Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T10:12:23.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

National Character: an Old Problem Re-Examined

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Arvid Brodersen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Human groups, such as families, tribes, and nations, are often perceived as possessing mental qualities and characteristics more or less common to the group as a whole. This ancient tendency to attribute properties of personality or individuality to human aggregates is particularly strong nowadays with regard to nations, the basic units of political action in this age of nationalism and internationalism.

In the recent UNESCO study by W. Buchanan and H. Cantril, How Nations See Each Other (1953), based on an eight-nation sample, few findings are more revealing than the low frequency of respondents who declare themselves unable to characterize their own nation. All but a very small proportion gave their views freely when asked to describe the character of their countrymen. When this same question was asked with regard to a series of other nationalities, the “Don't know” responses (“impossible to characterize”) were in some cases much more frequent—up to 71 per cent as in the case of the German sample in regard to the Chinese; in others again very low—down to 3 per cent as in the western European responses regarding the United States. These variations are assumed to reflect differences in the degree of familiarity of nations with each other, depending on their mutual relationships over time, their physical proximity or distance, and so on.

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Diogenes , Volume 5 , Issue 20 , December 1957 , pp. 84 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © 1957 Fédération Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie / International Federation of Philosophical Societies (FISP)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Selective Bibliography

Dufrenne, Mikel. La Personnalité de base. Paris, 1955.Google Scholar
Inkeles, A., and Levinson, D.J. “National Character: The Study of Modal Personality and Sociocultural Systems,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Lindzey, Gardner. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954.Google Scholar
Kardiner, A. “The Concept of Basic Personality Structure as an Operational Tool in the Social Sciences,” in The Science of Man in the World Crisis, ed. Linton, R.. New York: Columbia University Press, 1945.Google Scholar
Kardiner, A. (with Linton, R., DuBois, C., and West, J.). The Psychological Frontiers of Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuneberg, O. Tensions Affecting International Understanding. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluckhohn, C., Murray, H.A., and Schneider, D.M. Personality in Nature, Society and Culture. 2d ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953.Google Scholar
Leites, N. “Psycho-cultural Hypotheses about Political Acts,” World Politics, 1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linton, R. The Cultural Background of Personality. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1945.Google Scholar
Mead, M. “The Study of National Character,” in The Policy Sciences, ed. Lerner, D. and Lasswell, H. D.. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1951.Google Scholar
Sargent, S. S., and Smith, M. W. (eds.). Culture and Personality. New York: Viking Fund, 1949.Google Scholar
Whiting, J.W.M., and Child, I.L. Child Training and Personality: A Cross-cultural Study. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. “Cultural and Thematic Analysis of Fictional Films,” Transactions of the New York Academy of Science, V (1943), 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, R. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1946.Google Scholar
Brickner, R. Is Germany Incurable? Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodersen, A. “Der russische Volkscharakter,” Kölner Zeitschr. f. Soziologie u. Sozialpsychologie. Cologne, 1956.Google Scholar
Buchanan, W., and Cantril, H. How Nations See Each Other. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1953.Google Scholar
Dicks, H.V. “Some Psychological Studies of the German Character,” in Psychological Factors of Peace and War, ed. Pear, T. H.. London and New York: Philosophical Library, 1950.Google Scholar
Dicks, H.V. “Personality Traits and National Socialist Ideology,” Human Relations, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicks, H.V. “Observations on Contemporary Russian Behaviour,” ibid., 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, E.H. “Hitler's Imagery and German Youth,” Psychiatry, V (1942), 475–93.Google Scholar
Erikson, E.H. Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1950. (Notably cf. chaps. viii: “Reflections on American Identity”; ix: “The Legend of Hitler's Childhood”; and x: “The Legend of Maxim Gorky's Youth”)Google Scholar
Gorer, G. “Themes in Japanese Culture,” Transactions of the New York Academy of Science, V (1943), 106–24.Google Scholar
Gorer, G. The American People. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1948.Google Scholar
Gorer, G. Exploring English Character. London: Cresset Press, 1955.Google Scholar
Gorer, G., and Rickman, J. The People of Great Russia. London: Cresset Press, 1949.Google Scholar
Kluckhohn, C. “Some Aspects of Navaho Infancy and Early Childhood,” in Psychoanalysis and the Social Sciences, ed. Roheim, G., Vol. I. New York: International Universities Press, 1947.Google Scholar
Kkuckhohn, C. and F. R. “American Culture: Generalized Orientations and Class Patterns,” in Conference of Philosophy, Science and Religion. New York, 1946.Google Scholar
Kracauer, S. From Caligari to Hitler. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1947.Google Scholar
Lambert, R. D. (ed.). “America through Foreign Eyes,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Philadelphia), September, 1954.Google Scholar
Leites, N.A. Study of Bolshevism. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1953.Google Scholar
Le Bras, G. “Notes sur la sociologie et la psychologie de la France,” International Social Sciences Bulletin, I, Nos. 3-4 (1949), 50–60; and II, No. 1, 17–25.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper & Bros., 1948.Google Scholar
Madariaga, S. DE. Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards. London: Oxford University Press (H. Milford), 1928.Google Scholar
Mead, M. And Keep Your Powder Dry. New York: W. Morrow & Co., 1942. (The American Character. London, 1943.)Google Scholar
Rodnick, D. Postwar Germans. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1948.Google Scholar
Rodnick, D. The Norwegians. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1955.Google Scholar
Siegfried, A. L'Ame des peuples. Paris: Hachette, 1950.Google Scholar
Stoetzel, J. Jeunesse sans sabre ni chrysanthème. Paris, 1954.Google Scholar
Thorner, I. “German Words, German Personality, and Protestantism,“ Psychiatry, VIII (1945), 403–17.Google Scholar
Wolfenstein, M., and Leites, N. Movies: A Psychological Study. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1950.Google Scholar