The Enneagram symbol is a useful map, not a sacred object.
A symbol, not a shrine
The Enneagram meet‑up in London (I attended in September) treated the symbol almost like a devotional object: drawing it, gazing at it, and being invited to “appreciate its cosmic beauty.”
For anyone interested in practical change in real relationships, this can feel less like psychology and more like a cult ritual. The risk is that attention drifts from “How do I use this to live and relate better?” to “How do I revere the shape of this diagram?”
Used sanely, the symbol is just a map: nine points, three instinctual emphases, and some helpful connections. Knowing which other strategies your type is linked to can be useful; beyond that, staring at lines and talking about “cosmic geometry” adds more heat than light. When the form becomes the focus, the map starts replacing the territory.
Where the symbol really comes from
There is no evidence that the Enneagram symbol is ancient or secret; it appears in the 20th‑century work of Gurdjieff, who loaded it up with grand claims about laws of three and seven, musical scales, and a complete explanation of the universe. He was also known for theatrical, intense training methods (including heavy drinking), which should make anyone cautious about taking his metaphysical claims at face value.
Oscar Ichazo was the first to put something like proto‑personality material on the figure, though not the modern nine types as such, and he did not credit Gurdjieff as his source.
Claudio Naranjo later mapped recognisable personality types onto the symbol and popularised the story that it came from Sufi wisdom; the narrative he himself invented.
In other words: the symbol is modern, its “lineage stories” are shaky, and its current use is the result of relatively recent creative assembly.
Why does it matter to keep it “un‑sacred”?
Calling the symbol ancient or sacred is not just historically inaccurate; it is also unhelpful. When something is treated as sacred in this sense, people become reluctant to question, update, or criticise it.
Yet any useful model of personality must be open to revision: descriptions sharpen, connections are tested, and unhelpful ideas are dropped. Treating the Enneagram figure as untouchable makes it harder to improve and easier to drift into mystification.
Far more grounded is to hold the diagram as exactly what it is: a clever visual shorthand for patterns that can be tested in real people, over time. Focusing on the symbol is like focusing on a finger, instead on what it is pointing at. The value lies in how clearly it helps you see and work with patterns in yourself and others, not in how reverently you can draw nine points inside a circle.
Comments
Post a Comment