Previous | Next
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
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help