In this important article, Assagioli demonstrates the relationship between the Self, the I, and the multiple sub-personalities. Ideally, we should be the director of our own lives, but the reality is often different.
Roberto Assagioli, MD, Translation Hans Ole Pedersen
We usually take life more or less as it comes. And yet, living is actually an art, and should be the greatest of all arts.
Every art form has its own techniques; the art of living also has its own techniques, and if one is to be successful in the development of that art, it is indispensable to master them. One such technique is to consider life as a play. It is not easy to deal with play. The concept of play is complex, multifaceted, and so difficult to define that it can be said to be playing hide-and-seek with anyone who tries to hold it and define it. In the book Homo Ludens (Gallimard, Paris, 1951), Huizinga lists a number of views that different authors have on the matter. Thus, play has been considered as:
1) A method of discharging an excess of vitality;
2) A way to meet the need for relaxation;
3) A workout in preparation for a serious activity;
4) A means of developing self-control;
5) A way to dominate others;
6) An outlet for the competitive spirit;
7) A harmless method of discharging harmful tendencies;
8) A compensatory activity;
9) A fabricated and imaginary surrogate for the satisfaction of unattainable desires.
Each of the above views emphasizes an aspect of play, but they are all incomplete, and this fact gives rise to a preliminary observation: the functions of play must be distinguished from its nature . Whether a particular activity is “play” or not depends in reality on the psychological attitude , the intention, the purpose that motivates “the play.” Sport provides a clear example of this. Etymologically considered, and in its true nature and original meaning, sport is play, ludus , something done for entertainment. But nowadays many people are taking up sport in an increasingly “serious” way, and from motives such as ambition or financial gain, which are at odds with its true nature. In this way it loses the quality of play and takes on the character of work. When it becomes a profession, sport is no longer truly sport. In reality, there is no clear dividing line between “play” and “non-play,” or, more precisely, in any apparently playful activity, the ratio between what is play and what is “serious” (in the proper sense of the word) is a variable quantity. It may even change during the course of the activity itself. This is clearly seen in the case of children who start wrestling for fun, but become angry and end up fighting in earnest. Gambling is a striking example where the high degree of seriousness helps to minimize the element of play. Where the mania for gambling has become an all-pervading, obsessive passion, the character of “play” disappears.
A true sportsmanship aims to “play well” rather than to win. These are two different things: winning can depend on several random factors, such as the opponent being less skilled, or on some kind of favorable circumstances. The same applies to losing. The true sportsman is not concerned with winning at the expense of style, good manners, and fair play. And as in other forms of human expression, being free from worries about whether one wins or not can contribute to victory.
The role-playing game of life
Much more could be added on the subject of games and play and their function in education, psychotherapy and psychosynthesis, but I shall limit myself to explaining a particular aspect of play, interpreted in the broadest sense, that is, as a performance or a play . Play and play have both similarities and differences. One of the similarities is suggested by the fact that several languages, in addition to English, have a word that stands for both playing and performing in a theatrical context. Examples are the French jouer and the German spielen [*] . The differences will become apparent from the following explanation.
Playing a part or role in life, indeed several, constitutes a fundamentally important psychosynthetic technique. It can truly be considered the very central technique of the art of living, the one to which all the other techniques are linked and on which they are in a certain sense dependent. At first glance this claim might seem surprising and even shocking, an all too superficial attitude. But dispassionate observation of ourselves and others, free from preconceived notions and illusions, reveals – indeed forces upon us the realization – that each of us performs or “plays” a multitude of different “roles” in life. This is inevitable, and these roles constitute the “ground plan” of our interpersonal and social relations. But for the most part we play our roles unconsciously, without being aware of them, and we play them badly, unskilledly, like bad amateur actors. In primitive peoples and in ancient civilizations, games and theatrical performances had a sacred character and were considered to be the way the Gods appeared. Continuing this tradition, medieval passion plays have survived to the present day in some areas, such as Oberammergau, while other cities have revived them, such as Grassina near Florence. The historical side of the sacred nature of the “performance” is amply documented in Huizinga’s book.
Wagner also brought a deep meaning and spiritual purpose to musical theater. He titled some of his musical dramas “Bühnenweihfestspiele,” that is, sacred (or consecrated) festivals.
The idea of life as a theatrical performance is ancient and widespread. Although this is not the place to trace the historical background, there are a few points that are of particular importance in this context. The cosmic manifestation has itself been regarded as a game, a performance, a divine dance. Thus the “Dancing Shiva” often appears as sculpture in Indian temples. The Bible, a deeply solemn work, contains the passage: “Deus ludit in orbe terrarum.”
A sonnet by the philosopher Tommaso Campanella strikes the same chords. Here is the beginning and the end:
“In the theater of the world, our souls play masquerade, hiding behind their bodies and their instruments.”
“When at the end we give up our masks to the earth and the sky and the sea, we shall discern in God the one who did and said the right thing.”
The modern Russian writer and playwright, Nicholas Evreinoff, emphasized this side of life in his book, The Theater of Life, where he dwells at length on what he calls the “theatrical instinct.” Addressing “My Divine Playwright,” he says:
“My face and body are but the mask and costume which my Heavenly Father has clothed my Ego with before He brought it upon the stage of this world, where it is destined to play a given part. This rhyme, the role entrusted to me by my cosmic Producer and Playwright, is a difficult one. And yet I will neither ignore my duty nor complain. As befits a noble and therefore loyal actor, I will summon all my forces and play my part upon this stage as best I can. And I am sure that the Playwright will not fail to reward my efforts.”
Pirandello has exploited this theme in several of his plays, but his approach is pessimistic. He presents the imaginary, illusory, and dramatic aspects of the alternation of roles. Hermann Keyserling, on the other hand, has interpreted more profoundly than any other writer the relations between play, performance, and real life, in the twelfth of his South American Meditations , which very tellingly bears the title “Divine Comedy,” [†]
The inner writer, director and actor
As a psychosynthesis technique, the art of acting in life is based on the psychological structure of the human being. This is described in my book, Psychosynthesis [‡] .
A theatrical production presupposes the contribution and mutual cooperation of three important parties: the author , the director , and the actors . When it comes to the “play” that each of us is to play on the stage of life, the author is—or should be—the Higher or Transpersonal Self. He selects the theme, the task, or—better—the game that the personality is to undertake and the roles it is to “personify.” It must be noted that this usually takes place without any clear recognition on the part of the ego or “I,” since the Transpersonal Self works from the superconscious level. The conscious “I,” the center of consciousness, is the director . His function is to carry out the life plan, which is revealed to the “I” gradually, through inspiration, inner prompting, and the unfolding of life’s circumstances. The success of the production depends largely on the director, on his grasp of the action and situations of the play, his acceptance of them, and on the care and skill with which he directs his cast. Who are these actors? These are the different sub-personalities that are created by each and every person during their lifetime.
In the diagram below, three subpersonalities are shown. The middle circle represents the conscious “I” area, where a part of each subpersonality intrudes, while the larger part functions at one of the unconscious levels.
1) The lower unconscious
2) The middle unconscious
3) The higher unconscious
4) The field of consciousness
5) The conscious self or “I” (ego)
6) The Higher (Transpersonal) Self
It should be noted, however, that the respective areas of the unconscious depicted as “used” are not fixed in extent, as each sub-personality is capable of “raising” or “lowering” itself in the course of the activity it is engaged in. Furthermore, each level houses not just one sub-personality (as shown in the diagram for clarity), but an assortment of them.
Each sub-personality performs its own special function; that is, it plays its own “role” in family and social life. The family creates the “roles” of son or daughter, husband or wife, father or mother. In society, the “roles” correspond to a person’s occupation or professional role, to the various social offices in which he serves.
Let us extend the theater analogy and examine the author-director relationship, that is, the contact between the Transpersonal Self and the conscious “I.” These relationships are very different. Until a certain stage of development is reached in the individual, the relationship is unfortunately marred by lack of understanding, misinterpretations, resistance, and conflicts on the part of the “I.” This phase can gradually give way to the conscious “I” recognizing that it is in its own interest to understand the “Author’s” intention, to align itself with the Self, and to cooperate with Him.
Then there are the relationships between the director and the actors . The success of the “production” depends on the director’s ability and authority in carrying out his specific responsibilities: training the actors in how best to interpret their roles, planning their interactions, etc. In the language of life, this corresponds to the conscious “I” working to develop, train, and harmonize its various sub-personalities so that they can learn the art of cooperating with each other.
Then come the “tests.” They correspond to the “imaginative training” that must be undergone before one can perform any “role” in life. Such “tests” have a function that is akin to the function of play as preparation for life; it is a method that should be used much more – and especially in family and school education.
We can also look at it from another angle: One of the most important and illuminating aspects of the analogy between acting and life concerns the relations between the actor’s personality as a human being, male or female, and the figures he continually “personifies,” his “mask” in the psychological sense. This brings up an important and much-debated question. To what extent should an actor identify with the character he plays? Or should he keep himself psychologically – that is, emotionally – separated from the role, so that he can use all his technical resources to control his interpretation? Which method gives the best actor?
Diderot created lively discussion on this issue with the position he took in his book, The Paradox of the Comedian . He maintained that “extreme sensitivity (in the emotional sense) makes a mediocre actor, while its total absence contributes to the formation of a sublime actor.” Expressed dogmatically as here, it has attracted much criticism and has been the subject of scientific research. Among other researchers, Professors Marzi and Vignoli sent a questionnaire to eighteen prominent Italian actors, and published the results of their study in an article, The Expression of the Emotions on the Stage. [§] They showed that there was a great deal of variation in the degree to which actors involved themselves in the emotional content of their roles. Some of them answered that they experienced a partial identification with the role. According to Renzo Ricci, the emotions an actor experiences on stage are relatively similar to real emotions, with their psychosomatic reactions. He states that:
“After the actor has prepared himself, he is in the role, or the role is in him. However, the fusion is not complete … until the most dramatic moments, when the actor truly surrenders himself completely to the character role.”
Others stated that during the performance they maintain an observant and critical attitude and a clear awareness of themselves. Anna Proclemer even goes further and says:
“The actor must feel the role, but not during the performance, where a control must be established that excludes any form of surrender to emotions.”
Some, such as Ruggero Ruggeri and Elena da Venezia, speak of a split, and Anna Torrieri’s observation is particularly noteworthy in this regard:
“Always controlling oneself in any of life’s crisis situations, getting used to constant control, leads to control in the theater becoming habitual, whereby the role is brought to life with the balance and self-control that characterizes real life.”
It would be more realistic to say “should characterize.”
So these actors keep their individual self-consciousness separate from the roles they play in the theater, albeit to varying degrees. By means of the ability to maintain a state of self-observation and self-control, they establish a separation between the part of them that observes and directs and the part that plays, thereby achieving a disidentification. Their statements are significant because they are spontaneous and represent the fruit of personal experience rather than judgments gathered together by technical psychological research.
From unconscious to conscious role-playing
Let us now examine how all this can be applied to the functions we perform in life, and what conclusions we can draw from it. In this area we can also observe that the degree of identification between “actor” and “role” varies widely. In general, one “lives” one’s roles “instinctively” (I use the word in the common and not the scientific sense), that is, at the behest of inner impulses or as reactions or responses to external stimuli and conditions. This fact forms the basis of the psychological views which view man as driven by needs, drives and conditioned reflexes. These views, in which the behaviorist and reflexological theories have their roots, are extremely one-sided in taking into account only that which is least “human” in the human constitution. But they must nevertheless be given credit for shedding light on this side of human nature, and by making us aware of it, helping us – intentionally or even unintentionally – to deal with it.
It is true that the great majority of men and women allow themselves to be so controlled by their “roles,” and often so carried away by them, that they have practically no autonomous, genuine, self-conscious life beyond them. Typical examples can be seen in those women who identify themselves entirely with their maternal function, and those men who only feel they are truly themselves and important when they exercise their function as a leading officer, civil servant, director, etc. There are also those who identify themselves with their possessions. A French landowner went so far as to say: “I am my land!”
However, there are good reasons not to identify too much with a single role or a single function. If we limit ourselves to just one role, and give ourselves over completely to it and concentrate all our interest in it, we seriously limit our capacity to participate fully in other functions that we must also perform. The civil servant, the businessman who devotes all his strength to his work, has little time and energy left to properly fulfill his function as husband or father. Similarly, the woman who identifies completely with her mother will not be able to fulfill her role as wife properly, and risks diminishing her opportunities to experience and express herself as a human being in the social environment. Furthermore, a serious crisis can occur, a breakdown leading to psychosomatic illness or even suicide, if, due to circumstances (illness, age, loss or separation from spouse or children), it becomes impossible for a person to perform the function to which he has devoted himself completely. In contrast, a person who has acquired the skill of distributing his vital interests, inner attention, and energies between the roles that life has called him to play and that he has voluntarily accepted will be able to find substitutes, and even in some cases make active use of talents and undertake activities that he has hitherto neglected or put aside.
On the other hand, there are those people who constantly observe themselves in their activities and subject themselves to frequent self-criticism. Some actually practice this to excess, thereby allowing their self-analysis and criticism to inhibit or even paralyze their power of action. They are found among the extreme introverts.
There are also those who consciously play a role to benefit from it, to deceive and exploit, or for pleasure. But this should not encourage the belief that an instinctive way of life is the only genuine one, and that any conscious “performance” is a sham. This misconception could be called “the fallacy of misconceived sincerity,” since it equates sincerity with uncontrolled impulsiveness.
The authentic art of living
Instead, there is a way of “playing” in life that is not only just as genuine and real, but is so in a higher way, and can sometimes be an obligation.
In general, the difference between the two patterns of life can be compared to the difference between nature and art. One pattern is to live “naturally,” in accordance with the dictates of instinct, the other to practice the art of living or “the art of living.” The proper relationship between the two ways is expressed as a whole by the proverb: “Art builds on nature, but improves it.” From another point of view, it can be said that the genuine, and therefore humane, ethical, and spiritual value of our behavior lies in the intention that drives it, in the goal toward which it is directed, and finally in the wisdom and technical skill that characterizes our actions.
Let us now apply what has been said to describe the method that can guide us in giving a good “performance” in our “role” on the world stage. The most important step is to become familiar with our true being, with our Self, with what we really are. But to achieve this, we must undertake a journey of discovery to ensure that the various elements that make up our personality become familiar with the “anatomy” and “psychology” of our psychological structure. This is the real meaning of the ancient but ever-present injunction: “Know thyself.” Its implementation requires that we disidentify ourselves from the many parts of our psyche and from our various sub-personalities. This enables us to recognize ourselves as pure “self-awareness and permanent identity”: both the personal (self-consciousness) and the transpersonal or spiritual Self.
There is an exercise, Disidentification Exercise , which is very helpful in practicing this attitude as an “objective observer.”[**]
The next phase is where the existing sub-personalities are transformed and trained by the “instructor.” The other two “code words” taken up by psychosynthesis refer to this phase: Possess Yourself and Transform Yourself . All psychosynthesis techniques have this as their goal.
But what, it may be asked, is the degree—the percentage, so to speak—of partial identification when we act? It varies greatly according to the nature of the action and the psychological type of the person concerned ; but in every case there is an optimum ratio which can be found and used. A general rule which may be applied when a new function or skill is to be developed is to give it maximum attention from the beginning, and thereby learn it and perform it to the best of one’s ability. Practice gradually reduces the need to monitor its performance closely, as control of it is gradually taken over by the unconscious, while the quality of its performance improves, with less and less emotional involvement. This is similar to the way in which actors who become more and more familiar with their part in a play can allow themselves to diminish their personal involvement in it. There is also an effective method, similar to the rehearsals of a play, which consists in preparing by means of the exercise in “Training the Imaginative Power.”[††]
The use of all these methods, however, presupposes a clear and stable self-consciousness, the exercise of a firm and determined will, and a constant sense of self-knowledge, both as subject and as agent. This attitude can be taken at the level of the personal “I,” the ego, but the most effective is to establish contact and a relationship with the Transpersonal Self, of which the personal “I” is an emanation or reflection. From this higher Reality we can constantly draw the light and strength needed to resist every inner and outer attraction, every temptation and inducement that seeks to divert us from our task: to give the best performance we are capable of when playing the role assigned to us, or which we have chosen, in the great drama of humanity.
Notes
[*] Danish: to play (oa)
[†] Hermann Keyserling – Méditations Sud-Americaines – Paris: Stock 1932.
[‡] Psychosynthesis – a collection of basic writings , Forlaget Levende Visdom, 2005
[§] Published in ” Rivista di Psicologia ” – 1944-1945.
[**] It is described in my book ” Psychosynthesis – a collection of basic writings ” – Chapter IV, page 131.
[††] Ibid, p. 159
How to proceed
In this article you will get an in-depth description of subpersonalities.
The book: The Soul of Psychosynthesis contains an entire chapter on working with subpersonalities.
Here you can receive seven free meditations where you develop different aspects of yourself.
Also read the article Psychosynthesis an integral psychology
