Modal Attitude Clusters: A Supplement for the Study of National Character

Abstract

This paper suggests that the emphasis on personality has been responsible for the impasse in national character research. It is suggested that this emphasis rests only on research tradition and that national character need not be viewed exclusively in personality terms. A conception of modal attitude clusters is presented as a fully adequate supplement which overcomes many of the weaknesses which result from the personality perspective. N ational character has probably received consideration by more diverse disciplines than almost any other variable in the sociologist's lexicon. disciplines of history, political science and economics, for example, have long found the term useful in their traditional concerns.1 In addition, national character is increasingly being used as a significant variable in the applied analysis of many current social problems.2 In the face of this extensive consideration by many disciplines, and the growing use of the concept in many areas of practical analysis, it is ironic that current national character research is in general disrepute in the behavioral sciences, the very disciplines which have traditionally examined the nature of the variable itself. Their criticisms of their own research run the gamut: highly subjective modes of data collection and other fuzzy measurement techniques, small and nonrepresentative samples, lack of theory and specific articulation of concepts, simple analysis of tremendously complex phenomena, and little verification of results.3 In view of this . . great, buzzing, 1 For example, see David M. Potter, People of Plenty: Economic Abundance and the American Character (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954); Louis L. Snyder, Meaning of Nationalismn (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1954). 2 character has recently been used as an analytic factor in understanding the processes of nationalism, foreign policy, expansionism, national morale and national ideology. Psychological warfare specialists have considered it to be of relevance in developing knowledge about target audience characteristics; it has also been considered as a factor in understanding the successes and failures of technological aid programs and as a vital element in strategic intelligence analysis. For examples of these uses, see Washington Platt, Character in Action: Intelligence Factors in Foreign Relations (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1961) ; Snyder, op. cit.; William E. Daugherty and Morris Janowitz (eds.), A Psychological Warfare Casebook (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1958), chap. 7; Margaret Mead, Soviet Attitudes Toward Authority (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951) ; Frederick S. Dunn, War and the Minds of Men (New York: Harper & Bros., 1950); Margaret Mead, The Study of Character, in Daniel Lerner and Harold D. Lasswell (eds.), Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1951). 3 Cf., David G. Mandelbaum, On the Study of Character, American Anthropologist, 55 (1953), pp. 174-187; Alex Inkeles, National Character and Modern Political Systems, in Francis L. K. Hsu (ed.), Psychological Anthropology (HomeThis content downloaded from 157.55.39.144 on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 05:26:21 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MODAL ATTITUDE CLUSTERS 527 blooming confusion which defies representation, Inkeles suggests that systematic analysis of national character as a field of scientific investigation is blocked.4 Among most investigators in this field of research, there is clear recognition that some new conceptualizations are needed.5 Given the perceived usefulness of the factor of national character in many areas of inquiry on the one hand, and the generally unsatisfactory analysis provided about the variable by the behavioral sciences on the other, the purpose of this paper is: (1) to suggest a basic reason for the current impasse in national character research, (2) to note a beginning trend which, as a supplement, satisfies some of the criticisms and which also places national character on a plane more amenable to the practical use which so many are attempting to make of it, and (3) to compare this supplement with other approaches which appear to be emerging in national character studies.