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.
Dr. Comfort is a psychiatrist and a poet; his poetry, letters, and articles show that he is ardently interested in social-psychological improvement. His declared intention of utilizing the findings of
psychiatry and psychoanalysis, and of applying the scientific method to the study of society in order to achieve peaceful social change, can only be applauded. At this point, however, agreement ends for the actual content and scientific standards merit criticism indeed.
The original resistance to the application of the scientific method in technology and in medicine was overcome, the author says, 'by the manifest economic and personal advantages'. This is the 'common-sense' psychology of a bygone generation of political economists who assumed, uncritically, that the economic man (mythical creature) would act according to his economic advantage. Conspicuous consumption showed the fallacy of such simplistic psychology. More fundamental is Sachs's paper on this theme in which he shows that ancient civilizations possessed the knowledge necessary for the use of the machine but failed to apply it. Evidently many factors, some unknown, must come together before innovations are accepted by society. This single point illustrates a trend in this book. Allegedly written from a psychiatric viewpoint, the psychology it employs throws no fresh light on social problems and is quite superficial.
'The choice facing the delinquent individual', says Dr. Comfort, 'is not between fighting society and being remolded by its customs and mores. It is between finding an outlet for his delinquency which is sanctioned and that which is not. The chief factor which makes an overt act "delinquent" is the assertion in it of the right of the actor to behave without regard to others.' The average delinquent would never arrogate such a right to himself; it appears more appropriate for a Nietzschean or Dostoievskian hero.
The author yields to a prevalent temptation to apply uncritically the psy