I was recently asked to share some thoughts on the psychic structures first proposed by Sigmund Freud and how they relate to the Enneagram – so here goes!
Firstly, it does appear that the Freudian structures play a role in the Enneagram’s nine overt behavioural patterns. They also inform people’s beliefs about what’s right and wrong, and may even provide a perspective on people’s philosophical and political world views. Before exploring this, let’s remind ourselves of the three principal structures that Freud introduced, namely the id, the ego and the super-ego.
The id
It’s been said that we’re born with the id intact, its primary aim being to ensure that our basic survival needs are met. When a need isn’t being met the id motivates us to address what we lack as a matter of urgency. This can occur, for example, when we’re hungry or thirsty. We also see it in young infants who are inclined to become visibly and audibly distressed when a basic need isn’t immediately satisfied. It’s as if the id on its own requires instant gratification with no concern for what is appropriate in a given context.
The super-ego
The super-ego appears to develop over time through a process of learning that enables it to acquire a set of rules and principles about what’s OK and not OK in various contexts. These rules are initially learnt from early caregivers, parents, immediate family, and subsequently from being socialised in a broader cultural context including exposure to peer groups, religion, education and so on. Although these rules and principles guide us on how to behave appropriately in particular contexts they can often be in conflict with the demands of the id.
The id can be seen to have a selfish intent while the super-ego aims to restrain behaviour deemed to be inappropriate or offensive in a social context and promotes more acceptable behaviour. When we directly contravene the super-ego’s sense of correctness it can punish us by inflicting feelings of guilt, shame or embarrassment.
The ego
The ego is said to contain our self-image, an internal representation of how we see ourselves. This self-concept may differ from the way other people see us to a greater or lesser degree. Whatever the case, our self-concept requires validation in order to experience self-esteem.
One of the functions of the ego is to act as a mediator between the instinctual needs emanating from the id and the socially acceptable rules contained in the super-ego. It deals with the challenge of how to meet one’s own needs in a socially acceptable way and without incurring guilt from the super-ego.
If guilt or shame is a likely consequence after behaving in a certain way then the ego may well trigger a defence mechanism designed to justify the “inappropriate” behaviour. Examples of such defence mechanisms might be denial, rationalisation, humour, etc. Defence mechanisms can also be triggered in any situation where we feel threatened or fearful; they are designed to keep us feeling safe.
Linkages with the Hornevian triads (which are included in FIVE LENS Personal Feedback Reports (Premium version), and Team Development materials):
Karen Horney, a psychoanalyst, observed three broad behavioural patterns in her clinical practice. She described them in her books Conflicts (1945) ; Neurosis and Human Growth (1950). These patterns indicate how people tend to respond when exposed to threats or conflicts.
Don Riso & Russ Hudson transposed Horney’s observations onto the Enneagram and suggested that each Enneagram style habitually defaults to one of these “Hornevian” response patterns.
The three Hornevian patterns are broadly described as
- moving against people (aggression) dominated by ego.
- moving toward people (compliance) dominated by the super-ego,
- or moving away from people (withdrawal) dominated by the id.
Similar patterns are seen in the animal kingdom and are typically seen as fight, submit, or flight responses.
Super-ego dominated Enneagram styles: The Compliant Triad: E1, E2, E6:
These styles have a tendency to comply with their own internal representation of what’s deemed to be the right thing to do in a given context.
Enneagram 1
Tends to comply with its own set of internal rules relating to what’s right or wrong.
Internal mantra: “It’s necessary to do what is right in all situations and correct any mistakes.”
This can be seen as an over-identification with super-ego rules and a suppression of personal desires, needs and wants to emanate from the id.
Enneagram 2
Tends to comply with the internal demand to be helpful, supportive and loving.
Internal mantra: “Being self-sacrificial in offering help, support and love to others is the right thing to do.”
Here, again, is a strong identification with the super-ego. The difficulty lies in creating a balance between the super-ego’s demand for self-sacrifice and the fundamental needs expressed from the id.
Enneagram 6
This style’s inherent ego self-doubt can result in a lack of trust in the super-ego’s guidance. So the individual is likely to seek confirmation from other external sources deemed to be trustworthy in order to verify the correct action to take.
Internal mantra: “It’s important to do the right thing so let me double-check with someone I trust.”
Id dominated Enneagram styles: The Withdrawn Triad: E4, E5, E9:
These styles tend to hold back from directly and assertively expressing the id’s impulses and instead display compensatory behaviours.
Enneagram 4
Has a tendency to disconnect (dissociate) from external reality which includes social norms in general (represented in super-ego) and retreat into an inner world of personal desires, needs and imagination (represented in the id).
Internal mantra: “It’s hard to really connect with the outside world so I’ll retreat into my own world of thought, feeling and imagination where I can truly be myself.”
Enneagram 5
Tends to disconnect (dissociate) from external reality and retreat into cognitive thinking processes. This is prompted by a strong need to withdraw from uncomfortable social contact (emanating from the id).
Internal mantra: “I protect myself from feeling uncomfortable in social situations by withdrawing into the safety of my own thoughts.”
Enneagram 9
Tends to disconnect (dissociate) from the external reality and from their own self-representation (ego). In this way, E9 avoids the discomfort of disagreement, conflict or damaged relationships and preserves the id’s need for peace and comfort. Many of the id’s needs are suppressed and so E9 tends to go along with what others want.
Internal mantra: “I need to do what I can to keep the peace and avoid the turmoil and discomfort of conflict and damaged relationships.”
Ego dominated Enneagram styles: The Assertive Triad: E3, E7, E8:
When confronted, these styles tend to assertively or aggressively project their egos outwardly:
Enneagram 3
Tends to project an overly adjusted self-image (i.e. ego) created by taking cues from the external environment in order to maintain or build self-esteem. In addition, the super-ego suppresses the individual’s authentic emotions resulting in difficulty identifying with a true version of self.
Internal mantra: “When I succeed it feels great, so I keep emotions at bay and show up in ways that get the results I want!”
Enneagram 7
Tends to project the ego’s positive self-concept outwardly in order to gain self-satisfaction. There’s a relative disconnection from the super-ego’s restraining qualities and so excesses can ensue.
Internal mantra: “When I engage in energetic, optimistic ways I feel good and it enables me to reach positive outcomes no matter what!”
Enneagram 8
Tends to project an inflated and powerful ego self-image in order to force the external world to reflect the E8’s perspective. E8 tends to lose touch with the more needy aspects contained in the id.
Internal mantra: “If I display strength and power then people will bend towards my way of doing things and I can avoid feeling needy and vulnerable.”
Broader id-centred Philosophies
The id is all about individual needs and doing what it can to ensure these needs are met. You can see how this might underpin and motivate an emphasis on individualism, self-expression and the right to choose for oneself rather than conforming to the requirements and demands of other individuals or groups. It can be argued that this philosophy promotes more liberal “live and let live” attitudes and even political movements that support individual liberty and freedom of choice.
At a higher level of integration (healthy) this approach can work well; for example, when people are valued as unique individuals each with their own talents ideas and qualities. This can lead to a positive acknowledgement of diversity that enables creativity, synergy, mutual appreciation and acceptance of differences.
“The freedom of man is, in political liberalism, freedom from persons, from personal dominion, from the master, the securing of each individual person against other persons, personal freedom.” – Max Stirner
“Of all varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.” – Aristotle
But at a low level of integration (unhealthy) people feel threatened by differences. They begin to defend their positions and judge or censor others who are different in some way, or who hold alternative views and beliefs. Groups of like-minded people might then form and destructive conflict can emerge as one group tries to dominate another. Xenophobia, homophobia and extreme versions of nationalism would be examples of this as would violence between opposing political groups.
Broader super-ego centred Philosophies:
The super-ego is more concerned with fitting into a group, culture, or movement of some kind and is liable to compromise on individual needs. This implies a more collectivist approach that aligns with requirements and behavioural patterns derived from the values of the group. Individual needs are less important in this context.
Movements inclined towards politically left-wing perspectives and the ‘group mindset’ come to mind here in which the collective is emphasised above the individual. It can also express a desire to preserve culture, traditions and social values. It’s about fitting into the prevailing context and being willing to compromise on individual wants, needs and desires in favour of “what’s expected of me” by family, community, nation, etc.
“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” – Former US President, John F. Kennedy.
“When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies.” – Former US Politician, Physician, Author and Activist, Ron Paul
There may be a sense that while individuals contribute to the larger context, be it group, community, or nation, the context will take care of the individual when needed. This gives rise to aspects such as social welfare of various kinds, national pensions, free health care and education provided for all.
This kind of contextual support can be helpful and valuable, especially for people who are unable to support themselves. It can also give people a great start in life that they otherwise may not have had. There are enormous benefits when this approach works in a highly integrated way in which people are able to retain their own identity and unique sense of self while being part of a larger collective.
However, at less integrated (unhealthy) levels the power is held by a few people who make the rules for the collective. People become dependent on the collective and lose their own sense of identity and the will to succeed in their own right. The few people in control can morph into elitist dictators more interested in taking care of themselves than the majority. Corruption, lack of transparency, lack of integrity and general dishonesty may ensue as the elite control the majority for their own hidden purposes.
The need for the balance of ego
Perhaps the optimal position is to acknowledge that the individual AND the collective have importance and need to be given attention in ways that are healthy, balanced, and integrated. Individuals need to be seen and treated as the unique people they are and encouraged to flourish. Society needs to have a set of norms, principles, values, rules and laws that provide a framework for what is right and what is wrong for the benefit of all.
There will always be a tension between personal liberty on the one hand and cultural norms on the other but this can be healthy if we work with it from a position of an integrated higher self. It’s when this tension is lost or is dealt with in unhealthy ways that increased social problems occur.
It seems to me that this emphasises the importance of your, and our, work in the FIVE LENS community. At the core of it is most definitely working with ourselves and our clients to reach high levels of Personal Mastery and Emotional Resilience so that we can all become the very best, most integrated versions of who we really are. What a difference you, and we collectively, can make in our world!
