Temperament

TEMPERAMENT, a concept that is still far from having a precise explanation. "At the present time," says Kretschmer, "it is impossible to give an exact and universally binding definition of temperament." Despite this, we can agree that by the concept of "temperament" we mean the uniqueness of the biotone of the personality, connected both with the chemistry of the blood and with the entire humoral system, and finally with the viscerovegetative system. In other words, T. should be understood as the biological foundations of character. The identification of separate types of T. by ancient philosophers and naturalists confirms the possibility of precisely such an understanding of T. The sanguine, choleric, and phlegmatic types of T. indicate what closest connection researchers saw between T. and the vital activity of the entire organism, between the tempo of the organism's activity and its structure. The famous physiognomists Lavater and Gall later also adhered to this division. To some extent, Carus, one of the prominent propagandists in psychology for Schelling's philosophical ideas, repeated this division. It is by no means unnecessary to note that to this day, the indicated subdivisions of T. into its separate types are essentially still in circulation. Despite the giant successes of medical knowledge, we in this field still stand before a number of unresolved tasks. Above all, the boundaries of the concept of T. are still far from clear. What should be understood by the latter? Kretschmer in his work "Body Structure and Character" made an interesting and significant attempt at a somatic explanation of a number of dependencies in character and T. In doing so, he explained both concepts, considering it necessary to examine both character and T. as something unified, having only different forms of expression. If, according to Kretschmer, character is that side of the personality that looks "outward," then T. is that side of the personality that is turned "inward." Proceeding from this, Kretschmer sees no grounds for distinguishing one concept from the other. This viewpoint met with harsh criticism, mainly from the main opponents of Kretschmer—Ewald, Grule, and others. Ewald in his two-volume work "Temperament and Character" and in a number of other places tirelessly repeats that Kretschmer made the grossest error by confusing the concepts of T. and character. The phenomena, according to Ewald, lying in two planes, have been displaced by Kretschmer to such an extent that his entire "characterology" and its somatic basis collapse. Thus, according to Ewald, Kretschmer describes his cycloids in terms of temperamental peculiarities, and his schizoids in terms of characterological ones. T. o. it turns out that Kretschmer inevitably must have two measures for the same phenomenon. In the same direction, Grule also speaks. Ewald himself considers that T., connected with emotions and vital feelings, is a quantitative factor of psychic life, which determines the biotone of the organism: the tempo, duration of excitation; while the type of excitability, reactivity—qualitative features, depending on character; the quantity of inclinations belongs to, the direction of inclinations—to character. It is interesting to note that from a somewhat different side, but with the same criticism, Kleist appears, attempting to stand in psychiatry on a strictly localizationist viewpoint. He points out that T. is a concept that cannot be grasped anatomically. T. can be understood, but by Kleist, analyzing physiological phenomena in the nervous system. T. is properties of the organism, given in a diffuse form. At the same time, "character" is anatomically graspable and can even be, according to Kleist, localized mainly in the trunk part of the brain. Such criticism does not move the question forward. Regarding this heated polemic, the skeptical Bumke points out that the real and empirical development of a number of dependencies between body build, motor sphere, and character would bring much more benefit than the metaphysical dispute about the distinction between the concepts of T. and character. On the other hand, a number of authors understand T. as both the tempo and type of emotivity, with which the organism physiologically reacts to external irritations in connection with the peculiarities of individual humoral-nervous structure. To this assessment, at the present stage of our knowledge about the finest changes in the vital activity of the human organism, we can probably subscribe. In this case, the question arises as to what dependencies are established between the peculiarities of the temperamental appearance of a person and his somatic data. To solve this fundamental question, it is first of all necessary to agree on how to isolate these temperamental peculiarities. In this direction, much has again been done by Kretschmer. The latter proposed a whole scale for isolating these peculiarities and divided it into two circles fundamentally different from each other. This scale, according to Kretschmer, identifies the following series of temperamental differences: hypomanic, syntonic, slow-moving, hyperesthetic, autistic, anesthetic. Kretschmer combines the first three series into the so-called diathetic proportion, the second—into the psychoesthetic-autistic proportion. The extreme variations of each of the indicated series represent, according to Kretschmer, a psychopathic sharpening of the personality, up to psychosis. The first proportion, combining peculiarities of T. from fast, fussy, mobile, euphorically disposed to slow, sluggish, depressive and inclined to hypochondria, has its correlate in the pyknic body build. Followers of Kretschmer (van der Horst, Kübler) believe that 75% of pyknics are united by this proportion. On the other hand, the correlate with the motor sphere (investigated mainly graphologically) according to the data of Gislin, Ozeretsky, and others also justifies the identification of the indicated proportion. Each of the series of this proportion is characterized by diverse expression of the same qualitative difference. And this last lies in the nature of mood, in the structure of the life tempo and is united by a special quality of sociability (syntonness, in Bleuler's expression, or extraversion, according to Jung), permeating all three series of the diathetic proportion. The second proportion—psychoesthetic-autistic—combines within itself series from supersensitive and vulnerable up to mimosa-like people, up to a cold egoist-loner and eccentric. The unifying moment of this proportion is recognized as the presence of an autistic attitude of the personality, or introversion, according to Jung. This closedness, small accessibility, asyntonness makes some representatives of these three series loners-aristocrats (according to Kretschmer), peculiar eccentrics, persistent and cold egoists, etc. Their somatic correlate consists mainly of various dysplasias, infantilism, eunuchoidism, various asthenias of different kinds and origin, up to intersexual forms of Matzevich.—As can be seen, the second proportion is indeed taken by Kretschmer much wider than the first and includes heterogeneous and qualitatively different magnitudes. This is undoubtedly a flaw in the given division, which should be used with maximum caution. No wonder such a fine clinical psychiatrist as P. B. Gannushkin considered "so-called supersensitivity and mimosa-like" quality not so much a property of the schizoid circle as of the cycloid one, noting in depressives the same vulnerability and sensitivity. It should also be mentioned that, in connection with this, searches were carried out with great intensity in the direction of finding more real relationships between temperamental and somatic peculiarities of the personality. The research thought went along the line of studying electrolyte exchange, vegetative-endocrine system, etc. The accumulation of facts in this direction has not yet brought any significant results, although theoretically attempts are already being made to build a number of generalizations. Among them, the theory of Kraus deserves to be noted, who tries to divide the personality into cortical and vegetative, or deep. In this respect, Kraus revives old idealistic ideas, turning to the "deep" and "holistic," neglecting the "cortical," purposeful and reasonable-human in man (see Kraus' teaching). We mention this revival of a special panpsychism precisely because in present-day Germany these ideas have now found fertile soil and in turn help to cultivate the poisonous seeds of obscurantism and barbarism. Lit.—see lit. in art. Character.