The use of the Enneagram, a typological system with supposedly Sufi origins, has spread widely in the Catholic Church. The Church is, indeed, in need of a deeper psychological awareness in order to deal with a multitude of pastoral and spiritual problems. But it is possible in a spirit of gentle inquiry to address some questions to the Enneagram movement in the hope that any dialogue would only strengthen the good work that they are doing.
1. A minor point. The historical origins of the Enneagram remain unclarified. Is there any foundation to the claim for ancient Sufi origins? If not, where did it come from?
2. Is there one Enneagram system, or many distinct systems, depending on who is expounding it? Or to put it another way, is each major presenter sort of inventing the system as they go along?
3. The Enneagram is based on type descriptions rather than on basic type elements. While at first grance this may seem to be an obscure point, it is really rather important. Nine descriptions in themselves are simply not flexible enough to describe the full spectrum of human variation. There is an inner movement from type descriptions to typologies based on fundamental type elements. In short, what happens is that the descriptions tend to become more complicated and unwieldy. What are the basic elements underlying the basic Enneagram descriptions?
4. The Enneagram certainly plugs into the reality of individual differences that underlie all major typologies. So it works inasmuch as it does express that reality. Further, bridges could be built between the Enneagram and Jung's typology, as different people have begun to do, but how complete are the Enneagram descriptions? Do they, for example, deal with the unconscious as well as the conscious? Do they deal with the body and the physically conditioned temperament?
5. A final, and I think most important point, the Enneagram is basically a descriptive system, a kind of descriptive house, that is being erected with a certain enthusiasm and freshness because the Church is in dire need of practical psychological knowledge. But what of the building's foundations? Is the Enneagram a genuine psychology, a viable empirical science of the psyche, or just the fragment of one? Is it a descriptive system in search of its foundations? If the Church is urged in one fashion or another to adopt the Enneagram, and even if it does so, there is no guarantee that the Enneagram will ever develop into an integral psychology with a full complement of therapeutic techniques. A descriptive typology like the Enneagram can spring up rapidly, but it can fade just as rapidly unless it sends down its roots and draws nourishment from a fully developed psychology. Can the Enneagram do this?
Now it is your turn to contribute to this discussion.
(from the innerexplorations.com web site; thanks to Jim and Tyra Arraj for this opening statement)
