Warren I Susman argues that in the early twentieth century, the “culture of personality” replaced the “culture of character”. He presents a chronological argument that the issues of modern life, industries and the general urge for people to exert their presence in the midst of vast changes compelled men to value personality more than character. In the face of changing lifestyles and socio-economic activities character could not hold to advance the interest of men in dynamic societies such as the United States and hence personality had to get intertwined with culture for the sake of progression.
Susman is right to state that personality replaced character as a pillar for modern culture. He had observed righty that the society was moving from a production-oriented culture to a consumption-oriented one. The transition from intense industrial revolution in the 17th and early 18th century had to be marked by character as it was trying and times were hard. As such, people had to show character in order to promote the image of the self which will forever hold importance and motivations for men to act. Susman has rightly asserted that in those hard times, people had to stand out and promote their “self” by showing commitment to citizenship, work, duty, building, honor, reputation and morals among other ideals because society attached critical meaning to these attributes. Moreover, these issues which underscore the culture of character were the only ways through which man could develop his society.
The usage of great sociologists and psychologists in the development of the essay points to Susman’s reliance on evidence of what drove men prior to the late 18th century and the motivations that took over thereafter. Susman’s usage of Emerson who defines character as “moral order through the medium of individual nature” (Susman 274) is an assertion that the “self” or the “individual” played a central role in the determination of whether it was character or personality that formed the core of culture.
Essentially Susman’s assertion can be seen through the light of two conflicting cultures as earlier noted; the industrial era of production and the consumption era of the late 18th century onwards to the 1920s and 1930s. While the producer-capitalist culture emphasized on character- which take into consideration of others to greater extent- the newer culture was largely a consuming one benefiting from the efforts of the previous generations. As such, personality and a good standing especially from things that can be seen was an easier and assured way to give people status and recognition in the society. Such status would help people to lead the way in consumption since it is easier and more self-oriented in comparison to the production culture.
The general progression of society bred the personality-oriented culture in place of the character-oriented one. Over time, there had to be organizational revolution. There emerged a class of managers, entertainers, white-collar workers, better ways of doing things as technologies advanced and all these issues pointed towards more relaxation and enjoyment of life centered on the self and the hence the rise of personality cultures.
The period that Susman writes about as the emergence of “personality culture” is one marked by great an exciting issues. It was one with abundance. Electric lights, department stores, films, advertising, magazines, radio, comics, and better amenities (housing, water and healthcare) began to reach the masses. As Susman notes, the leisure, recreation, play, self-fulfillment, celebrities among other issues surfaced in a big way. People had to seek being liked and admired more than that would about being praised and honored for noble deeds emanating from character.
When people resorted to a culture based on personalities in the US, they were essentially promoting the “self” in a clearer and more understandable way. Susman’s argument shows that seeking to promote the “self” through character was nobler and better for overall development. Following Susman’s analysis of Orison Marden and Dresser it is evident that combining the qualities of the works of character with a religious or mystical bias could not work. Great inventions as noted by Ralph Waldo Trine could also have to incorporate aspects of the self in order to become commercially viable and impact change. For instance, a car made in 1907 was made with the intent of helping men “enjoy the blessing of hours of pleasure in God’s open spaces”. It follows that the beauty and joy of owning such as car was a promotion of personal interest and the car could elevate the personality of the owner.
Overall, Susman asserts that although character holds more weigh for the overall good of the world, it cannot fight against the force of personality evident in the modern generation. The weight of words describing personality such as stunning, fascinating, magnetic, masterful, forceful, dominating among others retain superiority to promote the “self”. In other words everybody would like to have virtues of personality heaped on them. Moreover it is easier to show personality than to show character for instance in the dress codes, the eating among others than it is to show character. As more consumerism and the thirst for entertainment heats up so will the need for people to show more personality than character and this seems to be the whole point that Susman was putting across.
Woks cited
Susman Warren. Culture as history: the transformation of the American society in the 20th century. Print
