I’ve been posting on the topic of character disturbance not only on this blog, but on other international blogs. Readers from across the globe have offered several intriguing comments and questions. Because I think a robust discussion on this topic is so important, I’d like to address some of the issues raised in this post.
One comment I was particularly struck by was from Sarah: “Freud’s was the dominant form of thinking and understanding of the day and today’s dominant thinking may be something [much different].” She also noted that all of our scientific metaphors about the nature of the human condition tend to be inadequate and that “the reality [of the situations we try to describe] always escapes the categories.”
Ultimate realities are most often fairly incomprehensible and equally hard to describe. In the end, scientific “truths” are really metaphors. They can seem almost poetically correct in a particular era or circumstance and then completely inadequate or archaic in another. A great example is the differing explanations two true geniuses gave for the phenomenon of gravity. Newton explained it as a “force” between two objects, and Einstein explained it as distortion or curvature in the fabric of “space-time.” It seems that while Einstein’s explanation better accounts for almost all of the latest findings of physics, Newton’s equations will do just fine when you’re trying to navigate from the earth to the moon. Every metaphor has its strengths and weaknesses. Problems arise when we get so married to our metaphors that we don’t accept their limitations to adequately explain or deal with certain phenomena. Such is the case with Freudian and similar classical metaphors about human nature and individuals best described as having significant disturbances of character. When it comes to really understanding these folks, the schools of thought that were really developed to understand and treat “neurosis” are inadequate.
Sarah also rightfully cautions that whatever metaphors and labels we employ, we should be careful not to merely “demonize” people. I do think that some could be tempted to view character disturbance as more an indictment of a person as opposed to a more accurate description of their affliction. But my intention in the series of articles I’ve been writing on character disturbance is not to cast a negative light, but rather an illuminating light on a very real and pressing psychological reality primarily affecting the advanced, industrialized, free world. Even Freud’s theories were prone to cruel demonizing, though they were not seen as doing so at the time. “Cold,” detached and indifferent mothers were soundly blamed for creating autistic babies. Mothers who gave conflicting messages to their children were blamed for fostering schizophrenia. Even young girls who were probably molestation victims were blamed for making up some of their memories out of their unconscious “lust” for their fathers. I could go on. It’s only because most of the most demonizing and abominable tenets of Freudian theory have been soundly rejected and abandoned (though most of its tenets are still accepted) that it appears a much more a benign and humanistic paradigm than the paradigms that have emerged in recent years to address the phenomenon of character disturbance.
Evan interestingly commented: “Manipulation and so forth are usually our best efforts to survive, I think.”
I make it a major point in all my workshops and writings that even though traditional psychology tends to view most of us as fearful runners, human beings are mostly fighters, spending infinitely more time and energy in their daily lives fighting for the things they want or think they need. Fighting is a fundamental instinctual instrument of survival. And fighting underhandedly and stealthily, which is what manipulation is all about, is just one of the ways we learn early on to advance our interests. As I note in my book, In Sheep’s Clothing, the problem is not so much that we fight in so many different ways, but that if we’re to function in non-abusive ways and to maintain a healthy social order, how we fight really matters. In the end, fair, principled, constructive, and respectful assertion is more adaptive than manipulation.
Gabriella asked if the categorization of character disorders doesn’t in fact parallel the DSM categorization of the “Cluster B” personality disorders. There is some very real overlap there, but there are some key differences also. Ultimately, the neurosis vs. character disorder distinction is a continuum that represents a dimension of personality. And some personality types (including some Cluster B personalities) tend to lie further toward the character disordered end of the spectrum. I’ll be addressing this further in future posts.
Several comments made it clear that many still seem to equate the concepts of personality and character. As I have written in prior posts, I think it’s important to keep a distinction between these two terms and to use the term character to apply to those aspects of an individual’s personality that reflect their degree of moral, and ethical integrity (i.e commitment to virtuous social conduct). So, it’s important not to confuse a character disorder and a personality disorder. There are some personalities, however, that tend to be far more disturbed in character than others. They will be the subject of future posts.
