SYMBOLIC SPLICING

"Symbolic Splicing" is a way to process emotion without talking it through.
It sits between filmmaking and therapy. Not traditional talk therapy. Not traditional participatory video. A hybrid.

Instead of telling a story out loud, a participant builds a short, symbolic film — a sequence of images, sounds, and pacing — that maps how something feels. The “meaning” comes from resonance, not explanation. The film is made for the maker, not for an audience.

What Symbolic Splicing is

• No-talk, image-first processing. Uses visual symbols and montage to surface and organize hard-to-name states.
• Therapeutically guided. Facilitated by a clinician who understands trauma timing, pacing, and safety.
• Private by design. The participant controls what is shown, shared, or kept entirely personal.
• Storyfinding, not storytelling. The arc is discovered in editing; no one is forced to narrate or perform.

What it isn’t

• Not a replacement for comprehensive care or crisis stabilization.
• Not a group media project or advocacy film.
• Not exposure therapy by stealth. No one is pushed to depict literal trauma scenes.
• Not content extraction. Symbols are owned by the participant; interpretation is optional.

Why it works (briefly)

• Trauma often lives in fragments (images, sensations). Images meet it where it lives.
• Masculinity and carceral culture penalize disclosure. Symbolic privacy lowers social risk.
• Bottom-up change. Editing and sequencing move affect before words are available.
• Authorship restores agency. Choosing shots and order = choosing what matters.

The Process (6 phases)

Duration: typically 6–10 sessions over ~8–12 weeks. Flexible by need.

1. Trust & Framing
   • Set expectations: optional, participant-led, private.
   • Name roles: therapist as creative collaborator + safety keeper.
2. Symbol Generation
   • Listen for images, metaphors, and bodily felt cues in ordinary conversation.
   • Capture them as symbol seeds (not interpretations).
   • Participant approves which seeds to explore; others are left alone.
3. Storycraft (without a script)
   • Co-imagine a symbolic scene: place, light, texture, movement, sound.
   • Track body cues (tight/loose, hot/cold) to calibrate intensity.
   • Keep it metaphorical; avoid literal reenactment.
4. Capturing (visual translation)
   • Due to custody constraints, facilitator typically films neutral, non-identifying material off-site.
   • Fidelity is to feeling, not factual detail.
   • Practical note: keep assets simple (short clips, ambient audio) to make editing collaborative.
5. Splicing (editing together)
   • Arrange clips and sound by felt truth (“Does this feel right?” beats “Does this make sense?”).
   • Use pacing, repetition, and contrast to crystallize the emotional arc.
   • Pause when activation spikes; regulate, then return.
6. Viewing, Ownership, Reflection
   • Participant chooses the audience: self only; therapist; a trusted peer; no public release.
   • Light, optional reflection (“What shifted seeing it outside you?”).
   • No forced interpretation. The film can just be.

Safety & Ethics (non-negotiables)

• Voluntary participation at every micro-decision (include/cut/move/share).
• Symbolic privacy: avoid identifiable faces/places or literal crime/trauma reenactment.
• Clinical pacing: therapist monitors arousal; titrate intensity; close sessions well.
• Duty of care: if acute risk signals emerge, address them clinically outside the film.
• Data governance: clear agreements on storage, access, and deletion on request.

How it differs from other visual methods

Who it’s for (and not for)

Fits well for:

• People who can’t safely or readily talk about inner states (custody, hypermasculine settings).
• Individuals with fragmented, image-heavy memory; high shame; strong privacy needs.
• Clients who engage better by doing than by discussing.

Use caution or defer when:

• Acute destabilization or psychosis is present.
• There is pressure (internal/external) to produce a “confession” or admit wrongdoing.
• Institutional policies can’t protect privacy or honour consent.

Common questions

Do participants ever have to explain their film?
No. Explanation is optional. The film’s job is felt organization, not public clarity.

Is this just art therapy?
It overlaps but is distinct. The mechanism here is montage (temporal sequencing) and symbolic privacy, not art analysis or craft mastery.

Can this be done in groups?
Creation: not recommended (privacy, hierarchy).
Viewing: possible in consenting small groups with strict norms — but not required.

Will this replace talk therapy?
No. It complements it. For many, images lead, words follow. For some, the image is enough.

Why we keep results private

Otherside Health doesn’t showcase participant films. Not because they’re not powerful — because they’re not for us.
Protecting the sanctity of maker-first work is part of the method.

What changes when it works

• A feeling goes from everywhere to somewhere (on screen).
• The person goes from being in it to looking at it — safely, with support.
• Agency returns: keep/cut/move/share/delete are all choices.
• Sometimes, only then, words arrive.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Crewe, B. (2011). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474511422172

De Haene, L., Grietens, H., & Verschueren, K. (2010). Holding harm: Narrative methods in mental health research on refugee trauma. Qualitative Health Research, 20(12), 1664–1676. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310376521

Fosha, D. (2000). The transforming power of affect: A model for accelerated change. Basic Books.

Fosha, D. (2009). Emotion and recognition at work: Energy, vitality, pleasure, truth, desire & the emergent phenomenology of transformational experience. In D. Fosha, D. J. Siegel, & M. F. Solomon (Eds.), The healing power of emotion: Affective neuroscience, development & clinical practice (pp. 172–203). W. W. Norton.

Hillman, J. (1975). Re-visioning psychology. Harper & Row.

Jung, C. G. (1964). Man and his symbols. Doubleday.

Kaufman, M., McAdams, B. P., & Fondakowski, L. (2018). Moment work: Tectonic Theater Project’s process of devising theater. Vintage.

Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press.

Medley, B. (2021). Portrayals in work with emotion in AEDP: Processing core affective experience and bringing it to completion. In D. Fosha, N. Prenn, & H. Gleiser (Eds.), Supervision essentials for accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy (pp. 217–236). American Psychological Association.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. W. W. Norton.

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. Tavistock.

Yalom, I. D., & Elkin, G. (1974). Every day gets a little closer: A twice-told therapy. Basic Books.

van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.