Assagioli defines the subconscious in this 1911 article, which he calls historical because it contains the stem of his present (1974) conception of subpersonalities.
By Roberto Assagioli, 1911, From the Assagioli Archive in Florence. translated by Gordon Symons. Original title: Il Subcosciente
(Editors note (KS): Roberto Assagioli considered his article: The Subconscious to be foundational to his understanding of subpersonalities. This is something we learn from the recently published biography Roberto Assagioli In His Own Words. (Available from the Italian Institute of Psychosynthesis in Florence: http://www.psicosintesi.it/english), so I have included Assagioli’s own words from the biography in the introduction to this article to show the reader how he thought about Subpersonalities as early as 1911. I have deleted the footnotes in this presentation, so read the biography for a complete understanding.)
Introduction by Roberto Assagioli from the biography: Roberto Assagioli In His Own Words.
In 1911, in April, the Fourth International Conference of Philosophy took place in Bologna. There I gave a talk on what I called “the subconscious”. This paper for me was somewhat historical because in it there are the roots and partly the stem of my present conception of the subpersonalities, which is one of the chief points of Psychosynthesis. So I dealt with cases of multiple personalities, and especially with the beautiful book of Morton Prince on his case, The Dissociation of a Personality. It is for me a classic, a very important book, which by far was not given the importance it deserves. Morton Prince, however, was a hard-boiled positivist with no imagination whatever. Can you imagine what Freud would have made of that same case? Instead, he was quite sober and objective. He just described what happened without any attempt to interpret it. He was a good practitioner who saw scattered pieces and wanted to combine them. That is precious because it is objective.
So I jumped on that and other cases by Boris Sidis, Janet and Myers, and emphasised the fact that there are multi-personalities. It aroused a great deal of interest and discussion because Claparéde was there, and Prabhu Dutt Shastri and Peillaube and others, and they all discussed it. I answered each one of them in his own language, Italian and French, and it took the whole afternoon. I had a great time.
But the main point of the discussion, the thing they could not swallow, was the fact that I adopted Morton Prince’s terminology of the co-conscious. I said that each of these split personalities was co-conscious. It is fascinating. Nobody had dared to write anything of that kind. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is elementary compared to that. One of the personalities, Sally, was co-conscious and she witnessed the dreams of the other and she interpreted those dreams. For instance, a fact which has not been given sufficient importance: Sally, this split subpersonality, said that at one time the girl had pneumonia with high fever, and she was delirious. She imagined she was at the seashore, so she got out of bed, climbed a rock (actually the windowsill) and threw a stone (an inkpot) into the water. But another, co-conscious personality was quite sober in spite of the fever and the toxins in the brains, and so witnessed the delirious fantasies of the other, and interpreted them. It turned upside down many of the theories about dreams and about toxins and fever too. So I said that we had to admit that a subpersonality could be co-conscious, that is, it can have a split consciousness of its own; and that the fragmentation is not only in the context but also in the reference, and that was too much for them. They respected my opinion but made objections, so I had great fun.
I have translated part of the preface of that pamphlet because in it I first established the fact of co-consciousness, a contemporary activity of two centres of consciousness, and then I answered the criticism of Medicine that, after all, it is not important because it is a metaphysical concept. The phobia of metaphysics in scientists is quite unwarranted.
From then on, I persisted obstinately with that conception and developed it into the idea of subpersonalities: there are scattered psychological elements; then they combine in subpersonalities, which are connected with the central I. It is like in Gestalt therapy: sit on this or that chair. In a nutshell it was all there. I do not care for priorities. Anyhow, the priority was Morton Prince’s, not mine.”
The Subconscious
By Roberto Assagioli, 1911, from The Assagioli Archive in Florence,
In recent years, the study of sub-conscious psychic activity has increasingly attracted the attention of psychologists, who have recognized its fundamental importance. But, although very extensive and valuable works have already appeared on this subject, thanks above all to Janet, Morton Prince and Freud, it must be recognized that there is still a great deal of disparity of views in this regard, and a great confusion which is reflected in a muddled terminological anarchy that is perhaps not equalled in all of science. It cannot be said that I am exaggerating when I remember that Morton Prince enumerates six different meanings given to the word “subconscious” (1); that Willy Hellpach cites eight of them for the word “unconscious” (2) and that in the end, the same phenomenon has been designated by various authors with seven different words (which are: unconscious, subconscious, co-conscious, supraconscious, dissociated, subliminal and cryptopsychic)! Some have been tempted to bring order and exactness to this chaos, especially Morton Prince(3), and, among us, Patini(4), but their writings, however valuable, still leave room for much discussion and completion.
In this study I have aimed at making a contribution to this work of clarification and precise definition of the various problems. We must first get rid of a tiresome misunderstanding:
1. The misunderstanding about the unconscious.
The ambiguous meaning of this word has been a major source of the current confusion. In fact, the expression “the unconscious phenomenon” can have two different meanings; it can mean both “phenomenon of which we are not aware” and “phenomenon not accompanied by any state of consciousness”. Although this distinction, thus expressed, seems very clear, many scholars, even among the best, are not well aware of it. If to the disadvantage of this serious ambiguity, we add those deriving from the different meanings given by the various authors to the word “unconscious” (for example, the “unconscious” of E. Von Hartmann is a universal meta-physical principle, while that of Morton Prince is only the sum of the “dispositions” and “residues” impressed and registered in the nervous centers by past psychic activity), it seems clear to me that one should use the opportunity to use that word as little as possible. That is, it should be maintained only when it refers to authors who have already used it in a particular sense; in any other case it should be replaced by more precise expressions, which indeed already exist. Furthermore, there are concrete proposals in this regard.
2. Is there a psychic activity devoid of any consciousness?
Several philosophers have spoken of unconscious psychic facts, but, due to the ambiguity of this word, it can be doubted that they used it precisely in the absolute sense of “devoid of consciousness”.Thus, when Leibniz presents his well-known theory of “petites perceptions inconscientes” (5), it seems to me that he only means to affirm the existence of perceptions that we do not sense; since not even the most extreme theory of the absolute unconscious (that of E. Von Hartmann) has reached the point of denying all consciousness to a perception.These in fact distinguish “psychic phenomena” (sensation, feeling, representation, concept) which are conscious from “psychic activities” (thought and will), which would instead be functions of the unconscious (6). This distinction is certainly highly questionable. It seems to me that it makes no sense failing to conceive an (unconscious) thought without representations and concepts, but in general every argument advanced by Hartmann in his mammoth work in support of his own metaphysical theory seemed to me tendentious and not very persuasive.
In Locke we find the first clear and precise approach to the problem. He states without hesitation that a thought devoid of all consciousness is inconceivable: … “it is altogether as intelligible to say that a body is extended without parts, as that anything thinks without being conscious of it, or perceiving that it does so “(7). So, for example, if Socrates’ soul thinks and feels during sleep without him having any consciousness of it when awake, then Socrates awake and Socrates asleep, Locke says, are two different persons; (8) which is equivalent to saying, in modern psychological language, that in the same psyche there would be different “centers of consciousness“, that is, different personalities. William James is also resolutely on this side, and in his Principles of Psychology, he challenges at length and with great finesse ten alleged arguments or groups of arguments that have been adopted in support of the thesis of the absolute unconscious. (9)As for me, not only do James’s arguments seem decisive to me, but I confess that I cannot conceive of a psychic activity devoid of all consciousness, as this seems to me to be an essential element of the concept of psyche. But, it is argued, couldn’t the alleged “unconscious” psychic activity in reality be just a purely material and physiological mind process? Let us examine this question immediately.
3. Is there an “unconscious brain“?
The hypothesis of an “unconscious brain”, one of the first advocated by the physiologist Carpenter, has had support among physiologists and “positivist” psychologists, always eager to translate every psychic phenomenon into physiological terms. Some of them, such as Munsterberg and Ribot, want to explain all subconscious psychic phenomena, even those that manifest a high intelligence such as automatic writing (10), with this hypothesis.
To these authors one can first of all oppose the existing evidence for dissociated psychic activity, which will be briefly discussed later (in n. 5). Others, such as Morton Prince, are more prudent but also more ambiguous, and acknowledge both conscious psychic centers and the unconscious brain, but then they do not know how to find clear and safe boundaries between one and the other.
To all the proponents of the “explanations” of subconscious phenomena, it is possible to offer a fundamental objection based on the data of that conclusive criticism of scientific methods made above all by Pearson, Clark Maxwell , Ostwald, Mach, Le Roy and Poincare. The analyses of these philosophers of science have shown that scientific descriptions, explanations, and laws cannot claim any “objectivity” in the ordinary sense; they are nothing but schemes and concepts of our mind, the value of which consists in being good “working hypotheses”, comfortable “shortcuts”, possibilities of “economy of thought”, useful artifices to be able to clarify the differences between phenomena.
Psychologists are therefore deluded into believing that they are either “explaining” or even describing subconscious phenomena in a more exact and objective way by speaking of “cerebration”, “chemistry and nervous processes”, “associative pathways”, ” mnemonic traces », etc. Instead, the question must be raised: «which group of concepts best responds to the purposes mentioned; the one taken from physiology or the one taken from psychology? I believe that, for various reasons, one can respond resolutely in favor of the latter, as Bernard Hart (11) has very vigorously maintained.
I will limit myself to pointing out that, since the subconscious phenomena referred to are of a psychic order, the desire to coordinate and arrange them under physiological concepts and schemes leads to continuous “translations” and “transports” from one series to another, with the evident violation of the principle of the economy of thought, and with the continuous danger of errors and misrepresentations, given our great scarcity of sure knowledge of the relationships existing between the psyche and the nervous system. The foregoing can also be applied to a fourth question:
4. In what form are memories, attitudes, psychic dispositions,and affective states?
Generally, the answer is: “in the form of memory traces, that is, of particular dispositions in cerebral matter, and of special associative and conduction pathways.” The answer is legitimate if it is given a purely conceptual “working hypothesis” value, but if it is taken too literally and if it is given an “objective” value, it becomes a source of anatomical and physiological confusion and error.
I am not ignoring the anatomical and physiological facts which show the relations between the nervous system and the psyche, but they do not explain at all the nature of these relations, which remain mysterious. A psycho-physiological parallelism, in its various aspects?
Mutual action and reaction? Panpsychism? All these are metaphysical hypotheses and do not allow us to affirm anything scientifically proven about the form in which our previous psychic experiences are preserved; and if we want, for convenience, to continue talking about “mnemonic traces” and “associative paths,” this does not authorize us to draw from these expressions arguments in favor of an alleged “unconscious brain”. (12)
5. Is there psychic activity that is dissociated from the personality, but which has consciousness?
Having discarded the other possible interpretations of subconscious phenomena, we must necessarily answer this question in the affirmative. However, this conclusion can also be reached directly. It seems to me that the proofs given several times by Janet (13) and by Prince (14) are truly indisputable. All the stages of transition have certainly been observed of a truly alternating personality, to which no one has ever dreamed of denying consciousness, to a rudimentary dissociated subconscious complex.
At what point in this series would we be authorized to stop and say: “here all conscious activity ceases and the unconscious brain begins?”
Let us take for example the case of an alternating personality. When personality B alone is present, there is no doubt that it is a conscious personality like any other normal one. But if, as has been observed several times, especially by Prince, during the presence of personality A, perfectly awake, personality B manifests itself by means of automatic writing, giving proof of intelligence and memory, and claims to be as conscious as before, how can we deny it such consciousness? How can this be explained by the “unconscious brain?”
Given the different meanings already attributed to the word “subconscious,” Morton Prince very appropriately proposed to call these phenomena co-conscious, representing the manifestation of secondary consciousnesses that coexists alongside the main one.
The existence of such facts having been recognised, another question immediately arises:
6. How much and what part do co-conscious activities play in normal and abnormal psychic life?
Study of the question has increasingly persuaded me that this part is very substantial; far greater than is generally believed. The importance of that “main consciousness” with respect to the totality of our psychic life, of the psychic synthesis in continuous dispersion and reconstruction that constitutes our “empirical self”, has been in my opinion extraordinarily exaggerated
And up to now, both because it is the only one of which we have direct knowledge and because of the natural vanity of “Mr. Empirical self”. For that self to admit the existence of rival psychic centers, in a field in which he deludes himself to be the only master, would constitute a rather cruel diminutio capitis. Yet it seems to me that there is a large complex of facts which must lead us, however reluctantly, to make that admission. The analyses made by scientists and novelists (especially the penetrating and ruthless ones of Freud and his school) have now shown that our conduct, our opinions, and our moods are greatly influenced by a number of psychic factors of which we are not conscious, but to which, for the reasons already explained, it seems to me impossible to deny a consciousness.
This is especially clear with regard to feelings. How often can we observe that a person is completely ignorant of the feelings that clearly inspire his conduct! How many times does our mind build ingenious and complicated justifications for our action, which was in fact produced by an emotional impulse of a low nature, as we can easily realize – dispelling the illusion with a sincere introspective analysis.
Introspection then reveals another important fact that confirms the continuous presence of conscious processes in our psyche: when we divert our attention from a mental activity that had intensely occupied us, this activity does not stop suddenly; instead it tends to persist, (15) so much so that it often disturbs us while we are intent on something else, trying to cross the threshold of our consciousness. And it is not a question of isolated and disconnected persistences (as it might seem from the “fragments that manage to become conscious) which would be caused by a hypothetical physiological stimulation of brain cells; a deeper examination reveals that it is the continuation of a coordinated and intelligent activity as confirmed by the cases of sudden solutions to problems previously unsuccessfully sought, by the cases of subconscious psychic elaboration ending with a sudden inspiration, and by many other similar ones mentioned in the psychological literature.
7. What is the function of the subconscious in states of mystical consciousness and in so-called “supra-normal” phenomena?
On this topic I will have to limit myself, even more than on the previous ones, to fleeting and inconclusive hints. A study, however somewhat short, of the function of the subconscious in this field, presupposes the examination of a number of very difficult, complex and obscure questions in themselves, which are made even more thorny and intricate by the systematic doubt and skepticism still existing in the mind of many about them. The fundamental problem that arises in this field is whether a psyche can receive, directly from another psyche, impressions and influences which have not passed through the ordinary path of the senses, as the numerous cases of telepathy cited in the literature on the topic tend to demonstrate. In fact, if telepathy is recognised, then subconscious phenomena must be divided into two broad categories: those produced by co-conscious centers of the same psyche and those dependent on extraneous influences, in which the subconscious would function only as a receiver and a transmitter.
If telepathy is generally accepted, that distinction will certainly be one of the most serious and difficult problems to solve in practice.
Another fundamental and much debated question is that of the nature of mystical consciousness.
So far in this quick review of subconscious phenomena, we have limited ourselves to demonstrating the existence of autonomous psychic centers, but of the same nature as our ordinary consciousness. On the other hand, the study of higher religious experiences tends to make us admit, alongside certain psychic dissociations similar to pathological ones, the existance of states of consciousness other than the ordinary: more intense, vaster ones, in which a special form of intuition predominates, in which perhaps, as in “extra-normal” phenomena, “influences extraneous to the psyche itself are at play.”
Regarding all this complexity of phenomena, Myers presented a hypothesis of a subliminal self, endowed with wonderful properties, including that of being independent of the body and surviving it (16). In this subliminal self, all the subconscious psychic activities would take place, “from the most elementary to the most complex and elevated.”
There is no need to discuss this hypothesis in detail now. I limit myself to pointing out that it does not seem to me to agree with many certainly observed facts which, as we have seen, must rather make us admit a plurality of dissociated psychic centers, often in open contrast to each other.
This does not in any way deny the existence of a transcendent self, which constitutes the essence of our personality, the substratum of all the activity of the psyche. This transcendent I can also be invoked to explain certain characteristics of mystical consciousness, but it does not seem to me that it can be considered as the immediate source of ordinary and elementary subconscious phenomena, which often manifest properties clearly inferior to those of ordinary consciousness and therefore are even more distant from the sublime heights of the transcendental self.
8. Control and use of subconscious (co-conscious) psychic activity.
Given the large part that subconscious activity has in the complexity of our psychic life, it is natural that its use and control have very great practical importance.
All modern psychotherapeutic methods, which, despite imperfections and insufficiencies, have already given excellent and encouraging results, which could not have been obtained in any other way, are largely based on a more or less profound, skillful (and … conscious) action on the part of the physician upon the subconscious. And the more we know about the nature of this and the laws that regulate its activity, the more we will be able to refine and integrate those methods.
The same can be said for the methods of psychagogy, the work of education of the will and modeling of the character whose fundamental importance (far greater than that of the intensive culture of intelligence and memory so appreciated until now) is increasingly recognized by those who care about the real improvement of humanity. Self-knowledge and self-control, the foundations of all moral progress, remain very imperfect if one does not know at least a little of subconscious psychic activity, in order to know how to defend oneself against what is contrary to our ideal purposes in it, and so as to know how to use the latent energies and the vast possibilities for our inner perfection (17).
Finally, an ever-greater knowledge of the subconscious will be of great help in the treatment of delinquents. When we know better the functioning of the dissociated psychic centers and know how to to discover in them the cause of so many violent impulses, of so many passionate outbursts, we will be able to guard and help more wisely and humanely those who are the first victims.
9. Terminology proposals.
I will summarize and concretize some of the considerations made gradually in this very rapid orientation, with the proposal of a terminology that seems to me to be the least imperfect, taking into account the great confusion now existing, our knowledge being still very incomplete, and the various, often conflicting, historical, scientific and practical needs, which we must try to satisfy.
I therefore propose:
a) Subconscious
Designating in general and en bloc everything that exists and takes place in our psyche without our being aware of it. This corresponds to the now ordinary use of this word and it does not seem appropriate to try to restrict it, as Janet would like, to special abnormal phenomena, especially since such an attempt would have very little hope of success (1).
b) Conscious or dissociated psychic activity
To indicate the psychic activity of the secondary centers of consciousness. The word co-conscious, already used by Prince and his school, has the great advantage of being very appropriate and excludes any ambiguity.
c) Latent consciousness (and, as appropriate, latent psychic residues, latent psychic patrimony, etc.)
To designate all our memories, ideas, etc., accumulated and available to us, but outside the range of our current consciousness. This designation, also used by Prince, has the advantage of being clear and neutral; in fact it does not in any way prejudice the form in which those “residues” are preserved, and tells us what we certainly know about them: that is, that they are “potential states of consciousness”.
Morton Prince, however, brings together “latent consciousness” and “physiological memories” (that is, acquired mechanical coordination, etc.) in the category of the unconscious. This seems to me very inappropriate given the confusion and misunderstanding that exist about the word “unconscious”. It, I repeat, should be used only when referring to an author who has used it [in this way], in this case always having it followed by the name of that author, to specify its particular meaning.
Therefore, I would also propose to use the word subliminal only referring to Myers, in the special sense he attributed to it with his own theory and not in its etymological meaning, which is synonymous with »subconscious«.
Even from this summary of the problem of the subconscious it seems to me that the great scientific interest it presents and the very important practical consequences that derive are evident. Therefore, it should cease to be one of the many “particular questions” and “learned charades” for the use and abuse of specialists; it should instead become familiar to everyone or to any student of psychological, moral, religious, educational and social problems who wants to deepen these questions – indeed to any person who is not completely absorbed by external life but who wants to meditate a little on the problems of the soul and on the supreme mystery of his own consciousness and individuality.(18)
Endnotes
- A symposium on the unconscious “Journal of abnormal psychology”, II, 1907-1908, p22
- Unbewusstes oder Wechelwirkung, “Zeitschrift fur Psychlogie”, XLVIII, p 238
- The subconscious. Vi Congres international de Psychologie, Geneve 1909. Rapports et comptes rendus (Geneve,Kundig, 1910), p 71 – and in general all Prince’s writings.
- Consciousness, subconsciousness, unconsciousness, and Apsichia, “Rivista di psicologia applicata”
5) Nouveaux essais, Avant-propos et liv. II, chap. 1. (*) Philosophie des Unbewussten, Leipzig, H. Haaeke, 11 * AufL 1904, I, p. XXXIV.006
6) Philosophie des Unbewusten, Leipzig, H. Haake ; 11 Aufi. 1904. I, p. XXXIV
7) An essay concerning human understanding, Book II, chap. 1, sec. 19.
8) Ibid., Book II, chap. I, sec. 11
9) Vol. I, chap VI, p 164
10) A symposium on the unconscious, “Journ. of abn. psych.” II, p.25 e . 33. II Ribot however, although referring to such hypotheses, accepts” the difficulties and insufficiencies”.
11) The conception of the subconscious, “Journal of abnormal psychology” IV, 1909-1910, p. 351
12) The subject of psychic patrimony has been subjected to a very careful critical examination by …CH. A. Dubray in his book The Theory of psychical dispositions (New York, Macmillan and Co.) in which A highlights the inadequacies and difficulties presented by the materialistic theories of “psychic dispositions”.
13) L’automatisme psychologique, Paris, Alcan ; Les Névroses. Paris, Flammarion; ecc (*)
14) The dissociation of a personality, New York, Longmans, Green and Co., 1*K)6 ; ecc.611
15) Concerning a special property of psychic states, which has relations with the memory. Its importance has already been highlighted by Gross (Die cerebrale Sekundarfunction, Leipzig, Vogel, 1902) and by Anton, but this deserves to be the subject of new studies.
16. See Myers’s main work, The Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death. London, Longmans Green and Co., 1902, 2 vols.
17) Concerning the methods aimed at arousing the deep energies of the psyche, a vast literature has been emerging in recent years, unfortunately for the most part poor and charlantanesque. The best teachings in this regard are still found in the ancient Indian works of Raja Yoga, (Patanjali, etc.) and in some modern vulgarizations (Vivekananda, Ramacharaka) – among psychologists, James deals with it in his enthusiastic essay The Energies of Men, (Philosophical Review, 1907) and Boris Sidis (Studies in Psychopathology from the Boston, Medical Journal p 72) In Italy I Petrone has written eloquently in his vol. The Inertia of the Will and the Deeper Energies of the Spirit, Napoli, 1909.
18) Moreover, Janet himself has recently admitted the possibility of the existence of the co-conscious in every normal individual. (See “Journ. Of abn psychol.”, II, p. 65)
Leave a Reply