Some fundamentals of IFS theory

# Some fundamentals of IFS theory This is an excerpt from Richard C. Schwartz and Martha Sweezy, _Internal Family Systems Therapy_, 2nd edition (2020). ## Chapter 2: Individuals as Systems The way in which human systems differ from mechanical is key to the IFS model. A basic premise of IFS is that people have an innate drive toward and wisdom about their own health. We not only try to maintain steady states and react to feedback, we also strive toward creativity and intimacy. From this basic premise, it follows that people have chronic problems because their inner resources and wisdom are not being fully accessed. Elements of the system in which we are embedded or that are embedded within us often constrain our access to our inner resources. IFS therapy is designed to help people find and release those constraints. (p.26) ### Viewing Parts in Context The IFS model brings systems thinking into the intrapsychic realm. In psychotherapy it works well to conceptualize and relate to individuals as _psychic systems_. Following are some important benefits to viewing the psyche as a system. - **Less rigidity, more flexibility.** When we feel obliged to deny one truth in favor of another (e.g., _I love you_, _I’m mad at you_), we sign on to an unceasing project of denial and self-constraint. In contrast, accepting the mind’s ability to encompass many perspectives at once means that we can acknowledge the truth of two apparent opposites and move forward creatively. - **Ease of access.** Most clients become aware of their parts with striking ease. The plural mind makes intuitive sense to them. Barring strong cultural biases, most people can go inside and quickly make contact with their parts. And although they may initially fear all that inner messiness and strife as a sign of defectiveness and failure, this changes as they pay attention to their parts’ heroic, creative, often heart-breaking struggles, sacrifices, and sorrows. - **Ecological maps.** When we view the psyche of an individual as a distinct ecology, we find many points of possible entry. If curiosity is the key to these doorways, mapping is a particularly useful guide to what lies within. Just as family therapists map a family’s relational organization, individual therapists can map the inner family to clarify alliances, coalitions, and polarities among the client’s parts. A map of the inner system not only tells us about the jobs and relationships of parts, it also reminds us that we are approaching an active system full of motivated individuals, which cues up our social instincts and sense of timing. Meanwhile, knowing how systems interact helps us to anticipate the behavior of those who orbit the client—family, friends, and providers—so that we can move within and between system levels with dexterity. - **Clear guidelines for change.** The connection between theory and practice in IFS is very clear: Every intervention … is designed to address the needs of the client’s inner family by releasing constraints and making the most of the client’s inborn resources. The concept of _normal psychic multiplicity_ can illuminate many notable phenomena for those who make the shift to this way of thinking, including highly contradictory behavior like a committed atheist converting to Christian fundamentalism; a teenager falling in or out of love abrupt; an avowed homophobic activist getting arrested while soliciting men in a pubic bathroom; an adult transforming from one character to the next with little or no awareness of having done so (behavior that denotes the psychiatric diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder); or the way an answer to a formerly insoluble problem comes to mind “out of the blue” during the night. Rather than viewing one person displaying different, often contradictory, interests, beliefs, feelings, values or knowledge as abstract shifts in feeling and thought, we can view all this as the product of a plural mind. (pp. 28–31) ### Characterizing Parts Other therapeutic approaches have also observed and worked with psychic multiplicity, calling parts variously _subpersonalities, subselves, internal characters, archetypes, complexes, internal objects, ego states,_ and _voices_. … Although the mechanistic connotation of the word _part_ is not ideal—and its simplicity can be off-putting for some—IFS just sticks with vernacular language that seems comfortable and easy for clients. Most clients reference _parts_ when they talk about inner conflict and it tends to work well clinically. … - **Naming and renaming.** Just as we relate better to people when we know their names, we also relate better with parts when they have a label that signifies something about their identity. Therefore … we encourage clients to label their parts. We start by following the client’s lead (the _sad one_, _Yoda_, _Gollum_, the _baby_), which is usually related to the part’s role, though sometimes a part will say _Call me Betty_, in which case we call it _Betty_. … - **Parts as inner people.** Though we refer to parts with labels, it is a mistake to assume that the part’s label or role (the _sad part_, the _angry part_, the _captain_, the _caretaker_, etc.) captures its essence. … A part is not just an emotional state or a habitual thought pattern. Rather, parts are discrete, autonomous mental systems, each with its own idiosyncratic range of emotion, style of expression, abilities, desires, and views of the world. For example, a part who is angry can also feel hurt or scared. If we just see it as the “angry part,” we are likely to ignore its other feelings. If, on the other hand, we view it as an angry _person_ (often a child or teenager), we are more likely to be interested in its full range of feelings and its potential to shift between feeling states. From the perspective of IFS every one of us contains an inner tribe of people, each of a different age with different interests, talents, and temperaments. … Just as children get forced into extreme roles that they don’t want and for which they are ill-suited, parts get forced into extreme roles. In alcoholic families, for example, we often find an overly responsible, caretaking child, a distracting child, an angry rebel, and so forth. Once released, these children change dramatically. Parts are the same. … ### The Roles of Parts: A Three-Group System In response to danger, the individuals in human systems at all levels take on roles that can be categorized by three groups. 1. One group tends to be highly protective, strategic, and interested in controlling the environment to keep things safe. In IFS we call the members of this group **_managers_**. 2. A second group contains the most sensitive members of the system. When these parts feel injured or outraged, managers will banish them for their own protection and the good of the whole system. We call them **_exiles_**. 3. Finally, a third group tries to stifle, anesthetize, or distract from the feelings of exiles, reacting powerfully and automatically, without concern for consequences, to their distress as well as to the overinhibition of managers. In IFS we call the members of this group **_firefighters_** because they fight the flames of exiled emotion. Internal systems that are responding to trauma not only divide into these roles, the protective parts (managers and firefighters) form alliances and get into conflicts with each other, and can be very harsh (or smothering) with the exile they are trying to protect or ward off. The sadder, more terrified, ashamed, rageful, or sexually charged an exile is, the more protectors legitimately fear its release and the omore extreme they become in their efforts to suppress and constrain. In this way all three groups become victims of an escalating cycle of internecine conflict. \[pp.28–31\] ## Key Assumptions in IFS - **Multiplicity.** The natural state of the human mind is to contain an indeterminate number of subpersonalities that we call _parts;_ most clients identify and work with between 10 and 30 parts through the course of therapy. Because of the way parts present to use, we conceptualize them as inner people of different ages, temperaments, talents, and desires who form an internal family or tribe. This tribe reflects the organization of the systems around it, and organizes itself in the same way as other human systems. It is axiomatic in IFS that multiplicity is the inherent nature of the mind. This is not a product of external influences being introjected, nor is it the consequence of a once-unitary personality being fragmented by trauma. In addition, multiplicity is advantageous. All parts are precious and want to be constructive, though some are forced into extreme, destructive roles by external influences as well as by the self-perpetuating nature of inner polarizations and imbalances. Therefore, parts will gratefully find or return to preferred, valuable roles once they find that doing so is safe. - **Polarization.** Many past or current events can affect the leadership, balance, and harmony of a person's inner system. The most common of such influences include family-of-origin attitudes or interactions and traumatic experiences. When parts become frozen in the past, take on burdens, and assume leadership, their internal relationships shift from harmony to conflict. This is because one extreme generates another, as does the uneven distribution of resources, influence, and responsibilities in a system. The polarized parts continually confirm their negative assumptions about each other, with each part becoming more extreme to counter or defeat the other. Thus, in the absence of effective leadership, polarizations escalate. Polarizations also generate coalitions, with one leading part forming alliances that unite in opposition to or in competition with another lead part and its allies. - **The three-group ecology.** Highly polarized inner systems are rigid, delicate ecologies that react severely to disruptions. Trying to change any one part without consider the network in which it is embedded often activates a phenomenon many therapies call _resistance_, but which IFS considers a natural, often necessary ecological reaction. An ecological map that illustrates inner rrelationshiops can help us understand and appreciate the validity of protective behaviors. - **Balance, harmony, and leadership.** Even highly polarized inner systems can heal themselves if the therapist is able to create a safe, caring environment and point the person in certain directions. Our systems already have plentiful resources, which need only to be released and reorganized. In addition, all parts of the system want to relate harmoniously and, given the opportunity, will eagerly leave extreme roles. If, however, a person lives in an activating or dangerous environment, inside and out, protective parts will be reluctant to leave their roles, and the process of harmonizing the inner system will be more difficult and prolonged. In addition, change in such an environment often evokes protective counterreactions in other people. For this reason, we advise finding and releasing constrains in the client's external as well as internal world throughout therapy … . - **Interconnected ecologies.** Systems thinkers are intrigued with parallels among living systems. … We have been fascinated with how the organization of internal systems of parts is paralleld in other human systems … . From tiny to vast, living systems are interconnected ecologies. Therefore, changing one aspect of a system without understanding its larger network of relationships can cause severe repercussions. … - **The internal and external parallels of our interconnected ecologies.** Internal systems are … delecate ecologies. Trying to change or heal one part without understanding its network of inner relationships often results in resistance at best and severe backlash as worst. … In the IFS model we view the client's inner and outer worlds as nesting, interconnected systems that operate according to the same principles and are responsive to the same techniques. In addition, systems that interface come to reflect one another, so changes at one level are likely to produce some kind of change at other levels. Because system levels echo with each other, a therapist should not work with a client's internal system without thoroughly considering and addressing the person's external context. … To be ecologically sensitive we drop the interpretive stance of the expert and, in a spirit of humble curiosity, collaborate with the client's parts to map their inner relationships. Once we have a preliminary map, we are guided by it in a spirit of respect and the willingness to keep learning. When we misstep and the client's system reacts very severely, our job is to remain curious nad not to pathologize that reaction. … ### Conclusion We live in symobiosis with a population of inner people who exist in multiple relational subsystems, much as we have symbiotic relationsips with the millions of microbes in the gut, which are in relationship with each other. We are a habitat. The citizens (parts) of this habitat can be hurt and can get into conflict with each other, engaging in mutual injury, self-attack, and defensive (or offensive) maneuvers. The good news is that we also have a Self that is ready to provide stewardship to our inner system. Once we appreciate the disparate characters and perspectives of all our parts, we can stop expending energy disapproving of ourselves (or anyone else) for being inconsistent, having mixed feelings, or hosting inner conflict. Though our inner systems can be divided by conflict, they are also full of gifts. When our parts separate from the seat of consciousness (the Self) we discover what spiritual traditions have known and taught for thousands of years: that we have the resources we need to support and protect this vulnerable inner population with its awesome potential. Self-acceptance is the ongoing process of welcoming all parts and banishing none. When we pursue the ideal of self-acceptance we also gain the freedom to live by curiosity, exploration,and inclusion. (pp.39–42)