patient and family and the community in respect to really new problems, largely left to themselves before; it is a direct service to the positive needs and opportunities of the community in behalf of what I re-emphasize as health, happiness, efficiency, and social adaptation.

With the espousal of mental hygiene a totally new conception of problems thus comes before us, many of them problems concerning which the older generation was held in line by rules from above-by rules of authority and tradition, of law, and of strict group regulation, whereas today the individual claims his right to his own decisions and to freedom from domination and from the hard old principle of "bend or break." It does not do much good to debate which régime is better. We have them both, and rigorous scientific statistical methods will some day tell us what mixtures will do best for the various temperaments. Mixtures they will be.

In the days of our grandparents and parents, the measure of everything seemed to lie in tradition and in obedience to more or less unreasoned and undisputed standards of custom and undisputed spirituality upheld by the culture of the day. When explanation and change of behavior were looked for, it was only rarely that one thought of calling a physician. Today many issues that were formerly simple problems of morality and custom have become issues the individual wants to settle for himself or herself, but also issues in which the individual should be able to look to the physician as a helper and advisor, because the physician thinks and works in terms of study of cause and effect, and not in terms of mere tradition and authority. Medical help in life-problems may have started with tonsils and adenoids, but soon developed also regard for sleeping habits and for emotional maladjustments and the like.

A number of other developments conspired to bring home the dynamicgenetic trend of things. In the education of children we hear little today of "breaking the will" and blind obedience; and in the management of labor new principles of the maintenance of happiness and of efficiency came into prominence, no doubt to quite an extent feeding on, and in turn producing, new conceptions of philosophy and morality and biology in general. The example of economists like Carlton Parker, and of educationists like Colonel Parker and John Dewey, and a growing confidence in common sense, and perhaps also in modern psychopathology, put more and more emphasis on the inner needs of the individual and far less on the necessity of merely conforming to traditional authority-determined patterns. The child and the adolescent were ever more encouraged to develop confidence in their own nature. There is no doubt that with all this the retort "I can't help it" and "I can't change myself" became more and more general and also acceptable, or at least was condoned; excuses by heredity and by various external and internal influences began to count beside the traditional exclusive appeal to responsibility and obligation alone. The whole sense of discipline, that is, the ability to learn and to follow the leader,

2

was perhaps too hastily reversed into a doctrine of more growth and self-development. However that may be, the problem of happiness and success is becoming recognized to a greater extent as a problem of hygiene or health, and not merely one of conformity to the teachings of tradition and goodness alone; moreover, hygiene is found to depend to an overwhelming extent upon the condition of the organism, heredity and eugenics, the proper nutrition and growth, the habittraining and not only on the acquisition of knowledge and of some practical resources, but also on the emotional attitude, the development of one's innate capacities, and a reasonable respect for the instinctive desires and tendencies. Not that we would claim that what we call hygiene should or could allow us to disregard all the wisdom of ages laid down in tradition. But many traditions, even when handed on under the authoritative stamp of revelation, have been found to have flaws and to profit from consideration and study, akin to the work or the problems of hygiene generally. Even the fundamentalist is willing to see imperfect, although sometimes very wise, attempts at hygiene in Deuteronomy, attempts which, with growing knowledge and insight, he has long adapted to new times. With the habit of studying facts in manageable parts and not mainly as whole systems of philosophy and of dogma which had to be swallowed as wholes, more people have become confident of their own ability to form reasonable opinions. (We have there the same evolution as in the attack of the sciences of physics and chemistry on vitalism.) This same evolution and growth is what had, during the last 400 years, led to the formation of new groups of religious and social denominations, and to some extent to greater individuality, especially among the Nordic peoples. But most of the groups still are held together through the venerable bonds of revealed authority, and the criterion of "fitness to belong" with the elect remained, whether or not the individual was able to swallow the prescribed dose of forced belief and dogma. With the recent change the force of these influences has lessened tremendously, and it is actually up to modern mental hygiene to bring back on the new basis a new respect for a new spirituality and morality and conscience.

The question now arises: How can we actually make good in such a situation? What is there that we can put at the disposal of the individual?

Individualism has brought us a remarkable gain in frankness and also in a demand for consideration of personal rights and dignity.

The first point we have gained is an assurance of respect for individual differences and the abstaining from invidious comparisons. Not that we have reached perfection on this important point. Last year I heard one of our leading officials explain the selective distribution of immigrant labor, based on the principle that we need foreigners to do the dirty work and to attend to the undesirable jobs. In any civilization there are all kinds of jobs adapted to all kinds of intelligences, and none so small or so big that it would not be honorable to anyone who does it honorably. It is a kind of snobbish reasoning that creates the

reverse foolishness, the idea that a chance for a college education should be called the ideal for everybody. Why not stand for the good sense of fitness and respect for fitness?

Most people are interested in Binet-Simon tests of others and in their own only if they came out well. To get these tests on a level of acceptability and real usefulness we have to show that we do not use them to label and brand people, but to give them the right kind of start, help, and guidance for fitness and happiness, constructively and in a spirit of helpfulness rather than for any condemnation or for an invidious classification of inferiorities.

It looks very much as if there were developing a tendency to accept the fact of difference between individuals with a less brutally competitive attitude. We learn to be more objective and thoughtful. The intelligence test is but one line of human evaluation. No matter how keenly we may favor the more intelligent types from a eugenic point of view, it is about time that we recognize that there are perfectly good and useful imbeciles and that it is the use, and not only the quantity, of the assets which decides individual desirability. Similarly, we see wide difference in the lines of sensitiveness and capacity to do various things, and with the proper thought and understanding we recognize greater possibilities of finding and using opportunities for the unusual, as well as the ordinary, make-up.

Similarly, it is again the helpfulness and resourcefulness of the investigator that will determine the acceptability of inquiry into any blundering, and the study of personality problems and the need of advice, according to whether it is handled in a spirit of superiority or of service.

All this constitutes a fundamental and necessary adjustment of attitude. To advise anyone to see a psychiatrist is less and less like a charge of insanity; it is an occasion to take stock with the help of one with a wider range of experience, used not for incarceration, but for helpfulness toward one's best place and one's health, happiness, efficiency, and social adaptation. The New Republic recently (May 27, 1925) added insult to injury with its discourse on an imputation of "insanity" in the request by the President of Princeton University that the writer of a scurrilous article in the college paper retire or have himself examined by Dr. Paton. The President would no doubt have done better to investigate the problems of the student quietly before suppressing the paper, instead of allowing the examination by Dr. Paton to be turned into a quasipunitive measure. But why should a progressive journal indulge in rehearsals of archaic, superannuated and incorrect associations with the obsolete word "insanity"?

In the face of all the difficulties, there is no doubt that increasing numbers of people are reaching out for help, perhaps not always with complete simplicity of purpose. All those of us who are sometimes consulted in connection with problems of marriage know very well that one is oftener consulted for the corroboration of decisions already secretly made, or for the corroboration of doubts which

ゴ

T

the one or the other has not the courage to utter, than with any genuine readiness to get a review of all the facts and to use them all for clearer thinking and clearer decision. There is an intrinsic tendency to favor the romance of the moment and to minimize the responsibilities of experimentation. One is too often consulted merely to strengthen the authority of the parent, and even the teacher, and that before all the parties concerned can have their say and their show. On the other hand, there is no doubt an immense amount of good coming from the widespread encouragement to seek at least discussion, and with this recognition comes a great sense of obligation on the part of us teachers to provide a body of advisors standing on well-scrutinized ground.

We have today an ever growing number of would-be helpful agencies and enterprises, most of which, however, have all the characteristics of pioneer work. They are exceedingly individualistic and in many ways an expression largely of what the leader would like to do for himself or would like to have obtained sometime for himself. What is needed is a clearer and clearer recognition of the objective needs, irrespective of one's own personal yearnings, and a singling out of problems which everybody can recognize as topics requiring objective study, a body of concrete facts generally applicable concerning such matters as the balance of work and play, and rest, the management of discontent, of disappointment, the acceptance of one's grades and the proper reaction thereto, the reaction to criticism, the family problems, the choice of time and conditions for pregnancies, the economics and practice in the care of the mother and infant, the care of the child in the family, in school, during adolescence, and the care of that greatest duty of the adult, that of being a reasonably helpful and steadying, rather than disconcerting, example for the growing generation.

There is a great gain in concreteness, and with it in the possibilities of learning and teaching the needed facts.

None of us can boast of enough knowledge concerning human behavior and adaptation, and not enough opportunities have been created to learn more and grow more. Most of it is being learned on a more or less patient or impatient public by variously judicious beginners, unfortunately under all kinds of enticing futuristic propaganda, with an eager public looking for the millennium.

The best sources of training today are those which provide experience in the whole rank and file of pertinent problems, such as only few centers can bring within reach. Unfortunately, contact with every one of these fields requires considerable time. It may partly be condensed by attendance at the meetings and participation in the work of the welfare organizations, some contact with schools and with the juvenile court and domestic relations court work, some work with the habit clinics, and last but not least, some contact with the psychiatric dispensaries and with the psychiatric hospitals and their social work.

A number of ways are open to meet the natural difficulties. It may be some time before we can attain an organization of the community into the ideal

districts suggested by me ten years ago; but there are several nearer ways open to hasten progress.

First, the most perfectionistic scheme is that of the trial clinics imported with means and personnel from the outside. This no doubt is a favored situation, and it will succeed in proportion as it brings about also the coordination and utilization and training of local workers.

Second, a simpler scheme, not sufficiently used as yet, would be that of having a specially trained organizer bring about an organization of the workers and interested persons of the community, such as teachers, nurses, physicians, and various social agencies of churches and the like, for regular demonstrations and discussions of the common problems. A great deal of mental hygiene is like grammar and composition, something to be acquired incidentally in every branch of work. An experienced field worker could readily elicit from workers in all possible spheres the material for most stimulating discussions of the ever returning questions. Here and there a local leader will arise, and a group will form.

Third, in either plan one will have to see to it that as soon as possible we bring most of the trial work on a basis that can be maintained in any community, and not only in the specially favored ones. Much can be learned from the experience in spreading other health problems, such as the fight against hook worm, calling for an arousal of interest in all the active strata of a population.

Along with this principle of greater economy, I want to urge that of simplicity and the cultivation of sane common sense as the most telling measure of wisdom and balance of a program. I am a little bit suspicious of those who claim too much of a special "psychiatric technique." There is no doubt that experience teaches us certain procedures, but as soon as they fail to present themselves in terms of plain common sense, I wodner how much is sound in these theories and in their use. I advise the rank and file to keep hands off from both elaborate hypotheses and elaborate methods until the methods and procedures are sufficiently clear to be really incorporated in plain though critical common sense.

The wisest help will therefore come from developing specially talented field workers and field instructors, and these had best be trained in what I might call survey of surveys, i.e., in the dispassionate study of work performed under all kinds of conditions, including those that figure as models but also the simplest. Some good beginnings have been made in following up the usefulness of dispensary work, of the boarding out of children in contrast to institutional care, and the like. Yet we still are deplorably ignorant of the actual results of our good efforts and good intentions, and since our experiments take years to allow of an estimate of the final returns, we have to favor all the efforts to make the work controllable and fit for subsequent study, and to cultivate investigation and investigators. I am anxious that every organizing agency give adequate attention to providing a margin for the reviewing and evaluation of its work and the results thereof. We have to create the foundations for the work with the mod