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.
The first edition of this book was extensively reviewed by Dr. J. C. Flugel in this Journal in 1928. Much of what he then said still applies to this new edition.
In outline the book is the same, but the section on movements and methods has been considerably enlarged. A separate chapter is now given to Jung, Adler, and Stekel, and there is one entitled 'The Para-Freudians', who include Otto Rank, Melanie Klein, Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, and Wilhelm Reich.
The author has read extremely widely, and the book has something to say on almost every conceivable aspect of its subject. This seems to be its chief weakness, for the mass of facts is poorly linked together, admittedly a most difficult task. Its length is increased by the author's personal interjections and rhetorical questions, which make continuous reading somewhat tiresome.
In this review the chief emphasis must be placed on the author's comments on psycho-analysis. He admits to ambivalence, but says he likes psycho-analysis for the great contribution it has made to the mental and social sciences. Yet in substance his attitude is less than ambivalent, for it is precisely this contribution which he does not make clear. He shows a curiously unscientific attitude towards the progress of psycho-analysis as a body of scientific knowledge. Those who have advanced ideas in any way new are called such things as 'disciples who overstep the confines of their discipline', 'lieutenants who deviate', 'divergents who form coteries of their own', etc. And his frequent use of such terms as 'master and pupil', 'pontiff', 'iconoclast', etc., leaves the impression that the author writes with something of a sneer.
What is more serious is the fact that, although he admits the contribution that psycho-analysis has made to the study of character, he does not state clearly what this contribution is.
The picture of psycho-analysis which emerges is fragmentary in the extreme, and seems to leave quite unrecognized the recent emphasis