4 December 15, 2010 + Over the Edge The Meaning of Character Different definitions of character can lead to many missunderstandings PAUL STRICKLAND CONTRIBUTOR ONLINE SOURCE Paul Strickland is a local author from Prince George ‘Much is said about character in political campaigns, in the hiring of teachers and college instructors and in religious institutions. Sometimes the variations in meaning of the word can lead to misunderstandings. In the best sense of the word, character means the ability to stand by your rational principles in making any decisions affecting the public good or the well being of your family. The concept includes the strength not to be swayed by offers of money or by inappropriate or irrelevant desires. Another more or less positive idea of the word is the ability to set out on a new and bold course of action, unconcerned by uninformed criticism, or the courage to express your well reasoned views without concern about negative reactions. Some supporters of the kind of rugged individualism that prevailed before the Great Depression of the last century would praise some crusty old businessman who didn't care what people thought of his views as “a real character.” People who endorsed this form of unregulated capitalism feared that the New Deal in the United States and social- democratic changes in other countries had destroyed this kind of interesting character and had created a corporate culture that promoted public-relations-oriented yes men who gave . only bland answers to the questions of the day that had been prepared for them by the company’s communications office. | don’t agree with these people. However, | know the kind of classic old-fashioned capitalist character they refer to, and these titans of industry and publishing could say and do interesting things and sometimes even contribute to the common good. On the other hand, while character is often said to be what people are looking for in a politician, anyone with really interesting views or an alternative lifestyle is at a disadvantage from the outset of a political campaign. If you can’t pose with a Christmas- card spouse and family living in a fashionable suburb, your chances of being elected are limited. Also, one is supposed to be involved in so many service-club and charitable activities to prove one’s character as a community-minded person there is no time for thought and reflection or for reading important books on urban planning, economics or foreign policy. The conventional idea of character in this context tends to include the concept of “tireless volunteer”. The kinds of political candidates who tend to get elected are Babbitts who are frequently lacking in imagination. In elementary and secondary education character too often means complete conformity both inside the classroom and in the outside community. The guardians of character among administrators and in superintendents’ offices model pursed-lip disapproval of any unusual views among teachers, while too many teachers themselves discourage independent thinking in the classroom and criticize students who “read ahead” in the textbook past the assigned topic of the day. Of course, the dulness of some courses in faculties of education tends to discourage intellectually independent people from choosing that field. There is also an atmosphere of suspicion in the school system. Robert Maynard Hutchins, the great innovative president of the University of Chicago in the 1930s and 1940s, wrote that teachers are often watched and controlled as if they were potential criminals in a way that, say, pharmacists, auto mechanics or farmers are not. In his book American Fascists, Chris Hedges has written that some strait-laced evangelical organizations say that proof of character requires that teachers and administrators be constantly interrogated about their personal lives by committees that meet their approval. in universities the situation is little better. Thesis and dissertation committees often keep graduate students on a short leash intellectually. Different views can later lead to bad letters of so-called recommendation in one’s file. Too often by the time one gets tenure, one has been worn down into typical academic conformism. The tyranny of political correctness severely limits opportunities to express new opinions, and disagreeing with some favoured groups can lead to censure or worse. The kind of atmosphere prevailing at too many universities discourages the building of character in the positive sense of the word. St. Paul said suffering and adversity build character, and this concept was taken to an extreme by Friedrich Nietzsche, who, while an opponent of Christianity in his adult life, said, “What does not kill me, makes me stronger.” This idea of character may have its place during times of war or occupation by a totalitarian power, but to make suffering a test of character in peacetime leads to a joyless society of guilt and to the fear that one should never complain or seek improvements in society for fear of being considered a weak person who “can’t take it”. Often legitimate concerns are considered invalidated if it can be demonstrated that someone somewhere else has suffered more. We must address suffering in our society and do what we can to alleviate it, but it should not be used to discourage people from improving their own lives or seeking some time aside for happiness in pursuing their own projects. Meaningful debate means using properly defined terms. Character is one such term that requires good definitions and detailed discussion. Much in our political and intellectual life depends on it.