I have often wondered why there are so many approaches and new theories that emerge so regularly in the world of counselling and psychotherapy. By the latest estimates, there are over 500 different types of psychotherapy approaches, all seemingly offering the silver bullet that can prove the difference when in pursuit of uniqueness and excellence.
One of the most recent new kids on the block is Internal Family Systems (or IFS for short). Its founder Richard Swartz can be seen and heard at the many therapy conferences that seek to promote psychological well-being, and held almost in rock star reverence. I happen to like the IFS approach, as an integration therapist (of theory, and in holistic practice) I am in agreement that the mind is indeed multiple (obviously), that we do indeed have aspects to ourselves, that we could call ‘parts’. I also like the experiential nature of the approach, and I like Dick Swartz on a personal level, for that matter, too. However, the idea of the multiple mind is nothing new, the concept of multiplicity is as old as the hills, and I do wonder whether IFS is over complicating matters. IFS is another one of the 500+ approaches in therapy that appears to be unique by using different language and terminology when, perhaps, the real task is to develop a more simple approach to addressing the core ingredients for how therapeutic change occurs. It can also be at risk of being seen as an aggressive proprietary venture given that it invites trained therapists to completely retrain in its approach.
In fairness to the approach, I have heard IFS practitioners concede that multiplicity dates back thousands of years, and that it is not deemed unique to their approach in the therapeutic world. As IFS therapists see themselves as integrative, it can be one of a number of approaches to healing, not an exclusive offering, and can be seen as an adjunct to existing ways of working. These practitioners see IFS as being really simple in some ways, but taking some time to understand the terminology and theory grounds them in the framework, and then they are flowing in the process and in relationship. I have heard IFS people also say that it’s like learning dance choreography or music, which requires some skill development and effort at first, but then the art/magic happens as the process develops. It would also be fair to state that good IFS therapists would welcome sceptical parts, which can be validating, helping people connect with sceptical parts can be a way in to grasping the essence of the IFS approach.
The trouble, though, with more and more of these seemingly exciting new approaches in therapy that are intent on chasing new insights is that they are seeking potential silver bullet knowledge and information that could represent the missing ingredient in bringing about greater therapeutic change in the consulting room. The risk is that the core ingredients for how therapeutic change occurs can appear to be less ‘sexy’. Who, for example, responds favourably to a continuing professional development (CPD) advert that refers to empathy in the title? The more ‘sexy’ advert is, perhaps, from a new approach, something ground breaking and something that will offer rapid transformation, for both therapist and patient.
The cottage industry of new approaches in therapy can be further divided into more discreet CPD offerings such as “IFS from a transpersonal lens”. Transpersonal sounds a mouthful, but really all it means is a commitment to a psycho spiritual development model, in addition to being integrative of theories and holistic in practice. But even here you can see adverts from an integrative therapist promoting IFS but this time further subdivided into a transpersonal focus. I was left wondering after the seeing the adverts whether IFS for your dog might be the next iteration of the promotion campaigns for this new kid on the block.
Noel Bell is a UKCP psychotherapist and can be contacted on 07852407140.