It is true that I am a little early in my journey of discriminating Object Relations to be teaching others how to illuminate theirs. But I have probably spent just about enough time inquiring into my experience, and witnessing others’ inquiries, to offer some potential insights.
It is very cool that Enneagram students get ushered into teachings about something as fundamental to human psychology as Object Relations. To my knowledge, the only person teaching about the integration between the Enneagram and Object Relations in any depth is Belinda Gore. As Belinda has acknowledged, she stands on the shoulders of A.H. Almaas, Sandra Maitri, Russ Hudson, and Don Riso.
I took classes with Belinda through Deep Coaching Institute in 2020 and enjoyed them very much. However, for probably many reasons – not least the complexity of the subject – I didn’t emerge with a precise understanding of either Object Relations or how my Enneagram Type impacted them. This was prior to my discovery of Inquiry (the spiritual practice), which is the only method I know of for working with Object Relations.
At this point, Object Relations are almost constantly popping in my experience. I am regularly aware of both sides of the Libidinal Object Relation, which, as Belinda teaches, does seem to be a primary one for my Enneagram Type. The Rejecting Object Relation Unit also makes many appearances. The Central Object Relation Unit tends to be the one I am able to discriminate the least.
What I want to offer here are some thoughts on how the Enneagram map supports the systematic work of holding our Object Relations Units in spacious awareness. As I will share, I think we Enneagram students need to get out of the habit of thinking that only one of them is relevant. This just isn’t true.
The “Why Bother” Bit
There is no escape from Object Relations. They seem to persist into the very advanced stages of liberation (i.e., when there is no longer a self). It is worth getting as much clarity as we can about their presence in our experience.
In terms of living the good life, one could be happy with a bit of freedom from the Libidinal and Rejecting Object Relations (the Central Object Relations Unit, as we will see, seems less problematic). But if you are interested in awakening, they’ve all got to go! All the Object Relations Units represent frozen-in-time mental structures that keep us disconnected from our Essential Natures. Personally, I find this increasingly unacceptable.
To contextualize the work of discriminating Object Relations: from the view of the Diamond Approach (which to my knowledge is the only spiritual path that incorporates modern psychological understandings), they are taught as part of the realization of the Diamond Mind, which is connected with the realization of Essential Identity. Object Relations are what “camp out” in the spacious ground of the mind. They are connected with Self-Images, which also occupy Space. To discriminate Object Relations is to support the realization of Space, and subsequently, identification with Essence instead of the Self-Images.
Object Relations are also connected with the development of the Pearl, or the Essential Person (this is discussed in the book, The Pearl Beyond Price). Our Object Relations render us unable to truly relate to others, or we relate to them “one step removed.” There is no genuine contact — we relate through our Self-Images and Superegos.
The different Object Relations are taught throughout the Diamond Approach path to realisation because each one tends to bind up specific Essential Qualities.
- The Rejecting Object Relation Unit tends to operate around our Essential Peace and Power.
- The Libidinal Object Relation Unit binds up essential Nourishment, Joy, pleasure, and appreciation.
- The Central Object Relation Unit binds up our autonomy, Strength, and Merging Love.
And so at a very practical level, working with Object Relations helps to liberate these qualities in our life.
To recognize the three central Object Relations in our experience, we need simply to know about them and bring their lens to our immediate experience.
Object Relations Units (from Mahler, Fairbairn, Kernberg, Diamond Approach)
The theory goes that Object Relations Units are persistent, organizing patterns shaping:
- How we see ourselves.
- How we see others.
- How we interpret and filter interactions.
Example: If you find yourself interpreting “I am not wanted,” the Rejecting Object Relation Unit is active.
There are three components to an Object Relations Unit:
- A Self-representation (or Self-Image).
- An Object (other) representation.
- The Affective (emotional) tone of their relationship.
These form internalized “dyads” (units of self-other-affect) that:
- Unconsciously organize perception, reaction, and relational experience.
- Persist as structural patterns within the psyche, rather than passing emotional states.
We tend to identify with one pole of the dyad depending on personality development. For example, within the Central Object Relation Unit, one may identify as the stable, attuned supporter (Mother side) or as the one in need of support.
The Structures of the Three Core Object Relations Units
Central Object Relations Unit:
- Self: “I am supported, seen, and safe.”
- Object: A stable, reliable, attuned other.
- Affect: Peace, contentment, quiet joy.
- Function: Forms the core ego structure capable of presence, trust, and secure functioning. Holds the psyche together, enabling integration and grounded contact.
Libidinal Object Relations Unit:
- Self: “I am longing, desiring, reaching out.”
- Object: Attractive, desirable, fulfilling other.
- Affect: Excitement, longing, hope.
- Function: Forms structures related to desire, creativity, motivation, love, and connection. When unmet, may structure patterns of craving, addiction, or chronic seeking.
Rejecting Object Relations Unit:
- Self: “I am unwanted, frustrated, or defensive.”
- Object: Rejecting, frustrating, or harsh other.
- Affect: Anger, fear, disappointment.
- Function: Forms structures supporting boundaries, separation, and individuality. When unintegrated, underlies self-rejection, isolation, harsh self-criticism.
Here’s probably the most important sentence in this article: we have all three of these Object Relations Units operating in our psychology – and many, many more!
Origins of the Connection Between the Enneagram and Object Relations
The integration of the Enneagram with Object Relations Theory emerged in the late 20th century as depth-oriented Enneagram teachers anchored typology in psychodynamic frameworks. Claudio Naranjo, a psychiatrist trained in Gestalt and psychodynamic approaches, was central to this development, showing each Enneagram Type’s structure reflects early relational dynamics.
In his book, Character and Neurosis, Naranjo analyzes each Enneagram Type through Object Relations lenses. As far as I am aware, he does not explicitly label “Libidinal, Rejecting, Central” Units (these terms come from Almaas’ integration of Mahler and Kernberg’s frameworks within the Diamond Approach).
Significantly, Naranjo connected the Types’ Passions with specific Object Relations Units, demonstrating how and why it is that we experience some Object Relations more than others.
Type Passion and Dominant Object Relation Unit
1 Anger (Resentment) – Rejecting Object Relations Unit: Frustration with imperfection
2 Pride – Libidinal Object Relations Unit: Desire for love and value
3 Vanity (Deceit) – Central Object Relations Unit: Need for connection via image
4 Envy – Libidinal Object Relations Unit: Longing for ideal connection
5 Avarice – Rejecting Object Relations Unit: Need for boundaries and withdrawal
6 Fear (Anxiety) – Central Object Relations Unit: Seeking support and safety
7 Gluttony – Libidinal Object Relations Unit: Pursuit of fulfilment and variety
8 Lust – Rejecting Object Relations Unit: Assertion and autonomy
9 Sloth (Inertia) – Central Object Relations Unit: Merging for peace and stability
More on how this works for each Enneagram Type:
Type 1 (Anger, Rejecting):
Frustration with world/self for unmet standards. Defensive rejection of “impurity.” Anger organizes the self to reject inner impulses and outer imperfections.
Type 2 (Pride, Libidinal):
Longing for connection drives focus on others’ needs. Desire to be indispensable fulfills libidinal longing for love/value. Pride defends against emptiness of unmet longing.
Type 3 (Vanity, Central):
Maintains connection via achievement and image. Seeks approval to stabilize self. Vanity ensures connection/support by being valuable to others.
Type 4 (Envy, Libidinal):
Longing for ideal love/beauty/value that feels missing. Envy arises from the absence of fulfilling libidinal connection. Organizes around perceived lack in self while idealizing others.
Type 5 (Avarice, Rejecting):
Withdrawal/withholding to protect from frustration and depletion. Defensive separation maintains boundaries and autonomy. Avarice protects against rejection and depletion by controlling engagement.
Type 6 (Fear, Central):
Seeks support and safety in relationships or structures. Anxiety reflects fear of losing stable connection. Organizes around dependency or defiance to maintain safety.
Type 7 (Gluttony, Libidinal):
Pursuit of experiences/ideas to seek satisfaction. Gluttony fulfills libidinal desire and avoids pain of limitation. Structures perception around possibilities promising fulfillment.
Type 8 (Lust, Rejecting):
Asserts intensity and control to avoid vulnerability. Structures experience around pushing against perceived limitations. Seeks aliveness while protecting autonomy.
Type 9 (Sloth, Central):
Merges with others/environment to maintain connection and peace. Avoids conflict and assertion to preserve stability. Sloth defends against loss of peace/disruption.
The Influence of Instinctual Drives on Object Relations
I have not heard it discussed explicitly, but I am noticing that instinctual drives profoundly shape and influence Object Relations.
Instinctual drives (Self-preservation, Sexual, Social) are a source of libidinal energy and life force. They determine what we seek (Libidinal Unit); how we protect ourselves (Rejecting Unit); and how we maintain stability and connection (Central Unit).
When distorted by fear or compulsion, they can warp relational perception:
- Self-preservation distortion leads to chronic vigilance, scarcity anxiety. Excessive perception of threat may undermine Central object and reinforce Rejecting structures.
- Sexual instinct distortion leads to fear of engulfment and shame around desire, disrupting Libidinal relations and creating cycles of idealization/devaluation.
- Social instinct distortion leads to hyper-vigilance around status/belonging, with others seen as judges or validators. This may skew the Central Unit and fuels Rejecting patterns against perceived social threats.
The above is speculative. My point is that Instincts are the energetic undercurrent of a lot of our relational habits, and Object Relations structure and interpret instinctual impulses. This means that in practice, working with Object Relations benefits from an understanding of our core type and instinctual stack.
Here is a (highly speculative!) mapping of how instincts might shape the dominant Object Relation Unit.
Enneagram Subtypes and Object Relations
Type 1 (Reformer)
Core dynamic: Frustration, anger repressed into perfectionism.
SP 1 (“Worry”): Rejecting (toward own needs/imperfection), Central Object Relations Unit (‘ORU’) overshadowed by harsh inner critic.
SX 1 (“Zeal”): Libidinal (idealization of partner/mission), Rejecting ORU surfaces with disappointment, Central ORU less stable.
SO 1 (“Non-adaptability”): Rejecting ORU (toward others not living up to ideals), Central ORU overshadowed by resentment.
Type 2 (Helper)
Core dynamic: Pride, helping to earn love.
SP 2 (“Privilege”): Central ORU somewhat accessible (caretaking), Libidinal ORU (need to be needed) dominates.
SX 2 (“Aggression/Seduction”): Strong Libidinal ORU (fusion seeking), Rejecting ORU when rejected, Central ORU overshadowed.
SO 2 (“Ambition”): Libidinal ORU (seeking admiration/status), Rejecting ORU when unappreciated, Central ORU weak.
Type 3 (Achiever)
Core dynamic: Vanity, identification with image.
SP 3 (“Security”): Central ORU partially present (pragmatism), but Rejecting of own deeper needs.
SX 3 (“Charisma”): Libidinal ORU (attraction), Central ORU overshadowed by performativity, Rejecting if intimacy risks image.
SO 3 (“Prestige”): Libidinal ORU (seeking recognition), Central ORU overshadowed, Rejecting ORU when image is threatened.
Type 4 (Individualist)
Core dynamic: Envy, longing for what is missing.
SP 4 (“Tenacity”): Libidinal ORU (yearning), Rejecting ORU dominant under deprivation, Central ORU overshadowed.
SX 4 (“Recklessness/Intensity”): Strong Libidinal ORU (romantic fusion), Rejecting ORU when disappointed, Central ORU least accessible.
SO 4 (“Shame/Competition”): Rejecting ORU (toward those with what they lack), Libidinal ORU underneath, Central ORU weak.
Type 5 (Investigator)
Core dynamic: Avarice, withholding to preserve resources.
SP 5 (“Castle”): Rejecting ORU dominant (withdrawal), Central ORU overshadowed, Libidinal ORU repressed.
SX 5 (“Confidence”): Libidinal ORU (intensity with chosen other), Rejecting ORU surfaces for control, Central ORU unstable.
SO 5 (“Totem”): Libidinal ORU toward knowledge/mentors, Rejecting ORU toward intrusions, Central ORU less active.
Type 6 (Loyalist)
Core dynamic: Fear, seeking security and certainty.
SP 6 (“Warmth”): Central ORU partially active (bonding), Rejecting ORU under suspicion, Libidinal ORU for safety.
SX 6 (“Strength/Beauty”): Libidinal ORU (seeking strong allies), Rejecting ORU quickly when trust issues arise, Central ORU unstable.
SO 6 (“Duty”): Libidinal ORU (seeking authority/community), Rejecting ORU if trust breaks, Central ORU overshadowed.
Type 7 (Enthusiast)
Core dynamic: Gluttony, avoiding pain through planning and stimulation.
SP 7 (“Keeper of the Castle”): Central ORU partially present (practicality), Libidinal ORU for comfort/experiences.
SX 7 (“Fascination”): Strong Libidinal ORU (pursuit of ideal experiences/partners), Rejecting ORU when bored, Central ORU least stable.
SO 7 (“Sacrifice”): Libidinal ORU (seeking community/ideals), Central ORU overshadowed, Rejecting ORU when limitations appear.
Type 8 (Challenger)
Core dynamic: Lust, asserting control to avoid vulnerability.
SP 8 (“Satisfaction”): Central ORU partially present (groundedness), strong Rejecting ORU, Libidinal ORU less obvious.
SX 8 (“Possession”): Strong Libidinal ORU (intensity in connection), Rejecting ORU when betrayed, Central ORU often unstable.
SO 8 (“Solidarity”): Libidinal ORU for tribe/cause, Rejecting ORU toward opposition, Central ORU overshadowed.
Type 9 (Peacemaker)
Core dynamic: Sloth, merging to avoid conflict.
SP 9 (“Appetite”): Central ORU somewhat active (comfort), Libidinal ORU for soothing experiences, rejects conflict.
SX 9 (“Fusion”): Strong Libidinal ORU (merging with partner), Central ORU overshadowed, rejects conflict indirectly.
SO 9 (“Participation”): Central partially present, Libidinal ORU for harmony, Rejecting ORU when overwhelmed.
In summary, it is possible that Instincts influence Object Relations as follows:
- SP: Emphasizes safety and comfort (Central or Rejecting ORU depending on type).
- SX: Drives intense fusion or idealization (Libidinal ORU).
- SO: Orients toward social belonging and loyalty (often Central ORU but can reject outsiders).
However, it is important to remember that Object Relations Units are dynamic: they fluctuate within individuals depending on internal state and relational context.
Final Thoughts
Sadly for all of us, Object Relations Units are not transcended by insight alone. They require patient, attuned self observation and awareness, along with compassionate Inquiry. Recognizing the units in real-time supports the realization of Spaciousness and frees trapped Essential Qualities. This also enables direct contact with reality and others without Self-Image mediation.
The Enneagram map helps reveal where these structures are active, supporting clarity in advanced psychospiritual practice. It isn’t really controversial that some Object Relations are more dominant than others in our experience. The extent to which this is determined by our Enneagram Type or dominant Instinct, versus the early holding environment, is where you will discover the conflicting views. The proof (and the truth), as they say, is in the pudding.
I hope that this article contributes something useful to the exploration.
I have found that you cannot make a wrong turn if you ground your inquiry in your immediate experience. For example, when you notice yourself obsessively thinking about something or seeking it (Libidinal), get right inside that experience:
- How does it feel to be that wanting, longing, desiring self?
- How does the “yummy” object look?
- What about when you are the “yummy” object, how is that?
Follow those questions, and they will likely take you towards some patterning from your early relating to caregivers, and then hopefully – eventually – to the various states of deficiency that the Object Relations and Self-Images are protecting.