IFS & Carl Jung FAQs
How Internal Family Systems Works
Carl Jung’s insights into the psyche — shadow, archetypes, the Self — laid the foundation for much of modern inner work. Internal Family Systems (IFS) builds on that legacy, offering a structured, relational way to meet the many voices within.
This page explores how IFS and Jungian psychology intersect, from working with exiles and protectors to understanding individuation, unconscious dynamics, and spiritual integration. If you’ve ever felt drawn to Jung’s wisdom and wondered how IFS fits in, this page offers answers to your most common questions.
Share this page
⚜️ What is a “part” in IFS and how is that different from what Jung meant by a “complex” or “archetype”?
In IFS, a part is a subpersonality within the psyche that carries its own emotions, beliefs, needs, and strategies for keeping the system safe. Parts are not metaphors. They are experienced as real inner entities with distinct perspectives and roles. IFS sees the mind as naturally multiple, meaning these parts are normal and healthy expressions of the human system until they become burdened by pain or extreme roles. Jung’s complexes also describe semi autonomous aspects of the psyche, often formed around powerful emotional experiences or archetypal patterns. A mother complex, for example, might carry both longing and fear linked to early relational experiences. Complexes tend to cluster around archetypes, the universal templates of human experience that shape how energy and meaning move through the psyche. So where Jung emphasized symbolic universality, the mythic patterns common to all humanity, IFS focuses on personal specificity, how those patterns manifest in your unique inner system. A warrior archetype in Jungian language might appear in IFS as a protector part shaped by lived trauma, family roles, and specific personal memories. Both models honor the autonomy and intelligence of the psyche. But IFS invites a direct, relational engagement. You can talk to a part, build trust with it, and help it unburden. Jung’s work leans more toward symbolic interpretation and integration within the broader process of individuation. In essence, IFS is relational and experiential. Jung is archetypal and symbolic. Each completes what the other might overlook.
⚜️ I’ve done IFS work a lot — what is Jungian psychology all about, in plain clinical terms?
At its core, Jungian psychology is about becoming more whole by making the unconscious conscious. It is built on the idea that the psyche is not just made of personal memories and wounds but also deeper archetypal patterns that shape human behavior across cultures and time. Clinically, Jungian work involves tracking dreams, symbols, projections, and relational patterns to uncover what the psyche is trying to express or balance. Rather than focusing only on resolving trauma or relieving symptoms, Jung emphasized individuation, the lifelong process of becoming fully oneself by integrating what was once unconscious. You will hear terms like: The shadow, the disowned or hidden aspects of the self. Archetypes, mythic patterns like the hero, the mother, or the trickster. The Self, the organizing center of the psyche that drives wholeness. Complexes, emotionally charged clusters that form around a theme like abandonment or power. A Jungian therapist may work with dream material, images, fairy tales, body symptoms, slips of the tongue, synchronicities, and symbolic themes in a client’s life. The purpose is not to solve these symbols but to enter a dialogue with them and see what the unconscious is expressing and how it is guiding the person toward integration. If IFS is like getting to know the inner family and helping parts unburden, Jungian work is like entering the landscape of the soul and learning its language. It is slower, more mysterious, and deeply tied to imagery, meaning, and symbolic pattern. It can be a powerful complement for someone who already knows how to befriend parts.
⚜️ How do Jung’s ideas (like archetypes, the shadow) show up in everyday clinical work, and how might I see that in IFS too?
Jung’s ideas live quietly in most therapy rooms, whether we name them or not. When a client keeps repeating a painful pattern such as sabotaging success, fearing rejection, idealizing love, or craving power, they are often living out an archetypal story. These archetypes are universal patterns of human experience, not just symbols in myths. They shape how we relate, suffer, protect, and seek meaning. The shadow shows up every time something in us feels unacceptable or disowned. In clinical work, that might look like a client’s envy toward a colleague, their rage at a partner, or their resistance to therapy. In Jungian terms, the shadow is not evil. It is simply what consciousness has not yet welcomed. In IFS language, the shadow is often a cluster of exiles and protectors that carry shame, fear, or anger. An archetype may also emerge through a part’s imagery. For example, a client’s inner critic might appear as a stern father, a punishing god, or a mythic judge, all expressions of the authority archetype. A people pleasing part might embody the innocent or caregiver. These are not wrong labels in IFS. They simply describe the archetypal flavor of the part’s role. IFS helps us meet those archetypal energies personally. Instead of interpreting symbols from afar, we build a direct relationship with the living intelligence behind them. Jung gave us the map of universal patterns. IFS gives us the conversation with the specific being who carries that pattern inside the person. Together they let us see both the myth and the human behind it.
⚜️ When I use IFS and talk to a part, is that the same as working with a dream symbol (Jung’s approach)?
They are similar in spirit but different in process and intention. Both approaches treat the psyche as alive and full of meaning, but they relate to that aliveness in distinct ways. In Jungian dream work, a symbol such as a fox or a collapsing house is not taken literally. The therapist explores what the image represents and asks what archetypal forces or complexes it might express. The symbol is a bridge to deeper truths. Jung called dreams the royal road to the unconscious and often used active imagination to enter into dialogue with dream figures, giving them voice, asking questions, and letting them reveal meaning. IFS takes a more embodied and relational path. When you talk to a part, you are not interpreting it. You are meeting it. Even if the part appears as a fox or a collapsing house, you do not jump to meaning. You get curious, build trust, and listen. Over time, the part may explain why it shows up that way. It may shift form, reveal burdens, or show its true story. In short, Jungian dream work often treats the image as metaphor, something to be understood and integrated. IFS parts work treats the image as literal, living, and personal, something to be witnessed and healed. They are not opposites. Many clinicians combine them well. A dream image can become a part you talk to in IFS. A protector part might lead you into a dream like scene that is rich with Jungian symbolism. Both approaches honor the inner world, one through symbolic insight and the other through relational healing.
⚜️ Why might a therapist trained in Jungian analysis want to use IFS — or why might someone doing IFS want to learn about Jung?
Because each offers something the other longs for. A Jungian analyst might be drawn to IFS for its precision and accessibility. IFS gives therapists a clear map of the psyche, with exiles, protectors, and Self, and a repeatable process for working with internal material. Where Jungian work can remain in the realm of symbol, insight, or mythic exploration, IFS provides practical steps to help a client build trust with inner parts, unburden past trauma, and integrate fragmented experiences. The method is elegant but not simplistic. It gives you language and tools to help the parts a dream might reveal. IFS therapists often find that Jung adds depth, richness, and cosmology. Jung helps contextualize what is happening inside, not just as a part with a burden but as an archetypal story playing out across cultures and time. He reminds us that psyche is not only personal but also mythic. Jungian thinking brings soul back into the work. It helps clients find meaning in the long arc of their journey, not just relief from pain. For some parts, especially spiritual ones, Jungian language resonates more than IFS alone. Put simply, Jung gives IFS more soul, symbol, and mythic meaning. IFS gives Jungian work more structure, clarity, and healing process. Together they meet at the same sacred place, the belief that the inner world is real, alive, and worth listening to.
⚜️ Are there parts in IFS that map to mystic or archetypal figures in Jungian language? How can I tell in my practice?
Yes, and the key is energy, not category. In Jungian language, archetypes are not roles or personalities. They are universal psychic forces, ancient and impersonal patterns like the Mother, the Warrior, the Trickster, or the Divine Child. When a part in IFS starts to carry mythic, timeless, or numinous energy, it may be expressing or embodying one of these archetypes. For example, a nurturing part that feels bigger than your biography might be drawing on the archetype of the Great Mother. A furious inner protector who speaks in prophecy and wrath may echo the Destroyer or the Judge. A part that shapeshifts, jokes, or stirs chaos might hold Trickster energy. A radiant, spontaneous, childlike part might feel like the Eternal Child. You will know you are in archetypal territory when the part does not feel personal or age bound, when it evokes awe, fear, reverence, or mystery, when it appears in dreams, rituals, or synchronicities, or when it feels like more than a burdened trauma response and instead feels timeless. In practice, stay curious and ask whether the part feels like it is carrying something older than you. Track the felt sense because archetypal energy often feels larger, deeper, and more sacred. Do not force it because many parts are ordinary and human sized, but some, especially after unburdening, reveal deeper layers. When that happens, IFS does not need to become Jungian, but it can respect the archetype that is showing itself. Just as Self can witness a part, Self can also witness the archetypal pattern moving through that part. This is where healing becomes mythic and therapy becomes soul work.
⚜️ What’s the best way to blend a parts work session (IFS) with a depth psychological lens (Jung)? Where do I start?
Start with curiosity about what is underneath. Blending IFS with Jungian work does not require a complicated protocol. What it does ask is that you widen your lens from healing trauma to tracking meaning, from symptom to symbol, and from biography to myth. Here is a grounded way to begin: Stay rooted in IFS structure. Begin your session just like any IFS process. Find the part that needs attention, help the client relate to it from Self, and follow the flow. You do not need to change anything at the start. Let symbols emerge. Once there is space around a part, you can gently ask whether the part feels like anything that has appeared in a dream or myth, or whether it reminds the client of a character, animal, god, or story. This invites the archetypal without forcing it. Many clients naturally describe parts using symbolic language such as a wolf pacing in a cage, a girl in a tower, or a voice like thunder. That is the territory Jung explored. Track the transpersonal. If a part carries energy that feels ancient, numinous, or universal, you can explore whether the part might be holding something larger than personal history. This opens the door to archetype, shadow, and collective inheritance while still staying inside the IFS map. Hold both integration and individuation. IFS helps the system harmonize and unburden. Jungian work reminds us that healing is also about becoming who you truly are. After an unburdening or shift, you might explore what truth this part wants the client to live now or what new aspect of self is being born through this work. Trust the Self. Both models are deeply Self led. The Self in IFS is the one who heals. The Self in Jungian work is the center of the psyche’s becoming. They are not competing. They often express the same organizing force. Blending them does not mean doing two full therapies at once. It means listening for symbols, staying close to the parts, and letting healing move through both the personal and mythic layers of the psyche. Start small. Trust what emerges. The depth will meet you there.
⚜️ What are common mistakes beginners make when thinking “IFS = Jung” or “Jung = IFS”?
It is easy to assume that because both IFS and Jungian work explore the inner world, they must be the same. They share some deep resonances, but they are not interchangeable, and mistaking them for one another can limit both. Here are some common misunderstandings: 1. Confusing parts with archetypes. In IFS, parts are personal, rooted in your lived experience, and often formed in response to trauma, role modeling, or unmet needs. In Jungian work, archetypes are transpersonal, universal patterns or psychic energies like the Mother, the Warrior, or the Shadow that shape human behavior across cultures. They can overlap in a session when a part expresses archetypal energy, but they are not the same. 2. Assuming both models aim at the same outcome. IFS focuses on healing internal burdens and restoring harmony between parts. Jungian work focuses on individuation, becoming the fullest expression of the Self, even if it is disruptive or nonlinear. IFS asks what a part needs in order to heal. Jung often asks what a part reveals about who you are becoming. 3. Thinking Jungians do parts work. Jung did not explicitly work with parts like IFS does. He engaged with complexes, dream figures, and active imagination, but not in the structured relational way IFS offers. Trying to make Jung’s model fit IFS parts can flatten the specificity and healing orientation of IFS. 4. Over spiritualizing all parts as archetypes. It is tempting to label a protector as the Warrior or an exile as the Inner Child and stop there, but doing so can bypass the personal story and pain that part holds. IFS invites presence. Jungian language can enrich the work, but only after the part has been heard as itself. 5. Assuming IFS is lighter or less deep. Some Jungians see IFS as surface level or technique heavy. This is a mistake. IFS can go profoundly deep into transgenerational trauma, spiritual transformation, and ego dissolution when the practitioner allows it. Depth is not determined by the model but by how present and courageous you are with what arises. The takeaway is that IFS and Jung are not enemies or twins. They are complementary companions. Confusing them narrows your vision. Holding them side by side with clarity opens a richer view of the psyche.
⚜️ What’s the difference between Jungian psychology and IFS? Aren’t they both about “looking inside”?
Yes, both IFS and Jungian psychology turn inward toward the hidden, the symbolic, and the inner truth. But the how, the why, and what happens next look very different. Here is a clear breakdown for clinicians: Starting point, the map of the psyche IFS sees the psyche as a multiplicity, with parts, protectors and exiles, surrounding a core Self. Every client has a system of inner subpersonalities that can be accessed directly. Jung sees the psyche as shaped by layers, the personal unconscious which includes complexes, and the collective unconscious which includes archetypes and symbols. These are not subpersonalities but deep structures and motifs. So while IFS starts by meeting parts, Jung starts by watching patterns, dreams, fantasies, and synchronicities, and decoding their meaning. The role of the Self In IFS, Self is a present, felt presence that is calm, curious, and compassionate. It is who you are beneath your wounds, and it leads the healing of parts. In Jungian work, Self is a transcendent organizing principle. It is not just you. It is the wholeness you grow toward through individuation. You do not lead from it. You orient to it like a compass. So in IFS, Self is practical and embodied. In Jung, Self is archetypal and symbolic. Method and relationship to parts IFS guides you into direct dialogue with parts. You speak to them, hear from them, and help them unburden. It is relational, experiential, and structured. Jungian work explores parts as complexes or dream figures, not by talking to them directly, but through symbol, story, and active imagination. The goal is insight and integration rather than unburdening. Orientation to healing versus becoming IFS focuses on internal healing and restoring balance to the system. It is trauma informed, often gentle, and builds safety. Jungian psychology is more about transformation, uncovering what wants to emerge, even if it is disruptive. It embraces paradox, mystery, and sometimes chaos. So where IFS asks what needs care, Jung asks what is becoming through you. Use of symbol and dream IFS may integrate dreams, but it emphasizes felt parts and present emotions. Jungian work lives in symbol, metaphor, and myth. Dreams are central, and interpretation is important. In short, IFS is more surgical, healing personal wounds one part at a time through Self energy. Jung is more mythic, tracking deep forces that shape a life across time. Both are profound, but they walk the inner world differently, one holding the hand of a wounded child, the other listening for the roar of the archetypal lion behind the door.
⚜️ Jung talks about archetypes, IFS talks about parts — are they basically the same thing, overlapping or distinct?
They are related, but not the same, and for clinicians that distinction matters. Parts in IFS are personal subpersonalities. They develop in response to your life, such as childhood experiences, attachment dynamics, trauma, and family roles. Parts have memories, emotions, beliefs, and strategies. They are specific and unique to each client. Archetypes in Jungian psychology are universal patterns of energy and meaning. They do not have personal stories. They are inherited motifs that shape how all humans imagine mothers, heroes, tricksters, victims, lovers, and similar themes. Archetypes show up in dreams, myths, and cultural stories. They are impersonal and collective. Here is how they can overlap: A part can take on archetypal qualities. For example, a client’s fierce protector might carry the Warrior archetype. A seductive part might carry the Lover. A rigid inner critic might be steeped in the Judge or Father archetype. A dream image or symbol might feel like both a part and an archetype. In IFS you might speak directly to the dream figure. In Jungian work you would explore what archetypal force it represents and what it is inviting. So what is the takeaway? Parts are internal and relational. They can be spoken to, witnessed, healed, and transformed. Archetypes are structural and symbolic. They shape how parts express themselves but are not parts themselves. When you can see both, your clinical range expands. You are no longer just healing a part’s burden. You are also tracking the larger story that part is living inside.
⚜️ How is the “Self” in IFS different from what Jung meant by the “Self” in his work?
Both IFS and Jungian psychology center around the idea of Self, but they mean different things, and that difference shifts how we work with clients. In IFS, Self is the internal healing presence already alive inside the client. It is not something they have to achieve or develop over time. It is already there. Self shows up with qualities like calm, curiosity, clarity, compassion, confidence, and connection. It is an inner leader that helps parts unburden and reorganize. In practice, IFS guides the client toward accessing Self in the moment, and then helps Self build relationships with their parts. In Jungian psychology, Self is the central organizing force of the psyche, not just within the person but also connected to something larger than the person. It includes both conscious and unconscious material and it unfolds across a lifetime through the process of individuation. Jung’s Self is more mysterious, more numinous, and more symbolic. It is often represented in dreams through images like mandalas, divine figures, or guiding animals. Jung saw the Self as both a psychological and spiritual concept. So what is the difference in clinical terms? In IFS, Self is something the client can access directly, right now. It is relational, embodied, and actionable. In Jungian work, Self is more like a sacred center that the client grows toward over time. It is a deep structure that is not always consciously felt. And how do they connect? Some therapists see the IFS Self as the experiential doorway into what Jung called the Self. Others view them as serving different functions, one as the here and now healer and the other as the soul level guide. Either way, both models agree that the psyche is not just a collection of wounds. There is something wise, whole, and transformative at its center, whether you call it Self, soul, or the eternal.
⚜️ When I’m doing IFS, am I also doing shadow work like Jung talked about — or is that something different?
Yes, you are doing shadow work in IFS, even if it is not named that way. In Jungian psychology, shadow work means turning toward the unconscious parts of ourselves that we have rejected, denied, or disowned. These might include shameful urges, unmet needs, rage, envy, vulnerability, sexuality, or grief, anything we learned was unacceptable. Jung believed these shadow aspects get buried, but they do not disappear. They act out through projection, dreams, conflict, and symptoms until we face them. IFS does not use the word shadow, but it does very similar work. When a client meets a part that feels scary, extreme, or unacceptable, a part that gets banished, shut down, or hated, that is shadow material. And in IFS, we do not explore it only at a cognitive level. We go toward it with Self energy, with curiosity, compassion, and presence, and build a relationship with it. IFS offers a more structured and relational approach to shadow work. You do not have to interpret dreams or symbols to find the shadow. You can speak directly to it, part to part. Instead of integrating the shadow as a concept, IFS supports unburdening what the part carries so it can transform. Shadow in Jung is often symbolic. In IFS, it is personal, specific, and voiceable. In short, IFS is shadow work grounded in direct relationship. The language differs, but the courage required to turn inward is the same.
⚜️ If I’ve done Jungian work before, will IFS feel familiar — or will it bring a totally new approach?
Both. You will recognize the terrain, but the map will be new. If you have done Jungian work before, IFS will feel deeply resonant but also refreshingly distinct. The heart of the work overlaps. Both approaches center the inner world, emphasize curiosity over judgment, and honor the unconscious as meaningful rather than pathological. Both respect the psyche’s multiplicity and believe that healing happens through relationship rather than control. But where Jungian work often explores through symbol, dream, image, myth, and interpretation, IFS is more experiential and relational. You do not analyze a part the way you might analyze a dream symbol. You talk to it. You do not just understand a complex. You help it unburden. And you are not interpreting from the outside. You are building a connection from within. IFS may feel new if you are used to sitting in reflection rather than interacting with the part directly, speaking from a unified I instead of differentiating multiple inner voices, or relying on dreams and mythic motifs more than somatic, moment to moment presence. Many Jungians appreciate IFS because it offers a clear, replicable method for the kind of inner work Jung envisioned, one grounded in lived experience rather than analysis alone. It can make the unconscious relatable and transformable, not just symbolic. So yes, it will feel familiar, but it may also feel like someone has handed you a lantern and a compass inside a cave you have known for years.
⚜️ Can I blend IFS and Jung together in one clinical practice — or might they confuse each other?
You absolutely can blend them, and many seasoned therapists do, but the key is clarity. Not all combinations are helpful, and blending them without intention can create confusion for both client and clinician. When used thoughtfully, IFS and Jungian psychology can complement each other well. IFS offers a clear method for identifying and working with parts through direct internal relationship. Jungian work brings a depth oriented lens that situates the individual psyche within the collective, mythic, and symbolic field. When blended well, Jungian themes such as the hero’s journey, archetypes, the shadow, or individuation can offer context and meaning around a part’s experience. IFS methods can anchor that exploration by facilitating real time dialogue with those parts, allowing them to speak and shift directly. Dreams, synchronicities, or symbolic material from a client’s life can be processed through parts work rather than interpreted only at an intellectual level. What you want to avoid is mixing frames in a way that dilutes either. For example, if a client is in deep connection with an inner child part, suddenly explaining that it might represent the anima or the divine child archetype can pull them out of the felt sense of the work. Instead, let each model offer what it does best. Use IFS to connect, heal, and unburden. Use Jung to illuminate, contextualize, and expand. Think of IFS as the lantern and Jung as the sky map. One guides your next step and the other reminds you of the larger story you are walking. Together they can make the work both transformational and transcendent.
⚜️ What if a part shows up with a symbol, dream, image, or mythic figure? Is that Jungian, IFS, or both?
It can be both, and this is where IFS and Jungian psychology start to overlap in a meaningful way. In IFS, parts often present themselves through images, metaphors, or symbolic forms, especially in deeper work. You might meet a protector that appears as a knight, a dragon, or a caged bird. You might see an exile trapped in a glass box or speaking from behind a waterfall. These forms are meaningful rather than random. They carry emotional and energetic weight in the same way Jungian symbols do. From a Jungian lens, those same images might be understood as archetypal expressions, symbols from the collective unconscious that represent universal patterns of the human experience. A knight might represent the archetype of the warrior or defender. A cave might symbolize the womb, the unconscious, or a place of initiation. Jungians would be curious not only about the personal meaning of these symbols but also their mythic or cultural resonance. IFS helps form a relationship with the symbol as part. You can speak to the dragon, ask what it fears or protects, understand its burden, and help it shift. Jungian work helps you ask broader questions such as what the image wants from you, what it awakens in you, or where else this pattern appears in dreams, myths, or history. So when a part shows up in a dream, a vision, or a symbolic form, you are touching the place where IFS and Jung meet, the personal and the collective, the emotional and the mythic. Both lenses have wisdom. The IFS frame helps you connect and heal, while the Jungian frame helps you expand and integrate. Neither cancels the other. They deepen each other.
⚜️ Does working with parts in IFS mean I'm splitting the psyche more or integrating it, like Jung talked about?
Working with parts in IFS is not about splitting the psyche. It is about recognizing what is already internally fragmented and bringing it into conscious relationship, which directly serves the goal of integration that Jung emphasized. Both Jungian and IFS perspectives recognize that the human psyche is not unitary. Jung spoke of complexes and archetypes that act autonomously. IFS speaks of parts that carry burdens, beliefs, and protective roles. Neither approach is causing fragmentation. They are noticing that fragmentation is already present in trauma, development, and inner life. The work in IFS involves witnessing parts that have been exiled or burdened, unblending from them so that Self can lead, and facilitating healing through relationship, unburdening, and integration into the system. Jung would have recognized this as the individuation process, the path toward wholeness through conscious engagement with the various voices, drives, and energies within. So IFS is not about dividing the psyche into more pieces. It is about acknowledging and engaging what is already divided so it can heal, harmonize, and reintegrate. In that sense, it is a deeply integrative model, one that aligns with Jung’s view of psychological maturity as becoming whole rather than one dimensional.
⚜️ What does unburdening in IFS mean compared to integrating a complex in Jungian language?
Both unburdening in IFS and integrating a complex in Jungian psychology aim at healing and wholeness, but they approach the inner world through very different processes and assumptions. In IFS, unburdening is a specific internal process in which a part releases a belief, emotion, or energetic imprint that it took on during a painful or traumatic experience. This burden is not seen as essential to the part. It is something it acquired and can let go of, often with ritual or imaginal support from the Self. After unburdening, the part transforms. It softens, becomes more flexible, and reintegrates into the internal system with a new role. In Jungian work, integrating a complex means bringing an autonomous psychic structure, such as the mother complex or hero complex, into conscious relationship with the ego. This usually involves long term dialogue through dreams, active imagination, or analysis to recognize the complex’s origin, symbolic meaning, and role in the psyche. Complexes are not typically released or cleansed like burdens. They are understood, metabolized, and reconciled within the larger psyche. Integration is more about relationship than release. So the IFS view is that healing means disentangling a part from what it carries, allowing transformation. The Jungian view is that healing means becoming conscious of the complex, understanding it, and assimilating its energy without being ruled by it. Where IFS often uses a Self to part relational frame, Jungian work uses a symbol to ego or archetype to consciousness frame. Both models are powerful. They simply follow different maps of the inner terrain.
⚜️ Jung focused a lot on dreams — can I use dreams in IFS too, and how might that look?
Absolutely, dreams can be incredibly valuable in IFS even though IFS does not require dreamwork. The key is shifting the focus. In Jungian work, dream elements are often seen as archetypal symbols that speak from the collective unconscious. In IFS, dream elements are often viewed as parts trying to communicate, heal, or warn in symbolic form. For example, a dream of a burning house might represent a part that feels overwhelmed or in danger. A mysterious figure offering help might be a Self like presence or a hidden protector. A recurring animal or image might be a trailhead to a part you have not yet met. IFS dreamwork tends to be experiential rather than interpretive. Instead of analyzing the dream, you can return to it in session or imagination, re enter the dreamscape, and explore what is happening. You might ask whether there is a part behind the image, what the dream figure wants you to know, or whether you can speak to the one who is afraid, chasing, hiding, or guiding. This becomes a live, relational process. You are not just decoding a message. You are meeting someone inside. That aligns with the core principle of IFS, that every part has a story, a purpose, and a need for relationship with Self. So while Jung may have emphasized what a dream means, IFS focuses more on who is showing up through the dream and how to engage them.
Want to Go Deeper?
Want to Keep Exploring...
Browse our other IFS FAQs