"I believe it’s this way for every young person who struggles with what gets called psychosis: on a very deep level its an attempt to heal. I’m not saying hereditary vulnerability isn’t a factor, I’m saying that the genetics are less important than what’s happening in someone’s day to day reality. In other words, saying psychosis is primarily about “biological brain disease” is an enormous cop-out that lets a lot of people off the hook from thinking about their own behavior and reflecting on the larger systems that affect our lives."
Makes me think of Grace M Cho's memoir "Tastes Like War," about her mother's struggles with psychosis, and how she connects it to Korean war and sexism. She quotes Tanya Marie Luhrmann's writing about schizophrenia as “the story of the way that poverty, violence, and being on the wrong side of power drive us mad.”
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I hear the concern that IFS, even if it becomes more widespread, could be seen as a “colonizer version of animism,” and I think it’s important to reflect on how therapeutic models can intersect with and appropriate indigenous wisdom. IFS is certainly a product of the Western therapeutic tradition, and while it may draw parallels with animistic or relational worldviews, it operates in a very different context. I also recognize how the language of parts and Self could be perceived as individualistic or reductive when compared to more holistic, community-centered frameworks.
That said, I think of IFS as a tool for reconnecting people with their internal worlds, which can then ripple out to affect relationships with others and the environment. It doesn’t claim to replace animistic beliefs but offers one pathway toward healing. I appreciate your critique, and it opens up a conversation about how we can use these tools with respect for their limitations and origins. Also, fucking anything that goes mainstream end up being used in the service of oppression. We do the best we can.
I didn't have too much chance to look at your work but it looks super interesting, thanks again for responding in this lonely void.
the very different context it operates from is precisely the colonial harm. it is a lie for theist materialists dealing with their over corrective behaviors post-World War 2. the lie may have short term supposed benefits.
This is such a needed intervention. I love this:
"I believe it’s this way for every young person who struggles with what gets called psychosis: on a very deep level its an attempt to heal. I’m not saying hereditary vulnerability isn’t a factor, I’m saying that the genetics are less important than what’s happening in someone’s day to day reality. In other words, saying psychosis is primarily about “biological brain disease” is an enormous cop-out that lets a lot of people off the hook from thinking about their own behavior and reflecting on the larger systems that affect our lives."
Makes me think of Grace M Cho's memoir "Tastes Like War," about her mother's struggles with psychosis, and how she connects it to Korean war and sexism. She quotes Tanya Marie Luhrmann's writing about schizophrenia as “the story of the way that poverty, violence, and being on the wrong side of power drive us mad.”
So good to hear from you. Yeah, I want these conversations to be way more public than they are currently.
Even if/when ifs gets more adopted it will still be a colonizer version of animism that will be weaponized. So, it doesnt make me thrilled.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I hear the concern that IFS, even if it becomes more widespread, could be seen as a “colonizer version of animism,” and I think it’s important to reflect on how therapeutic models can intersect with and appropriate indigenous wisdom. IFS is certainly a product of the Western therapeutic tradition, and while it may draw parallels with animistic or relational worldviews, it operates in a very different context. I also recognize how the language of parts and Self could be perceived as individualistic or reductive when compared to more holistic, community-centered frameworks.
That said, I think of IFS as a tool for reconnecting people with their internal worlds, which can then ripple out to affect relationships with others and the environment. It doesn’t claim to replace animistic beliefs but offers one pathway toward healing. I appreciate your critique, and it opens up a conversation about how we can use these tools with respect for their limitations and origins. Also, fucking anything that goes mainstream end up being used in the service of oppression. We do the best we can.
I didn't have too much chance to look at your work but it looks super interesting, thanks again for responding in this lonely void.
the very different context it operates from is precisely the colonial harm. it is a lie for theist materialists dealing with their over corrective behaviors post-World War 2. the lie may have short term supposed benefits.