Is Personality a System? Stability, Process and Plasticity

The nomothetic thrust of personality research has been the subject of some significant recent criticism. One major problem is the failure in much personality research to sufficiently scrutinize its methods and its background beliefs. This produces conceptual schematizations of personality that do not sufficiently take into account the disunity and plasticity that affects what is construed as personality; it also underplays the necessity of more fully theorizing the network of infrapsychic and transpersonal systems, processes, structures, templates, interfaces, flows of stimuli, qualities of embodiment and contingencies that dynamically manifest as personality. It is through unfolding the complexity inherent in this network that personality theorization can move forward in new ways. This paper provides a provisional, beginning taxonomy of this network in order to start a research dialogue about personality that doesn't begin with the operative background beliefs of nomothetic methodology, that doesn't tacitly or overtly construe the individual to be a self-regulating, homeostatic system, and that resists presupposing personality as a cohesive, stable quality of personhood.