Subtle Patterns in IFS: The Edge Between Healing and Bypass
When Parts Work Distances Us From Ourselves and Others
Over the years, I’ve sat with a handful of clients who diligently track their inner system with meticulous care—naming parts, identifying protectors1, trying to stay in Self2. And yet, despite all the clarity and language, something essential remains untouched: the unfiltered direct experience.
Internal Family Systems (IFS) has become one of the most widely used and respected trauma-informed modalities, and for good reason. But what happens when the very tools designed to foster healing begin to replicate the same patterns of distance, control, or bypass they were meant to help unwind? I will be focusing on IFS and some of the common patterns I’ve observed when the model is applied in ways that, intentionally or not, bypass deeper relational or somatic layers of trauma — whether through the lens of the client’s adaptations, the therapist’s orientation, or the interplay between them.
Let me be clear from the outset: this is not a critique of IFS as a modality. Its contributions to the field of trauma therapy are immense, particularly in how it destigmatizes internal multiplicity and helps clients relate to their inner world with more compassion. But like any framework, when applied too rigidly or without sufficient nuance, IFS can lead to certain patterns that are worth examining—especially for clients with complex trauma or systems primed for control-based coping strategies. Below are ways I’ve seen IFS become shaped by the client’s internal defenses, and at times, unknowingly reinforced by the therapeutic container.
Premature Push Toward Self-Regulation: IFS emphasizes unblending3 and cultivating a relationship between Self and parts, which can build stability, capacity, and a clearer sense of Self—empowering clients to choose when and how to blend rather than be overwhelmed by parts. Developing the capacity not to blend is often vital for self-regulation and autonomy. However, for clients with early relational neglect or complex trauma, there is a subtle risk: becoming fixed in a “Self” stance can inadvertently encourage quasi-regulation—a form of internal problem-solving or self-soothing that mirrors the survival strategies they developed as children when attuned co-regulation was unavailable. Internal self-regulation does not emerge in isolation; it is learned through repeated, attuned co-regulation with attachment figures. In therapy, blended states under safe, guided conditions allow the therapist to provide relational scaffolding and corrective experiences, helping the nervous system gradually internalize these patterns and develop authentic, bottom-up self-regulation. Without revisiting intentional blending, clients risk reinforcing patterns of premature self-sufficiency, substituting mental or cognitive compassion for the relational and somatic experiences that foster genuine internal stability.
Distancing from Immediate Need: A subtle dynamic I’ve observed is the way parts language can dilute relational vulnerability. Instead of a client saying, "I’m scared," they might say, "A part of me is scared." While this language can create space and reduce overwhelm, which is sometimes needed, it can also create distance. For some clients, especially those who already struggle to express need or connect vulnerably, this framing can keep core feelings at arm’s length. The emotional truth gets embedded in a meta-framework, and the possibility of being deeply seen or met in it becomes just slightly out of reach
Personifying Dissociation: When dissociation is turned into a “part,” it pulls clients further from their direct experience. Instead of encountering dissociation as a biological state—a nervous system response to threat—it gets reframed as an internal character to analyze or manage. This shift can create a distorted relationship to one’s own physiology, making what is fundamentally simple (a survival response) more complex and harder to trust. For clients with complex trauma, who often already mistrust their survival responses because their biological defenses have frequently clashed with attachment needs, this can reinforce disconnection rather than repair it. Instead of rebuilding trust in the body’s natural defenses, personifying dissociation risks repeating the pattern of distancing from the very organismic intelligence that needs to be restored.
Controlling the Internal Landscape: Some clients co-opt parts work as a way to control and manage their internal world with greater efficacy. This can show up as intense tracking of parts, analyzing which protector is doing what, or obsessively mapping internal dynamics — a form of mental jiu-jitsu that keeps the mind busy while avoiding deeper affective or somatic material. While this inward turn can feel empowering, it can also replace the necessary risk of relational engagement. Instead of practicing new relational behaviors with others, like setting boundaries or expressing needs, the energy is poured into managing the internal family. The therapeutic movement then stays internal, and the outside world remains largely untouched by the client’s growing sense of self. In this way, autonomy is achieved — but only within the self, not in the intersubjective field where healing from early relational wounding often takes place.
Even the most well-intentioned models can be subtly co-opted by the mind’s defenses, transforming tools meant to foster healing into ways of organizing, controlling, or avoiding experience. This isn’t a failure of the modality or the client—it’s a reminder of how adaptive, and sometimes clever, our defenses can be.
The work, then, becomes noticing: How are we engaging with the parts, with the tools, with the body and relational field? Are we leaning into discomfort, curiosity, and relational risk, or are we creating safety through distance and control? For therapists, this is an ongoing reflection on how we hold the container; for clients, it’s an invitation to sense what it feels like to inhabit their inner world without bypass.
Healing, after all, is rarely linear or tidy. It asks for curiosity, patience, and the willingness to sit with what emerges—even when it’s messy, uncomfortable, or doesn’t fit neatly into any framework. By staying attentive to these subtle dynamics, we create space not only for what is beneath the surface to be seen, felt, and integrated, but also for clients to allow themselves to be close to their own experience and to the relational field, gradually undoing the patterns of distance and bypass that once protected them. In this closeness, there is the possibility to meet the deeper self, to feel connection where it was previously blocked, and to cultivate trust in both their inner world and the relationships that hold it.
for more, subscribe to my substack
1 Protectors: In IFS, protectors are parts that develop to manage and defend the system from emotional pain or perceived threat. They aim to keep the individual safe by either preventing vulnerability (managers) or extinguishing distress once it arises (firefighters).
2 Self: In IFS (Internal Family Systems) language, the Self is the core, innate essence of a person that embodies qualities like curiosity, compassion, confidence, calmness, clarity, creativity, courage, and connectedness (often summarized as the “8 Cs” in IFS literature)
3 Unblending: The practice of separating the Self from an activated part so that the Self can lead, witness, and relate to the part without being dominated by it.
