THE OUTER PHASE: PERSONALITY
Just as _character_ is the inner phase of Human Nature, so is
_personality_ its outer phase. To many the two terms are synonymous, but
analysis will show the shades of difference between them. A man's
_character_ is his inner self, while his _personality_ is the outward
indication of his self. The word, in this sense, is defined as: "That
which constitutes the personal traits of a person, as his manner,
conduct, habits, appearance, and other observable personal
peculiarities."
The word is derived from the Latin word, _persona_, meaning, "a mask
used by play-actors," which in turn was derived from the two words
_per_, meaning "through," and _sono_, meaning, "to sound," or combined,
"to sound through." And the derivation of the term really gives us an
idea of its inner meaning, for the personality is really the mask worn
by the character, and _through which it sounds_, speaks, or manifests
itself, Jeremy Taylor once said: "No man can long put on _person_ and
act a part but his evil manners will peep through the corners of his
white robe." Archbishop Trench once said that the real meaning of the
phrase, "God is no respecter of _persons_" is that the Almighty cared
nothing for what _part_ in life a person plays, but _how_ he plays it.
The old-time play-actor was wont to assume a mask of the features of the
part he played, just as the modern actor "makes up" for the part and
walks, speaks and acts in accordance therewith. Whether or not the
individual be aware of the fact, Nature furnishes to each his mask of
personality--his _persona_--by which those who understand may recognize
the part he plays, or his character. In both the inner _character_, and
the outer _personality_, each individual struts the stage of life and
plays his part.
The mask or "make up," of personality, by which men may read each
other's character, is evolved and developed from the instinctive
physical expression accompanying thought, feeling and emotion. Just as
the frown accompanying the feeling of annoyance or anger will, if
repeated sufficiently often, become fixed upon the countenance of the
man, so will all of his general thoughts, feelings and emotions register
themselves in his manner, gait, tone of voice, carriage and facial
expression. Moreover, his inherited tendencies will show themselves in
the same way.
Professor Wm. James says, regarding the genesis of emotional reactions:
"How come the various objects which excite emotion to produce such
special and different bodily effects? This question was not asked till
quite recently, but already some interesting suggestions toward
answering it have been made. Some movements of expression can be
accounted for as weakened repetitions of movements which formerly (when
they were stronger) were of utility to the subject. Others are similarly
weakened repetitions of movements which under other conditions were
physiologically necessary concomitants of the useful movements. Of the
latter reactions, the respiratory disturbances in anger and fear might
be taken as examples--organic reminiscences, as it were, reverberations
in imagination of the blowings of the man making a series of combative
efforts, or the pantings of one in precipitate flight. Such at least is
a suggestion made by Mr. Spencer which has found approval."
Herbert Spencer says, on this subject: "To have in a slight degree such
psychical states as accompany the reception of wounds, and are
experienced during flight, is to be in a state of what we call fear. And
to have in a slight degree such psychical states as the processes of
catching, killing, and eating imply, is to have the desires to catch,
kill and eat. That the propensities to the acts are nothing else than
nascent excitations of the psychical state involved in the acts, is
proved by the natural language of the propensities. Fear, when strong,
expresses itself in cries, in efforts to escape in palpitations, in
tremblings; and these are just the manifestations that go along with an
actual suffering of the evil feared. The destructive passion is shown in
a general tension of the muscular system, in gnashing of teeth and
protrusion of the claws, in dilated eyes and nostrils in growls; and
these are weaker forms of the actions that accompany the killing of
prey. To such objective evidences every one can add subjective
evidences. Everyone can testify that the psychical state called fear
consists of mental representations of certain painful results; and that
the one called anger consists of mental representations of the actions
and impressions which would occur while inflicting some kind of pain."
Professor Wm. James adds the following to the discussion: "So slight a
symptom as the snarl or sneer, the one-sided uncovering of the upper
teeth, is accounted for by Darwin as a survival from the time when our
ancestors had large canines, and unfleshed him (as dogs do now) for
attack. Similarly the raising of the eyebrows in outward attention, the
opening of the mouth in astonishment, come, according to the same
author, from the utility of these movements in extreme cases. The
raising of the eyebrows goes with the opening of the eye for better
vision, the opening of the mouth with the intensest listening, and with
the rapid catching of the breath which precedes muscular effort. The
distension of the nostrils in anger is interpreted by Spencer as an
echo of the way in which our ancestors had to breathe when, during
combat, their 'mouth was filled up by a part of an antagonist's body
that had been seized.' The trembling of fear is supposed by Mantegazza
to be for the sake of warming the blood. The reddening of the face and
neck is called by Wundt a compensatory arrangement for relieving the
brain of the blood-pressure which the simultaneous excitement of the
heart brings with it. The effusion of tears is explained both by this
author and by Darwin to be a blood-withdrawing agency of a similar sort.
The contraction of the muscles around the eyes, of which the primitive
use is to protect those organs from being too much gorged with blood
during the screaming fits of infancy, survives in adult life in the
shape of the frown, which instantly comes over the brow when anything
difficult or displeasing presents itself either to thought or action."
Thus, it will be seen, the fact that all inward states manifest
themselves to some degree in outward physical expression, brings with it
the logical inference that particular mental states when habitually
manifested tend to fix in the physical organism the expression
associated with them. As "thoughts take form in action," so habitual
mental states tend to register traces of those actions. A piece of paper
folded in a certain way several times shows plainly the marks on the
folding. In the same manner the creases in our clothing, shoes and
gloves, show the marks of our personal physical form. A habitual mental
state of cheerfulness is accompanied by a frequent exercise of the
muscles expressing the physical signs of that feeling, and finally the
smile wrinkles are formed that all may read them. In the same way the
gloomy, pessimistic mental attitude produces the marks and wrinkles
showing the habit of frequent down-turning of the corners of our mouths.
A habitual mental attitude of suspicion will tend to impart the
appearance of the "suspicious peering" to our eyes. The mental attitude
of combativeness will likewise give us the traditional set jaw and
tightly compressed lips. The mental attitude of lack of self-respect
will show itself in our walk, and so, in the opposite manner with the
mental attitude of self-respect. People grow to walk, talk, carry
themselves, and "look like" their habitual mental attitude.
Dr. A. T. Schofield, says: "'He is a dull scholar,' it is said, 'who
cannot read a man's character even from a back view.' Round a statue of
the prince Consort in Edinburgh stand representative groups paying
homage to him. If you get a back view of any of these you can see
unconscious mind impressed on matter, and can tell at once the sailor or
soldier, peasant or scholar or workman. Look at the body and face of a
man when the mind is gone. Look at the body of a man who has lost his
self-respect. Look at the body of a thief, of a sot, of a miser. Compare
the faces and expressions of a philanthropist, of a beggar, of a
policeman, of a scholar, of a sailor, of a lawyer, of a doctor, of a
shop-walker, of a sandwich man, of a farmer, of a successful
manufacturer, of a nurse, of a refined girl, of a servant, of a barmaid,
of a nun, of a ballet dancer, of an art student, and answer to yourself
these two questions: First, are these different expressions of body and
face due essentially to _physical_ or _psychical_ causes? And, secondly,
do these psychical causes act on the facial and other muscles in
consciousness or out of consciousness. The only possible answers to
these two questions leave us with this fact, were no other proof
possible, that we each have within us an unconscious _psychical_ power
(here called the unconscious mind) which has sufficient force to act
upon the body and display psychical conceptions through physical media."
It is impossible for us (at least by any of the five senses) to peer
into the mental chamber of other men and there read the record of their
_character_, or to interpret the combination of Human Nature therein
moulded and formed. But nevertheless we are not balked in our desire,
for by learning to interpret the outward signs of personality we may
arrive with a wonderful degree of success at an understanding of the
character, mind, or Human Nature in others. From the seen Outer we may
deduce the unseen Inner. We may discern the shape of that which is
concealed, by observing the form of the covering which hides it from
sight. The body, like the fabled veil of the goddess, "conceals but to
reveal."