By Lissa Rankin, MD, with IFS founder Dick Schwartz & IFS Institute CEO Katie Nelson
IFS has grown so much so quickly, and more people than ever have heard about it and are interested in practicing it, which is great. IFS has been a game changer for my healing journey, so it makes me happy to bump into total strangers who are also practicing the IFS model, getting IFS therapy, and talking about their parts.
I’m new in town after moving from my home of 17 years, but a new friend invited me to a potluck, and when I walked in the room, a big burly lumberjack-looking man who I’d never met, who recognized me from teaching with IFS founder Dick Schwartz, approached me in a kind, open-hearted way and told me he’d met a new “exile” (wounded inner child) that morning. Upon my gentle acknowledgment of that part of him and invitation for him to introduce it to me, should he wish, he proceeded to tell me about the young vulnerable part he met. It felt like such a privilege, to be granted that kind of access to his vulnerability without knowing him very well. IFS has a tendency to do that to people. When others know you practice IFS, they trust that you won’t use their vulnerability against them, that it’s okay to talk about feelings, and that tender parts will find a receptive sanctuary for space holding. I felt honored to meet this gentleman and shared with him a young part of me I was working with recently. Our inner children got to play together for a brief time and we shared a dance on the dance floor. I love that about IFS.
My endorsement of the IFS model can be seen all over my professional work. I’ve published two IFS-adjacent books (Mind Over Medicine and Sacred Medicine) and am mid process of publishing three more (Relationsick, The Boundaries Handbook, and Love Bigger.) I’ve written dozens of blog posts, taught dozens of online workshops that include IFS, and recorded YouTube videos.I run two IFS-informed communities- LOVE SCHOOL and The Writer’s Calling that are ongoing IFS communities of practice, and I’ve been working to launch Heal At Last, a non-profit devoted to health equity, with the mission to make IFS more affordable and accessible for those who deserve it and need it but can’t access or pay full price for it. It’s because I care so much that I think it’s important to have the hard conversations as communities of practice grow, evolve, scale, and run the risk of getting derailed, if we’re not careful to cult-proof our communities.
But as with many things that grow quickly, the widespread adoption of IFS also means there’s a risk of diluting the model, misinterpreting the model, having the model appropriated by people who don’t adequately understand it, or having IFS enthusiasts grasp onto this newly popular therapy model with cult-like missionary zeal. As one of my clients put it, “those who practice IFS feel like the cool kids from high school.” There’s a cliquey “in crowd” vibe to it, she explained, especially in online spaces that I don’t frequent. She said she gets that vibe less from the actual IFS leaders and trainers than from the people who have appropriated it in social media groups, where dissent is not always welcomed and skeptics are sometimes shamed for not being 100% IFS purists. As someone who teaches IFS and might have some proximity to any IFS “in crowd,” I could see how being outside of it might activate parts.
As an IFS adjacent educator, I’ve had students ask me this question- “Is IFS a cult?” And I’ve been pondering the question for nearly a year now. I informed Dick Schwartz many months ago that I was thinking about trying to open a community conversation about the question, to crowd source it, and he supported my impulse to do so. If you’re curious what others in the IFS community had to say, you can track the conversation or add to it on this Facebook post.
What Does IFS Founder Dick Schwartz Think About Whether IFS Is A Cult?
I’ve spent a lot of time lately in the cult recovery space because both my sister and my partner Jeff are cult survivors. So I’ve read many of the books and listened to many of the cult recovery podcasts, like A Little Bit Culty, Indoctrination, and Conspirituality. IFS clearly isn’t a cult the way many of the cults featured on those podcasts are, but many of the known cults did start as therapy, self-help, or spirituality circles, all of which describe IFS.
I had a conversation with IFS founder Dick Schwartz a few months back about this. Dick said:
“I do agree that there are an increasing number of IFS zealots and that may be why you’re getting this question. It’s also inevitable when something gets as popular as IFS has become. I don’t know how to control how many are using it without proper training and it concerns me. My response in general is that most cults are based around a charismatic leader who tells them what to think and do. IFS is based on finding the leader in yourself who, rather than telling you what to do, brings love and compassion to all your parts. I don’t tell you to believe in this because I say it’s true but instead, this is what I’ve found. I invite people to explore within themselves to see if it bears out. In these senses, it’s an anti-cult because it empowers people rather than asks for them to give me their power. Feel free to quote me.”
I want to make clear that I deeply appreciate IFS founder Dick Schwartz and the heart-centered community he’s created, and I have no intention for this to be a “hit piece.” It’s been a wonderful healing field for me personally, and I’ve greatly benefited from in person workshops, reading books, listening to Dick’s guided IFS meditations, and attending and presenting at the IFS conference. I’ve been working with the IFS model for over a decade and I’ve known and loved Dick Schwartz for about that long. My parts melt in the presence of his Self energy, and that has never changed. Dick has facilitated many therapy sessions for me, my partner, and some of my closest friends, and I’ve co-taught three full workshops with him and many other partial workshops. So my gratitude and respect cannot be overstated. I don’t have any desire to hurt Dick Schwartz or the IFS Institute, and in fact, parts of me were quite scared to try to write this essay and share it with Dick. HIs generous spirit about the process of exploring the question “Is IFS a cult?” was quite trust-building and heart warming for me, even if we don’t always see eye to eye on every single thing.
Because my desire is to discuss this topic openly and transparently, I shared this article with Dick Schwartz and Katie Nelson, the CEO of the IFS Institute, who both share some of my concerns and care deeply about cult-proofing our community and having the hard conversations. Mostly, Dick, Katie and I agree on these issues and agreed to let me add their names to the byline. We had few areas of disagreement, and where we do disagree, you’ll see me (Lissa) sharing my point of view and then you’ll see Dick and Katie’s comments in italics. Anywhere that no rebuttal is listed, we generally agree about areas to watch out for as we grow and evolve as the IFS community. I appreciate that it’s okay to disagree within a community of practice. Leaders within the IFS community, as well as students and trainers, do not always have to agree about everything, which is one of many reasons I don’t believe IFS is a cult.
First, What Is a Cult?
Cult experts like Robert Jay Lifton and Janja Lalich often define cults by some or all of these characteristics:
- A charismatic leader who claims to hold unique truth or divine authority
- Coercive control of every aspect of the lives of followers (what they eat, what they wear, what information outside the cult they consume, who they hang out with, who they have sex with, what exercises they do or don’t do, etc)
- A strong us/them mentality, with grandiosity on the “us” side of things and devaluation of “them”
- Isolation from outside influence or dissenting views
- Pressure to conform, obey, or suppress doubt
- Unquestioning reverence for the teachings or teacher and contempt for anyone who challenges the teacher or teachings
- Exploitative or coercive power dynamics
- Emotional, spiritual, financial, or sexual manipulation
Robert Jay Lifton’s 8 Criteria of Thought Reform
From Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, Lifton identified 8 markers of environments that engage in thought reform, often used to identify cult-like behavior:
- Milieu Control- Regulation of information and communication within the group.
- Mystical Manipulation- The group claims higher purpose or divine authority; experiences are staged or framed as miraculous.
- Demand for Purity– Members are expected to meet impossible standards; guilt and shame are used to control behavior.
- Confession- Group encourages or requires public or private confessions, often to leaders who use them for control.
- Sacred Science- The group’s doctrine is treated as absolute, unquestionable truth.
- Loading the Language- Use of jargon or language that reshapes thinking and restricts critical reflection.
- Doctrine over Person- Individual experiences are overridden by the group’s doctrine (“If you’re suffering, it’s because you’re not aligned”).
- Dispensing of Existence– Outsiders are devalued; only members are considered truly alive, awake, or enlightened.
Janja Lalich’s Bounded Choice and Cultic Structure
In Bounded Choice and Take Back Your Life, Lalich emphasizes the internal logic and closed system of control in cults:
- Bounded Choice- Members appear to have free will but only within the narrow framework defined by the group’s ideology. All decisions are shaped to align with the group’s goals.
- Charismatic Authority- The leader is seen as uniquely special or divinely inspired; their authority is rarely questioned.
- Transcendent Belief System- The group offers a totalistic worldview with the promise of salvation, healing, or transformation.
- Systems of Control and Systems of Influence- Control = structure, rules, discipline, Influence = peer pressure, emotional manipulation, reward/punishment.
- Self-Sealing Logic- Any doubts or dissent are explained away within the group’s ideology, making it impossible to question the system without being seen as the problem.
By none of these criteria does the IFS community qualify as a cult. Nobody in the IFS community is telling me what to eat, what to wear, who to vote for, what to read or not read, who I can or must have sex with, or what I must or can’t believe. There is no demand for obedience. There is no prescribed worldview or dogma. People are not cut off from their families or forced into groupthink or expected to live in a commune. IFS encourages deep listening, personal agency, and compassionate internal inquiry. You can practice IFS whether you’re religious or not, skeptical or a zealot, conservative or progressive. It’s an open-source system, and I’ve never seen anyone in the IFS community get ostracized for challenging the founder or adapting the teachings in ways that might be construed as not “towing the party line.”
If anything, Dick Schwartz has allowed himself to be challenged by therapists in the IFS community so many times that most people consider IFS a crowd-sourced model, made all the better by all the (mostly women) who challenged Dick Schwartz along the way- and he listened. He publicly admits how many times he’s realized he’s been wrong and has humbly admitted so and changed his point of view- and the IFS model along with it. This is not a very culty way to create a model. A cult leader would likely claim to have downloaded the whole shebang, untarnished by any other human’s potential interference!
Sure, there’s some jargony language unique to IFS, like managers, firefighters, exiles, trailheads, and unattached burdens. There’s a bit of a grandiose “save the world” transcendent belief that IFS can transform not just individuals but entire societies- and I’ve been guilty of spreading that message. I have felt a certain demand for purity from those who tone police dissent by accusing someone of “not being in Self.” And yes, some people do call Dick Schwartz “The Creator,” but as much as I care about him, I don’t think he’s particularly charismatic. He’s big teddy bear energy that makes my parts melt and feel safe. Even when he’s been upset at me (which has happened), he’s never abused his power or left me feeling unduly intimidated.
So…What Do I Think?
Maybe the better question than “Is IFS A Cult?” is “When does anything become culty—and how do we protect IFS from that fate?” How do we actually cult-proof our communities, and how can we spot the red flags early if things start to go off the rails? And what do we do to get back on track as a community if things do go astray?
I don’t think “trust Self” is a complete enough answer. We also need objective systems of accountability and consequences for parts-led behaviors that hurt people. And that needs to be more important than protecting the reputation of the IFS model or fulfilling some divine mission. Failure to get this right has played out in the psychedelic realm. Too many practitioners ignored too many clients who were abused by unethical practitioners practicing therapy without a license, all in the name of protecting the mission. It led to MAPS not getting FDA approval for MDMA-assisted therapy, as they were hoping. And it led to the whistleblowing podcast from season one of New York Magazine’s Cover Story podcast, targeting MAPS, Françoise Bourzat, and others who are accused of silencing dissent in the name of the psychedelic-assisted therapy mission.
I don’t want New York Magazine doing a podcast that targets the IFS community or Dick Schwartz. And I don’t want any people we might unintentionally harm in our pursuit of the IFS mission to get silenced. And yes, there’s a part of me that doesn’t want to be accused of recruiting for or covering up cultic behavior. If you haven’t listened to Cover Story, it’s worth a listen as a cautionary tale.
What concerns me is how many cults taught their followers that they were an anti-cult (like NXIVM.) I think it’s more helpful and more honest to discuss what could become culty about our communities than trying to prove that we’re not culty. For example, there are great 12 step groups, and then there are 12 step cults. The 12 step model is not itself a cult, just like the IFS model itself, in my opinion, is not a cult. But people with an inclination to abuse power and create culty relational/community dynamics might appropriate the IFS model to create subgroups that are cults. We have to keep our eyes open and our discernment honed for such things.
Here’s where I want to slow things down. Cults aren’t always defined by doctrine. Sometimes they’re defined by dynamics. Which means that while the IFS model itself may be “anti-cult,” it can still attract or create cult-like behavior when certain protector parts- peace-making parts, conflict avoidant parts, perfectionist parts, spiritual bypassing parts, self-righteous parts, know-it-all parts, parts that hope to shirk accountability when they do hurtful things to others, or parts that get activated when there’s disagreement between two or more people or when public figures get “canceled” because of narcissistic behavior- get overly attached to the model and hijack the model to promote the agenda of a part (which is NOT IFS.)
So no, I don’t think IFS is a cult. And no, I don’t think Dick Schwartz is a cult leader. I think he’s a wonderful and flawed human being, like all humans, who created something beautiful. Perhaps he and his colleagues are struggling, as anyone who experiences rapid growth of their work would, to keep the work as ethical and safe as possible, while strongly desiring rapid expansion of and acceptance of the model into the mainstream, which is happening, whether we like it or not.
For the purposes of cult-proofing our communities and talking about the culty dynamics that can be problematic, even if an organization doesn’t meet official criteria for cultdom, let’s talk about some of the areas where we, as a community, need to be careful to avoid crossing the line into culty behavior. Remember, IFS zealotry doesn’t have to look like robes and chanting or compound living. It can also look like:
-IFS As Panacea: Anyone who thinks IFS is a panacea that can treat any mental health condition, all of the time, for every person- and who criticizes anyone who suggests otherwise. At least doctors know penicillin works great for strep throat and doesn’t do shit for Covid. But many therapy evangelists get overly attached to one model and then blame the client if the model isn’t helping them heal.
-Us versus them mentality: Elevates IFS practitioners and devalues “people who don’t do their work,” contributing to grandiosity in the “us” group and narcissistic behaviors towards the “them” group, showing up as a spiritualized part that whispers, “I’m more enlightened than you because I know my parts.”
-The IFS Bypass: When ways to bypass accountability are built into the ethic of the community, or when people who practice justice-seeking or holding people to account are demonized as “not in Self,” that can get culty. While IFS offers a profound and compassionate framework for self-understanding, it can be misused in ways that echo the well-known pitfalls of spiritual bypassing. In spiritual bypassing, people use spiritual ideas or practices—like forgiveness, love and light, or non-attachment—to avoid feeling pain, bypass conflict, or deny anger. Similarly, the IFS bypass occurs when someone uses the language or tools of IFS—like “checking in with parts” or “coming from Self”—to avoid hard conversations, repress authentic emotional expression, or dismiss the impact of harmful behavior. What appears, on the surface, as a gentle and evolved way of relating can, in practice, become a strategy of avoidance and disconnection. The IFS bypass often shows up in relational dynamics where accountability is needed but uncomfortable. Instead of acknowledging harm, someone might say, “That was just a protector part,” as if naming it relieves them of the responsibility to repair or change. Or they may pressure others to relate only from Self, subtly shaming anyone expressing anger, grief, or trauma responses as “blended.” This reinforces the same kind of emotional hierarchy found in spiritual bypassing, where regulated, calm, and controlled states are seen as more evolved than raw, emotional, or reactive ones. The result is a covert culture of emotional perfectionism, where vulnerability becomes scripted and real-time rupture is avoided in favor of polished parts language.
-IFS as the one and only: Therapists who evangelize IFS, treating IFS as the only legitimate healing modality, may miss the opportunity to weave in a more integrative treatment approach that might need additional training, such as somatic therapies, EMDR, CBT or DBT, energy psychology, or trauma-informed bodywork.
-Muddy accountability for unlicensed practitioners who were certified by the IFS Institute. These folks may be wonderful practitioners, but because IFS trained lay people for many years without requiring licensure, many “coaches” call themselves therapists because the IFS Institute certified them without a graduate degree, license, or any formal training or accountability. Yet, they may not be trained in any other trauma healing methods and may not be fluent in moving between healing methods if only trained in IFS. Also, what are clients to do if there’s an ethics breach committed by unlicensed coaches or certified but not licensed IFS practitioners? I’ve had IFS clients come to me to report unethical behavior in certified IFS practitioners. When I’ve asked the IFS Institute what to do about such reports, they’ve told me to report the practitioner to their licensing board, but they’re unlicensed.
Regarding this issue, Dick Schwartz and Katie Nelson, the CEO of the IFS Institute, said, “We don’t know of any coaches who call themselves therapists because they’ve trained with us – although we do know that some may use the full method with their clients. It’s worth noting that we have taken close to a year to develop a program specifically for coaches that aligns with ICF guidelines on coaching practices. We are growing this programming thoughtfully and as we do, we are learning how we can safely apply IFS approaches in fields outside therapy. We are also launching a program in the fall with David Hoffman for mediators. He is always very clear on the difference between mediation and therapy. In both cases, we are screening for qualifications to ensure those we are providing these programs to, while they may not be licensed, they do have professional guidelines they learn/follow as part of their accreditation/ professional affiliations.”
-Some dual relationships between IFS leaders and their clients/ students. Because IFs started small and grew slowly in the beginning, there were a lot of dual relationships without traditional therapeutic boundaries. People were both clients of IFS leaders and also paid employees or volunteers for the organization. Friends were therapists to each other. From what people have told me, these dual relationships led to some hurt, distrust, and feelings of betrayal.
One justification I’ve heard people use to explain the permissiveness around fuzzy “gray zone” boundaries is that clients are attaching to Self, not the therapist, so transference/ countertransference is less likely. But even if that’s true, there’s always going to be a power differential between therapist and client. In the wrong hands, that can get exploited in harmful ways.
-Risk of financial exploitation: As is common in cults, the business of IFS trainings historically depended on volunteers who work tirelessly, are given few breaks, are expected to meet students needs at the expense of their own needs, and are mostly or completely unpaid. I’m told by the IFS Institute that things have changed, and now program assistants are provided with a daily stipend and provided with Continuing Education credits.
-IFS leaders cozying up with high profile celebrities: Part of IFS’s increased popularity is related to high profile celebrities who are embracing and endorsing the model, like Alanis Morrissette, Liz Gilbert, Gabby Bernstein, Tara Brach, Kristen Neff, Michael Pollen, Thomas Hűbl, and traumatology educators like Gabor Maté, Bessel Van Der Kolk, and Nicole LaPera.I deeply admire and respect the work of many of these celebrities, and I’m personally grateful to have their support as awareness of the model grows and as we need IFS-informed people, now more than ever! As I wrote about here, I view IFS as a deeply peace-making model, a way to have compassion for our hard to love parts and the hard to love parts of others. When practiced without bypassing accountability or justice, the IFS model can help us depolarize during deeply divisive times.
But in my personal opinion, not all celebrity endorsement helps the model, and it may indeed harm the reputation of IFS, just as it gains more mainstream traction. For example, it worried me that Françoise Bourzat, the disgraced psychedelics researcher who lost her Hakomi certification because of so many ethics violations, was a presenter at the IFS conference in the same year she was called out in the New York Magazine Cover Story podcast. With regard to Françoise Bourzat, Dick Schwartz wrote, “The news of the charges against Françoise Bourzat came out very shortly before our conference began. We had to make a quick decision about whether or not to continue with our plan to have her present. We did continue, but only after we let her know that we would ask her about the allegations during the plenary. We also spent time with her in preparation for the conversation to be sure that she would take accountability.”
While celebrity endorsements have been a positive boon to the popularity of IFS, it’s also been used to evoke compassion for the traumatized parts of celebrities like Aubrey Marcus who are causing harm and being held accountable by the communities. While all of us deserve support when things go wrong in our lives- and celebrities are no exception- extending IFS support and empathy in a public way to celebrities who may be perpetrating harm on others can come across as siding with the perpetrator and betraying victims. This can interfere with the public process of “calling in” or, if that fails, “calling out” abusive behaviors in celebrities. Instead of leveraging the power of leadership to side with victims and hold perpetrators to account, some IFS leaders may curry favor with celebrities by helping them feel less shame about their parts, with the underlying agenda to help heal their trauma, fulfill the IFS mission, or earn more money, which may leave less powerful victims feeling betrayed. It’s one thing to support celebrities privately. Even Donald Trump deserves to have support healing his trauma. But for Dick Schwartz to publicly ally with someone as controversial and narcissistic as Aubrey Marcus, who has platformed Covid deniers, conspiracy theorists, and anti-vaxxers, and who claims God told him to impregnate two women, demonstrates questionable discernment. While it’s understandable why doing a public therapy session with a scandal-embroiled celebrity might bring positive attention to the IFS model, in my opinion, it also tarnishes the reputation of a reputable trauma healing model.
One of the things I appreciate about Dick Schwartz and the community he’s created is that we’re allowed to have different points of view. I don’t choose to align my name with people who hold points of view I strongly differ with, but this doesn’t mean I don’t think they deserve empathy and healing for their perpetrating parts. Dick takes a different point of view, and it’s okay that we might not always be on the same page, which is part of what makes IFS not a cult.
Regarding Aubrey Marcus, Dick wrote, “I understand how working with Aubrey Marcus in this context may be triggering for some. And, I believe there is an important philosophical tenet of IFS to be explored – which is that I believe that we should not impose our own moral judgments on those we work with. In fact, getting my parts who hold judgment around the behavior of others to step back, has been a life long practice and is fundamental to the model. I strongly disagree with your argument. If I were to agree, it would mean that we shouldn’t publicly heal anyone’s exiles who we disagree with politically or who have done harmful things. My goal is to reveal and heal what drives people’s protectors, particularly those who have influence and are role models for many. If his followers can see him being that vulnerable, they are more likely to consider doing similar healing. I didn’t endorse any of his positions and, instead, made it much more likely that his behavior will change. By your logic, we should stop the outcome study we are doing in WA with domestic abuse offenders because, by healing their exiles, we are somehow endorsing what they did. Your implication that I did it for money or publicity feels insulting. What I can say is that in the future if I work publicly with someone like him, I can ask him if he’s aware of the impact of his behavior before I do the work so as to make it clearer I’m not condoning it.
-Shaming dissenters: While I have not personally experienced this in the IFS Institute and the community around it, the recent uptick in IFS-adjacent communities has spawned IFS sub-communities where the person expressing skepticism about IFS may get subtly shamed, dismissed, or accused of being blended with parts or not being in Self. This can show up as a “thought-terminating cliche” meant to shut down critical thinking or healthy skepticism, or as a form of tone-policing meant to “one up” someone and intimidate dissent.
-Model purity: Shaming dissenters may go hand in hand with social media groups where anyone who deviates from the “pure” model is accused of doing harm or diluting the model. The problem is that model purity is often defined by the leader’s opinions, and anyone who disagrees with the leader may be viewed with skepticism or ostracized. This has not been my personal experience with Dick Schwartz, but other self-proclaimed IFS leaders have definitely accused me of being guilty of violating model purity because I don’t 100% tow the party line about how things are done. For example, I slow down unburdenings in a way that’s different than some IFS folks do. I like to let parts write, I bring in other “letting go” techniques, like energy psychology, and I use ritual to ceremonially release burdens to real water, real wind, real fire, etc, rather than just imagining it. I’ve never been shamed by the leadership at the IFS Institute, but purists outside of the inner circle of leadership have accused me of “not doing it like Dick does.”
-Ambiguous goal of being Self-led: Like many cults that set “enlightenment” as the goal, being Self-led is equally unachievable, ambiguous and impossible to prove. As such, anybody in a position of power can decide “this person is Self-led but not this person.” In my experiences with Dick Schwartz, I’ve never heard him claim to be Self-led all the time or set himself up as in any way more Self-led than others, which is a green flag of health. But when organizations have ambiguously ambitious markers of “success,” those markers are at risk of being misused to control people, devaluing some while overvaluing others, and setting people up to feel like they’ve failed because they can never live a 100% Self-led life and will continue to blend with parts for the rest of their lives (which is a normal part of being human!)
None of this is unique to IFS. Every powerful healing modality- whether it’s yoga, mindfulness, spiritual circles, psychedelics, meditation groups, recovery groups, or other trauma therapy methods- faces these challenges as it scales. But part of being Self-led is the willingness to look at our own community dynamics with humility, not defensiveness. To ask “What parts of us might be using IFS to feel superior, cool, safe, or special?” To hold ourselves and each other to account by staying curious instead of sliding into certainty or rigidity.
Additional feedback from Dick Schwartz and Katie Nelson
We do also want to share that we continue to work on guidelines around who we endorse to teach IFS and will be publishing those in the coming months. We have invested significantly in systems and people at IFSI to grow and develop our trainer community. Our trainers/ teachers come to their roles after years of clinical practice, many PA experiences, and they work through a trainer development process that moves them from PA, to Assistant Trainer Mentee, Assistant Trainer, Co-Lead Mentee, Co-Lead and finally Solo Trainer. Along the way, most participate in two development programs – the Accelerated Trainer Program (for those looking to become AT s) and the Lead Trainer Program (for those looking to become Co-Lead). They practice delivering lectures and doing demos, working with PA groups, handling questions in the group – all of it, with guidance and feedback from those more senior along the way. The final step to become a Co-Lead is a formal process where recordings of their work is reviewed by a panel of three senior trainers and three senior IFSI staff. When they become trainers, we continue to work with them as they develop. Our next step is to be more clear with the community about who we feel should be teaching what type of programming around IFS – as you mention, the model can seem simple, but it requires deep skill to teach effectively and we are committed to stronger communication to the community about the standards we believe they should look for in a teacher/trainer.
What Makes IFS Powerful Also Makes It Vulnerable
The very things that make IFS so life-changing also make it susceptible to misuse. It’s elegant and accessible, which means people want to use it—sometimes before they’re ready. It’s non-pathologizing, which makes people feel safe—but can also enable avoidance of accountability. It introduces a language that creates clarity—but can also be used as culty jargon- or to spiritualize or intellectualize emotions. It centers Self energy—calm, compassion, clarity—but some people try to perform Self instead of embody and actually live it, and the idea of Self-leadership can be misused to discredit or shame all emotions that are not the 8 C’s.
If someone is using IFS to deny their anger, avoid conflict, maintain power, bypass relational repair, or fail to take a stand when a firm stand is required- politically, personally, societally, this doesn’t mean IFS has failed. It means a part has hijacked the model to use it for its own agenda, a tendency we need to call out gently and redirect towards what IFS is intended to be used for- healing, repair, accountability, and inner/ outer peace.
Self-Led Systems Require Self-Led Communities
If we take Dick Schwartz at his word that IFS is an “anti-cult” because it empowers the Self in each person, then we have to go a step further and ask, what does a Self-led community look like? How do we cult-proof our communities? What would an “anti-cult” look like? It might be curious, not dogmatic. It invites dissent and dialogue. It centers relational repair and cultural humility. It calls in—rather than calls out—those who misuse the model, but it does not bypass accountability. It makes room for trauma-informed feedback and justice-informed critique. It doesn’t just teach about Self—it embodies Self in its leadership, policies, and pedagogy.
As IFS scales and enters spaces of high trauma and collective wounding, it must evolve beyond the intrapsychic into the systemic. Self-led individuals are powerful, but we also need Self-led systems.
So… Is IFS a Cult?
No. Not by definition. But like any powerful system, IFS has to be tended with care. It has to be stewarded with humility. It has to evolve alongside culture, trauma awareness, DEI concerns, political realities, and the very Self-leadership it seeks to inspire.
But if you find yourself asking the question “Is IFS a cult?” if you’re worried that IFS is becoming cult-like, trust that part. Don’t exile it. Invite it closer. Let it teach you where your own boundaries, discernment, and longing for belonging need tending. And if you’re someone who loves IFS, as I do, then your job is not just to use the model, but to embody its ethics, to bring compassion not only to your parts, but to your community, to let Self energy guide not just your healing—but your integrity.
One Facebook contributor wrote, “I often reflect on Francis Weller’s definition of the difference between a cult and community being that community exists of individuated minds, cults exist of non-individuated minds, hence a propensity for collusion with power dynamics and a ‘porousness.’ The intersection of insecurity around ‘self’ from an attachment perspective, how that coincides with any ‘models’ or ‘maps’, and one’s placing of values, rightness or wrongness on ‘models’ is very interesting to me. What does it really mean to be able to hold the line, not be a ‘true-believer’ at the expense of relationality and collaboration, nor be detached in a kind of nihilism and inherently also out of relationship?”
I love the idea that the IFS model serves us; we do not serve it. As such, it belongs to us all, and we can continue to work with the model in community, which also means it’s our responsibility to cult-proof our communities.
My Parts Feel Grateful For The Relationality Possible With IFS
I could have indulged a lone wolf part and published this essay without running it by the leaders of the IFS community, Dick Schwartz and Katie Nelson. After all, I have my own point of view and I’m entitled to my opinion. But that would not have been relational. I care very much about DIck Schwartz as a mentor and friend, as well as someone who has periodically taken on the role of therapist and workshop leader for me and my partner Jeff. I did not write this article to be a hit piece on IFS or its founder, and I told Dick straight out that my respect for his contribution to the field and my desire not to hurt him outweighs my need to be heard on this issue.
But having gone back and forth until we all feel like we can say we co-wrote this feels like rewards of IFS as a relational tool. This required all of us to compromise, work with our own parts, and come to agreement about problem areas we see as growth edges for the IFS community, while still leaving room for disagreement. It’s my integrity police part that spearheaded taking on this topic, and although other parts got on board to write this as a collaborative project, that part feels seen, heard, and validated, not just by me and those of you who shared your opinions about this topic, but by the IFS leadership. My dominant feeling is gratitude.
This never would have been possible in an actual cult. Dissent would not have been tolerated, I would have been shunned, the leadership would have put out a smear campaign to discredit me, and being right would have won out over being loyal to an outspoken member of the community. They proved my hunch that IFS is not a cult right. For that, I am deeply grateful. My heart feels full and my trust in this community and its leadership is deepened.
Acknowledgements
I want to thank Dick Schwartz and Katie Nelson- and so many others in the IFS community- for allowing this conversation in such a collaborative way and for contributing to it. I did not intend to co-write this article with Dick and Katie, but when given the opportunity to do so, I realized that’s the surest sign that IFS is not a cult. IFS is ultimately about relationships. We can negotiate on the inside with our pats and then negotiate on the outside to try to come to some consensus, while still allowing ourselves to have differences of opinions, without shunning those who don’t tow the party line. I came away from this inquiry with deep respect for Dick, Katie, and the IFS community, for tolerating the sincere exploration of this question and for keeping our care for each other central, above being right or making IFS look good.
If any parts of you are activated from reading this, I also trust your Self to guide those parts, to listen to them, and to find your own best practices for engaging with the model in ways that support your healing, health, growth, relationships, integrity, justice, and spirituality. May Self be with you all, thank you for being part of this community with me, and may we all do what’s within our power to cult-proof all of our communities and stay honest with what we need in order to keep our parts safe.