Confucian perspective on personality and the self.

Little is known about Confucius in the Western world. Like Buddha he lived about 2500 years ago, however he spent his life in China whereas Buddha lived in India. Later both bodies of philosophical thought spread across empires and cultures. Many who know a little about Confucian ideas would describe these as antiquated, hierarchical, feudalistic and paternalistic, although writers have in recent times sought to make Confucian thought more relevant to contemporary society (Bell, 2008; Rosemont & Ames, 2009). Confucius’s thoughts are outlined in the “Analects” that contained most of the important ideas of Confucianism (Ames & Rosemont, 1998). Generally these ideas are advice on matters related to politics, social responsibility or philosophy. However arguments can also be made for the relevance of Confucian ideas to personality theory. For example Confucianism explains basic aspects of personality, how it develops, why people suffer, behavior that will eliminate or alleviate suffering, and provide a model for what might be considered a healthy personality (Bell, 2008). In particular Confucian ideas suggested that the locus of personality development is in the family in a way analogous to Western psychology of Freud and others.

The current emphasis on a positive psychology could have taken its inspiration from the Confucius of 25 centuries ago. The ideal and healthy personality develops from a Confucian perspective when we recognize and fulfill important social roles and associated responsibilities. This thought about social responsibilities seems also to overlap with Buddhism and the concept of the interrelated self that emerged from cross-cultural studies in Asia. According to Confucius it is in fulfilling responsibilities in relationships that we reach the ideals of being human, particularly as that development occurs in families, but also within the larger community. However, Confucius sees the family as the forum for healthy human development, in contrast to Freud and others who perceive of family relationships as the locus of individual dysfunction. The outcome of Western human development produces ideally autonomous and independent persons as people achieve maturity by moving away from the family. This concept of maturity is in sharp contrast to Confucian ideas where psychological well-being is seen as a function of relationships and interdependence. In Confucianism becoming human is rooted in our relationships within our first families, but later also in our relationships with our extended families and with the community. How we evolve as persons are a direct result of our relationships according to Confucianism, and personality is fluid as we react to changes or disappearances in our relationships. For example the relationship of a parent to a child is emotionally different from that of a grandparent to a grandchild and personality evolves accordingly.

In contrast to Western psychology that emphasizes the independent ego in Confucianism it makes no sense to see personality as autonomous since that is considered both unhealthy and dysfunctional. The self is defined by the relational roles that we fulfill and measure up to or fail to perform in a responsible way. Psychological dysfunction comes from ignoring or otherwise violating the responsibilities we have toward others in the family or community. More profoundly we can say that the self consist of our relationship roles. The healthy mature person in Confucianism does not fulfill only the narrow responsibilities of the immediate family, but also the larger community. The primary relationships however, are identified in Confucian writings as being father-son, husband-wife, elder brother-younger brother, ruler-subject; and friend-friend (Rosemont & Ames, 2009). In the ultimate sense however humans are responsible for an ever widening circle of relationships that can also be conceived to exist between countries and cultures. Personality is found in responding or not responding to the demands of the roles that we intuitively feel are right and thereby to do right in our relationships.

It might have caught your attention that the principal relationships as defined by Confucius can be construed as authoritarian and hierarchical. In each of these relationships as understood by Confucius and those that followed there are individuals who are superior in the relationship and those who are inferior. For example parent to child is manifestly hierarchical, but so are the traditional husband to wife relationship, and the elder brother to younger brother. It is a valid and principal criticism of Confucianism that is supports the authoritarian nature of human relationships. This criticism has been the basis of modern struggles against Confucianism, for example by the Communist Party in China and elsewhere. However, as Bell (2008) notes, Confucius himself criticized the status quo of society in his day and so was not authoritarian in speaking truth to power. Also, Rosemont and Ames (2009) suggested an alternative interpretation of being “above and below”, as the terms could also be defined as benefactor and beneficiary. In all it should not be surprising that philosophies growing out of societies 2500 years ago should have an authoritarian outlook. The choice for our evaluation is obvious since we can reject the hierarchical nature of relationships of Confucianism while emphasizing the importance of relationships in development and indeed in the salience of the relational personality. The saying “it takes a village” to raise a child has modern usage indicating that our responsibilities is not to only our own atomic family, but indeed to all children and families. When construed in that manner Confucius speaks an urgent message to the modern world.

8.4 Culture specific personality: As seen from the perspective of indigenous cultures.

There is no contradiction between perspectives discussed above that argue for a universal structure of personality and personality constructs that are developed from inside a specific culture. Within the universal structure of personality there may also be significant differences in mean values of each of the Big Five or the other traits discussed. Cultural psychologists (as opposed to cross-cultural investigators) have long rejected the idea of a universal organization of personality structure. They note that these structures have initially emerged out of American or European research and may therefore be contaminated by the research methods and ideas that are culture bound. However, the argument of this book is to also recognize the common in humanity based on our shared evolutionary history. It is not farfetched to believe that personality has a genetic and biological basis since personality traits may have given evolutionary advantages that aided the selection and survival of those living today. The Five Factor Model described previously has been supported in the replication work using trait adjectives in many languages (De Raad, Perugini, Rebickova, & Szarota, 1998).

Reality is always complex, and in the end there is no conflict between the culture specific and the cross-cultural universal findings of personality structure. From a mutually inclusive perspective personality is culture-specific reflecting unique cultural values and history. At the same time personality is also universal based on structures that are ubiquitous although differing in trait mean values in different societies. The cultural specific and the cross-cultural universal are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary reflecting the reality of the contributions to personality from evolutionary adaptation, and the unique windows into psychological reality that is part of the culture-specific learning in all societies. All cultures have unique values related to tradition, to food, or religion that gives personalities a common cultural identity within a society and that differ from the personality produced by other cultures.

For example some researchers have argued for a three layer African personality (Sow, 1978) where the first layer is the core and spiritual center, the second layer represents psychological vitality and the third layer physiological vitality with the body serving as a frame for all three. Japanese psychology has received a lot of attention, in particular the concept of amae that describe a sweet childlike dependence thought to have grown out of mother-child relations (Doi, 1973). Since interpersonal relationships are of great salience in Japanese culture the concept of amae is relevant to all significant relationships. The Korean concept of cheung describes a central personality component of affection (Choi, Kim, & Choi, 1993). Other indigenous culturally specific traits are discussed in Church (2000). Together the work on personality supports the presence of both universal traits and cultural specific traits.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 881