Subpersonalities

Assagioli defines his concept of subpersonalities as the different roles we play in life to other people. 

By Roberto Assagioli, 1957 or later^[1], from The Assagioli Archive – Florence, translated by Gordon Symons. Original title: Subpersonalità

Polarity – Ambivalence – Conflicts

Polarity and ambivalence must be distinguished from conflicts, because they are not the same. Conflict is the stage in which the patient has recognized his complexes as such, and as such wishes to be freed from them, but is unable to do so unaided. On the other hand, it is ambivalence when he spontaneously oscillates between two extremes, but not because of his efforts to free himself from one of them, while oscillating. For example, between love and hate, inferiority and superiority, aggression and masochism, activity and passivity.

These are polarities and ambivalences because they are spontaneous. There is conflict only when there is a struggle between the normal part of the personality and the pathological part. For example, certain sexual impulses, very often laziness, the unwillingness to act – for example with regard to writing – may be due to such a situation. 

Subpersonalities

At first, it may seem difficult for the physician to make the unsuspecting patient accept the concept of subpersonalities. But practice shows that it is easily accepted when presented something like this: “Have you noticed that you behave differently in your office, at your home, in social relations, in solitude, in church, or as a member of a political party? ” The patient is easily led to recognize differences and even contradictions. There are two classic types: the autocrat in the office and the man in slippers in his family, and vice versa the shy and employee in the office and the little tyrant at home. The patient can be led to conscious recognition in this way: “Of course he recognizes that as a son he acts differently than as a husband, or as a father, or mother.”

Then it must obviously be explained that this is normal, because each of us has different “I’s” depending on the relationship we have with other people, environments, groups, etc. and that it is good not to identify with any of these “I’s” which are all roles that we support, functions that we have, and that – although it seems paradoxical – it is true that the less we identify with a role, the better we play our part. For all practical purposes – and especially towards the patient – it is good to emphasize this aspect of “playing a role”, but from a theoretical point of view, we think that it is a matter of subpersonalities, because in some cases the thread of memory between of them is very tenuous. Indeed, the role is the point of arrival, and not the starting point, which instead is the complete immersion in each subsequent subpersonality with varying awareness of the incongruous situation.

The goal is the “I” that consciously and freely plays the different parts. 

William James has already dealt with this concept of subpersonalities, which he called “the various selves”, that is, the functions of an individual in which the different psychological traits are more or less combined with each other, forming what we really consider as subpersonalities. It is perhaps better to use the word “roles” instead of “functions”, to avoid semantic confusion between the main functions – such as thinking, feeling, etc. – and these inter-individual functions which are actually “roles” supported by the individual. The patient should be asked to describe himself in various parts: as son or daughter, as husband or wife, as father or mother, as a professional of some kind, and in this to examine his own attitude towards subordinates, superiors and colleagues. Other subpersonalities, or roles, are those which are held in different social groups, including religious or denominational, political or party groups, and other roles one may have or wish to play in life. The organization of these subpersonalities is very revealing, and sometimes disconcerting and even frightening. We discover how completely different and often antagonistic characteristics manifest themselves in the different roles. We have the well-known example of the shy employee who becomes the little tyrant in the family or, vice versa, the tough boss “who is hen-pecked by his wife”, and so on. 

The diversity of characteristics that are organized around a role justify, in our opinion, the term subpersonality. Ordinary people pass from one to the other without clear awareness, and a tenuous thread of memory unites them; but for all practical purposes they are different beings (entities), acting differently, and exhibiting very different traits. This is a fact of which the patient or pupil, or anyone aiming for self-realization, should be clearly aware, because it evokes the sense of understanding of psychosynthesis, that is, how to synthesize these various subpersonalities in a larger scheme, in an organic whole, without repressing any of the useful and fruitful traits of each. Another advantage of this assessment is that by contrast it accentuates the reality of the observer “I”. During and after this assessment of subpersonalities, it is indeed easy to understand that the observing “I” is not any of them, but something or someone different from each one; and this is a very important understanding – another of the keys to future psychosynthesis.

This distinction is similar to that made by Jung between “Ego” and “Persona”, except that we are talking about Personae (in the plural), which is more realistic and closer to the facts, and what Paul Tournier has defined as “Le Personnage”, which corresponds to the series of roles, while“ La personne ”corresponds to the central internal “I”. Charles Baudouin also makes this distinction in some respects. A precise confirmation of their existence is offered by psychology, that is, by cases of alternating personalities, or of double personalities; but in many cases there are more than two personalities. In such cases even the aforementioned tenuous thread of memory that connects the subpersonalities to each other is non-existent, and one subpersonality is completely ignorant of the others. A number of cases have been studied, one for example by Pierre Janet, and William James has already dealt with this subject in his Principles of Psychology. But a very carefully studied case is that of Miss Beauchamp by Morton Prince. Fortunately, Morton Prince had more of an objective mind than he had imagination, and no knowledge of psychoanalysis; therefore, his study is almost photographic, with only a minimum of interpretation, and this is fine because it offers genuine material. Reading his book entitled “The Dissociation of a Personality” is more fascinating and eventful than many novels. It describes the splitting of the subject’s personality into two, into three, and into four, and the struggle between the personality and one of these subpersonalities (which was aware of the behaviour of the other personalities, and which describes and interprets their symbolism). This book therefore offers a wealth of material that reveals a careful study carried out in the light of our current broader knowledge of psychology and the unconscious.

More recently, a book by a psychiatrist has been published in the United States, entitled “The Three Faces of Eve”, which is the story of a woman with multiple personalities. The book was also turned into a blockbuster movie. However, it must be said that such cases are not too common in the annals of psychopathology. But rarity proves nothing, as the analogy with comets can prove. Despite their rarity, comets in fact have given astronomers a lot to think about, not only about them but in general, about the whole universe; and the same in our opinion is true with regard to these cases.

It is not possible for us now to dwell on discussions and interpretations. We will only say that they confirm our conception of the “I”, of the personal ego as a projection of the Spiritual “I”, because we could say that, in the case of the multiple personality, the personal ego is split into three to four “I’s”, but the fact of the final reunification and the cure that took place for example in the case of Miss Beauchamp shows that that split is only temporary, and that the various personalities can come together again. Therefore, this also demonstrates the empirical and relative reality of a personal “I”, while the possibility of reunification would confirm the existence of a single higher “I” behind the scenes, which makes reunification itself possible. It is truly a scientific duty for us to highlight the parapsychological aspect of some of those cases.

There are some, like that of Velida, reported by Janet and others, in which there is no trace of parapsychological elements; that is, everything can be explained by the dissociation and further reassociation of the psychological person. But there are other cases where the facts are more obscure. For example, in that of Miss Beauchamp, the Sally subpersonality had peculiar characteristics different from all the other subpersonalities. It had powers that the others did not have and was excluded from the re-association, or final synthesis; Dr. Prince reports that it agreed to retire, no one knows where. But a case in which the psychological element is essential and really intriguing and mysterious is that described in a curious way in another book by Dr. Prince, which consists of two dense volumes published by the American Society for Psychical Research (more exact indications will be given in the appendix). It is strange how this case has not been highlighted and discussed, but it is clear that the reason is that there is often too much parapsychology. 

Characteristics Belonging To Previous Psychological Ages

As a next step, the patient will have to be prepared by the psychotherapist (who will explain what this means) to search for persistent characteristics of previous psychological ages: childhood, adolescence and youth. This self-examination can actually be done during the sessions, giving time to reflect, without pressing for immediate answers. But it is good for the patient to recognize as much as possible for himself how much in his feelings, his way of thinking, and his social behavior corresponds to previous stages of psychological development. Then, of course, during the analysis and during the work, some of these characteristics will emerge spontaneously, and we can put our finger on them, so to speak. When these characteristics are important, the doctor will have to constantly monitor them, and every time they appear very clear or can be assumed, the patient’s attention will have to be drawn to them. At this point in the procedure, however, the physician should be aware that the persistence of those characteristics is not only typical of patients, but to varying degrees of each adult in general.

1.  Editors note: Later in the text Assagioli refers to the book The Three Faces of Eve, which was published in 1957, and the movie was also in 1957, so we can date this essay as 1957 or later. ↩︎