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.
More than a quarter of a century ago when the present reviewer was attending Janet's classes, a professor at the Sorbonne summed up the then current attitude toward Freud in the words, 'Certes, l'amour est important'. Dr. Bryson refers to love only once, to say, 'The doctrine of love is much too hard … to live by' and 'the next best thing … is the rule of sportsmanship'. Freud is mentioned four times in the text of Science and Freedom. Once Dr. Bryson suggests indirectly that Freud was a poet rather than a scientist. Once he lumps Freud together with Pareto in a perjurious context. Twice he grudgingly admits that 'hints from Freud' may have a certain usefulness in a discussion of 'the use of the scientific method in understanding human behavior'. The longest reference is the remark that 'we can certainly understand behavior better because of the insights of psychologists and anthropologists who have taken hints or leadership from Freud'. Those enumerated are Bateson, Mead, Gorer, L. K. Frank, Lasswell, Kardiner, Benedict. The amount of space devoted to the work of Freud himself (and of those who have taken from him more than hints or even leadership) is significant only because Science and Freedom is in one important respect an anti-freudian tract. It amounts to an argument, admittedly unscientific, in support of the thesis that direct application to the social sciences, including psychology, of the methods of modern physical science—on the one hand abstract and symbolic, on the other hand quantitative, statistical, taxonomical—is the royal road to the creation of a 'good society'.
With Dr. Bryson's definitions of his social goals, few liberal