Critiquing – and Rescuing – ‘Character’

Abstract

The article looks at how sociology might regard the concept of ‘character’, both in terms of the way it is used in public discourse and in its own accounts of social life. In the former, the concept is likely to be regarded with suspicion, especially where it is used to explain individuals’ life outcomes in a way that ignores social structures and depoliticizes inequalities. Such usages are to be found in political discourse on welfare and in the character education movement as a solution to problems of ‘social mobility’. Yet if character refers to individuals’ settled dispositions to act in certain ways, then it has some affinities with the Bourdieusian concept of habitus. The article argues both for developing the critique of ideological uses of the concept and for considering how it might be used in ways that do not misrepresent its explanatory and normative significance.

The Fate of Social Character in an Age of Uncertainty

“…It is important to note, however, that individuals are differentially equipped to engage in and benefit from this forward-oriented deliberation (Shilling and Mellor, 2018). As Sayer (2009Sayer ( , 2020 argues, structural inequalities shape character formation. Nevertheless, the responses to risk, change and uncertainty explored by theorists of late modernity can be viewed as outlining a new 'opportunity-directed' characterological form evident increasingly across contemporary societies.…”

“…Seeking to revitalise sociology’s engagement with the subject of ‘character’, Sayer (2020) accounts for the recent unpopularity of the concept by highlighting the ideological uses to which it has been put, and exploring how its populist deployment relies upon under socialised views of individuals that obfuscate structural inequalities. This is evident in the history of ‘poor blaming’, condemning the destitute as morally culpable for their poverty, that re-emerged during the 1970s alongside the neo-liberal assault on welfare (Welshman, 2006).…”

“…The unpopularity of studies into character is also apparent in the discipline’s preference for notions such as the habitus which provide more structural accounts of dispositional qualities. Dissatisfied with the level of generalisation core to such approaches, however, Sayer (2020: 462) utilises virtue ethics to examine in more detail those qualities that ‘involve and promote flourishing (eudaimonia) or suffering’. ‘Character’ is valid sociologically, he concludes, as a means of exploring how social circumstances and human agency shape individuals’ morally and socially significant evaluations of, and actions towards, themselves and others.…”

“…Sayer’s argument is a timely reminder of why the analysis of individual dispositions should not be left to psychology. Nevertheless, his focus on ‘moral qualities’ (Sayer, 2020: 461), alongside popular (mis)uses of ‘character’, bypasses the main sociological tradition of character studies. Early examples of this genre include Cunliffe’s (1968) Soldiers and Civilians , Gerth and Mills’s (1953) Character and Social Structure , Lasch’s (1991 [1979]) The Culture of Narcissism , Mead’s (1942) And Keep Your Powder Dry , Mills’s (1951) White Collar , Potter’s (1954) People of Plenty , Riesman’s (1969 [1950]) The Lonely Crowd and Whyte’s (1956) The Organization Man .…”

Sociological contributions for researching morality and cultivating states of moral character

“…Staying with sociology as one such discipline, examples include the emergence of a 'new sociology of morality' (Hitlin & Vaisey, 2013), work on 'moral sociology' (Vandenberghe, 2018), and sociological analysis of character in modern society (Hunter, 2000;Sayer, 2019). Although directly engaging value or morality was not always welcome in sociology and the social sciences, it is becoming more prominent.…”