The defense of character and strategy is a favorite among psychotherapy students. An accessible subject and an almost impenetrable subject, it is fascinating and individualistic, with a typology that produces endless unique permutations of defense against life. This conversation I had (R) with a student (Q) presents a valid introduction to the topic.
Q: What do you mean when you say “defend yourself from life”?
A: We react to early experiences in infancy, childhood and adolescence that are intolerable or traumatic or both. They can be overwhelming, humiliating, embarrassing, or confrontational. Don’t forget that one of the main tasks of early life is making sense of events, people, and experiences. We need to understand in an early childhood way what happens in our universe and this form or structure that we impose on experience develops over time and stages of development into a personal view of the world.
Q: But that’s good, right?
A: it is necessary. We experience this sentient worldview as a holding of ourselves and our universe in some kind of design, a structure in which we can live and function over time. But if we are reflective, introspective and questioning individuals, then we can see that the worldview we adopt is less concerned with reality and more with a coping mechanism, a less profound truth plus a reactive strategy.
Q: But does it work?
A: It worked, but very often the strategy works against us by limiting our existence, our life experience, our sense of potential, defining who we are and how much we can have, and restricting our capacity for fulfillment and satisfaction in life. that we unconsciously sabotage ourselves in all kinds of positive endeavors. The anger that saved us becomes the devil that haunts us, the liberator of ourselves from the intolerable experience becomes our toughest and most abusive jailer.
Q: Are there different types of defensive strategies, a system for underestimating ourselves and unconsciously restricting ourselves and our lives?
A: The theory of character typologies began in Western psychology with Freud and progressed significantly through the observations and ideas of psychologists such as Fromm, Klein, Jung, and particularly Reich, whose book Character Analysis is the early classic and the point of reference for further development. Later Lowen and Pierrakos, Ron Kurtz, and Hakomi’s therapists Stanley Keleman and David Boadella made significant contributions to the field.
Q: In view of the complexities of the topic, is it possible for you to provide a clear description?
A: There are several systems depending on the typology you are looking at, but a general summary would be something like this.
First, we have the schizoid type. This activity or life orientation in a person is a response to the experience of being unwanted and is prior to any childhood experience, because it originates in the womb. It is based on the feeling of not being loved and later not welcomed and, furthermore, that one does not really fit in with others, in social groups or in life itself. The schizoid is more comfortable alone and is not really able to relate in the true sense of the word. He or she will tend to withdraw from external difficulties with life events and particularly relationships. The schizoid thinks, reflects, analyzes and theorizes and is most comfortable in the higher and more rarefied layers of analysis and mental processes, untainted by emotional and interpersonal engagement.
The second is the oral type. This strategy stems from deprivation and, at times, overwhelming excess nutrition in the form of food, comfort, and participation in childhood. When the needs of a baby are not met with sensitivity and consideration, the child grows up waiting for the corresponding treatment of life. The oral personality waits to be cared for, is disappointed, abandoned or rejected, and is unable to care for itself. There is another version of this character defense in which the opposite or corresponding imbalance is adopted, that is, I don’t need you; I can do it all without help.
Third, the psychopathic character has to do with power. The ‘power over’ is a reality, a real experience for the psychopath and he or she resorts to the type of treatment experienced in childhood (around 3 years) in relation to others. There is never a reciprocal and equal intimacy of a psychopath in the relationship, just an overwhelming will. Domination and the will to power are important to the psychopath. Treated inhumanely, usually by the mother, manipulation, seduction, emotional displacement, and feeling special are all tricks that lead to the psychopath’s main statement: I will never allow myself to feel vulnerable again.
The fourth is the masochist. The masochistic formation of a sense of self has been stopped and its realization in infancy prevented. Treatment that creates a masochist involves preventing the formation of boundaries, denying the right to an emotional life, or indeed rights at all, not being able to say no (because it is wrong for a child to refuse or argue with their parents , etc. .). Adult masochists generally feel guilty, responsible and worthy of reproach and provoke punishment from others to free themselves from their hidden and forbidden rage and fury.
Finally, the rigid character is the hardworking, often workaholic type who avoids time for themselves, their relationships, and any activity that does not involve them in the distraction of ‘doing’. Deep down they have assimilated the statement: my feelings are not important. Usually the stiff character’s budding sexuality was denied or shamed by one or the other parent in childhood. Sexually it becomes a challenge for the rigid adult to combine sex with feeling, making love with emotion. Their supposed task, which is counterproductive, is to show that they are worthy of love. But they can never be successful because whatever they do will not make them worthy; deep down they want to be loved for themselves.
Q: But how exactly do each of these character types employ a strategy that “defends them from life”? And why would we choose to do that, instead of committing ourselves to life, living fully, and enjoying ourselves?
A: The individual expression, mixing, and layering of the character types are quite unique and individual, of course. It’s not about treating it like a popular astrology and saying, “I’m stiff,” as some people identify with their astrological sun sign. However, to generalize, the schizoid defense centers on the guiding statement: I must remain isolated; I’m safe if I don’t need it. The oral character’s statement would be something like: You do it for me, because I cannot do it for myself. The psychopath’s mantra is: I must remain in control, be independent, and never form a close relationship. The masochist is: I can never be free and I will pay for intimacy by being submissive. Finally, the guiding statement of the rigid is: I can only be free if I don’t want to, so I must keep my heart closed.