Everybody has heard someone say of someone else: He’s a character. Perhaps they said it about you! The statement usually means that the person
in question is something of a cut-up.
They have an unusually active sense of humour. Or, they just have a personality that is so
individualistic, it sets them distinctly apart.
Often we talk about
‘character’ in a very different context.
Some people are said to possess – or ‘have’ – character. More specifically, ‘good’ character. In this context, it means a group of positive
traits that indicate the person in question is morally, ethically upstanding.
When I was a
chaplain at the US Air Force Academy, we had periodic failures of character
amongst our cadets. Not only by individual
cadets; that would be expected in any group of some 4,300 18-to-24 year olds. Rather, I’m talking about periodic upheavals
caused by the concentration of significant groups of cadets behaving in
unacceptable ways. This, despite that
the Academy places great emphasis on character.
The cadets are governed by an Honour Code. They even hold an annual symposium, where
hundreds of students from other universities around the country gather to learn
about, and discuss the quest for character.
Towards the end of
my first year at the Academy, it became clear that there was a problem with
sexual harassment – and worse – of female cadets. The ‘worse’ was significant numbers who had
been sexually assaulted by male cadets at the Academy. There was clearly a problem with the schhol’s
culture. This kind of stain that makes
everybody sit up and notice. It causes
organisational upheaval as leaders struggle to address the problem,
programmatically and regulatorily.
Occasionally, I
would encounter someone in the community at large, who saw these periodic
character scandals at the Academy and concluded that the military was
attracting a poor ‘class’ of people.
Whilst this was probably understandable, it was also erroneous. The real problem is that the military, like any
other organisation, simply cannot screen applicants by character.
Think about it. It’s easy to measure someone’s academic
potential based on their prior performance:
grades and test scores. It’s easy
to measure athletic abilities, or physical health. But character is far more difficult to predict. Yes, one can screen out those with a record
of arrests or convictions for any sort of offence. But lots of people have poor character even
though they’ve never been in trouble with the law. How do you measure positive character
traits? They can’t interview every
person a candidate for admission has encountered. And they wouldn’t necessarily get truthful
assessments if it were possible. Psychological
testing can only show so much, and can be manipulated by a savvy subject. So the result is that each new class at the
Academy consists of 1,300 over-achievers who are fine specimens of glowing,
young fitness and health. But the quest
for young people of good character is essentially a crap shoot. There will be successes and failures.
This is, of course,
a problem in life in general. It is
difficult to determine the quality of another person’s character until it is
tested by circumstances. For example,
choosing a marriage partner. We can and
do screen potential mates by their appearance, their professional achievement, how
pleasant their personality is. Whether
they share interests and hobbies with us.
How prone they are to flatulence or halitosis. But unless a testing moment comes before the
commitment is made, we cannot take an accurate measure of character. Exacerbating this is that men and women who
are dating with an eye toward marriage, tend to be on their best behavior all
the time! So, unless they slip up…it’s
hard to get a true picture of one’s character.
A least, until it is too late.
Until one has already married. Or
is emotionally committed to the eventuality.
The dilemma is not
limited to choosing one’s life partner.
Of course it extends to the choosing of one’s friends and associates as
well.
So character, or at
least measuring and predicting character, is a real bugaboo. Yet most of us desire to have good
character. We struggle to improve our
character during this life. And we want
to surround ourselves with others who are equally struggling, and at least
sometimes succeeding, in building good character. But it is difficult to predict, and difficult
to measure along the way.
Part of the problem
is that building character is not such a clear-cut process. Preparing for success, in contrast is
simple. You buckle down in school,
produce the kind of grades and test scores that will open doors, find your
passion, and pursue it. In each of these
steps you might stumble or not find your way quite so easily or early, and that
might close certain doors or make the process harder. For example, if your goal in life was to be a
medical doctor. A wonderful, worthy
goal! If you decide on this goal early
in life, and are an outstanding student, it is a straightforward quest.
(Notice, I didn’t say ‘easy’!) If you
didn’t do so well in school, and messed around some years doing something
different, your dream of practicing medicine might still not be in vain. You might go back to school for a second
degree and make top grades the second go around. And show your keen interest by volunteering
for the ambulance service or some other allied occupation. I have heard of such ‘late bloomers’ packing
off to medical school as late as their forties.
And succeeding famously: in
school, and in the practice of medicine.
So it is with attaining career success; there is usually a
straightforward, well-charted path with a number of alternative points of
entry.
Preparing for a life
of character is not so straightforward.
There is no accepted process calculated to result in good
character. Now, listen to me and
understand what I’m saying! An obvious
answer would be religion, Judaism in particular, right? I wish it were so. But if we’re honest, we all know of people
who are obviously observant or religiously active – perhaps they have been most
of their lives – yet still display undesirable character. I refer to the obvious: rabbis and teachers at yeshivas who sexually
abuse their students. Also to those who
use religion for their own self-aggranisement, or who engage in power plays
that leave a lot of damaged and hurt people by the wayside.
Believe me, this is
not intended as an indictment of religion or of Judaism. I do not observe that secular people are more
likely to have good character. Or that
other religions are less subject to this malaise. I simply wish that religion in general, and Judaism
in particular did a more consistent job of inculcating positive, desirable
character traits in those who gravitate to these structures. That they do not, doesn’t call their purpose
into question. It simply means that it
could do a better job to spreading goodness and avoiding the bad stuff. A much better job.
David Brooks is a New
York Times columnist and social commentator. In a recent book on the subject of character,
he cited The Rav on the notion of the Two Adams. ‘The Rav’ is Rabbi Joseph B. Solovietchik,
one of the spiritual and intellectual giants of his generation of Orthodox
Rabbis. The Rav, in his 1965 essay, The
Lonely Man of Faith, noted that the first two chapters of Genesis contain
two very different pictures of the First Man.
Adam I is, in The Rav’s words, “the
Majestic Man,” who applies his creative faculties to master his
environment. Adam II is “the Covenantal
Man” who surrenders himself to the Will of G-d.
Solovietchik, in addition to trying to help us understand why we see two
Adams in the Torah’s narrative, was also drawing a metaphor to help everyday
people understand the two forces that motivate them.
Elsewhere the two forces are
referred to as yetzer hara and yetzer hatov. The former, whose exact translation is
‘the Evil Inclination’ isn’t pure evil.
Rather, it’s the impulse which can, unchecked, lead to acts
of evil. In the Babylonian Talmud,
Tractate Yoma, and in the midrashic text Genesis Rabba, we are told that yetzer
hara is necessary. Each text
posits the notion that without yetzer hara, no man would ever build a
house, marry a wife, beget children, or establish a business. So yetzer hara, representing man’s
creative drive, is necessary if we’re going to fulfil our destiny. But it must be checked by yetzer hatov, the
‘good inclination’ or to put it differently, the impulse of the Covenantal
Man. Pure evil exists but is rare. As Dennis Prager puts it, most evil is
brought into the world by those with good intentions. There’s a lot of truth to his words.
The problem is that we can train and
cultivate the creative drive but it is much more difficult to cultivate and
train the covenantal drive. And we tend
to focus on that, which we can train and cultivate. So we are not as intentional as we might be
in pursuit of good character, because we tend to assume that our innate
goodness will guide us in that area. And
that’s where we trip up. Goodness is too
fragile to leave to chance. It is
absolutely essential to approach attaining it as a quests. The Quest for Character needs to be as
intentional as the quest for success.
My specific recommendation
tonight? We have started the one day of
the year that is designed and calculated to turn our hearts and commit us
emotionally to seek Goodness. A course
of action that could serve as a roadmap towards better days ahead. We start the Jewish Year just as most people
start the civil year, by the making of resolutions. Perhaps the difference is that we’re less
likely to be hung over. Let’s take
advantage of that difference! And let’s
also take note that this is the Jubilee Year, for many a once-in-a-lifetime
event that can spur us – if we let it – to focus on what’s most important and
commit ourselves more deeply to it.
Let’s intentionally make this year,
a year to work on character. I’m not
telling everybody listening to (or reading) my words that your character is flawed. Only that each one of us, yours truly
included, can hone and improve. Let’s
reach for excellence of character. We can
succeed in attaining it. A good
sealing to us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment