![\"\"](\"https:\/\/kennethsorensen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/client-therapist-relationship.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By Roberto Assagioli<\/strong> Editorial Note<\/strong> In this essay fragment, Roberto Assagioli comments on Henri Baruk’s chitamnie, the method of therapeutic trust, and describes his own parallel practice in psychosynthesis. The most striking passage recounts offering suicidal patients a word-of-honour contract as an alternative to hospitalisation, with consistently positive results. He compares this to Carl Rogers’s non-directive method, then distinguishes Freud’s repressive super-ego from the transpersonal moral conscience that psychosynthesis addresses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In his <\/span><\/span>Trait\u00e9 de Psychiatrie <\/span><\/span><\/em>[2]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Prof. Henri Baruk describes his main technique in treating psychotic and psychoneurotic patients. He emphasizes a group of techniques concerning the psychotherapist’s attitude, his preparation and his relationship with his patients.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n The first and most general task of the psychotherapist is to become fully aware of the overall influence that his personality \u2014 or rather that he as a human being \u2014 exerts on the patient. This happens spontaneously, naturally and inevitably; but he then moves from this spontaneous and unconscious influence to a conscious and well-regulated one. Furthermore, he eliminates those aspects of it that may be harmful or create an obstacle to treatment, accentuating or developing certain influences that are constructive and helpful if they are absent. This point has been considered by other psychotherapists, eg, by Alphonse Maeder <\/span><\/span>[3]<\/span><\/span><\/a> in <\/span><\/span>La Personne du M\u00e9decin – un agent psychoth\u00e9rapeutique <\/span><\/span><\/em>[4]<\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/em> and by Wilhelm Tochtermann <\/span><\/span>[5]<\/span><\/span><\/a> in <\/span><\/span>Der Arzt als Arznei<\/span><\/span><\/em> . <\/span><\/span>[6]<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Baruk’s specific technique is based on his fundamental conception that in every patient, including severe psychotic cases, behind the pathological facade of symptoms and disorders, there is an aspect that remains immune to them, the characteristic feature of which is moral consciousness. He has dealt with this in several of his books, and has given satisfactory evidence of the reality of his conception. See, for example, <\/span><\/span>Psychiatrie Morale Experimentale<\/span><\/span><\/em> , <\/span><\/span>Individuelle et Sociale<\/span><\/span><\/em> . <\/span><\/span>[7]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Accordingly, Baruk in his therapy addresses the healthy aspects of the patient, and especially addresses his moral conscience. He indicates his procedure with a word he coined, <\/span><\/span>chitamnie<\/span><\/span><\/em> , which means, according to his interpretation, \u201cthe method of trust;\u201d that is, trusting the patient.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n This was and is of particular interest, because for many years I myself used a similar technique, independently of Baruk. In psychosynthesis, however, the emphasis is not on the moral conscience, but one addresses the whole better part of the patient, with the same spirit of trust and appreciation that Baruk speaks of. Placing and demonstrating trust in the patient has yielded very satisfactory results. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n
Doc. #19938 (fragment), Assagioli Archive in Florence [1]<\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/span>
Original title: Commenti sulla Tecnica di Henri Baruk su il Rapporto fra Psicoterapeuta e Paziente<\/em>
Translated and edited with notes by Jan Kuniholm\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The abstract and contextual subtitle in this online edition have been added by the editor, Kenneth S\u00f8rensen, to support readability, navigation, and archival consistency. The original wording has not been altered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nAbstract <\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n