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.
Reconsiderations of the contributions of William James and Sigmund Freud to psychology have long been overdue. No purpose other than partisanship is served by locating them at opposite ends of the world of thought, as a prominent spokesman of the American Existentialist circle is reported to have done at last summer's meeting of the International Conference of Existential Psychologists at Barcelona. And it is too late in the day for “orthodox” psychoanalysts to treat the issue with smugness and to plead James' glowing words to Freud on the occasion of the Clark University Lectures as an excuse for neglecting James' masterly early writings in psychology.
Harold Lasswell's suggestive essay in the following pages is refreshingly free of ideological bias. (It is a pleasure to report that many valuable pages equally free in spirit though far from identical in content will be found in Gordon Allport's introduction to the forthcoming Harper Torchbook edition of James' own revision and condensation of his Principles, issued under the title, Psychology—Briefer Course, in 1892.)
Without preamble or fanfare Professor Lasswell has managed to fuse six basic questions in his paper:
What were the critical divergences in outlook and method of James and Freud?
What were the likenesses and differences in the life-histories and life-styles of the two men?
How may we best classify the variables needed for a full account of the formation of anyone's personality, including the personalities of James and Freud?
What weights are to be accorded the factors operative in shaping the characters and careers of the two men?
Are the programs of the two men to be explained as responses to the political world-revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries?
Do the principle ideas of the two men appear to advance man's understanding of himself, his culture, and his creativity?