While sharing a meal, some friends and I discussed a television documentary we had all recently seen about the damming of theYangtze River's Three Gorges. The documentary outlined details of the massive project and the subsequent relocation of thousands of villagers who lived by the river’s banks.
As we spoke about the program, it became increasingly apparent that we had experienced, internalized and reacted to the same story in profoundly different ways.
One of us expressed a sudden urge to travel to China and journey through the Gorges before they ‘disappeared’. Another focused exclusively on the human dimension of the relocation, expressing great empathy for the hardships and upheaval that the river folk would no doubt endure. A third member of the group was intrigued by the engineering feat of the project and asked carefully worded questions about how the water levels were to be raised and the dam constructed.
These conversational tangents fascinated me, and made me wonder how three people of similar backgrounds could respond in such divergent ways to the same set of facts. I also wondered if our three individual and strongly pre-occupied responses to the documentary were illustrative of greater divergent individual ‘world views’, and if so, what shaped whether we might respond to something primarily in terms of its potential experience value; its emotional triggers, or its mental challenges.
The ‘Enneagram of personality', a psychological and spiritual tool which builds on the work of Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, offers some interesting answer to my musings.
The word ‘Enneagram’ is Greek and means ‘nine lines’. The word refers to the tool’s key tenet that there are nine distinct human personality types and that each different personality type perceives and responds to the world in a distinct way.
Each of the nine types is labeled with an archetype that expresses its core worldview. For example, a #1 type, known as the ‘Reformer’, is by nature more intuitive than cerebral or emotional. The #1 focuses much of his or her attention on self-judgment, striving to achieve personal integrity, justice and balance. The #4 ‘The Romantic’, on the other hand, views the world through a heightened emotional prism. The #4 gains a sense of identity through self-expression, wears one’s heart on one’s sleeve and is essentially individualistic and introverted.
There is no hierarchy in the Enneagram’s numbering system and no particular number is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than the other. The classification system seems to genuinely cut across cultures and while we may be able to find a little bit of all nine of the types in our personality, the Ennegram asserts that each person’s basic personality type defines and dominates how one consciously and sub-consciously processes and relates to the world and to other people.
The Enneagram would explain the divergent tangents that emerged during the Three Gorges Dam conversation by observing that the person who wanted to see the dams before they disappeared was a #7 (‘The Enthusiast’, or the experience junkie of the nine types). The empathetic people-focused member of the conversation was perhaps a #2, or ‘Giver’. #2s are emotionally demonstrative types who are validated by their concern and care for others. The intellectually curious member of the group would most likely be a #5 or an ‘Observer’: someone who initially responds to information or stimulus by investigating facts and searching for patterns.
While not wanting to be doctrinaire, the notion that there may be different personality types has been consistently helpful to me, particularly when I encounter views that differ greatly from my own. The idea of varying personality types also helps to explain to me why most religious traditions include archetypes in their teachings (Think for example of the Seven Deadly Sins of Christianity, or the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism) .
Archetypes (like learning styles) address the reality that we are different in how we process and act on information. When it comes to how we live our lives, some of us predominantly are lead by our hearts, while others are more instinctual or intellectual.
As I travel, I sometimes like to think about whether cities project particular archetypal qualities. Is Paris the ultimate #4: expressive, dramatic, self-absorbed and temperamental? What about the cities featured in this blog?
Sydney seems to be greatly concerned with pleasure and acquisition, so by the Enneagram's reckoning it would be a #7: playful, hedonistic and outgoing, but also acquisitive, scattered and reluctant to address its own suffering.
Hong Kong seems to bear all the hallmarks of a #3 'The Achiever'. A city built by refugees, it is above all else, success-oriented and pragmatic. Hugely adaptable and unsentimental, Hong Kong, like the #3, is energetic, driven and image-conscious.
Berlin is an altogether different beast. In summer when the days are long and the city parties al fresco at its 'beach bars', it might be mistaken as a #7 (albeit one with political consciousness). But during the long winter months, Berlin's true nature is more evident. It is without doubt an introvert.
My guess is that Berlin is a #5. A centre of ideological warfare for much of its past, Berlin values its political acumen, its intellectual rigour, and its sense of irony. These are not qualities of the heart. Like #5s who can be lost too deeply in their own thoughts, Berlin can become detached, intense and nihilist. An island of the Free World and a capital of a Communist state, both halves of Berlin learned how to be independent and inventive, qualities distinctive of the #5.
Despite efforts to move it towards 'integration' (to use a word favoured by Jung), Berlin's two former parts continue to exist more as non-identical than Siamese twins. Its halves (indeed its neighbourhoods) like to feel removed and self-contained, and like a #5, the city fares best when its left alone to ponder.