“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth,
impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor,
blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice.
Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.”
― Joseph Heller, “Catch-22”
In a piece I wrote some time ago titled “Word Casualties,” I discussed the problem of vagueness and ambiguity frequently present in the vocabulary of our discourse on matters of human identity and behavior. My focus here will be on one particularly aggrieved victim of this phenomenon – the term, “character.” Even in the context of the passage quoted above, in Heller’s shrewd and eloquent delineation of character’s bleakest manifestations, the meaning of the word itself remains opaque.
As much as any word associated with aspects of human psychology, it is certainly the case of character that its meaning is left to inference drawn from the context in which it appears. Character thereby retains its hazy profile, sustained by a tacit, consensual “understanding” among participants across milieus – its presence recognized primarily through certain manifestations in individuals’ outward personalities and behaviors. Typically, observations of character revolve around an individual’s having or lacking it or possessing a good or bad version of it. All the while, despite its omnipresence, the distinct psychological attributes represented by the word “character” remain nebulous; matters of what specifically constitutes it, what processes contribute to it, and how it operates dynamically within the social environment, are largely bypassed.
My purpose, therefore, is to take the word “character” beyond its customary ‘placeholder’ role, to dispel some of the thick fog of ambiguity surrounding its distinct identity among the psychological mechanisms that determine how we human beings operate amongst ourselves. I hope that my attempt to better delineate character will not only identify it more distinctly but also demonstrate its role as the prime determining faculty in individuals’ moment-to-moment interpersonal navigation, thereby defining their presence and impact within their respective cultures and societies. I therefore see no exaggeration in my proposing that a more rigorous understanding of the distinct origins, structure and operations of our character be regarded as indispensable to coherent analysis and resolution of most of the dilemmas, conflicts and crises arising from our interpersonal behavior. In its ubiquity and in the weight of its impact upon our individual and collective experience, character emerges as the central determinant of the very course of our lives, of how we choose to live and interact with others, and how we are regarded by them.
The prevailing ambiguity that instead persists around the meaning of the term, “character” carries very negative real-world repercussions: It obscures our comprehension of its essential origins and prevailing dynamic tendencies, thereby undermining our capacity to confront its most toxic manifestations – particularly present in those operating at the highest levels of political power. A clearer understanding of the specific essence of character has therefore never been more critical in our society than now.
Let’s first consider what we routinely encounter in reference to character within the common vocabulary that describes human affairs, as these are rife with generality. We regularly hear references to a person’s having or lacking “character,” or displaying good or bad “character.” We speak of things as being a matter of “character,” of situations that are conducive to “character building,” or those that reveal a person’s “character.” In clinical/psychoanalytic circles the adjective “characterological” was once commonly evoked, and in the modern culture of Recovery there is much emphasis upon individuals’ recognizing and dealing with their “character defects.” Entire narratives of fiction and drama are described as “character studies” or “character driven.” All the while, a basic question remains hanging in the air: Just what is character?
In these contexts, does the word, “character” suggest an individual’s level of discipline or integrity, the degree of a person’s moral rectitude? Does it represent one’s awareness of, or rigor in relation to, ethical concerns or standards? While such questions may point to manifestations of character key to our identity, they also bypass recognition of its origins and distinct psychological mechanisms. I intend to delineate something of the source and nature of its processes, and thereby disambiguate the specific nature of character from a wide array of closely associated concepts and terms with which it is often conflated. Among them are the terms “temperament,” “personality,” “integrity,” “ethics,” and “morality.
I believe that a more focused understanding of character must recognize its ubiquity by locating its nature and operations within those mental processes that are universally human, that form a “through line” in human psychology, and that are present in individuals within any culture or society, irrespective of its distinct values and ideologies. In these broadest terms, character can be regarded as an observable manifestation of certain psychological mechanisms that operate primarily within our unconscious mind, and that draw upon the basic component faculties of emotion and cognition. Furthermore, while these faculties are rooted in our bio-psychological constitution (Nature), they are simultaneously and continuously shaped and modified by our life experience (Nurture). As an aggregate they continually guide behavioral choices we make on behalf of ourselves in the social sphere at any of the many decision points we encounter in the span of even a single day.
In order to disambiguate character from a key term with which it is often conflated, “personality,” I suggest that the latter is best understood solely as the means by which we represent the internal processes of our character to the world at large – through our facial language, tone of voice, body language, rhetorical choices and our active behaviors.
To further specify my understanding of the processes involved in the development and operation of character, I propose that we must first consider and accept two very basic premises concerning human nature and how it operates within the social environment:
The first premise is that all human beings can be accurately understood as fundamentally and naturally self-centered (Egocentric). This reflects a psychological reality which is that our most direct, immediate and impactful experience is of our own internal physical/mental processes; that gradually we all come to recognize, consciously or otherwise, that we are the primary guarantors of our own survival, and the primary stewards of the quality of our life experience.
The second premise is that while we do operate primarily on behalf of whatever may be our perceived best interests, we rarely, if ever, do so in a vacuum devoid of the presence of other beings or entities. Thereby, each one of the innumerable decisions that we make – largely unconsciously – while navigating the course of even a single day in our lives, has some degree of impact, however imperceptible, subtle or stark, on someone or something outside ourselves.
Thereby, against the backdrop of our natural inclination to maintain competent stewardship of our own survival and quality of life, to attend to the priorities of our Self-interest, continuous calculations within our unconscious mind weigh these basic existential concerns against the consideration of our impact upon persons and things outside ourselves. Over time, the output of these complex reckonings in each moment connect like coordinates on a map to delineate our character.
In service to this continuum the human psyche draws upon the two tiers of psychological resources that are commonly recognized as primary contributors to individuals’ identity. The first is that of Nature – of our innate psychological constitution, largely genetically predetermined, and sometimes termed our “temperament” or popularly described as our “basic wiring.” Among the diverse attributes contributing to identity and rooted in our psychological constitution, those that specifically impact on our character are our capacity for empathic connection, and the intensity of our emotional experience (particularly anxiety), how it ebbs and flows within each of us.
Empathy – the ability to viscerally register the feelings of others as though their internal experience were our own – has a primary role in determining the quality and the degree of our connection to, and awareness of, the “other.” It provides a dimensioned link to others as full human beings, whom we can thus liken to ourselves. Thereby, the depth and breadth of our empathic connection to another (or others), our capacity for regarding others as complete “Selves” who, like us, possess a full range of human feelings, perceptions, and needs is a key determinant of our character. Conversely, an individual’s limited capacity for experiencing others through a sense of deep commonality inclines him/her to what we term, “objectification.” This entails the narrowing down of our perception of others primarily to their instrumental function, their usefulness in serving the priorities of our wants and interests, or validating some aspect of our Self-concept.
Although there is much evidence suggesting that the psychological faculties of empathy are to a great degree a product of genetic predetermination, that the capacity to experience it is not equally distributed among individuals, empathy can also be inculcated and cultivated, particularly in early life. Thus, the second tier contributing to our character formation, that of Nurture, of life experience, enters the picture in a way demonstrated by the following vignette:
A young boy sitting in a sandbox playing with his pail and shovel spots another toddler’s toy truck, takes interest in it, and impulsively reaches for it. At this moment this child’s attentive parent may or may not intervene to point out that the truck belongs to the other child, gently suggesting that he return the truck to its rightful owner. The parent may further put this question to his/her child: “How would you feel if that kid took your pail and shovel from you?”
Nature, our inherited bio-psychological constitution, is also a contributor to yet another key factor in character formation. It determines the overall level of intensity, as well as the onset and dissipation of the anxiety that circulates within each of us. The more intense the anxiety one feels in each moment, the more our attentional priorities are (unconsciously) directed toward meeting our own immediate needs. Conversely, the less the intensity and encroachment of anxiety within us, the freer we are to engage our capacity for empathic connection; thereby, the greater our attention to, and depth of our consideration of the “other.”
As for Nurture, the second tier of the key psychological resources contributing to our character, it encompasses and draws upon our entire history of life experience and received knowledge, which is recorded, stored and continually recalled from within us. Nurture shapes our understanding and expectations of our environment and largely determines how we interpret and meet the demands of our Self-care and Self-defense in the world at large.
Further to this view, modern psychoanalytic theories have come to recognize that many elements of the reality comprising each person’s life history are retained in memory and maintained in the unconscious mind within a broad organizing framework sometimes termed a “Self-narrative” – our continuously evolving life story. The foundation of this narrative is our “worldview,” which in the context of this analysis, can be understood as a deeply held overall perspective that locates us within the world at large. Our worldview is primarily acquired and set early in life; it continually shapes our expectations for ourselves within the broad scheme of life in our cultures and societies.
Our sense of how the world essentially is – generous or withholding, welcoming or hostile, of what possibilities it holds for us, and what place we may have in it – is thus embedded in the foundation of our unconscious mind. It serves as our most basic and enduring reference point in our understanding of the demands of life and of the priorities that will best serve our Self’s story. The following link provides a fuller discussion on my website of the origins and formation of our worldview: https://marcspetalnik.com/performers/#worldview
Over the trajectory of our lifetime, as we navigate the social landscape according to that map which is our individual world view, we are continually guided by an instinct within our primal brain that is connected to whatever feelings of existential insecurity may arise within us. That is to say that in any situation or endeavor in which we sense our vulnerability to failure or to imminent or anticipated danger, we will internally register anxiety (alarm). Moreover, such vulnerability feelings are often based upon and intensified by whatever enduring sense of basic deficiency or defect may be embedded in our experience of Self. The presence of any such fundamental insecurity – of which we may be entirely unconscious, yet deeply vulnerable to – is the very essence of what of what I designate as “chronic shame.” Feelings of shame/vulnerability, signaled to us internally through fluctuations in anxiety (fear) can range from the ephemeral to the persistent and chronic. Thus, the alarm of anxiety can present both as a constant hum within us, and as a strident presence in fraught circumstances. (For a fuller discussion of shame see https://marcspetalnik.com/performers/#shame).
Thus, a very complex integration of factors rooted equally in Nature and Nurture yield our character, as they continuously determine the degree and quality of our connection to others, and determine how and in what contexts we are able and disposed to access it. Together they form a highly subjective psychological “clearinghouse” the essence of character itself – that faculty for calculation within our unconscious mind that mediates between tending to the safety and best interests of our Self, and our consideration of the Other as an equivalent Self.
Throughout our lifetimes, an infinitude of moment-to-moment psychological reckonings thereby delineate our character, placing us at some point within the spectrum of this distinctly human attribute. At one of its extremes, we surrender our appropriate oversight of our well-being, the rights of our legitimate personhood; instead, we decide primarily in favor of our perception of the needs of others and act primarily to meet their needs and demands. At the other extreme of this spectrum, we ruthlessly pursue the fulfillment of our appetites and we primarily serve the realization of our own idealized Self-concept, our Ego, heedless of the full humanity of others whom we inevitably impact.
The essence of our character is then revealed to the world through our complex personalities – through our affect and body language, our communications, and in our choices of behaviors. Our character firmly guides our navigation through life in the social environment; it is the cornerstone of our identity in the world. It positions us within the shared human experience, determining precisely how we relate ourselves to others and the world at large, and how we are regarded within it. Its absolute sovereignty is captured in the famous quote attributed to Heraclitus:
“Character is destiny.”
