Internal Family Systems Theory
Richard Schwarz's internal family systems theory notes that personality of every person is composed of quite discrete subpersonalities, which influence each other like members in a family.[1] The theory recognises three main types of parts that are present across most people: managers, who have different methods of trying to prevent situations that are connected to negative emotions, exiles, who hold these negative emotions and memories, and firefighters, who try to “extinguish” negative feelings after they have appeared. Additionally, the model presumes that the core of every personality is the Self. It is a part that is being protected by all other parts, and which possesses leadership qualities and should fulfil the role of a leader, so the system remains in harmony.
Despite similarities to plural terminology (systems and parts), I don't think the internal family systems theory means that every person is plural. Using this word to describe the whole humanity would completely strip it from its meaning, which currently emphasises the fact that our internal functioning is significantly different from the one typical for a singlet. Of course, plurality exists on a spectrum and there's no clear answer to the question of how discrete the parts must be so that singlet stops being a singlet and starts to be a median system. But experiences like: “one part of me wants this, but another wants something else” are normal for almost every singlet. And according to the internal family systems theory, these parts are not just a metaphor for having conflicting desires, but rather coherent subsystems inside the complex structure of our personality. They may possess their own needs and behavioural patterns, and noticing and accepting them is necessary in order to live in harmony with your own self. What's important, the theory doesn't expect the parts to differ in terms of internal appearance, name, age or other aspects of identity. The metaphor of members of a family influencing each other may be misleading, but simply thoughts or feelings are sufficient to indicate the presence of a part. Plurality is there just one of the many ways that a person may experience their parts that is not a problem on its own (I have to emphasise that it's my own conclusion – the author is most probably not familiar with the word “plurality”). The problem starts with lack of integration and coordination that arises from chronic and severe abuse. This causes internal families of people with dissociative identity disorder to become more polarised, isolated and protective, and consequently lose the ability to accommodate their conflicting needs.[1] We may conclude that the same applies to other specified dissociative disorder type one, but I don't know if dr. Schwarz ever included it in his works.
Internal family systems theory proves very useful in understanding natural plurality, but I notice two main problems in applying it to systems. The first one, present in most of the psychological models of plurality, is ignoring experiences of systems who do not consist of parts of one personality. All of my headmates and personalities, excluding those fragmentary, have at least several distinct parts, which probably could be divided to the categories described in the theory. I am sure that it works similarly in many other systems. Degrading us to parts may be not only very hurtful, but also result in losing the therapeutic potential that lies in working with parts of individual headmates. The latter even in some systems who themselves use parts language to describe their plurality.
The second problem lies in applying the concept of the Self described in the theory to plural systems. Firstly, although the theory itself doesn't seem to suggest such approach, I am afraid that in many cases in explicitly or implicitly pluralphobic therapists it will strengthen extremely harmful belief that one headmate is to be considered the “real” or the “most important” one. Alternatively – that such people without giving it any conscious thought will automatically ascribe the Self role to the host. And secondly, I consider as baseless the assumptions that having exactly one leader is necessary to achieve harmony in the system and that every system always has only one headmate suitable to fulfil this role (or that such headmate has to exist in the first place). The decision what type of internal structure is the best for the system should not belong to the therapist, but to the system themselves. For some having one leader, who will take into account opinions and well-being of all the others, will prove the best, but for some having a few governors or making all important decisions in a democratic way simply works better.
Despite the problems described above, I definitely prefer this model over the theory of structural dissociation, due to its focus on achieving acceptance and cooperation in the system, and not eliminating any singns of plurality in the mind. Apart from that its unmodified form may be really useful in understanding internal functioning and providing therapy to many median systems.
References
- ↑ a b Internal family systems therapy, dr. Richard Schwarz, 1995, as cited in A Systemic Approach to the Treatment of Dissociative Identity Disorder, Shobha Pais, Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 2009
Created: 03.11.2025
Translated: 03.12.2025