This talk delves into the concept of biopsychosynthesis, emphasizing the essential integration of the body in the synthesis of human personality.
By Roberto Assagioli, MD. A Talk given at the Knightsbridge Hotel London, August 1966. (Doc. #23617 – Assagioli Archives – Florence) Original Title: Conversazione al Knightsbridge Hotel di Londra nell’agosto 1966. Translated and Edited With Notes by Jan Kuniholm[i]
Abstract: This talk delves into the concept of biopsychosynthesis, emphasizing the essential integration of the body in the synthesis of human personality. Highlighting the reciprocal relationship between body and psyche, the author stresses the inadequacy of current medical and psychotherapeutic practices in fully considering this interaction. Through examples and observations, the text underscores the necessity of acknowledging and addressing the physical aspects of personality alongside psychological functions.
Furthermore, the lecture advocates for a collaborative approach to treatment, emphasizing the importance of teamwork among clinicians, psychotherapists, and other healthcare professionals. It discusses practical applications, such as incorporating psychotherapeutic techniques into medical settings and promoting a psychotherapeutic atmosphere in clinics. The significance of patient cooperation and the distinction between desire and will in healing processes are also explored, with an emphasis on nurturing the patient’s will to actively participate in their own recovery.
Finally, the talk touches upon the role of the will in directing and regulating various psychological functions, advocating for its wise utilization rather than forceful imposition. It concludes by addressing the importance of breaking vicious cycles in illness and the flexibility of psychosynthesis in tailoring treatments to individual patients’ needs and readiness.
I now wish to deal with a subject of which I have not so far dealt adequately in my writings, so that those who have read them will not hear a repetition. It is about the subject of biopsychosynthesis.
The real name of psychosynthesis should actually be bio-psychosynthesis, in order to accentuate the inclusion of the body in the complete synthesis of human personality.
The continuous and mutual interrelationship between body and psyche is already generally admitted. All psychosomatic medicine is based on this. But although it has been recognized and studied it is still far from being taken into adequate consideration, both in general medicine and in psychotherapy. A number of psychotherapists do not take sufficient account of the physical aspects of personality, and the mutual influences that take place between these and other psychological functions. There is still much to be done in this respect, and I wish to emphasize that in this meeting of clinicians.
A healthy human body is an admirable example of biopsychosynthesis; it is a harmonious synthesis of functions that are very different from, and even antagonistic to, each other. [Since I am] speaking to clinicians, there is no need for me to linger on the fact that the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, the alternating endocrine glands and all the polarities existing in the human body are wonderfully harmonized by a central intelligence or intelligent life, which regulates human and animal bodies. Thus the functioning of the body can analogically illustrate that of the psyche.
Regarding the interaction between mind and body, we should indeed acknowledge the fact that every illness — or the existential condition of being ill or having been the victim of a physical trauma such as a broken leg or arm — also constitutes a psychological trauma, since every injury to the integrity of the body is matched by a psychological reaction. This is not sufficiently taken into account. This applies to every illness, mild or severe, and every accident. I believe that Dr. Aleandri[ii] can later say something about the psychological and spiritual effects of a serious traumatic accident, which he suffered. The psychological reactions of resistance, fear and anxiety, or acceptance, have a great influence on the subsequent course of the illness. This often amazes the treating physician, who does not take due account of them, for better or worse.
However, there are now an increasing number of physicians who recognize this fact. I will mention only one American surgeon who employs psychotherapeutic preparations for operations, and who says that they can reduce by half the anesthesia that is required. You can discern the great practical importance of this, particularly in the case of patients with cardiac weakness; it can even make possible an operation that otherwise could not be performed. Then, after the operation, there is psychotherapeutic care during convalescence.
The immediate objection that is raised is that a surgeon cannot cope with all this; he has neither the time nor the preparation. But there is no need for him to do everything himself. What he can do — and what the surgeon in question has done — is first to create a psychotherapeutic atmosphere in the clinic, and then to give practical instruction in elementary psychotherapy to the nurses. In his lectures he should not deal with the subtleties of analysis, or anything like that. The course deals with personal influence and some simple psychotherapeutic techniques, and it works. Any physician can do this, if he has the will to take this humanistic approach toward every human being. Otherwise there would be no difference between a veterinarian and a physician!
This suggests the need for something that is beginning to be practiced: teamwork. Neither the general practitioner nor the psychotherapist can do it alone directly. But this is not necessary, because they can collaborate with each other, and even secure the assistance of a psychologist and a social worker. What is needed is to adopt a psychotherapeutic point of view; this is a synthesis among those who assist the patient.
I will cite the significant demonstration of the interaction between body and mind given by an American surgeon who was head of a Red Cross Hospital during the Balkan wars (1912-1913).[iii] Perhaps some of you may not remember [these wars] (but at my age, I can!) — at one time during the conflict the Bulgarians prevailed and the Serbs were vanquished, and that at another time the opposite happened. The surgeon found that in both cases the wounds of the victors healed much faster than those of the vanquished!
From the fact of the reciprocal action of the body on the mind, and the mind on the body, one should obviously infer that we need to work from both sides. Even this simple application of common sense is generally ignored. Most physicians neglect the psychological aspects, while many psychotherapists neglect the physical aspect. Indeed in this regard we are still almost in the Stone Age. Some of the basic, proven and established facts are ignored, and their therapeutic applications are neglected. So we should emphasize those simpler fundamental facts, before we deal with, or while we deal with, the complications and subtleties of analysis.
Another very sensitive point is the problem of clinical psychologists without medical degrees, particularly in America. Many psychotherapy treatments are done directly by clinical psychologists who lack medical training. I think this has its drawbacks and even some dangers; in my opinion it should always be a doctor who initiates the treatment and makes a plan for it. Then, under his supervision, he can entrust intensive psychotherapeutic treatment to a clinical psychologist. There should be collaboration between the two, but not a substitution by a psychoanalyst or a clinical psychologist without medical training.
This brings us back to the need for collaboration in treatment. At present, this is implemented on a purely physical [i.e. medical] basis, but the collaboration of a psychotherapist should also be included. A synthesis among physicians is urgently needed; this is a practical conclusion I wish to emphasize.
Will – (May I now proceed to another subject, that of Will?)
I have dealt with the Will in my book, but today I will deal with it from an entirely different point of view. In relation to what has been said, it is essential that patients themselves have the will to heal. One might object that of course every patient wishes to heal. A fundamental distinction between “desire” and “will” arises here. The psychology of will is still in its infancy. It is curious how the will has been neglected in modern psychology. Freud does not mention it, and Adler speaks against it. Even Jung also does not take it into particular consideration, and the same can be said of almost all other psychotherapists. This also applies to academic psychologists: there is very little “will” in psychology. Therefore, the fundamental distinction between “desire” and “will” is generally neglected. I will not be tempted to go into a philosophical or metaphysical examination of the will; [in this discussion] I will remain on a very practical basis.
The difference between desire [to be healed] and the will to heal, is that the one who desires to heal, desires to be healed by a doctor’s medicines and treatment without any active collaboration on his part, without making the required sacrifices, or submitting to the necessary discipline. Instead, those who [actually] will for an outcome [to occur] also will for the means, however difficult or unpleasant they may be. The popular saying “having one’s cake and eating it,” is typical of desire. We desire all the time, but we do not wish to go to the trouble of doing or not doing what is necessary for our desire to be fulfilled. Instead, those who really will [for something] accept whatever is necessary to achieve the desired end.
In this regard, the practical man can teach a lot to many people who consider themselves culturally superior, and even to those who follow a religious or spiritual path. The practical man knows and considers it natural that he must pay the price to achieve a goal. If he wishes to earn a lot of money, he undergoes drastic discipline and renounces all kinds of pleasurable things. He often scrambles far too much. It is obvious to him to recognize that if he wants a result he must pay the price, and use the necessary means. In contrast, many people do not recognize this, and patients in particular. When the doctor forbids alcohol or prescribes a strict diet or a series of physical or psychological exercises, [many] patients do not accept it or do so unwillingly. They wish to be healed, and yet continue to break the laws of health.
This is “wishing” or “desiring.” The one who wills is instead ready to do what is necessary. This shows the theoretical psychological difference between will and desire. One must therefore arouse and nurture the will in the patient. One must also eliminate in him the attachment to the disease for the emotional benefits it offers. We must instruct and train the patient to use active techniques, and this is where psychosynthesis comes in. Indeed, one of the characteristics of psychosynthesis is the extensive use of active techniques. But this requires the will to use them, because first they must be used in cooperation between therapist and patient, but then increasingly by the patient himself. And this requires the use of the will. Therefore, psychosynthesis places great importance on the will. The function of the will, which is a central function of the self, should be the subject of extensive scientific study. There is much to be researched about the various aspects of the will: purposefulness, deliberation, decision, affirmation, planning and finally implementation. The will has many facets and aspects that should be studied scientifically, individually and in their mutual relations.
Will: There is an important point about the will. Many people have the idea that will should impose itself over imagination and all other functions. This is fundamentally incorrect.
Emile Coué,[iv] who was not a scientist, presented this very well, and after him Baudouin,[v] in a more scientific way, said, “when imagination and will are in conflict, imagination always wins.” Instead, the will must secure the collaboration of the imagination. This means that the function of the will is not to impose itself on all other functions, but to regulate them wisely and direct them to cooperate toward the ultimate goal. I will make a simple analogy, which I think will serve to give a clear idea of what I mean.
Acting by the imposition of will would be similar to trying to push a car from the rear; on the other hand, the right use of the will is like knowing the car’s mechanism and the techniques for operating it, then sitting back quietly to drive using all the devices with the least effort. The will can thus make use of all functions. It can, for example, neutralize morbid images with healthy images. The will can thus neutralize the effects of images projected by open or hidden persuaders with alternate images. Likewise it can make appropriate use of thought, feeling, etc. The function of the will is thus exactly the opposite of what is generally considered. Regarding motivation then, publicists and persuaders try to arouse the lowest motives in their interests. Instead we can, and should, arouse the highest motives.
This is the main function of the will. All this requires a skillful will and a wise will. The will does not so much require strength as it requires great skill and wisdom in maneuvering all the different functions, even using one against the other. In short, will exists to direct, not to perform.
The Will. I think the starting point is to arouse in the patient the will to [use the] will. One can ask, in what way? By using the imagination, so as to draw a vivid and stimulating picture of the benefits that an active will can present at all levels, from the practical and material to the spiritual.
Vicious Cycles. I would also like to say that one of the main tasks of the therapist is to help the patient destroy vicious cycles. Often an illness is maintained and worsened by vicious cycles. The simplest example is a patient with a physical illness: he becomes depressed or anxious or angry about the illness. This has two effects: one is psychosomatic, and this heightens and fixes the symptom. For example, mild gastritis can become severe chronic gastritis as a result of anxious focus on the functioning of the stomach.
The other vicious cycle is psychological: a man is scared, and then he becomes scared of being scared, then he is scared of being scared of being scared, and so on. Anger also has its harmful psychosomatic effects; anger produces real toxins. If then the patient can lucidly judge of the absurdity of getting angry, but in spite of that he cannot master himself, then he gets angry because he is angry, and thinks, “What a fool I am;” then he gets angry about being angry about being angry, and so on. There are also even more complicated vicious cycles. They must be brought up in a [patient’s awareness], and the patient must then be helped to break them.
Finally, I would like to point out that a complete treatment as now described is only an ideal framework that may not be fully implemented; but a partial treatment can also be effective in psychosynthesis. What matters most is the psychosynthetic attitude, and not trying to use all techniques with all patients. Some are not willing or prepared for many of them.
[i] I have been unable to locate an original version of this lecture in English, so this is a translation from the Italian version found in the Assagioli Archives. Editor’s interpolations are shown in [brackets]. —Tr.& Ed.
[ii] Dr. Juan Aleandri of Universidad John F. Kennedy, Buenos Aires, Argentina, was present at this lecture. He worked with the Psychosynthesis Research Foundation and collaborated with Dr. Assagioli in creating a Spanish-language edition of Psychosynthesis.—Ed.
[iii] The Balkan Wars were a series of conflicts between the Balkan states and the Ottoman Empire, and between those states, in 1912 and 1913. —Ed.
[iv] Emile Coué (1857-1926) was a French psychologist and pharmacist who introduced a popular method of psychotherapy and self-improvement based on optimistic autosuggestion. —Ed.
[v] Charles Baudouin (1893-1963) was a French psychoanalyst, author of Suggestion and Autosuggestion: A Psychological and Pedagogical Study based upon the Investigations Made by the New Nancy School (1922) —Ed.
Leave a Reply