IFS: Connecting or Disconnecting?

Just to begin, I want to speak for the ambivalence I’ve been feeling around writing this piece for a long time. The first couple posts were more introductory and necessary. But I’ve really been wanting to write this one as it covers ideas I had been grappling with for months. I then added in a third post before it in the hopes that it would bridge the gap from the intros into this post and let the ideas flow easily from my mind to the keyboard. But as the days have passed, I’ve noticed parts still wanting to hesitate, to do things perfectly, etc. So once again, I’m in a place of really sitting with those hesitant, cautious parts until they think it’s okay for me to continue. After that, I notice more comfort at just starting to write and recognizing that I can always edit later or even redo it or scrap it altogether.

One common criticism I see levied against the Internal Family Systems model is that it is dissociating or disconnecting. For months, I heard a friend more inclined to a different approach than IFS state this time and again, “IFS isn’t connecting for me!” And as someone who practices, trains in, and loves IFS, I was aware that I would experience certain group interactions similarly and struggled to articulate it clearly for myself or in conversation with her. Like Justice Potter Stewart’s famous words on obscenity, I couldn’t explain why I was not feeling a connection to someone as they were sharing, “but I know it when I see it.” I notice that the hesitant parts wanting me to put off writing this are concerned that I still cannot articulate my thoughts and feelings on this clearly. But unlike justice Stewart, I shall try.

Before we get to that, I’d like to raise two questions: Why does it seem so common for people to experience a disconnect within the IFS approach? And why does it seem so difficult to articulate?

I believe these questions are answered by addressing the complexity of the model. Internal Family Systems has different layers to it that I believe can be quite confusing to people unfamiliar with it. First, IFS has introduced a distinct model of the psyche with the Self and different roles of parts. Second, IFS also brings some unique expressions and terminology into the language of those who practice it. And third, IFS details a process or method of working with and healing parts using Self energy.

In specifying these different facets of IFS, it becomes clearer that the first two are methods for thinking about and identifying your parts, whereas it is the process where the connection occurs from Self.

An example of how people may speak about their parts in a non-connecting way (at least in my experience) would be, “I have an anxious part that gets activated when the phone rings and I see my boss’ name on the caller ID. It protects me from an exile that is scared I’ll be fired.” In this statement, there’s clear IFS language there, clear modeling of the parts in their roles, but not much to define the parts aside from their roles. I’m reminded of this film review that breaks down character development in movies that connect with audiences vs. underdeveloped characters in the disappointing Star Wars prequels.

Alternatively, let’s imagine what you may say about your parts when you’re utilizing the IFS process with a therapist or facilitator. In IFS, we recognize numerous ways that parts can connect and communicate with us including emotions, visualizations, thoughts, beliefs, memories, physical sensations, physiological activity such as breath and heart rate, etc. So when we connect with our parts, we tend to feel or sense into one or more of these aspects and describe what we are experiencing. For example, a connecting statement about our parts might sound like, “When I see my boss calling me, I feel tightness is my chest and stomach, my heart races a bit. I feel anxious, and then recognize a fearful part, hiding in the dark, alone. A young boy, crouching to appear small and recede into that darkness.”

In other words, the connection I feel with others when they share about their parts stems from the descriptiveness of their experience rather than an explanation or identification of their parts. The moment of clarity actually hit me while reading “Mindsight” by Daniel J. Siegel. In Chapter 6, Half a Brain In Hiding, he describes his work with Stuart, a 92-year old man who had gone through life without really experiencing emotions. Dr. Siegel was able to outline the steps he took to develop the right hemisphere of Stuart’s brain and bring it into balance with the dominant left. The first step was focusing in on body sensations and the second was nonverbal communication. The third, which delivered me the clarity to articulate my thoughts, was to integrate left-brain memory recall with the right-brain’s capacity for re-experience and richness of detail.

I asked him to recall the evening before our session and his breakfast that morning, and to convey his recollections as images rather than facts…. Stuart wanted to summarize and evaluate: “I had a good evening.” “I had cornflakes for breakfast.” What came hard to him was telling me “I scoop the cornflakes into my blue bowl and hear the dry sound they make. The milk carton feels cool in my hand, and I pour it slowly until I see the milk almost covering the flakes. I sit down and I notice that the sunlight is in my eyes.”

–“Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation”, p. 112

Circling back to the two questions raised: Why does it seem so common for people to experience a disconnect within the IFS approach? And why does it seem so difficult to articulate? Internal Family Systems is complex! The model and the language open us up into drifting between the experiential process into the rational categorizing and mapping. Without full appreciation for the complexity of the model, we are at risk to do so blindly and frequently. And as for being unaware and inarticulate on the matter, well, that seems to tie back into the fact that we are starting our journeys in IFS from a point of imbalance and dislocation of the right hemisphere that would hold such capacities.

Reading Mindsight–about Stuart particularly–I was able to gain a lot of clarity about why IFS seems right to me. As I discussed in my last post, living most of my life intellectually dominant, the IFS process has given me a method for exploring, developing and integrating more of my experiential capacities to find balance and depth. Internal Family Systems has enabled such profound effects for me, and I consistently interact with people in the community who face similar challenges as I did with dominant, highly-active analyzing and intellectual parts. I hope this article will enable some of you to have more clarity in pursuing self-leadership and connection.

Really recognizing the importance of understanding connection–first, inarticulate, “I know it when I see it” and then later with greater clarity–I’m able to really notice those parts that wanted me to be cautious in writing about it. This could be an article that turns someone off of IFS forever if I’m unclear in my message, or it could inspire someone to seek connection and new methods of self-knowledge. There’s a lot of sensitivity and concern with my parts, and I notice that they are feeling understood and comfortable publishing. So writing this piece has been a great experience for me in developing more awareness with my parts and bringing Self-leadership to the fore.