Richard Schwartz, creator of the Internal Family Systems model, says some people are more easily activated in their relationships because they’re more dependent on those relationships to heal the most wounded parts of themselves. One of the goals of IFS is for folks to focus more on themselves for healing and less on others—that is, cultivating secure attachment with our internal parts.

I would add that this goes back to attachment traumas early in life. In my case, I have insecure attachment, which means I had my needs met some of the time but not consistently. There’s a lot more to it than that, but this brief explanation suffices for the purpose of this post. Having folks around me who have secure attachment is helpful. Having folks around me with insecure, avoidant, or disorganized attachment isn’t helpful. That’s because I haven’t developed secure attachment yet. IFS is one way to address that internally so I can bring my own secure attachment to my relationships with others.

Outside of IFS, being around those with secure attachment is the best way to learn secure attachment. This can happen over the course of about five years, for example, if someone with insecure attachment is in a relationship with someone who has secure attachment. The problem is only a subset of adults have secure attachment, and those with attachment trauma are often in relationships with partners who have attachment trauma. Pairings between those with insecure attachment and those with avoidant attachment are common, as is the case in my marriage. (My husband has avoidant attachment.)

The pandemic and moving to a rural area have made it even more difficult to interact with those who have secure attachment. I no longer work in a workplace, and I’m not around people on a regular basis. I spend more time with horses, cows, and birds than with human beings.

I need to work out how all of this maps onto the way I navigate and experience poetry spaces both real and virtual. Coupled with traumas I’ve experienced in poetry, the prevalence of insecure attachment styles among poets concerns me, especially when it’s not examined and when certain behaviors occur as a result, including those I witness that are directed at others and those that are specifically directed at me.

Questions I’m going to be asking myself as I work on IFS with a therapist and attempt to be less activated in my relationships with poetry and poets include: how can the behavior of a poet or group of poets have less of an emotional effect on me, how can I more effectively address issues I see in the poetry community in ways that feel less emotional, how do I cultivate relationships with poets who are aware of their own attachment styles and are also working toward or already have secure attachment, how do I measure progress to assess whether my efforts are working, and what decisions do I make if I don’t make progress (e.g., where else can I practice relating to others in ways that are less activating, how can I limit my exposure to interactions that aren’t helping me heal)?

I’m also not a fan of endogenous social networks, which I’m certain stems from my early traumas. I’ve always felt safer in exogenous networks where most of my friends and connections don’t know one another. You can’t get much more endogenous than the poetry community, where everyone seems to know everyone else and gossip runs rampant, especially in the social-media age. That’s a different issue in some ways, but developing greater security in my attachment style should help me navigate tighter social networks.

If things work out with this therapist, we’ll also be doing IFS-informed EMDR work. Or maybe it’s EMDR-informed IFS work. Either way, the work will address complex trauma as well as parts and attachment style. All of this matters: these intersections of self and self, of self and other, of self and community.