THE OUTER PHASE: PERSONALITY
Just as _character_ is the inner phase of Human Nature, so is _personality_ its outer phase. To many the two terms are synonymous, but analysis will show the shades of difference between them. A man's _character_ is his inner self, while his _personality_ is the outward indication of his self. The word, in this sense, is defined as: "That which constitutes the personal traits of a person, as his manner, conduct, habits, appearance, and other observable personal peculiarities."
The word is derived from the Latin word, _persona_, meaning, "a mask used by play-actors," which in turn was derived from the two words _per_, meaning "through," and _sono_, meaning, "to sound," or combined, "to sound through." And the derivation of the term really gives us an idea of its inner meaning, for the personality is really the mask worn by the character, and _through which it sounds_, speaks, or manifests itself, Jeremy Taylor once said: "No man can long put on _person_ and act a part but his evil manners will peep through the corners of his white robe." Archbishop Trench once said that the real meaning of the phrase, "God is no respecter of _persons_" is that the Almighty cared nothing for what _part_ in life a person plays, but _how_ he plays it. The old-time play-actor was wont to assume a mask of the features of the part he played, just as the modern actor "makes up" for the part and walks, speaks and acts in accordance therewith. Whether or not the individual be aware of the fact, Nature furnishes to each his mask of personality--his _persona_--by which those who understand may recognize the part he plays, or his character. In both the inner _character_, and the outer _personality_, each individual struts the stage of life and plays his part.
The mask or "make up," of personality, by which men may read each other's character, is evolved and developed from the instinctive physical expression accompanying thought, feeling and emotion. Just as the frown accompanying the feeling of annoyance or anger will, if repeated sufficiently often, become fixed upon the countenance of the man, so will all of his general thoughts, feelings and emotions register themselves in his manner, gait, tone of voice, carriage and facial expression. Moreover, his inherited tendencies will show themselves in the same way.
Professor Wm. James says, regarding the genesis of emotional reactions: "How come the various objects which excite emotion to produce such special and different bodily effects? This question was not asked till quite recently, but already some interesting suggestions toward answering it have been made. Some movements of expression can be accounted for as weakened repetitions of movements which formerly (when they were stronger) were of utility to the subject. Others are similarly weakened repetitions of movements which under other conditions were physiologically necessary concomitants of the useful movements. Of the latter reactions, the respiratory disturbances in anger and fear might be taken as examples--organic reminiscences, as it were, reverberations in imagination of the blowings of the man making a series of combative efforts, or the pantings of one in precipitate flight. Such at least is a suggestion made by Mr. Spencer which has found approval."
Herbert Spencer says, on this subject: "To have in a slight degree such psychical states as accompany the reception of wounds, and are experienced during flight, is to be in a state of what we call fear. And to have in a slight degree such psychical states as the processes of catching, killing, and eating imply, is to have the desires to catch, kill and eat. That the propensities to the acts are nothing else than nascent excitations of the psychical state involved in the acts, is proved by the natural language of the propensities. Fear, when strong, expresses itself in cries, in efforts to escape in palpitations, in tremblings; and these are just the manifestations that go along with an actual suffering of the evil feared. The destructive passion is shown in a general tension of the muscular system, in gnashing of teeth and protrusion of the claws, in dilated eyes and nostrils in growls; and these are weaker forms of the actions that accompany the killing of prey. To such objective evidences every one can add subjective evidences. Everyone can testify that the psychical state called fear consists of mental representations of certain painful results; and that the one called anger consists of mental representations of the actions and impressions which would occur while inflicting some kind of pain."
Professor Wm. James adds the following to the discussion: "So slight a symptom as the snarl or sneer, the one-sided uncovering of the upper teeth, is accounted for by Darwin as a survival from the time when our ancestors had large canines, and unfleshed him (as dogs do now) for attack. Similarly the raising of the eyebrows in outward attention, the opening of the mouth in astonishment, come, according to the same author, from the utility of these movements in extreme cases. The raising of the eyebrows goes with the opening of the eye for better vision, the opening of the mouth with the intensest listening, and with the rapid catching of the breath which precedes muscular effort. The distension of the nostrils in anger is interpreted by Spencer as an echo of the way in which our ancestors had to breathe when, during combat, their 'mouth was filled up by a part of an antagonist's body that had been seized.' The trembling of fear is supposed by Mantegazza to be for the sake of warming the blood. The reddening of the face and neck is called by Wundt a compensatory arrangement for relieving the brain of the blood-pressure which the simultaneous excitement of the heart brings with it. The effusion of tears is explained both by this author and by Darwin to be a blood-withdrawing agency of a similar sort. The contraction of the muscles around the eyes, of which the primitive use is to protect those organs from being too much gorged with blood during the screaming fits of infancy, survives in adult life in the shape of the frown, which instantly comes over the brow when anything difficult or displeasing presents itself either to thought or action."
Thus, it will be seen, the fact that all inward states manifest themselves to some degree in outward physical expression, brings with it the logical inference that particular mental states when habitually manifested tend to fix in the physical organism the expression associated with them. As "thoughts take form in action," so habitual mental states tend to register traces of those actions. A piece of paper folded in a certain way several times shows plainly the marks on the folding. In the same manner the creases in our clothing, shoes and gloves, show the marks of our personal physical form. A habitual mental state of cheerfulness is accompanied by a frequent exercise of the muscles expressing the physical signs of that feeling, and finally the smile wrinkles are formed that all may read them. In the same way the gloomy, pessimistic mental attitude produces the marks and wrinkles showing the habit of frequent down-turning of the corners of our mouths. A habitual mental attitude of suspicion will tend to impart the appearance of the "suspicious peering" to our eyes. The mental attitude of combativeness will likewise give us the traditional set jaw and tightly compressed lips. The mental attitude of lack of self-respect will show itself in our walk, and so, in the opposite manner with the mental attitude of self-respect. People grow to walk, talk, carry themselves, and "look like" their habitual mental attitude.
Dr. A. T. Schofield, says: "'He is a dull scholar,' it is said, 'who cannot read a man's character even from a back view.' Round a statue of the prince Consort in Edinburgh stand representative groups paying homage to him. If you get a back view of any of these you can see unconscious mind impressed on matter, and can tell at once the sailor or soldier, peasant or scholar or workman. Look at the body and face of a man when the mind is gone. Look at the body of a man who has lost his self-respect. Look at the body of a thief, of a sot, of a miser. Compare the faces and expressions of a philanthropist, of a beggar, of a policeman, of a scholar, of a sailor, of a lawyer, of a doctor, of a shop-walker, of a sandwich man, of a farmer, of a successful manufacturer, of a nurse, of a refined girl, of a servant, of a barmaid, of a nun, of a ballet dancer, of an art student, and answer to yourself these two questions: First, are these different expressions of body and face due essentially to _physical_ or _psychical_ causes? And, secondly, do these psychical causes act on the facial and other muscles in consciousness or out of consciousness. The only possible answers to these two questions leave us with this fact, were no other proof possible, that we each have within us an unconscious _psychical_ power (here called the unconscious mind) which has sufficient force to act upon the body and display psychical conceptions through physical media."
It is impossible for us (at least by any of the five senses) to peer into the mental chamber of other men and there read the record of their _character_, or to interpret the combination of Human Nature therein moulded and formed. But nevertheless we are not balked in our desire, for by learning to interpret the outward signs of personality we may arrive with a wonderful degree of success at an understanding of the character, mind, or Human Nature in others. From the seen Outer we may deduce the unseen Inner. We may discern the shape of that which is concealed, by observing the form of the covering which hides it from sight. The body, like the fabled veil of the goddess, "conceals but to reveal."