Unmasking the Hype: A Deep Dive into Internal Family Systems (IFS) Therapy and Its Hidden Pitfalls

​Throughout my career in psychology, I've observed a fascinating trend: certain therapeutic approaches seem to come into "fashion," capturing the interest of both professionals and the public alike. When I was deeply involved in research, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) was the approach du jour. It’s interesting to note that CBT was originally developed more as a tool than a standalone therapy. Its clarity, structured approach, and ease of measurement in the short term contributed to its widespread adoption, notably within frameworks like the National Health Service. Yet, despite its popularity, CBT, like any approach, has its limitations.

Following the CBT wave, mindfulness-based therapies gained prominence. However, this trend didn’t seem to hold its ground as long, transitioning more into a general practice of mindfulness rather than a structured therapeutic approach. Now, in the past few years, Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy has risen to the forefront, perhaps propelled by its visibility on social media platforms. This surge in interest prompted me to explore IFS more deeply, especially in comparison to Transactional Analysis (TA), my area of specialization.

Origins and Influences

​Internal Family Systems (IFS) Therapy was developed in the 1980s by Richard Schwartz, a family therapist who observed that clients often described their internal conflicts in ways that mirrored family dynamics. This led him to conceptualize the mind as consisting of multiple parts, each with distinct roles and functions, similar to members of a family.
It is important to say, that translating family dynamics into the internal process had by that time already been done in other therapeutic approaches.

However, as I delved deeper into Schwartz's IFS model, I noticed that it heavily incorporates techniques and concepts from established therapies, notably Transactional Analysis (TA) and Gestalt Therapy. In his book, Schwartz describes techniques that are pure Gestalt Therapy interventions but labels them as IFS. This mislabeling can be misleading and fails to acknowledge the original sources of these techniques. Similar has been done with Positive Psychology concepts.

Moreover, in one part of his book, Schwartz provides an example of a client experiencing what is known in Transactional Analysis as a "script backlash." In TA, a script backlash refers to the client's resistance or negative reaction to therapeutic progress, often reflecting internal conflicts and unresolved issues. This backlash is crucial to explore and address, rather than overlook or misinterpret, as it provides valuable insights into the client's internal dynamics and potential barriers to change.

Prescriptive Nature and Impact on Client Autonomy

​One thing that stands out to me about IFS Therapy is its prescriptive nature. Schwartz categorizes the psyche into various parts, including Exiles, Managers, and Firefighters, each with specific roles and functions. This structured roadmap is meant to help clients navigate their internal world.

While this approach can offer clarity and direction for some clients, it also has its drawbacks. It requires a significant level of buy-in from clients, who must accept and work within this predefined structure. This can be limiting, as it may stifle clients' ability to explore and integrate their experiences in a more fluid and individualized manner. Additionally, the rigid categorization can lead to client dependency on the IFS framework and therapist's guidance, potentially hindering their development of independent self-awareness and coping strategies. Clients might feel constrained by the predefined roles and functions assigned to their internal parts, potentially stifling their creativity and self-discovery.

Neglect of Acknowledgment for Borrowed Concepts

​A significant critique by of IFS Therapy is the failure to adequately acknowledge the origins of the concepts and techniques it borrows from other therapeutic modalities. For instance, the idea of internal parts closely parallels the ego states in Transactional Analysis, where Schwartz takes the concept further by renaming and slightly modifying the sub-parts.
I found a repackaging of well-established techniques, presenting them as unique to IFS. This lack of acknowledgment for the foundational work done by the developers of TA, Gestalt Therapy, and others, is a concern. Recognizing and honoring the contributions of these modalities is crucial for maintaining integrity and humility within the field of psychotherapy.

Integration vs. Fragmentation

​IFS Therapy's approach of dividing the self into multiple parts contrasts with the goal of integration in traditional psychotherapy. While IFS emphasizes understanding and harmonizing these parts, traditional approaches like Transactional Analysis and Gestalt Therapy aim to integrate the various aspects of the self into a cohesive whole.

Fragmenting the self into distinct parts can have limitations, such as reinforcing a sense of disconnection or compartmentalization. It is important for therapists to foster a holistic understanding of the individual, helping clients integrate their experiences and develop a unified sense of self. This approach can support clients in achieving greater self-awareness, resilience, and emotional well-being.

Concerning Trend: Life Coaches as IFS Practitioners

​A concerning trend that I have observed with the rise of IFS is the increasing number of life coaches who are attempting to do psychotherapy, calling themselves IFS coaches. This is nothing new, and has been done with many other therapeutic approaches.  This is particularly troubling because coaching is not therapy. While coaching can be beneficial for certain aspects of personal development, it lacks the depth and rigor required for addressing serious psychological issues.

Moreover, some of these IFS coaches are engaging in trauma work, which requires specialized training and expertise. Trauma work is complex and delicate, and mishandling it can have severe consequences for clients such as retraumatization. It’s essential to distinguish between coaching and therapy and ensure that only qualified professionals undertake therapeutic interventions, especially when dealing with trauma.

Conclusion

I have decided not to offer people IFS therapy. The reason for this decision is that I value people's autonomy and independence too much. Ultimately, as a psychotherapist, whatever my client's goal is, mine, for the client, is always autonomy and independence and for my clients to be whole and authentic. The prescriptive nature of IFS just doesn't sit well with me.

I have heard that people have had good experiences with IFS. However, I have also  observed a significant amount of defragmentation and disconnection from the self. While the concept provides a structured approach, it may not foster the holistic integration that I believe is crucial for genuine healing and self-awareness.

It is essential to critically examine whether new schools of thought and therapies represent genuine innovations or are simply tweaks of existing concepts.

Ultimately, the most effective therapy is not the one that's most in vogue, but the one that resonates with an individual's unique journey towards healing and self-discovery. Conducting proper research to support therapeutic interventions is crucial for ensuring their efficacy and ethical application.
​Trust in the process of discovering what truly works for you.