ABSTRACT
Chapter 7 builds on the arguments and descriptions from prior chapters to underscore the cumulative nature of an IMD as an observable phenomenon that trained practitioners, professionals and researchers may recognize. After the efforts put forward to clarify the nature of FDBP and PA as IMD’s, this chapter is used to blur or cloud these distinctions in a fashion that suggests that they are included under the symptomatic tenets of an IMD. As described in Chapter 4, it is emphasized that IMDs all have the same basic structure. It is stressed that pattern recognition across time connotes an IMD’s unique variable criteria that creates its dimensional interrelated structure and supplies the probabilistic basis for whether the phenomenon even exists. The notion of a punctuated steady state developed in earlier chapters is elaborated here as a marker for threshold events when different elements of pathology amalgamate into a pathological dynamic that marks the emergence of an IMD. It is also stated in this chapter that if an IMD is left to propagate without intervention, it tends to grow over time and assimilate more individuals, systems and even small communities. The notion of stress is also addressed as an important variable. Time is featured as a crucial and underappreciated distinction in how and when stress impacts these individuals and systems epigenetically, which is a discussion that also involves the Diathesis-Stress Model. Three time frames for stress are suggested for measurement, developmental, contemporary and situational. The reality that developmental stress often has roots in the background dimensional symptoms of one or both parents in these cases is also discussed. That is, developmental stresses suggest the early lives of, and influences on, these parents. The quality of the family system is also revisited in this chapter and the longitudinal work of Baumrind and the topographical work of Olson are employed to suggest how families that suffer from an IMD may uniquely function. Larger system dynamics are revisited, but more in the way of an appropriate and proportional response to the IMD, if, indeed it is recognized. Couched in the epigenetic discussion earlier in the chapter, a manner of articulating individual strengths and weaknesses are discussed for children and stress is reexamined to emphasize the inordinate pressures and/or tensions the child in a pre-PA dynamic experiences. The chapter is wrapped up with the introduction of the IMD Symbolic Language, a language that was developed as a sort of shorthand for practitioners, professionals and researchers working with these individuals and systems. Writing down a narrative in these cases in the moment may often prove cumbersome and inadequate, and this language was developed for that purpose as well as discussions among professionals to clarify the function and structure of the case before them.
