Scan barcode
A review by butchriarchy
No Bad Parts: Healing Trauma and Restoring Wholeness with the Internal Family Systems Model by Richard C. Schwartz
I have to say this is a difficult book to review. I had decided to drop it after the weird cultish vibes I got from the beginning chapters, but after some investigating and questioning, I decided to continue reading. I definitely have an issue with the spiritual tone it takes which seems to borrow from Eastern tradition, sometimes taking a denigrating tone to it, which sounds a lot to me like white academics taking only what they like from nonwhite cultures and putting their own twist on it (much like how a lot of mindfulness is spun), while claiming to be this New, Unique Thing.
That aside, I have to admit that it's a bit hard to swallow, as he says that the inner world he describes is not imaginary or symbolic but full of real beings. I suppose it's a natural knee-jerk reaction when we conceptualize the self as singular, whereas the only people who possess multiple parts are people with severe trauma like those diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder, a highly stigmatized condition. This is why I was resistant to the idea because it seemed like it was minimizing that condition by saying, essentially, We Are All Multiple. But I wonder if that kind of thinking would help actually destigmatize DID? I'm still not sure, which is why I still have reservations.
Another note about these parts being their own independent beings: I'm still not sure, as I'm not that far into this therapy yet (after some reluctance to continue), but it seems to me like for some people, it could make dissociation worse, in a way that you don't really feel grounded or connected at all, but feel like emotions actually being the externalization of parts that aren't really "you." So I'm wondering if that could be inherently damaging to some people.
I can still conceptualize it because I do believe the traumatized person with dissociation does experience a kind of "fragmentation" of self, like these "parts" he describes. That is literally what dissociation means, a disconnection from the self, and DID is simply the most extreme manifestation of dissociation.
I was just very uncomfortable with a lot of the spiritual language he uses. I don't think psychotherapy should have that kind of approach; it's not something everyone is going to be receptive of, especially those traumatized by religion or regular skeptics. It comes off as really hokey and New Age-y.
I still do not like how he presents IFS as the best solution to literally every global problem because I don't think it's that simple, especially if it's crafted around a spiritual lens which, yeah, not everyone is going to be comfortable with. I feel like it's best to treat it within the realm of psychotherapy, like ego state therapy and voice dialogue, both of which are similar.
Overall, I think this book doesn't truly illuminate what IFS is. I feel like in practice, it could end up being however the therapist understands it, and, if I'm any indication, it could go very awry. There's no real concrete way to do it, no solid methods, as I've read across the internet as well. So I think the effectiveness has a lot of variability, which largely hasn't even been studied, so it's not anywhere near evidence-based either aside from two studies.
That aside, I have to admit that it's a bit hard to swallow, as he says that the inner world he describes is not imaginary or symbolic but full of real beings. I suppose it's a natural knee-jerk reaction when we conceptualize the self as singular, whereas the only people who possess multiple parts are people with severe trauma like those diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder, a highly stigmatized condition. This is why I was resistant to the idea because it seemed like it was minimizing that condition by saying, essentially, We Are All Multiple. But I wonder if that kind of thinking would help actually destigmatize DID? I'm still not sure, which is why I still have reservations.
Another note about these parts being their own independent beings: I'm still not sure, as I'm not that far into this therapy yet (after some reluctance to continue), but it seems to me like for some people, it could make dissociation worse, in a way that you don't really feel grounded or connected at all, but feel like emotions actually being the externalization of parts that aren't really "you." So I'm wondering if that could be inherently damaging to some people.
I can still conceptualize it because I do believe the traumatized person with dissociation does experience a kind of "fragmentation" of self, like these "parts" he describes. That is literally what dissociation means, a disconnection from the self, and DID is simply the most extreme manifestation of dissociation.
I was just very uncomfortable with a lot of the spiritual language he uses. I don't think psychotherapy should have that kind of approach; it's not something everyone is going to be receptive of, especially those traumatized by religion or regular skeptics. It comes off as really hokey and New Age-y.
I still do not like how he presents IFS as the best solution to literally every global problem because I don't think it's that simple, especially if it's crafted around a spiritual lens which, yeah, not everyone is going to be comfortable with. I feel like it's best to treat it within the realm of psychotherapy, like ego state therapy and voice dialogue, both of which are similar.
Overall, I think this book doesn't truly illuminate what IFS is. I feel like in practice, it could end up being however the therapist understands it, and, if I'm any indication, it could go very awry. There's no real concrete way to do it, no solid methods, as I've read across the internet as well. So I think the effectiveness has a lot of variability, which largely hasn't even been studied, so it's not anywhere near evidence-based either aside from two studies.