Interpretations of 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/tritype, 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.
Tags:
