relieved, aren't you?

Brought to you by this wonderful (translated) comment:

Well, the train was just the friends we made along the way, but the vision had my brain going. And I do believe one of the things that made John come out was some sort of suicidality on Mikoto's part (I actually believe John implied it).

(milgram-en)

because WHERE?????? where was the stereotype? and where was it played straight? if you're confident, and especially if you want to make an indictment on the writers' politics, please also explain to me why exactly the stereotype you are perceiving is bad, what the history behind it is, how it is relevant to the culture the text is reflecting and written for, and how exactly the text as a whole therefore promotes modern prejudice. read the text, point to me, exactly where it is happening. fanon hallucination is not admissible.

he brushes his teeth in the shower

he smokes in the bathtub

he twirls his bat while doing a model walk when beating a man to death

he drools when sleeping

he sometimes holds his phone like L from death note

he is ambidextrous

he likes horse sashimi

I'm gonna say somethin a lil controversial. I think Mikoto Kayano's story is about how child abuse that isn't obvious to other people is invisible and treated as if it never happened, despite evidence (Mikoto's literal disorder) that it did.

I'm going to be saying a lot of things that I've seen on Tumblr blogs from pwDID who enjoyed Mikoto's writing. Just, for the record, I had help forming these opinions by reading the opinions of people who would be effected by shit rep.

Mikoto is someone whose life and background is largely unimportant to MILGRAM because, as an examination of the justice system, I believe Mikoto's story is meant to be examining post-crime diagnosis.

"How is Mikoto's background unimportant to MILGRAM?" Because MILGRAM's after-song notes are attempting to be a nonbiased prosecution and failing spectacularly. Because the prosecution is biased by its nature. The prosecution wants us to judge harshly.

That isn't to say that what Mikoto did magically isn't bad just because the notes are biased against him. Killing 12 people is still killing 12 people. But I feel like the attempts to rip the diagnosis away from Mikoto is misunderstanding things a bit.

From what I've seen, a lot of people on Tumblr who enjoy analyzing Mikoto's story have posited the idea that he'd always had DID, and he simply was diagnosed within the prison because the situation seemed to call for it, for both Es and Kotoko.

Further, if Es wasn't outright abusing Mikoto during Trial 1, we would've never even met John. Mikoto switches and lashes out at an abuser and that is when the idea of diagnosing him with something and presenting him to the viewers as a rep for DID is presented by Kotoko herself.

With Mikoto having had DID for likely most of his life before splitting off John, he probably genuinely had symptoms that didn't disrupt his life too much… until he was abused heavily at his job and split off someone who could do the things Mikoto can't.

I think that presuming the story is that Mikoto magically spawned the disorder after working an abusive job is a little bit reductive. Further, assuming the report's description of events is 100% accurate despite other reports' issues is a little strange as a move for this story.

There is no mention of Yuno's extremely obvious motivations for climbing up that abandoned building alone, when it comes to her song Life. She may have fainted, but she had other intentions as well.

If you can't account for the report not mentioning that Yuno may have been attempting suicide, why do we suddenly fully trust when the report of a man with a trauma-borne disorder says he grew up just fine?

Now, it's easy to point to Amane and Haruka's reports to state that their cases of abuse were plainly spoken. However, I'll go back to my thesis for this: Mikoto's abuse was invisible, therefore it didn't matter to the report.

Amane's abuse situation literally directly led into what she did that day. It is woven into the very fabric of her birth and raising, it cannot be ignored for a case, so it must be mentioned.

Haruka's abuse situation was also not made invisible, because he repeatedly lashed out in direct response to it in ways that couldn't be ignored. Matter of fact, his entire purpose was to go unignored. And unignored he went.

But when it comes to abuse situations where a child must be quiet, must be well-behaved, must be a perfect role model, must fit the mold through which others may be inspired to be like them…

That child will scream silently, and go unheard. Because their role requires obedience, good behavior, and an overall quietness that will never shatter. The report saying he grew up in an average household doesn't mean he wasn't abused.

There are more methods of abuse than physical violence, and more methods of control than threats. Sometimes it's a parent deciding they don't want to be one anymore, and telling their child to pick up their slack.

I feel like brushing off Mikoto's story because of the kneejerk reaction to an obviously misleading report has unfortunate implications.

There are many, many people who have lived lives where their child abuse was invisible, untraceable, but still happening. It happened to me and I suspect that it happened to Mikoto.

Just because a child isn't actively lashing out and making their pain other people's notice doesn't mean their pain never happened. There are children who are tasked with minimizing the problems in their parents' lives, and live up to that expectation dutifully.

There are many things normalized in parenting that can damage children. Ignoring your child's autonomy and wants, treating them as if they're less important, treating them as objects or extensions of oneself, etc., etc…

I think that "normal middle-class family" doesn't mean Mikoto never was traumatized, I think it just means that his trauma came in a form that his community didn't notice or even normalized. Nothing to report if you just see a friendly, well-behaved kid doing chores.

Mikoto was a good kid with lots of friends and that's all there is. Don't address the man behind the curtain. Don't address the themes of abandonment, or the constant people-pleasing, or any other signs of childhood trauma.

If you felt your father left you behind because you weren't good enough, I feel like it's a natural conclusion to come to as a child to feel like you need to work your ass off for everyone in your life. Neglect is abuse. Parentification is abuse.

you know how sometimes there's characters we find fascinating because their story is compelling, even though they aren't necessarily relatable? and then, there's others that we grow attached to because we see so much of ourselves in them?

i'd always considered mikoto to be in the first category for me, but after seeing the report, i realized there's actually a strong similarity to my own reckoning with mental health. it's left me reflecting on how easily we dismiss things that are unlabeled as insignificant, and even after finding a label that fits, it can feel restrictive, binding. we start thinking of the diagnosis as the source of all issues, rather than recognizing it simply as a term to describe an individual's experience.

i find the claims that "the report says mikoto couldn't have developed DID in childhood" misguided at best and insulting at worst for a multitude of reasons... but what i want to focus on for now is this notion that if somebody is successful in school/work and has little to no social disturbances, then that person must not have any mental disorders. in fact, they have no right to claim any sort of suffering, and it's insulting to those who have real problems.

i've heard this kind of rhetoric for all my life, internalized it as a child, carried that with me through teenage years and into young adulthood, mocked and diminished myself with it even in the absence of others.

i lived in a stable, middle-class home with parents that took care of me, so why would i have any problems? nevermind the fact that i was never taken seriously when i was "too emotional", or that my opinions were often talked over or turned into an argument (which would lead into the "too emotional, you're irrational" problem again), to the point where i'd avoid conversations by zoning out, and never disclosed anything about my personal thoughts or interests, feeling like my family never knew the "real" me.

but hey, we'd always eat dinner together. and if i really needed to buy something, i could always ask and usually get it. and if i got a call from home, i'd definitely pick up and let them know how work was going fine, not to worry about me, because i'd want them to be proud...

oh, right, and there's also the thing about how mikoto thought of himself as a genius, and never had setbacks or disappointments.

i was precisely that stereotype of the asian kid who's better than you at everything. straight As with minimal effort, shelves full of awards for musical performance, mathematics, athletics, so on and so forth. and that didn't end for me after high school, like it does for many "gifted" children. actually, i excelled even more in university, where the only reason my perfect GPA became "blemished" was because of a severe sinus infection during finals, and an unreasonable professor who wouldn't allow me to take the exam at another time when i was healthy. and no, i didn't have to sell my soul pulling all-nighters to study. actually, i spent most of my time having fun with various social circles, and would often skip classes to sleep in after a night out.

i always, always feel an ick when i bring up these facts about my life because there is inevitably someone who sees all this and thinks, "wow, we get it. you're very talented and smart and everything comes easily to you. lay off the bragging, would you? you're not special." idk, maybe that's just the critic in my own head talking, but hey, i got that voice from somewhere for a reason.

i bring all this up because mikoto's spectacular crash-and-burn in his first job after graduating is hilariously and horribly relatable to me.

i'd secured a great position with one of the largest healthtech companies in the country. i'd impressed them during my internship, and felt confident that i could continue doing good work there. and, at first, that seemed to be the case. training went off without a hitch, i was getting along with my coworkers, and i was excited to finally manage my own apartment space...

fast-forward a year, and i was struggling to clock in on time. project deadlines felt overwhelming, and meetings were filled with technical jargon that i couldn't parse at all. my peers were being promoted to leadership positions, while i was struggling not to be left behind. i was told that 8 hours a day wasn't enough, because my coworkers were usually working 9 hours at minimum, and i ought to match their efforts, right? i'd often alternate between hours spent zoning out staring at a blank wall, and hours stuck at my desk late into the evening because i'd finally gotten into the flow of things, and if i stopped working now, i'd lose all my progress! only to finally come home to an empty, dark apartment, and realize, "oh, i still need to make dinner..."

the apartment was starting to smell. i was too tired to clean, too tired to cook, too tired to shower. dirty dishes, rotten groceries, infested garbage can. that's disgusting, isn't it? it's ok, nobody noticed, so nobody cared. people are pretty good at hiding the ugly signs of mental illness.

i couldn't even admit it was mental illness at the time. it was laziness, it was burnout, it was... idk. not that bad. it was all my own fault.

once my absenteeism became too much for my company to ignore, i became partially hospitalized for depression. i learned a lot while i was there and started making real connections with people for the first time since graduating, but just when things were starting to look up for me, my insurance coverage was pulled, with the reason being, "i wasn't depressed enough". how did they determine this? by the number i filled out on a 1-10 survey about how much i thought about suicide. ridiculous.

i went back to work feeling betrayed and let down by the healthcare system, and within a few months, i was finally fired. finally, i say, because i felt relieved that it was over. i'd "failed", if we imagine this whole school -> employment pipeline as some kind of massive exam, but i was glad. i could still start over.

looking back, it was only because of this "failure" that i was finally able to consider that i had ADHD in addition to depression, and receive a diagnosis and medication. up until then, i'd always thought, "well, i have some traits that fit the description for ADHD, but it doesn't impair my day-to-day function, so i don't have it!" it was only after i became impaired to the point of partial hospitalization and unemployment that i could even consider a diagnosis. and even after receiving that label, did my issues get magically resolved? absolutely not.

so, what does this mean when we think about what the label of DID does for mikoto?

i like to think about what yamanaka said once about his character writing, which is that rather than thinking of labels first and then working inward, he prefers to start with the character's inner traits and work outward. from there, certain labels will naturally bloom as a result. with this kind of writing, it is easy for a character to be misinterpreted or misunderstood, but it reflects much more accurately what people are like in real life.

we ought to remind ourselves that behind every label is a living, breathing person with a wealth of personal experiences. and just like es said, every person's suffering is unique to them. there is no benefit to playing comparison games where we say, "this person had it worse," "that doesn't count as abuse," "you should be grateful you didn't deal with x," and so on. living comes first; labels come after.

doubting mikoto's experience with DID on the basis of him having a "perfect childhood" is reductive, dismissive, and misinformed.

i've gotten flack for "treating mikoto like a real person" with this line of thought, but does it not make sense to think that if you apply this kind of framework to a fictional character, you might apply it to real people as well? can you understand that people who relate to mikoto's experiences (including pwDID) might feel shut down and invalidated when they see his character getting mocked for being "unrealistic" and "harmful"?

there's a whole other tangent i can dive into about how the label of DID is forced onto mikoto specifically in the context of a criminal justice system, but as that goes beyond my personal experience and has been explored by other people in the community, i won't harp on it anymore.

I'll get a little personal myself here... (TW: child abuse, emotional abuse)

Until, very suddenly, they are both thrown to the wolves. They are bullied, ridiculed, faced with constant torment day after day. No longer are they these untouchable perfect being, now they can't do anything right, now all their friendship and support is gone. Neither of them know how to cope with this new situation, they never built a support system, they never learned to confide in others, they never taught how to. Neither of them feel like they can go to their parents. With nothing else to do, they try and put up with it, they endure it and endure it in hopes that everything will get better, but it doesn't.

Eventually they realize that this is unsustainable, they can't keep this up, they are going to DIE, So they lash out, and it's messy, it's unsympathetic, it's ill-directed — both of them going after at bystanders/individuals, when their problems are more societal — but they didn't know what else to do. Were they just supposed to keep enduring it? Were they just meant to let themselves die?

the Japanese culture where, if someone – that hit all these low-profile risk factors and therefore experienced DID on a subclinical level (on account of maintained functioning, doing what is expected of him, because drinking and working himself to death, is not considered 'disorder') – were to suffer 100+ days of sleep deprivation while abusing substances, and then go on a murder spree in his cognitively impaired haze, may retroactively compartmentalise and dissociate from that too, and only then – as a result of the scrutiny placed on criminals and antisocials – have his dissociative internal structure drawn attention to?

i think he makes for a really interesting fictional case study, about how much suffering and abuse we sweep under the rug, up until someone explodes, and how it is often only when the person has made disorder onto society (through violence, or not being able to work) that any sort of diagnosis (and thus acknowledgement of 'some issue') is made. and especially how, in response to 'some issue' that has been indicated, we always look at the person in question as an individual and isolated problem, who – on account of the diagnosis we then apply to them –must have been dysfunctional from the start, and done what he did, because of his innate 'disorder'.