The Idea Of personality In Systemic And Enactive Approaches
Personality theories have strongly permeated the knowledge of psychology, psychiatry and mental health throughout history.
Among other elements, from these points of view It is assumed that people articulate their way of being around a series of traits that constitute it , and that they would be relatively stable over time. Let’s see in principle some basic elements of them.
A first assumption of many of these theories is that personality would be made up of a central core composed of temperament and character While the first would have to do with biological and genetic conditions, the second would have more to do, in simple terms, with the learning of the ways of being of each person throughout their life history.
In line with the above, there are a series of traits (many of them dichotomous) around which personalities are constituted, such as the extroversion-introversion continuum, openness to experience, etc.
From this point of view, It has come to be assumed that there are personalities that could be categorized as disordered In the most widespread psychopathological diagnostic manuals, such as ICD 10 or the DSM, they were grouped according to certain similarities in some of the characteristics of said disorders. According to these definitions, personalities are often considered disordered due to the type of suffering they generate, as well as the degree of difficulty they may have in integrating into society and human relationships in general. There are also other points of view with more focus on the structural aspects of it.
Independent of the theory, as can be seen, an element that transcends most points of view, is positioned from the idea of a relative permanence and invariability in the ways of being Psychotherapeutic work would then largely be about making certain aspects of these traits more flexible, lowering the levels of suffering in terms of their adaptation in society and allowing more harmonious ways of existing.
All of these points of view have undoubtedly been a contribution of enormous proportions in the search for relief for many people and have been a basis for the way of approaching mental health from the point of view of many professionals and consultants. But they also have certain risks or critical aspects that need to be taken care of. Some will be reviewed below.
From the point of view of general systems theory, they are constituted based on certain basic and universal principles, regardless of their type. One of its main elements assumes that they are synergistic , that is, its totality is different from the sum of its parts. This synergy emerges in the interaction of its components or subsystems, which are interdependent and differentiated from each other. This applies to human groups or systems as well.
The first critical element that emerges from this perspective to the idea of personality is that the way of being (or the way of becoming) of each person, is always in reference to your interaction and interdependence with others From this approach, as we belong to several systems at the same time and also at different times, it is impossible to even be the same person at all times or to have permanent central elements that define us as such.
From the point of view of the Enactive Theory of the Chilean author Francisco Varela it is thought that we are emerging in a constant and inevitable change in interaction, manipulation, co-creation and encounter with the world around us.
Considering this innovative perspective, it is assumed that it is impossible to find elements of permanence that transcend time and the different historical moments and spaces in which we develop as human beings. At most, we could make certain apparent distinctions about things that seem permanent or transcendent to us, but even then they could not be defined as the same.
The impacts of these points of view and others that follow the same line are radical if they are considered in the practice of psychotherapy, first of all, because they presuppose that every person can change and is inevitably changing permanently. And it is in that change where the relief or search for meaning of the consultants could occur, more than in a flexibility or adaptation of its features to concepts of normality or adaptation
It is important to mention in any case that each of the theoretical approaches mentioned, whether they are closest to the idea of the existence of personality or systemic-interactional ones, is positioned from ontological points of view (concept of a human being) and epistemologically ( point of view on the relationship we have with reality) different and none is more true than another. Probably, the usefulness and success of one or the other in a consultation process has more to do with the particular needs of each consultant and the type of relationship or alliance established with the therapist than with its truth value in itself.
