Is The Enneagram Valid… 5 Enneagram Objections Considered
Before taking the time to learn the Enneagram, it would be wise of each of us to look at the reasons why someone might disagree with the teachings of the Enneagram.
For that reason, I’ve taken the time to do some searches on the subject and came up with a 5 Main Objections to the Enneagram.
For your reading pleasure, I’ve taken the time to put this together. Some of this is reprinted from authorities, and I’ll make sure to link to their appropriate sites.
Without Firther Ado: Is The Enneagram Valid?
The first resource I would like to point you to is a website that is very concious of Christianity (I believe the author actually is a Christian) that tackles some of the objections one might here specifically from Christians.
1. THE SUFI CONNECTION
It is claimed by some Christians that the origins of the Enneagram are bound up with Sufism and that this cannot be ignored if Christians are to preserve the integrity of their faith in Jesus Christ.
While the full history of the Enneagram is not accurately known, from what we do know it appears that there is a connection with the Sufi tradition.2 Although it is reputed to be over a thousand years old there is no clear documentation to prove this. What we have today appears to be a blend of both ancient and new insights.
The reservations and worries which some Christians have about the Sufi connection imply that because the Enneagram might have been passed on via the Islamic tradition it is by that very fact somehow suspect, tainted, and possibly even heretical. The reality is that the Enneagram as we have it today is fundamentally a theory about human personality which can be used in a totally secular context without any religious denominational dimension. It is not essentially linked with Sufi theology, nor does one have to accept Sufi religious beliefs to make use it. There is, therefore, no reason why the Sufi connection should prevent Christian, Jewish or other spiritual directors from using it in their work.
Besides, it is an injustice to Christian teachers of the Enneagram to suggest that they are somehow surreptitiously promoting erroneous religious beliefs when they teach the system. Those who make such accusations should come up with proof and not rely on innuendo.
The objections to the Sufi connection also suggest that there is something sinister and dangerous about religions other than Christianity which warrants our adopting a negative and even hostile attitude to them. One would have thought that since Vatican II this approach would have been rejected. The openness and respect which the Council showed towards other religions, including Islam, means that people ought to be open to the truth wherever it is to be found. 3
Nobody has a monopoly on truth. We cannot go about with closed minds, imagining we have nothing to learn from others. Nor should we suspect others of false motives and condemn them before we have even given them a fair hearing. When the disciples tried to stop someone from casting out devils just because he did not belong to their little band, Jesus told them to let him be and added: “Anyone who is not against us is for us.” 4
Down through the centuries Christians have succeeded in integrating much that is of value in other traditions into their own faith. In his day St. Paul quoted from pagan poets and borrowed concepts from pagan philosophers in order to proclaim the gospel. In doing so he showed us that our faith in Jesus Christ is the ultimate standard which ought to guide our judgement. This is what we now speak of as spiritual discernment. “Never try to suppress the Spirit or treat the gift of prophecy with contempt; think before you do anything - hold on to what is good and avoid every form of evil.” 5
This openness to and willingness to learn from others does not mean abandoning or playing down our own religious beliefs, but it does mean ridding ourselves of the prejudice which assumes that anything received from a non-Christian source is automatically to be rejected. The Enneagram is not incompatible with Christianity and no proof has been offered to show that it is.
It is claimed that the Enneagram is linked with the occult and that anything even remotely connected with the demonic should be shunned.
What is at issue here is the role played by the controversial figures of George Ivanovich Gurdjieff and Oscar Ichazo in the introduction of the Enneagram to the West. Both men are said to have sought the kind of secret knowledge associated with the occult. Gurdjieff, it is argued, learned about the Enneagram from a group of Sufi mystics in the course of his travels in Afghanistan. That would be bad enough for those who argue like this since they also allege the Sufis merely used the symbol we now associate with the Enneagram for numerological divination and that it was not used in connection with personality theories. But a much more damning argument would appear to be that Gurdjieff apparently believed in a spirit world of ‘demiurgic essences’ and in numerology. As for Ichazo, the objection is that he allegedly had so-called out-of-body experiences as a youngster, studied Zen, yoga, hypnotism and who knows what else. As a result, it is asserted that he became disillusioned with various Christian teachings, believed in channelling and claimed to be guided by higher entity called Metatron. 6
Whatever the truth or otherwise of these charges, this smacks of an attempted ’smear’ campaign based on guilt by association. If some of those who introduced the Enneagram to the West were weird and off-the-wall, then, according to these critics, the Enneagram must also be suspect if not positively dangerous. This is quite worrying, indeed scary, for the average punter, but when you look at it carefully it is little more than an attempt to bad-mouth something by implication.
A little reflection is enough to see how easily this is done. Who, for example, would want to believe the word of a boastful, self-confessed ex-con, an accomplice to murder who actively supported the anti-Christian persecutions in his own country, who went on to deny the right of women to be heard in church and who insisted on the mutilation of at least one of his colleagues as a way of wheedling his way into the good graces of the opposition? Not one of these statements about the apostle Paul is a lie, but the selective (ab)use of the truth is totally destructive of his real character. I’m not suggesting, of course, that Gurdjieff or Ichazo be equated with Paul, but many a good Christian theologian has studied Zen and yoga, and may even have gone to Afghanistan to study mysticism or learned how to use hypnosis for therapeutic purposes. What’s wrong with that?
Today the mere mention of the word ‘occult’ is often enough to frighten people. They imagine the worst and mistakenly equate it with the satanic. The worst excesses of tabloid journalism feed off these fears and even seek to reinforce them. Throwing about a word like ‘occult’ in the hope that some of the fears associated with it may stick is not a rational argument. It is simply a scare tactic. What is needed is some proof that Christians who teach the Enneagram are actually encouraging people to accept occult beliefs or activities. One does not have to accept everything that Gurdjieff and Ichazo believed before one can accept the Enneagram. Far from it. Nor does the acceptance of the Enneagram mean that one is thereby defending the philosophy, theology or personal lifestyles of those who were instrumental in introducing it to a wider Western audience. The singer is not the song.
It is claimed that the Enneagram is frequently used as a way of getting a quick fix on people, crudely categorizing them into a specific type and not allowing them to break out of that particular character mould.
This is a risk common to all typologies and paradigms for looking at the human personality. In unsophisticated hands they can be used to pigeon-hole people. To the extent that people use them simplistically they grossly distort them. Oversimplification is always dangerous, particularly when it is combined with a blinkered attitude towards change. Just because we have been given an insight into people’s compulsive behaviour or inner drives does not mean we have anything like a full understanding of their personality. To equate a person with a compulsion is to short-circuit the knowledge to be gained from personal disclosure and interpersonal discovery. To deny the possibility of change is in essence to refuse to accept the possibility of redemption.
There is no denying that inexperienced people have used both the Enneagram and other psychological theories to make snap judgements on people. For example, it’s quite common to hear people say, “I can’t stand Ones.” “She’s a typical Nine.” “Be careful what you say, he’s a Four.” However, this is more a criticism of those who distort and misuse the system rather than a criticism of the system itself. Every responsible teacher of the Enneagram warns of the dangers of oversimplification and snap judgements.
The numbers are a convenient shorthand for people who know the Enneagram so that they can talk about a particular personality style without continually having to detail a list of traits. The styles could be (and indeed are) just as easily identified by words like “Helper”, “Peacemaker” etc. but as there is no agreed single word for every style, it makes sense to use the numbers instead. For example, the style known as the SIX is variously called Loyalist, Devil’s Advocate, Guardian, Facilitator, Defender and so on. We call it the Supporter. These are all useful terms but in certain circumstances they can have their drawbacks. Loyalist, for example, captures well the pattern of loyalty of the SIX, but in a country like Ireland (or indeed the UK) the word has become so politicized that it cannot be used without some confusion. All the other names, including our own, have their own peculiar drawbacks. This needn’t prevent us from using them, but it makes sense to use numbers as well. Numbers are internationally recognized.
The Enneagram is a sophisticated tool which is both complex and dynamic. Its complexity is such that it demands a serious level of understanding and its inner dynamism is such that it is geared to change and development. It confronts us with our hidden compulsions, makes us aware of the stranglehold they can have on our lives, and encourages us to seek help to free ourselves from the negative influences which they can exert on us.
However, it is not an attempt to pigeon-hole or box people in. Quite the contrary. In Enneagram terms we have already confined ourselves and boxed ourselves in by means of the repetitive compulsive patterns we’ve adopted since childhood. The genius of the Enneagram is that it helps us identify these compulsive patterns. In doing so it also offers us ways in which we can expand our options and, by accepting and then letting go of our fixated patterned responses, become truly liberated from them. It is a total misunderstanding of the Enneagram to think that we can use it to reduce people to a cipher or a graspable package which we can then label and manipulate to our own ends.
As with all personality typing models, there is a temptation to misuse the Enneagram in this way. But just because a model can be abused does not mean that it itself is faulty. It is a powerful but nonetheless a limited tool which can help us in our personal journey through life.
A related issue concerns attempts to type historical figures. Although in our own book, An Enneagram Guide, we do not do so, for study/workshop purposes I see no real problem in trying to identify well-known historical figures as possible examples of particular styles, especially when they have written extensively about themselves or where colleagues and others who knew them well have outlined how they saw them. However, such attempts should not be presented as definitive, because in reality it is the individuals themselves who are usually best placed to identify their own style.
It is claimed by some that the Enneagram is being used to teach an esoteric Christianity and that its notion of salvation is inconsistent with our belief in Jesus as Saviour.
It cannot be repeated too often that the Enneagram is a system of understanding personality which is not essentially linked with any religion but can be used by people of any religious persuasion or none as an aid to promoting personal development and spiritual growth, since grace builds on nature. Christians who teach the Enneagram are under no illusion that it is anything other than one among many such helps. For them, Christ is “the Way, the Truth and the Life,” 7 not the Enneagram. It is simply mischievous to suggest that such teachers are attempting to proclaim something different.
Christians believe that we are born with original sin and that we have been redeemed by Christ. 8 As free human beings we can make choices, and sin - the turning away from God - is one of them. Christians believe that people cannot get rid of their sins by their own efforts, either by an act of will or by succeeding in taking control of their own lives to save themselves. God is the one who takes the initiative in redemption, not human beings. “What proves that God loves us is that Christ died for us while we were still sinners.” 9
This is the central meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ. Grace is utter gift and we are free to accept or reject God’s saving help. No Christian teacher of the Enneagram, in workshops or retreats or in writing that I know of, teaches anything different.
It has been said that even though the Enneagram can help us identify our sins, many of its teachers hold that once our sins have been identified they can simply be meditated away. Once again, to suggest that Christian teachers present repentance in this fashion is blatantly untrue. Conversion is a turning to God for help. In Christian terms people have been redeemed by Christ and are born again through the grace of his life, death and resurrection. Unsubstantiated charges and innuendoes are frequently thrown about in this way in the belief that if you throw enough mud some of it is bound to stick.
It would help if people would read some of the literature by Christian authors and see for themselves whether the Christian faith is compromised or not.10 It would also help if they attended a workshop or two.
Our own experience and that of many other Enneagram teachers we have discussed this with is that the Enneagram is a powerful pastoral tool in as much as it speaks directly to the human condition.
It is particularly helpful in situations where people have been alienated from religion or ‘turned off’ by the Church. They seem to be able to relate more readily to the language of the Enneagram and often find that it helps them rediscover their Christian faith at a depth they previously had not encountered. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the same is true in other religious traditions.
Dealing in graspable language with the traditional teaching on the seven deadly sins (including the two other powerful core driving forces of deceit and fear), allows people to see their previously hidden brokenness, makes them aware of their resistances and blind-spots, and opens them up to the possibility of healing, wholeness and God’s saving grace. In the Enneagram people find a substitute language with which to talk again about traditional concepts like sin, repentance and conversion.
This can readily be built upon by a sensitive and caring pastor or counsellor to give them a fresh start with the Church.
It is claimed that the lack of objective scientific research in to the Enneagram is an indication that it has no real authority as a personality theory.
It is quite true that the Enneagram has not yet been the subject of any major scientific tests, but this is not at all surprising. Although it has been the subject of some dissertations, it is still in its infancy as a written system. However, more and more studies are being done on it and no doubt it will be carefully tested in the usual ways in the future.
But it must be remembered that, even among psychologists, there is much discussion as to what ’scientific’ means in relation to the discipline. Moreover, as even a cursory reading of the literature will indicate, there are many difficulties involved in testing: the objectivity, standardization, reliability and validity of the hundreds of different kinds of tests available, plus the specific criteria and statistical procedures used, pose their own problems and carry with them advantages and disadvantages. 11
The scientific concept of ‘measurement’ which has been introduced into human psychology is an attempt to deal with hard objective facts. So, it is argued, instead of explaining endlessly how one feels, it ought to be possible to measure people’s distress by looking at their blood-pressure, heart-beat and other such signs of physiological arousal and indicating them on a sliding scale of one to one hundred. Whether this helps further our understanding of ourselves is debatable.
The physiological movement within psychology today relates everything to the workings of the brain, the central nervous system and the lymphatic hormonal system. On this view it is claimed that all human behaviour is chemically based and is thus available for objective scientific research and testing.
There are clearly different ways to describe the human personality and to explain human behaviour. But when you get down to the bottom line and ask why people opt for one theoretical model rather than another, things are far less clear. In a sense, the fundamentals are not ultimately provable; they are chosen because they seem to fit the observable facts best.
The Enneagram will undoubtedly be subjected to rigorous scientific examination. But in the meantime people are daily finding the theory helps explain many things about their personality which they find confusing. Part of the authority of the Enneagram is in the personal experience of those who use it in their daily lives. It seems to name us in a way which no other personality typology does, and at considerable psychic depth. No doubt scientific investigation will throw further light on this source of wisdom about personality styles, but in the meantime for many people it adds up and makes a great deal of sense.
The Enneagram is simply one among many tools we can use to help us get to know ourselves and others better, and assist us in our development as persons. It is not incompatible with the Christian belief in the centrality of Christ. For Christians, Christ comes first. He is the norm. It is in the light of Christ and his gospel that everything is tested. Christian Enneagram teachers do not seek to replace Christ with the Enneagram, or attempt to measure Christ with the yardstick of any personality theory. Christ is the one who saves. On that criterion I have no worries about using the Enneagram as an aid to personal growth and spiritual development.
This was reprinted from here.
Secondly, I’d like to point you to the Skeptic’s Dictionary. My opinion of the Skeptic’s Dictionary is that he tries to oversimplify the Enneagram so much that is loses it’s validity. You can really do that with any subject- and of course the Enneagram is no special case. If you read the case on his website thoroughly, you’ll find holes in his argument too.
And, of course, the owner of the website is motivated to make controversy because he has ads running on the site and more controversy = more money.
Here’s an excerpt:
An enneagram is, literally, a drawing with nine lines. Figuratively, however, the enneagram is a New Age mandala, a mystical gateway to personality typing. The drawing is based upon a belief in the mystical properties of the numbers 7 and 3.* It consists of a circle with nine equidistant points on the circumference. The points are connected by two figures: one connects the number 1 to 4 to 2 to 8 to 5 to 7 and back to 1; the other connects 3, 6 and 9. The 142857 sequence is based on the fact that dividing 7 into 1 yields an infinite repetition of the sequence 142857. In fact, dividing 7 into any whole number not a multiple of 7 will yield the infinite repetition of the sequence 142857. Also, 142857 x 7 = 999999. And of course 1 divided by 3 yields an infinite sequence of threes. The triangle joining points 3, 6 and 9 links all the numbers on the circle divisible by 3. To ascribe metaphysical or mystical significance to the properties of numbers is mere superstition and a throwback to an earlier time in human history when ignorance was considered a point of view (apologies to “Dilbert” and Scott Adams).
The enneagram represents nine personality types. How the types are defined depends on whom you ask. Some define them by a fundamental weakness or sin. Others define them by a fundamental energy that drives one’s entire being. Some follow classical biorhythm theory and classify the nine types according to three types of types: mental, emotional and physical. Others classify the nine types according to three types of instinctual drives: the Self-Preserving drives, the Social drives and the Sexual drives.* Some follow Gurdjieff, who claims to have followed Sufism, and type the types as mental, emotional and instinctual.
The one who seems to be the father of the enneagram, Oscar Ichazo (b. 1931), spoke of enneagons (nine-pointed figures, enclosed in a circle, with straight lines connecting each point to two others) and ego fixations corresponding to each of the nine points. (Several sources claim that Ichazo learned of the enneagram through Ouspensky’s writings of Gurdjieff, but Ichazo denies this.) He called his system Arica, after the coastal city in northern Chile, near the Peruvian border, where he opened his first school in 1971. In the early nineties, there were “forty or so Arica training centers, located in the United States, South America, Europe and Australia.”*
In the End, I believe that most of the Objections too the Enneagram are based on falsehoods about the Enneagram. Most objections don’t even tackle the Enneagram itself and are usually produced by someone who doesn’t know anything about the Enneagram anyways. I have yet to hear someone that has taken the time to STUDY the Enneagram debase it’s standing.
