In her wonderful book Quiet:The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, Susan Cain attributes the over-valuing of extroversion in our society, at least in part, to the transformation in the early twentieth century from a Culture of Character to a Culture of Personality. She cites the work of Warren Susman, a cultural anthropologist, who describes the migration from the small town (where everyone knows your name and your character) to the big city (where you need to find a way to stand out). The traits that were important in a small community are no longer sufficient to guarantee your success in the more anonymous urban world.
Cain draws a striking, somewhat stark, comparison between the attributes that are highlighted in self-help books in the two "cultures":
Culture of Character | Culture of Personality |
---|---|
Citizenship | Magnetism |
Duty | Fascinating |
Work | Stunning |
Golden deeds | Attractive |
Honor | Glowing |
Reputation | Dominant |
Morals | Forceful |
Manners | Energetic |
Integrity |
The comparison seems a bit loaded, but also unfortunately fairly accurate. And it exposes the root of my discomfort with self-branding. When is self-promotion OK and necessary? When it is self-aggrandizement and just over the top? It is a balancing act. I admire the personal brands created by several people that I "follow" -- Dan Rather, Bill Moyers, Gretchen Rubin, Susan Cain, and Daniel Pink are just a few examples. But each of them sometimes ventures over the line (in my opinion) because self-marketing is so necessary today. Contrast them with someone I've come to dislike because his personal brand is excessive -- James Patterson. And yet, his net worth probably exceeds everyone on my first list combined.
It's hard to see how we get back to a society where character is once again valued, a la David Brooks, but I certainly hope we make some progress in that direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment