Individual & Group Character in the Social Psychology of William McDougall

Abstract

As a pioneering social psychologist, William McDougall (18711938) proposed a theory of human behavior that underscored influence of group character. In The Group Mind, McDougall identified what he called the principles of collective psychology and explained how basic human drives, as natural inherited instincts, form basis of human conduct. According to McDougall, cohesive nature of various groups rests upon intrinsic collective mentality of its individual members. Variation in human behavior stems from intrinsic differences in disposition, temperament, intelligence, and which reflect distinct yet heterogeneous cultural, ethnic and national patterns. His work, though sporadically vague and subjective, recognized various distinctions among national cultures - traits and characteristics which transcend level of individual and create collective identity and distinctive qualities of human groups. The following comparative analysis examines McDougall's notion of `group character' and underlying factors that establish validity of McDougall's hypothesis. Key words: Social Psychology, Instinct, Character, Heredity, Culture, Ethology, Behaviorism and Race. Willam McDougall. In social sciences, concept of is a thread that links behavioral traits to human conduct. For example, a focal point of interest in study of juvenile delinquency is unstable of sociopath. Contemporary authors such as political scientist James Q. Wilson and former education secretary William Bennett view prevalence of juvenile delinquency as a defect of and moral development. By same token, also encompasses a universal set of leadership traits. Character remains an essential human attribute for military and foreign service to effectively manage combat operations and diplomatic affairs. In common parlance, notion of refers to a consistent manner of conduct in human affairs.1 What is essence of character? What does it mean to suggest that someone lacks character? What factors determine moral bonds that integrate and behavior with human nature? To what extent are differences in a reflection of innate individual or group traits and predispositions? How does race or ethnicity influence differences in character? Are stereotypes based upon a valid set of broader traits that, while often exaggerated, signify reasonably accurate patterns of group-based conduct? The contemporary notion of is used to differentiate individuals or groups in terms of consistency of behavior. Predictable patterns of conduct emerge over time in how individuals react to a given set of circumstances. The same is equally true of groups. Just as certain behavioral norms are expected from clergymen, differences in behavioral norms distinguish other groups - whether it's a religious sect or an elite military unit. The empathy of a priest or pugnacity of a Green Beret are typical forms of conduct in relation to their group's own behavioral norms. As Abraham Roback once pointed out, character implies human differentiation.2 While factors that influence human behavior stem from multiple sources, such factors are ultimately attributed to a combination of both heredity and environment. As dean of social psychologists, William McDougall (18711938) has not been adequately appreciated for his contributions to psychological foundations of human nature. McDougall noticed a relationship between and innate differences in human qualities. What McDougall referred to as mental and moral endowments are considered to be major dimensions of personality traits; e.g., temperament, intelligence, introversion and extroversion. From McDougall's perspective, concept of extended to groups as well as individuals. He accepted idea of 'national character' and, more implicitly, controversial notion of 'racial character. …