Assagioli offers sound advice for the harmonization and integration of groups to overcome divisions and conflicts.
By Roberto Assagioli, Lecture 1 – January 17, 1965[i], Lecture Course on Psychosynthesis. Translated and Edited With Notes by Jan Kuniholm[ii]. From the Assagioli Archive in Florence.
Abstract: In this lecture, Dr. Roberto Assagioli discusses the topic of Interindividual Psychosynthesis, which is directly related to International Cooperation. He highlights the importance of psychological and spiritual methods in fostering cooperation and eliminating obstacles to its implementation. Assagioli refers to the affirmation by UNESCO that peace must be based on the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind. He emphasizes the need for both individual and inter-individual psychosynthesis, as conflicts within individuals can hinder harmonious relationships with others. Similarly, a society full of conflicts can hinder the psychosynthesis of individuals and stir up conflicts between individuals and society. Assagioli emphasizes the need for effective communication in cooperation, both among those who cooperate and with those they aim to help. He discusses the challenges of communication due to the imperfection of language and the subjectivity of recipients. He also highlights the importance of understanding differential psychology, including the differences between the sexes, extroverts and introverts, and various psychological types. Assagioli argues that a coherent and constructive conception of life is essential for fruitful cooperation. He explains that cooperation can occur even when there are disagreements, as long as there is a common purpose and convergence towards a shared ideal. Assagioli provides examples of different degrees and areas of cooperation and discusses the challenges of balancing family and societal collaborations. He concludes by mentioning that family-society relations are becoming more active and complex, presenting further challenges for inter-individual psychosynthesis.
The subject of Interindividual Psychosynthesis is a topical one, since it is directly connected with International Cooperation to which the year 1965 is dedicated, on the initiative of the United Nations Organization and with the cooperation of the organizations it has founded, such as UNESCO and others.
There are various programs of large-scale cooperative activities, and these of course can only be carried out by large organizations with corresponding technical and financial capabilities. But there is one aspect of cooperation of a psychological and spiritual character which is necessary, and which in a sense makes possible and guarantees, or at least increases the effects of cooperation of an external nature. This consists in the use of psychological methods that foster cooperation and, no less importantly, the elimination of psychological and spiritual obstacles to its implementation. The importance of psychological and spiritual methods in eliminating conflict and enabling and fostering cooperation has been recognized and affirmed by UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This affirmation is contained in the Preamble of the UNESCO Statute, the first sentence of which I quoted last year and which I refer to more fully today:
That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed; That ignorance of each other’s ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their differences have all too often broken into war . . .That the wide diffusion of culture, and the education of humanity for justice and liberty and peace are indispensable to the dignity of man and constitute a sacred duty which all the nations must fulfil in a spirit of mutual assistance and concern; That a peace based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of governments would not be a peace which could secure the unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the world, and that the peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind. For these reasons [UNESCO has been created].[iii]
Another statement in the same vein is contained in the beautiful message that UNESCO’s Director-General, René Maheu, addressed to all the world’s youth. He states:
. . . although international cooperation needs sound organization and technique if it to be effective, it cannot be achieved by these means alone. Even more, it needs a certain openness of mind, a certain warmth of heart, in short a readiness to serve, which itself implies a conversion to human brotherhood.[iv]
This message is published in the January issue of the UNESCO Courier, and which I again recommend reading.
Psychosynthesis can make an effective contribution to this work. As you know, there is individual psychosynthesis, the harmonization and integration of the individual personality; but there is also inter-individual psychosynthesis, which is concerned with the integration and harmonization of ever larger groups of human beings, from couples to the whole of humanity. The two kinds of psychosynthesis must be carried out simultaneously; in fact, if there is not a certain degree of psychosynthesis, of harmonization in the individuals who make up the groups and the community, cooperation between them is also hindered and may even be prevented. As I mentioned in one of last year’s lectures, if a person has conflicts within himself; that is, if he has two or more sub-personalities at odds with each other, he cannot create a harmonious relationship with others. While “sub-personality A” harmonizes, (that is, with another person or with a group), “sub-personality B” on the other hand may oppose and be in conflict; and vice versa. Moreover, we tend to project both our conflicts and our aggressive and combative tendencies onto others; therefore a certain degree of individual psychosynthesis in all aspects is a necessary condition for good inter-individual psychosynthesis.
But the reverse is also true: a family, social, or national environment full of conflicts can greatly hinder the harmonious psychosynthesis of individuals; it can stir up conflicts between individuals and society. There is the pressure and intrusiveness of society, in the form of the state, on individuals (totalitarianism is the extreme case), and there is also the psychological pressure that leads to conformity, to conform to the collective mentality and ways of life. While the majority passively conforms, there is a sizable minority that reacts with rebellion. Among the eminent writers and psychologists who have most warned against conformism or raised the banner of individual freedom and self-assertion in a good sense, I will mention Erich Fromm and Carl Gustav Jung, who call for “individuation” in the face of collective subjugation. This is an important problem of psychosynthesis: the right relations between individual and society.
Let us now see what conditions are necessary for fruitful cooperation. The first is communication. In order to cooperate effectively and harmoniously, there needs to be adequate communication, both among those who cooperate and with those we aim to help. At present the material means of communication are immense, that is not the problem; the problem is to communicate well. Communicating well requires two things: first, that we communicate useful, positive, constructive facts and ideas; second, that what we communicate is rightly understood.
It is precisely the first requirement that, through Pandit Nehru’s initiative, gave the initial impetus to establish the Year of International Cooperation. Here are his significant words in this regard, delivered at the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 1961:
We live in this world of conflicts and yet the world goes on, undoubtedly because of the co-operation of nations and individuals . . . Little is known, or little is said, about this co-operation that is going on, but a great deal is said about every point of conflict, and so the world is full of this idea that the conflicts go on and we live on the verge of disaster. Perhaps it would be a truer picture if the co-operating elements in the world today were put forward and we were made to think that the world depends on co-operation and not on conflict.[v]
This is an indictment of the entire daily press and most of the periodicals. If the world were really as the newspapers show it to us, it could not last a week! They systematically highlight the inferior, morbid and criminal manifestations of individuals and peoples, but — as Nehru said — there is the whole other side, the cooperative activities that newspapers care little to talk about because they are not “sensational,” but are the ones by which the world is sustained.
Now, thanks to the motto “goodness rewards” or some others, some examples of human solidarity among the humble “ordinary” people who are sometimes true heroes of cooperation and fraternity are given notice in the newspapers. But only a few dozen are publicized, whereas there are many, many more than we might think. It is these humble heroes who sustain the world. This is obvious, requiring no comment; but unfortunately, the torrential mass of negative, alarming, futile, or worse, biased communications — or even false propaganda that serves selfish individual and group interests — is so great that the [collective] action of all those working in a constructive sense is needed to mitigate and counterbalance that torrent, through the communication and dissemination of facts and activities that reveal the best and superior aspects of humanity.
The second need [for fruitful cooperation] is more complex and requires deeper, more subtle work based on adequate psychological knowledge and the use of suitable techniques. There are two major causes, or groups of causes, of the difficulties and errors in “communication.” First, the imperfection of the means of communication and especially of language: the same word may have multiple, sometimes even conflicting meanings. An obvious example is that of the word “love,” which may signify a number of very different sensations, impulses, and feelings. This would be [only] a relative inconvenience, if those who use a word that has several senses would take the trouble to indicate each time what is the meaning in which they use it. To use an English expression, they would have to “qualify it;” that is, specify the use they make of it in the particular context. But almost no one takes the trouble to do this — and not only do people not do this with others, but they confusingly use the word themselves without fully realizing which meaning they attribute to it. This results in a number of misunderstandings and miscommunications.
The second group of causes is the subjectivity of the recipients of communications: everyone understands — or, worse, thinks he understands — in his own way. There are different and very often erroneous interpretations, for personal reasons such as emotional complexes due to past experiences. Each of us associates a word, often without realizing it, with the positive or negative experiences we have had regarding what it means, and therefore each understands it quite differently. Let us take one of the simplest examples, the word “dog.” For some people the dog is a faithful friend of man (some people have gone so far as to say, “the more I know men, the more I appreciate dogs!”), but if someone as a child was bitten by a dog, the word conjures up the image of something that can do harm, something dangerous, and so the word arouses reactions of hostility and defense. Therefore, semantically, dog A [in the first case] is quite different from dog B in the second.
The same is true to a much greater and more complex extent for words like “love,” which elicit multiple, diverse and even conflicting memories and reactions. This is all about reactions due to the personal history of the individual. But then there are the various psychological types — that is, the varied ordinary psychological constitution of each person, which are independent of the experiences he or she has had. And here the diversities are great. The first psychological difference, which is not sufficiently known and valued, is that between the sexes, between men and women. The psychology of the male and that of the female are profoundly different. This is not always obvious, either because of lack of psychological investigation or because, fortunately, within every man there is a percentage of femininity and within every woman there is a percentage of masculinity. If these were not there, men and women would be incomprehensible to each other.[vi]
Other psychological differences include those between extroverts and introverts. They have a totally different way of relating to life, to the world and to others. Extroverts — as the word says — are turned outward, toward others, both affectively and aggressively. For them the relationships with others, even with things, with the world, is most important. The introvert, on the other hand, lives mainly in the internal world, which for him is the most real, sometimes almost the only real one; this produces great differences in evaluation and attitude toward relationships with others. Therefore the understanding between extroverts and introverts is very difficult. Especially in [a country like] Italy, it is a difficult problem for introverts who, being a minority amid the vast majority of extroverts, find themselves very uncomfortable.
In addition there are the various psychological types due to the prevalence of a given function: feeling, emotion, thought, intuition, imagination, or will. In one of my papers on psychological types, I pointed out that if four people see a landscape, they see four completely different things. A sensory type, say a farmer, sees farms and evaluates them; an emotional, imaginative type, say a painter, sees colors, masses of light and shadow; a scientist sees geological formations; a mystic sees the manifestation of God in the beauty of his creation. The reports that these people might write about their observation of the landscape may contain hardly a word in common. There is thus misunderstanding and often critical judgments between the different types. For many people, as Carducci says, the poet “is a lazy fool, in hazy daydreams wrapt, forever spying after angels, head in the air . . .”[vii] Conversely, many artists unduly despise practical men, without whom perhaps they would have nothing to eat! Therefore, a good knowledge of differential psychology is needed to know, evaluate and treat the various psychological types. [viii]
For the understanding of verbal symbols, words, there is a new science: semantics, which is [only] relatively new, since it had also been cultivated in the past, but sporadically and unsystematically. Uncovering subjective attitudes due to personal experiences requires a well-understood psychoanalysis, which can also be a self-psychoanalysis. This is all about the understanding that could be called objective, realistic.
But there is another different and greater kind of understanding: that of the deep meaning, value, and function of every thing and every being in the whole of reality, in life, in universal becoming — one might say, in cosmic synthesis. This implies a conception of life and the world, let us even say, a philosophy. This word should not alarm us or arouse negative reactions, or raise “complexes” about school, or other kinds. Actually everyone, even the simplest, non-intellectual people, has a world conception, and therefore a philosophy. Such a conception is mostly implicit, almost unconscious and not clearly formulated, but it not infrequently emerges in some observation or commentary on oneself, on others, or on events. It is often a negative conception, one of criticism, rebellion, devaluation of life; and suicide is the ultimate expression of denial based on misunderstanding the meaning of life.
Even more often, one’s conception of life is changeable or contradictory; it varies according to circumstances and events: when things are going well for us, one is inclined to a positive evaluation and optimism; when they go wrong, one criticizes and condemns the universe and who could have done it! While not going to these extremes, it can be said that in a more or less veiled or, as they say now, “sophisticated” way, this is how it happens with many of us. André Maurois[ix] wittily said, “the normal man changes his philosophy ten times a day.” All this indicates how the lack of coherent, stable and constructive conception of life is a strong obstacle to any harmonious and fruitful cooperation.
The types and degrees of cooperation are many and varied. In a general sense, it can be said that the necessary condition for cooperation is a purpose, a common purpose for which various individuals and groups cooperate. This can be depicted with a diagram:[x]
It consists of a circle toward which arrows converge from various directions. This indicates that one can cooperate starting from [different] points, from distant or even opposite positions, if our action aims and converges toward the same ideal, toward the implementation of the same task; in other words, if one is animated by the same will. This is a most important point: it is not necessary to agree in everything to cooperate. It is enough to agree in the field, in the area in which you collaborate.
A typical, I would say almost extreme, example of this is what could be called the miracle of the unification of Italy. Before 1848, Italy was divided into various states and partly subject to other nations. As everyone knows, the unification took place mainly through the work of four men: Garibaldi, Cavour, Mazzini and Victor Emmanuel II.[xi] Well, they were not only different, but often in sharp contrast with each other; but they were all necessary: Mazzini was the heart and soul; Garibaldi, the arm; Cavour the mind; Victor Emmanuel the coordinator: They were all animated by the purpose of bringing about unification, and each contributed his specific qualities. It was an often reluctant cooperation, imposed by circumstances, that created Italy. This example is very encouraging; it shows that one can cooperate even while arguing — to a certain extent. Just leave the points of divergence outside the zone of cooperation. Of course, political and structural union is not enough to create the psychosynthesis of a nation (current events in Italy demonstrate this quite clearly). Structural union is necessary, but it is only the basis of the nation’s true psychosynthesis. The degrees of cooperation can also be different. These are indicated in the second diagram:
The central circle indicates the common field or area of cooperation; the greater or lesser extent of the areas of each ellipse entering the circle stands to indicate the extent by which individuals can or will contribute to the common work. This confirms what I have already said: it is enough for each to cooperate in some way.
This diagram can also be interpreted in a second way: The central circle indicates an individual, and the surfaces of the ellipses outside it represent the measure or share of the person’s participation in various [other] cooperative activities, which are indicated by the areas shown by the dashed lines. The number, extent, and even quality of these multiple interests constitutes one of the most difficult problems for any of us to solve. I will only mention that of the proportion of collaboration that each person can or wants to give to family life and social life.
The most frequent case, at least until recently, was [for someone] to put their greatest emphasis on the family group, and less (and subordinately) to extra-familial collaborations. But there has always been a minority of individuals who have done the opposite, even to the point of giving up the family: priests, monks, missionaries, etc. At the present time, activities outside the family are attracting more and more individuals. A balanced relationship is very difficult; no rules can be given, since this is strictly an individual problem. It can be said that a harmonious solution is possible when members of one family do not close themselves off in group selfishness, or — as is unfortunately often the case — do not use up their energies in intra-family conflicts, but instead collaborate voluntarily, albeit to varying degrees, in cultural, social, humanitarian, extra-family activities. More or less successful examples of this are becoming frequent and, in modern life, family-society relations are becoming more numerous and active. They constitute problems of inter-individual psychosynthesis; we will discuss them in future lectures.
[i] An abbreviated version of this article — without the diagrams — was published in Psicosintesi – No. 2 – October 2004
[ii] Interpolations by Editor are shown in [brackets].
[iii] Language for the UNESCO Preamble taken from the English-language version on the UNESCO website. —Ed.
[iv] Language taken from The Unesco Courier, January 1965, p. 37. —Tr.
[v] Paragraphs 36-37 of the address by Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India to the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations, Nov.10, 1961. Taken from the UN. Official Records, p. 621. —Ed.
[vi] This theme is treated more extensively in the article “The Psychology of Women and Her Psychosynthesis,” —Author’s Note. That essay was published as Issue No .24 by the Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, New York, in 1968. —Ed.
[vii] Giosuè Carducci (1835-1907) was an Italian poet, writer, critic and teacher, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1906. Lines from The Poet are taken from p.188-189 of Carducci: A Selection of his Poems, with Verse Translations etc. by G.L.Bickersteth, M.A., Longmans, Green and Co. New York, London, 1913. (Internet Archive) —Ed.
[viii] This essay was probably written before Assagioli developed his own “psychosynthesis typology.” The four types discussed here appear to be based upon Jung’s list of “four fundamental functions” from which Jung derived eight human types. This is discussed (in Italian) in Assagioli Archive Doc. #24100, among others. The exact reference Assagioli makes in this comment is unknown. —Ed.
[ix] André Maurois (1885-1967) was a prolific French author. —Ed.
[x] Diagrams created by Editor based upon originals by the Author.
[xi] Guiseppe Garibaldi (1807-1882), Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour (1810-1861), Guiseppe Mazzini (1805-1872), and Victor Emmanuel II of Piedmont-Sardinia (1820-1878) were key figures in the unification of Italy. —Ed.
Leave a Reply