Multiplicity of the Mind
IFS views the mind as a dynamic system comprising many subminds, called parts. Freud (1923/1961) opened the door for exploration of multiplicity with his descriptions of the id, ego, and superego. Various post-Freudian theorists have moved beyond his tripartite model and discussed a range of inner entities. Perhaps the most influential of these is object relations theory, which, since Melanie Klein in the 1940s, has asserted that our internal experience is shaped by introjected “objects,” representations of significant people in our lives (Gunthrip, 1971; Klein, 1948).
Jung (
1935/1968, 1963, 1968, 1969), in his discussion of archetypes and complexes, took the notion that we contain many minds a step further, considering them as more than just introjects. In 1935, Jung described a complex as having the “tendency to form a little personality of itself. It has a sort of body, a certain amount of its own physiology. It can upset the stomach, it upsets the breathing, it disturbs the heart—in short, it behaves like a partial personality . . . I hold that our personal unconscious… consists of an indefinite, because unknown, number of complexes or fragmentary personalities” (pp. 80–81).
Jung's younger contemporary, Roberto Assagioli (1973, 1965/1975; Ferrucci, 1982), also posited that we are a collection of subpersonalities. Since Assagioli, a large number of theorists have recognized our natural multiplicity; in exploring this territory, they have made observations that are remarkably similar to one another. A more detailed history of the recognition of multiplicity is available in the book
Subpersonalities (Rowan,
1990) and the more recent book
Multiplicity (Carter,
2008).
Regardless of orientation, most theorists who have explored intrapsychic process have described the mind as having some degree of multiplicity. Scanning the currently influential psychotherapies, we find that object relations describes internal objects (Klein, 1948; Gunthrip, 1971; Fairbairn, 1952; Kernberg, 1976; Winnicott, 1958, 1971); self psychology speaks of grandiose selves versus idealizing selves (Kohut, 1971, 1977); and cognitive-behavioral therapists describe a variety of schemata and possible selves (Dryden & Golden, 1986; Markus & Nurius, 1987; Young Klosko, & Weishaar, 2003). Although these theories vary regarding the degree to which the inner entities are viewed as autonomous and possessing a full complement of emotions and cognitions, as opposed to being interdependent, unidimensional, specialized mental units, they all suggest that the mind is far from unitary.
Theories of psychological trauma theory that undergird the literature on dissociative identitiy disorder (DID) view them as fragments of a potentially unitary personality. Experts on DID recognize the multiplicity of their patients; however, they view these personalities as the result of early trauma and abuse, which forced the person to split off many “alter” personalities (Bliss, 1986; Kluft, 1985; Putnam, 1989; Nijenhuis, Van der Hart, & Steele, 2002).
Regardless of the theorized source of inner entities (learning, trauma, introjection, the collective unconscious, or the mind's natural state), some of these theorists view them as complete personalities. They share a belief that these internal entities are more than clusters of thoughts or feelings, or mere states of mind. Instead, they are seen as distinct personalities, of different ages, temperaments, talents, and even genders, and each with a full range of emotion and desire. The DID theorists hold this view, although they limit it to highly traumatized people. Jung's later writing describes archetypes and complexes in ways that approach full-personality multiplicity, as does a Jungian derivative called voice dialogue (Stone & Winkelman, 1985). In addition, ego state therapy, developed by hypnotherapists John and Helen Watkins (Watkins, 1978; Watkins & Johnson, 1982) and Assagioli's psychosynthesis subscribe to full-personality multiplicity.
Many trauma therapies propose that the existence of subpersonalities is a sign of pathology–a consequence of the fragmentation of the psyche by traumatic experiences. In contrast, like Jung, psychosysnthesis, Ego State Therapy, and Voice Dialogue, the IFS model sees all parts as innately valuable components of a healthy mind. In fact, according to IFS, a fully functioning inner system requires these subminds, each with their different perspectives, talents, and resources, to function well. Trauma does not create these parts, but instead forces many of them out of their naturally valuable functions and healthy states into protective and/or extreme roles and makes them lose trust in the leadership of the Self, which is the undamaged essense of a person that manifests qualities like acceptance, compassion, and clarity. The goal then becomes not to eliminate parts but instead to help them relax into the knowledge that they no longer have to be so protective. The work assists them in realizing that they are no longer under the same level of threat and that there exists a natural inner leader who they can trust. In this way, IFS brings family systems thinking to this internal family, understanding distressed parts in their context, just as family therapists do with problem children, and restoring inner leadership in a way that parallels the creation of secure attachments between parents and children.
IFS distinguishes between two basic categories of parts: protectors and exiles. Exiles are the highly vulnerable, sensitive parts of us that were most hurt by emotional injuries in the past. Because these parts remain frozen in time, still holding the dreadful emotions and beliefs from those experiences, people try to disconnect from them so as to never reexperience the painful emotions and memories they carry–hence the name exiles.
Exiles carry the affect that clients try to regulate through strategies mentioned above like thought suppression, experiential avoidance, and emotional nonacceptance. It is the protector parts that use those strategies and others to control the person's inner environment, internally keeping the person away from the exiles, and to control the person's external world so that the exiles are never triggered by people or events.
