IFS is the model I use in therapy lately. Its multi-lite approach really clicked with me -- although as I have discovered, my take on it is a little sideways from my therapist's*. Anyways, I have a lot of opinions about it and I was excited to see it come up here!
My main thing is I hate the way he talks about Self here, and consequently the way a lot of the IFS community talks about Self, like it's some sort of specific interal entity you just have to call up. I think it smacks of a desire to live within a benignly authoritarian state -- it smacks of the desire to have Someone In Charge who is unfailingly loving, and wise, and will take care of it all for you. This angle is seductive, and in my experience, not at all the case.
I'll continue using the term Self here for continuity's sake, but imo it's a deeply flawed term. In my experience it's more of an energy, or a state of existence: either a kind of matrix within which everything unfolds, or a kind of state of mind that any part can learn to embody. The closest analogue I can think of is a kind of state of enlightenment in the Buddhist sense, but that's not quite it either. The point being that Self is no self at all: it is the absence of the things that we think of as selfhood, and distilling it into an entity of its own does the whole concept a disservice, as well as implying that Parts and Self are necessarily separate things. (I hate the orchestra metaphor. Hate it. It's fuckin improv jazz in here at all times and I wouldn't have it any other way.)
I do find (putting aside the "all systems function best when leadership is clearly designated" bs) the stuff under the "Empowering Assumptions" header has rung pretty true for me. Assuming we have prerogative to work out our own issues has been very helpful; acknowledging the parts and their particular issues as discrete entities who deserve respect and consideration has been efficacious; the idea of "no bad parts" has been revolutionary. As has putting aside questions of "who am I" and "what does this mean" re: having distinct parts of myself, and simply dealing with who's there and what they bring with them.
* My therapist, annoyingly, keeps asking things like "which ones do you think are the REAL you?" when I draw up parts charts and stuff, by which I think she means "which one would you be if you were well-adjusted and happy". Lady, it's all us; just because one part isn't throwing tantrums, is relatively well-adjusted, and seems able to feel joy doesn't make it more real than the traumatized baby. It's all me, inasmuch as the idea of "me" means anything. Which I'm not convinced it does.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2022-10-27 02:50 am (UTC)My main thing is I hate the way he talks about Self here, and consequently the way a lot of the IFS community talks about Self, like it's some sort of specific interal entity you just have to call up. I think it smacks of a desire to live within a benignly authoritarian state -- it smacks of the desire to have Someone In Charge who is unfailingly loving, and wise, and will take care of it all for you. This angle is seductive, and in my experience, not at all the case.
I'll continue using the term Self here for continuity's sake, but imo it's a deeply flawed term. In my experience it's more of an energy, or a state of existence: either a kind of matrix within which everything unfolds, or a kind of state of mind that any part can learn to embody. The closest analogue I can think of is a kind of state of enlightenment in the Buddhist sense, but that's not quite it either. The point being that Self is no self at all: it is the absence of the things that we think of as selfhood, and distilling it into an entity of its own does the whole concept a disservice, as well as implying that Parts and Self are necessarily separate things. (I hate the orchestra metaphor. Hate it. It's fuckin improv jazz in here at all times and I wouldn't have it any other way.)
I do find (putting aside the "all systems function best when leadership is clearly designated" bs) the stuff under the "Empowering Assumptions" header has rung pretty true for me. Assuming we have prerogative to work out our own issues has been very helpful; acknowledging the parts and their particular issues as discrete entities who deserve respect and consideration has been efficacious; the idea of "no bad parts" has been revolutionary. As has putting aside questions of "who am I" and "what does this mean" re: having distinct parts of myself, and simply dealing with who's there and what they bring with them.
* My therapist, annoyingly, keeps asking things like "which ones do you think are the REAL you?" when I draw up parts charts and stuff, by which I think she means "which one would you be if you were well-adjusted and happy". Lady, it's all us; just because one part isn't throwing tantrums, is relatively well-adjusted, and seems able to feel joy doesn't make it more real than the traumatized baby. It's all me, inasmuch as the idea of "me" means anything. Which I'm not convinced it does.