Psychosynthesis has this firm existential, anti-theoretical and anti-doctrinal position that almost no one takes, because everyone hooks their techniques to a conception or doctrine
By Roberto Assagioli (Undated) from the Assagioli Archives in Florence. Doc. #24173 Original Title: Psicosintesi e psicoterapia (II), Translated With Notes by Jan Kuniholm
What distinguishes psychosynthesis above all is the constantly synthetic, that is, existential attitude: to always focus on the concrete case, on the human being in his living and immediate concreteness and uniqueness, not only as regards the patient, but also the clinician.
So we take an anti-theoretical and anti-intellectualistic attitude, always based on lived life. Psychosynthesis is not bound to any theory, to any doctrine, and any conception is merely the result or formulation of the ascertained data of the living experience of therapeutic practice; therefore, it neither affirms nor denies any theory but always tends to find the point of synthesis among conflicting or disparate elements.
Psychosynthesis employs techniques and exercises that are not found in other psychotherapeutic methods, and it also adopts all exercises that are valid from all other psychotherapeutic methods. It carries no preconceptions, and does not rely upon a mechanical eclecticism, but rather it uses other methods and exercises for as much or as little as they serve the integral plan of synthesis. In addition to using all valid techniques, psychosynthesis has its own techniques that are not found in this form in other psychotherapeutic systems. So psychosynthesis has this firm existential, anti-theoretical and anti-doctrinal position that almost no one takes, because everyone hooks their techniques to a conception or doctrine — Freud first of all, and the others as well.
When didactic psychosynthesis is impossible, one can fall back on didactic self-psychosynthesis, perhaps with some verification, and then very few interviews may suffice: an initial basic qualifying orientation interview, and after that a few times to take stock or propose questions.
We adapt psychosynthesis to life, and not life to psychosynthesis. Another point that distinguishes psychosynthesis from the vast majority of psychotherapies is the consideration of the superconscious. Almost all psychotherapies, excluding Frankl and Jung, do not take the superconscious into account. Other psychotherapies pose the problem of making the abnormal normal, of socially adapting the neurotic person; but this is not enough — for some people it is not enough, or it is not possible, or they refuse. These people need to activate certain superconscious elements, or perhaps are already activated in them. Only by developing these elements and integrating them into the rest of the personality can they be healed, otherwise not.
This is pure therapeutic asceticism,[1] not spiritual propaganda, i.e., [the needs of] certain patients demand that this be taken into consideration (and there is much to be said about this).
Moreover, the idea of adapting the patient to social life, as it is at present, is a very questionable thing. For one thing, because for many people this would be a removing from them all tendencies that are not “normal.” For artists especially or others, this would be mutilating them, forcing them into the Procrustean bed of so-called “normality;” one must seek in such cases a synthesis that includes all their tendencies, and that does not exclude them.
There is now no such thing as normality; we are in a period when civilization is in transitional transformation; there is a need for a new kind of civilization and a culture adapted to new mentalities and new means, and therefore there is no “normality.”
One has to adapt and fit into this future civilization, and a culture of the future. This is an uncomfortable period, full of crises and conflicts — but very interesting, so there is no point in “normalizing” a patient. We have to make suffering constructive and not destructive, starting precisely with the acceptance of suffering — not passive and submissive acceptance, but one based on an understanding of the function of suffering, which is inevitable in periods of evolution.
One of the themes would also be this: the positive function of suffering. Suffering in the Catholic world is seen as a passive acceptance of God’s will. In the best cases it is something more, but for most it is an attitude of submission. Keyserling has said, “All joy comes through acceptance of suffering.” So suffering is not an end in itself: it is an inevitable concomitant of a passing crisis, because the end point is joy and not suffering. The classic example is adolescence: adolescents suffer and are in crisis, but it’s not a matter of bringing them back to childhood. It’s a matter of helping them through adolescence by including the positive values in youth.
So every crisis is about going beyond, but first of all accepting the crisis itself; seeing its function and value.
The point is this: psychosynthesis does not seek to normalize the sick person in the sense that psychoanalysis or other psychotherapies seek to do so. These try to make them social, adequate, conforming and well adjusted into a society. But there are two big issues here: first, that many people do not fit that; and second, that there is currently no “normal” society.
The substantial things are: superconsciousness, and integration without conformity. The exception to this is psychotic people, for whom sociotherapy is appropriate. Psychotics are cut off from human society, and one must first reintegrate them through action, cooperation and counseling; but this is quite a different thing. On the other hand, those who are in the more advanced field of sociotherapy (Vasalia), pose the issue thus: that one must transform society before the afflicted person can be well in it. [2]
Psychosynthesis does not deal directly with psychotics, and if someone wants to do so in the future so much the better; as first aid it is just fine. But for the large number of neurotics there is such an urgent need. Another characteristic point of psychosynthesis — which I do not think is found in any other psychotherapy — is the emphasis of the will! The error of some psychological techniques that use the will is to try to impose the will.
In the other psychological functions, trying to force instincts, feelings and impulses with the will is like someone trying to make a car go by pushing it from behind. But this fails; one struggles a lot and goes on only at a walking pace, which one rightly rebels against.
The function of the will is that of guidance. The will must use the existing energies without repressing them, without condemning them. It coordinates and directs them precisely through the techniques of sublimation and transmutation of discharge — venting, creative utilization, etc. So the use of the will is not enforcement, but regulation.
The coercive use of the will would be like wanting to throw boulders in a stream bed to make the water turn back. The waters do not turn back. On the other hand, the will is used to channel the waters and bring them to a power plant or to irrigation canals; but to channel them you have to create banks and basins; so it is an active intervention, not of imposition but of regulation, and then the main difficulty disappears.
It is a matter of organizing one’s psychic energies.
Therefore these are the elements of psychosynthesis:
Existential attitude
Recognition of the superconscious
Wise use of the will
Specific techniques
Use of active techniques
Preparation of the therapist
Relationship between therapist and patient
For the rest, it accepts the benefits of any other psychotherapy.
[1] Assagioli uses the word “asceticism” in a particular way. He does not refer to religious self-denial or punishment, but rather a kind of minimalism, of focusing on basic experiential data rather than dogma or rigid practice. —Tr.
[2] I have been unable to trace the connection with the name Vasalia. —Tr.
Leave a Reply