Comments on: ‘Character strategies’ (Part One) – Dr Janina Fisher’s insights

By: Jennifer Mourrain

Jennifer Mourrain — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 20:54:51 +0000

I find this approach to connecting with a client a little disheartening as a person that has been in trauma therapy and is intimately familiar with processing bodily memories. I think as a discipline, the adoption of typologies is very limiting and detracts from the mission to heal the whole person. As a traumatized person seeking help from a therapist, I am not a ‘character’ strategy or a mixture of a few. I am a person who may still hold those traumatized aspects of myself, but I also seek unity and wholeness. What benefit is there in a therapist putting a client in a box that delimits the scope in which the person’s experience of the world can be understood? I can relate to everyone of these types, and while I may express certain aspects more often than others depending on life circumstances, my identity is not defined by a ‘strategy’ or form of ‘manipulation’. (‘Strategy’ might be a ‘nicer’ word, but that’s essentially what we’re talking about if we are honest with ourselves). As a traumatized client, I would be quite angry and disappointed in my therapist if she were to apply this labeling to me. While using the concept of character strategies may have some use value in terms of the therapist being able to attune to their client, it’s not very original as a overall character typology. The enneagram (interestingly enough) is also based on nine basic personality types. I think it’s important for therapists to be self reflective about their practices including engaging in their own shadow work. I would ask that therapist choosing to use this method to be mindful that they are witnessing an aspect of a person not the whole being as Meera pointed out earlier in her comment. We all have everyone of these strategies as part of our basic make up. We all have the capacity to be charming, clingy, tough, generous, etc. While we may be predisposed to favor certain strategies more than others, the more we are able to get in touch with those parts of ourselves and can reconcile the various aspects of our being, the closer we come to integration. This should be the ultimate aim and focus of therapy. Pegging a person as “charming/manipulative, for example, ” is reductionist. It constitutes “retro psychology”, in my view. It does little to advance understanding or lend to true understanding of a traumatized person suffering. Putting people in categories is something that I believe therapists should avoid at all costs. It may make the therapist feel better by feeling they have a sense of mastery or control over the sessions, however, they might be surprised by the clients resistance to their therapists seemingly benign form of manipulation of the therapeutic process. Presence and a sense of safety and acceptance are the most important things any therapist can offer their client.

By: Joanna

Joanna — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:10:12 +0000

Vicky – thank you! And I agree. yes indeed, symbiotic trauma is the underlying issue for pretty much all of us. the pre-natal, post-natal and early years trauma that we experience affects our entire lives and how resilient we are to further trauma as we move through life. This should be absolutely core to the training of therapists, who will need to address their own traumatised selves in the process. There are few places to work on this trauma as conventional therapy cannot access it. The work needs to be holistic, body-centred, gently led. I have been to some of the trauma constellation workshops run by Vivian Broughton and there I have found some answers…

By: Khiron House » Character Strategies – ‘Sensitive-Withdrawn’ And ‘Sensitve-Emotional’ – Dr Janina Fisher’s Insights

Wed, 28 May 2014 14:16:06 +0000

[…] Dr Pat Ogden, describes nine ‘Character Strategies’ outlined last time in our blog Character Strategies introduction that unconsciously shape our perceptions, beliefs, and ways of relating to others. These ways of […]

By: Meera Sharma

Meera Sharma — Tue, 27 May 2014 14:57:00 +0000

Interesting to see the description of Pat Ogden’s work and nine character strategies. As much as I appreciate her in depth study of this subject, I also wonder if this is not reducing uniqueness of human nature and generalizing by putting it into boxes. As a therapist my experience is that the mirror I show to my client is just his/her image and he/she has to decide what they are not happy about, it a journey of empowerment and not for therapist to decide what needs to be fixed by recognizing labels given to them. A therapist who have worked with his/her own shadow side and is comfortable with it, will not have need for these strategies, but it requires much more than mere study of under developed study of psychology, it require self- mastery.

By: Penny Boreham

Penny Boreham — Sun, 18 May 2014 15:43:04 +0000

In reply to Caroline Sewell. Hello Caroline, if you go on to the any of the pages on the blog you can sign up (on the right hand side) for a weekly email about the blog with links to it. Many thanks, Penny

By: Caroline Sewell

Caroline Sewell — Sun, 18 May 2014 08:23:39 +0000

Please send me your weekly blog. Thank you.

By: Vicky

Vicky — Sat, 17 May 2014 18:26:51 +0000

Interesting to see the description of Pat Ogden’s work. In exploring training programs for therapists recently I became very aware that most of the courses designed to treat trauma are post qualifying courses, Yet the recognition that childhood trauma and attachment/bonding problems share similar roots in terms of their effects on the primitive brain and the hyper-reactivity of the autonomic nervous system is evident. The obvious conclusion is that therapists (and counsellors) should be trained in these approaches as part and parcel of their primary training if they are to be effective. So why oh why do most initial therapy trainings continue to focus primarily on talking therapies? I look back now on years of early psychanalytic work. With hindsight, having recently experienced a range of body based approaches (Alexander, Feldenkrais, Shen/Kairos etc) I have finally discovered Boyesen’s Biodynamic Psychotherapy. I have grown to appreciate that the body knows intuitively “where to go” to heal itself and does not lie. Yet our modern world, with its Cartesian Duallism, appears to fear body work to the point where touch is “taboo” presumably for fear that it might be misinterpreted. in the process I believe we potentially deny ourselves access to the very processes that potentially allow real healing to occur at a deep and fundamental level.

By: Denise Shepherd

Denise Shepherd — Thu, 15 May 2014 21:30:19 +0000

I’m interested in reading more. Thanks