Exploring Anger and Compassion through Internal Family Systems
Introduction
In this conversation, I’m speaking with Niamh Fortune, counsellor and psychotherapist at Inner Echo Psychotherapy. We talk about anger, compassion and ‘Introduction to Internal Family Systems’ by Richard C. Schwartz.
To offer some background information, Internal Family Systems (IFS) is a psychotherapy approach which views the mind as made up of distinct sub-personalities or "parts," each with its own perspectives, feelings, and roles. IFS works to resolve inner-conflicts and foster positive internal relationships, based on the understanding that all of our parts - even the ones that seem disruptive - have positive intentions.
Niamh speaks about how these ideas have impacted her work and her own self-understanding. We also touch on power dynamics in the therapy relationship, and the importance of showing compassion to our inner-critics.
Conscious Chapter Conversations: A Dialogue with Niamh on Internal Family Systems
Jen: Can you tell me about the book you’ve chosen to speak about and how you came across it?
Niamh: To be fully transparent, I started reading ‘Introduction to Internal Family Systems’ because I thought it was about the structure of the family unit - how we fit within our families and how those dynamics influence us. I thought it would be really helpful for couple counselling and understanding relationship dynamics.
When I started reading it, I realized IFS is actually about our internal systems, the different parts of ourselves that interact and influence each other. I was blown away by it, and honestly, I was even more delighted to have discovered that. It gave me so much insight into my clients and how they present in front of me. I also found that it ties really well to attachment theory and inner child work, which I’m really passionate about. So, even though I came to it with one expectation, it ended up offering something even more relevant and meaningful.
Jen: I can absolutely see how you’d get that from the name. So IFS isn’t really about the influence of your family, or the views you’ve inherited from family members - it’s more about noticing different parts of your own personality and the internal dynamics of how those parts relate to each other?
Niamh: Exactly! And I think it’s really important because it also helped me look at myself more deeply. It’s not just about understanding others; it’s also about understanding our own internal systems and the parts of ourselves that we might be hiding or ignoring. That was a huge takeaway for me.
Jen: That’s something I appreciate about IFS —it gives us a framework for looking at self-relationship and understanding those inner conflicts.
Niamh: Yeah, I think one of the key things that struck me is how it helps to understand why we might be behaving in certain ways. The concept of exiles - those parts of us that we push away or hide - has been really helpful for me. It gives you a much deeper framework for understanding those behaviours and the internal dynamics between parts that drive them.
Now, I’m only just beginning with IFS, so it’s still early days, but it’s a great starting point. It’s like dipping your toe into the modality and seeing how it resonates with you and your clients.
Jen: You’ve started to touch on this already, but I’m curious about the personal impact of these ideas. How has engaging with this book, or the concepts of Internal Family Systems, impacted you personally?
Niamh: For me, it’s offered a new way of understanding the parts of myself that I used to push down or ignore. It helped me recognise how I’ve acted in certain ways throughout my life to protect those vulnerable parts of myself. A big one for me was realising how much I was operating from a “people-pleaser” part of myself.
I was doing whatever I could to please people so that I could feel accepted in my social circles. I used people-pleasing as a shield to protect the vulnerable part of myself. It’s something that I’ve carried into adulthood, even though I’m much more aware of it now.
Jen: So, you noticed a vulnerable part of yourself that you were protecting through people-pleasing. Which means the people pleasing part has a positive intention. I’m wondering whether those good intentions came with any side-effects? Did people-pleasing work for you?
Niamh: Well, it worked in the sense that I always had friends, and I was very sociable. On the outside, I appeared to be really well-connected, but it wasn’t the real me. I was afraid to show people who I truly was, because I feared they might not like me or that they would leave. That’s where my abandonment issues came into play. I became a bit of a chameleon, adapting to the people around me to fit in and protect myself from being left alone.
In the moment, it felt positive, because I was getting the social connection I needed. But looking back now, I see that it wasn’t healthy. It took me 39 years to realize that I was only just beginning to find my authentic self. Now, I’m in a much better place. I’ve realized that if someone doesn’t like me, that’s okay. I’m not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, and that’s fine.
Jen: When you looked at this people-pleasing part through the lens of Internal Family Systems, did that change the way you relate to it? Did it shift anything in how you view that part of yourself or how it behaves?
Niamh: I think it definitely helped me to view that part of myself with more compassion. In therapy, I’d already started working through this part of me, so it wasn’t a huge shift in behaviour. But learning about IFS gave me a more grounded framework to understand that people-pleasing behaviour as a protective mechanism. It wasn’t a bad thing—it was my way of surviving. I was doing what I needed to do to protect myself.
I’ve come to see that part of me with more kindness and understanding, rather than with judgment. And while it’s still a work in progress, I can now appreciate that it served a purpose at the time, even if it’s no longer the most useful way of coping.
Jen: So IFS helped you to view that people-pleaser part of yourself more compassionately rather than critically – to see the good it was trying to do for you?
Niamh: Yes, exactly.
Jen: Let’s shift focus a little to the professional side of things. How has reading this book shaped your work with clients, either directly or indirectly? Has it changed the way you show up as a therapist?
Niamh: It’s definitely made me approach things with a lot more compassion. I’m able to frame things like anger or other emotional reactions in a way that helps clients understand them better. For example, I work with clients who often come in feeling like they need to get rid of their anger. They see it as something bad, something they need to fix. But anger, I’ve found, is a really useful tool.
I’ve learned that when clients express anger, whether it’s toward themselves, their families, or anything else, it’s usually there to protect something. So instead of just focusing on stopping the anger, I help them explore why it’s there, what role it’s in and what it’s protecting. IFS helps me to broach that in a gentler way with my clients so that they can kind of have a little more self-compassion.
Jen: I love that we’re talking about anger. It gets such a bad reputation because it’s viewed as disruptive. But I absolutely agree that anger is a self-protective emotion.
I often encourage clients to ask themselves “What am I protecting?” when they notice anger coming up. When we can see anger as an appropriate emotional response with a protective function, it can empower us to take action in a helpful way.
I think that potential often gets stunted when people come in with this belief that experiencing anger is a sign that there's something wrong with you. In fact, your anger is completely healthy - it's trying to protect something that's vulnerable or valuable in you. If we can just learn to work with that in a compassionate way, anger can be a positive force in our lives.
Unfortunately, because of our cultural conditioning, it is usually viewed as harmful - and then people come with this extra baggage of shame or believing that there's something wrong with them because they're feeling anger.
Niamh: Right. I’ve had clients who identify as “the angry one” in their families, and for them, anger became part of their identity. They often come in saying things like, “I’m the angry person,” and feel as though their anger defines them. Over time, though, as we work together, it becomes clear that their anger is an understandable response to everything they’ve been through. They’ve been labelled as “unstable” or “inappropriate” for expressing anger, but it’s not the anger that’s the problem.
Anger gets a bad reputation, but it’s a strong emotional response to something deeper—hurt, fear, or sadness. I’ve found that helping clients understand that anger isn’t the problem allows them to shift their relationship to it. They can begin to view anger as a signal that something deeper needs attention, rather than something to get rid of or suppress.
Jen: Absolutely. The more we allow ourselves to turn towards anger with curiosity rather than judgement, the more we can uncover underlying needs. Once we identify our needs, we have so many options for how we can respond and meet them. Instead of just saying, “I need to get rid of my anger,” we start asking, “What is my anger trying to protect, and how can I meet that need in a helpful way?”
Niamh: Totally – and the IFS framework really helps with that. Instead of trying to get rid of parts of ourselves that we perceive as “bad” or “wrong,” it encourages us to understand them. It’s about building a relationship with parts of ourselves, not rejecting them. So, with anger, for example, it’s about acknowledging that anger is a part of us and understanding where that part comes from.
Jen: As we reflect on this book, it’s clear that it carries a lot of value for you. I’m curious if there’s anything about Internal Family Systems that you feel ambivalent about? Any aspects you’ve questioned or think might benefit from a little more nuance?
Niamh: I think the only thing for me - although this might just be because I’m still new to the framework and haven’t undergone official training - is the conversational approach that Dr. Schwartz takes to getting clients to dialogue with their parts or emotions. The way it’s presented in the book, I find it a little too... role-play oriented perhaps? For me, it doesn't sit naturally.
Jen: I’m laughing as you mention role play - it’s bringing me right back to our training together in college. We both had such an aversion to role-play!
Niamh: I know! We hated it!
Jen: So, I totally get what you're saying. I do think the approach laid out in the book could work for some, but for others, it might feel performative, especially with clients who might be more reserved or cautious about diving into those kinds of structured interactions.
Niamh: Exactly! I was thinking about my own clients and I just can’t imagine using that approach with them. It feels forced. It doesn’t align with how I naturally work and I think they would pick up on that inauthenticity. For me, when I was reading those parts of the book, I didn’t get much from them. I found myself skimming through the examples and focusing more on the informational side of things, which I found really useful. But the role-play examples, in particular, didn’t resonate with me.
Jen: Right, so you want to take the valuable information but adapt it in a way that feels authentic to you and your clients, instead of sticking strictly to the book’s examples.
Niamh: Yes. If I were to follow Dr. Schwartz’s exact methods, I don’t think I’d be doing my clients justice. I wouldn’t fully understand the approach, or I’d be too caught up in trying to follow a structure that doesn’t fit my own style. I’m on board with the information. It’s incredibly insightful and useful. I just didn’t connect with the execution in the book. I know they’re showing ideal scenarios, but they just didn’t feel authentic to me.
Jen: It sounds like a big part of this comes down to being true to yourself as a therapist and understanding that authenticity is key, not only for you but also for your clients. People are quick to pick up on inauthenticity.
Niamh: Definitely. And honestly, that’s really the only issue I had with the book. Everything else I found so helpful. I digested it quickly because it was engaging. I think it’s an incredible resource, but for me, the role-play examples just didn’t feel like they fit with my approach.
Jen: Is there a particular insight from your reading of this book that you'd like to offer to people in the wider community?
Niamh: The main thing that really stuck with me, and that I’ve used so many times in sessions and in my own life, is the difference between pity, empathy, and compassion. It really struck a chord with me personally. I never fully understood the distinctions between empathy and compassion. I knew pity wasn’t a good thing, but empathy and compassion - I didn’t grasp the nuances.
Pity, as the book describes, is when you look at someone and think, "Thank God I’m not in their situation". It’s like saying, “That’s awful, but I’m glad it’s not me.” Empathy, on the other hand, is feeling for someone, connecting with their emotions and experiencing their pain alongside them. But here's the flip side: if you’re too empathetic, it can lead you into the role of the "rescuer," trying to fix their emotions because you’re uncomfortable with them. It’s a fine line between empathy and moving into "fixer" mode.
For me, I always felt very empathetic, especially when I’m with someone. I could feel their feelings strongly. But reading this really made me reflect on moments when I felt the urge to fix things - especially if someone was sitting with their sadness for what felt like too long. I’d want to jump in and help, but that's not always the best approach.
The real shift for me was between empathy and compassion. Compassion involves sitting with someone’s emotions but also trusting that they have the inner resources to bring themselves out of it and manage it themselves. You’re not overstepping. You trust that they have the capacity to work through it, even if they need support along the way.
Jen: This makes me think about the concept of the compassionate witness. Part of what we do as therapists is to acknowledge someone’s pain and to be present with them in it, a compassionate witness to their experience. But we’re also fostering the client’s own ability to become a compassionate witness to themselves. It’s about cultivating that internal strength and presence, right?
Niamh: Yes. It really hit home when I applied this concept to a client’s family dynamics. They thought they were coming from a place of empathy, but in reality, they were moving into "fixer" mode because they were uncomfortable with their family member’s emotions. When we explored this idea, it helped them realise that they could still support their loved ones without trying to fix everything. They didn’t need to rescue - they could be there as a compassionate presence without taking on the burden of fixing things. It’s about being there, not overstepping, and maintaining healthy boundaries.
Jen: This distinction you’re making between empathy and compassion also speaks to the issue of power dynamics in therapy. Even from a place of empathy, if we’re trying to "save" or "fix" a client, we’re playing into this power dynamic where the therapist is positioned as the one with all the answers. It sounds like the way you’re describing compassion is more democratising – creating a more equal footing in the therapeutic relationship.
Niamh: Yes! We trust that the client has the ability to heal themselves. We’re simply there to witness and support their journey. It’s like in attachment theory - as therapists, we can provide a secure base for clients, but we're not doing the work for them.
Jen: Exactly. We're providing that steady, caring presence while clients develop trust in themselves – and then, over time, people internalise that and become their own secure base or compassionate witness.
Niamh: Right. At the core of this book and the Internal Family Systems model it’s really about being kinder to ourselves and less judgmental.
Jen: That really resonated with me too - just allowing ourselves to be curious rather than critical. To put it plainly: don’t be a dick to yourself. And if you are being a dick to yourself, don’t be a dick to those parts of you that are being a dick! We have to show compassion even to our inner critics.
Niamh: Exactly!
Jen: Is there anything you were hoping to mention that we didn’t cover yet?
Niamh: Not really. Just to say that the ideas from this book have helped me connect a lot of dots in my work. When I hear things from other practitioners. I’m seeing the same principles in play. Internal Family Systems really helps me name things and understand them on a deeper level. It’s been so valuable to me.
