What We May Become: Why Psychosynthesis Still Matters

Source: Photo: Roberto Assagioli; public domain, copyright cleared from WikiMedia Commons

We live in an age preoccupied with the question of who we are, yet uncertain about what to do with the answer.

Across this site and the wider psychological landscape, we are encouraged to construct identities, curate personalities, optimize ourselves, understand our wounds, regulate our nervous systems, and become the best possible version of ourselves. Yet beneath these differing perspectives lies a more difficult question:

What might we become?

This is one of the questions that makes psychosynthesis, a psychology developed by the Italian psychiatrist Roberto Assagioli, surprisingly relevant to modern life. Piero Ferrucci’s What We May Be offers one of its clearest and most accessible expressions—a vision of psychology concerned not only with repairing what has gone wrong, but with discovering what might emerge when the many dimensions of a person begin to work together.

Much of contemporary psychology has necessarily focused on suffering. We ask how depression develops, how trauma affects the nervous system, how anxiety can be managed, or how early childhood attachment patterns influence relationships. All are important, but once suffering has been understood and treatment attempted, what then?

Where do I begin in the present?

Psychosynthesis answers this question by beginning in the now.

Assagioli proposed that human beings are not merely collections of symptoms, diagnoses, memories, drives, or societal conditioning. We contain multiplicities: conflicting desires, roles, fears, ambitions, wounds, values, and aspirations. Psychosynthesis does not require us to eliminate these aspects of ourselves. Instead, it invites us to become aware of them without becoming completely identified with any one of them.

This process of dis-identification creates psychological space—a place from which we can observe ourselves and enter into a deeper relationship with our experience rather than simply reacting to it.

In some respects, modern psychotherapy is rediscovering something psychosynthesis was already exploring more than a century ago. Assagioli was exploring subpersonalities and disidentification decades before ‘parts work’ became popularized in therapy culture. Yet psychosynthesis did not stop at identifying our different parts; it situated them within a larger vision of consciousness and human development, reaching toward what would later become known as transpersonal psychology.

This may be one of the most useful ideas for our current historical moment, as many of us become overly identified with the stories we tell about ourselves: I am anxious; I am an extrovert; I am traumatized; I am successful; I am damaged; or, I am this political identity, that professional identity, this attachment style, or that diagnosis.

These experiences and descriptions can be illuminating when we are able to name and identify something, but they can also become narrative prisons that are far too reductive.

There is a profound difference between saying I experience anxiety and I am an anxious person. The first leaves room for fluid expression and psycho-somatic movement. The second can quickly become a rigid identity.

Psychosynthesis asks us to consider what becomes possible when we can hold our psychological experiences without allowing them to define the entirety of who we are. Ferrucci’s vision does not ask us to replace our ‘negative’ parts with happier or more functional ones but asks whether conflicting dimensions of ourselves might eventually become part of a larger whole.

Source: Jonny Gios / Unsplash

Bridging psychology and spirituality

For psychosynthesis, the human being possesses capacities that are not easily explained by pathology alone: intuition, creativity, compassion, beauty, love, meaning, and an impulse toward greater spiritual wholeness. These experiences need not be interpreted dogmatically or religiously; they can simply be taken as dimensions of human life.

Psychology Essential Reads

Is “We the People” Still Possible?

The Trouble With Therapy Today

In his book, Ferrucci describes this movement toward psychological and spiritual growth as something practical rather than merely theoretical, emphasizing techniques and practices that cultivate attention, freedom, will, and awareness.

Perhaps this is precisely what modern psychology and therapy culture needs: a broader conception of what healing is for.

A person who has learned to reduce their anxiety has accomplished something important, but what will they do with the freedom that anxiety management creates? A person who has worked through childhood wounds may finally experience greater stability, but what kind of life will they build from that stability?

Many therapies can help us integrate our past effectively. Psychosynthesis and related transpersonal psychotherapies can also help us become more available to our present and future.

So the question is not simply Who are you? but Who are you becoming?

There is something hopeful in this question. It assumes the psyche is not finished and leans into the dynamic, growth-oriented nature of our organism. For clinicians, this matters because healing is not always a return to a previous state of functioning. Sometimes healing is a reorganization—an authentic synthesis—through which a person becomes capable of living from a larger sense of wholeness. Of course, not every wound has a purpose or every loss a redemption, but we may still choose how we relate to what cannot be changed.

Psychosynthesis places considerable emphasis on our centre of consciousness, and our capacity to choose, direct attention, and actively participate in our own lives. In an age of algorithms, distractions, polarization, and increasingly sophisticated forms of persuasion, that may be more radical than it sounds.

Perhaps psychological freedom is not the absence of influence, but the ability to notice what is influencing us and decide, with increasing consciousness, what deserves our allegiance. That may be a question worth bringing into modern psychotherapy discourse: What in me is waiting to become?