Key points
- IFS encourages us to look at our relationships with others and contextualize them.
- We are all subject to our responses to the harm and trauma we experience. The differences between us are few.
- Bridging sociology and IFS has many positive possibilities.
- Sociologically locating one’s Self gives us a path toward healing.
Dr. Richard C. Schwartz’s work developing the Internal Family Systems (IFS) model of therapeutic practice has become increasingly popular (e.g., Schwartz, 2021). Celebrities like Alanis Morissette, Jonathan Van Ness, and Sarah McLachlan have publicly praised the approach, citing its unique abilities to heal trauma and build connection, clarity, and compassion. Numerous clinicians, therapists, and life coaches have offered their own versions of IFS, with specificities around various topics such as motherhood (Close, 2026), eating (Catanzaro, 2026), and addictions (Sykes et al., 2023).
After reading dozens of IFS iterations, I found myself connecting deeply with these approaches—not only because IFS is a groundbreaking trauma-informed set of practices, but also due to its inherently sociological elements
In this first post in a series of three, I offer sociological support for IFS by discussing opposition to “bad” or “evil” framings of human behavior and psychology. In doing so, this collective series aims to offer support for IFS and expands into a deeper understanding of its parameters as related to the field of sociology
No Such Thing as Evil
In my 20+ years of teaching (Worthen, 2022), I have encouraged my students to see the sociological constructions of de being labeled as “deic class, etc—and how each of us is deconceptualize this framework through the lens of empathy, Schwartz grounds his (similar) work in the “no bad parts” motto
Both approaches recognize that there is no such thing as “bad” or “evil” parts or people. We are all subject to our responses to the harm and trauma we experience. The differences between us are few. What is essential is that we learn how we engage with our inner selves and heal amidst the difficulties that we will all face as human beings
During my initial read of No Bad Parts(Schwartz, 2021), I found myself penning sociological concepts and ideas in the margins. One was a note I wrote about psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) and one of his books, The Lucifer Effect (Zimbardo, 2008). Ever since I learned about the Stanford experiment in my undergraduate psychology class, Zimbardo’s claims that “good” people can turn “evil” has troubled me
My interpretation of the study’s events was much different than his. I didn’t feel that DaveEshelman, often described as the most abusive and sadistic “guard,” was becoming “evil” due to the power he was arbitrarily given. Instead, I suspected that it was likely something about the other “guards” and their collective influence that led to their horrendous treatment of the “prisoners.” I didn’t know it at the time, but I was thinking sociologically
Fast forward to when I began teaching sociology: I took an unconventional approach to The Stanford Prison Experiment to teach my students about differential association theory. First developed by criminologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939, the basic premise behind this theory is that the techniques, motives, and rationalizations of criminal behavior are learned and reinforced within intimate personal groups, most often amongst delinquent peers. The more persuasive group members are toward criminal behavior, the more likely each will participate in crime (Sutherland, 1939).
Differential association theory was later adapted by criminologist Ronald Akers into a more comprehensive theory about social learning which considers the processes of learning crime/criminalitynitions (Akers, 1998)
After learning about these sociological/criminological theories and then reviewing The Stanford Prison Experiment, my students tend to quickly come to the conclusion that this experiment was less about individual psychology and the processes of becoming a “lucifer,” and more about the collective influence groups and group experiences can have on behavior. In other words, together my students and I conclude that there is no “evil”—only situations that can push people into coping with traumatic experiences through violence.
I will admit that when I first picked up No Bad Parts, I was highly skeptical. I did not believe that anyone could fully convince me that rapists, child molesters, and murderers aren’t at least a little “bad.” But Schwartz’s (2021) firsthand accounts of his therapeutic practices with these types of people did convince me. In fact, I found myself realizing that I already believed this to be true
Ethics and Morality Essential Reads
Kristen Bell, Stoicism, and People-Pleasing
The Ethics of Microlooting
In my teaching, I discuss motivations for rape and I encourage my students to blur the boundaries between us (law abiding, non-violent people) and them (criminals, rapists, murderers), and see that there is no such thing as an “evil lucifer.” More generally, the main takeaways in my sexual de
- What we think of as “deviance” is, in itself, neither inherently bad nor good; it is a social construct.
- Sexual deviants, then, are also neither inherently bad, nor good, but rather the socially constructed stigmas attached to certain people, behaviors, and identities categorize them as such.
- Sexual deviants are just like you and me—in fact, they are you and me.
The IFS model highlights these elements by working to expose the humanity in us all in efforts to heal trauma and live as our true Self—no evil, no bad parts, no bad people
Sociocultural scripts about what is right/wrong sometimes push us into thinking we are somehow fundamentally “bad” and that something is wrong with us. We bury those parts down until they become exiles and we attempt to keep those exiles at bay through other parts, like managers and firefighters
But if we get curious about our Self, we can unburden our trauma. If we do the work that IFS methods outline, we can understand why we feel the way we do, what the context of those feelings is, heal, and live as our true Selves. As psychologist Jesse Bering writes in his book Perv: The Sexual De
“It’s not easy, but digging into the darkest corners of our sexual nature (that is to say our ‘perversions’) can expose what keeps us from making real moral progress whenever the issues of equality and sexual diversity arise. With each defensive layer we remove, the rats therein will flee at the daylight falling at their feet, and the opportunity to eradicate such a pestilence of fear and ignorance makes the excavation of our species’s lascivious soul worth our getting a little dirty along the way” (Bering, 2013, pp. 6–7).
Sociology and IFS
Sociological thinking is already embedded into the framework of IFS. Schwartz and others ask us to consider how our elements from our childhood, especially trauma through our relationships with others, may have shaped our difficulties in our adulthood. Highlighting the significance of family structure, Schwartz writes “context is everything” (2021; p. 61)
In other words, your Self is understood best when it is contextualized. By pushing us to look within—at our parts—IFS is simultaneously encouraging us to look at our relationships with others and contextualize them within larger sociocultural constructs including racism, classism, sexism, patriarchy, colonialism and many other infrastructures that cause us harm
Thinking about our Self in society, that is, sociologically locating one’s Self, gives us a path toward healing from the inside out. In closing, bridging sociology and IFS has many positive possibilities. Contextualizing your feelings (perhaps another “C”) is one of them
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and De
Bering, J. (2013). Perv: The Sexual Deroux
Catanzaro, J. (2026). Unburdened Eating: Healing Your Relationships with Food and Your Body Using an Internal Family Systems (IFS) Approach. Bridge City Books
Close, A. (2026). Unburdening Motherhood: A Guide to Breaking Cycles, Healing Trauma, and Becoming a Self-Led Mom. Health Communications Inc
Schwartz, R. C. (2021). No Bad Parts: Healing Trauma and Restoring Wholeness with the Internal Family Systems Model. Sounds True
Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles of Criminology. J. B. Lippincott
Sykes, C., Sweezy, M., & Schwartz, R. C. (2023). Internal Family Systems Therapy for Addictions: Trauma-Informed, Compassion-Based Interventions for Substance Use, Eating, Gambling and More. PESI Publishing, Inc
Worthen, M. G. F. (2022). Sexual De
Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House Trade Paperbacks
