Obviously, aspects of Internal Family Systems (IFS) might prove elusive or difficult to grasp. Why are patients with eating disorders said to be exceptionally difficult to treat? Why do so many sources mention the particular suitability of IFS to treat eating disorders? And yet, why do some experts consider it an unsafe form of psychotherapy?
If the popular Internal Family Systems philosophy is quite possibly dangerous, or even simply misguided, inconsequential, or otherwise unworthy of attention, why devote so many words to it? Because it cannot be ignored. The number of adherents and practitioners is startling. This may be because, despite sounding perhaps unlikely, some of the basic notions are either familiar enough to be comfortable with, or unfamiliar enough to be intriguing.
Although the tenets are controversial, they are by no means original. For example, we noted how, several decades ago, the popularity of a particular book was able to dramatically increase public awareness of multiple personality disorder. Once the existence of a new malady is confirmed, the day inevitably comes when the public will “take that ball and run with it,” as the saying goes.
Age of Aquarius
Along came the Sixties, when huge numbers of young (and not-young) Americans tuned in to ancient ideas, and turned on to new ones. Our society has entertained some interesting notions and practices. Although Richard C. Schwartz did not suggest this, a case could even be made that the additional inner beings he posited might originate from previous existences.
Each “part” is like you, because they all are you, and yet each brings to the table its own concerns, talents, and traumas. Over thousands of years, millions of humans have accepted the concept of reincarnation. It would not be difficult to interpret those voices as echoes from one’s own successive physical presences on Earth.
We see how people might be persuaded that each human contains a whole crowd of entities, all with different and important roles. Even if we are unable to prove it with science, most of us have experienced the feeling of not being ourselves, as if another driver had metaphorically taken the wheel and steered us to a bad place. Still, it is a matter for concern that large numbers of professionals have climbed on board with the multiple personality premise, a theory that is, after all, not amenable to proof.
Not uncomfortable yet?
Strong objections have been voiced regarding a corollary of IFS dogma that many experts do not accept, or at least have limited enthusiasm for. This is the idea that most early-life trauma has to do with sex. For decades, that carnal connection was mostly associated with Freud. It is not difficult to see why, even within the professional realm, it might draw negative attention.
As journalist Rachel Corbett discovered, some therapists, reviewers, and patients have embraced (maybe too enthusiastically) the apparently extensive connection between eating/food issues and early sexual trauma. Patients tend to want to please their therapists, and when multiple interior beings are proposed, are perhaps too eager to find those “parts” within themselves.
Especially when the patients or clients are minors, emphasizing this view of things can attract unfavorable attention. Regardless of how severe the problem is, or even how logically obvious it might appear that some type of sexually-oriented trauma could be the root of it, no practicing therapist wants a lawsuit involving an underage individual.
Your responses and feedback are welcome!
Source: “Internal Family Systems and Eating Disorders: A Compassionate Approach to Recovery,” BalancedAwakening.com, 12/01/25
Image by SHVETS production/Pexels
FAQs and Media Requests: 
