Internal Family Systems Therapy, First Edition (The Guilford Family Therapy)

Product Information

Chapters on the Self, the body and physical illness, the role of the therapist, specific clinical strategies, and couple therapy. I have friends who have psychopathy, who have parts that, no matter what they do, tell them that they're worthless, and that they should kill themselves. These are parts that don't seem to relay any (useful) information to the self. They don't react to particular situations, they just repeat the same thing, over and again, unchanging and eternal. One of these friends had a fantastic childhood. They had no issues with their upbringing. If they were told by IFST that every aspect of them was actually positive, they'd probably feel worse, unable to bridge that psychopathic voice in their head to the rest of their internal family system. This is the limit of IFST's humanism. It assumes all aspects of the psyche are life-affirming. In doing so, it creates a new pathology: the self who, no matter what, can't bring all its parts together. Its optimism conjures as much pessimism into those who are fragmented without the possibility of harmony. The leader these Parts need is the Self. The true, rational, inner consciousness. Think of the Self as flow, mindfulness, groundedness. Confidence, Curiosity, Compassion, Calm. You know it when you feel it!

Self-compassion is a vital aspect of IFS Therapy. We have various resources that can help clients look at themselves with more kindness. The first step of IFS is to access the core Self (often achieved through physical grounding exercises and breathing), then use curious introspection to identify and begin to label the varying Parts that pop up and cause anxiety/depression. Can be just a few, or 20+. But autopoietic systems have no leaders. In designating a certain subject, the subject who knows (or at least, thinks it knows), as the ideal leader, IFST sneaks in various normative assumptions about what is best for you, for your community, and for the world at large. Parts are understood as best managed through the self, but this designation (of self from parts) occurs through the therapist. This is not a neutral process; it's a performative manoeuvre that carries an assemblage of ideological assumptions: that calmness is better than anger, that connectedness is better than disgust, that confidence is better than fear. Yes, healing requires openness, but negative emotions are warnings that, for some communities, have saved them from death at the hands of imperialist soldiers, cops, landlords, and abusers. I just don't believe a calm, collected, (dare I say) middle-class self, is the true self of all human beings, across historical time, race, gender, and class lines. Honestly, I'm not even against the attributes IFST assigns to the self (calmness, curiosity, compassion, connectedness, confidence, creativity, courage, and clarity); I'm against its belief that this self is somehow more essential or transcendental than any other part.

In response to danger, the individuals in human systems at all levels take on roles that can be categorized by three groups. 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. A second group contains the most sensitive members of the system. When these parts feel injured or outraged, mangers will banish them for their own protection and the good of the whole system. We call them exiles. 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 member of this group firefighters because they fight the flames of exiled emotion.” pg. 31

Since our culture is patriarchal, many managers appear in gender stereotypical ways, and it would be interesting to study their appearances (male, female, or neither) according to the client’s gender identity. Women are often socialized to rely on a manager who is perfectionistic about appearance and behavior. This manager believes she must be perfect and please everyone or she will be abandoned and hurt. Many women are also socialized to rely heavily on a caretaking manager. Extreme caretaking parts push women to sacrifice their own needs continually for others, and will criticize a woman as selfish if she asserts herself. Men, on the other hand, are often socialized to rely on an entitled or competitive manager who encourages them to get whatever they want, no matter who is wronged by their actions. Other common managerial roles include the hyperaroused worrier (or sentry) who feels in constant jeopardy and is on continuous alert for danger. This manager will flash worst-case scenarios in front of a person when she contemplates risk. And then there is the dependent manager, who tells the person he is a victim and keeps him appearing helpless, injured, and passive to ensure that other people will take care of him. Managers have many behavioral options.” pg. 33 It is not easy to recognize all the parts of the self. Drawing or doodling can provide a more intuitive, less concrete way to capture, describe, and show the connections between each part.When Quinn introduced the stiver and the depressed part to each other, they softened. But before they could leave their jobs they needed to know that Quinn’s Self was taking care of the 5-year-old. Once the 5-year-old could get the attention, influence, and resources that the young Quinn needed, the sad part and the striver would be able to relax.” pg. 149 Individualism: Produced by the survival struggles of pioneers, individualism fosters contempt for vulnerability and a belief that failure is a personal fault. Managers are patterns of thought and behavior meant to keep exiles pushed away and under the surface. They play a *proactive protective* role. Think: career or gym addiction. Schwartz treats Parts as highly independent egos, even going so far as to personify and name them. I think for many readers that mental model strains credulity, but simply viewing Parts as “strong and recurrent emotional states that are inconsistent with each other” is sufficient. The important thing is that they are discrete and internal. Exercises for mapping your parts, accessing the Self, working with a challenging protector, identifying each part’s triggers, and more

So, now that I have figured out why I felt so uncomfortable with Internal Family Systems Therapy, where does that leave me? Can I no longer work with clients who believe they are multiple? Do I have to stop conversing with the parts of myself? Can I no longer lead clients in role plays with their parts and introjected parents? Despite these efforts, the youngest most vulnerable members of the inner family are powerfully affected by traumatic events. They feel injury, abandonment, and betrayal acutely. When the stimulus is intense enough, vulnerable parts freeze in time and experience a kind of endless Groundhog Day repetition of the trauma, complete with all of its sensations and feelings. By contrast, if the Self can stay embodied and offer immediate assistance, the system’s trust in Self-leadership increases, building inner strength and opposing tendencies to polarize, all of which helps injured parts avoid being exiled and instead stay in the stream of time.” pg. 150Enhanced clinical utility, with significantly more "how-to" details, case examples, and sample dialogues.