Published by The Royal Bank of Canada

The Strength of Character

The concept of personal character hasre-emerged just when it looked as if itmight have been forgotten. That was close:

Let us never again ignore what has beencalled "man’s greatest need."

[] After Gary Hart’s relationship with a youngwoman hit the front pages of newspapers last year,an unfamiliar word began to appear in the politicalcolumns. It cropped up again when another aspir-ant to the presidency of the United States, SenatorJoe Biden, plagiarized part of a speech made byBritish Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock a fewmonths before.

The word was "character," as it applies to per-sonal standards of behaviour. Since it had not beencommonly used in that sense for many years, youn-ger readers could be forgiven for wondering whatthe columnists were going on about.

To those with some idea of what it meant, thespectacle of personal character becoming an issuein late 20th century American politics seemedanachronistic. It took one back to the Victorian era,when people in the English-speaking countries werevery pernickety about all things, especially abouthow they and others comported themselves. Thebooks of that time were strewn with references tocharacter; in many, the building or loss of it was thecentral theme.

Why did the journalists of today reach back forsuch an old-fashioned term? Presumably becausethey could find none better to express what theywere trying to get at. They could have written abouthonour, integrity, veracity, constancy and moralfibre, but they still would have been writing essen-tially about character. And, having employed allthese words, they still would not have conveyed pre-cisely the thought they had in mind.

The concept of character is exceptionally difficultto pin down. Dictionaries fail to define it in all its

nuances. In some cases, they only succeed in addingto its elusiveness: one, for example, calls it "moralqualities especially, the reputation for having such."

Anyone who has given the subject more than afew moments’ thought is likely to conclude thatreputation is just what character is not. At best,a reputation is to a person’s character what a funhouse mirror is to a person’s body, casting back adistorted vision of the reality. At worst, it can bethe very opposite of the truth: "He that hath thereputation of an early riser may sleep till noon," asthe 18th century London critic Richard Bentleyobserved.

How many times have all of us witnessed publicfigures of hitherto impeccable repute being exposedas liars, libertines or shysters? Treated to such reve-lations, members of the public are bound to specu-late on how many other reputations for uprightnessare about as upright as the false fronts on a movieset.

Even when there is some substance behind it, areputation can never be more that an incompleteconjecture, since no one can know everything aboutthe inner nature of another person. None of us isas good as our admirers think we are, or as bad asour detractors say we are. The most we can do aboutour exterior image is to try actually to be all we arecracked up to be if the image is favourable, and tryto demonstrate that it is mistaken if it is unfavoura-ble. "You and I cannot determine what other menshall say or think about us. We can only determinewhat they ought to think of us and say about us,"the American author J.G. Holland wrote.

"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of

you," says the Gospel According to St. Luke. Thepoint here seems to be that, as wise actors know,it is dangerous to believe your own publicity. In theglow of unearned good repute, people are apt to fallprey to self-delusion, and think that they can getaway with anything. Others who want too badly for"all men to speak well of them" come to care moreabout outside opinions than their own actions. Thatway lies moral cowardice.

While it can never be said that how others seeus does not exert a certain discipline on how we act,what Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet remains thebasic rule: "This above all -- to thine own self betrue/And it must follow, as the night the day/Thatthou canst not then be false to any man."

Being true to yourself is anything but easy if themoral standards of your associates conflict withyours. The herd instinct is strong in the humananimal, and the phrase "everybody else is doing it"has an insidious attraction. To resist what "every-body else" is doing is to risk being ostracized byyour peers, and it is normal to dread rejection. Noth-ing takes more strength than swimming against thetide.

And moral strength is not something you justhappen to have, like the physical or intellectualstrength you might have been born with. Rather itis the strength of the erstwhile 90-pound weakling,who builds it up himself through hard work and theexercise of will. The concentration of mind and spiritthat must go into the making of character explainswhy it is frequently equated with quality. It is likethe work of a fine craftsman -- a manifestation ofdiligence, care and self-respect.

’Temptation’ signifies morethan the name of a perfume

While one’s upbringing may supply the tools forshaping character, the work that must go into itmust come from the individual. Our parents andteachers relinquish the responsibility for what sortof persons we will become quite early in our lives.From then on, it is strictly up to us.

Never has that responsibility been heavier thanit is on young people in western countries today.The permissiveness of the culture exposes them toa cavalcade of temptations -- drugs, alcohol

promiscuous sex, and easy money for some. "Temp-tation" is another old-fashioned word which shouldbe understood to mean more than the brand nameof a perfume. Not only does it surround young peo-ple, but there is more pressure than ever on themto "go for it," as they themselves would say.

It is an axiom of both theology and psychologythat all human beings have a stronger and a weakerside to their personalities. Temptation is a kind ofmagnetic force which seeks to draw out the weak-nesses that dwell in us all. It sets up an inner strug-gle between our worse and better natures. "Menought not to say, ’How strongly the devil tempts,’but ’How strongly I am tempted,’" the famousAmerican clergyman Henry Ward Beecher wrote.

We have gone from excusingothers to excusing ourselves

Unfortunately, the behavioural motto of thetimes seems to be "the devil made me do it." In oursecularized society, the devil is not a near-humanfigure with fox’s ears and a long forked tail, but acombination of social and psychological factorswhich are supposed to deprive people of control overthemselves. The great pundits of the age are poppsychologists who write best-selling books tellingreaders not to be too hard on themselves if they sur-render to temptation. These experts dismiss thesaving grace of guilt as a mere "hang-up" whichpeople should try to expunge from their minds.

The theory that you should fight back guilt fitsin neatly with another trendy theory that you some-how have an inalienable right to indulge yourself.Our economy has become heavily dependent on sell-ing things to consumers that will add to their pleas-ure and ease. A fair proportion of current advertis-ing carries the message that "you deserve a break"-- life is tough, so go ahead and pamper yourself.Fine, but what happens when this message isextended to things like drugs, alcohol and casual"love" that falsely promise relief from the psycho-logical hardships -- hardships which peoplethroughout the ages have had to endure withouthaving a "quick fix" so close to hand?

What happens is that you get a society like theman Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter once knew whose

"weakness is ... weakness." We are much more toler-ant of human frailties than people ever were in thepast. Normal members of society are conditionedto excuse the transgressions of those who are una-ble to restrain themselves because of abnormalitiesin their psyches or circumstances. The trouble, itseems, is that many normal people have taken thisa dangerous step further and started excusingthemselves.

The television news any evening when theweather is fair will show a picture of a society thatfeels awfully hard-done-by. Demonstrators may beseen pointing the finger of recrimination everywherebut at their own breastbones. Given this publicmood, it is easy enough for individuals to slip intothe feeling that the problems they encounter arereally not their fault, but that of institutional insen-sitivity and bungling. This is a reversal of the atti-tude of such traditional thinkers as St. Bernard,who wrote: "Nothing can do me damage, exceptmyself. The harm I sustain I carry with me, and Iam never a real sufferer but by my own fault."

In a society without sin,there are only ’mistakes’

The fact that most of us sympathize with thepoor souls who can’t control themselves presentsa temptation to people who can to jump on thebandwagon. If we can feel sorry for others, whycan’t we feel sorry for ourselves? People who dohave it in their power to rectify their situation withan effort of will should be careful to reserve theirsympathy for the less fortunate. For when self-sympathy is in, self-restraint is out; and self-restraint is the first line of defence against makinga mess of one’s life.

If popular culture is any indication of the atti-tudes of a period, the trends evident in books, films,and television these days are quite disturbing. Verylittle self-restraint is shown by the anti-heroes andanti-heroines who act out fictional representationsof late 20th century life. They have few or no scru-ples about how they get what they want, be itwealth, power, the gratification of their passions,or their own interpretation of justice. "If you wouldunderstand virtue, observe the conduct of virtuousmen," Aristotle urged. It would be difficult to fol-

low this advice if one were exposed only to what ispurveyed in the entertainment media today.

In post-Victorian times, youngsters read novelswhich propounded the lesson that the road to suc-cess was paved with industry, honesty andintegrity. The lesson they receive from televisiontoday is more likely to be that money really can buyhappiness, and that there is no percentage in beingoverly scrupulous about it is obtained. The old-fashioned heroes were motivated by a challenge totheir character. The glamorous figures on the tubetoday are motivated by a lust for power and greed.

Being filthy rich has proved to be an insufficientcredential for Ivan Boesky to make the proclama-tion that "greed is good;" he was convicted forcrooked stock trading after he said it. Boesky not-withstanding, greed remains on the list of the sevendeadly sins, which are not really sins as such, butgrave character flaws. The others are pride, lust,anger, gluttony (which incorporates habitualdrunkenness and drug-taking} sloth and envy. Adda couple of other prohibitions of ruthless dealingdescribed in the Bible as "oppression of the poor"and "defrauding the labourer of his wages," and youhave an excellent set of guidelines as to what any-one who aspires to be a person of character shouldavoid.

When the majority of people of all ages in Canadaand other western countries attended places of wor-ship regularly, such guidelines were prominent inthe public consciousness. Preachers could tell theircongregations what not to do, and why not. Wor-ship and prayer were, people knew, designed todeliver them from temptation. Guilt and censureplayed a powerful role in seeing to it that peopletried to stick to the straight and narrow. Mostacknowledged a social imperative to conduct them-selves decently.

Now that religious observance has fallen off, itis not unusual to find people who have no basicgrasp of good and evil. Their ignorance of theground rules has been furthered by the amoralpseudo-scientific approach to behaviour which saysthat vices are the product of psychological disorderswhich can be corrected by external treatment, theobverse being that they cannot be corrected by aninternal effort of will. Small wonder there are plentyof people around these days who believe that noth-ing is particularly wrong unless it is illegal. After

all, if humans are not responsible for their actions,there can be no sinners. If there are no sinners, thereis no sin; there are only "mistakes."

Whether they actively worship or not, personsof character adhere to age-old universal religiousprinciples. They bind themselves not to break orwriggle out of promises or contracts. They contrib-ute money and time to the common welfare. Theyhelp the needy. They respect other peoples’ feelingsand rights.

The hope of humanity comesdown to ’right in the soul’

All these acts tacitly recognize the individual’sobligation to the community, without which therecan be no real civilization. Places where such civilobligations are not generally acknowledged areprone to revert to barbarism. Where lying, cheat-ing, and contempt for the person are the rule, theliars, cheats and bullies take over. The weakest andpoorest members of the population are exploitedand oppressed, because they cannot stand up to thebullies or pay the bribes necessary to obtain essen-tial services. This is the very opposite of a humanis-tic system which seeks to establish fairness andequity among the stronger and the weaker -- thekind of system to which most Canadians aspire.

How well a nation which values moral principleslives up to its ideals is crucially dependent on theprinciples of the individuals who comprise it. In aliberal democracy, those who hold the potentiallyexploitive and oppressive power do so only by pub-lic delegation. The public’s insistence that moralprinciples be observed is what prevents that powerfrom being abused.

Since democracy is "government of the people,by the people, for the people," it follows that themoral qualities of the state and of the people areinseparable. No one is exempt from either contribut-ing to the quality of the state or detracting fromit, as the case may be.

It further follows that if high standards ofintegrity are not upheld in every avenue of thesociety -- business, the professions, the arts, edu-cation, even sports -- we can hardly expect the stan-

dards in politics to be any higher. There is, in fact,an unhealthy tendency to make politiciansscapegoats for social ills we have helped to bringupon ourselves. Citizens are always calling upongovernments to "do something" about problemsthat arise from mass attitudes, and berating themfor being so lacking in leadership that they let thoseproblems emerge in the first place. Instead of look-ing to our legislative bodies for causes and solu-tions, perhaps we should look more to the mostimportant institution of all in our society -- every-body’s home.

It is largely in the home that attitudes are estab-lished and examples are set. People who consciouslyact with fairness, honour and moral couragetowards those immediately around them go someway towards counteracting the corrosive influenceon character of the outside world. Those who do con-duct themselves this way glean unsought personalrewards in the form of being able to respect them-selves and being respected by others. Their liveshave meaning, the lack of which is such a commoncause of psychological disturbances. This meaningextends beyond their time on earth through the per-petuation of good example. "The noblest contribu-tion which any man can make for the benefit ofposterity is that of good character," the Americanstatesman R.C. Winthrop wrote.

"Not education, but character, is man’s greatestneed and man’s greatest safeguard," the Englishphilosopher Herbert Spencer declared. He used theword "man" in the generic sense, meaning allhumanity. The formula for why this should be sowas advanced by another philosopher, Lao Tsu, inthe 6th century B.C.: "If there is right in the soul,there will be beauty in the person. If there is beautyin the person, there will be harmony in the home.If there is harmony in the home, there will be orderin the nation. If there is order in the nation, therewill be peace in the world."

So the future of man depends on "right in thesoul" -- but how does it get there? Philosophershave argued for centuries over whether we are bornwith it, or whether we develop it as we go along. Ineither case, one point is beyond dispute -- it canonly be maintained with an effort. It must be exer-cised if it is not to wither. And exercise is somethingwhich, fundamentally, you can only do on your own.