You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
This pretentious book attempts the non-angelic task of evaluating psycho-analysis and the branches of psychology that have developed in reaction to it, a task it is not usual to undertake without making the necessary study beforehand. The book includes therefore a criticism of the work of Freud, Adler, Jung and—Prinzhorn (!). The following quotation indicates the author's conclusions, on which we will only comment that he would appear to be more interested in the question of which ideas will 'appeal' to various workers than in the question of which of them is nearer the truth.
'If we attempt to appraise the relative merits of these systems of psychology we may safely begin by saying that Freud's is the most intricate, Jung's the most profound, Adler's the most practical, and Prinzhorn's the broadest. Adler's system will always be useful and popular, and is therefore bound to extend its vogue. It is the one that offers the least challenge to man's innate narcissism. Freud will always be popular with a limited section of mankind because of the objective approach which evades subjective difficulties. It will attract, as it always has done, extraverts, Jews and purely rational types. Jung's system will never appeal to more than a very limited group, partly because of its complexity and partly because it has never spread except from personal contact with Jung himself. It will appeal to a few introverts, Teutons and mystics. Prinzhorn's system is bound to make a strong appeal to philosophical minds of all types, for they will find in it basic principles that correspond to the intuitive needs of mankind and a ruthless unmasking of the partiality of other systems. Neither Jung nor Prinzhorn can be expected to make a special appeal to the medical profession; Adler and Freud will no doubt continue to divide interest from that quarter, despite the fact that each of them has, in his own way, failed to give due prominence to somatic ætiology. Adler's system will always