Advocacy for Character and Strategy is a perennial favorite among psychotherapy students. Both an accessible theme and a nearly impenetrable theme, 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 against early experiences in infancy, childhood and adolescence that are intolerable or traumatic or both. They can be overwhelming, humiliating, embarrassing, or conflicting. Remember that one of the main tasks of the first years of life is to make sense of events, people and experiences. We need to make sense of what happens in our universe in the way of a young child, 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, isn’t it?

A: It is necessary. We experience this sensible view of the world as holding ourselves and our universe in some kind of design, a structure in which we can live and function over time. But if we are inquisitive, introspective, and reflective individuals, then we may see that the world view we adopt is less concerned with reality and more as a coping mechanism, less of a deep truth and more of a reactive strategy.

Q: But does it work?

A: It worked, but very often the strategy backfires on 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 ability to fulfill and satisfy ourselves in life so that we unconsciously we 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 harshest and most abusive jailer.

Q: Are there different kinds of defensive strategies, a system for underestimating ourselves and how we unconsciously restrict 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 an early classic and a point of reference. reference for further development. Subsequently Lowen and Pierrakos, Ron Kurtz, and Hakomi’s therapists Stanley Keleman and David Boadella made significant contributions to the field.

Q: Given the complexities of the subject, can you give a clear overview?

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 orientation of life 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 predicted about the feeling of not being wanted and later not welcome and even more so 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, rarefied strata of analysis and thought processes, uncontaminated by emotional and interpersonal engagement.

The second is the oral type. This strategy develops out of deprivation and sometimes overwhelming excess nutrition in the form of food, comfort, and childhood involvement. When a baby’s needs are not cared for sensitively and considerately, the child grows up expecting a corresponding treatment from life. The oral personality expects to be attended to, becomes disillusioned, abandoned or rejected, and is unable to fend 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 everything without any help.

Third, the psychopathic character has to do with power. The ‘power over’ is a reality, a real experience for the psychopath and resorts to the type of treatment experienced in childhood (around 3 years) in relation to others. There is never equal, reciprocal intimacy from a psycho in a relationship, just overwhelming will. Dominance and the will to power are important to the psychopath. Inhumane treatment, usually by the mother, manipulation, seduction, emotional displacement, and feeling special are ploys that lead to the psychopath’s main statement: I will never allow myself to feel vulnerable again.

The fourth is the masochist. The masochist’s formation of a sense of self has been arrested and prevented from being realized in childhood. The deal that creates a masochist is to prevent boundary formation, to deny the right to an emotional life or, indeed, to any rights at all, to not allow him to say no (because it is wrong for a child to deny or argue with his parents). , etc. .). Adult masochists often feel guilty, responsible, and reprehensible and provoke punishment from others to release their hidden and forbidden rage and fury.

Finally, the rigid character is the hardworking type, often a workaholic, who avoids time for himself, his relationships and any activity that does not involve him in the distraction of ‘doing’. Deep down they have been imbued with the statement: My feelings are not important. Usually, the budding sexuality of the rigid character 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, lovemaking with emotion. Their supposed task, which backfires, is to prove that they are lovable. 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 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 popular astrology and saying “I’m a stiff” as some people identify with their astrological sun sign. However, to generalize, the schizoid’s defense centers on the guiding statement: I must remain isolated; I’m safe if I don’t need to. The oral character statement would be something like: You do it for me, because I can’t do it myself. The mantra of the psychopath is: I must stay in control, remain independent and never form a close relationship. The masochist’s is: I can never be free and I will pay for intimacy by being submissive. Finally, the rigid’s guiding statement is: I can only be free if I don’t want to, so I must keep my heart closed.