Table of Contents
Highlights
Quote
While IFS focuses on individuals’ internal worlds and private relationships, abolitionist transformative justice takes a community-based approach to addressing violence and repairing harm, looking at the systemic conditions and power dynamics that lead to violence.
Quote
Both approaches refuse to abandon anyone, but instead encourage us to ask, what led to this actor behaving in this way, what conditions need to be met to transform this role or behavior?
Quote
I suggest that the work of IFS cannot be transformative for society, until we abolish prisons and carcerality, that the project of abolition cannot take place until we also dismantle the prisons and exiles inside of ourselves.
Quote
“Not so much the abolition of prisons but the abolition of a society that could have prisons, that could have slavery, that could have the wage, and therefore not abolition as the elimination of anything but abolition as the founding of a new society”
Quote
Transformative Justice (TJ) is a political framework for addressing violence and abuse without perpetuating harm. It aims to create justice collaboratively, eschewing state involvement and oppressive norms.
Quote
It seeks to end conditions such as capitalism, poverty, various forms of oppression, and systemic issues that perpetuate cycles of violence.
Quote
Addressing current incidents while preventing future violence
Quote
Breaking generational cycles of harm
Quote
Fostering healing and accountability for all involved parties
Quote
TJ interventions encourage communities to build infrastructure and skills for violence prevention and response.
Quote
Ultimately, TJ emphasizes collective responsibility in addressing violence, recognizing that harmful behaviors are sometimes learned, and are subject to environmental and structural conditions.
Quote
“What kinds of community infrastructure can we create to support more safety, transparency, sustainability, care and connection (e.g. a network of community safe houses that those in danger can use, an abundance of community members who are skilled at leading interventions to violence)? What are the skills we need to be able to prevent, respond to, heal from, and take accountability for harmful, violent and abusive behaviors? What do survivors and people who have caused harm need? Why do survivors and people who have caused harm have so few options in our community? What are some of the harmful ways that we treat each other that help set the stage for violence and abuse, and how can we change this?”
Quote
The concept highlights how carceral logics pervade society and how efforts to dismantle carceral systems must also address these internalized ways of thinking and being, what we refer to as internalized carcerality.
Quote
“The criminal legal system will never “bring to justice” every person who does harm in our society. This is impossible. We cannot under any system “prosecute” our way out of harm.”
Quote
nternalized carcerality refers to the insidious ways in which individuals and communities can subconsciously adopt and perpetuate the oppressive logic, norms, and power dynamics of the carceral state and its systems. This internalization manifests as a punitive mindset that prioritizes punishment over healing, constant surveillance and suspicion of oneself and others, dehumanization of those who have caused harm or transgressed rules, an individualistic focus on culpability that ignores systemic factors, a reliance on external authorities to manage conflicts and maintain order, and a binary “us vs. them” mentality.
Quote
It posits that the mind comprises distinct subpersonalities or “parts,” each with its own perspective and intent.
Quote
Exiles: Isolated parts carrying trauma-related pain or shame.
Quote
Managers and Firefighters: Protective parts that control internal and external environments.
Quote
Quote
This approach parallels anti-carceral transformative justice in its emphasis on understanding and working with, rather than against, aspects of the psyche that perceived as problematic.
Quote
Both frameworks aim to restore harmony and promote healing through acceptance and integration rather than suppression or elimination.
Quote
At a macro values level, the philosophies of abolitionist TJ and IFS share an emphasis on contextual understanding, belief in inherent human worth, prioritisation of healing over punishment, and optimism about people’s (or part’s) ability to change, that is grounded in relational approaches.
Quote
IFS is built upon two key sets of principles: The 8 C’s: Compassion, Creativity, Curiosity, Confidence, Courage, Calm, Connectedness, and Clarity, and the 5 P’s: Presence, Persistence, Perspective, Playfulness, and Patience.
Quote
Schwartz’s research revealed that when clients’ internal parts “step back,” allowing the core ‘Self’ to emerge, these qualities manifest naturally. This process, known as “unblending,” leads to reduced fear and increased calmness, often experienced as an embodied sense of spaciousness.
Quote
This shift enables a deeper connection with parts, characterized by curiosity rather than fear or judgment.
Quote
Approaching “difficult parts” with curiosity and compassion, rather than judgment or attempts at elimination.
Quote
Fostering a sense of internal leadership (Self) that can engage with all aspects of oneself or society without coercion.
Quote
Here I argue that for IFS to fully realize its potential, the field must engage with transformative justice principles. This involves examining the societal structures that contribute to internalized carcerality and addressing them at a systemic level.
Quote
The downside to this is that we are individuals can become unaware and tormented by these exile aspects of ourselves.
Quote
All of us or none of us, ultimately has to also include all parts of ourselves.
Quote
A well known phrase in the abolitionist world is ‘fuck the police means we don’t act like cops to each other’. If we are to ensure that our values toward each other and the world, also are in integrity with how we interact with our selves and our inner worlds, ‘fuck the police’ also means we don’t act like cops to ourselves.
Quote
And if IFS practices are really to succeed, they also need to focus at the level of transformative justice, which is to say that if we are to ask individuals to embrace parts of themselves with compassion and curiosity, without coercion, to ask ourselves - what conditions are needed for you to have your needs met without harming any part of me or others - then perhaps the world of IFS also needs to begin to address the structures in society that result in internalized carcerality.
Quote
Ultimately, if we continue to raise people in a carceral world, that treats humans that act poorly as disposable - as negative externalities to an otherwise beautiful world, as exiles that deserve to be punished - what hope do we have for us all to treat our own inner worlds in a different manner. What if we were able to translate what we have learnt from “no bad parts’, to no bad actors*. That is, that there are no inherently bad parts of ourselves, just injured aspects that do not have their needs met?*
Quote
First and foremost, ISF reminds us to recognize that harmful behaviors often stem from protective intentions.
Quote
Seeing resistance to change as a sign other needs must be addressed first.
Quote
Quote
FS invites us to build trusting relationships with parts and hear their stories before trying to change them.
Quote
Restoring a person’s own self-leadership. The goal of IFS is empowering a person’s core self to lead their inner family with compassion, rather than having extreme protectors dominate.
Quote
Inviting a part to notice changes since its role began can loosen its grip.
Quote
Accountability processes for those who have enacted harm can also involve exploring how coping mechanisms that once ensured survival have become destructive, making new choices possible.
Quote
Lead with relationship-building and seek to understand protective intentions behind harmful acts
Quote
Reconnect the person with their own inherent human dignity, capacity for self-leadership, and for love.
Quote
Frame harmful behavior as learned survival strategies that can be updated, not fixed character flaws.
Quote
In Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy, one of the key principles is to approach all parts of the psyche with curiosity, compassion and respect, never coercion or force. This is particularly important when working with parts that are in extreme roles or carrying heavy burdens, which are often the parts behind destructive or dysfunctional behaviors. IFS recognizes that these “difficult” parts are usually protectors that developed their strategies in response to past experiences of trauma, attachment injuries, or unmet needs.
Quote
Trying to pressure these parts to change through cajoling, arguing, or shaming will usually only activate their defensive strategies and reinforce their belief that the world is dangerous. They are likely to either dig in their heels and become more rigid or go into hiding and lose trust in the process.
Quote
Acknowledging the real pain and unmet needs they carry from the past.
Quote
Expressing genuine gratitude for how they’ve tried to help and willingness to understand their perspective.
Quote
The goal of this process is to create enough internal safety and trust that parts naturally begin to soften their defensive reactivity and allow the individual’s core self to take more leadership, ownership and responsibility for internal safety.
Quote
Change happens not from forceful attempts to get rid of certain parts but by restoring their sense of connection to the larger system so they don’t need to resort to extreme tactics to get their needs met.
Quote
This approach of loving, respectful engagement with even the most destructive-seeming parts rests on the belief that all parts are valuable and want to play a constructive role.
Quote
When people’s survival strategies are met with punitive control, their defensive aggression tends to increase.
Quote
IFS models an approach of leading with genuine curiosity, care and humility that allows difficult parts to gradually emerge from their extreme roles with support.
Quote
“In the Babemba tribe of South Africa, when a person acts irresponsibly or unjustly, he is placed in the center of the village, alone and unfettered. All work ceases, and every man, woman, and child in the village gathers in a large circle around the accused individual. Then each person in the tribe speaks to the accused, one at a time, each recalling the good things the person in the center of the circle has done in his lifetime. Every incident, every experience that can be recalled with any detail and accuracy, is recounted. All his positive attributes, good deeds, strengths, and acts of kindness are recited carefully and at length. This tribal ceremony often lasts for several days. In the end, the tribal circle is broken, a joyous celebration takes place, and the person is symbolically and literally welcomed back into the tribe.”
Quote
The process is led by a respected peacemaker who guides participants to speak from the heart, listen deeply, and reconnect with their shared values and relationships. The goal is not punishment but restoring harmony and balance to the community.
Quote
In gacaca courts, perpetrators faced their victims and neighbors, confessed their crimes, and negotiated amends. The process prioritized truth-telling, apology, forgiveness and reintegration over retribution.
Quote
Quote
In fambul tok ceremonies, perpetrators of violence publicly confess and apologize for their actions, and victims have a chance to express their pain and forgive. The process culminates in celebratory feast where the perpetrator is welcomed back into the community.
Quote
The process is inspired by Maori practices that emphasize collective responsibility, honest dialogue, and consensus decision-making over adversarial approaches.
Quote
While specific practices vary, what these cultural traditions have in common is a belief that conflict and harm are not just individual failings but ruptures in a web of relationships that require communal reckoning and repair.
Quote
IFS & abolitionist transformative justice both refuse to abandon anyone
Quote
This essay argues that for either endeavour to truly transform society, we need to dismantle pathological carcerality inside ourselves & out.
Quote
While Internal Family Systems therapy and transformative justice are distinct approaches with different contexts and aims, they share some core principles that make them potentially complementary.
Quote
Together, they suggest that true accountability and repair must involve both individual and collective healing, that reconciliation is a spiritual and political endeavor.
Clean Copy
IFS & abolitionist transformative justice both refuse to abandon anyone, asking what conditions enable inner and outer transformation. This essay argues that for either endeavour to truly transform society, we need to dismantle pathological carcerality inside ourselves & out.
Published on Jul 21, 2024
As above, so below
Internal family systems is a transformative tool and therapeutic technique that conceives of every human being as a system of protective and wounded inner parts led by a core. Those parts of ourselves operate similarly to members of a family. When things go wrong, some inner parts can be forced into extreme roles. IFS is frequently used as an evidence-based psychotherapy. The technique aims to help people heal by accessing and healing their protective and wounded inner parts.
While IFS focuses on individuals’ internal worlds and private relationships, abolitionist transformative justice takes a community-based approach to addressing violence and repairing harm, looking at the systemic conditions and power dynamics that lead to violence. Both approaches refuse to abandon anyone, but instead encourage us to ask, what led to this actor behaving in this way, what conditions need to be met to transform this role or behavior? Here I argue that not only is there much to be learnt between IFS and abolitionist TJ practices, but more importantly perhaps I suggest that the work of IFS cannot be transformative for society, until we abolish prisons and carcerality, that the project of abolition cannot take place until we also dismantle the prisons and exiles inside of ourselves.
“Not so much the abolition of prisons but the abolition of a society that could have prisons, that could have slavery, that could have the wage, and therefore not abolition as the elimination of anything but abolition as the founding of a new society” [1]
Transformative Justice
Transformative Justice (TJ) is a political framework for addressing violence and abuse without perpetuating harm. It aims to create justice collaboratively, eschewing state involvement and oppressive norms. TJ actively cultivates healing, accountability, resilience, and safety for all parties involved, yet also recognizes that violence occurs within broader societal contexts. It seeks to end conditions such as capitalism, poverty, various forms of oppression, and systemic issues that perpetuate cycles of violence. The approach aims to transform not only immediate incidents but also the underlying conditions that enable violence.
Key aspects of TJ include:
1. Addressing current incidents while preventing future violence
2. Breaking generational cycles of harm
3. Responding to immediate needs while working towards long-term goals
4. Fostering healing and accountability for all involved parties
TJ interventions encourage communities to build infrastructure and skills for violence prevention and response. This involves creating safe houses, developing intervention skills, and addressing harmful interpersonal dynamics. Ultimately, TJ emphasizes collective responsibility in addressing violence, recognizing that harmful behaviors are sometimes learned, and are subject to environmental and structural conditions. It aims to dismantle carceral thinking, transform punitive impulses, and promote healing-centered approaches to harm and conflict. This process requires unlearning internalized carcerality at both individual and societal levels.
As Mia Mingus writes [2], TJ asks us to consider: “What kinds of community infrastructure can we create to support more safety, transparency, sustainability, care and connection (e.g. a network of community safe houses that those in danger can use, an abundance of community members who are skilled at leading interventions to violence)? What are the skills we need to be able to prevent, respond to, heal from, and take accountability for harmful, violent and abusive behaviors? What do survivors and people who have caused harm need? Why do survivors and people who have caused harm have so few options in our community? What are some of the harmful ways that we treat each other that help set the stage for violence and abuse, and how can we change this?”
Ultimately TJ understands that we have a collective responsibility when it comes to violence and that no one is born knowing how to rape or torture–these are learned behaviors. The concept highlights how carceral logics pervade society and how efforts to dismantle carceral systems must also address these internalized ways of thinking and being, what we refer to as internalized carcerality. Abolitionist organizers and practitioners aim to transform punitive impulses, build new forms of accountability, and propagate life-affirming, healing-centered modes of addressing harm and conflict. This requires unlearning internalized carcerality on both individual and collective levels.
The prison inside of us; on internalised carcerality
“The criminal legal system will never “bring to justice” every person who does harm in our society. This is impossible. We cannot under any system “prosecute” our way out of harm.” [3]
Carcerality is a term that refers to punishment, including the institutions, policies, and ideologies that are used in response to broken laws, crimes, or violations of norms. It can also refer to how these things extend beyond the criminal legal system and into other aspects of society. For many of us, being raised in a deeply carceral has likely shaped the ways that we think and treat others and ourselves.
Internalized carcerality refers to the insidious ways in which individuals and communities can subconsciously adopt and perpetuate the oppressive logic, norms, and power dynamics of the carceral state and its systems. This internalization manifests as a punitive mindset that prioritizes punishment over healing, constant surveillance and suspicion of oneself and others, dehumanization of those who have caused harm or transgressed rules, an individualistic focus on culpability that ignores systemic factors, a reliance on external authorities to manage conflicts and maintain order, and a binary “us vs. them” mentality. From interpersonal relationships to institutional policies, the tentacles of internalized carcerality reach deep into the fabric of society, underscoring the necessity of abolitionist efforts to address not only the dismantling of physical carceral infrastructure but also the transformation of these entrenched ways of thinking and being. Abolitionist organizers work to unlearn and uproot internalized carcerality on both personal and collective levels, striving to replace punitive impulses with new forms of accountability and to cultivate life-affirming, healing-centered approaches to addressing harm and conflict.
What does it mean that many of us in the Western world have been raised with such carceral mindsets, and how might that set us up for difficulty in our own inner work, as we grapple with difficult sides of ourselves and our capacity for self/other harm?
Internal Family Systems & No Bad Parts
Internal Family Systems (IFS) is a psychotherapeutic model developed by Richard Schwartz in the 1990s. It posits that the mind comprises distinct subpersonalities or “parts,” each with its own perspective and intent. Key concepts include:
1. Self: The core essence of a person, possessing leadership qualities.
2. Parts: Autonomous mental systems that can conflict with each other and the Self.
3. Exiles: Isolated parts carrying trauma-related pain or shame.
4. Managers and Firefighters: Protective parts that control internal and external environments.
IFS therapy aims to achieve internal harmony by helping clients identify and understand their parts, developing relationships between the Self and each part. In their popular book “No Bad Parts,” Schwartz challenges the prevalent “mono-mind” theory, which pathologizes mental multiplicity. He argues that engaging with, rather than suppressing, different parts of the psyche can lead to healing and wholeness. The IFS approach involves acknowledging and appreciating all parts, including those perceived as destructive, building trust with each part, unburdening parts from extreme roles adopted due to trauma and ultimately developing Self-leadership within the internal system.
This approach parallels anti-carceral transformative justice in its emphasis on understanding and working with, rather than against, aspects of the psyche that perceived as problematic. Both frameworks aim to restore harmony and promote healing through acceptance and integration rather than suppression or elimination.
Parallels at play - Integrating abolitionist principles and internal family systems as a framework for personal and social transformation
At a macro values level, the philosophies of abolitionist TJ and IFS share an emphasis on contextual understanding, belief in inherent human worth, prioritisation of healing over punishment, and optimism about people’s (or part’s) ability to change, that is grounded in relational approaches. The values reflect a trust in human potential, redemption and communities (inner or outer communities) to address harm and suffering in restorative ways. In a more granular sense, there is a great deal to learn from abolitionist TJ principles for inner parts work. IFS is built upon two key sets of principles: The 8 C’s: Compassion, Creativity, Curiosity, Confidence, Courage, Calm, Connectedness, and Clarity, and the 5 P’s: Presence, Persistence, Perspective, Playfulness, and Patience.
Schwartz’s research revealed that when clients’ internal parts “step back,” allowing the core ‘Self’ to emerge, these qualities manifest naturally. This process, known as “unblending,” leads to reduced fear and increased calmness, often experienced as an embodied sense of spaciousness. According to their work, as clients progress in therapy, their relationship with their parts evolves. Initially confrontational attitudes give way to patience and confidence. This shift enables a deeper connection with parts, characterized by curiosity rather than fear or judgment. As parts feel the presence of the client’s core self, they open up, revealing the underlying reasons for their behaviors and feelings. The principles of IFS offer valuable lessons for addressing societal issues, particularly in the context of transformative justice:
1. Approaching “difficult parts” with curiosity and compassion, rather than judgment or attempts at elimination.
2. Recognizing that harmful behaviors often stem from unmet needs or past traumas.
3. Fostering a sense of internal leadership (Self) that can engage with all aspects of oneself or society without coercion.
Here I argue that for IFS to fully realize its potential, the field must engage with transformative justice principles. This involves examining the societal structures that contribute to internalized carcerality and addressing them at a systemic level. As Mariame Kaba and Rachel Herzing argue, the abolitionist approach demands the elimination of punitive systems and the rejection of practices that perpetuate harm.
Internally we often exile some of our the parts of us that are carrying the deepest wounds and experiences (these are called ‘exiles’). They can become fragmented and disintegrated. The downside to this is that we are individuals can become unaware and tormented by these exile aspects of ourselves. Not only is that unhelpful for an organism that is attempting to live a fully present, self aware, integrated life with values that represent all aspects of our self, but it also renders us liable to react to the world in surprising and ‘triggered’ ways. The parallels to how we treat harmful humans in the US is stark.
All of us or none of us, ultimately has to also include all parts of ourselves.
Cover from a zine by Clementine Morrigan
A well known phrase in the abolitionist world is ‘fuck the police means we don’t act like cops to each other’. If we are to ensure that our values toward each other and the world, also are in integrity with how we interact with our selves and our inner worlds, ‘fuck the police’ also means we don’t act like cops to ourselves. What is to be learnt about how we are to interact with some of our most difficult parts in IFS, for approaches to dealing with harmful actors in the world? And what can abolitionist principles so to help us dismantle internalized carcerality, such that we no longer shun difficult or harmful parts of ourselves, but approach them with curiosity. And if IFS practices are really to succeed, they also need to focus at the level of transformative justice, which is to say that if we are to ask individuals to embrace parts of themselves with compassion and curiosity, without coercion, to ask ourselves - what conditions are needed for you to have your needs met without harming any part of me or others - then perhaps the world of IFS also needs to begin to address the structures in society that result in internalized carcerality. Such a abolitionist practice demands, the elimination of policing, imprisonment, and surveillance, rejects the expansion in breadth or scope or legitimation of all aspects of the prison-industrial complex—surveillance, policing, sentencing, and imprisonment of all sorts, and refuses premature death and organized abandonment, the state’s modes of reprisal and punishment [3].
Ultimately, if we continue to raise people in a carceral world, that treats humans that act poorly as disposable - as negative externalities to an otherwise beautiful world, as exiles that deserve to be punished - what hope do we have for us all to treat our own inner worlds in a different manner. What if we were able to translate what we have learnt from “no bad parts’, to no bad actors*. That is, that there are no inherently bad parts of ourselves, just injured aspects that do not have their needs met?*
Swartz writes about the various reasons why parts might remain in extreme roles. What is to be learned about how we might proceed to work with perpetrators of harm, from how we understand extreme roles of parts, and how might the principles of IFS be integrated into abolitionist restorative and transformative justice practices? First and foremost, ISF reminds us to recognize that harmful behaviors often stem from protective intentions. Just as no IFS “parts” are inherently bad, even those in extreme roles, abolitionists emphasize that people who commit harm are not monsters but complex humans responding to their own wounds and social conditions. Understanding the underlying needs, fears and burdens driving harmful acts is crucial for transformation.
Seeing resistance to change as a sign other needs must be addressed first. In IFS, if an extreme part won’t shift roles, it’s likely protecting against a perceived threat - either an external situation or internal vulnerability. Similarly, accountability processes may stall if a person’s basic needs for safety, respect, belonging etc. are unmet. Tending to those is a prerequisite for behavior change.
Bringing compassionate curiosity to a person’s inner landscape. IFS invites us to build trusting relationships with parts and hear their stories before trying to change them. Restorative justice requires building enough rapport and understanding with those who have caused harm to explore the roots of their actions, not just the actions themselves.
Restoring a person’s own self-leadership. The goal of IFS is empowering a person’s core self to lead their inner family with compassion, rather than having extreme protectors dominate. Transformative justice aims to develop people’s capacity to regulate their own behavior in line with their values, rather than relying on external control. Both require reconnecting with inherent worth, wisdom and choice.
Updating old narratives and strategies. IFS tells us that protectors often get stuck in extreme roles based on past adaptive strategies that are no longer helpful. Inviting a part to notice changes since its role began can loosen its grip. Accountability processes for those who have enacted harm can also involve exploring how coping mechanisms that once ensured survival have become destructive, making new choices possible.
Unburdening pain and shame: Harm is often an outgrowth of unresolved trauma, so transformation requires healing those wounds at the root. Just as IFS releases burdens parts carry from the past, transformative justice holds space for people to grieve losses, process shame, reclaim self-worth and establish a new foundation for living. Integrating IFS principles would mean any accountability process with those who have caused harm might:
- Lead with relationship-building and seek to understand protective intentions behind harmful acts
- Collaborate to identify and address factors (external and internal) blocking change
- Reconnect the person with their own inherent human dignity, capacity for self-leadership, and for love.
- Explore impacts of past trauma and provide space/support for genuine healing and unburdening.
- Frame harmful behavior as learned survival strategies that can be updated, not fixed character flaws.
- Aim for restoration of the person’s ability to act in alignment with their values, embedded in community support.
A note on coercion
In Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy, one of the key principles is to approach all parts of the psyche with curiosity, compassion and respect, never coercion or force. This is particularly important when working with parts that are in extreme roles or carrying heavy burdens, which are often the parts behind destructive or dysfunctional behaviors. IFS recognizes that these “difficult” parts are usually protectors that developed their strategies in response to past experiences of trauma, attachment injuries, or unmet needs. While their methods may no longer serve the person well, the parts adopted these roles in an attempt to ensure safety and survival. They often hold intense emotions like fear, shame, or anger, and they have learned to expect threat and rejection. Trying to pressure these parts to change through cajoling, arguing, or shaming will usually only activate their defensive strategies and reinforce their belief that the world is dangerous. They are likely to either dig in their heels and become more rigid or go into hiding and lose trust in the process. Instead, IFS invites the self (the core essence of compassion and clarity) to build a genuine relationship with these parts. This involves:
- Respecting their protective intentions and survival wisdom, even if disagreeing with their methods.
- Acknowledging the real pain and unmet needs they carry from the past.
- Expressing genuine gratitude for how they’ve tried to help and willingness to understand their perspective.
- Remaining patient and present with them, without agenda, as they share their experiences and emotions.
- Supporting them to feel seen and understood before suggesting any changes.
- Collaborating with them to find new strategies to feel safe and cared for that don’t require extreme roles.
- Proceeding only with permission and keeping any promises made.
The goal of this process is to create enough internal safety and trust that parts naturally begin to soften their defensive reactivity and allow the individual’s core self to take more leadership, ownership and responsibility for internal safety. Change happens not from forceful attempts to get rid of certain parts but by restoring their sense of connection to the larger system so they don’t need to resort to extreme tactics to get their needs met. This approach of loving, respectful engagement with even the most destructive-seeming parts rests on the belief that all parts are valuable and want to play a constructive role. It recognizes that attempts to exile or dominate parts will only breed more internal conflict and dysregulation. Transformation happens through honoring all parts and negotiating new roles from a foundation of understanding.
The lessons IFS offers about not forcefully overpowering protective parts but instead extending them courageous compassion and collaborating to find new solutions seems highly applicable to abolitionist work with people who have caused harm. When people’s survival strategies are met with punitive control, their defensive aggression tends to increase. But when they experience empathy for the unmet needs and wounds underlying their behavior, they are more likely to open to change and unlock their own capacity for repair. IFS models an approach of leading with genuine curiosity, care and humility that allows difficult parts to gradually emerge from their extreme roles with support. The core IFS principle of all parts containing inherent worth, and having capacity for positive transformation with compassionate witnessing, is deeply aligned with abolitionist values. An IFS-informed abolitionist approach would create conditions for accountability and healing by treating those who have caused harm as full human beings, working to understand and meet the needs driving destructive behaviors so that their innate wisdom and care for others can be restored to leadership. It’s an optimistic view of human nature and potential that could help fuel efforts to address violence at its roots.
Prefiguration - where do we see these practices played out?
There are many indigenous and traditional cultures around the world that have practiced forms of conflict resolution, harm repair and community reintegration that imbue elements of with the principles of IFS and transformative justice. A few examples include:
- Babemba tribe of South Africa:
“In the Babemba tribe of South Africa, when a person acts irresponsibly or unjustly, he is placed in the center of the village, alone and unfettered. All work ceases, and every man, woman, and child in the village gathers in a large circle around the accused individual. Then each person in the tribe speaks to the accused, one at a time, each recalling the good things the person in the center of the circle has done in his lifetime. Every incident, every experience that can be recalled with any detail and accuracy, is recounted. All his positive attributes, good deeds, strengths, and acts of kindness are recited carefully and at length. This tribal ceremony often lasts for several days. In the end, the tribal circle is broken, a joyous celebration takes place, and the person is symbolically and literally welcomed back into the tribe.” [4]
2. Navajo peacemaking: In the Navajo Nation, traditional peacemaking circles bring together those who have caused harm, those who have been harmed, and their extended family and community members to discuss the impact of the harm and agree on a plan for making things right. The process is led by a respected peacemaker who guides participants to speak from the heart, listen deeply, and reconnect with their shared values and relationships. The goal is not punishment but restoring harmony and balance to the community. This aligns with IFS’s emphasis on compassionate witness and transformative justice’s focus on collective healing. [5]
3. Rwandan gacaca courts: After the genocide in Rwanda, communities developed a system of grassroots justice called gacaca, inspired by traditional village councils, to address the overwhelming number of cases and need for social reconciliation. In gacaca courts, perpetrators faced their victims and neighbors, confessed their crimes, and negotiated amends. The process prioritized truth-telling, apology, forgiveness and reintegration over retribution. While imperfect and coercive in some cases, gacaca courts reflected a cultural emphasis on communal ties over individual guilt that resonates with both IFS and transformative justice. [6]
4. Hawai’ian ho’oponopono: Ho’oponopono is an ancient Hawai’ian practice of interpersonal conflict resolution and family therapy that has been adapted in various forms. In ho’oponopono, extended family members come together in prayer and discussion facilitated by a respected elder to release hurt feelings, resentments and misunderstandings. Each person takes responsibility for their part in the problem and seeks forgiveness. The process continues until there is a felt sense of closure and renewed harmony. Like IFS, ho’oponopono assumes that each person has a divine essence that can be obscured but not destroyed by conflict, and that healing happens through internal reflection and interpersonal dialogue.[7]
4. Sierra Leonean fambul tok: After the civil war in Sierra Leone, some communities rejected the formal Truth and Reconciliation Commission in favor of a traditional practice called fambul tok (family talk). In fambul tok ceremonies, perpetrators of violence publicly confess and apologize for their actions, and victims have a chance to express their pain and forgive. The process culminates in celebratory feast where the perpetrator is welcomed back into the community. While not without limitations, fambul tok reflects an understanding that social healing requires spaces for people to process strong emotions, rebuild empathy and trust, and affirm shared values - all key principles in IFS and transformative justice. [8]
5. New Zealand family group conferences: In New Zealand’s youth justice system, family group conferences bring together young people who have committed crimes, their family members, victims, and relevant professionals to decide on a plan for taking responsibility and making amends. The process is inspired by Maori practices that emphasize collective responsibility, honest dialogue, and consensus decision-making over adversarial approaches. The conferences create space for people to share feelings, understand each other’s perspectives, agree on solutions - all in the context of the young person’s family and community relationships. This resonates with IFS’s understanding of a person’s relational embeddedness and transformative justice’s commitment to treating harm in social context. [9]
While specific practices vary, what these cultural traditions have in common is a belief that conflict and harm are not just individual failings but ruptures in a web of relationships that require communal reckoning and repair. They create ritual spaces for difficult emotions to be expressed, different perspectives to be heard, and new understandings to be reached. They emphasize the inherent worth and interdependence of all people, even when they cause harm. These are all values that undergird both IFS therapy and transformative justice as models that seek to transform cycles of harm and alienation into healing and belonging.
Conclusion
While Internal Family Systems therapy and transformative justice are distinct approaches with different contexts and aims, they share some core principles that make them potentially complementary. Both emphasize the inherent worth and wisdom of all people, the need for compassionate witnessing of pain, and the possibility of transformation through empathetic encounter. IFS offers a nuanced framework for understanding and healing the complex wounds that often underlie harmful behavior, while transformative justice situates that behavior within larger systems of oppression and collective trauma that require social and structural change. Together, they suggest that true accountability and repair must involve both individual and collective healing, that reconciliation is a spiritual and political endeavor. By learning from each other, IFS and transformative justice could develop more holistic and liberatory responses to violence that honor the full humanity of all people while also working to dismantle the conditions that breed harm. Ultimately, both point us toward a world where healing and justice are not separate pursuits but deeply intertwined practices on the path to personal and collective liberation.
Annotated Copy
IFS & abolitionist transformative justice both refuse to abandon anyone, asking what conditions enable inner and outer transformation. This essay argues that for either endeavour to truly transform society, we need to dismantle pathological carcerality inside ourselves & out.
Published on Jul 21, 2024
As above, so below
Internal family systems is a transformative tool and therapeutic technique that conceives of every human being as a system of protective and wounded inner parts led by a core. Those parts of ourselves operate similarly to members of a family. When things go wrong, some inner parts can be forced into extreme roles. IFS is frequently used as an evidence-based psychotherapy. The technique aims to help people heal by accessing and healing their protective and wounded inner parts.
While IFS focuses on individuals' internal worlds and private relationships, abolitionist transformative justice takes a community-based approach to addressing violence and repairing harm, looking at the systemic conditions and power dynamics that lead to violence. Both approaches refuse to abandon anyone, but instead encourage us to ask, what led to this actor behaving in this way, what conditions need to be met to transform this role or behavior? Here I argue that not only is there much to be learnt between IFS and abolitionist TJ practices, but more importantly perhaps I suggest that the work of IFS cannot be transformative for society, until we abolish prisons and carcerality, that the project of abolition cannot take place until we also dismantle the prisons and exiles inside of ourselves.
“Not so much the abolition of prisons but the abolition of a society that could have prisons, that could have slavery, that could have the wage, and therefore not abolition as the elimination of anything but abolition as the founding of a new society” [1]
Transformative Justice
Transformative Justice (TJ) is a political framework for addressing violence and abuse without perpetuating harm. It aims to create justice collaboratively, eschewing state involvement and oppressive norms. TJ actively cultivates healing, accountability, resilience, and safety for all parties involved, yet also recognizes that violence occurs within broader societal contexts. It seeks to end conditions such as capitalism, poverty, various forms of oppression, and systemic issues that perpetuate cycles of violence. The approach aims to transform not only immediate incidents but also the underlying conditions that enable violence.
Key aspects of TJ include:
1. Addressing current incidents while preventing future violence
2. Breaking generational cycles of harm
3. Responding to immediate needs while working towards long-term goals
4. Fostering healing and accountability for all involved parties
TJ interventions encourage communities to build infrastructure and skills for violence prevention and response. This involves creating safe houses, developing intervention skills, and addressing harmful interpersonal dynamics. Ultimately, TJ emphasizes collective responsibility in addressing violence, recognizing that harmful behaviors are sometimes learned, and are subject to environmental and structural conditions. It aims to dismantle carceral thinking, transform punitive impulses, and promote healing-centered approaches to harm and conflict. This process requires unlearning internalized carcerality at both individual and societal levels.
As Mia Mingus writes [2], TJ asks us to consider: “What kinds of community infrastructure can we create to support more safety, transparency, sustainability, care and connection (e.g. a network of community safe houses that those in danger can use, an abundance of community members who are skilled at leading interventions to violence)? What are the skills we need to be able to prevent, respond to, heal from, and take accountability for harmful, violent and abusive behaviors? What do survivors and people who have caused harm need? Why do survivors and people who have caused harm have so few options in our community? What are some of the harmful ways that we treat each other that help set the stage for violence and abuse, and how can we change this?”
Ultimately TJ understands that we have a collective responsibility when it comes to violence and that no one is born knowing how to rape or torture–these are learned behaviors. The concept highlights how carceral logics pervade society and how efforts to dismantle carceral systems must also address these internalized ways of thinking and being, what we refer to as internalized carcerality. Abolitionist organizers and practitioners aim to transform punitive impulses, build new forms of accountability, and propagate life-affirming, healing-centered modes of addressing harm and conflict. This requires unlearning internalized carcerality on both individual and collective levels.
The prison inside of us; on internalised carcerality
“The criminal legal system will never “bring to justice” every person who does harm in our society. This is impossible. We cannot under any system “prosecute” our way out of harm.” [3]
Carcerality is a term that refers to punishment, including the institutions, policies, and ideologies that are used in response to broken laws, crimes, or violations of norms. It can also refer to how these things extend beyond the criminal legal system and into other aspects of society. For many of us, being raised in a deeply carceral has likely shaped the ways that we think and treat others and ourselves.
Internalized carcerality refers to the insidious ways in which individuals and communities can subconsciously adopt and perpetuate the oppressive logic, norms, and power dynamics of the carceral state and its systems. This internalization manifests as a punitive mindset that prioritizes punishment over healing, constant surveillance and suspicion of oneself and others, dehumanization of those who have caused harm or transgressed rules, an individualistic focus on culpability that ignores systemic factors, a reliance on external authorities to manage conflicts and maintain order, and a binary "us vs. them" mentality. From interpersonal relationships to institutional policies, the tentacles of internalized carcerality reach deep into the fabric of society, underscoring the necessity of abolitionist efforts to address not only the dismantling of physical carceral infrastructure but also the transformation of these entrenched ways of thinking and being. Abolitionist organizers work to unlearn and uproot internalized carcerality on both personal and collective levels, striving to replace punitive impulses with new forms of accountability and to cultivate life-affirming, healing-centered approaches to addressing harm and conflict.
What does it mean that many of us in the Western world have been raised with such carceral mindsets, and how might that set us up for difficulty in our own inner work, as we grapple with difficult sides of ourselves and our capacity for self/other harm?
Internal Family Systems & No Bad Parts
Internal Family Systems (IFS) is a psychotherapeutic model developed by Richard Schwartz in the 1990s. It posits that the mind comprises distinct subpersonalities or "parts," each with its own perspective and intent. Key concepts include:
1. Self: The core essence of a person, possessing leadership qualities.
2. Parts: Autonomous mental systems that can conflict with each other and the Self.
3. Exiles: Isolated parts carrying trauma-related pain or shame.
4. Managers and Firefighters: Protective parts that control internal and external environments.
IFS therapy aims to achieve internal harmony by helping clients identify and understand their parts, developing relationships between the Self and each part. In their popular book “No Bad Parts,” Schwartz challenges the prevalent “mono-mind” theory, which pathologizes mental multiplicity. He argues that engaging with, rather than suppressing, different parts of the psyche can lead to healing and wholeness. The IFS approach involves acknowledging and appreciating all parts, including those perceived as destructive, building trust with each part, unburdening parts from extreme roles adopted due to trauma and ultimately developing Self-leadership within the internal system.
This approach parallels anti-carceral transformative justice in its emphasis on understanding and working with, rather than against, aspects of the psyche that perceived as problematic. Both frameworks aim to restore harmony and promote healing through acceptance and integration rather than suppression or elimination.
Parallels at play - Integrating abolitionist principles and internal family systems as a framework for personal and social transformation
At a macro values level, the philosophies of abolitionist TJ and IFS share an emphasis on contextual understanding, belief in inherent human worth, prioritisation of healing over punishment, and optimism about people's (or part’s) ability to change, that is grounded in relational approaches. The values reflect a trust in human potential, redemption and communities (inner or outer communities) to address harm and suffering in restorative ways. In a more granular sense, there is a great deal to learn from abolitionist TJ principles for inner parts work. IFS is built upon two key sets of principles: The 8 C's: Compassion, Creativity, Curiosity, Confidence, Courage, Calm, Connectedness, and Clarity, and the 5 P's: Presence, Persistence, Perspective, Playfulness, and Patience.
Schwartz's research revealed that when clients' internal parts "step back," allowing the core ‘Self’ to emerge, these qualities manifest naturally. This process, known as "unblending," leads to reduced fear and increased calmness, often experienced as an embodied sense of spaciousness. According to their work, as clients progress in therapy, their relationship with their parts evolves. Initially confrontational attitudes give way to patience and confidence. This shift enables a deeper connection with parts, characterized by curiosity rather than fear or judgment. As parts feel the presence of the client’s core self, they open up, revealing the underlying reasons for their behaviors and feelings. The principles of IFS offer valuable lessons for addressing societal issues, particularly in the context of transformative justice:
1. Approaching "difficult parts" with curiosity and compassion, rather than judgment or attempts at elimination.
2. Recognizing that harmful behaviors often stem from unmet needs or past traumas.
3. Fostering a sense of internal leadership (Self) that can engage with all aspects of oneself or society without coercion.
Here I argue that for IFS to fully realize its potential, the field must engage with transformative justice principles. This involves examining the societal structures that contribute to internalized carcerality and addressing them at a systemic level. As Mariame Kaba and Rachel Herzing argue, the abolitionist approach demands the elimination of punitive systems and the rejection of practices that perpetuate harm.
Internally we often exile some of our the parts of us that are carrying the deepest wounds and experiences (these are called ‘exiles’). They can become fragmented and disintegrated. The downside to this is that we are individuals can become unaware and tormented by these exile aspects of ourselves. Not only is that unhelpful for an organism that is attempting to live a fully present, self aware, integrated life with values that represent all aspects of our self, but it also renders us liable to react to the world in surprising and ‘triggered’ ways. The parallels to how we treat harmful humans in the US is stark.
All of us or none of us, ultimately has to also include all parts of ourselves.
Cover from a zine by Clementine Morrigan
A well known phrase in the abolitionist world is ‘fuck the police means we don’t act like cops to each other’. If we are to ensure that our values toward each other and the world, also are in integrity with how we interact with our selves and our inner worlds, ‘fuck the police’ also means we don’t act like cops to ourselves. What is to be learnt about how we are to interact with some of our most difficult parts in IFS, for approaches to dealing with harmful actors in the world? And what can abolitionist principles so to help us dismantle internalized carcerality, such that we no longer shun difficult or harmful parts of ourselves, but approach them with curiosity. And if IFS practices are really to succeed, they also need to focus at the level of transformative justice, which is to say that if we are to ask individuals to embrace parts of themselves with compassion and curiosity, without coercion, to ask ourselves - what conditions are needed for you to have your needs met without harming any part of me or others - then perhaps the world of IFS also needs to begin to address the structures in society that result in internalized carcerality. Such a abolitionist practice demands, the elimination of policing, imprisonment, and surveillance, rejects the expansion in breadth or scope or legitimation of all aspects of the prison-industrial complex—surveillance, policing, sentencing, and imprisonment of all sorts, and refuses premature death and organized abandonment, the state’s modes of reprisal and punishment [3].
Ultimately, if we continue to raise people in a carceral world, that treats humans that act poorly as disposable - as negative externalities to an otherwise beautiful world, as exiles that deserve to be punished - what hope do we have for us all to treat our own inner worlds in a different manner. What if we were able to translate what we have learnt from “no bad parts’, to no bad actors*. That is, that there are no inherently bad parts of ourselves, just injured aspects that do not have their needs met?*
Swartz writes about the various reasons why parts might remain in extreme roles. What is to be learned about how we might proceed to work with perpetrators of harm, from how we understand extreme roles of parts, and how might the principles of IFS be integrated into abolitionist restorative and transformative justice practices? First and foremost, ISF reminds us to recognize that harmful behaviors often stem from protective intentions. Just as no IFS “parts” are inherently bad, even those in extreme roles, abolitionists emphasize that people who commit harm are not monsters but complex humans responding to their own wounds and social conditions. Understanding the underlying needs, fears and burdens driving harmful acts is crucial for transformation.
Seeing resistance to change as a sign other needs must be addressed first. In IFS, if an extreme part won’t shift roles, it’s likely protecting against a perceived threat - either an external situation or internal vulnerability. Similarly, accountability processes may stall if a person’s basic needs for safety, respect, belonging etc. are unmet. Tending to those is a prerequisite for behavior change.
Bringing compassionate curiosity to a person’s inner landscape. IFS invites us to build trusting relationships with parts and hear their stories before trying to change them. Restorative justice requires building enough rapport and understanding with those who have caused harm to explore the roots of their actions, not just the actions themselves.
Restoring a person’s own self-leadership. The goal of IFS is empowering a person’s core self to lead their inner family with compassion, rather than having extreme protectors dominate. Transformative justice aims to develop people’s capacity to regulate their own behavior in line with their values, rather than relying on external control. Both require reconnecting with inherent worth, wisdom and choice.
Updating old narratives and strategies. IFS tells us that protectors often get stuck in extreme roles based on past adaptive strategies that are no longer helpful. Inviting a part to notice changes since its role began can loosen its grip. Accountability processes for those who have enacted harm can also involve exploring how coping mechanisms that once ensured survival have become destructive, making new choices possible.
Unburdening pain and shame: Harm is often an outgrowth of unresolved trauma, so transformation requires healing those wounds at the root. Just as IFS releases burdens parts carry from the past, transformative justice holds space for people to grieve losses, process shame, reclaim self-worth and establish a new foundation for living. Integrating IFS principles would mean any accountability process with those who have caused harm might:
- Lead with relationship-building and seek to understand protective intentions behind harmful acts
- Collaborate to identify and address factors (external and internal) blocking change
- Reconnect the person with their own inherent human dignity, capacity for self-leadership, and for love.
- Explore impacts of past trauma and provide space/support for genuine healing and unburdening.
- Frame harmful behavior as learned survival strategies that can be updated, not fixed character flaws.
- Aim for restoration of the person’s ability to act in alignment with their values, embedded in community support.
A note on coercion
In Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy, one of the key principles is to approach all parts of the psyche with curiosity, compassion and respect, never coercion or force. This is particularly important when working with parts that are in extreme roles or carrying heavy burdens, which are often the parts behind destructive or dysfunctional behaviors. IFS recognizes that these "difficult" parts are usually protectors that developed their strategies in response to past experiences of trauma, attachment injuries, or unmet needs. While their methods may no longer serve the person well, the parts adopted these roles in an attempt to ensure safety and survival. They often hold intense emotions like fear, shame, or anger, and they have learned to expect threat and rejection. Trying to pressure these parts to change through cajoling, arguing, or shaming will usually only activate their defensive strategies and reinforce their belief that the world is dangerous. They are likely to either dig in their heels and become more rigid or go into hiding and lose trust in the process. Instead, IFS invites the self (the core essence of compassion and clarity) to build a genuine relationship with these parts. This involves:
- Respecting their protective intentions and survival wisdom, even if disagreeing with their methods.
- Acknowledging the real pain and unmet needs they carry from the past.
- Expressing genuine gratitude for how they've tried to help and willingness to understand their perspective.
- Remaining patient and present with them, without agenda, as they share their experiences and emotions.
- Supporting them to feel seen and understood before suggesting any changes.
- Collaborating with them to find new strategies to feel safe and cared for that don’t require extreme roles.
- Proceeding only with permission and keeping any promises made.
The goal of this process is to create enough internal safety and trust that parts naturally begin to soften their defensive reactivity and allow the individual's core self to take more leadership, ownership and responsibility for internal safety. Change happens not from forceful attempts to get rid of certain parts but by restoring their sense of connection to the larger system so they don't need to resort to extreme tactics to get their needs met. This approach of loving, respectful engagement with even the most destructive-seeming parts rests on the belief that all parts are valuable and want to play a constructive role. It recognizes that attempts to exile or dominate parts will only breed more internal conflict and dysregulation. Transformation happens through honoring all parts and negotiating new roles from a foundation of understanding.
The lessons IFS offers about not forcefully overpowering protective parts but instead extending them courageous compassion and collaborating to find new solutions seems highly applicable to abolitionist work with people who have caused harm. When people's survival strategies are met with punitive control, their defensive aggression tends to increase. But when they experience empathy for the unmet needs and wounds underlying their behavior, they are more likely to open to change and unlock their own capacity for repair. IFS models an approach of leading with genuine curiosity, care and humility that allows difficult parts to gradually emerge from their extreme roles with support. The core IFS principle of all parts containing inherent worth, and having capacity for positive transformation with compassionate witnessing, is deeply aligned with abolitionist values. An IFS-informed abolitionist approach would create conditions for accountability and healing by treating those who have caused harm as full human beings, working to understand and meet the needs driving destructive behaviors so that their innate wisdom and care for others can be restored to leadership. It’s an optimistic view of human nature and potential that could help fuel efforts to address violence at its roots.
Prefiguration - where do we see these practices played out?
There are many indigenous and traditional cultures around the world that have practiced forms of conflict resolution, harm repair and community reintegration that imbue elements of with the principles of IFS and transformative justice. A few examples include:
- Babemba tribe of South Africa:
“In the Babemba tribe of South Africa, when a person acts irresponsibly or unjustly, he is placed in the center of the village, alone and unfettered. All work ceases, and every man, woman, and child in the village gathers in a large circle around the accused individual. Then each person in the tribe speaks to the accused, one at a time, each recalling the good things the person in the center of the circle has done in his lifetime. Every incident, every experience that can be recalled with any detail and accuracy, is recounted. All his positive attributes, good deeds, strengths, and acts of kindness are recited carefully and at length. This tribal ceremony often lasts for several days. In the end, the tribal circle is broken, a joyous celebration takes place, and the person is symbolically and literally welcomed back into the tribe.” [4]
2. Navajo peacemaking: In the Navajo Nation, traditional peacemaking circles bring together those who have caused harm, those who have been harmed, and their extended family and community members to discuss the impact of the harm and agree on a plan for making things right. The process is led by a respected peacemaker who guides participants to speak from the heart, listen deeply, and reconnect with their shared values and relationships. The goal is not punishment but restoring harmony and balance to the community. This aligns with IFS’s emphasis on compassionate witness and transformative justice’s focus on collective healing. [5]
3. Rwandan gacaca courts: After the genocide in Rwanda, communities developed a system of grassroots justice called gacaca, inspired by traditional village councils, to address the overwhelming number of cases and need for social reconciliation. In gacaca courts, perpetrators faced their victims and neighbors, confessed their crimes, and negotiated amends. The process prioritized truth-telling, apology, forgiveness and reintegration over retribution. While imperfect and coercive in some cases, gacaca courts reflected a cultural emphasis on communal ties over individual guilt that resonates with both IFS and transformative justice. [6]
4. Hawai’ian ho’oponopono: Ho’oponopono is an ancient Hawai’ian practice of interpersonal conflict resolution and family therapy that has been adapted in various forms. In ho’oponopono, extended family members come together in prayer and discussion facilitated by a respected elder to release hurt feelings, resentments and misunderstandings. Each person takes responsibility for their part in the problem and seeks forgiveness. The process continues until there is a felt sense of closure and renewed harmony. Like IFS, ho’oponopono assumes that each person has a divine essence that can be obscured but not destroyed by conflict, and that healing happens through internal reflection and interpersonal dialogue.[7]
4. Sierra Leonean fambul tok: After the civil war in Sierra Leone, some communities rejected the formal Truth and Reconciliation Commission in favor of a traditional practice called fambul tok (family talk). In fambul tok ceremonies, perpetrators of violence publicly confess and apologize for their actions, and victims have a chance to express their pain and forgive. The process culminates in celebratory feast where the perpetrator is welcomed back into the community. While not without limitations, fambul tok reflects an understanding that social healing requires spaces for people to process strong emotions, rebuild empathy and trust, and affirm shared values - all key principles in IFS and transformative justice. [8]
5. New Zealand family group conferences: In New Zealand’s youth justice system, family group conferences bring together young people who have committed crimes, their family members, victims, and relevant professionals to decide on a plan for taking responsibility and making amends. The process is inspired by Maori practices that emphasize collective responsibility, honest dialogue, and consensus decision-making over adversarial approaches. The conferences create space for people to share feelings, understand each other’s perspectives, agree on solutions - all in the context of the young person’s family and community relationships. This resonates with IFS’s understanding of a person’s relational embeddedness and transformative justice’s commitment to treating harm in social context. [9]
While specific practices vary, what these cultural traditions have in common is a belief that conflict and harm are not just individual failings but ruptures in a web of relationships that require communal reckoning and repair. They create ritual spaces for difficult emotions to be expressed, different perspectives to be heard, and new understandings to be reached. They emphasize the inherent worth and interdependence of all people, even when they cause harm. These are all values that undergird both IFS therapy and transformative justice as models that seek to transform cycles of harm and alienation into healing and belonging.
Conclusion
While Internal Family Systems therapy and transformative justice are distinct approaches with different contexts and aims, they share some core principles that make them potentially complementary. Both emphasize the inherent worth and wisdom of all people, the need for compassionate witnessing of pain, and the possibility of transformation through empathetic encounter. IFS offers a nuanced framework for understanding and healing the complex wounds that often underlie harmful behavior, while transformative justice situates that behavior within larger systems of oppression and collective trauma that require social and structural change. Together, they suggest that true accountability and repair must involve both individual and collective healing, that reconciliation is a spiritual and political endeavor. By learning from each other, IFS and transformative justice could develop more holistic and liberatory responses to violence that honor the full humanity of all people while also working to dismantle the conditions that breed harm. Ultimately, both point us toward a world where healing and justice are not separate pursuits but deeply intertwined practices on the path to personal and collective liberation.