probably fucked up premise, plurality //
setting where psycho-normativity means obligatory plurality: everyone is supposed to have one (1) "front", one (1) "guardian", and one (1) "observer". not having precisely that combination is a diagnosable disorder with associated corrective therapies. you wouldn't get, like, thrown out over it, but it's def considered weird and undesirable.
& especially thinking about what childhood & grade school looks like in this society
re: plurality norm premise //
like: would the default society expectation of a very specific psych structure be enough to reproduce it? would growing up & people constantly interacting with you and assuming you're plural be enough?
I'm not sure. I think it'd do *something* & result in people with generally more fluid identities, push the median person closer to being a median system
but I think maintaining sharp internal boundaries is a kind of "effort" most ppl wouldn't do if left alone.
re: plurality norm premise //
@lioness I believe this is the precise reason most people in our actual society do not appear to be plural: we frame our experiences to fit with societal expectations, and that reinforces the expected structure. So yes, I think that if that were the norm, most people's brains would take on a similar structure.
So the way I look at it, people already do unintentionally put in a similar "effort" maintaining a single coherent identity.
-Ionas
