useful addition to the discourse.
References
Blihar, D., Delgado, E., Buryak, M., Gonzalez, M., & Waechter, R. (2020). A systematic review of the neuroanatomy of dissociative identity disorder. European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 4(3), 1014. Web.
Xu, F. (2019). Towards a rational constructivist theory of cognitive development. Psychological review, 126(6), 841-934. Web.