Inner Life, External Life, and Character Theme Analysis

From the outset of The Road to Character, David Brooks proposes that there are two sides to human nature: he calls the first side “Adam I,” a person’s external, career-oriented side. He calls the second side “Adam II,” the internal side of a person that develops character traits such as humility. Adam I believes people are born with talents they should maximize, while Adam II believes a person contains both strengths and weaknesses, and that a person builds character through confronting their faults. Adam I holds that individual achievement leads to reward, while Adam II follows the inverse logic that one must surrender themselves to find themselves. Therefore—having different aims and different logics—the two sides seem to be completely at odds. However, Brooks contends that nurturing Adam II does not compromise Adam I. Rather, when one nurtures inner character, they experience “moments of catharsis when outer ambition comes into balance with inner aspiration.” In other words, when a person develops Adam II, their two sides end up harmonizing. Through the paradox of human nature’s two “Adams,” Brooks argues that by developing inner character, a person doesn’t just balance out their external side but overcomes the inner-outer distinction altogether.

Brooks distinguishes two opposite sides of human nature, “Adam I” and “Adam II.” Roughly speaking, these sides constitute a person’s inner life and outer life. Adam I encompasses a person’s external virtues and successes, such as their career, accomplishments, and assets, while Adam II encompasses their inner virtues of character, such as their humility and kindness. Furthermore, these two sides hold different views of human nature: while Adam I believes in the inherent talents of a person, Adam II believes that human nature is flawed as well as endowed with gifts. This causes Adam I to seek success through maximizing strengths, while Adam II seeks character through triumphing over weaknesses. Lastly, these two sides follow different logics: Adam I’s logic is that through the expression of one’s unique gifts, external things are achieved, and a person climbs “up the ladder of success.” By contrast, Adam II holds a paradoxical logic that a person must sacrifice a life of desire in order to attain what is truly of worth—constant moral improvement. This person succeeds in triumphing over themselves and building character.

When a person focuses on their Adam I side, they damage the Adam II side of their nature. If a person only develops Adam I, they become a “shrewd animal” who turns everything into a game. Since they hold that external success is everything, they become adept at cultivating skills they can use to compete for superiority in their career but lose sight of what gives their life an actual meaning from within. Furthermore, the Adam I person denies themselves deep relationships. Because they are so focused on the traits that make a good impression in the career world, they judge other people based on ability as opposed to worth. Their community crumbles because they believe in their own talents and don’t think they need support from others. Ultimately, because of their superficial focus, a person who is just an Adam I is not who they really want to be. A “humiliating gap opens up between [their] actual self and [their] desired self,” meaning that they live a life of partial satisfaction in which the self they actually want is always out of reach. Therefore, a person can never be satisfied through their Adam I nature.

However, if a person focuses on their Adam II nature, they achieve satisfaction by integrating inner character with outward action. First of all, “only Adam II can experience deep satisfaction,” because it knows that the happiness Adam I aims at is insufficient. Adam II goes deeper than happiness by striving for “moral joy”: the conquering of one’s weaknesses in order to lead a moral life. Also, Adam II is all-encompassing of a person, whereas Adam I is not. When one does not focus on their Adam II side by building their character, “not only [their] inner life but also [their] external life will eventually fall to pieces.” This suggests that Adam II and Adam I are not of equal importance to a person’s true character, but rather that Adam II actually supports Adam I’s success from within. Ultimately, through cultivating one’s Adam II nature, a person attains harmony between their inner and outer selves. When a person sacrifices the personal happiness that Adam I thirsts after and instead dedicates themselves to being a good person, they experience “the joy of having their values in deep harmony with their behavior.” For instance, it was through sacrificing her comfort and happiness that Frances Perkins dedicated her life to fighting for workers’ rights—something she was morally passionate about. In doing so, she became—outwardly and inwardly—her true self. Therefore, cultivating one’s Adam II nature has the deeply satisfying effect of erasing the inner-outer distinction within them.

Although it at first seems that Adam I and Adam II equally divide human nature, Brooks shows that Adam II is in fact more essential to human nature. He gives evidence to this by showing that if a person simply focused on their Adam II, not only would their external nature take care of itself, but they would cease to be divided in nature at all. This suggests that the Adam I side of human nature was originally just the external consequence of one’s inner character. In recognizing it as external and separating it off from the inner life, people exacerbated the inner-outer distinction and strived for satisfaction insufficiently through the Adam I side alone. The solution to this insufficient satisfaction, Brooks claims, is not to balance out Adam I and Adam II, but instead to focus solely on one’s inner character.