For Reich (1972, p. 200), the restriction in movement (“freeze”) is actually brought about by the Ego (realistic element of self) in recognition that new environments can’t be handled if the armor remains in place. In fact, the new environment is likely to trigger an even greater strengthening of the armor:

Through the armoring, therefore, the ego receives a· certain strengthening. At the same time, however, and precisely as a result of this, the ego’s ability to act and its freedom of movement are curtailed. And the more the armoring impairs the capacity for sexual experience, the more closely the ego’s structure approximates that of a neurotic, the greater the likelihood of its future breakdown.

Thus, we see that character armor remains in place as a result of not just the challenge offered by instinctual impulses (functions of Freud’s Id) but also recognition by realistic elements of one’s internal psyche (functions of Freud’s ego) that change and the movement to new environments will often make things even worst.

Given these reinforcing, homeorhesis dynamics, it is easy to appreciate the resistance of someone with strong character armor to embark on a journey of change. Why venture to Oz and its many challenges when it is quite adaptive to remain fully protected in the forest.  I would suggest that the challenge to change is even more daunting for those people who cloth themselves with armor as part of their job.

The Armor of Uniforms and Roles

Sometimes, we see armor that people display in quite visible ways. They are wearing uniforms and are often engaged in roles that relate to safety and life-and-death issues. They are police officers, firemen, members of the military, physicians, and judges. We want to see them in uniform and are at least mildly disconcerted when they are in “civilian” clothes.

There is even the armor of the C-Suite. The men are “required” to wear coat-and-tie. There are the comparable tailored dress or pants suits for female execs. It is only the renegade software executive of Silicon Valley who can wear polo shirt and tan pants. It should be noted that the armor can be abandoned on casual Friday. Nowadays there is also the “anything goes” (at least below the waist) attire when working at home and communicating via Zoom.

The armor of those providing safety and treatment, as well as those in the C-Suite, seems in one sense to be very appropriate and justified for these men and women from diverse professions and occupations. It is a matter of collusion: we want these uniformed men and women to be error-free. They must at least pretend to be error-free. Better yet, wearing the armor, they come to believe themselves that their decisions and actions are error-free.

They need to reduce (perhaps even eliminate) their own cognitive dissonance: I must believe that I make no mistakes. Otherwise, as someone who is imperfect, I am undeserving of this uniform and the people’s trust in me.  Those in uniform are vulnerable to vulnerability (the shattering of their image). Who do they turn to for help – other members of their same role group? Unformed people tend to hang around uniformed people. What about those who rely on the uniform? They are also vulnerable and need to ensure that they can trust the competence and intentions of those in uniform.