You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Psychoanalytic theory has been continuously confronting the issue of the stable element in the personality of the human being. Conceptually, this aspect of human functioning has generally been labeled “character,” and defined as the customary ways the demands of the external world, of the internalized parental views, and of the impulses and wishes are handled.52526 A particular individual's characteristic ways of adjusting are influenced (1) by how his psyche organizes, adapts, and controls; (2) by his basic, most important instinctual needs; (3) by the quality of the moral demands and modes of conduct he experiences; and (4) by the type of mother, father, society, and culture around him. The concept of identity has extended the idea of character. Identity, in contrast to the sense of identity which is awareness of identity, is the style of one's individuality4 or the capacity to remain the same in the midst of change.14 In recent work, identity has been shown to be constructed out of the interactions of the person with his family and social milieu which result in identifications, internalized images of the self, and internalized images of the other.4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 25, 27
What is emphasized, of course, is the element of stability, of continuity, of regularity, and of sameness. But, in addition, there is a focus not only on what is brought together to form a character or an identity, but on the way elements are brought together, the style of synthesis4, 22 the organizational principle or strategy of the pysche25 the typical manner of organizing22 and the form of functioning.24
What is of concern from this perspective is not just content but form, not only the “what” but the “how.” This way of approaching character and identity shifts the perspective away from particular traits toward the common element in the traits. The key aspect of a