1.1. The Credibility Problem
As a writer, we sometimes come to a point called writer’s block. Nothing seems right anymore – the characters are acting without a plan or not at all, the structural thread gets lost and the characters are simply not credible. This moment occurs when we do not know much about our characters yet. If we knew them well, we would know for sure how they would act. The audience will only follow the actions of the characters if they are credible. But how do you create credible characters and types as a writer?
Or, to put it a different way: Is there a causality between the traits of a character, according to which a character with the trait A will very likely have the traits B and C, rather than D and E? Our knowledge of the world tells us that this is exactly the case. But of course, we experience the world in divers and, above all, subjective ways. We, on the other hand, are looking for a context that is as objective as possible.
So, which possibilities do we have as writers? We can shape characters according to our own experiences with the risk that they resemble us or are, at least, very similar. We can shape characters according to real people we know very well. With this method, you may lose friends that recognize themselves in your writing. On top of this, we too, move in certain social surroundings. We could take part in a script constellation – provided that we believe in it and have the money. We could do some research. That always pays. On the other hand, this is quite elaborate and we would probably first have to gain the trust of strangers to make them talk about themselves. But will they tell us the truth? Will they reveal their innermost conflicts? Are they even able to do this or is their self-perception preventing the objectivity we are looking for? We can sample sensual experience through Method Writing by putting ourselves in the situation of our characters and feel what they feel. This is definitely profitable but again, we are referring to ourselves. The character might evaluate the same event in a totally disparate way or act entirely differently.
Well, if only we had a model, a tool, an instrument for checking the credibility of a character. Let us assume, a playwright would write a play called THE MISER. This tool should enable him to find the character traits an avaricious character is likely to have and dissuade him from giving the figure implausible traits.
1.2. Scientific and Esoteric Approaches
What should such a model be able to achieve exactly? It should structure as many different aspects as possible in a meaningful way. On the one hand, it should be comprehensive and sophisticated, on the other hand it should be easy to handle and therefore, lucid. It should reveal the essentials of a character in a specific way. We wish for new information that inspires our phantasy, but the model should not constrain it in any way. Such models exist – called type theories.
All type theories attempt to explain that people are different, but at the same time there are types of people with a marked resemblance in their attitude and behaviour.
Although type theories are looking for similarities, at the same time they tend to neglect that which makes an individual unique. Applying to real people, this is clearly very limited. But when we talk about characters, they are by definition never as differentiated as real people. Therefore, a type theory that is useful for us only has to be subtle enough.
In general, there are two fundamentally different kinds of type theories – esoteric and scientific. The term ‘esoteric’ has gone through some changes over time. In antiquity, esotericism was a philosophical doctrine, a secret science only few people had access to. It has a strong mythical aspect that I find very exciting. Astronomy is an esoteric science, as is the Tarot. The psychologist Carl Gustav Jung discussed in his work TAROT AS A WAY OF LIVING that the Tarot and its symbols depict archetypes. Therefore, it is a universal treasury of knowledge. The same goes for astronomy. Unfortunately, esoteric type theories have a strong disadvantage that excludes them for our purposes – they are matters of belief.
In the context of scientific type theories, the ‘Four Temperaments’ of Hippokrates, spring to mind at once. But they are too generalized to help us. The next thing, of course, would be to look at psychoanalysis. Siegmund Freud, in classical psychoanalysis, dealt with the psychodynamics of the unconscious. Different schools of depth psychology and therapies have developed from his approach. I see a general problem here: Psychoanalysis deals with the ailing person. But this person has no free will, he is subjected to constraints that limit his character. Of course, this can also apply to a figure, but normally we need a model for figures that exercise their free will.
Furthermore, I see problems in psychoanalysis’ strong fixation on early childhood. Of course, a personality is strongly marked by their childhood. But simultaneously, we are just as much influenced by social surroundings, and it is an expression of free will to deal with it one way or another. There are other branches of psychology that do not focus on the analysis of disease or childhood patterns that much, but are looking instead for an adequate solution to a problem.
Such a method is the Integrated Solution Oriented Therapy. It categorizes people according to type – material-oriented, action-oriented or relationship-oriented. This is interesting, but to use it reliably, we would have to study it very seriously. This is the main disadvantage of all scientific type theories – we can apply them only through thorough study. Normally, we would not want to study psychology – we are content being writers.
Sociology can help us enormously in our search for a type theory that suits our purposes. In his book MANAGEMENT TEAMS: WHY THEY SUCCEED OR FAIL, Dr. Meredith Belbin discusses the role of individual personalities in teams. His empirical research on the optimal composition of teams is also known as the ‘Belbin Team Roles’. In this book, he develops three main individual orientations, each comprised of three different team roles.
3 ACTION ORIENTED TYPES
Shaper, Implementer, Completer
3 COMMUNICATION ORIENTED TYPES
Team-Worker, Co-Ordinator, Resource Investigator
3 SCIENCE ORIENTED TYPES
Specialist, Planner, Monitor-Evaluater
Here we have nine different roles whose strengths and weaknesses he describes so precisely that we can look at them as characters. Astoundingly, Belbin’s sociological study is congruent in its result with the empirical type theory from pre-Christian times that, for a long time, was only known to a small circle of adepts – the ENNEAGRAM.
To my knowledge, no one has yet used the Enneagram for the development of characters. This is exactly what we are now going to do.
1.3. The Enneagram as an Empirical Model for Recognition
The Enneagram is a model for recognition and self-realization, depicting nine different character profiles. It allows for a wide range of differentiations and describes the inner dynamics of personality.
With respect to other type theories, the Enneagram has the following advantages:
– It is empirically researched, therefore not a matter of belief as in esoteric models
– It is not a science, therefore no profound studies are necessary for using it
– With its nine character profiles and their differentiations, it is more subtle than other models
– It allows for the inner dynamic of character change
The roots of the Enneagram go back to pre-Christian times. According to some sources, it stems from Pythagoras. It has always been a part of the Islamic tradition of Sufism, as well as early Christian monasticism. For thousands of years, it was passed on through oral tradition, and only a small circle of elected could access it. Maybe this is why the true origin of the Enneagram is not quite clear even today.
The Enneagram is a mystic model for recognition with the intention