Chapter XVII: Appendix: B

QUESTION LIST ON POLITICAL PRACTICES

This question list refers directly to the organized political life of the subject. Questions which are designed to elicit preferences are not included. For general personality questions and trait lists, the usual sources may be consulted for suggestions.[85]

The question list here must, of course, be modified if used orally or with naïve subjects. An effort is always to be made to elicit specific incidents which arise in the mind. “Reminiscences” and not theories about the self are desired.

1. List the various associations and organizations of which you
have been a member and in which you enjoyed rights which were
approximately equal to those exercised by everyone else. Specify
in each case whether you were almost inactive, moderately active,
quite active. State when you became a member and how your
subsequent activity fluctuated. Give dates when possible. Remember
that you have been a member of various democratically organized
political units. Mention also the prep-school class organizations,
school and college organizations, alumni associations, profession
organizations, civic associations, parties, and elective public
offices. Organizations which were autocratically organized (that
is, which exercised authority over those who had no formal right
to choose the officials) should not be included. Do not omit
associations of war veterans, Daughters or Sons of the Revolution,
pacifists, anarchists, reform agitators, constitutional defense
leagues, etc.

2. List the various organizations with which you have been
associated either as one in autocratic authority or as one subject
to autocratic authority. This should include schools which you
have attended, appointive offices in the government, most business
connections, trusteeships, etc.

3. List your various free-lance activities which have involved
scarcely any organization but which have been a source of income.
Partnerships which have involved practically no staff, private
secretaryships, and such are meant to be listed here.

The following questions are intended to bring out the salient facts in connection with your relationship to each democratically organized and autocratically organized association or institution with which you were affiliated. Answer for each organization which you have listed in so far as applicable.

4. Just how did you become a member of this organization? What
steps did you take? Who helped you? Why were you taken in? If
you organized this body, why did you do it? When did you first
entertain the idea? How did your plans develop? What assistance
did you get and by what means? What was your reputation inside
the organization when you first came in? Were you, for instance,
ignored or regarded as promising or accepted and given
responsibility immediately?

5. What friends or enemies did you have inside the organization
when you first came into it?

6. To what offices or positions of authority in the organization
were you elected or appointed?

7. In each case explain how it came about. When did you first
entertain the idea that selection was possible? How much did you
hesitate and ponder before deciding to try for the position or
before accepting it if it was thrust upon you? What alternatives
did you consider? With whom did you talk over the matter? What was
urged on you? What were the disadvantages which deterred you or
the advantages which lured you? Just what did you do to get the
office or position? Who were your chief aids? Who were your chief
competitors? What were the points in your favor and in favor of the
others? How did the various cliques, groups, and other components
of the organization line up? Sketch your strategy and practices in
dealing with each one before selection. Did any issues of policy
figure and how?

8. What were the cases in which you ran or were considered at one
stage or another for selection? Answer the questions as before for
each instance.

9. What appointive power or influence did you exercise in office?
Whom did you consult in making or influencing these appointments?
To what extent did you consider competence? The rewarding of
friends? The division or elimination of your opponents?

10. What objectives, if any, had you thought out when you assumed
responsibility?

11. What were the chief issues on which you took a position? How
did your influence make itself felt in each instance (in public
speaking, interviewing, appointive pressure, etc.)? How did each
major issue happen to emerge? How did you arrive at your position?
Whom did you consult? What considerations were balanced on both
sides of the question? To what extent did you make issues by
interjecting specific proposals into the situation? How did you
happen to do this? What were the elements in the organization which
were lined up on either side of the question? What concessions
did you make in order to achieve your ends? Do you regard your
concessions as too cheaply bought as you look back upon them? What
results did you secure which satisfy you?

12. During your tenure were there personal misunderstandings,
quarrels, and hatreds between you and anybody? How did they come
about? What did you do and what was the relation of what you did to
what happened?

13. Were there personal misunderstandings, quarrels, and
antipathies among others inside the organization which you were
asked to settle or which you tried to settle? What did you do and
what relation did it bear to what finally happened?

14. Were there personal misunderstandings, quarrels, and
antipathies between members of your own organization and people in
other organizations which you were asked to settle or which you
tried to settle? What did you do and what relation did it bear to
what finally happened?

15. Did your organization have any ill feelings as a body for other
organizations or groups when you came into office? What did you do
to inflame or reduce it? What effect? Why?

16. Did your organization have any friendly feelings as a body for
other organizations or groups? What did you do to cement or to
disrupt these relations? Why? With what effect on the course of
events?

17. Did your organization develop any friendly or unfriendly
relations with organizations or groups to which they had been
previously indifferent during your term in office? What did you do
that had anything to do with this result? Why?

18. Did your organization use physical, legal, or other forms of
pressure upon any other organization or group during your term?
What was your rôle in suggesting, supporting, directing, or
obstructing the adoption of these tactics? Why? What resulted?

19. Did your organization use physical, legal, economic, or other
forms of pressure upon any of its own members during your term?
What was your rôle in suggesting, supporting, directing, or
obstructing the adoption of these tactics? Why? With what effect?

20. By whom were you praised during and after your term of office
for your record? How were you praised or recognized and honored and
for what? Effect on you?

21. By whom were you adversely criticized during and after your
term in office for your record? How were you censured and for what?
Effect on you?

22. Were you re-elected or reappointed, promoted or demoted, after
serving your term or before? Why?

23. How did you get along with your immediate superiors,
collaborators, and assistants? To what extent did you manipulate
them? What different tactics did you employ with each? What success?

24. What were your formal and ceremonial duties in the organization
as an officer? Did you enjoy them?

25. How did you enjoy your other official activities?

26. As a non-official, or non-position-holding member of the
organization, what did you enjoy about it? The ceremonies? The
routine operations? The uncertain features?

27. As a member of the rank and file, what policies and activities
did you initiate, support, or oppose? Why? How much did you do and
to what effect? How did the elements of the organization line up?
Were you usually in the minority or the majority? What elements
were usually with you?

28. How did your reputation change during your years in the
organizations?

29. What particular friends and enemies did you acquire?

30. As a member of the rank and file, did you have personal
misunderstandings, quarrels, and hatreds between you and other
members? Why? What did you do? Results?

31. Did you arbitrate any grievances or try to smooth them out?
Success? Why?

32. What was your attitude toward other organizations or groups
with which your organization either competed or had some relations?
As a member of the rank and file, what did you do to change or
intensify prevailing attitudes? Influence?

33. Did your organization use physical or other means of
pressure against outside organizations and other members of your
organization? As a member of the rank and file, what did you do and
with what effect? Did you think your organization was the best of
its kind?

34. Have you severed your connection or become inactive? Why?

35. If you are still active, what are your plans and hopes?

36. How did this particular organization touch the administrative,
legislative, and judicial branches of the government? The political
parties? How? What methods were used to bring pressure to bear?
What was your part in them?

37. As you look back on your life in the organization do you think
of practices which you indulged in or tolerated which you regard
as perhaps questionable? Instances? Did you so regard them at the
time? What would have happened if you had not indulged in them?
Should an organization be run on a different basis now?

38. What effect did life in the organization have upon your
activity in the politics of the community at large? Did you have
impulses to express yourself publicly or privately upon matters
which you felt it expedient to follow? Or were you driven to such
expression and activity?

39. If you were to judge entirely in terms of your experience as
a member of this organization, what would be your judgment of the
honesty and efficiency of the public service and the party machine?

40. What political prejudices or philosophies were current among
various elements inside the organization?

41. Think of various members of this organization who were rather
typical. How did you act toward them when you met them? What topics
of conversation, of anecdote, etc., did you indulge in? What
activities in common were there?

42. Did you think that you were imposed upon by any members as you
look back upon it now? Did you estimate some of them too highly?
Who? Why?

43. Did you underestimate some? Who? Why?

44. Were you estimated too high or too low? By whom? Why?

45. What things apart from common dishonesty would have caused you
to lose standing in the organization? What opinions and activities
would have compromised you?

46. Did you risk loss of standing at any time by word or deed? Were
you tempted to? Why did you refrain?

47. When you tried to add others to the organization, whom did you
seek? What type of people, in general, were you interested in?

48. Did the organization live up to your ideal? Why?

49. Who were the most powerful ones in the organization at
different periods? What were your relations with them? What did you
do consciously to win them? Success? What did you do to antagonize
them? How did they take it? What, in short, was the attitude of the
leaders toward you?

50. Did you ever have a sense of frustration arising from your
failure to participate in discussions of policy, either because you
hesitated to express yourself or because you expressed yourself
badly?

51. What is your matured judgment of the utility of this
organization in society?

52. How did your organization connections help or hurt you socially
or any other way?

53. How did your outside connections help or hurt you in the
organization?

54. What, generally speaking, were your advantages and
disadvantages with reference to securing and holding a prominent
position in the organization?

55. In general, what place did this organization play in your life?

56. With respect to each one of your so-called free-lance or very
personal activities, answer such questions as these: How did you
happen to take it up? Upon what factors would your success and
failure depend? What did you do to manage the persons upon whom
success or failure depended? With what result? What reaction
did your experience have upon your outlook upon political life
generally?

INDEX

Abraham, Karl, 103, 150 n.

Adjustive thinking, 226

Adler, Alfred, 71 ff.

Administrators:
definition and histories of, 127 ff.;
general theory of, 151 ff.

Adolescence and politics, 187

Agitators:
definition and histories of, 78 ff.;
general theory of, 124 ff.

Aichhorn, August, 230

Alexander, Franz, 139, 178, 182, 199, 220 n., 254

Allport, Floyd, 58

Anderson, John, 232

Apfelbach, Hans, 61, 62, 64

Aristotle, 39

Attitudes, 234 ff.

Autistic reveries, 226

Bernfeld, S., 177

Bernheim, 20

Biography, political, uses and limitations of, 3

Birnbaum, K., 200 n.

Bjerre, 239

Blackstone, 175

Bleuler, 71

Blondel, 11

Blüher, Hans, 178 n.

Boas, 13

Bodin, 54

Boss, 48

Breuer, 19

Bridgman, P. W., 251 n.

Brücke, 18

Bryce, 252

Bühler, Charlotte, 230

Burrow, Trigant, 201 n.

Carlyle, 42

Case histories, 3 ff., 78 ff.

Catharsis, 195

Catlin, G. E. G., 46

Charcot, 18

Chave, 59 n.

Chicago, University of, 13, 201 n., 207 n.

Christensen, 39, 53 n.

Composite types, 53

Comte, 10

Consensus, 192

Convictions, political, 153 ff.

Conway, 52, 53 n.

Co-relational types, 55

Cowley, W. H., 59

Crises, political, 179 ff.

Croner, Else, 232 n.

Crowd, 193 n.

Debate, zone of, 192

De Grange, 10 n.

Democracy, 194 ff.

Despot, 46

Deutsch, Helene, 123 n.

Developmental types, 60

Dicey, 1

Dictator, 197

Dilthey, 11, 49

Discussion, 194 ff.

Dream, 26

Durkheim, 10

Eder, 173, 181, 190

Education, 201

Ellis, Havelock, 83 n., 199

Emotional bonds, 185, 192

Energy of developed personality, 65

Events, subjective and external, 240 ff.

Exhortation, 196

Fabian Society, 186

Familiarization, a purpose of the study, 14

Federn, Paul, 180, 234

Ferenczi, S., 71, 97, 103 n., 105 n., 150 n., 213, 220 n., 255

Fliess, 62, 69

Follett, Mary L., 48

Forms of expression, thought and interest, 235 ff.

Formula for development of political man, 75

Frazer, 73

Free-fantasy, 32

Freud, 12, 17 ff., 64, 65 ff., 103, 104 n., 111 n., 179 n., 199, 204
ff., 223, 256 ff.

Friendship and politics, 192

Functional meaning of politics, 42

Garner, J. W., 2

Giese, Fritz, 55, 56, 57, 60

Glover, E., 103 n.

Gneist, 1

Goodenough, Florence, 229

Gosnell, H. F., 53 n., 249 n.

Gould, 7 n.

Hall, G. Stanley, 71

Hamilton, G. V., 70

Hartman, Dale, 59 n.

Healy, William, 13

Heimsoth, K. G., 178

Hetzer, Hildegard, 231

Hobbes, 54

Hoffmann, 232

_Homo politicus_, 50

Hoover, 54

Hypnosis, 20

Identification, 256

Institutional meaning of politics, 42

Interview as a method, 204 ff.

Intimacy and politics, 187

Ireland, 7 n.

Irrationality and politics, 184, 193 ff.

Janet, Pierre, 18, 104 n., 223

Jellinek, 2

Jones, E., 103 n., 179 n.

Jung, 62 ff., 73 ff., 205

Keilholz, A., 179 n.

Kelsen, Hans, 2, 243 ff., 257 ff.

Kempf, E. J., 115 n., 159 n., 197

Kjellén, 2

Koller, 19

Kretschmer, 40, 81

Kropotkin, 92

Laband, 1

Lange-Eichbaum, W., 7 n., 200 n.

Laski, H. J., 2

Lassalle, 53

Lasswell, H. D., 3 n., 28 n., 39 n., 202 n., 204 n., 205 n., 221 n.

Lazarus, 12

Lee, Sir Edward, 1

Lenin, 54

Liébeault, 20

Logical thought, limitations of, 28 ff.

Lombroso, 7 n.

Lowell, A. L., 53 n., 191

Lowie, R. H., 243

Lynd, R. S. and Helen, 250 n.

Machiavelli, 39

Marx, Karl, 53

Masaryk, 53, 220

Masturbation, cultural history of, 83 n.

Meaning of political patterns, 248

Mechanism types, 63

Merriam, Charles E., 39, 46, 52, 53 n., 59, 249 n.

Meynart, 18

Michels, Robert, 39, 52, 53 n., 60

Möbius, 7 n.

Moore, Henry T., 58

Morgan, J. P., & Co., 45

Morley, John, 1

Movements, vitality of political, 173 ff.

Mowrer, E. A., 180

Munro, W. B., 40, 53 n.

Nancy, 20

Nexo, 186

Nuclear types, 49

Nunberg, 220 n.

Object orientation, 225

Old Testament prophets, 54

Paine, Tom, 54

Paley, 174

Park, Robert E., 192, 193 n.

Parten, Mildred, 230

Pathological, 200

Personality, 221

Persuasion, personal, oratorical and written, 188

Political methods, 196

Political movements, 173 ff.

Political patterns, 248 ff.

Political practices, 235

Political symbolization, 183 ff.

Political tension level, 185

Political types, 38 ff.

Politician, 47

Politics:
and conflict, 196;
effect of, on politicians, 198;
institutional and functional meaning of, 42

Prevention, politics of, 173 ff.

Propaganda and unconscious motives, 189

Psychoanalysis, 15

Psychopathology, 15

Public, 193 n.

Quantitative approach, 251

Radiating nucleus, 187

Radin, Paul, 13

Rado, S., 179 n.

Rank, O., 74, 205, 220 n.

Reactive interpretation, 222

Reich, Wilhelm, 105 n.

Reik, Theodor, 175, 213

Reininger, Karl, 231

Revolution, 179

Rice, S. A., 41

Rich, Gilbert J., 59

Rinaldo, Joel, 104 n.

Rohmer, 53 n.

Rôles, specialized and composite, 54

Rousseau, 54

Ruggiero, 40

Ruml, B., 201 n.

Rush, 199

Sadger, Wilhelm, 103 n.

Schmidt, 2

Sexuality, rôle of, 66 ff.

Shaw, Bernard, 78

Sidgwick, 2

Simmel, Georg, 11, 52

Smith, Adam, 48

Social scientist, 201

Somatic reactions, 226

Specialized types, 53

Spranger, Eduard, 49 ff., 232 n.

Statesman, 46

Staub, 182, 254

Steindhal, 12

Stekel, Wilhelm, 71, 74, 157

Strachey, Lytton, 1

Sullivan, Harry Stack, 126 n., 207 n., 233 n.

Sward Keith, 59 n.

Symbolization in politics, 185 ff.

Symbols, political, as targets of displacement, 183

Tendency interpretations, 221

Tension level, 185

Thomas, Dorothy S., 229, 230 n.

Thomas, W. I., 12, 188, 230 n.

Thurstone, L. L., 59

Tissot, 83 n.

Types:
co-relational, 55;
developmental, 60;
institutional and functional, 42;
nuclear, 49;
specialized and composite, 53

Typologies, popular and scientific, 39

Values, changes of, 201

Vienna, University of, 18

Vierkandt, 12

Views, political, 234 ff.

Violence a political method, 196

Voltaire, 83 n.

Wagner-Jauregg, 19

Walker, Marjorie, 230

Wallas, Graham, 46

Weber, Max, 39, 52

Weininger, 62

Wertheimer and Hesketh, 81

White, William A., 179 n.

Willoughby, W. W., 2

Winkler, Viktor, 231

Wittals, Fritz, 22

Wordsworth, W., 70

Zilboorg, Gregory, 123

Znaniecki, F., 12

FOOTNOTES

[1] See Harold D. Lasswell, “The Study of the Ill as a Method of Research on Political Personalities,” _American Political Science Review_, November, 1929.

[2] “Psychosis” means the more serious mental disturbances; “neurosis” means the less serious ones.

[3] The best summary of this literature is Wilhelm Lange-Eichbaum, _Genie-Irrsinn und Ruhm_. See also the works of Ireland, Lombroso, Möbius, and Gould.

[4] See De Grange’s excellent treatment of this matter in his paper on the methodology of Comte in the case book to be published by the Social Science Research Council.

[5] What has been said above is current in the biography of Freud by Fritz Wittals, and in Freud’s autobiographical sketches.

[6] Modified from “Self-Analysis and Judicial Thinking,” _International Journal of Ethics_, April, 1930.

[7] The training should, of course, be conducted by a specialist alert to his responsibilities.

[8] “Politik als Beruf,” in _Gesammelte Schriften_.

[9] I summarized some of this literature in “Types of Political Personalities,” _Proceedings of the American Sociological Society, 1927_. Reprinted in _Personality and the Group_ (edited by Burgess).

[10] _Personality in Politics._

[11] _The History of European Liberalism._

[12] _Physique and Character_, chap. xiii.

[13] _Quantitative Methods in Politics_, chap. v.

[14] _The Science and Method of Politics._

[15] _The New State._

[16] It is not profitable to pursue these distinctions farther. I should prefer to distinguish the statesman from the politician by treating the latter as a function of a democratically organized community and as one who is limited to persuasion in the advancement of his conceptions of public right. The statesman may use force, and is not necessarily a function of democratically organized society.

[17] His viewpoint is best expressed in “Die Typen der Weltanschauung,” in _Weltanschauung-Philosophie und Religion in Darstellungen_ (edited by M. Frischeisen-Kohler).

[18] _Soziologie_, chap. iii.

[19] _Grundriss der Sozialökonomik_, III, 1.

[20] See Robert Michels, _Political Parties_; C. E. Merriam, _American Party System_, and _Introduction_ to H. F. Gosnell’s _Boss Platt and His New York Machine_; Martin Conway, _Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War_; Lowell, _Public Opinion in War and Peace_; Rohmer, _Die Vier Parteien_; A. Christensen, _Politics and Crowd Morality_; W. B. Munro, _Personality in Politics_.

[21] _Die öffentliche Persönlichkeit._ Beihefte zur _Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie_, Vol. XLIV.

[22] “Innate Factors in Radicalism and Conservatism,” _Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology_, XX (1925-26), 234-44.

[23] Allport really used a rank-order method of handling opinion expressions which he unjustifiably treated as marking definite positions along a base line. Thurstone has greatly improved the technique of opinion measurement. See Thurstone and Chave, _The Measurement of Attitude_ (Chicago, 1929). For Allport’s original paper (with D. A. Hartman), see “Measurement and Motivation of Atypical Opinion in a Certain Group,” _American Political Science Review_, XIX (1925), 735-60.

[24] “Three Distinctions in the Study of Leaders,” _Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology_, Vol. XXIII (July-September, 1928).

[25] By Keith Sward, Social Science Research Council Fellow, and others. I discuss the problem of evaluating test results later on.

[26] “A Biochemical Approach to the Study of Personality,” _Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology_, Vol. XXIII (July-September, 1928).

[27] Hans Apfelbach, _Der Aufbau des Charakters_. Cf. Otto Weininger, _Geschlecht und Charakter_; Fliess, _Ablauf des Lebens_.

[28] C. G. Jung, _Psychological Types_, chap. x.

[29] _Beyond the Pleasure Principle._

[30] “The Significance of Physical Constitution in Mental Disease,” _Medicine_, V (1926), 375-451.

[31] The popular superstition about the dangers of masturbation seems to have become widespread in Western Europe in the eighteenth century. Havelock Ellis dates it from the appearance of a sensational book by an anonymous English doctor which was called _Onania: or the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution and All Its Frightful Consequences in Both Sexes, Considered, with Spiritual and Physical Advice, etc._ This is said to have passed through eighty editions and to have been translated into German. Tissot, a physician of Lausanne, contributed his _Traité_ on the same subject in Latin in 1760. This appeared in French four years later, and subsequently in nearly all European languages. His watchword was that masturbation was a crime, “an act of suicide.” Voltaire popularized his viewpoint in the _Dictionnaire philosophique_, and the tradition became firmly set. See Havelock Ellis, _Studies in the Psychology of Sex_, I, 248-49. The cultural relativity of this attitude toward masturbation is brought out in ethnological reports.

[32] _Psychoanalytische Studien zur Charakterbildung_ (International Psychoanalytische Bibliothek, 1925), Nr. XVI. Freud’s first contribution to the subject was published in 1908. His brief article, “Charakter and Analerotik,” is reprinted in the fifth volume of the _Gesammelte Schriften_. Others who have written in the same field are Sadger, Ferenczi, Jones, and E. Glover.

[33] Joel Rinaldo paraphrases Freud in his _Psychoanalysis of the “Reformer”_ and without supporting cases argues that the reformer is always a meddling hysteric. This is not to be taken for granted, for he may more often prove to be an obsessive type, when he shows mental pathology. For the best picture of the two clinical types, see Janet, _Les névroses_.

[34] See Ferenczi, _Versuch einer Genitaltheorie_ (Internationale Psychoanalytische Bibliothek, 1924), Band XV, esp. Sec. V. Also Wilhelm Reich, _Die Funktion des Orgasmus_.

[35] See Freud’s discussion of paranoia in his “Psychoanalytische Bemerkungen über einen autobiographisch beschriebenen Fall von Paranoia,” _Gesammelte Schriften_, Band VIII.

[36] This grandfather committed suicide at an unreported age, and his youngest son is said to be “very nervous.” B’s oldest sister had a nervous breakdown in high school. The third sister is “neurotic.” B is described as having been a frail infant, and a shy child. Bed-wetting continued until he was twelve or fourteen, and he occasionally had attacks of indigestion. Physical examination failed to disclose any significant physical factor in his difficulties.

[37] Examples are given in Kempf’s _Psychopathology_, and in other textbooks on the subject.

[38] See Helene Deutsch, _Psychoanalyse der weiblichen Sexualfunction_.

[39] See “The Dynamics of Schizophrenic Reactions Related to Pregnancy and Childbirth,” _American Journal of Psychiatry_, VIII (1929), 733-66.

[40] The physician in charge of this case comments that there may be a homosexual _anlage_ on the physical level, but that this is not certain.

[41] Harry Stack Sullivan has stressed the critical importance for personality growth of the adolescent phase in which the individual is impelled to enter into intimate emotional relations with one or two other persons of his own age. Those who partially fail in this show various warps in their subsequent development.

[42] “Der neurotische Charakter,” _Internationale Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse_, XIV (1928), 26-44.

[43] Abraham and Ferenczi have reported cases of this kind.

[44] _Op. cit._, p. 448.

[45] See the chapter on “Psycho-analysis in Relation to Politics” in _Social Aspects of Psycho-Analysis_ (London, 1924).

[46] “Dogma und Zwangsidee,” _Imago_, XIII (1927), 247-382.

[47] Succinctly described in “Über eine typische Form der männlichen pubertät,” _Imago_, IX (1923), 169 ff. On the homoerotic elements see Hans Blüher, _Die deutsche Wandervogelbewegung als erotisches Phänomen_, and his more elaborate volume cited in the Bibliography.

[48] I was kindly permitted to see this manuscript which is not yet published.

[49] See Sandor Rado, “Die psychischen Wirkungen der Rauschgifte,” _Internationale Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse_, XII (1926), 540-56; A. Keilholz, “Analyseversuch bei Delirium Tremens,” _ibid._, pp. 478-92; and Stekel’s volumes.

[50] For a sketch of the unconscious processes involved in warfare see S. Freud, “Zeitgemässes über Krieg und Tod,” _Imago_, IV (1915-16), 1-21; Ernest Jones, _Essays in Psycho-Analysis_; William A. White, _Thoughts of a Psychiatrist on the War and After_.

[51] _Chicago Daily News_, July 20, 1927.

[52] The distinction between the crowd and the public is best developed in the writings of Robert E. Park. Freud undertook to explain the crowd on the theory that an emotional bond was forged by identification of the individual with a leader, and by a process of partial identification through the perception of this similar relationship to the leader. He set out from the observation that when people are interacting upon one another they behave differently than when they are alone. The loss of individuality represents a relinquishment of narcissistic gratification which can only come when libido is directed outward toward objects. Freud’s theory applies strictly to a special case of crowd behavior only. Crowd states may also arise when interlocking partial identifications occur on the perception of a common threat. Crowd behavior often arises before anybody assumes a “leading” rôle, and rival leaders are “selected” by the crowd.

[53] _Studies in the Psychology of Sex_, I, 231.

[54] Kempf, _Psychopathology_, p. 704.

[55] Franz Alexander, “Mental Hygiene and Criminology,” _First International Congress on Mental Hygiene_.

[56] For an appreciation of the rôle of the pathological person in society see Wilhelm Lange-Eichbaum, _Genie-Irrsinn, und Ruhm_, and Karl Birnbaum, _Grundzüge der Kulturpsychopathologie_.

[57] Something like this is no doubt the thought in Trigant Burrow’s very obscure book on _The Social Basis of Consciousness_.

[58] This point was forcibly made by Beardsley Ruml in his speech at the dedication of the Social Science Research Building at the University of Chicago. See _The New Social Science_, edited by Leonard D. White, pp. 99-111.

[59] I have suggested that those who write human biography should be included among those who require this comprehensive training. See “The Scientific Study of Human Biography,” _Scientific Monthly_, January, 1930.

[60] Modified and expanded from “The Psychoanalytic Interview as a Method of Research on Personalities,” in _The Child’s Emotions_, pp. 136-59.

[61] See Harold D. Lasswell, “The Problem of Adequate Personality Records: A Proposal,” _American Journal of Psychiatry_, May 1929. Also Appendix B of _The Proceedings of the First Colloquium on Personality Investigation_.

[62] We are now engaged upon studies of this kind at the Personality Laboratory in the Social Science Research Building at the University of Chicago. Harry Stack Sullivan is conducting a series of researches on expression changes, with particular reference to schizophrenia, which are of the greatest importance.

[63] The topic of reliable criteria will be dealt with in detail in the reports upon experiments in progress.

[64] The best technical discussions of the nature of the analytical situation are in the writings of Freud, Rank, Ferenczi, Nunberg, and Alexander.

[65] Expanded from an article with the same title which appeared in the _Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology_, January, 1930.

[66] Dorothy Swaine Thomas and Associates, _Some New Techniques for Studying Social Behavior_.

[67] “Die ersten sozialen Verhaltungsweisen des Kindes,” _Quellen und Studien zur Jugendkunde_, Heft 5.

[68] Referred to by John E. Anderson, “The Genesis of Social Reactions in the Young Child,” _The Unconscious: A Symposium_. These researches are abstracted in William I. Thomas and Dorothy S. Thomas, _The Child in America_.

[69] _Über soziale Verhaltungsweisen in der Vorpubertät_, “Wiener Arbeiten zur pädogogischen Psychologie” (herausgegeben von Charlotte Bühler and Viktor Fadrus), Heft 2.

[70] _Das volkstümliche Kinderspiel_, Heft 6, in the same series as the above.

[71] “Psychologie des Jugendführers,” _Quellen und Studien zur Jugendkunde_ (herausgegeben von Dr. Charlotte Bühler).

[72] _Das Problem des Charakteraufbaus_, pp. 68-80. See E. Spranger, _Psychologie des Jugendalters_, and Else Croner, “Die Psyche der weiblichen Jugend,” _Schriften zur Frauenbildung_, Heft 6.

[73] _Internationale Psychoanalytische Bibliotek_, Band XIX.

[74] See especially p. 278. Harry Stack Sullivan is tracing out the developmental history of various forms of personality in his forthcoming volume on _Personal Psychopathology_.

[75] Paul Federn commented in his pamphlet that a democratic state must depend upon a democratic family life.

[76] See his excellent methodological chapter in _The Psychology of Murder_.

[77] _The Origin of the State._

[78] Not to be confused with mind-body parallelism, which is not accepted.

[79] Cf. Kelsen, _Der Soziologische und der juristische Staatsbegriff_; “Der Begriff des Staates und die Sozialpsychologie,” _Imago_, VIII (1922), 97-141; “The Conception of the State and Social Psychology,” _International Journal of Psycho-Analysis_, V (1924), 1-38.

[80] Perhaps the most important part of the Merriam and Gosnell study of _Non-Voting_ is the symposium of conversational scraps which suggest what balloting actually means to various classes and sections of a modern metropolitan community.

[81] Such criticism has been directed against the pioneer venture of the Lynds, _Middletown_.

[82] An able discussion of the operational concept is in P. W. Bridgman, _The Logic of Modern Physics_.

[83] Alexander and Staub have commented on this in _Der Verbrecher und seine Richter_. But it is principally due to the suspicion of the public officer.

[84] See his sketch of social psychology in _Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse_.

[85] More specifically, Kretschmer’s _Psychobiogramm_, published in H. Hoffmann, _Das Problem des Charakteraufbaus_, as an appendix; Heyman’s trait list (republished in _Gesammelte Kelinere Schriften_, Dritter Teil); the psychograms of W. Stern (in _Die differentielle Psychologie in ihren methodischen Grundlagen_), of Baade, Lipman, and Stern (_Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie_, Band III), of P. Margis (Breslau dissertation, 1911, _Das Problem und die Methoden der Psychographie mit einer Individualanalyse von E. T. A. Hoffmann_), of L. Lewin (_Friedrich Hebbel: Beitrag zu einem Psychogramm_ [Berlin, 1913]), of E. Stern (“Patho-psychographische Untersuchungen,” _Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten_, Band LXI), of F. Kehrer and S. Fischer (“Modell einer klinisch-experimentellen Pathographie,” _Zeitschrift für die gesamte Neurologie und Psychiatrie_, Band LXXXV); the outlines of Dr. Paul Federn (_Schema der Libidoaufnahme_, MSS in my possession), of F. D. Wells (MSS in my possession), of G. V. Hamilton, of Adolf Meyer (mimeographed MSS in my possession), of Amsden and Hoch, of Floyd Allport, and the lists of Woodworth, Laird, House, Freyd and Thurstone.