The Schindler's List hidden Psychology Lesson
This article is not about about WW2, the Holocaust or Nazism. While all of these are among the most important topics of the 20th century, I think they are not the only reason Schindler’s List is a movie worth watching (in fact it is considered one of the 10 best movies ever).
Epic movies like that are universal. They portrait human behaviors that can be recognized on every individual, at anytime. I think one of the reasons behind this, is that the main characters of this Steven Spielberg’s movie were created to represent each one the centers of the Enneagram (which is one of the models for the human psyche).
While many movie makers use this or other similar techniques in order to define and build the characters, for me, Schindler’s List is more about this than anything else.
Don’t mind if you don’t understand (or believe) in these concept. I propose you to (re) watch the movie and them came back to this article and continue reading. While doing so, try not to focus on the historical events of this particular plot or who is playing the good or the bad roles — let this for the history documentaries.
After watching the movie, and before getting at any details, you may have already noticed that the movie is very character centric. A good amount of the time it is about presenting the three central players (Schindler, Stern and Göth) and showing the interaction between them.
I have summarised below their characteristics:
Schindler (Emotion): Focused on his own success right from the beginning (what hopefully changes during the process). Very emotional role, worries to be seen better than others (even his own father). Typically not focused on the details but on the results. Communicative and typically able to avoid or fix conflict situations.
Stern (Reason): Mind the details, as to be expected by a bookkeeper. Acts passively and tries to avoid the situation at first, acts behind the scenes later. Remains cold most of the time, ignoring the bad situations around him, while relentlessness continue to operate the hidden plan.
Göth (Instinct). Very physical and fast minded character. Like to look after himself (as much as Schindler), but do not avoid discussions or confusions. While extremely violent, at the end his pragmatism for exchanging Jews for money is what saves the day. Also protects Schindler’s on his sober moments.
Again, if you already started wondering in which of these stereotypes you fit best, do not get fixed in the Nazi context or the Jew saving crusade. The three characters engage on multiple lies, corruption and bad decisions. The “good” Schindler bankrupts a company, and the “rational” Stern deceives Nazi officials during the whole movie.
I think the perception of these stereotypes is important for you to understand what of the main forces (emotion, reason and instinct) is stronger on you. And how this drive your strengths and weaknesses. It also helps you understanding why people are so different. It is never a right or wrong or black or white frame (just like the movie, it is mostly grey).
While these forces have a profound impact on individuals, I also find it very interesting to analyse corporations by the same perspective. Companies — being lead by human beings and not yet by machine learning bots — tend to behave like their leaders. Managers usually hire people similar to them.
Take, for instance, two technology companies, Apple and Google. While competing on the same market in some areas, they “feel” and “behave” very differently. You can google for the personalities of their and many other CEOs and reach your own conclusions.
All three stereotypes are equally imperfect and it is natural that we all want to improve and combine the best characteristics of each one. For both people and companies, age and maturity play an important role in making the borders between these groups more blurred. We can always seek for some equilibrium — or at least more diversity.
I think we can find some of these good models for that on the movies as well, but that is probably going to be a subject of another article.
