In his
essay “Head Case”, Menand brings up an interesting thought: “We
think that sucking it up, mastering our fears, is a sign of
character. But do we think that people who are naturally fearless
lack character? We usually think the opposite. Yet those people are
just born lucky.” This sentence implies a whole lot more. The same
idea can be transferred to virtually all other properties, not just
fearlessness. Think of a scientist's intelligence, an artist's
creativity and skillfulness, a singer's strong voice, a political
leader's charisma or a model's beauty—innate properties, things
that one has or doesn't have. It's nothing that can be acquired. The
same applies to all the character traits we admire in others: their
generosity, industriousness, willpower, bravery, good taste or high
moral standards. This leads to a number of questions: What is
instinct, and what is achievement? Are people still admirable if we
see all of their skills and attributes as nothing but the luck of
just being like that?
And finally: if character is only a matter of insouciant instinct,
can we condemn those who don't have it?
Imagine
scientists scientists were to discover that there are genes for all
the virtues people usually aspire for themselves and admire in
others. As a result, we would most likely see people with different
eyes. Instead of saying “I admire you for your generosity”, we
might hear sentences like “You're so lucky to have such a prominent
generosity gene!” We would admire people for their achievements,
for the things they do in spite of their genetic predisposition—and
not for those things that are just in their genes i.e. their
instincts. In turn, persons who lack character would come off better:
It is not their fault that they are without those instincts that we
regard as “good”. The only thing that they could be approached
with is the fact that they don't fight against their nature and
actively try to achieve what they instinctively lack.
A
couple of problems arise as soon as we see things this way: For
example it is obviously impossible to tell whether an action is
induced by instinct or by something higher than that—even with
ourselves, let alone with others. Apart from that, this principle can
be carried infinitely far. With this idea in mind, one could say that
Gandhi didn't manage to win the independence of India because he was
an amazing personality with a strong character. No, he just happened
to be born with a preference for non-violence. Or he was actually a
very militant personality who just managed to supress his true nature
because he happened to be born with a strong ability to do so. Seen
from this perspective, there is nothing truly great in this world
anymore. All reason to admire and all reason to be proud is deprived
of their basis.
In the
fifth chapter of “Walden”, Thoreau admires the innocence and
wisdom that is expressed by the eyes of young loons. With this, he
turns the whole thing around: Thoreau doesn't wonder whether we can
admire what is only instinctive, innate behaviour. Instead he
acknowledges admirable virtues to animals and therefore implies: even
the most obviously instinctively controlled creatures are admirable
for the bravery, intelligence and spiritual depth that is expressed
in their instinctual behavior.
Personally,
I think that our character might to some extent be composed of our
instincts only. Yet much more helps to form it: our personal
experiences, social background, and moral ideals. It is impossible to
differentiate a person's character traits into “instinctive” and
“achieved”. After all, we can change fundamentally—and this
implies that we can influence our character to a great extent.
Works cited:
Menand, Louis. "Head Case". In: The New Yorker, 2010. Web. 19 January 2014 <http://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/www/news/imported/pdf/April10/NewYorkerPsychiatry.pdf>
No comments:
Post a Comment