The Ethical Dimension of Psychoanalysis: A Dialogue

CHAPTER THIRTEEN Character and Virtue

CHAPTER THIRTEEN Character and Virtue THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CHARACTER The analytic psychology of character evolved through early formulations in terms of libido theory, later additions in structural terms, and later still in terms of the organization of the self. “Character” came to refer to the unique integration of structural constituents reflecting more-or-less enduring qualities of the personality as a whole rather than specific psychic agencies. As Francis Baudry (1989) noted, the concept “enables us to talk in a nonreductionistic fashion about certain global issues relating to self, style, identity, and family interactions” (p. 655). In general usage, of course, “character” has more than one meaning. We recognize literary or dramatic characters; we may refer to our relatively eccentric friends as “characters.” Even within psychoanalysis, different connotations are subtly included or excluded. In the hands of many analysts, the term is stripped of any moral or ethical implications—as implied in the standard definition of “character ”: “The enduring, patterned functioning of an individual. As perceived by others, it is the person’s habitual way of thinking, feeling, and acting. Understood psychodynamically, character is the person’s habitual mode of reconciling intrapsychic conflicts. Character stands beside, but may be differentiated from, other terms for global aspects of personality, such as identity , self, and ego” (Moore and Fine 1990, p. 37). This usage circumvents any ethical connotations, as when we speak of someone as a person of character , or allude to someone’s good or bad character. Character in the latter sense refers more directly to characteristic ethical qualities and dispositions, virtues, vices, and values1 that persist in the individual’s patterns of thought, feeling, and action. Superego has a role in character formation. Otto Fenichel (1954) commented : “The functions of the conscience are a very important component of the character of personality. Very characteristic for a personality are 267 (a) what he considers good and what bad; (b) whether he takes the commands of his conscience seriously or not; (c) whether he obeys his conscience or tries to rebel against it, etc.” (p. 206). From a more empirical perspective, Robert Hogan (1973) observed that, while character was a fundamental issue for Freud, moral psychology can account for neither delinquency nor altruism without appeal to moral character. Also, society usually defines dispositions and traits of character in moral terms; in other words, “Character is defined not by what a person does, but by his reasons for doing it, by the recurring motives and dispositions that give stability and coherence to his social conduct” (p. 219).2 PSYCHOANALYTIC CONCEPT OF CHARACTER Psychoanalytic ego psychology included character and character traits among properties of the ego, acting in concert with superego and ego-ideal. Many analysts continue to attribute character to the ego, but as Baudry (1984) sagely noted, it becomes “necessary to interprete the term ego as referring to the individual as a whole. It would make little sense to attribute attitudes (i.e., a subjective, introspective term) to a structure” (p. 457). Thus character is not attributed to any of these structures separately, but more appropriately involves all of them operating synchronously. This calls for a more encompassing frame of reference, which in my view is better realized by the concept of the self as supraordinate structure synonymous with the human person (Meissner 1986c, 1993, 1996a, 1999d,e, 2000e).3 Erich Fromm, among others, drew attention to the ethical relevance of character. His view of conscience as humanistic implied confrontation and struggle with issues related to love, responsibility, productivity, autonomy, and freedom. The principal locus of ethical relevance was not action, but character, which underlies the individual’s modes of behavior and orientations to life. Character formation depended on patterns of relations to others, the world, nature, and oneself. Fromm formulated a series of character types reflecting productive versus nonproductive patterns of dynamic and sociocultural integration of personality—nonproductive forms included authoritarian, receptive, exploitative, hoarding and marketing characters (Fromm 1955).4 Fromm (1947) saw these patterns of character integration as forms of failed or deviant personality development largely responsive to cultural and social determinants. In contrast, the productive character served as his ethical ideal, free of the chains of alienation and irrational authority (Fromm 1955), and clearly meant to be evaluative and normative (Hegeman 1994). Productive man uses powers of reason, imagination and love to enhance his or her sense of assimilation and social 268 Character and Virtue Character and...