On the Study of National Character

ON THE STUDY OF NATIONAL CHARACTER By DAVID G. MANDELBAUM IKE other human institutions, scientific meetings serve a variety of func­ tions and the ostensible reason for their existence is not always nor for everyone the prime purpose for attending. But it cannot be gainsaid that ideas may be exchanged, modified, developed at such occasions, especially at so notable an occasion for anthropologists as the International Symposium of 1952 arranged under the auspices of the Wenner-Gren Foundation. This paper is one example of such interchange of ideas. It was the author's assignment to comment at one of the Symposium sessions on the inventory paper written by Dr. Margaret Mead on the subject of national character studies. Much of Mead's survey was found straightway to be useful, stimulat­ ing and unexceptionable. But on three points of practical and theoretical moment, I took exception. They had to do with the relation of national char­ acter studies to applied anthropology, to psychological theory and to sampling techniques and theory. These three matters were discussed by Mead and myself briefly before the relevant session of the Symposium and again at the session. Since they seemed of some importance, I drafted an amplification of my comments at the Sym­ posium and sent it to Mead. Our discussion and correspondence, together with Mead's revision of the wording of several statements in her original paper (1953), clarified my understanding of these statements. This clarification on the subjects of applied anthropology and psychological theory made unnecessary some parts of my previous comment, although other parts' are included here to present certain emphases which I believe are necessary. On the subject of sam­ pling, divergence of opinion apparently still exists and my original observations stand much as first given. Since these three subjects are dealt with in various parts of the inventory paper, interspersed among others, it is well for purposes of clarity to sketch first those aspects of national character studies on which there is agreement and then discuss the three topics on which there has been something less than agreement. I L The people studied in national character analyses are socially demarcated as members of a political grouping, a state or nation. They are thus subject to at least some common institutional influence which justifies the common cultural implications of the term nation, and by any test, a modern state is a real, a viable, social unit, not to say a crucial one at times. People do act as members of a particular nation, not necessarily in the whole round of their lives, not always consistently, but frequently and consistently enough to make