• Danish
  • Norwegian Bokmål
  • HOME
  • The Seven Types
    • Articles
    • What are the Seven Types?
    • The Seven Types – Book review
  • Meditation
    • Articles
    • What is Integral Meditation?
    • Integral Meditation: The Seven Ways to Self-realization – Bookreview
  • Psychosynthesis
    • What is Psychosynthesis?
    • The Soul of Psychosynthesis – Bookreview
    • Links
  • Articles
    • Introduction to psychosynthesis
    • Roberto Assagioli interviews
    • The Seven Types
    • Psychosynthesis and meditation
    • Psychosynthesis and education
    • Psychosynthesis and the Self
    • Psychosynthesis and the will
    • Psychosynthesis and psychotherapy
    • Psychosynthesis philosophy
    • Various Assagioli articles
    • Memorials of Assagioli
    • Glossary
  • Products
    • Thrive
    • Seven Types – Business Coaching
  • Blog
    • An Energyworker’s diary
  • JivaYou
  • About

Kenneth Sørensen

Energipsykologi, meditation og psykosyntese - artikler, bøger, videoer ...

  • Glossary
  • Sitemap
  • Webshop
  • Search

New articles on this site

Was Assagioli A Pacifist?

Conference of Doctors, by Roberto Assagioli

Goodwill, by Roberto Assagioli

Psychological Multiplicity

The Moment, The Cycle, Eternity

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons
Psychosynthesis & The Seven Types - Kenneth Sørensen
Psychosynthesis & The Seven Types - Kenneth Sørensen
WAS ASSAGIOLI A PACIFIST?  Sometimes we read that Assagioli was a pacifist, and it is easy to draw that conclusion for the untutored eye; however, if we take a closer look, there are definitely other perspectives on that matter.  Read a formatted version here: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/was-assagioli-a-pacifist/  By Kenneth Sørensen  It is a well-known fact for many students of Psychosynthesis that Assagioli was jailed during the Second World War and accused of being a pacifist by the fascists in Italy. We find a wonderful testimony of this experience in the book Freedom In Jail based on Assagioli’s notes from his time in Jail. (1)  We also learn that Assagioli served as a doctor during the First World War and that he refused to carry a gun but instead carved a “pistol” out of soap and painted it black. These historical notes, combined with his spiritual outlook and his gentle and peaceful nature, can easily be interpreted as pacifism.  However, if we investigate his few writings on the matter, another picture emerges. In his recollection of his arrest, he writes the following (2016, p. 15):  Interrogator: “You are a pacifist!”  RA: “Everybody has an ideal of peace. Nobody wants war for its own sake. But as a psychologist, I don’t believe that peace may be secured by merely political and legal means, such as treaties, leagues, pacts, etc. and even less by a systematic and violent opposition to war, by “making war on war.”  Consequently, I am not and never have been a “pacifist” in the current militant and even ideological sense. I am deeply convinced that peace is fundamentally a psychological problem. I believe that there is in man a fundamental fighting instinct or tendency, deeply rooted in his animal nature.”  Assagioli then goes on to explain his position focussing on the need for transmuting and sublimating the aggressive impulse, something he also teaches about in a conference of doctors (2) and elsewhere (3).  So what are his arguments against pacifism? He doesn’t believe that peace can be achieved merely through political and legal ways nor by an aggressive opposition to war. He said that during the Second World War, when it was the norm to wage war, whenever a nation wanted to create more “lebensraum”. I believe that the later Assagioli would recognise the importance of the UN and other peacekeeping organisations that were established after the war. However, there is no doubt that his primary perspective was that peace is something that must be established in the heart of man through the harmonisation of the aggressive impulse. In his excellent article The Resolution of Conflicts & Spiritual Conflicts and Crises, published in 1975 posthumously, Assagioli writes (3):  “I shall conclude this section with the confirmation provided by the Preamble to the Constitution of UNESCO, the great cultural association of the United Nations, which affirms: “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.”  It seems that Assagioli was too realistic and had too much insight into the instinctual nature of man to take an ideological and pacifistic stance toward war, but there might be other reasons, too, something we learn in a brief document about goodwill. In it, he writes about the blend of love and will in its three aspects: Benevolence, Goodwill and the will-to-good, and he also expands his view on pacifism (4):  “[Benevolence] can be described as a disposition to goodness, a tendency towards harmony, peace and the elimination of all strife and conflict. But it is a passive attitude, an acceptance of existing conditions, a willingness to compromise in order to avoid the discomforts, effort of action, and the sufferings and risks of struggle, even when action and struggle would be necessary and proper. There is therefore in this attitude not only goodness, but also laziness, inertia and desire to “live in peace”; and therefore there is a selfish aspect to it, even if not conscious, or masked by “good intentions”. Clearly, this kind of benevolence — which could be called a “psychological pacifism” — is not adequate to solve individual and collective problems. On the contrary, it gives free rein to the bullying, violence and oppression of those who want to possess what is not theirs, those who want to dominate and assert themselves without respect or restraint. In this “benevolence,” despite its name, it can be said that the element of “will” is almost entirely lacking.”  The above quote is certainly not from a pacifist. Here is no passive acceptance of “the bullying, violence and oppression of those who want to possess what is not theirs.” We still see this type of behaviour from autocratic and totalitarian states today, however, to a much lesser degree than prior to the Second World War. It is in these circumstances that we must apply the will – individually and collectively – in times “when action and struggle” are necessary.  In a speech to doctors in 1972 (2), Assagioli commented on the idea of a world government and concluded that even though it might be a future ideal, it is not possible now due to the lack of world citizens and world leaders with the right calibre. His point is to take the realistic approach and don’t become too identified with one’s idealistic visions, and in this context, he addresses the pacifist movement:  “Observe the pacifist movements: they have often done more harm than good, precisely because of their intransigent idealist attitude of all or nothing, rejection of weapons; …  I would say that idealists and pacifists would even deny the existence of nations, but nations are psychological realities that are charged with emotion — charged with energies that are not only combative, but also emotive in other ways. Here, too, one must work on sublimation and elevation, but not repress what is called “patriotism,” that is, a certain attachment to one’s own nation. The same principle then applies at all levels; and if we keep it well in mind, we will avoid other counterproductive situations, and of tilting against windmills like Don Quixote.  So always propose constructive methods and techniques, without attacking anyone else. In this case, I did not attack pacifists, but I attacked the unrealistic pacifist idealism. But among these idealists there are some of the best representatives of humanity — some are my friends whom I appreciate very much and who are worth much more than the narrow realism and the easy criticism of conservatives and profiteers. So personally they are above me, but their methods do not work.”  It is in the above quote we come to the root cause of why Assagioli was not a pacifist, in my opinion. The pacifists “intransigent idealist attitude of all or nothing, rejection of weapons” is not working due to the combative nature of men and women, so what he is attacking is their “unrealistic pacifist idealism”.  I think it is safe to conclude that Assagioli’s perspective on violent conflicts allows an appropriate response;  that in the face of individual and national bullies, who want to possess what is not theirs, we have the right to self-defence with whatever means necessary.  Thank you to Jan Kuniholm and Amanda Mattiussi for the translation of the two Italian articles, which are the background for this article.  1. Assagioli, Roberto. Freedom In Jail, 2016, edited and introduced by Catherine Ann Lombard, Istituto di Psicosintesi.  2. Assagioli, Roberto, 1972, Conference of Doctors, translated from Italian by Jan Kuniholm & Amanda Mattiussi, Original Title: CONVEGNO DEI MEDICI, From The Assagioli Archive Florence. https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/conference-of-doctors-by-roberto-assagioli/  3. Assagioli, Roberto, 1975, The Resolution of Conflicts & Spiritual Conflicts and Crises, Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, Issue No. 34, https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/the-resolution-of-conflicts-spiritual-conflicts/  4. Assagioli, Roberto, Goodwill, translated from Italian by Jan Kuniholm & Amanda Mattiussi, Original Title: BUONA VOLONTÀ, From The Assagioli Archive Florence. https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/good-will-by-roberto-assagioli/

WAS ASSAGIOLI A PACIFIST?

Sometimes we read that Assagioli was a pacifist, and it is easy to draw that conclusion for the untutored eye; however, if we take a closer look, there are definitely other perspectives on that matter.

Read a formatted version here: kennethsorensen.dk/en/was-assagioli-a-pacifist/

By Kenneth Sørensen

It is a well-known fact for many students of Psychosynthesis that Assagioli was jailed during the Second World War and accused of being a pacifist by the fascists in Italy. We find a wonderful testimony of this experience in the book Freedom In Jail based on Assagioli’s notes from his time in Jail. (1)

We also learn that Assagioli served as a doctor during the First World War and that he refused to carry a gun but instead carved a “pistol” out of soap and painted it black. These historical notes, combined with his spiritual outlook and his gentle and peaceful nature, can easily be interpreted as pacifism.

However, if we investigate his few writings on the matter, another picture emerges. In his recollection of his arrest, he writes the following (2016, p. 15):

Interrogator: “You are a pacifist!”

RA: “Everybody has an ideal of peace. Nobody wants war for its own sake. But as a psychologist, I don’t believe that peace may be secured by merely political and legal means, such as treaties, leagues, pacts, etc. and even less by a systematic and violent opposition to war, by “making war on war.”

Consequently, I am not and never have been a “pacifist” in the current militant and even ideological sense. I am deeply convinced that peace is fundamentally a psychological problem. I believe that there is in man a fundamental fighting instinct or tendency, deeply rooted in his animal nature.”

Assagioli then goes on to explain his position focussing on the need for transmuting and sublimating the aggressive impulse, something he also teaches about in a conference of doctors (2) and elsewhere (3).

So what are his arguments against pacifism? He doesn’t believe that peace can be achieved merely through political and legal ways nor by an aggressive opposition to war. He said that during the Second World War, when it was the norm to wage war, whenever a nation wanted to create more “lebensraum”. I believe that the later Assagioli would recognise the importance of the UN and other peacekeeping organisations that were established after the war. However, there is no doubt that his primary perspective was that peace is something that must be established in the heart of man through the harmonisation of the aggressive impulse. In his excellent article The Resolution of Conflicts & Spiritual Conflicts and Crises, published in 1975 posthumously, Assagioli writes (3):

“I shall conclude this section with the confirmation provided by the Preamble to the Constitution of UNESCO, the great cultural association of the United Nations, which affirms: “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.”

It seems that Assagioli was too realistic and had too much insight into the instinctual nature of man to take an ideological and pacifistic stance toward war, but there might be other reasons, too, something we learn in a brief document about goodwill. In it, he writes about the blend of love and will in its three aspects: Benevolence, Goodwill and the will-to-good, and he also expands his view on pacifism (4):

“[Benevolence] can be described as a disposition to goodness, a tendency towards harmony, peace and the elimination of all strife and conflict. But it is a passive attitude, an acceptance of existing conditions, a willingness to compromise in order to avoid the discomforts, effort of action, and the sufferings and risks of struggle, even when action and struggle would be necessary and proper. There is therefore in this attitude not only goodness, but also laziness, inertia and desire to “live in peace”; and therefore there is a selfish aspect to it, even if not conscious, or masked by “good intentions”. Clearly, this kind of benevolence — which could be called a “psychological pacifism” — is not adequate to solve individual and collective problems. On the contrary, it gives free rein to the bullying, violence and oppression of those who want to possess what is not theirs, those who want to dominate and assert themselves without respect or restraint. In this “benevolence,” despite its name, it can be said that the element of “will” is almost entirely lacking.”

The above quote is certainly not from a pacifist. Here is no passive acceptance of “the bullying, violence and oppression of those who want to possess what is not theirs.” We still see this type of behaviour from autocratic and totalitarian states today, however, to a much lesser degree than prior to the Second World War. It is in these circumstances that we must apply the will – individually and collectively – in times “when action and struggle” are necessary.

In a speech to doctors in 1972 (2), Assagioli commented on the idea of a world government and concluded that even though it might be a future ideal, it is not possible now due to the lack of world citizens and world leaders with the right calibre. His point is to take the realistic approach and don’t become too identified with one’s idealistic visions, and in this context, he addresses the pacifist movement:

“Observe the pacifist movements: they have often done more harm than good, precisely because of their intransigent idealist attitude of all or nothing, rejection of weapons; …

I would say that idealists and pacifists would even deny the existence of nations, but nations are psychological realities that are charged with emotion — charged with energies that are not only combative, but also emotive in other ways. Here, too, one must work on sublimation and elevation, but not repress what is called “patriotism,” that is, a certain attachment to one’s own nation. The same principle then applies at all levels; and if we keep it well in mind, we will avoid other counterproductive situations, and of tilting against windmills like Don Quixote.

So always propose constructive methods and techniques, without attacking anyone else. In this case, I did not attack pacifists, but I attacked the unrealistic pacifist idealism. But among these idealists there are some of the best representatives of humanity — some are my friends whom I appreciate very much and who are worth much more than the narrow realism and the easy criticism of conservatives and profiteers. So personally they are above me, but their methods do not work.”

It is in the above quote we come to the root cause of why Assagioli was not a pacifist, in my opinion. The pacifists “intransigent idealist attitude of all or nothing, rejection of weapons” is not working due to the combative nature of men and women, so what he is attacking is their “unrealistic pacifist idealism”.

I think it is safe to conclude that Assagioli’s perspective on violent conflicts allows an appropriate response; that in the face of individual and national bullies, who want to possess what is not theirs, we have the right to self-defence with whatever means necessary.

Thank you to Jan Kuniholm and Amanda Mattiussi for the translation of the two Italian articles, which are the background for this article.

1. Assagioli, Roberto. Freedom In Jail, 2016, edited and introduced by Catherine Ann Lombard, Istituto di Psicosintesi.

2. Assagioli, Roberto, 1972, Conference of Doctors, translated from Italian by Jan Kuniholm & Amanda Mattiussi, Original Title: CONVEGNO DEI MEDICI, From The Assagioli Archive Florence. kennethsorensen.dk/en/conference-of-doctors-by-roberto-assagioli/

3. Assagioli, Roberto, 1975, The Resolution of Conflicts & Spiritual Conflicts and Crises, Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, Issue No. 34, kennethsorensen.dk/en/the-resolution-of-conflicts-spiritual-conflicts/

4. Assagioli, Roberto, Goodwill, translated from Italian by Jan Kuniholm & Amanda Mattiussi, Original Title: BUONA VOLONTÀ, From The Assagioli Archive Florence. kennethsorensen.dk/en/good-will-by-roberto-assagioli/
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook
View Comments
  • Likes: 29
  • Shares: 5
  • Comments: 1

Comment on Facebook

Thanks a lot for a beautiful and especially nuanced expression of this. ‘This’ because I cannot find better words 🙈 My heart becomes especially warm when I read his conclusion on the idea of a world government. Because I have engaged in an organization that may have the first step to overcome exactly what he points to. ❤️ simpol.org

The Seven Types

Energy Psychology

We all have an inherent psychological DNA that under the right conditions sprouts like a seed. The … Read more about What are the Seven Types?

Integral Meditation

Kenneth Sørensen

Integral Meditation is a unique approach to meditation aligned with your spiritual typology. … Read more about What is Integral Meditation?

Psychosynthesis

Assagioli's egg-diagram

Psychosynthesis is a psychology of self and social development that applies psychological methods to … Read more about What is Psychosynthesis?

The Seven Types

Integral Meditation

Integral Meditation

The Soul of Psychosynthesis

The soul of psychosynthesis
Amazon Banner

Available at Amazon

Thrive

Teaching, coaching and facilitating growth strategies for individuals and businesses

Videos

Kenneth Sørensen - online courses in spiritual development

Lecture on: How to discover and own subpersonalities

 

Lecture on: The Seven Core Concepts

Facebook Videos

The Corona Crisis From a Psycho-Spiritual PerspectiveHow To Develop Your Empathy With The Seven TypesHow to Recognise Your Psychological QualitiesThe Sun in The Heart MeditationWill Power – The Will To Be YouNew Moon Meditation – Inner Peace in a Time of ConflictFull Moon Meditation – Building Resilience and a Brighter Future

Visit me on my Facebook Page

psychosynthesis psychotherapy

  • Glossary
  • Sitemap
  • Webshop
  • Search

[glossary_exclude]Kenneth Sørensen, Ermelundsvej 102, 2820 Gentofte, Tlf. +45 2513 0502 Email: ks@kennethsorensen.dk web: kennethsorensen.dk[/glossary_exclude]


Copyright © 2022 · kennethsorensen.dk · Kenneth Sørensen MA, Psychosynthesis · Informasjonskapsler/cookies