The Dark Side of Internal Family Systems

Is IFS a reflection of the very conditions it seeks to heal?

Confession time. I have not seen either of Pixar’s Inside Out movies. People who know me as a narrative therapist are shocked when they find out. They say that I will love how the movie ‘externalizes’ certain aspects of the self. How both movies are very ‘narrative therapy friendly.’ I’m not so sure.

Also, when discussing the movie folks inevitably reference the increasingly popular therapy model Internal Family Systems. Although around since the 90’s Internal Family Systems began to find it’s legs and gain massive popularity in therapy circles around the same time as the release of the first Inside Out movie. Both Inside Out and IFS tapped into the growing cultural zeitgeist by depicting the self as inherently fragmented, composed of different parts or emotions that must harmonize for well-being. However, while this framework resonates with a society increasingly comfortable with psychological introspection, it also reflects and reinforces the problematic nature of identity fragmentation.

Photo by Ruan Richard Rodrigues on Unsplash

Internal Family Systems: A Cultural Mirror?

IFS is now one of the most popular therapeutic modalities, celebrated for its model of the self as comprised of multiple 'parts,' each with its own identity, needs, and role. These parts often include 'exiled' elements, which represent trauma or vulnerability, and 'protective' parts that defend against these vulnerable feelings. At the core of IFS is the idea of achieving harmony between these parts under the leadership of a 'true Self.'

However, when contextualized within today’s cultural moment, IFS can also be seen as symptomatic of larger societal shifts toward identity fragmentation, the internalization of social problems, and an increasing sense of isolation. As much as it offers a pathway to personal healing, it also mirrors the fragmentation and atomization that many people experience in contemporary life. In this way, it can be argued that IFS, while ostensibly a therapeutic tool, is also a reflection of the very conditions it seeks to heal.

Fragmentation of Identity: Individualism and the 'Parts' Model

In many ways, IFS maps directly onto our contemporary cultural phenomenon of identity fragmentation. The 'parts' framework suggests that individuals contain multitudes within, each part potentially at odds with another. This concept can be empowering in therapy but also reflects a deep cultural ambivalence about the possibility of unified, coherent identity in a world saturated with conflicting demands, roles, and identities. We live in a time where individuals are often forced to manage competing identities—work personas, social media selves, family roles, and more. IFS aligns with this cultural context by normalizing the division of the self into discrete parts that must negotiate with each other to form a 'whole' self.

Yet, this mirrors the societal fragmentation many people experience, driven by late capitalism, consumer culture, and the digitization of our lives. We are pulled in multiple directions, fragmented by constant demands, and increasingly reliant on therapeutic interventions to 'heal' the very wounds that society inflicts. Is IFS a way to resolve this fragmentation, or does it merely perpetuate the notion that this fractured self is inevitable?

Personalizing Social Problems: IFS in a Neoliberal Context

IFS, like many other therapeutic models, places a heavy emphasis on internal processes and individual change. In the process, it risks personalizing problems that are inherently social, political, and economic. The 'traumas' or 'exiles' within individuals may not just be individual psychological wounds but also reflections of larger systemic issues: inequality, oppression, alienation, and exploitation. However, IFS tends to privatize these experiences by framing them as personal and internal conflicts that must be managed through individual therapy.

In a neoliberal society that prizes self-management, resilience, and self-optimization, IFS dovetails neatly into the idea that healing is something that happens internally, rather than through collective action or addressing the structural causes of distress. By focusing on individual psychological resolution, IFS risks ignoring the social and political roots of suffering, thus reinforcing the broader cultural trend of personalizing social problems. This internal focus diverts attention from the ways in which social systems contribute to personal fragmentation and suffering, turning systemic issues into matters for individual resolution.

Social Atomization: The Impact of Internalizing Fragmentation

In today’s hyper-individualized culture, social atomization—the breakdown of political, community and social bonds—runs rampant. IFS may unintentionally contribute to this by further internalizing the resolution of personal conflicts. In this view, the self becomes a microcosm of society, and healing becomes an inward-looking endeavor, one that places responsibility on the individual to manage their internal world rather than seek connection and resolution in the external one.

This fits into a larger cultural narrative where social problems are seen as solvable through personal transformation rather than collective, systemic change. IFS offers a language and framework that prioritizes the internal over the communal, the personal over the social. While the model seeks harmony within the individual, it may also further isolate people from the larger context of community, as it encourages them to turn inward and manage their inner 'family' of parts rather than engage with the external world in all its complexity.

The therapeutic focus on 'managing parts' aligns with the cultural logic of social atomization, where individuals are encouraged to optimize themselves rather than address the causes of their distress. In this way, IFS can be seen as contributing to the very culture of isolation and fragmentation that it seeks to heal.

Healing or Perpetuating the Problem?

While Internal Family Systems offers a powerful tool for understanding and healing internal conflict, it may also serve as a reflection of, and a participant in, the very culture that produces the fragmentation it seeks to address. By framing identity as inherently divided, personalizing social problems, and encouraging an inward focus at a time when social atomization is at an all-time high, IFS risks becoming a symptom of the broader cultural moment rather than a solution to it.

In a society increasingly fragmented by technology, neoliberalism, and the pressures of individualism, is the answer really to further divide the self into parts? Or might there be room for a model that integrates both the internal and external, the personal and the social, acknowledging that our inner conflicts are inseparable from the social world we inhabit?

Peace.