On Kamtekar - by Jesse Pavelka
B. Character Traits are Broad-Based
Kamtekar does not convince me that a narrow character trait will be more stable than any broad-based trait when examined over multiple situations. She bases her argument on a study of the word 'honesty', which in her mind is comprised of 'not lying, not cheating, and not stealing'; we can assume however, that there are other behaviors associated with the word as well. While each describes a different specific action, they are all linked by a common thread: duplicity. Not only that, but if we are presented with three different individuals (one who lies, one who cheats, and one who steals), are we really comfortable having the liar drive a Brinks truck based on the notion that he won't steal? Or how about having a "truthful thief" take the witness stand in a death row case? Is that not an oxymoron? I have a firm belief that people can change their characters over time, and I don't think I disagree with Kamtekar's overall argument that character is formative in situational reactions, but I think that breaking down character into special, narrowly applicable subcharacterizations doesn't work.
Not only that, but the author admits that the narrow sub-dispositions of honesty are "deeply connected", which strikes me as *way* too much of a concession to make. The common thread is much more important than she makes it out to be. I think she uses somewhat twisted logic in her attempt to defeat Harman, though of course I might be off the mark here because I found her style difficult to follow. It seems to me that she undermines her case further in her example of the cheater who starts to lie based on the grounds that cheating has worked, and both are based on deception. Isn't her point that honesty, and character traits in general, are made up of many more narrow dispositions that are applicable to specific situations only? Isn't she trying to argue against the unity of honesty, because its unity defeats her idea of applicability across multiple situations? If I have this right, then it would seem a very weak argument on her part, one that she partially defeats all on her own.
C. Subjective Construal
Kamtekar's analysis of subjective construal I find much more palatable. Situationists claim that behavior correlates not only with a situation, but the situation as we interpret it. I think the author asks a great question in wondering why construal is not part of character. "How exactly are we to understand situation, when one's situation includes how one sees one's situation?" (471) How we see a situation is essentially the way in which we filter stimuli and give each stimulus importance in any give set of circumstances. These filters are undoubtedly influenced by our upbringing and heredity (the genetics/environment combination argument). Is this not the same as character? It would seem to me that character could also be defined in its essence as how we see a given situation and how we react to what we see. This basically admits that differences in character result in different behaviors.
Kamtekar does not convince me that a narrow character trait will be more stable than any broad-based trait when examined over multiple situations. She bases her argument on a study of the word 'honesty', which in her mind is comprised of 'not lying, not cheating, and not stealing'; we can assume however, that there are other behaviors associated with the word as well. While each describes a different specific action, they are all linked by a common thread: duplicity. Not only that, but if we are presented with three different individuals (one who lies, one who cheats, and one who steals), are we really comfortable having the liar drive a Brinks truck based on the notion that he won't steal? Or how about having a "truthful thief" take the witness stand in a death row case? Is that not an oxymoron? I have a firm belief that people can change their characters over time, and I don't think I disagree with Kamtekar's overall argument that character is formative in situational reactions, but I think that breaking down character into special, narrowly applicable subcharacterizations doesn't work.
Not only that, but the author admits that the narrow sub-dispositions of honesty are "deeply connected", which strikes me as *way* too much of a concession to make. The common thread is much more important than she makes it out to be. I think she uses somewhat twisted logic in her attempt to defeat Harman, though of course I might be off the mark here because I found her style difficult to follow. It seems to me that she undermines her case further in her example of the cheater who starts to lie based on the grounds that cheating has worked, and both are based on deception. Isn't her point that honesty, and character traits in general, are made up of many more narrow dispositions that are applicable to specific situations only? Isn't she trying to argue against the unity of honesty, because its unity defeats her idea of applicability across multiple situations? If I have this right, then it would seem a very weak argument on her part, one that she partially defeats all on her own.
C. Subjective Construal
Kamtekar's analysis of subjective construal I find much more palatable. Situationists claim that behavior correlates not only with a situation, but the situation as we interpret it. I think the author asks a great question in wondering why construal is not part of character. "How exactly are we to understand situation, when one's situation includes how one sees one's situation?" (471) How we see a situation is essentially the way in which we filter stimuli and give each stimulus importance in any give set of circumstances. These filters are undoubtedly influenced by our upbringing and heredity (the genetics/environment combination argument). Is this not the same as character? It would seem to me that character could also be defined in its essence as how we see a given situation and how we react to what we see. This basically admits that differences in character result in different behaviors.
posted by Kelly Sorensen at 12:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home