The Egotism of Type

— Lately I was much interested in the opinions expressed by a familiar circle as to whether a certain acquaintance were or were not an egotist. The consensus being affirmative, with the froward desire of the non-participating listener to support the minority, I mentally began sifting evidence for the defense. I reflected that the person thus arraigned was notable for her modesty whenever the question of her good works or of her natural gifts arose. No impression was gained that their illustrator was possessed of undue self-esteem. On the other hand, it was to he noticed that, in any discussion where the conduct of life was the topic, she was strong in her approval or condemnation of the actors according as their behavior under the given test coincided with or diverged from her own in the same situation. In effect, the verdict reached seemed to be, “ Right. I should have done that; ” or, “ Wrong. I should not have acted in such a manner,” — and this with a fervor of declaration which rather resembled religious conviction based upon some impassioned esoteric principle than the mere assertion of individual conceit and arrogance of opinion.

In the train of these reflections came the following conclusion : that there exists an egotism of type, as radical as the most vehement personal egotism ; an egotism in which the I possesses the unindividual individuality of a composite photograph ; an egotism which is a kind of partisanship for an idea, and consequently for its fellowpartakers in the idea, and which ranges itself against the antipodal idea and those following its lead. This egotism of type appeared to me to be characterized by a feeling as deep-seated as racial prejudice itself. Why, indeed, should we not recognize the fact of races in mentality and temperament as we recognize the usual ethnological divisions of the human family ? This subtler race feeling runs high. The animus proceeding from difference of color is scarcely more flagrant.

Egotism of type usually passes unrecognized, and is seen quite as often in its affirmative phase of approval of its own constituents as in that of opposition to the dissimilar in character and action. The dominant nature hears with approbation the recital of deeds performed by another dominant nature, and in any arraignment of the latter’s conduct and policy will assume the attitude of defense. At the same time, the dominant despises the acquiescent and the non-belligerent, however it may ally itself with these last for convenience and the unopposed exercise of sovereignty. The subtle admires the subtle, and holds in contempt the simplician, who is nevertheless essential in the former’s scheme of operations. The demonstrative person accuses the undemonstrative either of phlegm or of shrewd calculation. The spontaneous in expression can have no conception of the reserved intense ; Hamlet is not merely a Jack-a-dreams, but is anæmic and cowardly, to the mind of one who acts on the impulse and summarily, not balancing considerations. A jealous and revengeful nature, when met with the charge of jealousy and vindictiveness, will cause you to see immediately (unless you are hopelessly prejudiced for mild neutrality) that the passions thus charged are the conspicuous and unfailing indices of a strong nature, while they are left out only in the make-up of the under-vitalized.

On the whole, these observations on the egotism of type, instead of confirming me in the long-received popular idea that opposites attract opposites, seemed to corroborate the very contrary of such a conclusion. Ultimate and essential likeness of character appeared to be the strong binding influence between individuals, though an outward dissimilarity, as in speech and manners, has also its distinct charm. It has been remarked very justly that, while variety is the spice of life, it is only the spice, not the substantial aliment of human nature’s daily fare.

At the risk of perpetrating a reductio ad absurdum, I will add an instance which would seem to prove my thesis sound, not merely as fundamental truth, but as a fact of skin-deep demonstration. A lady of my acquaintance was expressing herself strongly in favor of the brunette type as more signally illustrating the traits of affection, sincerity, constancy, and whatever else is loveliest in woman. She was herself a brunette. A canvass of the question resulted in blonde declaring for blonde, brunette for brunette.