Demokratie und Charakter was published by Rascher Verlag in 1944.
In the June 30, 1954 issue of "Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte ( APuZ )," the paper had her provide an outline of her book. The following is the Google translate of that article, with some minor editorial changes:
Character and Democracy
Franziska Baumgarten-Tramer
In 1944, Franziska Baumgarten, a well-known psychology lecturer at the University of Bern, published a book entitled DEMOCRACY AND CHARACTER (Rascher-Verlag, Zurich). Because of the topicality of the ideas developed in it for political education, we do not want to withhold them from our readers. We have therefore asked Professor Baumgarten to give a brief outline of the main content of her book.
Being human also means being a fellow human being.
Preliminary remark
The various forms of government in which the life of nations takes place, such as absolutism or democracy, are highly dependent on the character of the people and their "social maturity". Whether a people tolerates absolutism and dictatorship or has the need to participate in the shaping of its political life and to have a say depends essentially on whether its character is at a lower or higher level of development, whether it has matured in social 1) respects. We will explain this in more detail.
Intellect and character
We call character the totality of those mental characteristics that lead people to do and behave in a certain way. Character is therefore the way in which the individual asserts his self-preservation and self-development, or adapts to his environment. It is well known that people's characters vary greatly, particularly in terms of how the individual behaves towards his fellow human beings, for example whether he is inconsiderate or concerned about the welfare of others, or has selfish or communal feelings. As we have all certainly already observed, this is already apparent in children, but natural predispositions can become more or less pronounced as people get older. The childish character is strongly influenced by upbringing and external circumstances.
How does this character development take place? We know how the intellectual abilities of the child develop gradually, so that in school — taking this development into account — the material appropriate to each age group is offered.
In a similar way, character also matures gradually. However, this is not as obvious as with the intellect or the body. At first the child is dominated solely by the urge to satisfy his basic instincts; he wants to be well fed and cared for. He only pays attention to his surroundings insofar as they relate to his desires. (Image: child . . . "have - have!" - tantrum.)
The child is therefore initially selfish, egocentric. He tries to assert his wishes against others as best he can. Boys aged 10-12 burn with fighting spirit, they wrestle, and even carry out real campaigns against other groups in groups to test their strength - jealousy blossoms in girls. (Image: boys wrestling)
Then, very gradually, sociality develops. The adolescent turns his interest to the outside world and tries to adapt to his environment. At the age of 12 to 14, during the period of so-called puberty, the tendency to use the informal "you" begins to take on new forms. A vague longing arises not only to be with, play with and discuss things with people of the same age, but also to form a new form of community with them, based on a more conscious reciprocity. The need to communicate is evident in the urge to share joys and sorrows with a friend. Most impulsive friendships are formed during puberty, and these friendships often last a lifetime. This period also marks the first strong social ties. Due to the awareness of his increasing intellectual powers, the adolescent has a heightened sense of self and wants to emphasize this externally by striving to break away from parental authority and that of educators.
But the young person, not entirely sure of his own immature strengths, looks for protection and help from outside. During puberty, his desire for company with stronger, smarter and more knowledgeable people, i.e. for a leader, is expressed. In this emotional state of need for support, adults - both qualified and unqualified - have an easy time influencing the young person. The longing for a leader does not usually last long, however; it is only a transitional stage. The young person, whose intellectual development progresses, also shakes off the leader and wants to make his own decisions. He perceives himself as a conscious self with his own judgment and his own responsibility - he becomes an object of reflection. The will to self-determination is always a sign of emotional maturity.
This development of social feelings is accompanied by the maturation to act. The small child also has a desire for activity, but he acts more impulsively, without hesitation, without a sense of responsibility, completely at the mercy of his own emotions; he is also subject to external influences. The mature child, on the other hand, is not so easily carried away by his own impulsiveness, but is able to master his emotions and subordinate them to a higher idea. He is prepared to think about the consequences of his actions and to consciously accept responsibility.
This is the expression of man's innate sense of community. How this is expressed in character is also just a question of development and maturation in the course of constant confrontation with the environment and its demands.
What does animal behavior teach us?
We know from animal psychology that where many animals of the same species live together, a social hierarchy develops automatically. The stronger animal strives to subjugate the weaker ones. For example, the larger hen pecks at the smaller ones and chases them away from the food in order to secure the larger portion and the better bite for herself. With herd animals, such as cattle and sheep, the strongest animal leads and the others blindly follow it.
In children, we first see social structures similar to those of chickens and wolves. In every school class there is one child whose will prevails over the others. Surprisingly, it is usually not always the most talented or the kindest, not even the strongest, to whom his comrades submit, but rather the most active, most temperamental and most ruthless who finds the courage to seize power or leadership. The initiative for all group actions always comes from the leader, while the others submit themselves.
Only when the young people have reached a certain level of personal maturity, when their sense of community and justice has grown so strong that they treat their comrades as equal partners, does the hierarchy gradually dissolve and a relationship of mutual participation develops in its place, depending on the individuality, willingness to respond and personality of the partner. A kind of legal order based on reciprocity emerges, a community of fundamentally equal rights. The more their spirit and character have developed, the freer their groups and community formations are from any kind of coercion. When they set themselves common goals such as studying, excursions, group work, relief operations for comrades in need or for a population threatened by natural disasters, this is done by free agreement in which every opinion can be expressed. If one of the comrades has a special gift, it is happily recognized and the subject of all-round participation. Anyone who always submits uncritically is not held in very high esteem.
We can therefore see how a new form of coexistence can develop with maturity of character, how one discovers the "I" in the "you". We can therefore easily recognize the degree of maturity of character of its members by looking at the more primitive or higher form of a community. "The higher "we" is an ethical achievement that cannot be achieved without strict self-discipline." [1]
[1] Ed Spranger: “Psychology of Adolescence”, p. 224.
Democracy as a process of maturing
What we have said about the coexistence of maturing youth also applies to the community of adults within a state. The type of state that prevails depends to a large extent on the character and intellectual maturity of the members of the state. Not all people reach the same level of personal maturity. Many stop developing prematurely. The social maturation of an entire people can also be delayed by internal and external events. This can lead to a very interesting psychological process: a people may be at full potential in terms of its ability to work, its technical knowledge, its methodical thinking and its scientific disposition, but have remained at the stage of puberty in terms of its social forms. Intellectual and social maturation do not always run parallel. A people that has not yet reached a higher stage of development of human social forms is more likely than other peoples to become a mass without willpower, which more or less blindly carries out what is suggested to it by a domineering and power-hungry person who poses as a leader. Beguiled by promises that meet their wishes and not yet aware of a community ethos based on the free cooperation of responsible people, the mass tends to uncritically believe everything that comes "from above", so that the leader can achieve almost anything he wants from them. Lack of social maturity and political attitude prevent his orders and laws from being critically examined. The politically immature person is not capable of offering intellectual resistance to suggestive phrases. In political terms, he is as susceptible to influence as children are to their leader in their games. A gift for emotional or spirited speech, with lively gestures at its disposal, a loud, even shrill voice, the use of catchphrases have a rousing effect on these people. The more the primitive emotions of the masses are stirred up, the more feelings of rivalry and self-assertion, even hatred and envy, are mobilized in the masses, the more they are whipped up to thoughtless actions. It is also easy for the leader of a politically immature people to start a supposedly "just war", to slander the enemy and to praise and exalt themselves. Those who are still intellectually and in terms of community development uncritical go along with everything that the authorities demand of them, both good and bad, as long as it has the aura of the responsible leader. Yes, they even like this paternalism because they feel every personal responsibility is a burden and are glad not to have to bear it. Psychologists claim thatThe desire of people to become one with the masses is a psychological "residue", i.e. a leftover from early childhood, when one bore no responsibility and felt safe and secure with others. The desire to be led is basically always a puberty phenomenon. In adults it is a process of regression, i.e. a setback in development, a sign of psychological immaturity or an inability to master life. This political immaturity of a people can have a global political significance. The more power-hungry, despotic, "prime" a ruler is, the more he strives to form an equally primitive mass out of the people under his command, which, in its lack of scruples and criticism, believes everything that is officially declared to be "right" and will be ready to obey anything. Such a people therefore finds it relatively easy to establish itself as a leading nation through violence and ruthlessness. If the other peoples are just as socially immature, they too will can be subjugated relatively easily until they are also mature enough to realize that and how they can govern and liberate themselves.
Autocracy and democracy
As we have seen, the way people live together is largely determined by their level of character and social development. Social ties take their form from this and the form of government under which a people lives depends largely on it. There are two main forms of government that have developed over time: autocracy and democracy. The autocratic form is found primarily where the general tendency is either towards domination, intolerance and rivalry or towards dependent, uncritical obedience and "going along with things". There, everything is geared towards self-assertion and struggle, as well as towards orders and following. Personal safety is constantly at risk, differences of opinion are not dealt with fairly. Power takes precedence over law, and every action is right if it corresponds to the intentions of the authorities. A great writer (Paul Valery) once said: "Dictatorship is only possible where group egoism clouds the view of the benefit of the whole." A member of the Swiss Federal Council expressed it just as correctly: "Basically, dictatorship is a form of government based on human megalomania." Even if dictators speak of a "national community," this word must not obscure the true nature of the state they call that. But where the majority of citizens have a stronger sense of fairness, equality, tolerance, helpfulness, justice, freedom, and instinctive egoism than blind submission, a state emerges that is described as democratic. Literally translated, democracy means "rule of the people," in other words, it is a system in which every individual has a say in all matters that affect the life of the community. (Image: Direct democracy in a Swiss municipality)
Democracy means that every individual has a say in government, whereby everyone is fundamentally given the opportunity to assert themselves and to act freely, as long as they do not lose sight of the welfare of the whole, i.e. as long as they do not seek to oppress others.
In a just democracy, people strive for agreements and the most peaceful cooperation possible; where there are oppressed or even "terrorized" people, there is a constant danger of rebellion and civil war. Democracy always requires mutual trust.
Trust is a concept that can only be applied to morally positive categories. One can trust in honesty, a sense of responsibility, mercy, benevolence, loyalty, etc., but not in meanness, hatred, thirst for revenge, slander, envy. Trust is therefore the positive link between people. Where mutual trust prevails, people are also able to enjoy life to a greater extent. Where it is lacking, people spend a considerable amount of energy protecting their own interests. All agreements, pacts and contracts that people and states conclude with each other last as long as all parties feel a moral obligation to keep them. No one can enjoy life to the full with the constant fear that their neighbor is lying in wait to harm them. No one can imagine what a great hindrance to social and political life the lack of mutual trust represents. Humanity would have reached a higher level of development long ago if it did not have to waste so much time, energy and wealth on its own protection. Democracy therefore also frees people from fear of their fellow human beings, and therefore from the danger of war. Mutual trust is one of the pillars of the human community and at the same time a sign of the character and political maturity of a community. Democracy is the form of government based on mutual trust. It says: one for all, all for one. (In autocracy, on the other hand, it is only: all for one.) We would like to emphasize here that democracy is fundamentally based on moral principles. No other form of government can be brought into line with the general moral law to the same extent as democracy. In democracy, there is a greater sense of justice than in any other form of government; the achievements of others and the claims of others to equal rights are fundamentally recognized. Attempts to influence people to behave immorally are subject to public criticism. Democracy sees the idea of humanity as the basis of all ethics; democratic people respect their fellow human beings and recognise their human dignity. Democracy stands for the principle of truth and for the objectivity of all assessments. Free expression of opinion does not bring with it any disadvantages, unless it is aimed at suppressing freedom again, i.e. reversing the development of sociality. However, anyone who does not always see their fellow human beings as rivals to be fought, i.e. who does not show any egoistic inhibitions about supporting them, has already developed the maturity of character that leads to democracy, i.e. he is a "real democrat". Democracy is the haven of helpfulness and mutual assistance. It offers everyone the opportunity to maintain themselves through mutual participation.to develop and assert oneself according to one's talents. In this way, democracy also means security for the life and property of every individual. The democratic form of government is a guarantee, a protection against arbitrary interventions by outsiders, so that people can pursue their freely chosen profession in peace and enjoy their private life. No one can seize the property of another with impunity, no one can infringe on his honor. Under such secure conditions, life takes on an increased value for everyone. The term democracy therefore also includes an increase in the value of life.
Democracy and Peace
Between genuine democracies the danger of war is small, if not completely eliminated. This is because democracy lacks the main reason for all wars of aggression: the uncontrolled urge of a ruler to ruthlessly expand his rule. In a democracy, unlike an autocracy, the decision to go to war must be made by a popular assembly. This averts the danger of an arbitrary decision and offers the opportunity for the people's representatives to review the dispute. Experience has shown time and again that wars no longer pay off, no matter how successful they initially were, such as the campaigns of conquest by Napoleon, Hitler or North Korea - even the victors do not get their money's worth.
While autocracy tends to resolve conflicts by force, including by military means, democracy tries to reconcile and satisfy the hostile conflict of interests, where they exist, by means of understanding, concessions and arbitration agreements. The democrat knows that he must make compromises so that the other party is also prepared to make concessions. Such mutual willingness can resolve many difficulties and settle disputes.
A particularly characteristic feature of a mature person is his sense of responsibility in all his thoughts and actions. He is not easily guided by impulses and emotions, but rather weighs up his actions in terms of the possible consequences - not only for himself, but also for his fellow human beings. This is the typical attitude of a democrat. On the other hand, we know that many dictators who have started a world conflagration only regretted their unscrupulous playing with fire after losing the war and then exclaimed: "I didn't mean that!"
The differences in human character and peoples in the state of maturity mean that some easily and unconditionally submit themselves and lead a dull, comfortable and responsibility-free but lawless slave life, while others - even in the earliest times of history - did not submit to any dictatorship, but rather avoided fighting against those in power. It was by no means always only the oppressed themselves who rebelled; slavery always provoked great indignation even among people who were not affected, namely those who had retained a sense of freedom, humanity and justice. They courageously took up the fight against the oppressor. "One people oppresses another and revels in the glory of victory and happiness, the other people rises up again and returns the shame they suffered."
The spiritual strength of resistance against injustice committed by those in power who abuse their governmental power is of crucial importance for the preservation of ethical principles in people's lives. Without this strength, humanity would have long since fallen prey to chaos, a struggle of all against all. The uprisings and revolutions, especially the great French Revolution in 1789, testify to the historical importance of the ethical driving forces of mature and responsible people: many aristocrats at that time were on the side of the oppressed citizens. The uprisings against those in power therefore - as the French Revolution teaches us - sooner or later achieved their goal. Its proclamation of human and civil rights is a milestone in the development of human culture and social relations. It was a decisive step towards the social, character and thus political maturity of the French.
But what was new and socially valuable about this proclamation? It abolished all privileges of the previously privileged classes. Everyone was entitled to their place in the sun. Everyone's claims could be put forward and could count on state protection. This led to an equalization of rights. The privileged position of the stronger, who seizes power by force, was shaken. The weak also received their rights before the law, exactly the same as those who had previously been powerful. The state, the authorities, endeavored to protect the weak from now on. This is how democracy was born in this corner of Europe.
Now, there are of course advocates of the authoritarian, dictatorial system who refer to the following, supposedly scientific statement: "Everywhere in the world, there must be leaders and followers, if only because of the inequality in the performance of the brains . . . No one can escape the statement that our entire human life, in small and large terms, is carried out according to the principle of division, the mass on the one hand and the leader of the mass on the other, unless he is completely blind. [2]
[2] W. Poppelreuter: “Hitler as political psychologist.” Langensalza 1943, p. 1.
It is therefore a utopian dream to want to create a democracy based on the completely false assumption that all people are "equal". The well-known slogan "levelling" is then used. However, there are two errors in this explanation: 1. According to nature, there are not only two kinds of people, leaders and mass people, but many thousands, even millions of variations. "Every heart beats its own rhythm." This division represents an inadmissible, artificial simplification of reality, which is very common in politically immature thinking. 2. Democrats do not claim that all people are "equal". On the contrary, since they are very well aware of the fact that people are all different, they draw the conclusion that people complement each other in a meaningful way according to their mental, character and physical disposition, i.e. that they should work together in their own place and on their own responsibility, with assigned roles. - One can therefore only really speak of "leveling" where the people are degraded to an obedient mass or even voluntarily, as a result of their social backwardness, remain in the state of mass man. Democracy and leadership Even in a democracy, leading roles and functions naturally arise alongside more subordinate roles and duties - and who takes on the one or the other depends on how much responsibility the individual is suited to take on according to his disposition and appears called upon and is also prepared to bear the burden of conscience. "Responsibility" means that one really takes responsibility for the factual and fair performance of one's office. Even in dictatorships, people like to talk about "responsibility", but this means something completely different: one means giving an account to one's superior that one has acted exactly as ordered, and accepting reprimands if this was not the case, regardless of whether one acted rightly or wrongly according to one's conscience. Instead of conscience, the responsibility for oneself, the superior takes the place of one's superior, onto whom one shifts the responsibility. "I only carried out what I was ordered to do," is the defense.
In a dictatorship, completely unsuitable people are often appointed to important positions, simply because they are considered to be reliable followers of the dictator. They will then do everything to please the dictator; that is the extent of their sense of duty. They do not care whether the people entrusted to them are treated unfairly, perhaps even tortured and terrorized, any more than a small child cares if it injures a weaker child. In a democracy, such arbitrary acts of violence cannot take place because the citizens know that it is in their hands to defend themselves against any injustice. This "basic right" is guaranteed to them in every democratic state constitution, and it forms the cornerstone of their freedom.
But such concessions are — viewed from another perspective — an expression of goodwill and humanity, that is, of character. And so we see here again how character determines democracy.
Professor Dr. Franziska Baumgarten-Tramer, University of Bern, Honorary Secretary General of the International Association for Psychotechnics, Editor of the International Journal of Professional Ethics.