15/07/2025
Thank you, Dr. Lissa Rankin, for writing this timely and thought provoking piece.
Dr. Juliao, as the founder of Total Health and Wellness Associates, has had conversations with patients, those whom she supervises, colleagues, and mentors alike regarding these very same questions Lissa poses below. As someone who practices IFS personally and professionally, Dr. Juliao recognizes the power inherent in the model. And… as always, Dr. Juliao has also been a proponent of many different approaches - trauma-informed or not - for lots of different individuals and groups. One size does not fit all! Often, using more than one modality with individuals and groups is also extremely helpful and powerful within the healing process.
Read what Dr. Lissa Rankin has to say below and weigh in. What are your thoughts?
Is Internal Family Systems A Cult? Part 1
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 or getting IFS therapy.
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.
I could wax poetic about IFS and how it’s impacted my life for hours. In fact, I have. 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, recorded YouTube videos, and I run two IFS-informed communities- LOVE SCHOOL and The Writer’s Calling. I’ve been working with the IFS model for over a decade and I’ve known and loved Dick Schwartz for about that long. He’s facilitated 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.
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. 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. Critical articles about IFS and even some podcasts are popping up to question the legitimacy and integrity of the IFS model, its founder, and its community.
As such, there are those who are, appropriately, asking questions about whether IFS is a cult. 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.”
It’s an elegant answer. And in many ways, I agree. But as an IFS educator, I also think this moment is asking for something more than a defense of the question. It’s asking us to look inward- yes, internally, in the IFS way- but also culturally and communally. What happens when even a brilliant, empowering, non-pathologizing healing model gets swept up in the dynamics of capitalism, branding, spiritual consumerism, and fame? What parts of us latch onto healing models like lifeboats and cling for dear life—projecting savior, teacher, or guru status onto the model’s creator or those who teach it? What parts of us distort a model to avoid accountability, protect us from feeling bad about ourselves, and avoid looking at our own narcissism, writing it all off as “no bad parts?”
In other words, maybe the better question is: When does anything become culty—and how do we protect IFS from that fate?
First, What Is a Cult?
Cults are often defined by some or all of these characteristics:
-A charismatic leader who claims to hold unique truth or divine authority
-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 s*xual manipulation
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 s*x with, or what I must or can’t believe.
By this definition, IFS is not a cult. 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 spiritual, 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.”
But- and here’s where I want to slow things down- cults aren’t always defined by doctrine. Sometimes they’re defined by the dynamic. Which means that while IFS 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.)
When IFS Gets Culty (Without Being a Cult)
IFS zealotry doesn’t look like robes and chanting or compound living. It looks like:
-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. These accountability bypasses are then used to let leadership off the hook if they abuse power, with enabling community members doing most of the dirty work of shutting down dissent.
-Therapists who evangelize IFS, treating IFS as the only legitimate healing modality, who may not be trained in any other trauma healing methods and may not even be therapists or doctors, because IFS trained lay people for many years without requiring licensure. So many “coaches” call themselves therapists because the IFS Institute certified them without a graduate degree, license, or any formal training or accountability
-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 s**t 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.
-Communities where expressing skepticism about IFS gets subtly shamed, dismissed, or the person is accused of “not being in Self,” as a thought-terminating cliche meant to shut down critical thinking or healthy skepticism
-The leader elevates certain "special" people into the inner circle and then devalues or cuts them down if they do something the leader doesn't like
-Social media groups where anyone who deviates from the "pure" model is accused of doing harm
-Elevating IFS founder Dick Schwartz- or special IFS trainers- as unquestionable authorities or infallible gurus
-A spiritualized ego that whispers, “I’m more enlightened than you because I know my parts” or "I'm special because I practice IFS and you're not because you refuse to do so"
-Using “parts work” as a performance of healing, rather than an actual practice of it
None of this is unique to IFS. Every powerful modality- whether it’s yoga, mindfulness, somatic therapy, or psychedelics- 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, safe, or special?”
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.
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 hold ourselves and others to account and not abuse the power inherent within the model or the power we hold to influence others with it, to bring compassion not only to your parts, but to your community, to let Self energy guide not just your healing—but your integrity.
I’m preparing to post this elsewhere, but I’d love to hear what the rest of you have to say before I write my final draft. What do you think? Is IFS a little bit culty? Are there growth areas where we could do better to cult-proof our communities? Any red flags you've seen or experienced? Anything I should include? Anything you disagree with?
