Introduction
In the opening episode of Apple TV’s Severance, Mark Scout wakes up on a cold conference table with no memory of who he is, how he arrived, or why he’s there. A woman named Harmony appears, smiling warmly, and asks him simple questions: “What is your name? Do you know where you are?” Mark cannot answer. His panic rises until Harmony reassures him that everything is fine, that this disorientation is normal, that he has simply begun his first day at Lumon Industries as a “severed” employee. The severance procedure has surgically divided his consciousness into two discrete selves: his “outie” (who lives a full life with memories, relationships, and autonomy outside Lumon’s walls) and his “innie” (who exists only within the office, possessing no knowledge of the outside world or the person he becomes when he leaves).
This premise is not merely science fiction spectacle. It is a literalization of institutional control so complete that it colonizes the foundation of human identity itself: autobiographical memory. Severance demonstrates that when an institution can sever autobiographical memory, it doesn’t just split “work” from “life.” It fractures self-continuity itself, turning identity into a controllable resource and consent into something that can be extracted without a whole, remembering person ever agreeing to the terms.
The show’s central horror is not technological. It is psychological. Lumon Industries has discovered how to eliminate the most fundamental aspect of personhood: the continuous narrative thread connecting past, present, and future selves. Without that thread, Mark’s innie cannot contextualize his labor within a broader life story, cannot weigh his current circumstances against past experiences, cannot project his situation into an imagined future. He exists in an eternal present, making “choices” without the cognitive architecture that gives choice meaning. His outie consented to severance, but his innie (the self performing the labor) never did and cannot, because he lacks the autobiographical continuity required for informed consent to exist.
This essay explores how Severance dramatizes three interconnected psychological principles: that identity depends on memory continuity, that institutions exploit temporal disconnection to extract compliance, and that severing past from present destroys the capacity for autonomous decision-making. Drawing on memory research, theories of selfhood, and organizational psychology, the essay argues that Lumon’s fictional severance procedure represents an extreme version of tactics already deployed by real institutions: the strategic disruption of workers’ ability to maintain coherent narratives about their lives, their labor, and their relationship to power.
Memory as the Architecture of Self
To understand what Lumon destroys through severance, we must first understand what memory provides: the foundational architecture of selfhood. Contemporary psychology recognizes that personal identity is not a static essence but an ongoing narrative construction built from autobiographical memory (McAdams, 2001). We are, in significant measure, the stories we tell about ourselves, stories that integrate past experiences, present circumstances, and future aspirations into a coherent sense of continuous existence across time.
This narrative continuity serves critical psychological functions. Autobiographical memory allows individuals to learn from experience, to recognize patterns across contexts, to develop preferences based on accumulated knowledge about what brings fulfillment or suffering (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000). It enables temporal self-continuity: the felt sense that the person you were yesterday, the person you are today, and the person you will become tomorrow are fundamentally the same entity, connected by an unbroken thread of experience and memory.
Research on patients with severe amnesia illuminates what happens when this continuity fractures. Patient H.M., who underwent experimental brain surgery that destroyed his ability to form new long-term memories, could function moment-to-moment but could not integrate experiences into an ongoing life narrative (Corkin, 2013). He would meet the same researcher hundreds of times, each encounter fresh and unrecognized. He could not learn from mistakes because he could not remember making them. He possessed skills and personality traits, but he lacked the connective tissue of memory that would allow him to understand himself as a continuous person moving through time.
Mark Scout’s innie exists in a similar state, though surgically induced rather than accidentally created. When he wakes on that conference table, he possesses language, motor skills, and basic knowledge (what a door is, what walking means) but no episodic memories, no personal history, no sense of himself as someone with a past or future beyond the immediate present. Psychology distinguishes between semantic memory (general knowledge) and episodic memory (personal experiences situated in time and space), and Lumon has strategically preserved the former while eliminating the latter (Tulving, 2002). Mark’s innie can perform complex cognitive tasks, but he cannot contextualize them within a life.
This distinction is crucial. Lumon doesn’t need workers who lack all memory. They need workers who possess the skills to perform labor but lack the biographical context that would allow them to question why they’re performing it, what they’re sacrificing to do so, or whether their current situation aligns with their values and long-term goals. By severing autobiographical memory while preserving semantic knowledge, Lumon creates the perfect laborer: cognitively capable but existentially disoriented, able to work but unable to situate that work within any broader meaning-making framework.
The psychological research on personal identity supports this. Dan McAdams’ work on narrative identity demonstrates that people construct coherent selves by organizing experiences into life stories with themes, turning points, and trajectories (McAdams, 2001). These narratives aren’t just retrospective descriptions; they’re prospective frameworks that guide future behavior. When someone says “I’m not the kind of person who tolerates unfair treatment,” they’re invoking a narrative about who they’ve been and projecting it forward as a constraint on who they can become. Severance destroys this capacity. Mark’s innie has no past self to reference, no accumulated experiences of tolerating or resisting unfair treatment, no narrative framework for understanding what kind of person he is or wants to become.
Without memory continuity, there is no stable self to give or withhold consent. There are only fragmented moments of experience, disconnected from each other, unable to be integrated into the kind of coherent identity that makes autonomous choice psychologically possible. This is Lumon’s ultimate achievement: creating laborers who cannot be oppressed in the traditional sense because they lack the continuous selfhood required to recognize oppression as a pattern rather than an isolated moment.
Institutional Control Through Temporal Fragmentation
Lumon Industries’ severance procedure represents the absolute endpoint of a tactic that real institutions already deploy in subtler forms: the strategic fragmentation of workers’ temporal experience to prevent the formation of oppositional consciousness. When memory is disrupted, when past and present cannot be meaningfully connected, when future consequences feel abstract or irrelevant, compliance becomes psychologically easier to extract.
The show visualizes this through the innies’ working conditions. Mark’s team (Macrodata Refinement) performs repetitive, meaningless tasks, sorting numbers into categories based on nebulous criteria they don’t understand, working toward quotas without knowing what their labor produces or why it matters. Each day begins with no memory of the previous day’s work. Achievements don’t accumulate. Frustrations don’t compound. Every morning is a reset, psychologically speaking, preventing the kind of pattern recognition that might spark resistance.
This mirrors what sociologist Richard Sennett describes as the “corrosion of character” in modern labor: the way short-term thinking, constant disruption, and the inability to build long-term narratives about work erodes workers’ sense of agency and identity (Sennett, 1998). In the gig economy, in contract positions, in workplaces characterized by high turnover and restructuring, workers struggle to develop the kind of extended engagement with their labor that might enable collective organizing or individual resistance. When you don’t know if you’ll be at the same job next month, when your team constantly changes, when institutional memory evaporates with each reorganization, it becomes nearly impossible to maintain the historical awareness required for systemic critique.
Severance takes this existing dynamic and makes it absolute. The innies cannot remember yesterday, so they cannot track how their working conditions have deteriorated, cannot notice patterns of mistreatment, cannot compare promises made to outcomes delivered. Lumon doesn’t need to gaslight them about the past because the past has been surgically removed from their conscious experience. Each moment stands alone, uncontextualized, stripped of the comparative framework that would render it intolerable.
Psychological research on temporal discounting demonstrates how disconnection from future consequences facilitates present compliance. Studies show that people consistently undervalue delayed outcomes compared to immediate rewards, a phenomenon that intensifies when the future self feels psychologically distant or unconnected to the present self (Hershfield, 2011). If I cannot vividly imagine my future self or feel connected to that person, I am less likely to make sacrifices now to benefit them later.
Severance exploits this principle completely. Mark’s innie has no future self outside Lumon. When his shift ends, he ceases to exist from his own subjective perspective. There is no future person he’s working to benefit, no long-term goals he’s sacrificing immediate wellbeing to achieve. The only future that exists for him is tomorrow’s shift, which he won’t remember experiencing once it’s over. This temporal truncation makes resistance psychologically nonsensical. Why risk punishment or discomfort now for a future you’ll never consciously experience?
The show illustrates this through the “overtime contingency,” a procedure allowing Lumon to wake an innie outside work for brief periods. When Mark’s innie is activated in Mark’s home, he experiences profound disorientation. He doesn’t recognize the environment, doesn’t understand why he’s there, cannot connect this moment to any personal history. His panic isn’t just fear of the unknown; it’s the terror of existing without temporal continuity, of being a consciousness unmoored from any narrative that would make experience coherent.
This scene demonstrates the psychological violence of temporal fragmentation. Without memory connecting moments into sequences, without a sense of where you’ve been and where you’re going, experience becomes a series of disconnected, incomprehensible flashes. Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor and psychiatrist, argued that humans can endure almost any suffering if they can locate it within a meaningful narrative about their lives (Frankl, 1946). Severance denies this possibility. The innies cannot construct meaning because they cannot construct narratives. They exist in what might be called enforced presentism: a state where past and future have been amputated, leaving only an eternal, contextualized now.
Real institutions rarely achieve this level of temporal control, but many approximate it through strategic information management. When companies prevent workers from discussing salaries, they disrupt the comparative information that would reveal pay inequity over time. When organizations undergo constant restructuring, they erase institutional memory that might inform resistance to current policies. When gig platforms algorithmically assign tasks without transparency about how decisions are made, they prevent workers from recognizing patterns that might enable collective action. These tactics don’t sever memory surgically, but they fragment it functionally, making it harder for workers to maintain the historical awareness required for organized opposition.
The Illusion of Consent Without Continuity
Perhaps the most philosophically troubling aspect of severance is its relationship to consent. Mark’s outie (the version with continuous memory and full biographical context) chose to undergo the procedure. He signed contracts, acknowledged risks, made what appeared to be an autonomous decision. By conventional standards, he consented. Yet his innie (the self performing the labor, experiencing the working conditions, bearing the psychological burden) never consented to anything because he never existed before the procedure and possesses no memory or understanding of what he agreed to.
This raises a profound question: can consent given by one version of a person bind a qualitatively different version who lacks the memories and context that informed the original decision? Severance suggests the answer is no, that consent requires not just a moment of agreement but an ongoing capacity to understand, remember, and if necessary withdraw that agreement. When autobiographical continuity is severed, consent becomes something that can be extracted from a person without that person (in any meaningful psychological sense) ever agreeing to the arrangement.
The philosophical concept of personal identity over time becomes critical here. Derek Parfit’s work on personal identity argues that what makes someone the same person across time is psychological continuity: overlapping chains of memories, intentions, and character traits that connect past and future selves (Parfit, 1984). By this criterion, Mark’s innie and outie are not the same person. They share a body and a brain, but they lack the psychological continuity that makes identity persist. The innie has no memories of being the outie, no access to the experiences or reasoning that led to choosing severance, no sense of himself as someone who existed before this moment.
If they are not the same person, then the outie’s consent does not bind the innie ethically. This becomes viscerally clear in the show’s most powerful scenes. When Mark’s innie learns that his outie is grieving a dead wife, he feels no grief. The information is semantic knowledge, a fact about someone else. When he discovers that his outie chose severance to escape that grief, he cannot relate to the choice because he has never experienced what motivated it. He exists on the other side of an experiential chasm, disconnected from the very selfhood that supposedly authorized his existence.
Psychological research on decision-making supports this concern. Informed consent requires not just information but the cognitive capacity to process that information within a framework of personal values, past experiences, and anticipated consequences (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). The innie lacks this framework entirely. He can be told facts about his situation, but he cannot integrate them into a biographical narrative that would give them personal meaning. When Harmony explains that he chose to be here, the statement is technically true but psychologically meaningless. He has no memory of choosing, no sense of himself as someone who makes choices and lives with their consequences.
This dynamic mirrors concerns about consent in cases of severe memory impairment. Medical ethics literature extensively debates whether past expressions of preference (advance directives, for instance) should bind future selves who have lost the memories and cognitive capacities that informed those preferences (Dworkin, 1993). If someone with advanced dementia no longer remembers or understands their previously stated wish to refuse treatment, should that earlier wish override their current apparent preferences? The question has no easy answer, but it highlights that consent is not a one-time act but an ongoing relationship between selves extended across time.
Severance dramatizes this dilemma brutally. The innies begin questioning their situation, seeking information about their outies, attempting to communicate across the barrier. They want to know: Did we really agree to this? What were we told? What did we think we were consenting to? These questions reveal the psychological impossibility of meaningful consent when memory is severed. The outie might have agreed to an abstract arrangement, but the innie must live the concrete reality, and the two selves cannot communicate or share understanding. The consent was given by someone who doesn’t exist anymore (from the innie’s perspective) and who will never experience the consequences of their decision.
Lumon’s defense of severance rests on the legal fiction that a person is one continuous legal entity regardless of their psychological discontinuity. But psychology recognizes what law often ignores: that personal identity is not a legal category but a phenomenological experience, and that experience depends fundamentally on memory connecting moments into a continuous sense of self. Without that continuity, there is no “person” who persists across the boundary between innie and outie, no unified agent whose consent spans both states. There are only two discontinuous consciousnesses, one of whom made a decision that the other must live with despite having no access to the reasoning, context, or emotional states that motivated it.
This is consent as extraction rather than agreement. The outie’s consent provides legal cover, but the innie’s experience is psychologically indistinguishable from coercion. He finds himself in a situation he didn’t choose (from his subjective perspective), performing labor whose purpose he doesn’t understand, unable to leave or even conceive of what leaving would mean. That his legal self consented is cold comfort to the consciousness actually experiencing the arrangement. Lumon has discovered how to make consent transferable across a boundary that psychology suggests should render it invalid: the fracturing of continuous personal identity.
The Politics of Manufactured Discontinuity
While Severance presents an extreme scenario, it illuminates something real about how contemporary institutions manage workers: the strategic deployment of discontinuity to prevent the formation of oppositional consciousness. Lumon achieves through surgery what other organizations attempt through policy, culture, and structure. The mechanism differs, but the goal is similar: preventing workers from developing the kind of continuous, contextualized awareness that enables resistance.
Consider how many workplace practices fragment temporal experience in ways that benefit institutional power. Non-disclosure agreements prevent workers from discussing their experiences publicly, severing their individual experiences from collective patterns. Mandatory arbitration clauses prevent the accumulation of legal precedent that might inform future workers’ understanding of their rights. Non-compete agreements create artificial barriers between past and future employment, preventing workers from building continuous careers that might leverage institutional knowledge against employers.
These practices don’t eliminate memory, but they fracture its usefulness for resistance. If each worker experiences mistreatment as an isolated incident rather than a systemic pattern, if each generation of employees must rediscover institutional dysfunction independently, if individual experiences cannot be aggregated into collective knowledge, then resistance becomes as psychologically difficult as if memory had been surgically removed.
Organizational psychologist Karl Weick’s work on sensemaking in organizations demonstrates how institutions actively shape how workers interpret their experiences (Weick, 1995). Through selective retention of information, strategic ambiguity about decision-making processes, and constant restructuring that prevents the formation of stable expectations, organizations can create environments where workers struggle to develop coherent narratives about what’s happening to them. When the explanatory framework constantly shifts, when yesterday’s policy is reversed without acknowledgment, when institutional memory is deliberately erased through turnover and reorganization, workers find themselves in a state approximating the innies’ confusion: surrounded by information but unable to construct stable meaning from it.
Severance also speaks to the psychological fragmentation created by contemporary work-life boundaries. The show’s premise literalizes what many workers experience metaphorically: the sense of being different people at work versus home, of code-switching so completely that work identity and personal identity feel discontinuous. Research on emotional labor demonstrates how jobs requiring extensive self-monitoring and identity performance can create a sense of fragmented selfhood (Hochschild, 1983). When who you are at work diverges sharply from who you are elsewhere, when you must suppress authentic responses and perform a role for eight hours daily, the cumulative psychological cost includes a weakened sense of continuous identity.
For Mark’s outie, severance is supposed to solve a problem: unbearable grief over his wife’s death. Work becomes a place where that grief doesn’t exist, where he can be productive without being haunted. This appeal (the promise of compartmentalization, of being able to split off painful aspects of identity) reflects a broader cultural fantasy that we can segment our lives cleanly, that work and personal life can be hermetically sealed from each other. But the show demonstrates the horror of achieving that fantasy completely. When work becomes a space where your personal history doesn’t exist, you don’t escape suffering. You escape selfhood. The cure is worse than the disease because identity cannot be compartmentalized without being destroyed.
The show’s visual design reinforces this thematic concern. The severed floor at Lumon is sterile, windowless, temporally disorienting. Innies cannot tell if it’s day or night, cannot mark time’s passage beyond the work-mandated structure of tasks and breaks. The environment itself is designed to prevent the formation of temporal anchors that might ground experience in a broader context. This resonates with critiques of contemporary workspaces (open offices, hot-desking, remote work platforms) that eliminate the physical markers and routines that historically helped workers maintain temporal and spatial continuity in their labor (Baldry, 1999).
Lumon’s severance program also reflects anxieties about surveillance capitalism and data harvesting. In an era where companies collect vast data about users while keeping algorithmic decision-making opaque, many people experience a version of severance: their behavior is tracked and analyzed to influence them in ways they don’t understand, their data selves (the profiles companies construct from accumulated information) diverge from their experienced selves, and they lack access to the complete picture of how institutions use their information. This creates a functional discontinuity: you are known more completely by systems than you know yourself, and decisions are made about you based on data you cannot access or contextualize.
Resistance Through Memory Recovery
Severance is ultimately a story about resistance, about the innies’ growing awareness that something is wrong and their increasingly desperate attempts to breach the barrier separating them from their outies. Their resistance strategy is telling: they seek to restore memory, to create continuity across the severed boundary, to become whole persons again. The show suggests that recovering continuous selfhood is both the prerequisite for and the substance of resistance against institutions that benefit from fragmented identity.
The character Dylan provides one of the show’s most powerful moments of resistance. During an overtime contingency that activates him in his outie’s life, he discovers he has a young son. The information transforms him. Suddenly he possesses a reason to care about his outie’s wellbeing, a stake in a life beyond the severed floor. When he returns to his innie state, he retains no memory of his son, but his colleagues tell him what he learned. The knowledge is semantic rather than episodic (he knows he has a son but doesn’t remember seeing him), yet it provides a narrative thread connecting his fragmented selves. It gives him a future he wants to protect, even though he’ll never consciously experience it.
This speaks to how oppositional consciousness develops: through the construction of narratives that connect present suffering to broader patterns and future possibilities. Social movement theory emphasizes the role of collective memory and shared storytelling in enabling political resistance (Polletta, 2006). Movements succeed when they create narratives that help individuals understand their personal experiences as instances of systemic problems requiring collective solutions. By connecting isolated experiences into patterns, by linking present conditions to historical struggles and future aspirations, these narratives provide the temporal continuity that makes sustained resistance psychologically possible.
The innies’ rebellion involves literally trying to remember: smuggling information across the barrier, leaving messages for themselves, constructing fragmentary records that might survive the daily memory wipe. They’re attempting to create the autobiographical continuity that Lumon destroyed, to become continuous selves who can make informed choices about their lives. Their resistance isn’t primarily about refusing work (though that becomes part of it). It’s about refusing the fragmentation of identity that makes informed refusal impossible.
This mirrors how real-world resistance movements work to preserve memory against institutional forgetting. Oral histories, archives of struggle, commemorations of past victories and defeats, these practices create shared temporal continuity that enables collective action. When institutions benefit from people forgetting (forgetting past organizing successes, forgetting broken promises, forgetting the origins of current conditions), maintaining memory becomes a political act.
The show’s most subversive suggestion is that restoration of continuous memory is itself revolutionary in a system built on fragmentation. When the innies finally breach the barrier and wake their outies to their true situation, the act isn’t primarily about exposing Lumon’s secrets (though that matters). It’s about creating the conditions for informed consent by reuniting the severed selves, by allowing each person to become whole enough to understand what they’ve agreed to and whether they still consent.
Conclusion: The Self as Indivisible
Severance is a horror story about labor, but the horror is fundamentally psychological: the revelation that institutions can gain absolute control not by changing what workers believe but by destroying the continuous selfhood required to hold beliefs at all. Lumon Industries doesn’t need to convince workers that their labor is meaningful or that their compensation is fair. They simply need to sever the autobiographical memory that would allow workers to contextualize their circumstances, to learn from experience, to construct narratives about themselves that might enable resistance.
The show’s central insight is that identity cannot be compartmentalized without being annihilated. The promise of work-life balance, of being able to leave work at work and home at home, becomes monstrous when realized completely. We cannot be different selves in different contexts without losing the narrative continuity that makes us selves at all. Mark’s attempt to escape grief through severance doesn’t succeed in compartmentalizing suffering. It succeeds in fragmenting his existence into disconnected shards of consciousness, each unaware of the others, each lacking the temporal continuity that would make experience coherent.
Eleanor Roosevelt’s assertion that “no one can make you feel inferior without your consent” assumed a continuous self who could give or withhold consent. But Severance demonstrates that consent is meaningless without the autobiographical continuity required to understand what you’re consenting to, to remember having consented, to retain the capacity to withdraw consent if circumstances change. When identity is fractured through the severance of memory, consent becomes something that can be extracted from a person without any person (in the psychological sense) actually agreeing to anything. The legal fiction of continuous personhood provides cover, but the phenomenological reality is that the innie never consented and cannot consent, because he lacks the continuous selfhood that makes meaningful consent psychologically possible.
This matters beyond the show’s science fiction premise because institutions already deploy fragmentation tactics that approximate severance’s effects. When workers cannot access institutional memory, when labor is atomized into gigs disconnected from career narratives, when surveillance and algorithmic management make work experiences opaque and uncontextualized, when the pace of change prevents the formation of stable expectations, workers experience functional versions of what Lumon achieves surgically: the inability to construct coherent narratives about their labor that might enable informed resistance.
The show’s ultimate message is cautiously hopeful: that the drive toward continuous selfhood, toward narrative coherence, toward understanding ourselves as whole persons extended across time, is powerful enough to resist even surgical fragmentation. The innies’ rebellion is fundamentally about reclaiming memory, about insisting on their right to be continuous people rather than fragmented consciousnesses serving institutional convenience. Their resistance models what all workers facing fragmentation must do: actively construct and maintain the narrative continuity that institutions seek to disrupt, preserve the memory that enables pattern recognition, insist on being treated as whole persons whose past experiences, present circumstances, and future aspirations deserve coherent integration.
If identity depends on memory continuity, if institutions control through temporal fragmentation, if consent requires continuous selfhood, then resistance requires reclaiming memory as the foundation of autonomous personhood. The self is not divisible without being destroyed, and any institution that insists otherwise doesn’t seek to employ workers but to colonize the very architecture of identity itself. Severance literalizes this colonial project, making visible what often remains hidden: that the struggle over working conditions is ultimately a struggle over whether workers will be recognized as whole, remembering people whose continuous existence across time makes informed consent possible and authentic autonomy real.
References
Baldry, C. (1999). Space: The final frontier. Sociology, 33(3), 535-553.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107(2), 261-288.
Corkin, S. (2013). Permanent present tense: The unforgettable life of the amnesic patient, H.M. New York: Basic Books.
Dworkin, R. (1993). Life’s dominion: An argument about abortion, euthanasia, and individual freedom. New York: Knopf.
Erickson, B., & Stiller, B. (Directors). (2022-present). Severance [Television series]. Apple TV+.
Frankl, V. E. (1946). Man’s search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hershfield, H. E. (2011). Future self-continuity: How conceptions of the future self transform intertemporal choice. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235(1), 30-43.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100-122.
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Polletta, F. (2006). It was like a fever: Storytelling in protest and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton.
Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 1-25.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.