by Jerry Wagner, Ph.D.

Defense mechanisms are used by our ego to maintain our self-esteem. They automatically keep out of our awareness any parts of ourselves that might damage our good reputation as well as keeping our offensive ego-dystonic parts out of sight of the judgmental eyes of others – not to mention our own.

Freud and his daughter Anna catalogued many of these defensive maneuvers and Claudio Naranjo arranged some of them around the Enneagram circle. So, while one of the defenses might be congenial to a particular type, we certainly have all of them at our disposal.

Defense mechanisms in the service of the ego distort reality and limit us; defense mechanisms in the service of the self may actually help us expand beyond ourself and get somewhere. Is there something redeemable about defense mechanisms if we can use them consciously and conscientiously?

Let’s look at the bad news and potential good news about defense mechanisms. We may have to channel our inner SEVEN to find the good in the not-so-good. But maybe we can reframe defenses so they become something useful and productive.

To describe the defenses, in italics I’m using the explanation from the APA Dictionary of Psychology (American Psychological Association, 2007). That makes it more official and officious.

ENNEAGRAM STYLES and their DEFENSE MECHANISMS

---

Style ONE – Reaction Formation

Reaction formation is the defense in which unacceptable or threatening unconscious impulses are denied and are replaced in consciousness with their opposite. For example, to conceal an unconscious prejudice an individual may preach tolerance; to deny feelings of rejection, a mother may be overindulgent toward her child.

Do the opposite. If you feel angry, repress it and be nice. If you feel vulnerable, stuff it and be mean. If you feel sexy, be puritanical. Whenever I’m tempted to exercise, I lay down until the temptation passes, which is opposed to the advice that the best way to get rid of a temptation is to give in to it.

The ONE’s superego is uncomfortable with and intolerant of their id. Their wants get replaced with their shoulds. Instead of transcending and including their animal nature into their human nature (cf. Ken Wilber below), they reject their impulsive self and go right to their angelic self. This is sometimes referred to as “spiritual bypassing.”

So, what’s good about reaction formation? Well, it’s the basis of exposure therapy. Think the thought, feel the feeling, do the very thing you are loath to do. Afraid of rejection? Be a telemarketer. Afraid of heights? Take up skydiving. Afraid of dogs, volunteer at an animal shelter. Instead of avoiding (which is the preferred option of negative reinforcement), just do it. Do the opposite. This is also a tried-and-true spiritual practice: agere contra, act against. Tempted to pray less? Pray more. Tempted to fast less? Fast more. Acting against are also practices for training the will.

According to Rollo May, will is the capacity to organize oneself so that movement in a certain direction or toward a certain goal may take place. Will converts a cognitive intention into behavior.

Is your will frequently:

• Pushed around by the will of other people?
• Subjugated by your feelings, such as depression, anger, or fear?
• Paralyzed by inertia?
• Lulled to sleep by habit?
• Disintegrated by distractions?
• Corroded by doubts?

Using your will:

• Do something you have never done before.
• Perform an act of courage.
• Make a plan and then follow it.
• Keep doing what you are doing for five more minutes even if you are tired or restless or feel the attraction of something else.
• Do something extremely slowly.
• Say “no” when it is right to say “no,” but easier to say “yes.”
• Do what seems to you the most important thing to be done.
• When facing a minor choice, choose without hesitation.
• Act contrary to all expectations.
• Behave independently of what other people might think or say.
• Refrain from saying something you are tempted to say.
• Postpone an action you would prefer to begin right now.
• Begin, at once, an action you would prefer to postpone.
• Eliminate something superfluous from your life.
• Break a habit.
• Do something that makes you feel insecure.
• Carry out an action with complete attention and intensity, as if it were your last.

These are some ways you might use reaction formation in the service of the self.

Style TWO – Repression

Repression is the mechanism that consists of excluding painful experiences and unacceptable impulses from consciousness. Repression operates on an unconscious level as a protection against anxiety produced by objectionable sexual wishes, feelings of hostility, and ego-threatening experiences of all kinds. It also comes into play in most other forms of defense, as in denial, in which individuals avoid unpleasant realities by first repressing them and then negating them.

TWOs are inclined to repress their own needs and preferences so their ego can be less distracted in focusing on the needs of others. This maintains their reputation as a good helper and trusted advisor and facilitates their acceptance into the club.

Repression, then, is the unconscious pushing down of any thoughts, feelings, behaviors, judgments, etc. that the ego deems unworthy of our or anyone else’s’ attention. These despicable intrusions are dangerous to our survival and belonging and are not congruent with our current self-image. They make us anxious and so we avoid them and stay away from them (negative reinforcement again). Away with you! Get thee to the basement where you won’t be seen or heard from again. Or, if you do raise a stink, we’ll have to remove you from the basement and put you in any convenient garbage bins. (That would be us.) But now we’re talking about projection. See Style Six.

Ken Wilber writes about repression in the context of growth which involves identifying with the self at its current stage, then disidentifying with that self, then transcending that self and identifying with the more evolved self. But the trick is to transcend and include. Don’t leave that former self behind. Rather include it in our new formulation of ourself. Otherwise, by repressing that former self, we exclude instead of include. Which, unfortunately doesn’t work because those parts are still around and want to be kept in the family. They don’t want to be orphans.

So, can we use repression in the service of the self? How about suppression which involves actively and deliberately (vs unconsciously) putting an anxiety-provoking or self-defeating thought out of one’s mind. For example, if we want to accomplish something and self-doubts, feelings of inadequacy, messages from our first-grade teacher that we’ll never amount to anything, etc., arise, we can thank them for their past service but they’re not helpful nor needed right now and put them back on the shelf of bad ideas. We’re now deliberately screening out distracting, show-stopping thoughts in order to get on with business. This is done with awareness not out of awareness.

Or, if we want to be open-minded, we might need to recognize and then suppress our culturally conditioned biases and stereotypes so we can be present to who and what is actually in front of us. Paradoxically, suppression helps us expand vs contract.

Style THREE – Identification

Identification is the process of associating the self closely with other individuals and their characteristics or views. This process takes many forms: The infant feels part of his or her mother; the child gradually adopts the attitudes, standards, and personality traits of the parents; the adolescent takes on the characteristics of the peer group; the adult identifies with a particular profession of political party. Identification operates largely on an unconscious or semiconscious level.

Freud introduced the process of identification in his Oedipal stage of development wherein we want to get rid of the same sex parent so we can have the opposite sex parent all to ourselves. Seems like a good idea until we realize that the opposite sex parent has been around longer than us and is more powerful and better equipped than we are. So, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Be like them. The young boy identifies with the values of his father and the young girl identifies with and models herself after her mother.

THREEs use identification to become whatever is popular and working in their culture. While that’s a successful way to get ahead, get affirmation, and belong, it also can put too much attention on image and personality and less consideration on self-identity and person. We may gain a popular persona but lose ourself in the process.

Eric Fromm writes about the “marketing personality.” Like the handbag, we’re on the market and we have to keep updating and adjusting ourself to accommodate what is in demand. It partially works but now our self-worth is dependent on figuring out and shape-shifting to what the market is buying. Our value is dependent on others’ whims. I am who you want me to be. That’s anxiety producing.

Is there anything good about identification? Can we use it in the service of the self? Albert Bandura’s theory of observational learning comes to mind. Children (and adults) tend to model themselves on those around them, reminiscent of Freud’s notion of identification. That’s why our parents were concerned about who we were hanging out with. Were our friends a good influence or were they leading us straight to jail or hell – whichever came first.

Tony Robbins and NLP also talk about modeling. Want to be a billionaire? Study very carefully every thought, feeling, analysis, choice, philosophy, etc. of Warren Buffet. Copy what he does, become like him and we, too can become a billionaire. Now, we might leave ourself behind in the process, but we will be very wealthy

Short of losing ourself, how about if we just want to be more assertive or loving or studious or dexterous? Do we know someone who does this well without any collateral damage? Can they negotiate for what they want without destroying the world? Can we practice their golf stroke or piano technique to become a better player ourself?

Who are our heroes and heroines? And how can we incorporate their attitudes and skills into our own life in our own way? We all have models (like our healthy parents) and imitating them, loosely not slavishly, is a productive form of identification. The “productive person”, by the way, is Eric Fromm’s model of the healthy person – someone who can love and work. Freud said the same thing.

Style FOUR – Introjection

Introjection is a process in which an individual unconsciously incorporates aspects of reality external to himself or herself into the self, particularly the attitudes, values, and qualities of another person or a part of another person’s personality. Introjection may occur, for example, in the mourning process for a loved one. In psychoanalytic theory, introjection is the process of internalizing the qualities of an external object into the psyche in the form of an internal object or mental representation which then has an influence on behavior. This process is posited to be a normal part of development, as when introjection of parental values and attitudes forms the superego, but may also be used as a defense mechanism in situations that arouse anxiety.

Freud wrote about “Mourning and Melancholy.” If we don’t grieve for the lost person or object or dream and let them go, then we introject, take in, that lost person, object, or hope and carry them around with us in a state of mourning and unresolved grief. Melancholy is a mood familiar to FOURs. A sweet sadness about the state of affairs. FOURs need to deal with their unfinished business through grieving so they can be present to new connections in the here and now and let go of their longing and nostalgia. Easier said than done. What addict wants to give up their drinking and smoking? Melancholy is a constant companion, a background feeling that, in its absence, would leave FOURs feeling empty.

Besides taking in the values, attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions of our parents, society, culture, religion, et.al., is there anything else good about introjection?

It can lead to understanding and empathy. If we can take in, introject, welcome the other person without identifying and merging with them, we can know and feel what’s going on in them. That’s what therapists, parents, friends, lovers, FOURs are good at. We can resonate with the other while remembering that we, as a tuning fork, are not the same as the oboe making that sound. Our self can do this consciously and lovingly for the benefit of the other self.

Artistic sublimation is another defense mechanism that Claudio Naranjo attributed to FOURs. It can be a way of exaggerating what’s going on. Mere words are not enough to express the profundity of the FOURs’ experience. Only a poem, a sculpture, a song, a dance, some dramatic expression will do.

On the other hand, when not used to amplify the ego, artistic expression is the source of great works of art, music, dance, literature, etc. that reflect what it’s like to be a human being. And we are all the richer for that.

Style FIVE – Compartmentalization and Isolation

Compartmentalization is the defense mechanism in which thoughts and feelings that seem to conflict or to be incompatible are isolated from each other in separate and apparently impermeable psychic compartments. In the classical psychoanalytic tradition, compartmentalization produces fragmentation of the ego, which ideally should be able to tolerate ambiguity and ambivalence.

FIVEs talk about compartmentalizing their relationships. Colleagues at work may not know their family. College friends may not know their high school friends, etc.

Also, if we compartmentalize parts of our life, we may not be able to go back and re-examine or re-experience those parts. Thus, Naranjo says FIVEs don’t do well in psychoanalysis because they are unwilling or unable to reconnect with their past. Or, as someone I know said: “I had an unhappy childhood. Why would I want to go back there and talk about it?” Good point.

I wonder how ministers can officiate at a church service and then abuse altar boys and girls in the sacristy. Seems like compartmentalization at work.

Isolation is the condition of being separated from other individuals. In psychoanalytic theory, it is a defense mechanism that relies on keeping unwelcome thoughts and feelings from forming associative links with other thoughts and feelings, with the result that the unwelcome thought is rarely activated. The isolation of affect is a defense mechanism in which the individual screens out painful feelings by recalling a traumatic event without experiencing the emotion associated with it.

Normally when we have an experience, we have a thought and a feeling about it. Isolation involves pushing the feeling down and only being aware of the thought. That’s why when you ask a FIVE what they are feeling, they tell you what they are thinking. If the defense works, they aren’t feeling anything. Afterwards, when they are safe in their solitude, FIVEs might allow the feeling to surface.

In a stressful situation (and aren’t they all), we repress the feeling so we can think and act to help us survive and get the hell out of there.

For most people their feelings are close to the surface. Like, the water is right at the top of the well and they can touch it and say I’m feeling anxious, loving, angry, sad, etc. For FIVEs, the water is at the bottom of the well and they need to drop a stone down and wait for feedback to come back up. This may take a few minutes, hours, days, whatever. So, when you ask a FIVE what they are feeling, be prepared to wait.

Is there anything good about compartmentalization and isolation? When consciously employed, they can be ways of establishing useful boundaries. They might enable us to not bring work home or family to work. They create a little distance between us and the pain of our students, clients, friends, relatives, et.al. In order to be useful, our observing ego might need to step back so as not to become a merging ego. If we over-identify with the other, we may become as stuck as they are and not be able to offer any objective opinions and options.

Compartmentalization and isolation, then, can help us be present to what and who is in front of us. Surgeons, therapists, teachers, parents may need to box out differing thoughts, feelings, and people so as not to confuse them with the patient, client, child right before them.

Also, if we’re in a plane crash, it’s probably best not to focus on how afraid, angry, disappointed and sad we are until after we remember where the exits are and get clear of the danger. Then we can let those feelings come up. Evolution and our ego, after all, have come up with a few good strategies.

Style SIX – Projection

Projection is the process by which one attributes one’s own individual positive or negative characteristics, affects, and impulses to another person or group. This is often a defense mechanism in which unpleasant or unacceptable impulses, stressors, ideas, affects, or responsibilities are attributed to others. For example, the defense mechanism of projection enables a person conflicted over expressing anger to change “I hate him” to “He hates me.” Such defensive patterns are often used to justify prejudice or evade responsibility; in more severe cases, they may develop into paranoid delusions in which, for example, an individual who blames others for his or her problems may come to believe that others are plotting against him or her.

It’s also good to remember that just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean that others aren’t out to get you. And if you think others are talking behind your back, they eventually will start talking behind your back.

As a further reminder, we all use projection so SIXs don’t have a corner on the projection market. It’s just that it’s congenial to a self-doubting suspicious mind-set. So, for example, if you are fearful that others are critical of you, it might be that you have projected your own harsh superego onto others, thus forgetting that you are really the one that is judging you.

Projection (putting outside of ourselves characteristics that belong inside our boundaries) is the opposite of introjection (putting inside our boundaries parts that properly belong outside of ourselves.)

So how can projection be used in the service of the self instead of protecting our ego? As AA says, “If you spot it, you got it.” If we follow our line of projection, we can bring back parts of ourselves that we’ve thrown or given away. That makes us more whole.

Just as we project away those parts of ourself we don’t like, so can we toss out our inner resources only to find them in others. We wouldn’t be able to recognize someone’s kindness, assertiveness, integrity, thoughtfulness, etc. if we didn’t have something like that inside ourself. Budha nature recognizes Budha nature.

Regrettably, we might also have to reclaim those attributes of others that drive us round the bend. If we bring those parts back in, we now have control over them and can modify their expression. Or we might uncover the hidden gold that’s been overlaid with the dross we’ve discarded. Reframe it. “I’m not mean. I’m laser-like in my perception.” If we clean up our act, we’ll have more players on our team.

Style SEVEN – Sublimation

In psychoanalytic theory, sublimation is a defense mechanism in which unacceptable sexual or aggressive drives are unconsciously channeled into socially acceptable modes of expression. Thus, the unacceptable drives and energies are redirected into new, learned behaviors, which indirectly provide some satisfaction for the original instincts. For example, an exhibitionistic impulse may gain a new outlet in choreography; a voyeuristic urge may lead to scientific research; and a dangerously aggressive drive may be expressed with impunity on the football field. As well as allowing for substitute satisfactions, such outlets are posited to protect individuals from the anxiety induced by the original drive.

That description of sublimation reads like it may have been written by a SEVEN. Sublimation lifts up our instincts and impulses for the service of society vs the ruin of society. Some, if not all, contributions to the enhancement of culture are compliments of sublimation. Even Freud found some merit in sublimation. And it is one of the defenses that least distorts reality. Paranoia, on the other hand, really skews it.

Sweet lemon would be a slight-of-hand that comes easy to SEVENs. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. “Not getting that job I wanted is good for my humility.” Find the good in everything. For example, I recently returned from a visit to the Southwest where the sun shines and the sky is blue 363 days of the year. I was there, of course, on the 364^th day when it was cloudy and rainy. Our guide reassured us how fortunate we were not to be there on some boring sunny day. Rather, we might now see some waterfalls and interesting cloud formations. Actually, the following day there was a landslide that blocked the road but, lamentably, I wasn’t there to hear the reframe of that.

What’s good about sublimation? It’s positive, optimistic, hopeful, uplifting, proactive, encourages moving forward, etc. What’s not to like?

Style EIGHT – Denial

Denial is the defense mechanism in which unpleasant thoughts, feelings, wishes, or events are ignored or excluded from conscious awareness. It may take such forms as refusal to acknowledge the reality of a terminal illness, a financial problem, an addiction, or a partner’s infidelity. Denial is an unconscious process that functions to resolve emotional conflict or reduce anxiety. It is also called disavowal.

Denial would be one of those defense mechanisms that substantially distort reality. Whatever it is that we don’t like, we don’t see it, hear it, feel it, etc. EIGHTs don’t especially like weakness so they deny it in themselves and then sense it in others. They don’t like it there, either, finding a victim-mentality particularly distasteful. On the upside, if they perceive others as weak, they can scare and exploit them more easily.

Like all defense mechanisms, denial has collateral damage. It can hurt others and ourself. I had a great aunt who refused to acknowledge she had cancer which she died of because she never had it treated. I know someone else who has had foot, hip, shoulder, and surgery on most other of his moving parts because he pushed himself too far athletically and didn’t listen to his body when it said “Stop it!”

Is denial ever good, then? I suppose if we really need to accomplish something, get something done, or escape some threatening situation (like get out of that crashed car or crashed marriage or crashed career choice), we have to deny temporarily our physical and psychological discomfort. Separation is painful whether it be cutting off parts of ourself, our dreams, our relationships, etc. But to move on, we might have to consciously debunk the pain that is involved.

Denial could also be deployed when maladaptive thoughts are around. When we’re telling ourself we’re incompetent, stupid, ugly, a loser, ad infinitum, denial says: “That’s not true!” Banish those thoughts just like you might deny you have a drinking problem. Only now the defense is in the service of reality not wishful thinking.

Style NINE – Narcoticization

This defense is not found in the APA Dictionary of Psychology. It was introduced by Claudio Naranjo in his book Character and Neurosis (Gateways/IDHHB Publishers, 1994.) Here is what he writes about it. “When I first presented my views on the correspondence between character structure and dominant defense mechanisms, I did not find a fully appropriate term for the characteristic way in which the ennea-type IX person distracts herself from inner experiences through attention to the outer world. The most appropriate I found and that which I adopted was Karen Horney’s word narcoticization – for her meaning is not only a loss of awareness but, more precisely, a putting oneself asleep: through an immersion in work or in stimuli such as TV or reading the papers.” (p. 259)

Naranjo refers to this as psychological inertia. “Not wanting to see, not wanting to be in touch with one’s experience is something akin to cognitive laziness, an eclipse of the experience or inner witnessing in the person. (p. 255)

Externalization is another defense mechanism categorized by Karen Horney. She describes externalization as the technique by which individuals shift their center of gravity from the self to others. It involves a shift outward to others not only of unacceptable feelings, but of all feelings, all emotions. Other people become the center of the person’s emotional life. These external individuals become the nucleus of all important strivings that would normally be directed to and experienced by the self. One focuses not on what one thinks or feels but, on the thoughts, and feelings of others.

Confluence is another way to conceptualize this. Think of two rivers running together so it becomes impossible to tell which river is which. NINEs can so blend and merge with others that it becomes difficult to tell which person is doing the thinking and feeling. In running away from themselves, they can lose themselves in the other. Discrimination is the antidote to confluence. It creates boundaries. “I’m feeling this and you’re feeling that.”

So what’s good about narcoticization? Let’s put it in the service of the self and not in the maintenance of the ego. Let’s wake it up and call it self-soothing, a way of calming and gentling one’s upset self. It’s somewhere between stirring up the waters and eliminating the waters all together. When SIXs, or any of us for that matter, access our inner NINE, a little self-soothing sedates our jangled nerves. “It’s OK. You’re OK. All will be well.”

And what’s good about externalization? When used in the service of others and oneself it is the basis of empathy. In the manner of NINEs, we can put ourselves in others’ moccasins, walk with them, and appreciate what they are thinking and feeling. In this walking together, both remain present vs one disappearing into the other. While the boundaries are permeable, there are still boundaries.

SUMMARY

---

In sum, defense mechanisms in the service of the ego maintain it; defense mechanisms in the service of the self actualize it.

by Jerome Wagner, Ph.D.

      In a previous article I was speculating on where each enneatype’s authority came from and I asked for feedback.  I received comments from all the styles except the Eights.  My speculation here is that the Eights are thinking if you don’t know where our authority comes from, there’s no use in trying to explain it to you.  I’m reminded of when someone asked Louis Armstrong what was “swing”, and Louis answered: “Cat, if you don’t know what swing is, I can’t tell you.”

     Anyway, I’m repeating here my original fantasies and adding what representatives of each style wrote in to say.  I’ve added the bold emphasis, having nothing better to do.

ONES

    I supposed ONES get their authority from being right – and they’re usually sure they’re right.  There is a tremendous power in righteousness, not to be confused with self-righteousness.  And I was right!  The ONES said their authority comes from being in the right and being morally right.

     Here’s what ONES say about their source of authority:

• And, of course, you’re correct:  we ONEs thrive on being right.  You’re correct, too, in ascertaining that we know we’re right.  As to the morally right piece–while having (mostly) overcome my upbringing in the Calvinist/Reformed strain of religiosity, I fervently hope what you’ve posited is true!
• I don’t define my source of power as being right, but having authenticity or integrity of doing what I see as correct. 
• A 1 w 2 wing suggested their authority comes from their ability to see around corners and know which right action will best serve the greatest good or avoid failure.
• As for how Ones experience authority, your description does accurately characterize the typical false self of the One. That quick sense of knowing what is right in a given moment, can be quite an instinctive reaction. 
• But here is how I think I experience that inner sense of authority. I see Ones as being realistic idealists; they see the telos (the Greek word usually translated as “perfect” which actually means “the end or purpose”) in something or someone. When we are coming from a centered place—meaning the serenity, equanimity, and sobriety of my harmony triad are present—then I think Ones see into the meaning or essence of things and can speak about what they see. Instead of being experienced as judgmental or opinionated, their insights provide clarity and discernment toward life and fullness. In such moments Ones express their authority unpretentiously and unconsciously.

TWOS

     I theorized TWOS’ authority comes from love.  Love is a powerful source of conviction.  And the TWOS said their authority comes from their love for the other person and from their empathy, nurturing, and emotional experience.  They trust their love informs them about what is good for us.   Their ego, on the other hand, might be a tad self-interested.  As an advice columnist observed: “All unsolicited advice is self-serving.”

• I’d say my highest authority might be accessed in altruism. When I can truly take myself, my need for appreciation, and my hope of reciprocation out of the equation, I can fully lean into the purest elements of my ability to nurture others. 

• I think my authority as a 2 comes from people knowing they matter to me—and just matter in general.   They trust that from the speed of response, the care of the response, and the ability to connect dots that go “deeper” than the presenting problem or connecting dots to see the person holistically.  I often see the person more clearly than they see themselves, which when I was younger, would get me in trouble, since some people not only didn’t want that, they also didn’t like that someone saw things they didn’t.  Over time I’ve become more measured in what help I give, and what I stop doing from my self-care to attend to them.  But I’m still very aware even when I don’t help.  My wiring is to be helpful.  I have to remind myself to intervene on my behalf.  I get annoyed when others aren’t as naturally helpful or aware. Find me in a busy airport and you could assume I’m thinking and wanting to let others know: “You are not the only person in this airport. Pay attention to others.”  As E.B. White’s Charlotte the spider said: “By helping you, perhaps I was trying to lift up my life a trifle. Heaven knows anyone’s life can stand a little of that.”

THREES

     I suspected THREES’ authority comes from their competence.  And they humbly admitted that they are good at what they do.  In addition, taking a page from their TWO neighbors, they said their actions arise from their care for others.  They do reside in the middle of the relationship trinity, after all.

• For Threes I think some of their authority comes from successes that build on one another. As they achieve they become more confident in their success and their ability to organize and seek to achieve elsewhere or in larger venues.

FOURS

     I thought FOURS authority arises from the depth of their feelings.  They said their authority is a mystery.  Of course.  They also agreed their authority comes from their feelings and added also from their authenticity.

• I think my authority really does come from my values, after mucho trabajo.  (OK, JW had to look it up: “much work.”)

• My 4 authority comes on line when I feel I can express things in a way that opens other people to receive a different, more nuanced, and more harmonic view of reality.  Authority is a form of inner sight (eyes to see—something different) and its roots run deep not shallow. 

• I agree that my authority as a 4 comes from the depth of my emotions. I would put a slightly finer point on it and add that my authority also comes from my willingness to “go there” with people, into the darker places where others “fear to tread”, and be okay there.  In my work as a hospital chaplain, I’m frequently tasked with “going there” with people, and I think the fact that I’m not intimidated by their darkness helps me to have authority with them. 

• My authority comes from my sense of authentic truth, from my divine humanity that will not be imposed on, dictated to, diminished, disregarded and mistreated. I have agency. I AM a sovereign being with the audacity to act as such. I guess to sum it up, my authority comes from my identity.  I AM who I AM and that gives me the power and freedom to be.

• I would say as a 4 w 3 wing, it’s my discernment of having the others’ best interest at heart (as authenticity) coupled with the most effective/efficient way to influence or achieve that action step, result, or outcome.  I notice successful creators find the better, smarter, faster bullseye of desired best-interest coupled with a way to clearly communicate that.  I know what I/other want and find a way to ask for or communicate that clearly.

FIVES

     My FIVE authority comes from my knowledge.  And when I thought about this, I agreed.  FIVES also cited their wisdom and being “know-it-alls.”  My physician, who is not a FIVE, says I pay him a lot of money for what he knows and who he knows.  He is a good referral source.

• My authority comes from knowing things; having knowledge, wisdom, and data.  These things allow me to feel secure and less vulnerable, and it helps to ease anxiety.
• Knowledge – what else is there?
• I sit between the head and the heart, sensing my authority coming from both intellect/book smarts/cognition, and a deep knowing/intuition/heart knowledge that largely evades my understanding. It’s a little like the body intelligence of 8s/9s/1s, but from a sensitive emotional space. It’s quite difficult to convey with words and seems to mostly exist in a “felt sense” in my chest, heart, solar plexus, and stomach. It’s something inside me but can feel so expansive that it almost seems to exist beyond my physical body. A clear understanding combined with a rich, expansive connection to something larger...mystical… Even in writing this, I feel these words have failed in communicating my personal sense of authority.

SIXES

     I wondered whether SIXES’ authority was delegated.  Not surprising, some said they didn’t think they had any authority.  But, blessedly, others said their authority was the Holy Spirit.  Synonyms for Holy Spirit might be their essence or true nature.  While admitting they look to others for authority, they also said their authority comes from self-reliance.

• My sense of authority comes from intuition/Spirit, I seem to just know things.  Sometimes I trip over things and make connections. Spirit does help me find the most interesting things.  While studying at University, I was introduced to the idea of mystery as a way of knowing.  I loved it then and still do now.   

• I believe that my authority lies in what “I trust or want to trust”. 

• I am a self-preservation Six and asked myself the question before reading the article. My personality looks around for external affirmation.  However, my deep core relies on my deep knowing.  Holy Spirit, perhaps. This certainly helped me understand and appreciate looking through this lens. My inner guidance, my highest self, the part of me connected to source energy.   It is a felt sense. It’s a knowing and not a thought. It holds steady. It does not waiver.

• For much of my adult life, my trust and wanting to trust were tied directly to what is conventional or what is conventionally understood and believed within my tribe.  For me, that tribe was the scholars and theologians within the church. I trusted those who were certain, articulate, and strong.  In essence, I trusted people who were “smarter and more experienced” than myself.  In the end, it was an overly rigid trust that “they (not I) had the “truth”.   The Enneagram as a tool has been a wonderful aid in helping me to move my trust from what is outside me (almost exclusively), to what is inside me. I don’t believe this in an arrogant way, but in a way that still tries to remain open, holding my ideas with humility, yet truly trusts the experience, reflections, and values of my life to guide me.

• 15+ years ago (prior to studying the Enneagram) my spiritual director told me to “trust myself.” That statement felt like heresy. Ya, I grew up in a very fundamental, evangelical faith tradition, where faith was what I knew, what I could prove and defend and not trusting my ever-changing feelings. Over the years, I began to equate that statement, “trust myself” to “I can trust Spirit working within me.” That has been powerful and formational. 

• Before Billy Graham passed away, I wanted him to say homosexuality was OK. He died and never gave me the security of his authority. Yet. . . I have leaned into trusting myself, and trusting God’s goodness and welcoming.  But I still wanted Billy to tell it was OK.

• Your final sentence. . .“their authority comes from self-reliance,” struck a deep chord within me. Self-reliance/independence, a fierce self-reliance – “I don’t need anybody”, “I don’t ask for help”, has been a strong theme for me, even as a young person (early teens). I have grown a lot in this area over 40+ years “thanks be to God”.

• I recently looked at the attributes of adult children of alcoholics. (My father was a heavy drinker, prior to marrying and having a family. His family members were all alcoholics. Dad never drank after age 30). Several attributes caught my eye, “we become rigidly self-sufficient,” and “deny that we’ve been hurt and suppress our emotions by the dramatic expression of “pseudo” feelings.” For me, it’s I am capable, I am competent, I don’t need anyone. 

• For Sixes I have seen that they look for authority from following the rules and maintaining expectations of the status quo. At least that has been my experience of Sixes as ministers in the church. They want backup plan on backup plan and resist change because of the innate risk.

• I’m a 6, and I believe my authority comes from being loved by God (on a good day) but sometimes more likely to believe it comes from my reliability and dedication. Being steadfast comes with confidence.  If you channel God’s love through you, it’s going to be something good and trustworthy. I think it’s some combination of knowing that ultimate love and goodness are inside of me and accessible and then also that God’s love means all will be well and all will be made right in the end, so I can speak and live with authority knowing that. 

SEVENS

     I imagined SEVENS’ authority comes from their being so positive.  Being optimistic gives you a lot of confidence.  What they said was a delightful surprise.  Their authority comes from being two to three steps ahead.   They are out ahead of us and see what’s coming.  Being visionaries gives them credibility.

• My authority comes from my gratitude for all the positive things I see. With this much shit in here there’s got to be a pony! I can see around or through the roadblocks and lead others forward. My authority comes from the results of having this attitude. 

• As someone who identifies with the patterns of Style 7, authority is a challenging concept for me.  I don’t want to be in authority, it smacks too much of hierarchies and seems limiting.  If I have to bein authority, to plan a workshop for example, then I’d agree that my authority comes from my idea or vision of what will be interesting, enjoyable, stimulating and fun.  I would agree with the 9s too that this vision is based on my experience and what I imagine will go down well.  It’s not a question of feeling what is right though.  It’s to do with seeing in my mind’s eye what I think will be pleasant and positive.  As far as being an authority goes, for me that comes from my enthusiasm and fascination.  Like the 5s, I need to know.  But my knowledge is more superficial than theirs and it’s also linked to personal experience.

• 7 w 6.  My authority comes from reading and experience.

• 7 w 8. I think authority comes in many different ways, depending on the situation.  I have authority to drive a car because I have a driver’s license.  Till the age of 18, I have authority over my children I gave them birth to. The Bible gives me authority.  My salvation from Jesus Christ gives me authority over the evil one.  So, I guess those types of authority are laws, morals and society values.

EIGHTS

     Wondering where EIGHTS’ authority comes from seems like an unnecessary exercise.  But I thought about it anyway.  I figure it comes from their self-assurance, from their gut reactions.  They said when it comes to authority, they just take it.  That sounds about right.  We can trust them and their reputation for being strong and getting things done.

[No further comments from the Eights. Figure it out yourself!]

NINES

     I thought NINES’ authority comes from their peaceful nature.  And, intuiting what would please me, they said their authority comes from their inner calm and peace.  It comes from an inner wisdom about how to live a peaceful and pleasant life.  Their authority comes from their own experience.  It just feels right.

• As a Nine, I do think that much of my authority comes from being the calm in the storm and having the right insights just in time for a situation. So, your observation of the 9’s authority commencing from inner calm and wisdom feels “right” to me.
  • However, as I read thru my companions in the Triad, both the 3’s competence and the   6’s self-reliance seemed to inform and underpin the feelings of “calm in a storm” and “knowing the right thing to do” of my 9.
  • Interestingly, when not functioning at optimum/goodness, the wings seem to bring the inappropriate, underbelly of self-righteousness of the 1 and “taking over” of the 8.  (A disturbance in the force)
  • I have an orientation toward “system” – the interactive, interrelated and interdependent actions of the whole and that is maybe why this “feels” right.  It is also useful in recognizing consciously where helpful and not so helpful actions may be originating.

• I identify as a SOCIAL NINE. I don’t think my authority comes from my NINEness. I think the peaceful, calm, don’t-ruffle-feathers, see-all-points-of-view side of me gets in the way of my own agency. I can get stuck in inaction when there.  When I assert my authority – whether within my own mind or with others – it’s typically an expression of my two wings: The ONE that puts a prospective decision through a “law court” and comes up with the right answer, and the EIGHT that will thereafter damn the torpedoes and go full speed ahead.

by Jerome Wagner, Ph. D.

In the Enneagram system, virtues are said to be nine manifestations of love cleanly expressed while vices are appearances of love distorted or corrupted.  Since love can be directed both at ourself and towards others, the virtues are good for our relationship with ourself and with others.

So, which is a better attitude and disposition for your relationship with yourself and with others:

Serenity or Anger and Resentment?

Serenity is the acceptance part of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT).  I start from where I’m at.  I’m aware and I’m not judging.  Or, at least, I’m aware of my judging and also accept that part of me. I have been granted the wisdom of knowing what I can change and what I can’t change and which is which.  I can meet you as you are and love you without an urgency to fix you.  That might come, but only if needed and if asked.  And I’m OK just as I am right now.  I don’t have to berate myself and beat myself up.  Serenity creates an environment of calm reception and welcomes relationships.  A serene attitude and approach to oneself and others facilitates understanding and connection.

Resentment is the judgment that nothing is the way it should be.   And that includes you, the world, and especially me.  Resentment has been called a “hanging on bite.”  It gets in the way of the dog enjoying and being nourished by the bone.  So, you need to either drop it and let it go or express it and bite all the way through.  Resentment hangs on and is like swallowing cyanide and waiting for the other person to die.  The only person who is burning up inside is the resentor.  Resentment seriously gets between people.  And it doesn’t encourage self-love, either.

Humility or Pride?

Humility is the reality principle.  Here’s who I am.  I have strengths and I have limitations.  I am a “wounded healer.”   I like to give and I graciously accept your gifts.  I believe “It is more blessed to give and to receive.”  This humble honesty and vulnerability genuinely helps relationships.  Humility is really self-care.  It is able to ask for and accept what you need.   And humility doesn’t infantilize others by helping them when they don’t need help or by not allowing others to support you.  Humility treats all as interdependent vs. overly dependent or independent.

Pride puffs one up.  “I give and you receive.”  I’m the helper and you are the helpee.  I don’t have needs – or, at least, I’m not allowed to acknowledge them or be needy.   So, I have to manipulate you to give me what I am not permitted to ask for.  Besides, “If you loved me, you would know what I need.”   After all, I can figure out what you need.   Why can’t you do the same?  Pride gets in the way of figuring out, acknowledging, and getting what you need and it can be off-putting rather than inviting for others.

Truthfulness or Vanity?

With Truthfulness, what you see is what you get.  The outer image accurately portrays the inner self.  Truthfulness involves self-expression vs. image-management.  My authentic self connects with your authentic self vs. our two egos running their routines.  A genuine I-Thou relationship requires two genuine people, not two personalities doing their number.  Our personality can only manage a You-You or It-It transaction vs. a life-giving encounter.

Vanity says “Look at me.”   Or, rather, “Look at my persona, my presentation, my projects, my works.”  It likes to get attention instead of make a connection.   Vanity confuses networking, “How can we use each other in our work?” with selfless connection, “How can we love and respect each other in ourselves?”  Vanity deceives us into thinking we are our image or persona and tricks others into believing the same.  The problem is our persona is only a pale reflection of out essence, like the shadow images in Plato’s myth of the cave.  So, vanity keeps us and others from knowing and enjoying who we really are.

Equanimity or Envy?  

Equanimity acknowledges that we are all equal.  It’s not judgmental and doesn’t compare.  It admires and appreciates our own parcel of talents and recognizes and encourages the gifts of others.  “If you spot it, you’ve got it.”  We wouldn’t recognize others’ qualities (both good and bad) if we didn’t have some traces of those traits in ourselves. Equanimity honors both differences and sameness.  We can be at once unique, as the song says: “There will never be another you;” and ordinary (we are all more alike than different) in our relationships.

Envy is that dreaded odious comparison.  It looks upon others with despair, unlike Ozymandias. 
“You’ve got it and I don’t and I feel sad about that.  Also, I’d like to get it out of you and into me.”  Or envy may look on others with delight: “I’m better than you.  I’ve got it and you don’t.”  Envy isn’t good for either end of our relationships.  One of us has to feel inferior and bad.

Non-attachment or Avarice?

Non-attachment means you are not glued to your expectations, preconceptions, categories, etc.  “Give up your preconceptions and surrender to your destiny,” as we were told by my Enneagram teacher Bob Ochs.  When you are not attached, you can stay in the present and not be bound by the past or future.  “Right now I have everything I need to be perfectly happy.”  I don’t have to store up and hold on. I freely give what I have freely received.  I believe, with the poet Milton, that goodness, the more given, the more abundant grows.  Non-attachment, paradoxically, fosters an abundance mentality.

Avarice means you are focused on your constructs and fantasies about the person in front of you instead of the real person themself.  Your categories get between you and others.  You are attached to your privacy and to your stinginess about sharing yourself — especially your feelings and energy.  You hold back and hide out rather than connect with your whole self in the present, unmediated by your preconceptions.  Avarice deprives others of your goodness and it deprives you of others’ goodness.  No wonder it leads to a deprivation mentality.

Courage or Fear?

Courage means being afraid but doing what you need to do anyway.  It’s the courage to connect with your inner authority, your inner self, and the courage to connect with others’ real selves.  Courage comes from the French coeur, heart.   When two hearts connect, there is no fear. Courage supports trust – in oneself and in the other.  I trust that you have my best interests at heart; I have my best interests at heart; and I have your best interests at heart.  We have each other’s backs.  We’re covered.

Fear exaggerates the dangers in the world.  It leads to self-doubt and turning to others for confirmation and protection or turning away from others to protect ourself.  Fear doesn’t believe the odd notion that nothing can hurt our essence.  On the contrary, it’s afraid that everything can harm us and we need to do all we can to prepare for the worst.  Fear puts a barrier between I and Thou.   It can defensively move us towards others to get close.  “If you love me, you won’t hurt me.” Or fear may move us away from others, in flight; or against others, in fight.

Sobriety or Gluttony?

Sobriety means balance, being sensible, savoring the present moment.  It doesn’t need to fly into the future which cuts off enjoyment in the present.  Sobriety takes in only what we need and expends only as much energy as is needed. Sobriety doesn’t grab or gobble up. It appreciates moderation.  It doesn’t go to excess.  It doesn’t wear us out or tire out the others in our life.  Stillness and silence can surprisingly support relationships, as well as alliteration. 

Gluttony is an intense swallowing of fantasies or schemes or pleasures or whatever you can get your hands on.  More is better.  Moderation is boring.  Gluttony exhausts you and your companions.  It satiates but rarely satisfies.  Gluttony is ego-satisfying but not self-nourishing.  Gluttony can move on from person to person, seeking new experiences and adventures.  It turns a potential I-Thou relationship into an It-It relationship.  We are here to satisfy each other’s pleasure.  A good start, but doesn’t lead to long-lasting relationships.

Innocence or Lust?

Innocence means coming to each person and situation with “beginner’s mind”, a childlike curiosity, wonder, and openness.  Innocence approaches each person without prejudgment, without expectation, without exploitation.  Innocence, from the Latin in nocens, means not harming.  “Why would I want to harm you?  And why would you want to harm me?”  Innocence doesn’t beat up on ourself and it doesn’t punish anyone else.  It invites coming close behavior and not fighting or running away reactions.

Lust or an excessive intensity wants to fill up an inner emptiness with whatever it can find.  It can treat the self and others brutishly.  It doesn’t express a gentle caring and concern but more an attitude of “What’s in it for me?”  This way of being in the world remembers past hurts and anticipates being controlled and taken advantage of.  Ironically, lust itself uses people up by being grabby and squeezing the life out of people. Lust might be good for short-term encounters but doesn’t support long-term relationships.

Action or Acedia?

Action is love expressed as gratitude for being loved and blessed.  Right action says: “Thank you.  And what can I do in return?”  Pay it forward.  Not as a quid pro quo: ”I’ll help you and then you have to help me.”  Rather, I have something to offer – primarily myself but also my actions.  Action works on behalf of oneself and others.

Acedia, on the other hand, is not acting, not taking care of business.  Indolence is opposed to “Gettin’ it done.”  Think of the nine activating their inner Three to get moving.  Inaction results from the belief that “I don’t matter and neither do you.”  So, let’s take the day off and fritter away our time with non-essentials, inconsequentials, diversions, and see what tomorrow brings.  Probably, not much.  Acedia is self-neglect and over-accommodating others.  Go along to get along.  But maybe good relationships need to hear what you have to say and what you need.  Negotiation takes two sets of needs.  Compromise only needs one.

by Jerry Wagner, Ph.D.

     The Enneagram distinguishes between our essence and our personality.  Other traditions speak of our real self vs our false self.  In this article I will present some psychological perspectives on the real self – false self dichotomy and then some spiritual perspectives on this division.

     The false self is easy to talk about.  That’s where I spend most of my time. This is the automatic part of me; the repetitious part; the rigid fixed part.  It’s closed and boundaried. This is the part that provokes the reaction: “Here I go again; I’ve heard that complaint, excuse, blame before.  I recognize those beliefs, thoughts, feelings, behaviors.”  They keep repeating themselves.  They give true meaning to Freud’s phrase “repetition compulsion.”

     It’s not that the false self is completely useless.  It’s not like a pill that Tom Condon once wryly described as having only side effects.  It’s helped us survive thus far.  But it does have varying degrees of collateral damage or side effects ranging from manipulative to neurotic to psychotic.  The false self can damage our self-esteem and our relationships.

     Also, the false self has ties to our real self.  It exaggerates it, caricatures it, mimics it, compensates for our loss of contact with it, and reminds us what our true self is.  If we follow our personality back to where it came from, it connects us with our original essential nature.

     The real self, on the other hand, is not so easy to pin down.  That’s the part that’s spontaneous, creative, fluid, flexible, open, unboundaried.  No wonder it’s so hard to describe.  What is the shape of water?  It’s not as easy to define as a block of ice.

     Depictions of the real self can seem abstract and not as easily recognizable as descriptions of the false self.

     So, let’s see what psychology has to say about who we are and, as we go deeper, what spirituality says about who we really are.

PSYCHOLOGICAL  PERSPECTIVES

     The following are some representative psychological perspectives on the real and the false self.

D.W. WINNICOTT

     D.W. Winnicott, a British analyst and child psychiatrist, wrote explicitly about the true self and the false self.  The true self manifests in authentic and spontaneous living; while the false self shows up in compliant, overly adaptational living.

     The true self, nurtured in a non-impinging environment, represents our inherited potential which experiences a continuity of being, and acquires in its own way and at its own speed a personal psychic reality and a personal body-scheme.  It experiences aliveness. 

     At the center of each person is an incommunicado element, and this is sacred and most worthy of preservation. The self struggles for an individuated existence which at the same time allows for intimate contact with others.    

     When a mother is able to resonate with the baby’s wants and needs, the latter becomes attuned to his/her own bodily functions and impulses, which become the basis for her/his slowly evolving sense of self.

     The emergence of the true self involves the development of the capacity to be alone. It is important for the mother to provide a nondemanding presence when the infant is not making demands or experiencing needs.  The infant is in a state of going on being. This is an experience of formlessness and comfortable solitude

     Maternal failures are of two kinds:

•  The inability to actualize the hallucinatory creations and needs of the infant when s/he is in excited states
  • translation: through empathic attunement, intervene and provide the infant what s/he needs and is imagining
•  interference with the infant’s formlessness and integration when s/he is in quiescent states
  • translation: leave the infant be

     Any interference with these functions is experienced by the infant as an “impingement.”  Something from the outside is making claims on him, demanding a response.  She is wrenched from her quiescent state and forced to respond, or she is compelled to abandon her own wishes. As a result, the infant has to acknowledge and accept prematurely the feeble and unrealistic nature of his own demands, and to mold himself to what is provided for him.

     The true self, the source of spontaneous needs, images, and gestures, goes into hiding, avoiding at all costs the possibility of expression without being seen or responded to.

     The false self provides an illusion of personal existence whose content is fashioned out of maternal expectations and claims.   The child becomes the mother’s image of him.   The false self comes to take over in some sense the caretaking functions which the environment has failed to provide.  The false self covertly protects the integrity of the true self; it functions to hide the true self which it does by compliance with environmental demands.

KAREN HORNEY

     Karen Horney was trained as a traditional Freudian analyst but drifted.  While considered a neo-psychoanalyst, she fits just as well in the humanist tradition.

Here’s what she says about self realization:

• You need not, and in fact cannot, teach an acorn to grow into an oak tree; but when given a chance, its intrinsic potentialities will develop.
•  Similarly, the human individual, given a chance, tends to develop his/her particular human potentialities.
•  In short, s/he will grow, substantially undiverted, toward self-realization.

And conditions of growth:

• But, like any other living organism, the human individual needs favorable conditions for his or her growth “from acorn into oak tree.”
• She needs an atmosphere of warmth to give her both a feeling of inner security and the inner freedom enabling her to have her own feelings and thoughts and to express herself.
• He needs the good will of others, not only to help him in his many needs, but to guide and encourage him to become a mature and fulfilled individual.
•  He also needs healthy friction with the wishes and wills of others.
•  If she can thus grow with others, in love and in friction, she will also grow in accordance with her real self.
• Karen Horney, Neurosis and Human Growth: the Struggle Toward Self-Realization

And our different selves:

• The real self: the core of your being, your potential, the need to be who you are truly (the subjective view of the actual self).
• The actual self: the person you actually are –regardless of anyone’s perceptions.
• The despised real self: negative view of the self, based on the lack of love and acceptance by others.
• The ideal self: the perfect self you think you should be, so you can be loved.
• The despised real self says:
  “I am truly a disgraceful creature, a bad person, someone no one can truly love…”
• The idealized self says:
  “People would love you if you were kinder, more athletic, more outgoing, more unselfish, a better friend, parent, mate. They would love you if you were more courageous, more disciplined, achieved more…”

     Claudio Naranjo liked Karen Horney and added his version of idealized images around the Enneagram circle. 

1. I am good; I am right
2. I am helpful
3. I am efficient, successful
4. I am special, sensitive, conform to elite standards
5. I am wise, perceptive
6. I am obedient, faithful; I do what I ought
7. I’m OK
8. I’m powerful; I can do
9. I am settled

For Horney, the task of therapy is to:

• Help patients relinquish their defenses
  • Break through their idealized image
  • Replace the search for glory (idealized self image) with striving for self realization 
• Accept selves as they are
• Be in touch with the real self

CARL ROGERS

     Carl Rogers was one of the founding fathers and mothers of the humanist tradition.  He, along with Abraham Maslow, another progenitor, writes about the self-actualizing tendency.

• The self-actualizing tendency is a part of human nature.  Moreover, this urge is not limited to human beings; it is a part of the process of all living things; it is the urge that is evident in all organic and human life – to expand, extend, become autonomous, develop, mature – the tendency to express and activate all the capacities of the organism, to the extent that such activation enhances the organism or the self.
• The organism’s experiences are evaluated using the actualizing tendency as a frame of reference.  Does this experience or behavior come from and contribute to the unfolding of my actualizing tendency?
• Experiences in accordance with the actualizing tendency are satisfying and are approached and maintained.
• Experiences that are contrary to the actualizing tendency are unsatisfying and are avoided or terminated.

          Rogers makes a distinction between a fully functioning person and a maladjusted person.

• The fully functioning person has experienced unconditional positive regard (they are loved for who they are) which leads to positive self regard (they value themselves as they were valued) which leads to the unfolding of the actualizing tendency which leads to the enhancement and enrichment of life.
• In contrast, the maladjusted person has experienced conditional positive regard (they are loved if they are and do what is expected of them) which leads to conditions of worth (I’m loved if I’m perfect, helpful, successful, special, smart, do what I’m told, am happy, strong, not a bother) which leads to defensive behavior (Enneagram strategies) which leads to the maintenance of life and seeking affirmation.

     Rather than talking about the real self and the false self, Rogers distinguishes between characteristics of the actualizing tendency vs defensive tendencies.

• Open to experience vs defensive
• Existential living: here and now and adaptable vs preconceived plan; rigid; distorted perception
• Organismic trusting vs disregarding the organism; should’s; proscriptions
• Experiential freedom vs manipulating self and others; being determined
• Creativity vs conformity; following cultural constraints
• Internal locus of evaluation vs external locus of evaluation
• Willingness to be a process vs a rigid life style; being a product

     Finally Rogers says the healthy person is congruent while the unhealthy person is incongruent.

     When people are congruent, there is a match between:

• Who you really are (real self)
• Who you think you are (self-concept)
• Who you show you are (persona)

     When people are incongruent:

• They no longer use their organismic valuing process as a means of determining if their experiences are in accordance with their actualizing tendency.
• Instead, they use introjected values or conditions of worth in place of their organismic valuing process.

     For Rogers, therapy:

• Is designed to eliminate incongruity between experience and the self.
• As therapy continues, clients’ concepts of self become increasingly congruent with their experience; that is, they now include many experiences which were previously threatening. 
• As clients feel less threatened by experience, they become less defensive.

ABRAHAM MASLOW

     Abraham Maslow was another founder of the humanist and transpersonal traditions.  Maslow originally studied motivation and is known for his hierarchy of needs.

• Physiological needs that are directly related to survival, such as food, water, sex, elimination, and sleep.  If these aren’t met, we don’t have to worry about the higher needs because we’ll be dead.
• Safety needs for structure, order, security, and predictability.  When these needs are in place, they assure us our physiological needs will be reliably met.
• Belonging and love needs for affiliation, friends, companions, group, family, and intimacy.  With these needs filled, we don’t feel alone and empty.
• Esteem needs for recognition from other people, feelings of prestige, acceptance, and status.  When we are looked up to by other people, then we can look up to ourselves which is called self-esteem.
• Self-actualization needs which involve the unfolding and fulfillment of our potentials, capacities, and talents as well as fulfillment of a sense of mission or call, fate, destiny, or vocation.  This involves a fuller knowledge and acceptance of our own intrinsic nature and a trend toward unity, integration, or synergy within ourselves.
• Two additional needs: the desire to know and understand and aesthetic needs.

     Maslow doesn’t talk about the real self and false self but distinguishes between being motivation and deficiency motivation.

     When our basic needs are met, the self-actualizing person’s life is governed by:

• Being Values such as beauty, truth, and justice.
• Metamotives including the above and wholeness, aliveness, simplicity, et.al.
• Growth Motivation
• B Cognition which involves letting oneself be reached, touched, or affected by what is there so that perception is richer.
• B Love that is non-possessive, less envious, disinterested, altruistic, desirous of the other’s growth, etc.  (Cf. St. Paul)

     When our basic needs are not met, then we are governed by deficiency motives.  We are influenced by the absence of such things as food, love, or esteem.  Rather than being motivated by abundance such that goodness wants to flow from us, we are motivated by a lack and a need to fill ourselves up.  Here we are governed by:

• Deficiency motives to fill in what we are lacking.
• Metapathologies that are caused by the failure to satisfy the various B Values.   These include disbelief, mistrust, selfishness, vulgarity, polar-thinking, deadness, depression, et.al.
• D Perception or need-directed perception that is looking for objects that will satisfy our needs.
• D Cognition that narrows and distorts our perception.  Instead of seeing things as they are, we see things as we are.
• D Love which is motivated by the lack of fulfillment of the need for love and belongingness.  Here we crave love, like craving food, to fill an emptiness within us.

     According to Maslow’s estimation, only 1% of the population is self-actualizing.  That includes us and a few of Abe’s friends.  He found the following characteristics in self-actualizing individuals:

• They perceive reality accurately and fully.
• They demonstrate a greater acceptance of themselves, others, and of nature in general.
• They exhibit spontaneity, simplicity, and naturalness.
• They tend to be concerned with problems rather than with themselves.
• They have a quality of detachment and a need for privacy.
• They are autonomous.
• They exhibit a continued freshness of appreciation.
• They have periodic mystic or peak experiences.
• They tend to identify with all of humankind.
• They develop deep friendships with only a few individuals.
• They tend to accept democratic values
• They have a strong ethical sense
• They have a well-developed, unhostile sense of humor.
• They are creative.
• They resist enculturation.

     These qualities might also be said to characterize the real self.

CARL JUNG

     Breaking from Freud, Carl Jung labeled his approach analytical psychology to distinguish it from Freud’s psychoanalytic method.  Jung writes about the Self archetype.  While the ego is the center of consciousness, the self is the center of the total psyche, including the conscious and the unconscious.  The Self is the component of the psyche that seeks to harmonize all the other components.

     Individuation is the human striving for unity, wholeness, and integration of the whole personality.  This process involves:

• Innate urge towards wholeness
  • Coming to selfhood
  • Self-realization
  • Moving toward greater freedom

     Jungian therapy involves a circumambulation of the soul.  In this walking around the soul, one encounters the persona or mask or false face.  This is the character we assume through which we relate to others.  It is our social role and public self.  It is a small part of the psyche by which we are known by other people.

     There is a pathology called the “inflation of the persona.”  This is the situation in which the persona is valued too highly.  It can develop at the expense of other components of the psyche.  A dominant persona can smother the individual.  Those who identify with their persona instead of their Self tend to see themselves only in terms of their superficial social roles and facades.

     The complex is another Jungian concept that has some bearing on the real self/false self dichotomy,    

     A complex is a personally disturbing constellation of ideas connected by a common feeling tone.  This is reminiscent of the Enneagram’s fixation and vice interaction.  The fixed or bad idea calls up the vice which in turn fuels the fixation in an ongoing vicious (so to speak) circle.

     Among others, Jung speaks of a mother complex, a father complex, an inferiority complex, et. al.  While the Enneagram addresses perfection, savior, success, special, privacy, security, variety, power, and comfort complexes around the circle.

FRITZ PERLS

     Fritz Perls and his wife Laura are the father and mother of Gestalt therapy.  This approach emphasizes organismic self-regulation (which would characterize the real self.)

• The organism is a living being that has organs, has an organization, that is self-regulating within itself.
• The organism is a system that is in balance.
•  Any imbalance is experienced as a need to correct this imbalance. 
  • When deficiencies exist, the organic system remedies them.
  • When excesses are present, it rids itself of them.
•  The organism is striving for the maintenance of an equilibrium which is continuously disturbed by its needs and regained through their gratification or elimination.
• Organisms must be aware of themselves.
  • Organismic self-regulation is a continuing process of
    • Distinguishing the needs of the organism
    • The means whereby those needs can be gratified
    • Organizing them into a cohesive whole of comprehension and activity
    • Carrying out that activity to its satisfying conclusion.

     Signs of healthy functioning are attention, concentration, lively interest, concern, clarity, strength, excitement, and grace.

     Symptoms of unhealthy functioning include confusion, diffusion, boredom, dullness, compulsions, fixation, anxiety, amnesia, stagnation, and self-consciousness.

    These indicators can be used to discern whether we are functioning from our real or false self.

HEINZ KOHUT

     Heinz Kohut was the originator of Self Psychology.  He describes the self as the recipient of impressions and a center of initiative. 

     Qualities of a robust self involve cohesion, organization, and continuity in space and time.  Here you would say of yourself: “I’ve really got it together; I’m firing on all cylinders; I’ve got the energy of a thousand suns, etc.”

     On the other hand, expressions of an unhealthy self would be: “I’m falling apart here; I’m feeling deflated; I’m depressed; I’m feeling fragmented; I don’t know who I am; my center does not hold, etc.”

     For Kohut, the self rests on three pillars or “poles:”

• The pole of nuclear ambition – general desire and initiative to achieve goals
• Guiding ideals – final goals one aspires to achieve
• Talents and skills that link ambition and goals and channel our energy into achieving our goals.

     So the healthy functioning self has tamed their narcissism into realistic ambition, has formulated their ideals into achievable goals, and has cultivated their talents and skills to reach their goals.  All of these would be characteristic of the real self.

THE EXISTENTIALISTS

      The existential tradition, represented by Rollo May, Irvin Yalom and others, distinguishes between authentic and inauthentic living instead of real self and false self.

      Existential living means being fully present in the moment; being fully aware; and experiencing a kind of appreciation of being. Each person is innately endowed with a unique potential that the person will inevitably realize to some greater or lesser degree.  This is the existentialists’ version of unfolding one’s potential.

     Being authentic involves realizing one’s deepest nature through living from moment to moment. The extent to which someone is not fully being, is inauthentic, is untrue to one’s deepest nature

     Being authentic also means confronting the givens of existence: death (which is counter-acted in finding faith), freedom (which means accepting responsibility), isolation (which is mitigated by fostering relationships), meaninglessness (which involves creating meaning).

     A person living authentically is aware of, acknowledges, accepts, even embraces, the givens of life.  The degree of existential guilt that one experiences in confronting life’s requirements is the single best indicator of the authenticity of one’s existence.

     As human beings, we live in four worlds and need to be responsible caretakers in each.  

• We may ignore or feel alienated from the Umwelt
  • The physical world
• We may let others down in the Mitwelt
  • The people world
• We may violate our sense of integrity in our Eigenwelt
  • The self world
• We may fail to live up to the ideals comprising our Uberwelt
  • The spiritual world

SPIRITUAL PERSPECTIVES

     If we delve beneath the psychological conceptions of the real self/false self dimensions, what do we find?  When we ask ourselves “Who am I, really?” What do we discover?   Now we’re in the realm of transpersonal psychology or spiritual psychology or spirituality.  What or who do we find in our deepest self (or non-self)?  What have other explorers found?  What do the mystics tell us about who we really are?

     The Enneagram’s map is broad and deep enough to traverse both the psychological and spiritual realms.  So, what do Enneagram and other spiritual authors have to say about the real and false self?

SANDRA MAITRI

     I’ll start with Sandra Maitri, one of the earliest students of the Enneagram, whose wonderful books The Spiritual Dimension of the Enneagram and The Enneagram of Passions and Virtues explore these deeper aspects of the person.  Allied with A.H. Almaas and the Diamond Heart approach to inner realization, her reflections are reminiscent of a Buddhist take on reality.

     What follows is in her own words.

     Essence:

• The ultimate nature of all of existence – its spiritual depths – is what I will refer to as Being, the Ultimate or True Nature of everything
  • Soul is an individual manifestation of our divine nature, Being
  • Each of us is a unique arising of Being
  • Being is what is left when all the constructs of the personality dissolve
  • Essence is Being experienced through our individual soul
• Like Platonic Forms, Being is impersonal and timeless
  • Our human soul comes into contact with and knows these eternal qualities
  • Our soul experiences and in time embodies the universal principles of Being

    Essential Aspects:

• Essential nature is our innate and unconditioned state of consciousness
• Essence may arise in consciousness as different qualities such as compassion, peacefulness, clarity, acceptance, etc. – Essential Aspects

     Ultimate Nature:

• Our ultimate nature is who we are without our history, without our mental constructs defining our experience both of ourselves and of the world around us
•  It is who and what we truly are, stripped of all conditioning 
• It is our beingness, the substance and nature of our soul

     Soul and Personality:

• Soul = personal consciousness = I = alive consciousness = locus of awareness and experience that understands itself to be either the personality or Being
• Personality structure is a mental construct, a set of beliefs and internal representations
  • Our soul takes the shape of our personality structure
• Egoic experience vs essential experience (beyond the conditioned self)
  • Experience of deficiency at core of personality
  • Loss of contact with our true nature

     Dimensions of Being

• There are a number of dimensions of Being that it is possible to experience, each progressively freer of conceptual veils, until we reach a state beyond all concepts, even those of being and non being, existence and non existence – beyond even consciousness – which is called the Absolute.

     True Nature

• As our consciousness deepens, we see that the True Natureof our soul is the True Nature of everything.  We experience Being, then, in its boundlessness – unlimited by any form, even that of our own soul.

     Divine Nature

• It is likely that we are wired so that we can consciously know Being, so that we can know the Divine as our nature. 
• So rather than simply being the embodiment of and being made up of Being, which is what all of manifest reality is, we have the unique opportunity to know ourselves as such.
• It may be that this is how the Divine can know itself through our human soul’s experience
• What we are talking about is radical personal transformation, such that we know ourselves to be the Absolute, the Divine Itself.
• It is more appropriate to conceive of our inner state as one of transparency, an openness to our depths, with progressively less of a self present to interfere with our direct expression and embodiment of Being.  To speak of alignment with Being at this state ceases to be accurate, since we know ourselves to be Being, living a human life.

     Differentiation and sense of separateness

• When this assumption of our inherent separateness is suspended, what we see is that our ultimate nature and the nature of all that exists are the same thing
• We experience ourselves as unique manifestations of one thing or as different cells in the one body of the universe
• The essential realm is present all the time; we have just forgotten it or screened it out of awareness

     Process to reexperience original connection to Being

• Begin with experience of deficiency (holes)
• Feel into this hole and be curious about it rather than escaping from it
• What was experienced as a deficient emptiness changes
• The emptiness becomes a spaciousness
• Over time all of the qualities of Being will gradually arise in your consciousness
• Being will feel like the ground of your experience

THOMAS MERTON

     Coming from a Christian tradition, Thomas Merton was a Trappist monk and a modern-day mystic who taught contemplation.  Toward the end of his shortened life, he became interested in and wrote about Zen and Sufism.  But the beginning of his mystical journey began on a street corner in the far-off land of Louisville, Kentucky.  Here is what he writes of his vision:

I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that I loved all these people, that they were mine and I theirs, that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers. It was like waking from a dream of separateness.”

Then it was as if I suddenly saw the secret beauty of their hearts, the depths of their hearts where neither sin nor desire nor self-knowledge can reach, the core of their reality, the person that each one is in God’s eyes.

If only they could all see themselves as they really are. If only we could see each other that way all the time. There would be no more war, no more hatred, no more cruelty, no more greed.  I suppose the big problem would be that we would fall down and worship each other. But this cannot be seen, only believed and “understood” by a peculiar gift.

     Here is what Merton has to say about the true and false self.

True Self

     At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes of our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our own mind or the brutalities of our own will.

     This little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty is the pure glory of God in us. It is so to speak [God’s] name written in us, as our poverty, as our indigence, as our dependence, as our sonship (and daughtership).

     It is like a pure diamond, blazing with the invisible light of heaven. It is in everybody, and if we could see it, we would see these billions of points of light coming together in the face and blaze of a sun that would make all the darkness and cruelty of life vanish completely. I have no program for this seeing. It is only given. But the gate of heaven is everywhere.

     Merton–as well as anyone deserving of the title mystic–believes that God is always recognizing God’s Self in you and cannot not love it. This is God’s “steadfast love” (hesed) with humanity. That part of you has always loved God and always will. You must learn how to consciously abide there.

     As Meister Eckhart says, “The eye with which I see God is the same one with which God sees me. My eye and God’s eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love.” God is recognizing God’s Self in you, and you are recognizing yourself in God.

     Once the two-way mirror begins to reflect in both directions, it will gradually move you toward a universal seeing.

     Once accepted in yourself, the divine image is then seen everywhere else too–and just as gratuitous

     A door opens in the center of our being, and we seem to fall through it into immense depths, which although they are infinite – are still accessible to us.  All eternity seems to have become ours in this one placid and breathless contact.

     This door needs to open only once in your lifetime, and you will forever know where home base is.

False Self

     Every one of us is shadowed by an illusory person: a false self. This is the man [or woman] that I want myself to be but who cannot exist, because God does not know anything about him [or her]. And to be unknown of God is altogether too much privacy.

     That’s why the false self is so fragile. It’s inherently insecure because it’s almost entirely a creation of the mind, a social construct. It doesn’t exist except in the world of perception–which is where we live most of our lives–instead of in God’s Eternal Now. When you die, what dies is your false self because it never really existed to begin with. It simply lives in your thoughts and projections. It’s what you want yourself to be and what you want others to think you are. It’s very tied up with status symbols and reputation.

     Whenever you are offended, it’s usually because your self-image has not been worshiped or it has been momentarily exposed. The false self will quickly react with a vengeance to any offenses against it because all it has is its own fragile assumptions about itself. Narcissists have a lot of asserting and defending to do, moment by moment. Don’t waste much time defending your ego.               

    My false and private self is the one who wants to exist outside the reach of God’s will and God’s love–outside of reality and outside of life. And such a self cannot help but be an illusion

    We are not very good at recognizing illusions, least of all the ones we cherish about ourselves. For most of the people in the world, there is no greater subjective reality than this false self of theirs, which does not even exist. A life devoted to the cult of this shadow is what is called a life of sin.

    All sin starts from the assumption that my false self, the self that exists only in my own egocentric desires, is the fundamental reality of life to which everything else in the universe is ordered. Thus, I use up my life in the desire for pleasures and the thirst for experiences, for power, honor, knowledge and love, to clothe this false self and construct its nothingness into something objectively real.

RICHARD ROHR

     Richard Rohr is a Franciscan priest who was influenced by Thomas Merton. 

As far as I know, Merton was not familiar with the Enneagram.  Richard, on the other hand, has written or edited several books about the Enneagram as well as an inspired and insightful book Immortal Diamond: the Search for Our True Self.

     Here, in his own words, is what he says about the true self and the false self.

True Self

• A Zen master would call the True Self “the face we had before we were born.” Paul would call it who you are “in Christ, hidden in God” (Colossians 3:3). It is who you are before having done anything right or anything wrong, who you are before having thought about who you are.
• Your true self is who you are and always have been in God
• The discovery of our true self is also at the same time a discovery of God
• At its core, it is love itself

Soul

• True self = soul = participation in the eternal life of God
  • Your true self is that part of you that knows who you are and whose you are

Your soul or true self is that eternal part of you, the part of you that knows the truth about you, a blueprint tucked away in the cellar of your being, an imago Dei

Image and Likeness

• We are created in the image and likeness of God
• Image: our objective DNA that marked us as creatures of God from the very beginning, before we could do anything right or anything wrong
  • The divine indwelling was a total gratuitous gift
  • It is the Holy Spirit living within us – uncreated grace
• We were the containers, temples, or recipients of this gift
• It had nothing to do with us and yet said everything about our core identity
• This is the Original Blessing
• It gave every human being an inherent dignity – our true self
• God has always loved his image and himself in us, even when we refuse to love and honor ourselves
• The indwelling divine image moves toward fulfillment in each of us
• Likeness:  our personal appropriation and gradual realization of this utterly free gift of the image of God
• We all have the objective same gift, but how we subjectively say yes to it is quite different.
• Eastern Church emphasized image
• Western Church emphasized likeness

True Self / God Self

• The Perennial Tradition concludes that you initially cannot see what you are looking for because what you are looking for is doing the looking.
  • The vantage point switches from looking at God to looking out from God.
• In finding your true self, you will have found an absolute reference point that is both utterly within you and utterly beyond you at the very same time.
• Before radical conversion, you look for God as if God were an object like all other objects.
• After conversion, you look out from God with eyes other than your own.
• “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God’s eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”  (Meister Eckhart)
• All humans are doing is allowing God to complete the circuit within us – until we both see from the same perspective.
• That which you long for, you also are.  Longing for God and longing for our true self are the same longing.
• It is God which is even doing the longing in us and through us through the divine indwelling or the Holy Spirit.
• You already are what you are seeking.
  • “My deepest me is God!”  (St. Catherine of Genoa)
• But you are not entirely absorbed into God
• And you are not the same as God, which would be pantheism
• You are, however, inherently in union with God
• And the relationship is continually given and offered from God’s side

True Self / Christ Self

• The Risen Christ archetype represents the final perspective of every true self:
  • A human-divine one that is looking out at God from itself – and yet knowing that it is God-in-you seeing God-who-is-also-beyond-you.
• Christ is the archetypal True Self offered to history
  • where matter and spirit finally operate as one
  • where divine and human are held in one container.
• The True Self is neither God nor human. 
  • The True Self is both at the same time, and both are a total gift.

East / West Perspectives

• Buddhist tradition:
• Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form
  • All forms eventually return to formlessness once again
• Christian tradition:
• Incarnation – death – resurrection – ascension
  • All of creation comes forth as individuals and then goes back into God, into the Ground of all Being

False Self

• The false self poses and thus substitutes for the real thing.
• The false self is bogus more than bad, and bogus only when it pretends to be more that it is.
• Your false self is your incomplete self trying to pass for your whole self.
• The false self is our small self or ego; our true self is our soul.
• The false self is who you think you are.
• It is a social construct.
• It is your container for your separate self, the “wineskin” that Jesus spoke of.
• The false self is the separate self.
• Our fear of death largely comes from the imagined loss of an imagined individuality.
• The false self has no substance, no permanence, no vitality, only various forms of immediate gratification.

True Self / False Self

• Thinking creates the false self, the ego self, the insecure self. The God-given contemplative mind, on the other hand, recognizes the God Self, the Christ Self, the True Self of abundance and deep inner security. We start with mere seeing; we end up with recognizing.

• Your true self is that part of you that sees truthfully and will live forever. It is divine breath passing through you.
• Your false self is that part of you that is constantly changing and will eventually die anyway.
  • It is in the world of passing forms and yet it sees itself as a central reference point–which is never really true.      
  • The false self is passing, tentative, or as the Hindus and Buddhists might say, “empty.”
• Some form of suffering or death–psychological, spiritual, relational, or physical–is the only way we will loosen our ties to our small and separate false self. Only then does the larger Self appear, which we would call the Risen Christ, the soul, or perhaps the True Self.
• The physical process of transformation through dying is expressed eloquently by Kathleen Dowling Singh, a woman who has spent her life in hospice work: “The ordinary mind [the false self] and its delusions die in the ‘Nearing Death Experience.’ As death carries us off, it is impossible to any longer pretend that who we are is our ego. The ego is transformed in the very carrying off.” This is why so many spiritual teachers say we must die before we die.
• The manufactured false self must die for the True Self to live, or as Jesus himself puts it, “Unless I go, the Spirit cannot come” (John 16:7).
• Theologically speaking, Jesus (a good individual person) had to die for the Christ (the universal presence) to arise. This is the universal pattern of transformation.
•  Letting go of the original “good person” that we are is always a huge leap of faith precisely because it is all that we know at that point.
• What has to die is not usually bad; it is just extraneous to our essence, and thus gets in the way.

Love

• In order to fully experience the intrinsic union we already have with God, who is Love, it seems that we need to first be love ourselves in some foundational way. We can only see what we already partly are, which is why I like to call it a mirroring process. Contemplation helps us to rest in this love; as we gradually take on the likeness of love, we will see love over there too. What you see is what you are. That’s why Jesus absolutely commanded us to love. This is necessary for the mirroring process to begin! Our inner state of love is alone able to receive and reflect the ultimate outer Love (2 Corinthians 3:18).
• The deepest Truth of every human is Love, as we are created in the image and likeness of an infinitely Loving God (Genesis 1:26-27), which Christians call Trinity.

• If we are in a state of negativity, what Julian of Norwich calls “contrariness,” we won’t be love or see love. We must watch for this contrariness–we all experience it quite frequently–and nip it in the bud. This contrary self often takes three forms: comparison (common in the female); competition (common in the male); and contrariness or oppositional energy (common in all of us). Our false self is actually relieved and empowered when it has something to oppose. The clearest identifier of untransformed people is that they are living out of oppositional energy, with various forms of comparing or competing, judging and critiquing. As long as we do this, we never have to grow up; we just show how others are wrong or inferior.

DAVID BENNER

     Dr. David G. Benner is a depth psychologist, author and wisdom teacher. The central organizing thread of his life and work has been to help people live the human journey in a deeply spiritual way and the spiritual journey in a deeply human way. Drawing on the insights of science, philosophy, and the perennial wisdom tradition, Benner has worked toward integrating psychology and spirituality.

     In his book The Gift of Being Yourself, he writes about the Enneagram and the true and false self.  The following are his thoughts in his own words.

True Self and God

• The self is where we meet God.

• If we find our true self, we find God and if we find God, we find our  most authentic self.

• All (creatures) give glory to God by being exactly what they are.

•  For in being what God means them to be, they are obeying him.

• The true self is your total self as you were created by God.

• It is the image of God that you are – the unique face of God that has been set aside from eternity for you.

• We do not find our true self by seeking it. 
  •   Rather, we find it by seeking God.

• It is by losing our self in God that we discover our true identity.

• There is no true life apart from relationship to God.

• Therefore, there can be no true self apart from this relationship.

• Our true self – the self we are becoming in God – is something we receive from God.
• Any other identity is of our own making and is an illusion.

• Knowing ourselves must begin by knowing the self that is known by God.  If God does not know us, we do not exist.

False Self

• Our false self is the self we develop in our own likeness.  This is the person we would like to be – a person of our own creation, the person we would create if we were God.
• The false self is the belief that my value depends on:
  • what I have,
  • what I can do
  • what others think of me.

True Self and Love

• Genuine self-knowledge begins by looking at God and noticing how God is looking at us.  God cannot help seeing us through eyes of love.
• Love is our identity and our calling, for we are children of Love.  Created from love, of love and for love, our existence makes no sense apart from Divine love.
• The God who is Divine community is known only in human community.  Deep knowing of perfect love, just like deep knowing of ourselves, demands what we be in relationships of spiritual friendship.

True Self and Christ

• As we become more and more like Christ, we become more uniquely our own true self.
• Jesus is the True Self who shows us by his life how to find our self in relation to God. 
• The self we find hidden in Christ is our true self, because Christ is the source of our being and ground of our true identity.

Calling

• Our vocation is grounded in the self that from eternity God has willed that we be.  Our calling is to become that self and then to serve God and our fellow human beings in the particular ways that will represent the fulfillment of that self.  Our identity is not simply a possession.  It is a calling.

     And so psychology brings us to our true self and spirituality brings us to God.  If we stop at our ego, we miss our self.  If we stop at our self, we miss the Ground of our Being.  As Rick Steves, the travel guide, says: “Keep on travelin’.”

REFERENCES

Almaas, A.H. Essence: The Diamond Approach to Inner Realization.  York Beach, Me: Samuel Weiser, 1986.

Benner, David.  The Gift of Being Yourself.   Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015.

Horney, Karen.  Our Inner Conflicts.  New York: Norton, 1945.

Jacobs, Michael.  D.W. Winnicott. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.

Jung, Carl.  Analytical Psychology: Its Theory and Practice.  New York: Pantheon, 1968.

________.  On the Doctrine of Complexes.  In The Collected Works of C.G. Jung (Vol.2).  Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973a).

Rogers, Carl. On Becoming a Person.: a Therapists’s View of Psychotherapy.  Boston: Houghton Miflin, 1961.

Rohr, Richard. The Enneagram: a Christian Perspective.  New York: Crossroad, 2002.

___________.  Immortal Diamond. San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 2013.

Maitri, Sandra.  The Spiritual Dimension of the Enneagram.  New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 2000.

___________.  The Enneagram of Passions and Virtues.  New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 2005.

Maslow, Abraham.  The Farther Reaches of Human Nature.  New York: Penguin, 1971.

May, Rollo.  Existential Psychology.  New York: Random House, 1961.

Merton, Thomas. New Seeds of Contemplation.  New York: New Directions, 1961.

_____________.  A Thomas Merton Reader. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961.

Perls, Fritz.  Gestalt Therapy Verbatim.  Moab, UT: Real People Press, 1969.

Siegel, Allen.  Heinz Kohut and the Psychology of the Self. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Yalom, Irvin. Existential Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books, 1980.

Here are some thoughts on questions that people have asked about the Enneagram.  It’s an overview of the system along with reflection questions to get you to ask more questions about the Enneagram.

TYPES

The Enneagram is a personality typology that describes nine ways of being in the world.  Some authors call them types, some strategies, I prefer styles which gives a little more wiggle room. There is, as they say in statistics, considerable inner-group variability.  That is, there is a lot of variety within each style.  There is also, of course, considerable inter-group variability.  While there is overlap among the nine styles, they are also different.

Nothing in life is simple.   Gordon Allport thought traits (personality generates behavior patterns that can be described as types) were hard-wired into the brain.  They actually exist, we’re not making this up.  Others say we are born with temperamental proclivities.  We have a tendency to perceive and respond a certain way.  Others (the behaviorists) would say what you are calling a type is simply a collection of behaviors.  Still others (the constructivists) would say that type exists only in the mind of the typist.  We are making this up.

I would lean toward the temperamental proclivities camp.  David Daniels writes about “innate propensities” and “structural proclivities.”  We are inclined to see the world and act in certain ways but are still free to choose what to think and do.

NATURE OR NURTURE

People ask whether we are more influenced by nature (what we are born with) or nurture (what we are born into).  As Hegel would have predicted, psychology has swung from thesis to antithesis to synthesis.  Biological psychologists said we are influenced mostly by nature (as high as 90%).  Then radical behavioral psychologists said we are completely influenced by nurture (100%).  Then interactionist psychologists said we are influenced by both nature and nurture (50/50%).  So the answer to the question of whether we are more influenced by nature or nurture is “yes.”

MOTIVATION

The Enneagram describes traits, behaviors, and behavioral tendencies.  It also describes motivations which most Enneagram teachers like to point out.

Values

I like to think of the values we are motivated by.  We usually have a hierarchy of values.  Some are more important than others.  You might ask yourself:

• What gets you out of bed at the beginning of the day?
• And at the end of the day, what made it a good day?  Or what made the day worthwhile?
  • Did you learn something? Help someone?  Make things right?  Get things done? Have a deep meaningful interaction?  Had fun?  Survived the day?  Didn’t get upset or upset anyone?  Defended the downtrodden?
• What is your purpose, vocation, mission?   What are you here to do?
  • Some say they are here to fix things, love things, complete things, make things beautiful, intelligible, safe, fun, tell the truth, make things agreeable.
• What aspect of humanity or the divine are you destined to manifest?  Your presence reminds us of what it means to be human (good, loving, productive, creative, wise, loyal, imaginative, just, peaceful.)  You reveal certain aspects of God to us that we otherwise might not experience (see above.)
• What is your legacy?  In the tapestry of history, your cohort, your family, what piece does your thread add?  Or what role did you play in the unfolding of being?
• What do you really desire?  And where does your desire meet the world’s needs?

Visions

We want to promulgate or share our values with others since we think they are really great.

• What kind of world do you want to leave behind? 
  • Better, more loving, more efficient, more beautiful, more intelligible, safer, more delightful, more just, more inclusive?
• What cultural institutions has your style created to enshrine your values?
  • Schools, libraries, science museums, art museums, symphony centers, hospitals, clinics, HR departments, CEO suites, banks to keep your money safe, investment banks to grow your money, court systems, entertainment venues, travel agencies, ecumenical organizations, accounting firms, sports venues for gladiators, computer centers for geeks.   You get the idea.

REAL SELF / FALSE SELF

Many traditions, including the Enneagram, describe the true self (who we are born to be) and the false self (who we are conditioned to be).   The true self is our core, given, authentic or gifted self.  The false self is our defensive, distorted, compensating, exaggerated, caricature, idealized self.

If Carl Rogers were our parent and we were loved unconditionally for who we are or Heinz Kohut was our father who empathically mirrored us as we are, then there would be no need to be other than who we are because we’re OK as is.

Unfortunately, our culture, religion, educational system, parents, siblings, et.al. don’t think we’re so great as is.  For our own good, they think we need to be educated or conditioned to be the way we should be.  Not knowing any better, we go along with the program and construct an idealized self – the self we think we should be in order to be safe, loved, accepted.

So, what happened to your core self, your original goodness.   What happened that you formed a personality around your core to protect it?

• Was there one traumatic hurtful event? Or a series of minor assaults?  What was the hurt or wounding, or vulnerability that you wanted to make sure wouldn’t happen to you again?
• What are you afraid of? And how do you protect yourself from this?
  • Are you afraid of criticism, rejection, failure, being abandoned, looking foolish, being betrayed, limited and bored, being weak and taken advantage of, conflict?

We develop an idealized self-image to present ourselves the way we think others want to see us and how we want to see ourselves.  You will love me if you see me as good, helpful, successful, special, wise, faithful, upbeat, strong, accommodating.

BLIND SPOT / AVOIDED SELF / DESPISED SELF

As we over-emphasize a certain part of ourselves (think of a caricature with big ears, chin, nose, etc.), we overlook or minimize opposing parts of ourselves.  These are distrusted, disliked, despised parts.   Our shadow.  We repress these characteristics and then project them onto others.  Fortunately, there are nine recycling bins in which to put our discarded personality parts.

DEFENSES AND VULNERABILITIES

We can use a variety of defenses to wall off our unacceptable parts.  They keep them out of our awareness and they keep others away from us.  Think of a turtle’s shell, a porcupine’s quills, a skunk’s odor, a dear’s camouflage, a lion’s roar.   Sometimes our defenses are a little over-kill and can stay around longer than we really need them.  (Think of skunks, again.)

• So, what do you fear?  What makes you anxious?   And what happens when you feel anxious?  That’s when your defenses pop up.  If we avoid what makes us anxious, our anxiety goes down.  That’s called negative reinforcement.  Afraid of dogs, avoid them.  Afraid of heights, stay on the ground.  Afraid of girls, boys, math, avoid them.  So, what do you avoid thinking, feeling, doing? 
• What are you afraid will happen if you let your unacceptable parts out?  What do you do to keep that part of you locked up and out of view?
• You might want to make friends with your demons, monsters, and isolated parts. There are all kinds of myths about doing so: Beauty and the Beast, Tame Your Dragon, Schrek, Donkey, and the Dragon, the Furies and Eumenides in Greek mythology, the Seven Samurai in Japanese film, and the Magnificent Seven in the Western version.  Befriending our supposed enemy turns them into our ally.

IDOLS AND IRONY

Idols and idealized self-images have much in common.  Both promise to save us from what we fear; both exact a certain price (give me your first fruits, first born, true self, etc.), and both renege on their promises.   They don’t deliver.

• What is your idol or addiction?  Perfectionism?  Co-dependency? Workaholism? Uniqueism?  Intellectualism? Fanaticism?  Hedonism?   Vindication? Pacifism?
• What does your idol promise you?  Protection from criticism, rejection, failure, etc.?
• What do you have to sacrifice and give up for your idol?  Pleasure? Your own needs?  Relaxation? Being ordinary?  Your feelings?  Your inner authority?  Being rooted?  Being vulnerable? Being assertive?
• How does the strategy of your idol get in the way of what you really want?
  • For example, if you really want to be known and accepted for who you are, how does not revealing yourself get in the way of this?
• And, ironically, how does your defensive strategy bring about the very thing you are trying to avoid?  The damnable thing about neuroses is they engender the very thing we are trying to escape.
  • For example, if you want to avoid criticism, does being pedantic or judgmental of others bring about their being defensive and then critical of you?
  • Or if you want to avoid rejection, does being smothering lead others to push you away?
  • If you want to be accepted for who you are, does being too slick, polished, and accomplished encourage people to admire your accomplishments instead of loving you?
  • If you want to belong and be understood, does being special lead people to misunderstand you since no one is like you?
  • If you want to avoid emptiness, does being too intellectual lead to feeling empty since you misplaced your emotions and body?
  • If you want to feel safe, does being paranoid lead to people talking behind your back and wanting to put you away?
  • If you want to avoid pain, does surrounding yourself with too many balloons lead people to want to pop them, thus raining on your parade?
  • If you want to be invulnerable, does being aggressive lead to others ganging up on you and attacking you?
  • If you want to be noticed and cared for, does being in the background lead people to overlook you?

I like the Enneagram because it provides a framework on which to hang the various pieces of the personality puzzle.  It is, indeed, a useful fiction.   Stay tuned for more reflections.