In this paper, the first in a series of seven, we present our hypothesis that the Enneagram is best conceived as, first and foremost, a tool on the SPIRITUAL path. Putting this proposition in Jungian terms, we would say that whereas the MBTI deals primarily with Ego concerns, the real power of the Enneagram resides in what it can tell us about the potential relationship that the individual has with what Jung called the 'Self', which arises as the new 'center' of personality in later life, after the individual has successfully 'differentiated' his/her Ego and has embarked on the spiritual path that Jung called 'individuation'.

This hypothesis avoids a serious pitfall associated with rival views, which see the Enneagram and the MBTI as dealing with two diametrically opposed sides of the same coin. Studies exploring how MBTI types distribute across the Enneagram have shown that statistically speaking most people who have tested in both systems have Enneatypes that are COMPATIBLE to their MBTI Type. This flies in the face of theories proposing that the two systems deal with mutually-exclusive 'opposite' parts of the person.

As Self and Ego are not mutually exclusive opposites, but rather areas of larger and lesser scope, with a significant area of overlap, the fact that individuals typically test as compatible MBTI and Enneagram types poses no problem for our hypothesis.

Section One: Enneagram is to Self as MBTI is to Ego

skip to footnotes

We thought that it might be a particularly appropriate time, on the occasion of the first-anniversary issue of 'The Enneagram and the MBTI', to revisit the basic question that inspired us to create this website in the first place - 'How can the fundamental relationship between the two systems best be described?'

Much has happened in the course of one short year. In February of 1998 the belief that there was no significant relationship between the two systems was widely held. According to conventional wisdom, the two typologies measured different, unrelated things. Many felt that any combination of MBTI type and Enneatype was as likely to occur in individuals as any other combination. But now, in February of 1999, it is difficult to find, amongst individuals who have an interest in both systems, persons who are unaware of the correlation patterns that do exist between the two sets of types. We hope that the studies, analyses, and discussions that were presented at this site, along with the opportunity that the site offered for open dialogue and debate, has played some part in affecting this change. Although further demographic studies comparing the two typologies will doubtlessly be done in the future, we hope that these will attempt to secure answers to a whole new set of questions - many of which have surfaced in the theoretical discussions taking place here.

In the meantime, it seems to us that the bulk of what still remains to be done is to interpret what the empirical facts MEAN - what they tell us, in particular, about the basic nature of the relationship between the two systems. At this point in time various rather simple propositions are still being offered as tentative explanations of the relationship - vague hunches, as it were, that express what is often only a glimmer of an idea, a theory in its nascient stage. Sometimes hypotheses take the form of working 'models' which seek to describe how the two systems can be used together, in a more or less co-ordinated manner, to accomplish practical therapeutic or management goals - without explaining, or sometimes even caring to explain, WHY they can be used in such a fashion. And sometimes the proffered models egregiously ignore or contradict the empirical evidence regarding cross-system correlations.

It has often been maintained that the Enneagram is designed to do something 'different' from the MBTI - and we agree that this is the case. Never have we proposed that the two are the SAME system, or that one is reducible to the other, or should be considered ancillary or subsidiary. It is, however, much more difficult to accurately specify the nature of the difference than it is to simply point to the fact of its existence. Furthermore, in attempting to explain how the systems differ we must not ignore the ways in which they are similar. Some individuals, in their eagerness to emphasize the difference, have gone to the empirically unsupportable extreme of denying or ignoring the manner in which MBTI type-descriptions overlap with Enneagram type-descriptions, and how the two sets of 'types' correlate statistically.

It is sometimes said that whereas the MBTI primarily deals with or describes the individual's 'Ego', the Enneagram has something to do with some other part or aspect of the individual other than the Ego. Pat Wyman, who takes such an approach, appears to believe that the sole purpose of the Enneagram is to identify the individual's 'defense system' - so that when psychological issues associated with the defense system are successfully addressed in therapy, the individual in effect outgrows the usefulness of the Enneagram, and thereafter derives more benefit from using the MBTI. There seems to us to be truth in the claim that the Enneagram is designed to focus attention, at least in part, on aspects of the individual that are 'dark' or unowned. Although Pat Wyman resists identifying this part of the individual as 'shadow', Katharine Myers, in an interview in this issue of the Journal, is less reluctant to do so, and is also quite clear about stating her belief that it is this aspect of person to which the Enneagram seems at first to call our attention.

Unlike Pat, however, Katharine is more circumspect. She wisely avoids saying that the Enneagram LIMITS its scope of interest to the Shadow, or that the system was somehow intended to measure or identify ONLY those aspects of the individual associated with the Shadow part of personality. ¹ There are indeed some rather stubborn empirical facts that would militate against such a view. Why, for instance, if the Enneagram is measuring or describing the individual's Shadow, do people usually test in such a way that their Enneagram type is definitionally COMPATIBLE with their MBTI type ² ? Since the individual's 'ego' and his/her 'shadow' are mutually exclusive parts of the person - and, in fact, diametrically opposed to each other (hence the word 'shadow'), one would expect one's Enneagram type-description to contrast sharply with one's MBTI type-description. But, in fact, this happens rather infrequently, statistically speaking - as we have shown elsewhere on this site. This fact is an unsettling anomaly for anyone espousing a theory like Wyman's - a dilemma for which she has yet to provide an acceptable solution. [See also Conversation with Wyman].

How might those who are inclined to link the MBTI to the Ego and the Enneagram to the Shadow avoid contradicting the empirical evidence? And how might they reconcile their view with the fact that the theoretical foundations for both systems (Jung's 'four function theory', and the 'four function theory' of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky) have so much in COMMON? Both theories share the notion that 'thinking', 'feeling' and 'sensing' are three amongst a set of four mutually exclusive and exhaustive 'mental functions' that make up human experience. [For an in-depth comparison see Geldart's 'Fifth' Function: an Ingenious Strategy for Reconciling the Enneagram and the MBTI.]In both systems the 'type indicators' that are used to identify personality type measure the individual's preferences with respect to these 'functions'. Should we not therefore expect what in fact most often actually occurs, statistically speaking - namely, that the individual's MBTI type should more often than not turn out to be compatible with his/her Enneagram type?

The only acceptable way of avoiding this dilemma, as far as we can see, is by thinking of the Enneagram as focusing primarily on what Jung called the 'Self', as opposed to the Shadow per se. In the first part of this paper we intend to explore Jung's concept of the Self in depth; suffice it here to say that the Self can be understood, topographically speaking, as subsuming both Ego and Shadow. When previously alienated Shadow parts are, via the process of 'Individuation', reconciled and combined with the Ego, a personality of larger scope is formed - what Jung called the 'total personality' or 'Self'. If we are right, the Enneagram and the MBTI are not talking about two opposite sides of the same coin - Ego and Shadow - but rather about areas of lesser and larger scope - the Ego and Self - related to each other like part to whole.

"If we picture the conscious mind with the ego at its centre, as being opposed to the unconscious, and if we now add to our mental picture the process of assimilating the unconscious, we can think of this assimilation as a kind of approximation of conscious and unconscious, where the centre of the total personality no longer coincides with the ego, but with a point midway between the conscious and the unconscious. This would be the point of new equilibrium, a new centering of the personality, a virtual center which, on account of its focal position between conscious and unconscious, ensures for the personality a new and more solid foundation". (Jung, Two Essays, paragraph 365)

"I have suggested calling the total personality, which, though present, cannot be fully known, the self. The ego is, by definition, subordinate to the self and is related to it like a part to the whole." (Jung, Aion, p.5)

To identify the concerns of the Enneagram as Self-related ones is tantamount to saying that the Enneagram is first and foremost a tool for managing 'spiritual' process and growth. While the MBTI chooses to focus primarily on the comparatively mundane, but nonetheless important aspects of 'everyday' life, the Enneagram was originally intended to address the issues that arise for individuals when they are in the process of a kind of transformation that Jung called 'Individuation', which is often, and perhaps more aptly, referred to as 'spiritual realization'.

As good a rule of thumb as the formula that we are proposing might turn out to be - that the MBTI is to Ego as Enneagram is to Self - we must be careful not to over-simplify matters. Since just as it is not the case that the Enneagram has a limited purview comprised solely of matters related to the Shadow, it is also patently wrong to suggest that the MBTI is limited in its scope to concerns regarding the Ego. Even Jung's EARLY personality work, embodied for us now most prominently in the MBTI, is not a theory that naively presumes that all aspects of the individual's personality are under the control of the ego or within the 'conscious' awareness of the individual. Although this phase of his work on personality pre-dates the deeper insights that he eventually had into the profound spiritual transformations associated with the 'alchemical' psychological processes, there is embedded in it an appreciation for the role that the 'unconscious' plays in the individual's ego-centered personality.

Most of us are familiar, for example, with the manner in which, for Jung, the 'inferior' functions in the individual's makeup are conceived as 'immersed' in the UNCONSCIOUS side of the psyche, and how the individual can thus on occasion come 'under the grip' of these. Jung's interests in personality changed as HE developed, shifting accordingly FROM an interest in mapping out how different permutations of functional-preferences could generate different personality types TO an interest in articulating the organizational principles on which later-life transformations depend as the individual's personality moves its center from Ego to Self. But an appreciation for the role of the unconscious remains a significant aspect of both stages of theory, and acts as a bridge between them.

Nevertheless, as a personality theory it is the Enneagram that seems to more clearly focus its interest on those profound transformations in the personality that are commonly referred to as 'spiritual' ones. This should come as little surprise to anyone who has even a superficial knowledge of the Enneagram and the story of how it has emerged in recent decades as a personality typology. It is no mere coincidence that certain reputable religious groups, as well as individuals on their own personal spiritual paths, have both been attracted to the Enneagram.

Unlike the MBTI, which conceives of personality type as unchanging ("Type theory assumes that type does not change over the life span" ³), the Enneagram fosters a deep-seated belief in the possibility of intrapersonal change of a profound sort - a 'metanoia' or spiritual conversion experience. This difference can be traced back to a difference in the philosophical and meta-psychological foundations on which the two respective systems are based. Compared to Jung, Gurdjieff and Ouspensky had a distinctly different understanding of the concept of 'personality' in general, believing that it was ultimately necessary for us to transcend 'personality' in favor of something referred to as the 'essence' of the individual - a view which parallels the perennial Buddhist vision that 'egolessness' is a desirable achievement on the spiritual path, and a considerable accomplishment that clears the way for an experience of our 'true nature'.

The spiritual leanings of the Enneagram should come as no surprise, in view of the fact that Gurdjieff and Ouspensky had an avid interest in the spiritual traditions of the Orient. During a time in which few teachers of these methods were directly available to Westerners, they imported the insights that they culled from these systems to the West. Not only do contemporary followers continue to consider the Enneagram a spiritual tool, their influence in this regard seems to be spreading, and various people have attempted to map spiritual paths onto the nine-pointed figure, as an increasing number of books and articles describing such projects demonstrates.

But what is it about the Enneagram that is conducive to such a project? How and why the Enneagram appeals in this way to our spiritual nature and our spiritual longings is something that has not yet been adequately explained. Our intention in this series of papers is to begin to address this question. We believe that Jung's concept of the 'Self' can be of particular assistance in this regard.

In subsequent parts of this series we will present a PRIMA FACIE case, built on a Jungian-style analysis of the meaning of the Enneagram as a symbol, that it must have originally been intended as a spiritual tool. In 'Enneagram as Mandala' we discuss Jung's concepts of Ego and Self and show how the figure of the Enneagram is a classic Jungian mandala representing the Self. In 'Enneagram as Double Mandala' we argue that the fact that the figure is also a 'double mandala', in the sense in which Jungian analyst Von Franz uses this term, suggests that it is a comparatively advanced stage of spiritual development that the system sought to describe, the stage at which two incommensurable orders of existence - the sacred and the profane - are ultimately reconciled in the individual. In 'Enneagram as Triple Mandala' we explain our reason for believing that the Enneagram may originally have belonged to a special group of mandalas associated with esoteric tantric teachings of a highly advanced spiritual nature.

In 'Nine Paths, Nine Types' we will explore the relationship between the Enneagram as a profound SYMBOL of spiritual growth and the Enneagram as a PERSONALITY TYPOLOGY. We know of at least one other system that can lay claim to being both - a well-developed spiritual path AND a personality typology. It is a profound and complex Buddhist system that pre-dates Jung's work and utilizes traditional Indian and Tibetan designs (from which Jung borrowed both the word and concept of the 'mandala') to map personality type. In it one can identify specific principles and methods whereby personality type are successfully related to spiritual path. We apply insights gleened from the Buddhist approach that will permit us to view the nine Enneagram types primarily in terms of spiritual path.