Decolonising Therapy: Interrogating the Ground We Stand On Through IFS
The landscape of mental health is shifting. Conversations once relegated to academic corners are now surfacing, demanding attention and action. Among these is the critical discourse around decolonising therapy. This isn’t a niche concern; it’s a fundamental re-evaluation of the very foundations upon which Western psychotherapy is built. As therapists, we are increasingly called upon to examine the origins of our models, the biases embedded within them, and their impact on diverse global communities.
This exploration is particularly pertinent within the framework of Internal Family Systems (IFS). IFS, a model that views the psyche as comprised of multiple “parts” and a core “Self,” has gained significant traction. However, as Alessio and Jude discuss on their podcast “Queering IFS,” the journey of IFS, like many therapeutic modalities, is not immune to the pervasive influence of colonial legacies. We are here to delve into this complex topic, to interrogate the ground we stand on, and to consider how we can move towards more liberatory therapeutic practices.
Understanding Decolonisation in Therapy
Decolonising therapy is about more than just acknowledging historical injustices. It is an active process of dismantling the structures of thought, practice, and power that were imposed by colonial forces. This involves critically examining dominant paradigms, particularly those originating from white, Western, cisgender, and able-bodied perspectives. It means questioning whose knowledge is valued, whose experiences are pathologised, and what constitutes “normal” or “neutral” within therapeutic contexts.
The dominant frameworks of psychotherapy, psychology, and psychiatry were largely developed by white, middle-class Western men. Jude highlights this crucial point, noting that these models often worked with non-white bodies, further complicating their universal applicability. The roots of these therapeutic practices, and by extension, IFS, are deeply embedded in these Western frameworks. Recognising this is the first step in decolonising from the inside out.
The Pervasive Influence of Cultural Burdens
Dick Schwartz, the founder of IFS, identified several “cultural burdens” that impact our systems: capitalism, patriarchy, and individualism. Alessio rightly expands this list to include ableism, racism, and many more, acknowledging the seemingly endless nature of these oppressive forces. These burdens are not abstract concepts; they shape our internal landscapes and are reflected in the therapeutic models we utilise.
Individualism, in particular, is a cornerstone of many Western approaches. The idea that distress is located solely within the individual, and that pathology is an individualised issue, often overlooks the systemic structures that perpetuate oppression. When therapy solely focuses on an individual’s internal experience without acknowledging the external power structures at play, it risks becoming a tool for maintaining the status quo rather than fostering genuine liberation.
IFS and the Challenge of Decolonisation
Internal Family Systems offers a powerful framework for understanding the complexities of the human psyche. It posits that we all have a wise, compassionate Self that can guide our internal world. However, as Alessio and Jude explore, the way IFS is disseminated and practised globally is not exempt from colonial influences.
The expansion of IFS into non-Western countries, for example, often involves English-speaking trainers and curricula developed in Western contexts. This can inadvertently impose a specific cultural understanding of the model, potentially overshadowing indigenous wisdom and local cultural nuances. The challenge lies in ensuring that IFS remains a flexible, adaptable model responsive to diverse cultural contexts, rather than a monolithic Western export.
Whose Knowledge Counts?
The question of “certified by whom?” and “approved by who?” raised by Alessio is central to decolonising therapy. It prompts us to question the authority and legitimacy granted to certain knowledge systems. When we privilege Western psychological frameworks, we risk marginalising or even erasing valuable indigenous healing practices and understandings of the mind.
This interrogation extends to how we define mental health and illness. Whose definition of well-being do we adopt? Who gets pathologised, and what constitutes “normal”? These are not merely academic questions; they have profound implications for how we support our clients, especially those from marginalised communities.
Confidentiality and Individualism: A Western Construct
The concept of therapeutic confidentiality, deeply ingrained in Western practice, provides a compelling example of a culturally specific construct. Alessio shares an experience from their studies, highlighting how in many non-Western cultures, the idea of paying for secrecy might not resonate. The Western emphasis on individual healing through private discourse can seem alien or even unhelpful to those whose cultural understanding of healing is more communal or integrated with societal well-being.
This focus on individualism can lead to a therapeutic approach that treats symptoms without addressing the underlying systemic issues. When a client is experiencing distress due to oppressive societal structures, a purely individualistic therapeutic approach might inadvertently place the burden on the individual to adapt or “heal” from the trauma inflicted by those structures. This can lead to a form of therapy that merely makes one a “better worker” or a more compliant participant in a harmful system, rather than a liberatory force.
Personal Experiences of Systemic Oppression
Alessio recounts a personal experience of being in a middle management role where they were overloaded with unmanageable work, excluded from decisions, and then had their role eliminated. The system’s response was to label Alessio as “too weak” or “too sensitive,” rather than acknowledging the leadership’s incompetence or the abusive power dynamics at play. This is a stark illustration of how systemic issues can be individualised, placing the blame and the “problem” squarely on the person experiencing the distress.
This experience underscores the importance of understanding that distress is often a coherent response to harmful environments. When systems of power are operating abusively, it is not the individual’s fault for being crushed by them. Therapy, in this context, can either reinforce this individualisation of distress or help the client to see the systemic roots of their suffering.
The Ethical Dilemma: Shoring Up or Liberating?
As therapists, we face an ethical imperative to consider the impact of our interventions. Jude poses a critical question: are we shoring someone up to endure a harmful world, or are we helping them to dismantle the structures that cause harm? This is not about solving the world’s problems of capitalism or colonialism, which are indeed beyond the power of any single therapist.
Instead, it is about acknowledging the waters in which our clients and we are swimming. It involves an ongoing conversation with ourselves, our supervisors, and our clients about the origins of distress. When clients have done their internal work, the next step is to help them see the invisible power structures that are causing harm, recognising that their symptoms are often coherent responses to those structures.
The Cultural Shape of IFS and Beyond
The decolonisation discussion is not limited to IFS; it applies to all therapeutic modalities. Jude points out that even concepts like “Self-energy” within IFS are shaped by cultural context. IFS, as an approach, is relatively young, about 40 years old. However, the concept of multiplicity of mind, or parts, is ancient and has been understood in myriad ways across cultures for millennia.
The risk is that Western psychology, psychiatry, and psychotherapy have, in many ways, colonised the psyche. This means that even a model like IFS, which has proven incredibly accessible and helpful to many, can become another vehicle for imposing a Western worldview if not approached with critical awareness. Holding rigidly to a specific model, and becoming frustrated when clients’ internal systems don’t conform, can be a sign that we are expecting them to fit a pre-determined box or are ignoring the larger cultural context.
Reclaiming Multiplicity: Beyond Western Sanction
Jude touches on a vital point: within living memory, individuals who heard voices or experienced multiplicity of personality were often incarcerated or heavily medicated. IFS emerged as a brave model within Western medicine by acknowledging multiplicity. Yet, models of multiplicity of mind, gender, and identity exist universally.
White Western medicine has a history of erasing indigenous wisdom and practices. It is crucial to recognise that the acceptance of certain concepts, like multiplicity, within Western frameworks does not negate their prior existence and validity elsewhere. When these concepts are reintroduced through a Western lens, it can feel like a form of epistemicide – the destruction of knowledge.
Moving Forward: An Ethical Imperative
Decolonising therapy is an ongoing process, not a destination. It requires continuous self-reflection, critical engagement with our therapeutic models, and a commitment to understanding our clients’ diverse experiences. As Alessio and Jude conclude, this is about starting conversations, asking difficult questions, and inviting others to do the same.
A Call to Action
The journey of decolonising therapy begins with awareness. It means actively questioning the assumptions embedded in our therapeutic frameworks and considering how they might perpetuate harm. By interrogating the cultural biases within IFS and other modalities, we can move towards therapeutic practices that are truly liberatory, honouring the diverse experiences and wisdom of all individuals.
For those interested in delving deeper, Dr. Jennifer Mullins’ book, “Decolonising Therapy,” is a recommended starting point. Continued dialogue, as fostered by podcasts like “Queering IFS,” is essential. By engaging in these critical conversations, we contribute to a more just and equitable therapeutic future
