This is a good intro and I'd want more guidance--which would likely have to come in practicums and actual application with real people to practice with. Almost like a textbook style of writing, but not too academic so that most people who aren't necessarily studying psychology or therapy can absorb the concepts. I'm still a little uncertain how to get in touch with my parts and how to label them and talk to them or have them show me who the managers, protectors, and exiles are. I have an idea of how to go about it, but it seems like I'm "doing it wrong." I think in another book there's a practice on how to find your parts.
“Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy is a synthesis of two paradigms: the plural mind, or the idea that we all contain many different parts, and systems thinking. With the view that intrapsychic processes constitute a system, IFS invites therapists to relate to every level of the human system—the intrapsychic, familial, communal, cultural, and social—with ecologically sensitive concepts and methods that focus on understanding and respecting the network of relationships among members. IFS therapy is also collaborative and enjoyable. And because we view people as having all the resources they need rather than having deficits or a disease, it is nonpathologizing. Instead of seeing people as lacking resources, we assume people are constrained from using their innate strengths by polarized relationships, both within and with the people around them. IFS is designed to help us release our constraints and, in so doing, also release our resources.” pg. 4-5
“What if destructive parts actually intended to help? What if they didn’t like the extreme roles they had been forced into? What if all of us in the field of mental health were mistakenly encouraging vicious cycles within clients and families? What if, the more we lectured, drugged, and tried to banish or control parts like this one, the harder they would fight to protect our clients? Maybe we were scapegoating impulsive, compulsive parts just the way my early teachers—the acting-out adolescents on the inpatient unit in Chicago—had been scapegoated in their families. What if we could simply help these parts with their fears? Could they be liberated from extreme roles in the same way adolescents were liberated in family therapy? Could the inner world of parts reflect the outer world of families and vice versa?” pg. 14-15
“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
“The flow state of mind is characterized by confidence, deep concentration, and a lack of concern for reward beyond the activity itself, along with the sense of mastery and well-being, of stepping out of the constraints of time, of losing self-consciousness, and, finally, of transcendence.” pg. 44
“Where as empathy involves feeling with another person, compassion involves feeling for another person, which motivates concern and the desire to help. While exploring compassion and empathy, neuroscientist Tania Singer made a surprising discovery. Having expected to find that these two emotions use the same neuropathway in the brain, they found instead that compassion uses reward circuitry whereas empathy (the experience of feeling with) uses pain circuitry. Although empathy can therefore overwhelm us with pain, a proportional dose enriches compassion. As a result, in IFS we don’t ask parts to stop feeling strongly, but we do ask them to separate enough so that they don’t overwhelm us with their strong feelings. When we are not able to attend to our exiles, we find it hard to tolerate the suffering of others. But when our exiles separate and communicate rather than overwhelm, the Self is present, protectors don’t get activated, and we have compassion for our own parts as well as for other people who are suffering.” pg. 53
“In addition, I have been using IFS successfully with patients on a wide variety of medical problems for 20 years. I’ve worked with patients who had cancer, lupus, or pain of all varieties, among other illnesses. If parts were involved in the creation or maintenance of the illness or its symptoms, the patient improved, often to the point of remission.” pg. 67
“Although these findings surprised the researchers, they validated what we in the field of mental health have long intuited about trauma and the body. The findings also suggest that the reverse might be true: If a wounded psyche can injure the body a restored psyche might help to heal the body.” pg. 68
“Options for Exploring the physical Symptom as a Part
1. Guide the client to focus on a physical symptom, be curious, and listen.
2. Use direct access to speak directly to the sympton as a part.
3. If no parts are involved with the symptom, guide the client to ask if any part has information about the symptom.
4. Ask if any parts who hate or fear the symptom are influencing the client’s body or medical compliance.
5. Guide the client to ask for parts who know how to heal the body, either in general or in this particular area.” pg. 69
“In general, parts can give the client a headache, stomach pains, muscle clenching, back pain, nausea, exhaustion, the urge to sleep, a pounding heart, chills, numb hands and feed, and much more. They can also send intrusive thoughts and images into the client’s consciousness that cause physical responses. But when we ask them to be direct about their wants and needs rather than hurting the client physically or taking him out mentally, and when they believe we will pay attention to their concerns if they stop, dramatic shifts can take place.” pg. 79
“Thus, primary responsibility for change is not placed on the therapist as it is in some therapies, nor is it placed on the client as it is in others. Instead, in IFS the Selves of client and therapist act as co-therapists, sharing responsibility. They collaborate to harmonize the client’s inner system and relationship to the external world. In the case of fearful, resistant protectors, the co-therapy of Selves in client and therapist simply develops more gradually, as the therapist earns their trust over time. This collaborative stance offers the IFS client the opportunity to feel cared for and accompanied throughout therapy.” pg. 84
“Some Initial Direct Access Questions for the Target Part
- What do you say (or do) to Marcela?
- Why do you say (or do) that to Marcela?
- What do you make Marcela think (or do)?
- What do you do for Marcela?
- Who do you see when you look at Marcela?
- How do you think Marcela feels toward you?
- What are you afraid would happen if you stopped doing this to Marcela?
- How old do you think Marcela is?
- How old are you?” pg. 119
“One voice, for example, continually pushed her to work, both at her job and at home. If Quinn sat still this striving part would call her lazy and remind her of many things that needed to be done. I guided Quinn to ask the striver what it was afraid would happen if it stopped running her to the point of exhaustion. That part replied that Quinn would get depressed and stay in bed. And, indeed, Quinn reported feeling depressed when she paused, which in turn caused her to stay in her apartment for days on end, withdrawing from work and friends entirely. ‘It’s like the depression catches me when I slow down,’ she said.” pg. 148
“In a polarization even small differences can escalate quickly. The more Quinn excluded her depressed part, the more it pushed the sense of depression and hopelessness; the more depressed that part got, the more the striver strove to exile it, and so on. This ubiquitous feedback loop is central to systems thinking. We can help parts depolarize by introducing them to each other and letting them hear their false assumptions about each other, emphasizing that neither intends harm and both aim to solve the same underlying problem. In this case, the depressed part was a 6-year-old who protected a lonely, scared 5-year-old. The depressed part was trying to get Quinn’s attention for the 5-year-old by pinning her down, while the striver was trying to keep Quinn away from the lonely fears of the 5-year-old and also the depression.
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
“Let’s consider an inner family that includes members of various ages and degrees of vulnerability. In the face of danger the family moves the Self as well as the system’s most vulnerable parts to safety while protective parts step forward. Traumatized clients have taught us that before or during trauma the inner family separates the Self from the sensations of the body to varying degrees (depending on how severe they judge the danger to be)—sometimes pushing it out of the body altogether—and some of the older members take control to protect the system with fight-or-flight responses: lashing out or escaping while more vulnerable parts freeze. These front-line protectors aim to minimize sensations of terror and pain for the system and the Self.
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. 150
“. . . like most couples, had organized their relationship from the beginning around nurturing and protecting each other’s exiles—a setup for trouble. But when exiled parts feel loved by the Self and have been reintegrated internally, protectors can stand down, partners can have ongoing access to their Selves, and recurring conflicts tend to melt away.” pg. 235
“We believe that the following legacy burdens are linked and have been particularly instrumental in shaping the nature of exiling in this county.
- Racism: Used to justify the genocide of Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans, who were abducted from their home.
- Patriarchy: Sprang from European and religious roots.
- Individualism: Produced by the survival struggles of pioneers, individualism fosters contempt for vulnerability and a belief that failure is a personal fault.
- Materialism: Produced in part by the economic and physical hardships suffered by immigrants to the American continent, it is no doubt made worse by the routine, threatening cycles of financial boom and bust that typify capitalist economies.” pg. 241
“A Self-led nation would also shift from thinking in terms of a single mind to a plural mind. The idea of the singular mind leads us to demonize each other as if our most extreme parts define us. Through the lens of multiplicity there are no jihadists, addicts, white supremacists, narcissists, people with borderline personality disorders, and so on. Instead, there are protective parts who, in their efforts to manage pain, shame, and fear, became locked in extreme roles. Through the lens of IFS we see the exiles behind our own scary, destructive protectors, and we also see the exiles behind our worst energy’s protectors. We trust that every person has a Self, even those whose behavior is evil.” pg. 251
“Similarly, we can use relationships with people who continue to activate our parts to find and heal our exiles. These people, whom we call tor-mentors, guide us to deeper healing by activating our parts.” pg. 279
Book: borrowed from NB Branch.