Character Defense and Strategy is a perennial favorite among students of psychotherapy. Both an accessible theme and an almost 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 confrontational. Do not forget 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 is happening in our universe in the manner of a young child and this form or structure that we impose on experience develops over time and stages of development into a personal world view.

Q: But that’s good, right?

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

Q: But does it work?

A: It worked, but too 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 capacity for fulfillment and satisfaction 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 types of defensive strategies, a system to underestimate 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 insights of psychologists such as Fromm, Klein, Jung, and particularly Reich, whose book Character Analysis is an early classic and a landmark. 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, can you give a clear overview?

A: There are several systems depending on the typology you look at, but a general summary would be something like this.

First, we have the schizoid type. This life activity or orientation in a person is a response to the experience of being unwanted and is prior to any infantile experience, because it originates in the womb. It is predicted about the feeling of not being loved and subsequently not welcome and even more so that one does not really fit in with others, in social groups or in life itself. The schizoid feels 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 feels more comfortable in the higher and rarefied layers of analysis and mental processes, uncontaminated by emotional and interpersonal commitment.

The second is the oral type. This strategy evolves from deprivation and sometimes an overwhelming excess of nutrition in the form of food, comfort and participation in childhood. When a baby’s needs are not attended to with sensitivity and consideration, the child grows up expecting a corresponding treatment from life. The oral personality expects to be attended to, becomes disillusioned, abandoned or rejected, and 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 draws on the type of treatment experienced in childhood (around age 3) in relation to others. There is never an equal and reciprocal intimacy of a psychopath in a relationship, only an 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 stratagems 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 treatment that creates a masochist is to prevent boundary formation, to deny the right to an emotional life or, indeed, to any right, not to allow him to say no (because it is wrong for a child to refuse or argue with his parents). , etc. .). Adult masochists often feel guilty, responsible, and blameworthy and provoke punishment from others to release their hidden and forbidden rage and fury.

Finally, the rigid character is the hard-working, often workaholic type who avoids time for himself, his relationships, and any activity that doesn’t engage him in the distraction of ‘doing’. Deep down they have imbued themselves with the statement: my feelings are not important. Usually, the rigid character’s budding sexuality was denied or shamed by one parent or another in childhood. Sexually it becomes a challenge for the rigid adult to combine sex with feeling, making love with emotion. Their supposed task, which backfires, is to prove themselves 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 against life”? And why would we choose to do that, instead of committing to life, living fully and enjoying ourselves?

A: The individual expression, blending and layering of character types is quite unique and individual of course. It’s not about treating it like popular astrology and saying “I’m a stickler”, as some people identify with their astrological sun sign. To generalize, however, the schizoid’s defense centers on the guiding statement: I must remain isolated; I’m safe if I don’t need. The oral character statement would be something like: You do it for me, because I can’t do it for myself. The mantra of the psychopath is: I must remain 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 guiding statement of the rigid is: I can only be free if I don’t want to, so I must keep my heart closed.