From “character” to “personality” to “trauma” and (maybe) back again

Here are some initial thoughts

In our therapeutic culture, are we moving from “character” to “personality” to “trauma” and (maybe) back again?

I'd love to hear your musings.

CHARACTER

Character is connected to action (DOING): Our grandparents and great-grandparents would talk about someone’s character based on what they did, that it was good or bad (or somewhere between).

Character is often thought to be connected to moral and ethical qualities and values. But what this really means is that character has to do with what we do and who we are becoming according to the practices, community, and tradition we are part of. Character is relational and is known through action.

PERSONALITY

Personality is connected to identity (BEING): But then Boomers, driven within our therapeutic culture, shifted from emphasizing character to talking about personality (which is beyond good or bad—it just is).

Personality is a collection of individual traits, behaviors, and clinical disorders we identify with (and that, increasingly, others are expected just to deal with). Personality is more individual—by design. In a sense, it is anti-relational because personality is assumed to be known without reference to relationships (and maybe that is exactly why the shift occurred). In this paradigm, character is reduced to personality differences (which means the common ground for a common good is lost in the search for the true self).

TRAUMA

Trauma is connected to what was done to us (DONE TO): At the turn of the century, talking about trauma became mainstream. Trauma is a distressing or overwhelming experience that can have significant and lasting negative effects on a person's mental, physical, and emotional well-being. This is categorized as bad.

Now trauma and our strategies for dealing with it is understood as contributing to our personality (or personality is reduced to trauma). And if we change our strategies from less maladaptive to more integrated, then our personality will change.

But, on the popular level, talking about trauma (and various disorders) has just become the new personality such that no one has a personality and no one is responsible for their actions.

AND BACK AGAIN…

It seems the responsible conversations about trauma lead to hope and growth and change. This means a shift from the “what happened to me/you?” of trauma to the “what am I hoping for and working toward?” of character.

My hope is that, big picture, talk about trauma will also return to talk about character and the kinds of people we are becoming, the kinds of communities we are becoming, and then collective practices to sustain them.

The new definition of character could be: What are we doing (character) with what was done to me/us (trauma)?

This shift from trauma to character is exactly why I emphasize attachment and attachment theory, because it can speak to the trauma side of "what happened" and the character side of "how are we becoming more securely attached?"

This kind of work is what I'm hoping to do through the Center for Embodied Faith.

---

The Center for Embodied Faith works at three different levels: popular, academic, and exploratory (consider supporting our work and pay it forward for others—we keep all posts free).

• Our new book, Landscapes of the Soul, whitepapers, and training are on the popular side.

• This post is exploratory.

• And our DMIN program and future projects are more academic.