Vulnerable Parts: From Cognitive Correction to Relational Soothing—An Integrative Perspective Beyond Classical CBT

The evolution of psychotherapy over recent decades appears to converge toward a shared observation and understanding: certain dimensions of human experience, particularly those related to emotional vulnerability, cannot be “corrected” through cognitive approaches alone but require a quality of relationship and recognition before any meaningful transformation can occur. This emerging perspective not only represents a paradigm shift away from therapeutic models primarily focused on changing thoughts and beliefs, such as classical cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), but also calls for fundamentally different forms of clinical intervention.

Within the Internal Family Systems (IFS) framework, emotional vulnerability is represented by exiled parts of ourselves that often carry intense emotions such as fear, shame, sadness, and isolation. These parts are shaped by relational experiences rooted in insecurity and the absence of a safe emotional base or by experiences of abandonment that were lived and felt within significant relationships in the past. These parts express specific needs that are not oriented toward being told that their perceptions are “irrational” or “dysfunctional,” but rather toward being seen, heard, and reassured (or soothed). Attempts to fight against or change the thoughts and emotions of these vulnerable parts tend to repeat earlier experiences of denial or rejection, thereby activating internal defensive mechanisms, referred to in IFS as managers and firefighters, whose primary function is to protect the individual through control, rationalization, or avoidance.

A central concept in IFS focuses on the qualities of the Self, which are expressed through compassion, curiosity, calmness, and connection. Accessing the Self within us provides a perspective that does not seek to debate or argue with the beliefs or viewpoints of vulnerable parts but rather to turn toward them with kindness, to approach them with an attitude of acceptance, and to build a more secure and reassuring relationship with them. As this new bond of attachment and contact is established with these parts of ourselves, a natural reduction in emotional intensity can be noticed, along with greater flexibility and a softening of beliefs, without the need for direct cognitive confrontation. It is important to recognize that we sometimes challenge our thoughts and beliefs as a means of being less hard on ourselves, without realizing that by « opposing » them, we may actually be perpetuating the very struggle we are trying to resolve.

The emphasis on the quality of relational presence with ourselves is already well supported by attachment theory, which suggests that emotional regulation, or emotional soothing, closely linked to feeling safe within oneself, develops primarily through relational experiences in which one feels comforted and welcomed. Emotion-Focused Therapy (EFT) distinguishes between more vulnerable primary emotions that need to be recognized and reassured and secondary emotions, which often serve a protective function by concealing our vulnerability through anger, withdrawal, rationalization, and similar responses. We now understand that primary emotions tend to resist logic and “cognitive correction,” yet become more accessible and responsive within emotionally safe relationships. Similarly, somatic approaches are grounded in the recognition that many responses arising in contexts of vulnerability are stored in the body, shaped by preverbal experiences, and are therefore less accessible through purely cognitive interventions.

Similar points of convergence can be found in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which, although rooted in the behavioral tradition, does not aim to correct irrational or negative thoughts. Instead, ACT emphasizes strategies based on the acceptance of emotions, a change in one’s relationship to thoughts, and compassion toward internal experiences, recognizing that attempts to suppress or modify thoughts and emotions often increase suffering. Meaningful change tends to occur more frequently when we are able to enter into a relationship with what is happening within us, rather than through a modification of “content.”

For this reason, the difference between this more integrative perspective and classical CBT does not lie in opposition but rather in the order and emphasis of the therapeutic work. CBT begins by changing thoughts, whereas approaches that recognize the importance of relational interventions begin by creating and cultivating a sense of safety, which then allows thoughts to change on their own.

In therapy, this perspective invites a slowing down of the process, with an emphasis on validation, on recognizing the more vulnerable parts that require kind and attentive care, and on collaboration and dialogue with defensive responses, rather than engaging in an endless struggle against them. This highlights a therapeutic principle that is too often overlooked: much psychological suffering can be eased not by arguing with our inner areas of vulnerability, but by choosing to meet them with presence, kindness, and openness.