In relation to work, characters are divided into two groups: active and inactive. The first group is characterized by activity, purposefulness, perseverance; the second group is characterized by passivity and contemplation. But sometimes the inaction of the character is explained (but not justified) by the deep internal contradictions of a person who has not yet "decided", who has not found his place in life, in the collective.
The brighter and stronger a person's character is, the more definite his behavior is and more clearly in various actions his individuality acts. However, not all people's actions and deeds are determined by their personal peculiarities. The behavior of some people depends on external circumstances, on the good or bad influence of their comrades, on the passive and non-initiative implementation of individual instructions of managers and supervisors. These employees are referred to as "uncharacteristic".
Character cannot be considered as a fifth, as it were, side of the overall dynamic structure of the individual. Character is a combination of internally interconnected, the most important individual aspects of a personality, features that determine the activity of a person as a member of society. Character is a personality in the peculiarity of its activity. This is the closeness with abilities (we will consider them in the next lecture), which also represents a personality, but in its productivity.
In conclusion, I would like to talk about the essence of such an important category in the personality structure as character, and before proceeding to the consideration of the character classification, I would like to tell about two variants of disharmonious relations between character and personality, having illustrated them by the examples of two Russian autocrats, taken from the works of the remarkable Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky.
The first of these examples - the subordination of a person to the character, the uncontrollability of the character - is illustrated by the description of Paul I.
"The character <...> is benevolent and generous, inclined to forgive grievances, ready to repent of mistakes, a lover of truth, a lover of lies and deception, caring about justice, a persecutor of all kinds of abuse of power, especially humanly and bribery. Unfortunately, all these good qualities became completely useless both for him and for the state due to the complete absence of measure, extreme irritability and impatience of unconditional obedience. <...> Considering himself to be always right, he stubbornly kept his opinions and was up to the point of irritability from the slightest contradiction that often seemed completely out of his mind. He was conscious of this and deeply saddened by it, but did not have enough will to defeat himself" [131, pp. 239-240].
The second example is the absence of a personality, the substitution of its character, that is, the presence of developed forms of external manifestation in the absence of internal content - the Empress Catherine II.
"She was capable of tension, intense and even impossible work; therefore, she seemed to herself and others to be stronger than herself. But she worked more on her manners, on the way she treated people than on herself, on her thoughts and feelings; therefore, her manners and treatment of people were better than her feelings and thoughts. Her mind was more flexible and receptive than depths and thoughtfulness, more straightforward than creativity, as in all her nature was more nervous than spiritual strength. She was more loving and able to lead people than to do things. <...> In her friendly letters <...> she seems to be playing a well-learned role and a prank of humor, made by wit in vain, trying to cover the emptiness of content and tension of the presentation. The same traits are found in her treatment of people as in her work. Whatever society she's in, whatever she's in, she's always felt like she's on stage, so she's done too much to show off. She herself confessed that she liked to be in public. The circumstances and impression of the case were more important to her than the case itself and its consequences; therefore, her manner of action was higher than the motives that inspired them; therefore, she cared more about popularity than usefulness, and her energy was maintained not so much by the interests of the case as by the attention of the people. Whatever she intended, she thought more about what would be said about her than about what would come out of the case. She valued the attention of her contemporaries more than the opinion of her offspring... There was more fame in her than love for people, and in her work more brilliance, effect than greatness, creativity. She will be remembered longer than her deeds" [131, pp. 49-50].
Thank you for reading to the end! If you like the article, subscribe to the channel!