In this article we will highlight some useful models for working with clients’ ‘Parts’. Numerous psychological theory models seek to describe and explain the functioning of, the different aspects of our neurophysiology/personality and these in turn are used to explain our thoughts, emotions, and behaviour. Examples early on include Freud’s id, ego and super-ego and later on Eric Berne replaced these ego states with: Parent, Adult and Child. Added to this is the work of psychiatrist Steve Peters and his model which uses chimp, human and computer. Richard Schwartz’s Internal Family systems also presents us with a way of looking at our inner ‘family’ or the differing parts of ourself. All of these models can be useful in counselling as a way of clients gaining a) a better understanding of the different parts of themselves and b) Ideas around better managing these internal aspects or parts they navigate their way through the world. Finally, we take a brief look at schema therapy and again the approach to ‘parts’ of the self.

Rarely will clients not agree that at different times of the day/under different circumstances they feel and act differently. In common language we often say ‘part of me feels…’ and of course, a natural conclusion is that this also means ‘part of me does not feel…’, so we have different points of view internally just as we do externally, and that appears to be a natural state as we try to make sense of any situation or problem we face. It is, of course, not only problems per se but also thinking which hijacks us, you may be for example, relaxing at home watching Netflix and your train of thought is pulled elsewhere, to a past memory or a potential future situation and worry is what happens next, worry about ‘what if’ and ‘why did I’ and ‘why didn’t I…’ and we are off into the brains smoke detecting system and that feeling internally will be located somewhere in the body, the neck, or stomach or shoulders for example, and we can at this point do something helpful, namely to notice that It is happening rather than just let the thoughts and feelings run.

This Amygdala activation described above has, of course, helped us survive as a species for millennia as it is the body’s warning system, designed to tell us to worry because of predators, and imminent environmental danger, perhaps a precipitous drop off a cliff or a strange smelling gas coming from the ground and so on. This same system, however, is activated when we are safe and at rest under shelter, if the mind wanders into problem solving mode or worrying. So, we are attempting in counselling and psychology to facilitate clients in learning the difference between the two- crossing a busy road? Amygdala all the way, look out for danger and be ready to respond as appropriate; however, in the case of sitting thinking at work and the very common notion of worrying about things we cannot directly fix or affect and something different is needed. Brene Brown tells us, in her excellently drawn text, Atlas of the Heart, that worrying is an action taken because we are convinced that if we worry about something it protects us by making it less likely to happen… Of course, some internal investigation about this (“am I making it less likely to happen?’) will often reveal that this is fallacy as often our concerns are outside of our control. This can be likened to a ‘bin problem’. A bin problem is typified by realising there is a problem such as putting the bins at the end of your driveway ready for collection and realising you haven’t done it; this is good worry, because it serves as a reminder, and you put your slippers on and go out and move the bins. Many problems (‘sorting the situation out with my sister…’) are also worrying and need some attention but cannot be fixed (often) by a simple action and so we may need to notice this, so that it does not revolve around in our minds endlessly. An action here might be to write down the fact that you are going to make a phone call or send a message to your sister the next day to start the ball rolling. It doesn’t fix the whole problem but it sets up an action so that we can then record it, plan it or write it down before we concentrate on something else for a while.
 
When it comes to strong emotion, rage, sadness, guilt, fear for examples accompanied by internal feelings of discomfort, literally for some a knot in the stomach- the models seeking to help us gain control would express these feelings as coming from the inner child, the id or the chimp and assuredly we all have them. When the difficult feeling has passed, and we have moved into a calmer space we might say we came to our senses or have a sense of having ‘gone over the top’. So, what has happened when we ‘come to our senses?’ it seems likely that the ‘clear’ or logical thinking is now not coming from the parts of the brain associated with fight, flight or freeze but the calmer and rationale ‘human’ as Peters calls it or the adult in Eric Berne’s work on transactional analysis.

A clear goal then, for counselling, may be helping clients find emotional regulation and help them steer way from interactions where, essentially, they are not happy with what they said or the way they said it. A great technique in dealing with this sems to be introducing the notion that we are not one thing and one thing only. Clients can be a dishevelled and emotional mess in a morning counselling session and a powerful competent CEO in the afternoon. There are different parts to us all and different states and the road to management is paved by understanding. People who get into trouble with managing anger relate strongly to the part of themselves which takes over when they are mad; in counselling, we talk about what the common denominators to anger are (very often someone else not doing the right thing/being disrespectful). The inner chimp does not like others behaving disrespectfully and feels like it ‘cannot stand’ such behaviours (say uncourteous drivers for example) in reality when we learning to speak (self-talk) to our inner chimp various tactics will work, firstly the inner chimp doesn’t like looking bad so appealing to the memory via asking: ‘what happened last time we did this?’ can help the chimp sullenly admit it was not good. Equally, we can connect with the notion that our thoughts are often and our actions sometimes irrational, i.e., all drivers on the road should be respectful to me. A rational version of the same thought is ‘I would like drivers to be courteous to me but accept that not all of them will be’. Other thoughts might be: ‘they have no idea who I am, and they are probably operating from their own chimp’.

In internal family systems, this anger or chimp might be seen as a part of the self that emerges in relation to people doing the wrong thing, that part of us is maybe seeking to protect us by making sure we are not seen as irrelevant or unworthy of respect. In IFS that part would need to be looked after, to be treated with curiosity and respect and not contempt. It is there for a reason and is strong in us and, yet, also may not happy in its job. Schwartz encourages clients to get to know and befriend parts we may often consider ‘bad’. In ‘No Bad Parts’ he elucidates the notion that even abhorrent parts of us have at their roots a desire to protect. Let’s say a client is terrified of going outside and may judge that part as weak, stupid and unhelpful. It will, of course be a part that is seeking to keep them safe – misguided or skewed, but protective. The notion itself is simple but getting access to individual parts of the self, without attacking, judging or blaming, can be tricky, as naturally you have other parts of the self, wanting to join in these conversations. Schwartz explains it becomes necessary to ask these parts to stand down so that you can gently, and with compassion, access the part in question. Ultimately after the curious and compassionate exploration we may start seeking to ask the part whether it is happy with its current job, or else would it like to change that job for something else?

With all these models, a great advantage is the ability to see ourselves as made of different parts, whether they be chimp and human or ego states or simply ‘parts’ and so therefore partially externalise different thoughts and behaviours. It doesn’t mean we can ignore abhorrent behaviour and blame it on our chimp or inner child (as like having a real pet or a real child we are responsible for their care and behaviour) but it means when people are feeling a great sense of being outside the norm. It is possible to see that they are not simply one thing, they are many things. Ego state models such as these help us better understand and build mind management strategies to improve our relationships with both others and ourselves.
 
References

  1. Berne, E. (1968). Games people play: The psychology of human relationships (Vol. 2768). Penguin Uk.
  2. Brown, B. (2021). Atlas of the heart: Mapping meaningful connection and the language of human experience. Random House.
  3. Freud, S., & Strachey, J. E. (1964). The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud.
  4. Peters, S. (2013). The Chimp Paradox: The Mind Management Program to Help You Achieve Success, Confidence, and Happiness. TarcherPerigee.
  5. Peeters, N., van Passel, B., & Krans, J. (2022). The effectiveness of schema therapy for patients with anxiety disorders, OCD, or PTSD: A systematic review and research agenda. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(3), 579-597.
  6. Schwartz, R. C. (2021). No Bad Parts: Healing trauma and restoring wholeness with the internal family systems model. Sounds True.