This is the second part of Assagioli’s lecture Jung and Psychosynthesis delivered at the Instituto di Psicosintesi, Florence, Italy in 1966. You can read part one here and an introduction to the psychologists here.
Therapy
A comparative survey of Jungʼs therapeutic method and that, or more precisely those, used in psychosynthesis discloses a substantial agreement in respect of the goals aimed at; but also some marked differences in the means and techniques they adopt. One of Jungʼs greatest merits has been his opposition to the “pathologism” which still holds almost undisputed sway over official medicine, including psychotherapy. Attention is chiefly directed to morbid manifestations, in particular to the investigation of symptoms and their quantitive evaluation by means of numerous examinations and analyses. The aim is to arrive at the formulation of a diagnosis, that is, giving the illness a “name”. This accomplished, one proceeds to “fight” the disease, often by bringing medicinal “big guns” to bear on it, with little concern for possible damage to healthy tissues and organs. Recently, however, a reaction against excesses of this kind is becoming evident in the ranks of official medical circles. Books and articles have appeared recently that outline physical and psychological disturbances and illnesses produced by the inappropriate use of medication.
A step in the right direction is being taken by a number of doctors, endowed with a humane approach and a sense of relativity, in affirming that, in reality, there are no “diseases” but only “diseased individuals”, in each of whom the same kind of morbid state assumes different characteristics and takes a different course. But up to now only a small minority take this point of view and give it sufficient importance. This represents, moreover, but an initial step, which in itself remains inadequate: we are still in the “pathological” field. The further and decisive advance-which may seem revolutionary-is to start from the “health condition” and regard man as a fundamentally healthy being, in whom some organ may be more or less temporarily damaged or malfunctioning, but whose biological forces are always tending to re-establish harmony, the healthy state. Many symptoms then cease to be thought of as direct expressions of the illness, but are seen as defence reactions of the healthy organism against morbid agents. A typical example of such a defensive reaction is fever; and it is therefore often misguided and even harmful to fight fever with febrifugal remedies.
This “pathologism” of official medicine has been countered by a reaction in favour of the use of “nature cures” on the part of some doctors and many non-medical healers. Unfortunately this reaction not infrequently assumes excessive, sometimes fanatical proportions. Official therapy has had great and undeniable success and saved many lives, and all the good it contains cannot and must not be discarded. Antibiotics afford a good example of this situation: their moderate use in appropriate cases can be of great therapeutic benefit, although their abuse can do a great deal of harm.
Here too the principle of synthesis should be applied. Irreconcilable opposites do not exist; opposing attitudes and methods can be united in a constructive synthesis. The matter could be formulated also in this way: it is not “this that” but “this and that”; it is a question of finding in every case the right adjustment, the appropriate integration, the synthesis of what seems opposed and is instead complementary.
All this is true also in the field of neuro-psychic disturbances and physical ills of psychological origin (psychosomatic disturbances). Here too, and indeed particularly in this area, the diagnostic label often has a very relative importance. Combinations of symptoms are found which do not lend themselves to being pigeon-holed according to the “diseases” described in psychiatric treatises. Here also there are “defensive structures” erected by the psyche of the patient which must be recognised and not demolished until it is discovered how to replace them with other and better patterns. Practice of psychotherapy is often directed to “fighting” symptoms and disorders and neglects what is healthy and sometimes of higher quality in the patient.
As I have mentioned, Jung reacted vigorously against such “pathologism” and declared: “I prefer to understand man in the perspective of his health.” (Cahen, La Guérison Psychologique, Librairie de lʼUniversité, Georg et Cie, Geneva, p. 180.) Jungʼs position here is in complete agreement with the basic principle of psychosynthesis. Let us now examine in more detail the therapy used by Jung. This survey, however, presents difficulties for various reasons. First of all, Jung openly acknowledged the infinite variety of human beings and conditions, and therefore the necessity of using different psychotherapeutic methods adapted to the constitution and specific situation of each patient. Here is how he puts it: “Seeing that anything in this world, if carried beyond a certain limit, can be pushed to the absurd, the problem of the neuroses and the means of curing them becomes a formidable matter. I am always entertained when clinicians who conduct their affairs admirably, claim to cure by Aʼs method, or Cʼs or Fʼs, or even Jʼs. Such things do not exist and cannot exist, and if they do occur are well on the way to failure. If I treat Mr. X, I am forced to apply the X method, and with Mrs. Z, the Z method; and this means that the ways and means of treatment are predominantly determined by the nature of the patient.” Here too there is a close agreement with the plurality of psychotherapeutic techniques adopted by psychosynthesis.
Another difficulty arises from the fact that the methods used by Jung were developed and expanded during the many decades of his medical activities, parallel with his increasingly wide and deep experience and with the new ideas and intuitions that presented themselves to his alert and open mind. For these reasons—as well as because of the growing prevalence in his last years of his cognitive interests and psychological investigations over purely therapeutic questions—Jung never wanted to set forth his methods of treatment in any systematised and complete manner.
To fill this gap to some extent, one of Jungʼs pupils, Dr. Roland Cahen, has, with great patience and skill, extracted from the mass of Jungʼs writings the passages and chapters dealing with therapy and compiled them in La Guérison Psychologique (see above). This work was revised and approved by Jung himself and thus constitutes an authorised exposition.
A preliminary observation of a general nature concerns the actual name of Jungian therapy. He kept to the last the designation “Analytical Psychology”, which he adopted to indicate its derivation from and connection with psychoanalysis. In reality, however, this name does not do justice to the integrative and synthetic tendency which increasingly inspired Jungian therapy. In fact this aims at producing a profound transformation of the personality and its integration by means of what Jung called the “process of individuation”.
But before explaining and examining Jungʼs specific method, it should be made clear that, as he said himself, this method must not be used with all patients. There are many, especially among the young, whose disturbances have been produced by psychic traumas, by conflicts rooted in the personal unconscious, or by strife between the individual and other people, above all members of the family and the social environment. Jung maintains that in these cases, treatment mainly psychoanalytical and certain methods that he included in what he called “little therapy” may suffice (see La Guérison Psychologique, p. 239). However, these cases often require also the application of active techniques that Jung neglects.
On the other hand, there is a broad group of patients whose disturbances are the product of crises and deep conflicts of an “existential” kind, which involve fundamental human problems about the meaning and purpose of life in general and about the individual’s own life. It is to be remarked that not infrequently the patient is not aware of these deep-seated causes of his illness, and it is the treatment that renders him conscious of them and then helps him to eliminate them.
The principal aim of Jungʼs method, as elaborated by him during the last period of his active work, is the liberation of the individual from the influences of his personal unconscious and of the collective unconscious, by means of a process the phases of which can be indicated as follows:
- Clear vision, or the above-mentioned recognition of the nature and causes of the illness.
- Conscious assimilation of the contents of the unconscious.
- The discovery of the Self.
- The transformation of the personality.
- Its integration and synthesis.
From this it is evident how closely what could be called Jungʼs “therapeutic program” is akin to that of psychosynthetic therapy.
It is not my intention to describe Jungʼs procedures; they can be found amply dealt with in his books and in those of his pupils. He developed a series of profound concepts, sometimes somewhat obscure, about the “shadow”, about certain parts of the unconscious both antithetical and complementary to the conscious personality, which he called “anima” in the man and “animus” in the woman. All this, I repeat, can be found in the books of Jung and his collaborators. I will touch only on some points to emphasise the similarities and differences between these concepts and the techniques of psychosynthesis.
Clarification
Jung fosters the patient’s awareness of the contents of the unconscious and their assimilation in his conscious personality by means of dream analysis and free drawing. The analysis of dreams is the basis of psychoanalytic therapy, but this implies their interpretation and here arises a substantial difference between orthodox psychoanalysis and Jungian “analysis”. In psychoanalysis the interpretation tends to “reduce” everything to infantile impressions and traumas, and to instinctive urges. Jung instead, although admitting the existence of dreams of this type, says that there are dreams of very different kinds, particularly those he calls “prospective” or constructive, i.e., dreams containing true messages from the unconscious (I would say from its higher level, the superconscious), which indicate to the conscious personality of the patient certain situations, certain facts, of which he was not aware, and point to the solution of his conflicts and the way leading to integration. In his work, Jung gives many examples of dreams of this type and their interpretation, confirmed by the patient’s recognition and by the curative effects. In reality, dreams fall into many different categories, and one must be on one’s guard against stereotyped interpretations of the “dream book” variety. But too often therapists succumb to this facile procedure, ignoring the fact that the same symbol can have as many meanings (some of them contradictory) as there are patients. Of this Jung was well aware.
Free drawing provides an excellent means of promoting the emergence of the unconscious and encouraging messages from the superconscious. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the usefulness of free draw- ing is independent of the artistic value, or lack of it, of the drawing itself. Free drawing is an expression of the unconscious and may be of a rudimentary character; indeed it is easier for the unconscious to ‘give messages’ to someone who has never drawn than to a person with some training and skill in drawing. In the latter case, a concern about form may interfere with and diminish the spontaneity of the unconscious.
Although psychosynthesis makes wide use of these profitable methods, it avails itself also of others that encourage the emergence of the contents of the unconscious. Prominent among them is the presentation of “evocative pictures”, called “T.A.T.” (Thematic Apperception Test) much in use in the United States. It consists of twenty standard designs; but I do not restrict myself to these in using the test, principally because they are negative in character, tending to evoke only complexes and conflicts and not promote the emergence of the higher aspects. Moreover, in view of the great variety of patients, I prefer to use different pictures, adapted to each particular case. Naturally, this precludes the possibility of compiling the statistics beloved of experimental psychologists—which are so often useless.
There is, besides, Desoilleʼs procedure, the “rêve éveille” (waking dream), which, skilfully used, is very rewarding, not only in stimulating the manifestation of the contents of the unconscious, but also in promoting the therapeutic integration of the personality. A method akin to this is the “Initiated Symbol Projection” of Leuner. In addition to the images in use by these and other methods, I avail myself of a wide variety of symbols chosen for their appropriateness to the type of patient concerned. (See Psychosynthesis-A Manual of Principles and Techniques, pp. 177-191.) Listening to suitable passages of music also yields very good results, because the re- actions of the unconscious to music are lively and spontaneous.
Conscious Assimilation of the Unconscious
The entry, not infrequently a veritable eruption, of unconscious elements and tendencies, in particular of the collective unconscious, may produce troubles and sometimes be dangerous, as Jung clearly recognised. Therefore in the practice of psychosynthesis—parallel with the evocation of the “daemons” of the unconscious, and at times even before—active methods are employed to reinforce self-consciousness, the consciousness of the “I” or Ego, and to develop its power of dominating the elements already present and active in the conscious personality. This so important part of psychotherapy is generally neglected. The discovery of the unconscious, the interest in investigation have often deflected therapists from the consideration, of first importance, of the conscious personality and its centre, the “I” or Ego. A typical admission of this omission was made-by Emil Gutherl at the American Psychoanalytic Convention at Washington in 1958. Here are his words: ‘We should recognise that the ego is far more important than has hitherto been acknowledged, but we know almost nothing about it’.
Among the many existing techniques for strengthening the Ego, the development and training of the will is accorded an important place in psychosynthesis. (The will, as I have said elsewhere, can be termed “the unknown factor” in modern psychology.) In addition, specific techniques are used for the activation and “descent” into consciousness of the contents and activities of the higher part of the unconscious, the superconscious.
Discovery of Self
We come now to the really central point—the discovery of the Self. Here we must make clear how Jungʼs conception of the Self differs from that of psychosynthesis. For Jung it is an “intermediate point” in which the conscious and the unconscious meet. (See Jacobi: The Psychology of Carl C. Jung.) He considers it an “archetypal figure” and states: “From the intellectual point of view, the Self is none other than a psychological concept, a construction aimed at expressing an essence, imperceptible and inconceivable as such, because it surpasses our comprehension.” And later he says: “The idea of a Self is in itself a transcendent postulate justifiable solely from the psychological point of view and without possibility of scientific proof.” (Quoted from Depth Psychology by A. Farau and H. Shaffens. p. 116.)
Psychosynthesis, on the other hand, regards the Self as a reality, rather as a living Entity, direct and certain knowledge or awareness of which be had. In other words, it can be defined as one of those “immediate data of consciousness” (to use Bergsonʼs expression) which have no need of demonstration but bear with them their own evidence—as happens in the case of ethical conscience, aesthetic experience and the experience of the will. There is a considerable body of testimony in support of this. Here, out of many, is the significant contribution of Father Gratry:
“We possess an ʻinner senseʼ which at special times when we succeed in interrupting the habitual flow of distractions and passions gives us direct and clear knowledge of our Soul…I used to experience an inner form, full of strength, beauty and joy, a form of light and fire which sustained my entire being; stable, always the same, often recaptured during my life; forgotten at intervals, but always recognised with infinite delight and the exclamation, ʻHere is my real Beingʼ.” (La Connaissance de lʼAme)
Others emphasise in their testimony the universal aspect of the consciousness of the Self. Hermann Keyserling, for instance, writes:
“That which is deeper, more substantial than the individual is never the ʻgeneralʼ, but the ʻuniversalʼ: and the ʻuniversalʼ expresses itself precisely through the individual, and the latter becomes more universal in the measure in which he becomes deeper.” (Problems of Personal Life, p.167).
We have here an example of the “coincidentia oppositorum”, of the fact that terms which rationally, according to Aristotelian logic, appear to be opposites are not mutually exclusive. Life is a continual synthesis of opposites; even biological life incorporates a delicate equilibrium (homeostasis) between antagonistic systems.
The twofold aspect, individual and universal, of the Self is indicated in the diagram below of manʼs psychic structure by the position of the “star”, which is partially outside the periphery of the individual psyche and partially within it. The former indicates the union of the Self with transcendent or ontological Reality, the universal Self; the latter the relationship with the individual superconscious. The Ego, or conscious “I”, is an emanation from or projection of the Self and can become aware of it in various ways and degrees, can identify itself more or less completely and temporarily with the Self.
There is, I repeat, no conflict between these two aspects of the Self: far from opposing each other, they integrate with each other. As an Oriental writer has lucidly put it: “No identity (i.e., self-awareness) can exist without universality, and there is no consciousness of the universal without individual realisation.” Poets sometimes have intuitions that reach beyond intellectual concepts. An Italian poet, Carducci, had a vivid experience of this fusion and expressed it admirably in a stanza of his Cantico dellʼAmore (Song of Love):
“Is it I who embrace the world, or from within
The Universe that reabsorbs me in itself?
Ah, it was a note of the eternal poem I heard
And sought to echo in this little verse.”
The poet is not aware how it has happened, whether the “I” has become expanded into the universe or the universal life has incorporated him in itself. Furthermore, he is aware of the difficulty of expressing this experience, this state of consciousness, and of the inadequacy of any verbal formulation (“this little verse”).
An examination of the varying proportions of the individual and universal aspects in these experiences would prove very interesting. Here I will mention only that in experiences of a mystical, intuitive type, the universal aspect is predominant, that is, the invasion of the consciousness by a wider Reality. On the other hand, in experiences gained through psycho-spiritual training, in which the consciousness seeks to rise to the Self and achieves a momentary union with It, the sense of self-consciousness remains uppermost. The individual continues to feel “present” and active, while participating in a far wider type of consciousness.
Part Three
Let us now examine the phases of the transformation of the personality and its integration. According to Jung, they constitute an essentially spontaneous process, which, however, can be fostered by the “catalytic” presence of the therapist and the human relationship with him. Jung accords special importance to this relationship, which he calls “transference”. The Jungian concept of the transference is neither clear nor unequivocal, and it altered in the course of the years. He himself states in the “Conclusion” of his book The Psychology of the Transference: “The problematic character of the transference is so complex and many-sided that I lack the categories needed to offer a systematic exposition of it.” (p. 171) He has thus preferred to deal with it through a commentary and interpretation of an alchemical text, the Rosarium Philosophorum, the symbolism of which appears extremely complicated and obscure, and in which Jung himself finds contradictions.
In psychosynthesis the problem of building good relations between patient and therapist is rendered easier—or shall we say less difficult—by the therapistʼs not only pointing out and suggesting to the patient, as Jung does, the goal of his “individuation”, but encouraging and educating him from the outset to practice active methods of acquiring an increasingly clear self-consciousness, the development of a strong will and the mastery and right use of his impulsive emotional, imaginative and mental energies, and to avail himself of all means of gaining independence of the therapist.
In spite of the variety and complexity of relationships created between patient and therapist, in the practice of psychosynthesis one can distinguish four principal ones; and each is utilised, directed and regulated with the cure and well-being of the patient in view: The transference—in the strict sense originally attributed to it by Freud, i.e., the “projection” onto the doctor of the patientʼs impulses, attachments and emotions felt in childhood towards his parents. These attitudes can be positive (loving) or negative (hostile). The projections have to be analysed and dissolved. Here there is agreement between Jungian therapy, psychoanalysis and psychosynthesis.
The specific relationship created by what may be termed the therapeutic situation. In it the therapist represents and exercises an essentially “paternal” function. He must, to some extent, take on the role and task of protector, counsellor and guide. In dream symbolism, says Jung, he frequently appears under the aspect of the “wise old man” and corresponds to what the Indians call “guru”. This relationship is very different from the unconscious projection that happens in the transference. It is conscious, factual, real.
1.Conscious self or “I”
2. External unifying centre
3. Higher Self
It is indicated in the diagram by the star outside the psyche of the subject, which acts as a link or bridge between his ego and his Self. When the ego fails to reach consciousness of the Self directly, “vertically”, it can be effectively helped by the therapist who represents for the patient some. one in touch with his own Self and therefore becomes a “model”, or even a “catalyst”.
A human relationship which is developed as the treatment proceeds and creates psychological reactions at various levels and of different kinds. A detailed examination of this cannot be entered into on this occasion; I may say only that the therapist’s delicate and difficult task is to maintain this relationship within proper limits and, one might say, “at a high level”, assenting to its positive or constructive aspects, but resisting the attachments, demands, pretenses and attempts to monopolise on the part of the patient. It can be done with firmness coupled with tact and kindness, and the patient made to understand how these attitudes, while they may provide temporary gratification, are in reality harmful to.
The transition from the second to the third type of relationship is valuable, even indispensable, for a variety of reasons; above all to promote the patientʼs growing autonomy, then to eliminate the tendency, rooted in moral laziness, to lean on someone else, unload his own responsibilities and get himself led by the hand; further, to prevent the crisis of the patientʼs discovering human imperfections in his mentor and helper—it happens easily, one might say inevitably!—and disappointedly switching from excessive admiration and obedience to criticism and hostility equally excessive. d. The resolution of the relationship at the conclusion of the treatment. This is a critical point and needs to be handled with wisdom. I have said “resolution” and not termination of the relation- ship, because the conclusion of the treatment can frequently happen very gradually and almost imperceptibly, and also because the positive relationship can continue afterwards in some form, either as a friendship or collaboration, or both. Often the cured patient is able to understand and help other ill people better than the so-called healthy. In this way the improved patient can, even before being completely cured, collaborate and maintain a constructive association with his doctor.
These patient relationships, and in general the whole therapeutic process, demand adequate training on the part of the therapist, not merely scientific and technical, but above all humane and spiritual. Jung was well aware of this need and expressed it explicitly. Here is a statement of his on this point: “The recent development of analytical psychology…gives a prominent place to the personality of the doctor himself as a curative or harmful factor, and demands the inner perfecting of the doctor, the self-education of the educator.”
Jung therefore strongly insists on the necessity of a didactic analysis; in other words, whoever intends to practice psychotherapy must submit himself to a psychological analysis by another psychotherapist. In fact, says Jung, “the doctor will not spot in the patient what he does not see in himself, or will be unduly influenced by it.” (La Guérison Psychologique, p. 237.) Psychosynthesis is fully in agreement on this point. Two things are worth noting: the first, that when the didactic psychosynthesis cannot be managed, the therapist should put himself through an “auto-psychosynthesis”. It may be recalled that a non-”orthodox”, psychoanalyst, Karen Homey, is in agreement here, as evidenced by her book Self-analysis (N.Y.: Norton, 1942.) But she restricts herself to the limits imposed by psychoanalysis and does not enter the field of psychosynthesis or take into account the higher elements of the psyche.
In psychosynthesis, on the other hand, the therapist can avail himself of a greater number of aids, in the form of active techniques, which he can apply to himself and experiment with. I would say that every one of us, but in particular every therapist and every educator, can be considered a “living laboratory”, in which the “occupant” is “experimenting” for twenty-four hours a day (as this includes dreams). Moreover, it is not indispensable that either didactic psychosynthesis or auto-psychosynthesis be concluded before beginning psycho-therapeutic practice. The need in this field is so urgent and wide that anyone willing to devote himself to it should do so as soon as his training permits, even if lacking in some aspects. His equipment must, however, include a critical sense and humility sufficient to recognise his own deficiencies, and the goodwill to eliminate them. In fact, auto-psychosynthesis, like education, should be a lifetime occupation.