Beyond the Enneagram Types
When I first started studying the Enneagram personality type system, what I noticed most was that authors couldn't agree on the Enneagram types of famous people. I remember reading one book that claimed Marilyn Monroe was a type 6 (seeking a father-figure), another said she was a type 2 (seductive), another claimed type 4 (depressive - committed suicide) and yet another had her as a type 3 (presenting a public image).
This made me question not only the accuracy of the system, but also whether anyone truly understood it. Of course, there is one other explanation - there is no single system, just an infinite number of variations and interpretations of it.
The reason for the many interpretations seems due to the fact that the Enneatypes are loosely based on labels or words. These words can be easily re-interpreted or twisted in a wide variety of ways.
- There are the original fixations, passions, traps, ideas and virtues of Oscar Ichazo.
- Most authors assign their own labels to each type.
- There are the loose links to psychology through personality disorders and defense mechanisms.
- There's a link back to Christian tradition through the re-interpretation of the 7 sins + 2.
- There are triadic groupings like the centers of intelligence and Karen Horney's types that are adapted to fit a 3 x 3 matrix.
- The concepts of wings, stress points and directions of integration are added with little more basis than the structure of the symbol itself.
- A small piece of Gurdjieff's teaching taken out of context even found its way in through the instincts.
- Then of course there are all the additions attempting to better explain the system: levels of development, the trifix, and a number of triadic variations (e.g., Freudian Triads - id/ego/superego, Harmonic Groups, etc.).
What you end up with is a different system presented by each author. It may be a lot more useful to preface the version of the Enneagram you use when you talk about it (e.g., the Naranjo, Palmer or Riso version). It seems most people aren't really bothered by this ambiguity in defining the types. I suppose it goes along with the ambiguity of personality and psychology in general.
When I write about the Enneagram system on the website, I try to remain objective. But, how objective can you be with a system so open to individual interpretation?
Although I find the Enneagram types provide a good initial starting point for understanding personality, I've had to go way beyond the popularized material to truly understand what's going on with each type. The result is a new system for understanding personality. Instead of presenting it as yet another interpretation of the Enneagram types, I'm working on a book that presents it as a new system that can be understood in relation to the Enneagram symbol and types. In the coming months, I hope to provide content on this site that will provide the foundation for that new system.
Comments
Enneagram - personal awareness - or another labeling tool
Dave - do you see the Enneagram as a way to garner insight into yourself - or as a way to define others?
I ask because considering the wings that can be quite substantial - it should be difficult to pigeonhole anybody other than oneself.
anyway... that is how I see it.
(I have a very dominant 4 side to me )
Pigeonholing people
Pigeonholing is another problem I see with the Enneatypes and pretty much any system that tries to categorize personality. By definition, personality is unique for every individual past, present and presumably future (i.e., no two people have the same personality).
I see personality as a unique expression of underlying processes. For me, the Enneatypes give insight into those underlying processes. Unfortunately, the Enneatype system as popularized falls into the trap of trying to categorize the expression of personality. This is another reason why I've developed not only a new system that goes beyond the Enneatypes, but also a new approach to understanding personality that focuses on the underlying processes instead of the surface expression of individuality that is commonly called personality.
So to answer your question, yes I do see the Enneatypes as a way to gain insight into the psychological processes that keep us habituated in certain patterns of behavior, emotion, thought and interaction. I type other people not to define them, but the opposite. By knowing their type, I learn about that type from what they tell me through their words, actions, etc.
Post new comment