Session: 1234567891011121314         Page 5960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108 of 763

psychoanalytic thought, so that you couldn't laugh at it, in spite of the fact that in the introductory course, introductory courses were behavioristically oriented. But by the time you got to psychodynamics, and, you know, for you, he had really an interesting capacity to mesh the behavioristic Watsonian organismic approach to psychology with psychodynamics and Freudianism. So he never got us in the predicament of having to choose, because he showed us that these were different approaches to trying to understand essentially the same phenomena.

So I was not ever anti-Freudian or pro this or pro that. I was trying to understand them all. I did not become critical of the Freudian approach to the understanding of man and motivation until much later. I'd say, maybe when I started teaching, myself. Even at Columbia, where Columbia -- I think one of the major advantages of Columbia is that it was eclectic, you know, as eclectic as Sumner was, in a way. You didn't have to choose sides at Columbia. You had a wide range of people, all the way from the mediocrity of Garrett, to the elegance of Woodworth and Gardner Murphy.

Yeah, the -- my concern about the limitations of orthodox Freudianism didn't develop until I was struggling to communicate to my own students about this, and trying to put all this into what sense it made for me, you see. And then it became clear to me that there were limits to, at least, Freudian technology, although the theory was unquestionably a profound contribution to another view of man -- you know, a theory that looked upon man as not the master of his fate and the captain of his soul, but subject to