What does it take to “build character”？

Brian YS Wong November 28, 2024 22:11

I have always been fascinated by the phrase “character building”.

We invoke the phrase to refer to all sorts of trials and tribulations – a deeply irksome and truculent acquaintance or colleague, a major setback in life that comes with serious trauma, an unfulfilled dream that leaves the dreamer disillusioned, or a very well laid plan that “gang aft agley”. Such is the way of life.

We posit that such experiences are crucial in “building” up our characters, in rendering us stronger, more perseverant, more enduring, and more capable of withstanding contingencies and unforeseen barriers. In overcoming these barriers, we move closer to the ideal of what a person ought to be – undeterred and intrepid in face of adversities, and committed to tacking on the future, come what may.

But what puzzles me throughout much of this, is how any of this has to do with “character”. What has happened here, is effectively the conflating of “character” with “resilience”, and the further assumption that the experiencing of adverse circumstances would automatically translate to greater “resilience”. Let’s unpack these assumptions in reverse order.

Does undergoing deeply difficult and precarious circumstances automatically give rise to more resilience? There is little causal logic to suggest so. Cognitive dissonance remains something that we are fundamentally uncomfortable with – that sits oddly with us as a jarring counterpoint to our undergirding consciousness. When we experience external shocks and stimuli that run contrary to our expectations, this could well trigger the most primal tendency on our part to “double down on” and consolidate our pre-existing beliefs. Much as events to the contrary can build up our resilience by expanding our knowledge repertoire, they could also compel us to – in the opposite direction – fixate over maintaining long-standing beliefs as a bulwark and means of withstanding pressures to change. To adapt is viewed as akin to concession; hence we refuse to budge, refuse to learn, and refuse to critically reflect upon our own follies.

To ground this claim with more concrete illustration – consider the response by certain leaders to abrupt crises. Such crises may be sweeping, transformative, and fundamentally bereft of proportionality. Escalation may be both inevitable and unduly costly. Leaders may find it difficult to rationally process and calculate the costs and benefits – as well as identifying the right path of response. Consequently, they would opt for convenient, well-trodden paths that they find most familiar and comfortable – even if proceeding as such would be disastrous. The inertia compels adherence to status quo policies, and such “status quo” thinking hence eliminates the room for out-of-the-box thinking. By the end of the escalatory sequence – whether it be through a culminative crisis or as a natural denouement – leaders will have “survived”, but they would be no more resilient or perseverant as a result of their actions.

Then there is the further question of what character is. When we claim that an individual has sound character, or is of good character, we are effectively positing that said agent possesses several key features – upright intentions (to do good, or to be good), the right dispositions (that enable them to do good, or to be good), and no overarching major defect or flaw (that prevents them from succeeding). Resilience, at face value, feeds well into the second component, though has very little to do with the first or the third.

Yet upon closer scrutiny, we cannot help but ask if resilience is in fact a part of having the “right dispositions” – at least, unto its own. Resilience is an amplifier – it renders one’s preferences and values stickier than in the counterfactual. Resilience in the face of challenging and confrontational calamities is a sign of strength – both mental and personal. Yet resilience towards challenging and constructive critique – without a modicum of accompanying or responsive reflection and contemplation – is little more than obstinacy. When we build up our capacity to stomach those who dare think and speak differently from us, we must ask ourselves – what does “stomaching” mean? Blind fortitude and hubristic dogmatic-ness do not make for sound character.

We need to understand character is before contemplating the building of it.

Brian YS Wong

Assistant Professor, HKU