u/Remote_Comment2941 I love this question.

There are some fundamental differences between the Jungian approach and IFS. I work with the Jungian approach as a robust framework, and IFS as an invaluable tool / technique to deploy within that framework.

A central tenent of the Jungian approach is forming a respectfully collaborative relationship with our unconscious. To do this, we must listen to the unconscious, and Jung identified two major tools for this: dreams, and active imagination. However, he barely defined active imagination and few people know of the practice.

IFS solves that problem.

IFS provides a clear way to do active imagination. It provides a learnable and reliable pathway into the dimension of psyche, the dimension of our parts.

This is how IFS can be an invaluable addition to Jungian analysis.

One of the pitfalls of IFS, however, is that if it's not wielded with the correct attitude it can cause harm. It's very important we approach parts work with an attitude of respect that our unconscious has the right to keep some material in the darkness. We must respect the mystery.

IFS is a powerful shamanic tool and must be used with respect.

IFS can become a weapon if we use it to try to bludgeon our unconscious into showing things it's not ready to, or if we try to manipulate our parts.

This boils down to it being very important that we identify our Self-Like Parts.

I've gotten a little off-track from your question, but hope this helps!

(Note: You can learn about Self-Like Parts here: https://seekdeeply.com/ifs-therapy-guide-6-most-common-self-like-parts-framework-blog-post/ and join a free workshop for identifying yours here: https://seekdeeply.com/workshop-ifs-therapy/)