{"id":15493,"date":"2021-03-31T19:51:49","date_gmt":"2021-03-31T18:51:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kennethsorensen.dk\/?p=15493"},"modified":"2025-12-18T13:53:42","modified_gmt":"2025-12-18T12:53:42","slug":"psychosynthesis-versus-psychoanalysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kennethsorensen.dk\/en\/psychosynthesis-versus-psychoanalysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Psychosynthesis Versus Psychoanalysis"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

\u201cThere is no opposition between Psychoanalysis and Psychosynthesis if we refer to Freudian Psychoanalysis understood as the technique of exploration of the unconscious and not to the set of psychoanalytic doctrines, that is to \u2018Freudian theology\u2019.\u201d<\/em> Roberto Assagioli (1)<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

By Kenneth S\u00f8rensen<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

We know that psychosynthesis grew out of psychoanalysis, beginning with the work of Roberto Assagioli, who introduced Freud\u2019s ideas to Italy when he wrote his doctoral thesis on psychoanalysis in 1910. However, we also know that, from the very start, Assagioli saw the limitations of psychoanalysis. So, the question is: How much of psychoanalytical theory is embedded in psychosynthesis?<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

This is what I am going to investigate in this brief paper, based on a selection of quotes from Assagioli (all of which you can find on my website (2)). From the quote with which I start this paper, we can see that Assagioli clearly differentiates between the techniques<\/em> and the doctrines<\/em> of psychoanalysis. This will come as no surprise as there are significant differences between psychosynthesis and psychoanalysis with respect to their understanding of the human being.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Let us first see how Assagioli describes the origin of psychosynthesis. He writes: \u201cPsychosynthesis has evolved naturally, and I would say spontaneously, from the ground, or out of the main stem, of psychoanalysis, as a method of psychotherapy \u2013 or, more precisely, as a body of techniques and methods co-ordinated and directed towards the achievement of a complete and harmonious development of the human personality.\u201d (3)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

We see that Assagioli is commending the methods and techniques of psychoanalysis, not its theoretical understanding. Let\u2019s now hear what Assagioli said in an interview with Sam Keen (published in Psychology Today<\/em>, 1974):<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\u201cKeen: <\/strong>Did psychosynthesis develop from psychoanalysis?<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\u201cAssagioli: <\/strong>Yes. In 1910 Freud was unknown in Italy. My doctoral committee was reluctant, but they finally permitted me to do my doctoral thesis on psychoanalysis. I went to Zurich to study with Eugen Bleuler, the inventor of schizophrenia. When I returned, I practised psychoanalysis in Italy, but I soon discovered its limitations.\u201d (4)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

It is obvious that Assagioli honours the psychoanalytical roots of psychosynthesis. So, let us see what Assagioli understands to be the best aspects of psychoanalysis:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\u201cWe may say that [psychoanalysis\u2019s] most fruitful contribution has been the demonstration that there can be no real health, no inner harmony and freedom, and no unimpaired efficiency without first a sincere, courageous and humble acknowledgement of all the lower aspects of our nature, all the impulses, passions and illusions, plus their manifold combinations and deviations, which dwell and seethe in our unconscious and which delude, limit and enslave us. Psychoanalysis, in its best aspects<\/em>, is effective in helping us to overcome the resistances and repressions produced by our ignorance, our fear, our pride and our hypocrisy; these prevent us from seeing clearly the dark sides of our nature. Their recognition is a prerequisite in dealing with them satisfactorily and thus laying a sound and stable foundation for all our subsequent work on the psychological building-up of our personality.\u201d (5)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

We can see that an exploration of the lower unconscious and the accompanying techniques to \u201covercome the resistances and repressions\u201d are what Assagioli considers to be the best aspects of psychoanalysis. This is also what he stresses in his book Psychosynthesis<\/em>, where Assagioli explains:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\u201cWe have recognised that in order really to know ourselves, it is not enough to make an inventory of the elements that form our conscious being. An extensive exploration of the vast regions of our unconscious must also be undertaken. We have first to penetrate courageously into the pit of our lower unconscious in order to discover the dark forces that ensnare and menace us \u2013 the \u2018phantasms\u2019, the ancestral or childish images that obsess or silently dominate us, the fears that paralyse us, the conflicts that waste our energies. It is possible to do this by the use of the methods of psychoanalysis.\u201d (6)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The methods<\/em> of psychoanalysis are useful, but what are the problematic aspects of this psychology, according to Assagioli? Let us take a look at that.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n