THE
ENNEAGRAM
PERSP
ECT
IV
E
Jerome P. Wagner, Ph.D.
NineLens Press Evanston, Illinois
Nine Lenses on the World: The Enneagram Perspective
Copyright 2010 by Jerome P. Wagner, Ph.D.
All rights reserved.
All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the express written permission of the author.
Cover design and typesetting:
Julia Lauer, Ambush Graphics
ISBN: 978-0-9827620-0-4
First published in 2010
NineLens Press
2603 Broadway
Evanston IL 60201
847-400-6507
www.enneagramspectrum.com
This book is dedicated to Bernie & Mary Kate
INTRODUCTION
There are few creatures as intriguing as human personalities and so its not surprising that novelists like to tell stories about characters, psychologists like to write textbooks about personality, and most everybody likes to watch and gossip about other people. While Tolstoys Anna Karenina and Wilbers Integral Psychology (2000) exemplify the heights of this pursuit, reality TV represents its nadir.
Ive had a long-standing interest in personality and personality styles. And, apparently, Im not the only one, since a plethora of rudimentary and sophisticated personality theories and typologies have appeared in most cultures, in most times, and in most places.
Types and More Types
In Eastern traditions , typologies arose in the Far East in China, Japan, India, Buddhism, Hinduism, et. al. In the Middle East, various types were formulated in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, in the wisdom schools of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, et. al. In Western traditions , typologies reach back to Hypocrites (who suggested that personalities were determined by blood types) through Greek, Roman and medieval typologies to modern psychological theories of personality.
In contemporary Western psychology , typologies can be found within the psychoanalytic tradition beginning with Freud (1925) and including Jung (1933), Adler (1956), Sullivan (1953), Horney (1945), and Fromm (1947). In the humanist tradition, Maslow (1954) and Leary (1957) offered typologies which were popularized by Shostrom (1968). Millon (1977) has a typology partially relying on behavioral principles. There are typologies based on temperament. Sheldon (1940) proposed a correlation between physique and personality, which was later elaborated by DeRopp (1974). Johnson (1994) has theorized about character styles based on temperamental and developmental interactions. Cattell (1946), Eysenck (1947), Bolz (1977), and Wiggins (1996) use factor analytic statistical procedures to cluster personality types.
For a detailed account of these typologies, the reader is referred to Metzners (1979) Know Your Type: Maps of Identity and Fragers (1994) Who Am I? Personality Types for Self-Discovery.
Why Do We Need to Type One Another?
Since this book is about personality styles , it will be instructive to reflect on why we spend so much time assessing and classifying one another. Heres a hunch.
Human beings are born with the expectation of finding regularities. Cognitive theorists inform us that our mind likes regularity and has a natural tendency to search for recurring patterns (1983). We need to discover or create a certain amount of order so we can predict and control what is going to happen in our environment as well as assess what effect our own actions will have on our surroundings.
The most important objects in our environment are other people. It might be anticipated, then, that we look for regularities in people and seek to categorize them. Understanding ourselves and others gives us some predictability, control and comfort which helps us relate better. We have been typing and stereotyping each other for ages.
Some have sought to categorize others informally , as in blondes have more fun. Others have attempted to categorize people more formally, such as ectomorphs, endomorphs, and mesomorphs.
Some typing has been life giving , like classifying different blood types so as not to mix them in transfusions. Other typing has been death dealing , for example, killing those of other tribes or traditions so as not to contaminate our blood or belief lines. There is both good and bad news about typologies.
Like Everyone Else, Like No One Else, Like Someone Else
Salvatore Maddi (1976) offered a scheme for studying various theories of personality. He noticed it was common for personality theorists to make two kinds of statements. One set describes the things that we all have in common and that are inherent attributes of human beings. These common features dont change much over the course of living and they exert an extensive, pervasive influence on our behavior. So we are all searching for the good, philosophized Aristotle; or we all have a superego, ego, and id, analyzed Freud; or we are all motivated by a self-actualizing tendency, as Carl Rogers reflected.
The other set of statements about personality refers to attributes that are more concrete, closer to the surface, and so can be more readily observed. These features account for the differences among people and are generally learned, rather than genetic. They have a more circumscribed, limited influence on our behavior. The concept of individual traits falls into this set of characteristics. In all the billions of individuals who have ever lived and ever will live there is only one Anne, the youngest daughter of John and Marie Jones with her distinctive temperament, experiences, and responses.
As for those characteristics that are unique to each reader, we anticipate the publication of their autobiographies where those features will be properly extolled.
Somewhere in between what we have in common with everyone else and what we share with no one else lies a partition of characteristics that overlap with some people but not with others. So we share our blond hair and blue eyes with some people but not with raven haired people with green eyes. Or we share a birthday range with people having the same astrological sign but not with others born in different months. Or we have some features in common with fellow extraverts that we dont share with introverts. This is the realm of type . Typologies offer a taxonomy of the different styles of life that are possible.
We can type people in a myriad of ways, grouping short and tall people together, fat and skinny people, Buddhists and Christians, Democrats and Republicans, light and dark skinned, type-A achievers and type-B acedias, open-minded and closed-minded, ad infinitum.
How we sort human characteristics, the various parts of the human puzzle, is a convention. There are no right or wrong ways of organizing our thinking about persons, only useful or less-useful ways. We create certain prototypes in our minds and then fit people into them. Since a prototype is a mental abstraction, no living prototype exists and no one fits the mold exactly. Real people only approximate ideal archetypes.
So personality typologies are useful fictions , some more heuristic than others.
The Enneagram Perspective
A typography Ive found especially useful is the Enneagram (Any-a-gram) with its spectrum of nine personality styles. Its quite comprehensive and provides a framework for pulling together many features we all share in common; it is remarkably perceptive in delineating the dimensions of nine different personality styles that we have in common with some people; and it leaves a lot of leeway for the particulars of our unique selves. With its numerous applications for personal growth, therapy, spirituality, education, business, etc., the Enneagram theory generates many helpful hypotheses.