Commentary: Having character doesn’t mean being boring and rigid

There was a time in America when character was critical.

Everyone was looking for “a person of good character.” It showed up in job ads and in marriage plans. Schools and parents tried to develop character in children.

People were proud if they were complimented on their character. Everyone tried to avoid shady characters.

Then something happened. The word character came to mean rigid, old-fashioned, fussy, angry, controlling.

As if people of good character were the kind of people who would sign up to put down a rebellion in South Africa, consider “Murder on the Orient Express” too racy or label as wild a weekend in Mexico sipping limeade while playing chess by Loreto Bay.

It’s too bad. Because character is fundamental. Behavior flows from character. So if we have any concerns about behavior (and some do), we ought to be concerned about character.

Some people worry that an emphasis on character development will be pathologically confining. But it needn’t be so.

After all, it’s not hard to sketch out character qualities that everyone would like to see in the neighbors: Honest, friendly, helpful, hardworking, polite and thoughtful make a solid start.

Is there really anything wrong with that list? Would anyone protest if “neat, clean, artistic, interesting and amusing” were added?

It’s not that hard to develop character in oneself or in children: Read inspiring books; see inspiring movies; listen to inspiring music; mentally or verbally “cue” doing the right thing; mentally or verbally reward high-character behavior; choose noble role models to imitate; and discuss the value of good character with others.

Maybe the idea that character development is a bad thing is one of those urban legends that is itself a bad thing.

Dr. STEVE DAVIDSON is a clinical psychologist in Newport Beach.