Thanks for this, Chris, although as someone who swims around in the IFS world every day with my clients, it does not ring true. Regarding the fears of reinforcing fragmentation: so much of the experience is a deep connection with Self and between Self and parts of ourselves that normally feel alone. It’s an amazing experience of integration - even when there are “parts” activated.
Regarding the fears about it pulling people inward only and discounting systemic, cultural or interpersonal concerns: this also seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what comes out of listening to your parts. Most of my clients seem to get MORE in touch with concerns their parts have over things in the external world, anger, dissatisfaction with things they are experiencing in the external world. IFS focuses on listening to these concerns with openness, getting it, and doing something about it if something can be done. In this way, it can clear the way to live authentically and address other parts that might normally distract, shy away, rationalize, or debilitate from taking action.
I’d encourage anyone who is curious to try it out and see for yourself how it feels.
Love this, tysm. IFS has helped me a tonne but many of the ‘burdens’ that my parts carry are socially constructed burdens that persist, and it’s taken me a while to accept that no amount of trying to free my parts of these will really resolve this. And that being genuinely Self-led and listening to the wisdom of protector and exile parts, for me, means getting out there and trying to build community and contribute to care cultures, skilling myself up to do more union organising, and nurturing the relationships I need to feel connected
Oooh I so appreciate the nuance here -- I've been feeling a bit stagnated in my own IFS stuff and this is a really great frame of reference to understand why I feel so stuck in teh unburdening process.
Thanks for this thought-provoking piece, Chris. I have to disagree with your core arguments about IFS reinforcing fragmentation and internalizing social issues.
IFS emerged from family therapy and systems theory - Dick Schwartz developed it while studying Gregory Bateson's work and practicing family therapy. This matters because IFS doesn't view internal parts as a sign of problematic fragmentation, but rather understands multiplicity as natural and inherent to human consciousness. Interestingly, it's actually the dominant Western view of a single, unified self that better reflects individualistic culture.
Your suggestion that IFS internalizes social problems overlooks how the model specifically addresses systemic issues through concepts like "cultural burdens" and "legacy burdens." These frameworks help people understand how societal and intergenerational trauma affect us - not to turn systemic issues into purely personal ones, but to recognize how they manifest in our lived experience.
The very notion that multiplicity represents problematic fragmentation seems to assume that a unified, monolithic self is preferable or more "whole." But this view itself may reflect the individualistic assumptions of Western culture that you're critiquing. IFS offers a different paradigm altogether - one that recognizes both our inner diversity and our connection to larger systems.
Interestingly, I stumbled upon this writing as I was thinking through and researching whether anyone has been talking about applying IFS models to broader systems (a workplace, the medical industrial complex, local communities, etc) and whether and how one might use such a framework to better think through organizing and influencing change.
I think in part bc there is soooo much fragmented and only-kind-of-acurate info on the internet about psychology and different approaches, so many things get lost about how IFS works and how we can apply it using more radical and holistic approaches - I personally appreciate an eclectic approach that utilized elements of IFS but am always wary of any particular protocol used in isolation.
I appreciate that you were able to look at the external as an influence for how IFS is shaped and how it can perpetuate self-fragmentation. As much as I love IFS and as much as it has helped me to have a more nuanced relationship with myself and accept my many facets much like Sang, I do find it has it's limits as I am constantly thinking of myself as many. Which at times can be affirming and at times can feel somewhat hopeless.
Anyhow - all that to say not very much at all, but thanks!
Thanks for this, Chris, although as someone who swims around in the IFS world every day with my clients, it does not ring true. Regarding the fears of reinforcing fragmentation: so much of the experience is a deep connection with Self and between Self and parts of ourselves that normally feel alone. It’s an amazing experience of integration - even when there are “parts” activated.
Regarding the fears about it pulling people inward only and discounting systemic, cultural or interpersonal concerns: this also seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what comes out of listening to your parts. Most of my clients seem to get MORE in touch with concerns their parts have over things in the external world, anger, dissatisfaction with things they are experiencing in the external world. IFS focuses on listening to these concerns with openness, getting it, and doing something about it if something can be done. In this way, it can clear the way to live authentically and address other parts that might normally distract, shy away, rationalize, or debilitate from taking action.
I’d encourage anyone who is curious to try it out and see for yourself how it feels.
Love this, tysm. IFS has helped me a tonne but many of the ‘burdens’ that my parts carry are socially constructed burdens that persist, and it’s taken me a while to accept that no amount of trying to free my parts of these will really resolve this. And that being genuinely Self-led and listening to the wisdom of protector and exile parts, for me, means getting out there and trying to build community and contribute to care cultures, skilling myself up to do more union organising, and nurturing the relationships I need to feel connected
Oooh I so appreciate the nuance here -- I've been feeling a bit stagnated in my own IFS stuff and this is a really great frame of reference to understand why I feel so stuck in teh unburdening process.
I’m sorry to hear you’re struggling with unburdening. Sending you love and power through your journey!
Thanks for this thought-provoking piece, Chris. I have to disagree with your core arguments about IFS reinforcing fragmentation and internalizing social issues.
IFS emerged from family therapy and systems theory - Dick Schwartz developed it while studying Gregory Bateson's work and practicing family therapy. This matters because IFS doesn't view internal parts as a sign of problematic fragmentation, but rather understands multiplicity as natural and inherent to human consciousness. Interestingly, it's actually the dominant Western view of a single, unified self that better reflects individualistic culture.
Your suggestion that IFS internalizes social problems overlooks how the model specifically addresses systemic issues through concepts like "cultural burdens" and "legacy burdens." These frameworks help people understand how societal and intergenerational trauma affect us - not to turn systemic issues into purely personal ones, but to recognize how they manifest in our lived experience.
The very notion that multiplicity represents problematic fragmentation seems to assume that a unified, monolithic self is preferable or more "whole." But this view itself may reflect the individualistic assumptions of Western culture that you're critiquing. IFS offers a different paradigm altogether - one that recognizes both our inner diversity and our connection to larger systems.
Thanks for this Chris.
Interestingly, I stumbled upon this writing as I was thinking through and researching whether anyone has been talking about applying IFS models to broader systems (a workplace, the medical industrial complex, local communities, etc) and whether and how one might use such a framework to better think through organizing and influencing change.
I think in part bc there is soooo much fragmented and only-kind-of-acurate info on the internet about psychology and different approaches, so many things get lost about how IFS works and how we can apply it using more radical and holistic approaches - I personally appreciate an eclectic approach that utilized elements of IFS but am always wary of any particular protocol used in isolation.
I appreciate that you were able to look at the external as an influence for how IFS is shaped and how it can perpetuate self-fragmentation. As much as I love IFS and as much as it has helped me to have a more nuanced relationship with myself and accept my many facets much like Sang, I do find it has it's limits as I am constantly thinking of myself as many. Which at times can be affirming and at times can feel somewhat hopeless.
Anyhow - all that to say not very much at all, but thanks!
Thanks Julie!