Moral Conflicts

Conflicts and crises should not be considered pathological in themselves (otherwise we would all be sick!)

By Roberto Assagioli , From The Course of Lessons on Psychosynthesis, Fourth Lesson March 22, 1964. Original Title: I Conflitti Morali . Translated by Jan Kuniholm and Francesco Viglienghi, derived from the Assagioli Archive in Florence.

In a broad sense all crises and conflicts are psychological, because overall they take place within our psyche, but we can and must distinguish those that are at the psychological level that can be called general (which I mentioned in the previous lesson), from crises and conflicts that have specific moral or spiritual content; the differences will become clear from what I will say later. But before discussing this, it is appropriate to consider a preliminary objection. One might think that moral and spiritual crises do not fall within the competence of the doctor, or even of the psychologist as such; but are the domain of the moralist, or at least of the educator, or of the priest.

I said last time that conflicts and crises should not be considered pathological in themselves (otherwise we would all be sick!) — sometimes they are points of passage to a higher level. On the other hand, it is a fact that moral and spiritual conflicts not infrequently produce psychological and even physical disorders, given the psychosomatic repercussions that occur continuously. These disorders induce the sufferer to consult doctors, not only specialists in nervous diseases and psychiatrists, but also general practitioners and specialists in other fields if the psychosomatic disorder is localized in a particular organ.

If these doctors do not limit themselves to a purely physical examination, but place themselves in a human relationship with the patient, they discover that often the disorders for which they are consulted are produced in part — and sometimes to a great extent — by psychological, moral, or spiritual crises.

The human being cannot be considered as composed of various separate parts: body, psyche and spirit; these are indeed different and distinct, but they continually act upon one another, and in the dynamics of human life they are intimately connected. Therefore, the doctor cannot avoid taking into account everything that makes up the being, the human person, in its living reality, and helping to bring these different and contrasting elements into a harmonious synthesis.

This integral conception of the physician’s function has been advocated in a special way by Dr. Paul Tournier, [1] of Geneva, and by the Médecine de la Personne movement promoted by him. He is not the only one, but he has had the great merit of insisting on it in a particular way in his book entitled Médecine de la Personne [2] and in others, and at the annual conferences of doctors of this orientation that he organized. This orientation is also found, and more fully, in the conception of psychosynthesis, which should be more precisely called bio-psychosynthesis , since it includes the body, or “bio-psycho-spiritual synthesis”. I usually do not use this terminology for the sake of brevity, but I ask everyone to remember that when I speak of psychosynthesis, I include the body in it: bio -psychosynthesis.

On the other hand, it should be made very clear that taking moral and spiritual crises into account does not mean that the doctor tries to get the patient to conform to his own ethical or spiritual convictions . He should not do this for two reasons: first of all because it would go beyond the bounds of his duties and competence; secondly because of the profound differences of various sorts which exist among human beings, which in each case pose problems and require different solutions. In this sense the doctor must be impartial ; not [personally] favoring any solution, and seeking only what is truly good for the patient — which may be very different from what is good for him.

I will give specific examples. Any impartial observer can note that there are cases in which there are conflicts or disorders that can be called “Freudian”; that is, corresponding to certain interpretations of Freud (in which the sexual-affective etiology is prevalent). On the other hand, there are clearly “Adlerian” cases, whose dynamics are based on self-assertion, on the will to power, often as a reaction to a sense or a real state of inferiority. There are also “Jungian” cases; that is, cases that can be understood as a refusal to admit the inferior and negative elements, what Jung calls “the shadow”.

There are cases in which the central conflict is that between the individual and the collective, highlighted by Erich Fromm: conflicts with parents and all representatives of authority, or conflicts involving pressures for social conformity. There are situations in which individual egocentrism does not recognize others as “persons”, as human beings, but considers them as “objects” to be used and not “subjects” with whom to communicate. This has been well highlighted by Martin Buber in his book I and Thou . Then there are more specifically spiritual conflicts between our conscious part and the superconscious; that is, the spiritual drives and energies that try to enter the consciousness, and the refusal of the conscious personality to admit them.

All these cases are distinctly different, and what is good for one — what may be the solution to his crisis — is of no use at all to another. Therefore the doctor, and also the educator and the psychologist, should know all these multifaceted possibilities; find out to which [psychological] type the student or the patient belongs, what his particular issues are, and help him to take the next step in his own direction and not try to make him deviate from that line of his development — even with the best of intentions.

I have spoken of these various [psychological] types, but, in fact, it is difficult to find a pure type; not infrequently one can find what one might call a Freudian component, an Adlerian component, a Jungian component, and so on, in the same individual. So the second clarification is to see what and in what proportions these various elements exist in the individual. This is the “existential” (which does not mean “existentialist”) attitude adopted by psychosynthesis; that is, the recognition that each case is an individual case, a unique combination of different elements, and therefore for each case there is a new problem that requires unique solutions that are suitable for it. But there is more: the problems change in the various successive phases of the life of the same individual, or when faced with new situations.

In order to be able to do what has been discussed, anyone who tries to help — doctors, educators, parents — should firsthave recognized his own psychological type and his own problems (the first case to be studied is himself!), so as not to project onto others his own problems, not to see in others what is primarily in himself. Not infrequently, among the various “components” of which I have spoken, we are led to accentuate the one that corresponds to ourselves; and in accentuating it, a suggestive action is exerted on the patient and so we tend to develop that side. In this way a kind of mutual deception takes place; an artificial personality is “constructed” by suggestion and by projection. The true scientific attitude is instead to put aside, as far as humanly possible, any “personal equation” and see what is really in the other person.

But this is still not enough. Along with the primary constitution and the original situation of each person, there are the reactions to them. In fact, it has often been noted that certain symptoms, certain diseases, are “secondary reactions”. Let’s take a very simple example: fever. This is not itself something primary, it does not constitute a disease, but rather it is the defense reaction of the organism to a pathogenic agent. So in the psyche, many “psychic fevers”, many “psychological formations” are reactions to internal or environmental situations (sometimes a neurosis is a “defense mechanism”). These reactions are of various kinds. A frequent one is ambivalence , that is, the simultaneous existence of contrary tendencies.

Ambivalence can be conscious, as expressed for example in Faust’s phrase, “Two souls dwell in my breast”, or it can be unconscious. Examples of these are cases in which the conscious personality has faith, or believes itself to have faith, while in the unconscious there is doubt or denial.

Other important reactions are the compensations and overcompensations . There is not only the “Adlerian” one — that is, the overcompensation of self-affirmation in reaction to the sense of inferiority — but many other overcompensations; that is, exaggerated reactions to a deficiency. Then there are the transmutations and sublimations of psychic energies which in part occur naturally, but which can be fostered for educational and therapeutic purposes (see Lesson No. 10 of 1963).

I thought it best to say this before speaking of moral and spiritual conflicts because in this field — even more than in others — understanding and impartiality are needed on the part of those who seek to help.

I will not linger to define morality, much less to discuss its various doctrines; I will stick to the pragmatic, or — to use the modern term — existential point of view. Moral consciousness, ie the internal experience of moral values ​​and choices is, to use Henri Bergson’s expression, an “immediate datum of consciousness”; that is, a lived experience that, like aesthetics, does not need to be demonstrated. Morality does not need to be proven: it is an internal experience. Even in ordinary language we speak of “voice of conscience”, of the “pangs of conscience”, of “remorse”. [3] In us there is an instance, an internal perception, an intuition — call it what we want — that has a sense of values ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​and that sometimes “speaks” to us almost as a separate being, that approves or disapproves of what we think or do. I repeat: it has its own unmistakable quality; an intrinsic reality that manifests itself in the evaluations, choices and therefore actions of each of us. Insofar as it is a “motive”, insofar as it determines, or tries to determine our conduct, it can and should be considered as an energy — energy that often comes into conflict with other energies, motives, impulses, and thus is a source of conflict and crisis.

Moral consciousness can have various degrees, and very different subjective aspects and exterior manifestations. There are those in whom it is deficient, so that it does not restrain their selfish tendencies; they deliberately, coldly commit immoral or antisocial actions without inner inhibitions. These people are not only found in the lower social spheres, in the primitives, in the thieves, or in the habitual, one might say professional, swindlers. They are also found, and not rarely, in the so-called higher social classes. They are the private and public profiteers, those who cynically exploit human instincts and passions: the producers of works that are vulgar or pornographic to one degree or another, who have the impudence to defend them in the name of “freedom of the arts”. They are drug traffickers and others of the same kind.

However, even in these cases, it is always a matter of serious deficiencies, but not a complete lack of moral sense. Even in the worst human beings there is in fact a sense of justice, which is the first elementary manifestation of the moral sense; indeed this need for justice (whether interpreted well or badly) is very strong in primitive beings and in children. Not a few criminals are as they are as a reaction or revenge against real or supposed injustices of which they believe themselves to be victims. Many hostile reactions and types of antisocial behavior in children and young people have the same origin. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid very carefully not only the committing of injustices (which are often done even unconsciously by parents, teachers or established authorities!) but also what may appear to be an injustice. In these cases we need to explain properly and patiently the reasons for our acts or words.

We cannot therefore speak of a total absence of moral sense, [4] but of partial forms of amorality or immorality, of a kind of “ethical color blindness,” whereby the individual may lack moral sensitivity in one field and have it in others, just as the color blind person does not distinguish between red and green but can accurately perceive other colors. Thus it happens that a bandit, an “outlaw”, can kill and at the same time have his own sense of honor towards his companions and sometimes be generous. Likewise there are people who have no moral sensitivity in their sexual behavior, but who can conduct themselves in an upright manner in other matters.

It is also appropriate to distinguish carefully between various motives for conduct or behavior that appear to be the same, or even truly equal. The same so-called immoral act can be committed due as much to a deficiency of moral sense as to impulses that are followed in spite of moral conscience. An English psychiatrist, Hadfield, [5] has highlighted this well; for example in the case of drunkenness. A distinction must be made between habitual drinkers who do it voluntarily, without any internal struggle, and believe that in a state of liberty it is their right to get drunk; and those who take alcoholic substances for escape, despair, imitation, or on a violent impulse, but who know that they are doing harm and resolve each time to stop. The latter are treatable, the former are not.

In this regard I will mention the admirable results of a remarkable American association, “Alcoholics Anonymous”; this is a kind of mutual aid society among alcoholics who are alcoholics in spite of themselves. A former alcoholic can help a current alcoholic much more effectively than a doctor; in fact, they have been very successful and their number has grown to about 200,000. [6]

What Hadfield says also applies to stealing; here, too, one must distinguish “professional” thieves from cases of kleptomania; ie, the irresistible impulse to steal, which must be regarded as a disease. The same is true in other fields.

But let us now examine the actual moral conflicts more closely. They are produced by the sense of guilt . This has been the subject of extensive study and even lively discussion in recent decades. There has been a tendency on the part of many psychoanalysts to regard guilt, and moral imperatives in general, solely as social products that are produced by parental action in the first place, and then by social norms, and influences from one’s environment. These create what Freud calls the “super-ego”, an artificial construction that has nothing to do with the spiritual Ego, or “I” or Self.

Others, while acknowledging this origin of some aspects of guilt, have reaffirmed that there is a moral sense due to an awareness of the reality of ethical and spiritual values. This has been highlighted by Paul Tournier, who in his book Vraie ou Fausse Culpabilité [7] has made a fine analysis of the sense of guilt, showing its great complexity. He shows the various aspects that guilt can assume and the reactions that it produces.

The great difference between the various psychological types [of people] is also evident in this field. In some, the sense of guilt produces a depression, a sense of inferiority, a devaluation of oneself; when it is so intense as to go beyond the limits of so-called normality, it produces depressive melancholic states in the subject, in which there is an exaggerated self-accusation, the sense of being a serious sinner, of being inferior to all others. In other types, however, there is the opposite reaction: the refusal to recognize one’s own shortcomings, one’s own moral faults, and therefore a self-justification of oneself to others. It takes the form of retaliation towards others; that is, blaming them for one’s own shortcomings. Nowadays there is often a tendency to blame the environment or society. Society certainly has its faults, but not all those attributed to it by those who use it as an escape and a justification for their own deficiencies.

In the former, the excessive sense of guilt leads to a desire for punishment, which produces an unconscious drive for self-punishment. It has been said that various accidents that occur in life, even at work, etc., are produced by this desire for self-punishment. By contrast, in those who blame others and the environment, guilt provokes rebellion and an antisocial attitude. In still other cases it arouses a sense of fear. All of this is evidence that the same cause, on different grounds, can have different and even opposite effects.

What are the solutions to moral conflicts? For all those who could be called “proud”, who do not want to acknowledge their deficiencies or their shortcomings, the solution is honest recognition ; that is, the removal of the repressed guilt in the unconscious, and the admission of the invalidity of their self-justifications. For everyone, but especially for those who are depressed or those who have an excessive sense of inferiority and self-depreciation, the solution lies in the acceptance of one’s imperfection, in the recognition that it is part of the human condition from which no one escapes; and that therefore it is an illusion or a pretense to consider oneself exempt from blame, or to condemn oneself for one’s imperfections.

Of course, this acceptance should not be passive; it should not be an excuse to remain as one is; acceptance should be succeeded by the purpose of a progressive overcoming, through the use of appropriate methods. This is based on a dynamic conception of the human psyche, in which there is nothing fixed, nothing static. Therefore there is nothing fated or inevitable in the human condition, but rather there is a continuous progress, a perennial development. This is the principle of evolution, widely recognized in biology, applied to psychology.

Recently, much has been written about “evolutionary psychology”; however, this psychology generally deals with the period from the newborn to the young adult and does not adequately address the evolution that can and must occur from youth to the last day of life. The adult tends to consider himself as “already made” (even if he is “badly made”!), as someone “arrived”. But this is not so; we change even in spite of ourselves, and if not for the better, then for the worse. The continuous acquisition of knowledge, new experiences, situations that awaken latent energies — all these produce continuous changes. Instead of denying or passively undergoing these changes, we can make ourselves a “responsible party” [8] (to use a legal phrase); that is, to actively intervene as conscious and responsible subjects in the flow, in the unfolding of our lives and, through this, of the lives of others. It can be done — but we need an internal decision , we need to want to do it , and then use the appropriate methods that exist to resolve the various situations, the various crises, the various conflicts. This is what psychosynthesis is particularly concerned with, which is not so much a conception or a doctrine as a practice , an activity in all fields: medical, educational and self-training.

The central, and in a sense preliminary, method for implementing psychosynthesis is the development and appropriate use of the will. One must recognize the central position and important function of the will, this Cinderella of modern psychology. For even the simplest actions and elementary psychological exercises require the use of the will. But those exercises, in turn, serve not only their specific purposes, but also they train and strengthen the will itself. This fact emphasizes their value, and is therefore an incentive to do them. In their simplicity they help to develop the faculties necessary for the highest moral and spiritual achievements.

 
[1] (1898-1988) Swiss physician and author who had acquired a worldwide audience for his work in pastoral counseling.

[2] First published in French in 1940; republished in 1992. It was translated into Italian with the title Individual Medicine. “Medicine of the Person” is carried on by the Association Paul Tournier. Current information is available at https://www.paultournier.org/mdlp.html

[3] In Italian the “pangs of conscience” are “di morsi della coscienza,” or literally “bites of conscience.” Assagioli then speaks of “re-bites” or in Italian, “ri-morsi” which shares the Latin root remordere, meaning “to bite again,” with the English word “remorse,” which is a deep and painful regret. — Tr.

[4] This was highlighted even in the most seriously mentally ill by the psychiatrist Henri Baruk (1897-1999) who expounded this in his book Psychiatrie experimentale et sociale. [Psychiatry morale expérimentale, individual et sociale. Haines et réactions de culpabilité. Presses Uiversitaires de France, 1945 ] Author’s note as amended —Tr.

[5] JA Hadfield (1882–1967).

[6] As of this writing (2022) an AA presence can be found in approximately 180 nations worldwide with an estimated membership of over two million.—Tr.

[7] True or False Guilt, available only in French edition published by Delachaux & Niestlé, Neuchatel, 1958. —Tr.

[8] “parte diligente” in Italian which translates literally as “diligent party.” However the legal implication in English is better rendered as “responsible.” — Tr.