“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 all individuals, 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.
Nonetheless, persistent ambiguity encircles the use of the term, “character;” with it comes subtle, yet quite negative real-world repercussions, as those common, offhand mentions of the word fail to impart any sense of character’s origins, its development, and its prevailing dynamic tendencies. This vagueness undermines our capacity to effectively confront the most extreme and toxic manifestations of character – particularly those present at the highest levels of public life and political power. A clearer understanding of the specific essence of character has therefore never been more critical in our society than now.
Let’s consider how character is routinely referenced within the common discourse 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” is still 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?
Use of the word “character” in these diverse contexts may suggest an individual’s level of discipline, of integrity, or degree of moral rectitude. It may represent one’s awareness of, or rigor in relation to, ethical concerns or standards. While all describe certain observable manifestations of our character in our personalities and behaviors, such references bypass recognition of its distinct psychological origins and mechanisms. My intent is to identify something of formative bases of character and of its specific processes, thereby to disambiguate its identity from a wide array of those closely associated concepts and terms with which it is so often conflated. Among them are the terms “temperament,” “personality,” “integrity,” “ethics,” and “morality.
I believe that a more rigorous understanding of character must reflect its ubiquity by locating its nature and operations within a framework of mental processes that are universally human, that form a “through line” in human psychology, and that are present in individuals within all cultures or societies, irrespective of their distinct values and ideologies. Further to that, and in the most general sense our character can be understood as a manifestation of certain psychological calculations that operate primarily within our unconscious mind, drawing upon the basic component mechanisms of emotion and cognition, and primarily observable in our personality and behavior. The components of character determine our awareness of ourselves in relation to others, and our capacity to be fully accountable to ourselves for our choices of behavior and its impact upon all things beyond us. Furthermore, while these faculties are rooted in attributes of our heritable bio-psychological constitution (our Nature), they are simultaneously and continuously shaped and modified by our life experience (Nurture). As an aggregate they continually determine the 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.
To further specify my understanding of the processes involved in the development and operation of character, I propose that we 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 basic psychological reality which is that our most direct, immediate and impactful experience is of our own internal physical/mental processes. Moreover, we all gradually 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 or obvious, 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, there are continuous calculations within our unconscious mind that must weigh these basic existential concerns against the consideration of our impact upon persons and things outside ourselves. Over time, these complex reckonings of each moment produce our choices of behavior that 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 degree and quality of our awareness and consideration of the “other.” It provides a dimensioned link to others as full human beings, whom we can liken to ourselves. Thereby, the quality of our empathic connection to another (or others), of our capacity for experiencing 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 with limited capacity for experiencing others through a deeply felt sense of commonality inclines him/her to what we term, “objectification.” This entails a narrowed feeling and perception of others, defined primarily by their instrumental function, their usefulness in serving the priorities of our wants and interests, or in validating some aspect of our Self-concept.
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 we feel 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.”
There is much evidence in research that suggests 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. Nonetheless, and particularly in early life, empathy can also be inculcated and cultivated. Thus, a second tier contributor to our character formation- that of Nurture, of life experience, enters as a strong determinant of character, 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?”
Nurture, the second tier of the key psychological resources contributing to our character, 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 it continuously determines the degree and quality of our connection to others, and determines how and in what contexts we are able and disposed to access these connections. Together they produce a highly subjective psychological “clearinghouse,” the essence of character itself: Our 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.
Moreover, the essential processes that produces character operate continually within our individual psyches as well, their workings manifest most clearly in the presence and quality of our capacity for a full spectrum of self-awareness, and from that, our sense of accountability both to ourselves and to others for any problematic or negative impact we may have upon other individuals or our social milieu.
Throughout our lifetimes, an infinitude of moment-to-moment psychological reckonings thereby determine our character, placing us at some point within the complex 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, our body language, our communications, and in our choices of behaviors. Our character thereby 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.”
