Above: the diagram (speculative) shows a distribution of factors in personality as defined by Horney, allocated between points. At a higher level this is suggesting alienation from self is a core process, with idealized image and anxiety (=3,6: image, fear) as basic forces that enter at the ‘shock points’. 2,5,8 would be the ‘poster’ children for the main ‘trends’ – 5 (detachment) is closely related to questions of basic anxiety (adjacent 6). 2/3 align around an idealized image being adopted to justify a moving-towards approach, while 3/4 align around the split between idealized image and discontent due to being unable to realize it.
For a long time I’ve found various psychological systems interesting in their differences – one might emphasize self-esteem, another anxiety, a third childhood programming, another sexual instincts, etc. For the most part, I’d considered this represented psychological theories being drafted by different ‘types’ – each building a theory around their type’s passions and mental blueprint without quite understanding the diversity possible.
Leaving that question aside, in this model I will take one particular model – that of Karen Horney – and think somewhat about how it relates to the enneagram. An area of interest here is how some of her ideas compare to some of the “Fourth Way” ideas (cf. last post).
Karen Horney’s theories are generally fairly well-known to enneagram enthusiasts, as they include a division of people into ‘Going Towards’ (Compliant), ‘Going Away’ (Withdrawn) and ‘Going Against (Aggressive), which is partly borrrowed and modified in construction of the ‘Horneyvian groups’ – 126 compliant, 378 aggressive and 459 withdrawn – used by e.g. Riso-Hudson and Hurley-Donson.
Horney herself started with Freudian analysis, but disagreed with Freud’s ‘libido’ theory and formed her own theory. Her work was inspired significantly by her own work with patients, with her ideas being published in ‘Self-Analysis’ (the patient ‘Claire’ in that, a ‘compliant type’, is IIRC reputed to be based on her own self-analytic work), and more fully in ‘Our Inner Conflicts’ and ‘Neurosis and Human Growth’.
Our Inner Conflicts is publicly available here: https://archive.org/details/OurInnerConflicts
Her theory deals with ‘neurotic’ patients but she would adds that this means ‘the patient to the extent they are neurotic’ – even normal people can have some degree of neurotic tendencies, making her ideas partly applicable to them, as well as it being applicable to ‘severe’ cases.
In outline, she believed that people grow in an environment of anxiety which leads them to form coping strategies – Towards, Away or Against others. Despite there being a primary approach, other approaches are also present, generating ‘conflicts’ between different desires. An idealized image forms which substitutes for real self-esteem and also helps to reconcile different aspects of the self – showing them as facets of a complex personality rather than contradictions. The idealized image however causes a degree of detachment from the ‘real self’, as well as self-hatred when its ideals can’t be reached (“the idealized image and self-hatred are inseparable..they are two aspects of one process”).
Her work on the ‘compliant type’ is particularly good (she identifies with this as her primary orientation, as is perhaps evident in her Adolescent Diaries – though I have only seen part of these – she deals somewhat with the difficulty that is seen around realizing what one genuinely feels vs. what is needed to gain approval, e.g. in Self-Analysis). This occasionally may differ somewhat from what we’d expect for a Two (?) – where she discusses feminist psychology e.g. in ‘The Distrust Between the Sexes’ this seems to be quite cynical and so perhaps with some intuitive focus on ‘hidden intentions’ – or could just be a result of her relationship troubles up until this point. She has some flair for discerning motivations, doing dream analysis, etc. She notes that the compliant type ‘lives in dread of desertion’ [matching 6 reputed ‘basic fear’ of abandonment], and her description of the compliant type does emphasize that in contrast with the aggressive types, compliant types are likely to feel inferior or guilty, which again might match 6 better than 2, ‘pride’ – although this is debateable. She does explicitly mentions ‘freedom’ – a Two concept – though e.g. in reference to the ‘withdrawn’ type.
Types in her model
As discussed by Riso, her basic Toward/Away/Against model was something she broke down into more specific types e.g. aggressive into the aggressive-vindictive type , the aggressive-narcisstic type , the aggressive-perfectionist  type; or withdrawn as the withdrawn – detached , and withdrawn – shallow living [9?] types [detailed in Neurosis and Human Growth]. She also discusses an “elusive type” [7??] which has failed to form an idealized image [“vicious one moment, sympathetic the next…you can never pin them down to any statement, they deny having said it or assure you they did not mean it that way..nothing is quite real to them”].
Note that Riso had moved the ‘perfectionistic’ type to be a compliant type to mesh with his overall structure. Her discussion of the types is interesting. Note that she seems to particularly highlight the lack of trust of the aggressive-vindictive type as a core problem for it. The ‘aggressive’ types have particular themes around the idealized image – e.g. the narcissistic type taking the view it is its idealized image, while the ‘perfectionistic’ type is almost there and thus trying to whip itself toward it. Compliant types in her view instead identified with the ‘despised’ image (IIRC).
Hurley-Dobson’s model, which builds on Riso’s, assigns a ‘repressed centre’ to each – aggressive – repressed feeling centre, withdrawn – repressed instinctive centre, compliant – repressed intellectual centre; in contrast to this, Horney particular emphasizes the ‘withdrawn’ type as having alienation from feeling:
“There is a general tendency to suppress all feeling, even to deny its existence….The rejection of feeling pertains primarily to feelings toward other people and applies to both love and hate. It is a logical consequence of the need to keep at an emotional distance from others, in that strong love or hate, consciously experienced, would bring one either close to others or into conflict with them. “.
Her description matches Five as seen through the Narrative approach (i.e. Palmer + Daniels, Condon) fairly well, however.
While Horney’s system is typological to an extent, it also very much emphasizes that people use a mix of approaches, with problems resulting due to ‘inner conflict’ between those. She briefly lists a number of case studies of neurotic patients [of which, tentatively, we could say “X” is perhaps most likely a 2w3, “Y” a 5w6, and “Z” an 8w9]. See appendix at end of article.
Horney vs. Jung
Given MBTI and related ideas’ use around typology, its interesting that Horney is specifically critical of Jung:
Jung also placed considerable emphasis on the opposing tendencies in human beings. Indeed he was so impressed with the contradictions at work in the individual that he took it to be a general law that the presence of any element would of necessity indicate the presence also of its opposite. An outward femininity implied an inward masculinity; a surface extraversion, a concealed introversion; an outward preponderance of thinking and reasoning, an inner preponderance of feeling, and so on. Up to this point it would appear that Jung regarded conflicts as an essential feature of neurosis. However, he goes on to say that these opposites are not conflicting but complementary—the goal is to accept both and thereby approximate the ideal of wholeness. To him the neurotic is a person who has been stranded in a one-sided development. Jung formulated these concepts in what he called the law of complements. Now I, too, recognize that the opposing tendencies contain complementary elements neither of which can be dispensed with in an integrated personality. But in my opinion these are already outgrowths of neurotic conflicts and are so tenaciously adhered to because they represent attempts at solution. If, for instance, we regard a tendency toward being introspective, withdrawn, more concerned with one’s own feelings, thoughts, or imagination than with other persons’ as an authentic inclination—that is, constitutionally established and reinforced by experience—then Jung’s reasoning would be correct. The effective therapeutic procedure would be to show the person his hidden “extravert” tendencies, to point out the dangers of one-sidedness in either direction, and encourage him to accept and live out both tendencies. If, however, we look upon introversion (or, as I prefer to call it, neurotic detachment) as a means of evading conflicts that arise in close contact with others, the task is not to encourage more extraversion but to analyze the underlying conflicts. The goal of wholeheartedness can be approximated only after these have been resolved.
Her three-fold model perhaps comes closer to explaining relatively rareness of ‘introverts’ (1/3 population based on whether people are withdrawn, against, or toward, vs. the 1/4 of the population for MBTI), although perhaps shouldn’t be extrapolated down to the function level (e.g. to suggest two forms of each ‘extraverted’ function).
Horney’s own type is unfortunately unclear… I’d love to know. Riso as far as I know does not speculate on this, although he talks at length in the ‘Loyalist’ [Six] description about Sixes’ as having inner conflict between compliant and aggressive traits in their personality, that might suggest he would think 6 for her. I am not entirely certain of her type – wavering at times between 2w3, 6 or 9. She discusses ‘Externalization’ as a defense mechanism (perhaps suggesting its hers), but this is not a known mechanism mapped by Naranjo. Arguably her system is based around “Pride” (the key trait of Two) and perhaps Vanity (=2w3), but she does mention ‘basic anxiety’. In addition, she also emphasizes alienation from self and inner conflicts, which seem like potentially Nine concepts: she would see procrastination, lack of enthusiasm, indeciseness as due to conflict between the various personality aspects, generating a lack of movement because competing priorities are in 180-degree conflict such that ‘no solution is feasible’; a worse position that Freud’s in that wishes are not just frustrated but not able to wish for anything to begin with, barring a miracle capable of resolving all competing priorities. “A spurious tranquilly rooted in inner dullness is anything but enviable”.
Literature Analysis Notes (from elsewhere on this blog)
Examining other literature to search for types with similar structures to what she predicts (to guess her type) is also tricky. In terms of comparative cases found in literature, Ende (3w4, I believe) showed some of the same sort of psychic structures as she predicts – hopelessness, idealized image important, and overt mentions of the three main drives – with Bastian wanting supremacy, to be loved, and also wishing for wisdom/detachment; interestingly Ende as a German from the same era perhaps comes from a similar cultural background.
An idealized image similar to what she suggests has also been seen in probable 9s as well – Clifford D. Simak’s “Werewolf Principle” has a man who also contains an alien computer (withdrawn) and a werewolf-like alien (aggressive), or Watt-Evans’ “Cyborg and the Sorcerors ” has a man with a computer controlling him, and a ‘combat persona’ that kills when attacked. (Note both Ende and Simak have case studies on the blog here). Louise Cooper, also case studied (2w3) could be argued to have strong ‘compliant type’ tendencies and some sense of self-alienation coming through in her work.
Comparisons with Gurdjieff’s ideas
There are some definite parallels between Gurdjieff’s ideas of ‘considering’ (see last post) and the Horneyvian ‘compliant type’; he talks about considering as being based on ‘requirements’, whereas she talks about expectations being set or justified by the idealized image.
While Gurdjieff discusses the idea of ‘conscience’ as being repressed in people, as a result of ‘buffers’ which attempt to stem inner conflicts [“if a man realized he loved what he hated and hated what he loved, that he lies when he tells the truth and tells the truth when he lies, then that would be conscience”]. Comparatively, Horney discusses neurotic ‘blind spots’ about obvious inner conflicts. Whereas he says people are ‘asleep’, she likewise suggests that people have a tendency to ‘drift’ along without making clear decisions, avoiding choices that are too difficult. Both (in common with many other systems), take the ‘real self’ as a sort of living core present in people; her work seems to imply therefore that conversely there is a ‘surface’ layer that’s not as real, though she doesn’t overtly name this outer layer of being (what Gurdjieff would call “personality”).
Appendix – Extract of Case Studies
*For convenience here’s an extract of case studies of X, Y and Z from Our Inner Conflicts- examples of how different ‘trends’ conflict (in example of how these influence idealized image):
The predominating aspect of X’s conflict was compliance—a great need for affection and approval, to be taken care of, to be sympathetic, generous, considerate, loving. Second in prominence was detachment, with the usual aversion to joining groups, emphasis on independence, fear of ties, sensitivity to coercion. The detachment constantly clashed with the need for human intimacy and created repeated disturbances in his relations with women. Aggressive drives, too, were quite apparent, manifesting themselves in his having to be first in any situation, in dominating others indirectly, occasionally exploiting them, and tolerating no interference. Naturally these tendencies detracted considerably from his capacity for love and friendship, and clashed as well with his detachment. Unaware of these drives, he had fabricated an idealized image that was a composite of three figures. He was the great lover and friend—incredible that any woman could care more for another man; nobody was so kind and good as he. He was the greatest leader of his time, a political genius held much in awe. And finally he was the great philosopher, the man of wisdom, one of the few gifted with profound insight into the meaning of life and its ultimate futility.
The image was not altogether fantastic. He had ample potentialities in all these directions. But the potentialities had been raised to the level of accomplished fact, of great and unique achievement. Moreover, the compulsive nature of the drives had been obscured and was replaced by a belief in innate qualities and gifts. Instead of a neurotic need for affection and approval there was a supposed capacity to love; instead of a drive to excel, assumed superior gifts; instead of a need for aloofness, independence and wisdom. Finally and most important, the conflicts were exorcised in the following way. The drives which in real life interfered with one another and prevented him from fulfilling any of his potentialities were promoted to the realm of abstract perfection, appearing as several compatible aspects of a rich personality; and the three aspects of the basic conflict which they represented were isolated in the three figures that made up his idealized image.
Another example brings into clearer relief the importance of isolating the conflicting elements. In the case of Y the predominant trend was detachment, in a rather extreme form, with all the implications described in the previous chapter. His tendency to comply was also quite marked, though Y himself shut it out from awareness because it was too incompatible with his desire for independence. Strivings to be extremely good occasionally broke forcibly through the shell of repression. A longing for human intimacy was conscious, and clashed continuously with his detachment. He could be ruthlessly aggressive only in his imagination: he indulged in fantasies of mass destruction, wishing quite frankly to kill all those who interfered with his life; he professed to believe in a jungle philosophy—the gospel of might makes right, with its ruthless pursuit of self-interest, was the only intelligent and unhypocritical way of living. In his actual living, however, he was rather timid; explosions of violence occurred under certain conditions only.
His idealized image was the following odd combination. Most of the time he was a hermit living on a mountaintop, having attained to infinite wisdom and serenity. At rare intervals he could turn into a werewolf, entirely devoid of human feelings, bent on killing. And as if these two incompatible figures were not enough, he was as well the ideal friend and lover.
We see here the same denial of neurotic trends, the same self-aggrandizement, the same mistaking of potentialities for realities. In this instance, though, no attempt has been made to reconcile the conflicts; the contradictions remain. But—in contrast to real life—they appear pure and undiluted. Because they are isolated they do not interfere with one another. And that seems to be what counts. The conflicts as such have disappeared.
One last example of a more unified idealized image: In the factual behavior of Z aggressive trends strongly predominated, accompanied by sadistic tendencies. He was domineering and inclined to exploit. Driven by a devouring ambition, he pushed ruthlessly ahead. He could plan, organize, fight, and adhered consciously to an unmitigated jungle philosophy. He was also extremely detached; but since his aggressive drives always entangled him with groups of people, he could not maintain his aloofness. He kept strict guard, though, not to get involved in any personal relationship nor to let himself enjoy anything to which people were essential contributors. In this he succeeded fairly well, because positive feelings for others were greatly repressed; desires for human intimacy were mainly channeled along sexual lines. There was present, however, a distinct tendency to comply, together with a need for approval that interfered with his craving for power. And there were underlying puritanical standards, used chiefly as a whip over others—but which of course he could not help applying to himself as well—that clashed headlong with his jungle philosophy.
In his idealized image he was the knight in shining armor, the crusader with wide and unfailing vision, ever pursuing the right. As becomes a wise leader, he was not personally attached to anyone but dispensed a stern though just discipline. He was honest without being hypocritical. Women loved him and he could be a great lover but was not tied to any woman. Here the same goal is achieved as in the other instances: the elements of the basic conflict are blended.