The process of molding national character

The process of molding national character

Mochtar Buchori, Jakarta

In an article titled Character Is Destiny (International
Herald Tribune, Jan. 13, 2005, p.9), William Safire wrote that
character is an essential element in the ensuring of long-running
success. For any individual, any political group and any nation,
real success can be achieved only through concerted efforts
buttressed by character. Without character, all the other
elements necessary for success will be rendered useless.

What is "character"? According to one dictionary, it is "the
combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one
person, group or thing from another." The word comes from the
Greek word kharakter which means "imprint, distinctive mark."

Is character permanent or can it change? Can a person's
character, a group's character or that of a nation change?

Careful examination of the definition cited above suggests
that character is permanent. If a person's character is
considered to be "unscrupulous and opportunistic", for instance,
this means that the person in question has been seen displaying
this pattern of behavior again and again. But what if that person
at one stage in his or her life really repents, and he or she
begins displaying a totally different kind of behavior?

This is rather unlikely in real life. But, if it does happen,
then we say that the person has assumed a new character, which
usually is not entirely different from the old one. The old
character is modified in some important respects, and this
creates the impression that a new character is born.

What happens in this hypothetical case is, in my view, that
the person changes his or her value system. The values that
underlie the perceived "unscrupulous and opportunistic" character
have been gradually replaced by values that underlie his new
character. We will not notice this gradual process unless we
observe closely on a continuing basis the behavior of that
person. Generally speaking, we will say that a person's character
has changed only after we compare impressions obtained from two
observations at two different times separated by a relatively
long period. According to Felix Frankfurter (1882--1965), the
true character of a person will be revealed only after a person
becomes old and sickly.

What about the character of a nation? Is it also capable of
change?

William Safire does not seem to think so. My impression is
that in his view the character of a nation is there to stay. Once
a nation's character is formed, it will be upheld by that nation,
generation after generation. Its modes of expression may change
from period to period, but the substance remains the same. He
describes the national character of America as the "temper of the
pioneer, the gambler and the booster: The religion of economic
and political optimism."

Perceived in this way, the national character of America does
not seem to have changed. Until today we can still see traces of
this American temper and optimism. The Iraq invasion is a product
of this American political and economic optimism.

However, I view the question differently. I think that the
American national character has gradually changed throughout that
country's history. The influx of Asian migrants, just to mention
one example, has in my view altered the American character in
several ways. And this process of character change has not
finished yet. Paraphrasing Fankfurther, we can say that the
American character has not reached a ripe old age yet. It is
still vigorous, and it is still rejuvenating itself. It is still
too early, in my view, to define the American national character
in a final way.

What about the national character of Indonesia? Is it already
definitively shaped, or does it still have the potential for
change?

There are contrasting impressions about the Indonesian
national character. On the one hand there is the contrived image
that the Indonesian character is marked by tolerance, mutual
respect and a continuous search for harmony. But on the other
hand, there is the damning impression that the Indonesian
character is predominantly corrupt, prone to disregarding the
law, and persistently inclined toward fragmentation. Which of the
two more truly reflects the Indonesian character?

I think both reflect different parts of the Indonesian
character. The good image reflects latent potential, while the
ugly image reflects what is the present reality. We will see
similar contrasts if we look at the behavior of the Indonesian
nation during different periods of Indonesian history. During the
physical revolution of 1945-1949, we see character images clearly
marked by a strong sense of unity, political and economic
resilience, and love of human freedom. But images from the 1975-
1997 period reflect a completely different character. Images from
this period reflect an abrupt disappearance of democracy, the
gradual emergence of totalitarian practices in public
administration, and increasing inequality in the distribution of
national wealth.

In short, through a historical lens we can see changes in the
nature of the Indonesian character. This is to say that the
Indonesian national character is still in the process of
becoming. The big question is, what should we do to steer this
process into the direction that we, Indonesians, commonly aspire
to?

If I am not mistaken, Goethe once said that "genius is formed
in quiet, but character is formed in the stream of human life."
And Helen Keller (1880-1968) said in 1930 that "Character cannot
be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial
and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared,
ambition inspired, and success achieved." And there is one other
important quotation in this regard. This is from a Russian poet,
Yevgeny Yevushenko (born in 1933), who said that "Character
begins to form at the first pinch of anxiety about ourselves."

The recent earthquake and tsunami disaster is a powerful event
in our national life. It has brought home to us experiences of
trial and suffering. It has also made us feel a pinch of anxiety
about ourselves. It will, if we are smart, strengthen our soul,
clear our vision, inspire our ambition and bring us success. In
short, this disaster has all the elements needed to form our
national character. This is a historic opportunity we should not
miss.

The writer has a doctorate of education from Harvard
University.