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.
The psychoanalytic theory of character development has constantly changed since its inception, reflecting each new major development in psychoanalytic theory and practice. Each of these developments has contributed a fresh perspective to the problem of character formation and at the same time has added to our knowledge of the subject. With each change in perspective, there followed fresh emphasis on one or another aspect of the data organized in the psychoanalytic situation. Nevertheless, as Stein (1969) and Baudry (1984) have noted in this connection, no consistent theory of character development has emerged.
This is not at all surprising, since much depends on the definition of character one employs. If construed in a global sense, I doubt if any psychoanalytic theory, all-encompassing in nature, is possible. Why this should be so is not difficult to ascertain. To begin with, there is hardly any general agreement about what is meant by character. It is not a psychoanalytic concept. It is a layman's concept and I believe that, for practical purposes, it would be best to retain the layman's notion of character.
If we turn to the dictionary, we find more than ten definitions for the term “character.” Of the several definitions enumerated in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, those that most concern our inquiry are the following: (1) a distinctive mark; (5) a distinctive trait; (6) essential quality, nature; (7) an individual pattern of behavior or personality (that which gives distinction), moral constitution; (8) moral strength, self-discipline, fortitude; (9) reputation.