Session: 1234567891011121314         Page 253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309 of 763

happened, could not have happened, five or ten years earlier, and maybe we are going to get away from it again soon.

Psychology got some how caught in the tide of social change and social activism, etc., so it became a little more difficult for the purists to keep their puristic haloes shined, you know, shining. And those of us who were out there in social activism, trying to get psychology as an integral part of social policy and social change, weren't perceived as much as pariahs. Or if we were, they could make a concession to us.

And I say this in spite of the fact that the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, from its inception in -- well, soon after I got my PhD at Columbia -- consisted of those social psychologists who made a public commitment to psychology as an instrument of social concern, you know -- as witness the name, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, but notice they said “Study.”

But most of them interpreted “Study” to mean some kind, and in terms of the individual's temperament, some degree of involvement in society. And they did have rather distinguished people, such as the late Gordon Alport of Harvard, Grardner Murphy, Goodwin Watson, Ted Newcomb -- by the way, interestingly enough, -- this is the last thing I can say today now that -- I mention those names, four out of five of those names that I mentioned eventually became president of the American Psychological Association. So that sort of raises questions about my interpretation, that this