Gordon and Floyd Allport The Allports\' early research offers a revealing perspe
ID: 3443293 • Letter: G
Question
Gordon and Floyd Allport
The Allports' early research offers a revealing perspective on the normative world of "personality" and the political and cultural ends to which this research might be devoted. Throughout the 1920s, Floyd and Gordon insisted that "personality" was a "coherent datum of perception": an objective, devalued essence (Allport, 1930). Yet the Allports' use of the term "personality" suggests that the category was in fact remarkably fluid and that it was informed by the social values of the period. In the case of behaviorally oriented Floyd, those values revolved largely around a language of self-presentation and social effectiveness (Allport, 1924). Gordon's psychology also drew on this language, but the younger Allport's disciplinary vision was more culturally ambitious. In addition to valorizing a theatrical self, Gordon also hoped to protect what was essentially a romantic conception of the self (Allport, 1924; Gergen, 1991). This was a self of mystery, dignity, and timeless authenticity. For the younger, phenomenologically minded Allport, "personality" was an identity to be encountered and experienced intuitively rather than an object to be calculated and explained. The differences between these two conceptions of "personality" were considerable, but it is important to emphasize their shared social heritage. Both of these "personalities"--the performative and the romantic--were driven by a fear of mass culture. The central question was, how was individuality to be protected from the rapid march of consumption, bureaucratization, and urbanization? The Allport brothers arrived at two very different solutions to this question, and yet significantly they did so within the framework of a single category: "personality."
Nicholson, I. M. (2000). "A coherent datum of perception": Gordon Allport, Floyd Allport, and the politics of "personality". Journal Of The History Of The Behavioral Sciences, 36(4), 463-470.
Explanation / Answer
Gordon Allport suggests that personality is a collection of the traits that you possess. By the word 'trait' is means any personal characteristic that generally lasts over a long period of time and has less chance of changing. So for example if you meet a person several times and say, you discover that the person is willing to share things every time you that met her, you could consider that the person is generally sensative towards others and has a kind herat so that could be her personality trait. Allport has a great contribution in the fields of personality traits. He has also named this personality trait as 'personality disposition'. Our personality is shaped by childhood experiences, influences of adults, exposure to the outside environment and even our past experiences. However, over here we would take in consideration that what kind of exposure influences our personality traits. Exposure to the the outer environment is very essential for developing a personality since in that enviroment lies the culture. No matter what, one csnnot stay devoid of any kind culture. Culture shapes our personality. Hence what shapes culture? It is the media, the society, the films, songs, jornals, news reports, quality of education, resource accessibility, social situations, and many more. However, we need to understand this is the mass culture that shapes our evryday life. Scholars such as Adorno, Holkheimer, Marcuse and Walter Benjamin has critised on the rise of mordern mass consumption. There is an important statement made by George Simmel on the same subject, that he believes that as soon as anything (cultural symbol such as song or film) seeps into the mass it losses its value. Similarly, our personality is like the culture, it losess its indivduality a s soon as it becomes a reflection of the mass culture. For example Adorno would argue that if someone writes a poem and everyone out ther in the populatuon consumps it, that no longer remains a 'High art'.
However, to go back to the main question, would could Individuality be maintained in the modern world. Benjamin argues that an orginal piece of art may be reproduced through the mechanism of modern reproduction sysytem, and be reproduced in millions of copies, however the original piece would maintain its 'aura' that can never be taken away by any other duplicate work. The culture and the identity are co-constitutive to each other. For example if I wear a designer suit, and another person is wearing a torn clothe, something marks a differnce of class. Howver we need to ask what is exactly shaping us? Is the suit I am wearing important in terms of defining my personality or am I important to grant a higher position to the brand of my suit? In other words, this concept of material fetisism arises and hence, 'the things we own end up owning us'. In this case what is really personal? Who is shaping the personal? The answer could be very simple. There is only a fine line that differnciates between the personal and the public. The public shapes the personal and vice versa. At the end of the answer I would like to conclude by saying that the 'individual' is not really a peronal domain since the public shapes the private. One cannot go beyond the social recognition of identity politics. Identity is something which is malleable. Historically identities were fracmed by kin groups, religion, nationality,ect. However in th recent times, there are diffrent issues shaping the identity, those are problems of employment, physical mobility, etc.It stands out that with the fear of lossing individuality, as a consequences of modernity, there is also a chance to spread awareness among ourselves to create shield that could protect ouselves from getting swayed away easilty and maintain our standpoint. A person with an adequate high self-esteem, confidence and aware of his environment is less vulnerable to lose out his individuality.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.