CHARACTER and CHARACTER TYPOLOGY. — According to P. Lersch, character may be defined as a complex of particular qualities and forms that reveal themselves persistently in the life of the individual, impressing upon him a personal imprint that can be conceptually defined. R. Le Senne considers character «the totality of innate dispositions that form the mental skeleton of a man» (op. cit., V. BIBLICA., p. 9); he contrasts it with personality, which comprises character together with all those elements acquired in the course of life that modelled it and specified it in the particular manner in which it is actually expressed, as well as the synthetic orientation of these elements. Between the two stands the Ego, an active and free centre, which could have specified, and could still specify, character in a different personality.
Among the dispositions of an individual that constitute character, there exist relations of reciprocal interpenetration (integration) and subordination (structure); hence the unity of character is not to be understood as deriving from a sum of individual parts, but as an organic whole in which the individual elements acquire a particular significance by virtue of being incorporated into a higher unity.
Without altering the content of the various concepts of character and personality set out above, a different nomenclature has been proposed (v. BIOTIPOLOGIA), which would have the merit of conforming more closely to the etymological meaning and common usage of the terms adopted. According to this nomenclature, the word disposition is proposed for the “native state” of the neuropsychological constitution which, in Le Senne’s expression, constitutes the “skeleton” upon which the individual’s true character will develop, rich in elements extrinsic to the physical organism and produced by the work of the environment and the educator, as well as by the self-education that each person exercises upon himself.
General characterology is the psychological discipline concerned with character (or disposition) in its mode of being and acting as connected with the individual’s organic foundation, within the reality in which he is immersed; special characterology studies more particular problems, such as the modalities of individual characters, and defines the features according to which individuals differ from one another. Systematic characterology, or typology, aims to bring together in groups individuals who share a set of particular characteristics.
The problems treated by characterology may be divided into six general categories:
1) Problems directly concerning the fundamental qualities that mark individual characters and the manner in which they are organized in the individual; thus, a study whose object is the structure of character. 2) Problems concerning “types,” that is, the most significant forms assumed by human character, to which individual subjects are then related. The typological problem is a natural consequence of the characteristic problem, since science has the task of reducing the complexity of empirical phenomena to the simplest possible synthesis, and therefore seeks to identify in the individual case those qualities that may subsequently permit its association with other analogous cases. The concept of type in characterology signifies nothing other than a generalization of the structural qualities and personal features that distinguish the individual. 3) A third group of problems concerns the formation of character (genetics) and the importance therein of hereditary factors, operating upon the subject even before birth (endogenous factors), and of factors acting upon him during the postnatal period (exogenous factors). The totality of endogenous factors is usually called “psychic constitution,” an element presupposed in the development of the individual; the totality of exogenous factors is called “environment” and is represented by everything the subject encounters in life (education, the social and family environment, country of belonging, etc.). 4) The problem of the genesis of character must be distinguished from that of its development, which concerns its variations during the successive phases of life (infancy, childhood, adolescence, puberty, youth, maturity, old age), each of which impresses particular features upon the subject’s character, sometimes so dominant that we must ask whether these qualities depend upon the individuality of the individual or upon the age at which he finds himself, should they disappear as he passes into successive stages of life. 5) Another order of problems concerns diagnosis, a task that is not easy and requires considerable training, since one must proceed from the data directly revealed to an intimate nucleus of affects and intentions that are often exceedingly complex to interpret. 6) The final task of the science of character is case study, that is, the collection and clinical and scientific elaboration of individual cases.
Characterology as an autonomous science is relatively recent: the first systematic attempts date back to the end
of the European war of 1914–18, chiefly through the work of German psychologists and psychiatrists—the Kretschmer, the Kroh, and the Ach—and of philosophers: the Klages, the Spranger, and Le Senne. Even before Kretschmer, the Italian constitutionalist school of De Giovanni, continued by Viola, had provided a precise classification of the different constitutions, especially in relation to the typical pathological conditions most frequently corresponding to them. The school of Pende, too, with particular reference to the activity of the endocrine glands, made a substantial contribution to clarifying the problem of psychological typology.
Among modern scholars, Spranger, founder of a human typology based exclusively on psychological characteristics, and the Groningen school of G. Heymans and E. Wiersma are of considerable importance. The latter has the merit of having attempted the first organic systematization in the field of characterology. The documents collected by the two psychologists mentioned above may be divided into two major categories: the first biographical, the other more properly statistical; even today they constitute the most important source of information available to the science of characterology.
The biographical inquiry selected from biographies the distinctive elements of the character of 110 persons of different nationalities, professions, and sexes, drawn both from the field of historical figures and from that of criminals. The persons studied were distributed among the various categories of the classification. The statistical inquiry, on the other hand, was conducted among 2,500 persons of different sexes and ages, using a method of special questionnaires that, through a long series of questions, examined the subject’s manner of behaving with regard to movement and activities, intelligence, organic and psychological inclinations, and the characteristics of affectivity.
According to these authors, a true understanding of character can take place only when the meaning of the relations among psychic activities has first been grasped objectively—a meaning perceived only when these activities are considered as members of a whole. The science itself must then collect the data of experience by an organic method and not limit itself to fortuitous observations, as often occurs in empirical observation.
But in the field of characterology, too, practical knowledge and scientific knowledge must be distinguished without being opposed, and, according to Jaspers, no precise boundary is found between them. In this sense, characterology, within its objective limits, reveals to us what innate determinism places in each of us, without claiming to predetermine individual complexity, since the latter arises from the encounter between character and individual freedom, and characterology leaves aside the values that transcend the individual (Le Senne).
Properly understood, and despite the limitations arising from numerous contradictions on the theoretical plane, characterology has demonstrated, during these years of progressive elaboration, various grounds for individual and social interest, while its present developments make it possible to regard it as being in a phase of positive evolution.
EDUCATION OF CHARACTER. — In pedagogy, the term character can be understood in two senses. In the broadest and most universal sense, as the predominant orientation of a person’s will, his particular way of willing and acting; in this sense, every person has his own character. In the narrower sense, as the habit of acting according to firm basic principles, supplied by the intellect, adhering to them so tenaciously as to produce consistency in all volitions and actions. A person of character, therefore, is one who possesses this property of the will: adherence to the practical principles established by reason.
The fundamental feature of character is therefore given by inner unity, constancy, and decisiveness; and its principal element, above temperament deriving from heredity and from the physical and physiological circumstances that may have acted upon the organic constitution, and above the psychological influence exerted by the social environment in which one lives, lies chiefly, and in a highly predominant manner, in the dispositions of the will; the entire value of character depends upon their quality and strength.
1) Character is not immutable. — Some would defend the theory according to which character remains unchanging throughout life, as it was received from nature, without the possibility of modification through any form of hetero-education or self-education. Carried to extremes, this theory created C. Lombroso’s figure of the “born criminal”: an individual fatally destined for delinquency, despite all contrary efforts attempted by education, social repression, and the internal resistance of the criminal himself. As evidence, popular common experience is adduced, having coined the proverb: “The wolf changes its fur, but not its vice”; or the excuse, “There is nothing to be done, that is how we were made”; or the pretext, “Take me as I am; I cannot be different.” Certainly, it must be admitted that insurmountable limits are encountered in the education of character: every voluntary effort can be exercised only within the line and limits of an innate disposition, and the original organic, psychophysical constitution can neither be destroyed nor substantially modified. Even here, however, a certain education can be exercised with good results. For innate dispositions are like so many materials offered to our activity; this activity cannot alter the elementary possibilities contained in them, but it can reject some, choose others, transform them, and consolidate them into habits. In the sphere, for example, of affectivity (emotion, enthusiasm, aggressiveness, indifference, etc.), although the will cannot introduce modifications into their innermost foundation, it can nevertheless apply them to different objects and thus avoid excesses or deviations and fill gaps.
2) Character possesses plasticity. — Experience and consciousness demonstrate in many ways how character can, and in fact does, become modified by various factors: a) physiological factors: age, growth, way of life, physical exercise, climate; b) social factors: in certain respects, one always remains a person of one’s own time, country, family environment, and profession; c) psychological factors: habits reinforce or inhibit instincts and can be superimposed upon other habits until they cause them to disappear; every idea is effective, possesses a force within itself that is not lost, and exerts its influence; two persons of more or less similar temperament and intelligence will have very different characters according to the different principles that direct them: the political, religious, economic, and moral ideas by which they are governed; every action leaves a trace that facilitates the subsequent action; self-control, which each person can impose upon himself, makes him master of his manner of acting even in its slightest nuances.
All this, therefore, constitutes the field in which educational activity can be effectively exercised; and it can be said that a person is the artificer of his own fortune, succeeds in transforming himself, and can cooperate in transforming others; he can not only learn to direct toward the good forces originally capable of turning toward evil, but also come to increase or diminish these same forces, to suppress energies and impulses or to create them.
3) Means for the education of character. — From what has been said, it follows that four means are required for educating character: a) making the will strong, urging it always and forcefully to will, and proceeding to the actual and continuous execution of voluntary acts; b) subjecting volitions to a stable and permanent rule of conduct; volitions, however ready and intense, are not enough if they remain scattered and, so to speak, dependent upon momentary and passing motives; rather, a fixed rule is needed, one that forms the ideal to be kept constantly and consistently before one’s eyes; c) the higher this ideal is, the more energy and impetus it will provide; d) it must, however, always conform to the moral law.
To put these general means into practice, the following will be useful: a) a profound and vigilant knowledge of oneself, which recognizes tendencies and inclinations, the experiments and remedies to be applied, and actually applies them; b) acquiring the capacity to resonate inwardly with the greatest possible number of the vibrations of others, so as to escape one-sidedness, which makes one obtuse to the understanding of many passions and many motives underlying human actions; c) the daily effort to advance in the battle against the inertia and laziness of nature, the love of comforts, and the tendency to let oneself drift with the current; d) self-denial, which knows how to impose a “no” upon itself, even in the simplest things that are in themselves lawful, so as then to have the strength to repeat “no” when one would otherwise be acting against the moral law; e) knowing how to grasp the value and efficacy of suffering in its many forms. In one respect, suffering can lead to rebellion, or at least to distrust and inaction; but in another, whoever understands and makes good use of it can be led to constancy, a spirit of decisiveness, and heroism.
CATHOLIC RELIGION IN THE EDUCATION OF CHARACTER. — Without taking anything away from human means, the Catholic religion adds others in confirmation and strengthening of them; it: a) offers an extremely lofty ideal, teaching one to transform every action into a service of God the Creator; b) increases the worth of duty, because it makes it be regarded as a disposition of Providence and a means of expiation and reparation, as well as the execution of a clear divine will; c) gives every action the value of an act of apostolate for the coming and greater extension of the «Kingdom of God»; d) bestows Grace, which strengthens nature and renews the energies of the will; e) offers the sacraments of Penance and Communion, which are: the former, a beacon of light; the latter, a flame for the full development of one’s personality.