^{page 39 note 1} This article is based on my M.A. thesis, ‘Freud comes to America: the impact of Freudian ideas on American thought, 1909–1917’ (1957), typescript, University of California Library, Berkeley. The main line of interpretation is that of the thesis, but several books published since 1957 have been helpful and suggestive in the revision. Most important is May, Henry F., End of American Innocence (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; May's interpretation had already guided my understanding of the period; both thesis and this article are heavily indebted to him. Rieff, Philip, Freud: The Mind of the Moralist (New York, 1959)Google Scholar, has become fundamental to anyone attempting to understand the implications of Freudian theory. Noble, David, The Paradox of Progressive Thought (Minneapolis, 1958)Google Scholar, is the best statement of the relation between values and theories in the social science of the period. Lubove, Roy, The Professional Altruist: the Emergence of Social Work as a Career, 1880–1930 (Cambridge, Mass., 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, touches upon some of the men discussed here and upon the penetration of professional social work by Freudian and Adlerian ideas. Hofstadter, Richard, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York, 1963)Google Scholar, has among many other resources a valuable discussion of the ‘life-adjustment’ ideas of American pedagogy. The article by Burnham, John C., ‘Psychiatry, psychology and the Progressive Movement’, American Quarterly, 12 (Winter 1960), 457–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar, finds similar themes in a broad survey of psychiatric thought in the period.

^{page 40 note 1} Lubove, , Professional Altruist, pp. 86–8Google Scholar; Brill, A. A., ‘The introduction and development of Freud's work in the United States’, American Journal of Sociology, 45 (1939), 318–25Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 2} For Freud's experiences in America, see Freud, Sigmund, An Autobiographical Study (London, 1935), p. 95Google Scholar; Jones, Ernest, Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, vol ii, Years of Maturity (New York, 1955), pp. 55–62Google Scholar; Goldman, Emma, Living My Life, vol. i (New York, 1931), pp. 455–6Google Scholar. William James told Ernest Jones, ‘the future of psychology belongs to your work’, but in private letters he expressed doubts about the scientific reliability of Freud's work. Jones, , Freud, vol. ii, p. 57Google Scholar; Perry, Ralph B., The Thought and Character of William James (London, 1935), vol. ii, pp. 122–3Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 1} Freud's lectures were published in Lectures and Addresses Delivered before the Depts. of Psychology and Pedagogy…Clark University, Sept. 1909 (Worcester, Mass., 1910)Google Scholar, and in the American Journal of Psychology, 21 (1910), 181–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar, translated by Harry W. Chase and revised by Freud. A modern reprinting is in Rickman, John (ed.), A General Selection from the Works of Sigmund Freud (New York, 1957), pp. 3–36Google Scholar. On the psychoanalytic societies, see Jones, , Freud, vol. ii, pp. 75, 87–88Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 2} The Journal of Abnormal Psychology published Jones, Ernest's ‘Rationalization in everyday life’ (3 (1908), 161–9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hall's American Journal of Psychology published: Jones, Ernest, ‘The Oedipus-complex as an explanation of Hamlet's mystery: a study in motive’, 21 (01 1910), 72–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jones, , ‘Freud's theory of dreams’, 21 (04 1910), 283–308Google Scholar; Sigmund Freud, ‘Origin and development of psychoanalysis’, ibid. 181–218; C. G. Jung, ‘The association method’, ibid. 219–69; S. Ferenczi, ‘Psychological analysis of dreams’, ibid. 309–28; Archer, Rudolph, ‘Recent Freudian literature’, 22 (1911), 408–43Google Scholar; Jones, Ernest, ‘Psychopathology of everyday life’, 22 (10 1911), 477–527Google Scholar. The Pedagogical Seminary, also founded by Hall, published Chase, H. W., ‘Psychoanalysis and the unconscious’ (17 (09 1910), 281–327)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 41 note 3} MacFarlane, Peter C., ‘Diagnosis by dreams’, Good Housekeeping, 60 (02–03 1915), 125–33, 278–86Google Scholar; Eastman, Max, ‘Exploring the soul and healing the body’, Everybody's Magazine, 32 (06 1915), 741–50Google Scholar; ‘Mr. Er-er-er-Oh! What's his name?’, ibid. 33 (July 1915), 95–103; Bruce, H. A., ‘Masters of the mind’, American Magazine, 71 (11 1910), 71–81Google Scholar. Luhan, Mabel Dodge, Movers and Shakers (New York, 1936), p. 510Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 4} Murphy, Gardner, Historical Introduction to Modern Psychology (New York, 1949), 213Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 1} Jones, Ernest, Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, vol. i, The Formative Years and the Great Discoveries (New York, 1953), pp. 41 ff., 204Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 2} ‘Modern psychology’, Scientific American, 108 (25 01 1913), 82Google Scholar. See also ‘A psychologist's denial of the existence of a subconscious mind’, Current Literature, 47 (08 1909), 206–8Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 3} The position here described was a majority but not a universal one. The broader, more tolerant position of William James continued to have adherents. On James, cf. Murphy, , Historical Introduction, p. 193Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 1} Woodworth, Robert S., ‘Nervous and Mental Disease Monograph Series’, Science, N.S. 38 (26 12 1913), 927–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunlap, Knight, A System of Psychology (New York, 1912), pp. 327, 361CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woodworth, , ‘Some criticism of the Freudian psychology’, Psychological Issues (New York, 1939), p. 209Google Scholar (originally published 1917). Freudian standards of proof did seem striking. A review of Otto Rank's Myth of the Birth of the Hero said ‘the theory begins with an axiom… the proof of the final proposition is the demonstration that no subsequent conclusion conflicts with the axiom’. Bailey, Pearce M.D., New Republic, 2 (13 03 1915), 160Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 2} Jones, , Freud, vol. ii, p. 115Google Scholar. See ibid. p. 107 for another example.

^{page 43 note 3} ‘Morbid pedagogism’, Nation, 93 (27 07 1911), 80–1Google Scholar. The style is reminiscent of Babbitt.

^{page 43 note 4} Ibid. See also Nation, 96 (15 05 1913), 503–5Google Scholar; ibid. 98 (2 April 1914), 369–70.

^{page 44 note 1} New York Times (5 04 1912), p. 8, col. 3Google Scholar. Jones, , Freud, vol. ii, pp. 122–3Google Scholar; vol i, p 202. Jones remarks that Starr had not known Freud in Vienna, that he had left a semester before Freud came to the clinic.

^{page 44 note 2} R. M. Barrington, review of Hall, G. S., Educational Problems, in Bookman, 34 (09 1911), 88–90Google Scholar. For the relation of morality and science, May, , End of American Innocence, pp. 9–14Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 3} The Nation, 102 (20 01 1916), 83Google Scholar; Hall, G. Stanley, Life and Confessions of a Psychologist (New York, 1923), p. 409Google Scholar. Even Moses Starr did not reject psychoanalysis altogether, but only Freud's ‘Viennese’ stress on sexuality. The bitterest critic of Freud in the respectable reviews was Warner Fite, Professor of Philosophy at Princeton. Fite's own system of ethical individualism, which assumed that the independent, rational, reflective man transcended scientific law by virtue of his self-consciousness, was clearly threatened by the implications of psychoanalysis; Fite, , Individualism (New York, 1911)Google Scholar; ‘Psychoanalysis and sex psychology’, The Nation, 103 (10 08 1916), 127–9Google Scholar.

^{page 45 note 1} Dr J. Victor Habermann, who thought Freudian ideas had the same scientific status as ‘the green cheese hypothesis of the composition of the moon’, was worried by the favourable reception given them in America as contrasted to the hostile reaction elsewhere. ‘An American expert's indictment of American dream analysis as a psychological humbug’, Current Opinion, 60 (01 1916), 34–5Google Scholar. And some of those most violent in abuse of the sexual emphasis welcomed other parts of the theory; see Starr, notes i and 3 on p. 44 above.

^{page 45 note 2} Baker, Ray Stannard, ‘The spiritual unrest’, American Magazine, 67 (1908), 192–205Google Scholar; Perry, Ralph Barton, Thought and Character of William James: Briefer Version (N.Y., 1954), pp. 204–5Google Scholar. On the mental hygiene movement, see Lubove, , Professional Altruist, pp. 72–6Google Scholar.

^{page 45 note 3} H. Addington Bruce, ‘Masters of the mind’, loc. cit.; Bruce, , ‘New mind cure based on science’, American Magazine, 70 (10 1910), 773–8Google Scholar; ‘Genius: a world-old problem viewed in the light of modern psychology’, Harper's Weekly, 57 (9 08 1913), 8–9, 25Google Scholar; ‘Some books on mental healing’, Forum, 43 (03 1910), 316–23Google Scholar; ‘Religion and the larger self’, Good Housekeeping, 62 (01 1916), 55–61Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 1} Woodworth, ‘Some criticism of the Freudian psychology’, loc. cit. See also Scripture, E. W., in Murchison, Carl (ed.), History of Psychology in Autobiography, vol. iii (Worcester, Mass., 1936), p. 248Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 2} Weyer, Edward M., ‘The new art of interpreting dreams’, Forum, 45 (05 1911), 589–600Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 3} Groves, Ernest R., ‘Sociology and psycho-analytic psychology: an interpretation of the Freudian hypothesis’, American Journal of Sociology, 23 (07 1917), 107–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Ernest W. Burgess, ‘The influence of Sigmund Freud upon sociology in the United States’, ibid. 45 (1939), 356–74. See also the similar discussion by the anthropologist, Sapir, Edward, ‘Psychoanalysis as a pathfinder’, Dial, 63 (27 09 1917), 267–9Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 1} Dictionary of American Biography (New York, 1928–1936), vol. xv, p. 283Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 1} Putnam, James J., ‘A plea for the study of philosophic methods in preparation for psychoanalytic work’, Addresses on Psychoanalysis (Vienna, 1921), pp. 79–96Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 2} Jones, , Freud, vol. ii, p. 86Google Scholar. On existential psychoanalysis, see May, Rollo, Existence (New York, 1958)Google Scholar; May, Rollo, ‘The context of psychotherapy’, in Ruitenbeek, Hendrik M. (ed.), Psychoanalysis and Contemporary American Culture (N.Y., 1964), pp. 72–90Google Scholar, stresses the existential school's rejection of the scientific positivist metaphysic underlying the orthodox Freudian system, and suggests the affinity between May's position and Putnam's.

^{page 48 note 3} Pfister, Oskar, Some Applications of Psycho-Analysis (N.Y., 1923), pp. 178–9Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 4} Putnam, James J., ‘The psychoanalytic movement’, Scientific American Supplement, 78 (19 and 26 12 1914), 391, 402CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Putnam, , Human Motives (Boston, 1915), pp. 105–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Lubove, , Professional Altruist, pp. 87–9Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 1} Freud, Sigmund, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (London, 1933), p. 106Google Scholar. Freud, , The Ego and the Id (London, 1923), p. 82Google Scholar. See the discussion of this point in Rieff, Philip, Freud: the Mind of the Moralist (N.Y., 1959), p. 70Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 2} Putnam, ‘The psychoanalytic movement’, loc. cit.; See also New York Times (2 03 1913) v, p. 10, ‘Dreams of the insane help greatly in their cure’Google Scholar. The hypnotherapy of Jean Martin Charcot and Emile Bernheim and their American follower, Morton Prince, was also reinterpreted in activist, rationalist terms. See Bruce, H. A., ‘Masters of the mind’, American Magazine, 71 (1911), 77Google Scholar.

^{page 50 note 1} Hall, , Life and Confessions, pp. 12, 409, 413Google Scholar. Hall's statement is suggestive of the effect at least of superficial exposure to Freudian ideas, and perhaps even of more thorough grounding: what may happen is not so much catharsis as conscious suppression of a much more thorough kind, to present to the world the personality approved by the theory. See below, p. 54. On Adler, see Ansbacher, Heinz L. and Ansbacher, Rowena R., The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler: a Systematic Presentation in Selections from his Writings (London, 1958), esp. pp. 326 ff., 334, 344–7Google Scholar; Mullahy, Patrick, Oedipus Myth and Complex: a Review of Psychoanalytic Theory (New York, 1948), pp. 114–28Google Scholar; Brown, J. A. C., Freud and the Post-Freudians (London, 1961), pp. 38–41Google Scholar. Adler's theories show many similarities with the revisions of Freud proposed by Putnam and later by the ‘Neo-Freudians’.

^{page 50 note 2} Brown, , Freud and the Post-Freudians, pp. 40–1Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 1} Floyd Dell, quoted in Brooks, Van Wyck, The Confident Years, 1885–1915 (New York, 1953), p. 478Google Scholar. Dell, 's autobiographical Homecoming (New York, 1933)Google Scholar is basic to this discussion, as is May, , End of American Innocence, pp. 219–329Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 2} This is the basic theme of much writing about the Progressive Era since 1950, notably Noble, Paradox of Progressive Thought, and Hofstadter, Richard, Age of Reform (N.Y., 1955)Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 3} May, , End of American Innocence, pp. 219–329passim, especially pp. 219–21, 247Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 4} Anderson, Sherwood, Sherwood Anderson's Memoirs (New York, 1942), p. 246Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 1} Bourne, Randolph, History of a Literary Radical and Other Essays (New York, 1920), pp. 176 ffGoogle Scholar. For Bourne's awareness of Freudian ideas in 1915, and its apparent limits, see his ‘Desire as hero’, New Republic, 5 (20 11 1915), 5–6Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 2} Though familiar with some psychoanalytic notions from the playful ‘psyching’ of suppressed desires by Chicago literati, Anderson claimed that he never did read Freud's works; he took psychoanalytic theories as a justification of his own struggle against repression, not as its origin (Anderson, , Memoirs, p. 244Google Scholar; Howe, Irving, Sherwood Anderson (New York, 1951), 179–80Google Scholar).

^{page 52 note 3} Goldman, Emma, Anarchism and Other Essays (New York, 1910), p. 178Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 4} The Masses (January 1916), p. 11. The original article is Preserved Smith, , ‘Luther's early development in the light of psychoanalysis’, American Journal of Psychology, 24 (1913), 360–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 53 note 1} New Republic, 4 (7 08 1915), 14–16Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 2} Dell, , Homecoming, p. 250Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 3} Kuttner, A. B., ‘The artist’, Seven Arts (02 1917), pp. 406–12Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 1} Howe, , Anderson, p. 69Google Scholar; Anderson, , Memoirs, pp. 243–5Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 2} Dell, , Homecoming, pp. 240ffGoogle Scholar.; Hapgood, Hutchins, Victorian in the Modern World (N.Y., 1939), p. 382Google Scholar; Luhan, , Movers and Shakers, p. 142Google Scholar; The Masses (07 1915), p. 27Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 3} Santayana, George, Winds of Doctrine (New York, 1913), p. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 55 note 1} Dell, , Homecoming, p. 261Google Scholar; Bourne, ‘Puritan's will to power’, op. cit. p. 177.

^{page 55 note 2} Luhan, , Movers and Shakers, p. 506Google Scholar; Dell, , Homecoming, pp. 269ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 56 note 1} Hofstadter, , Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, pp. 323ffGoogle Scholar. This term is used here in a broad sense, to signify the concern of educators to provide training for ‘life-situations’, rather than the sharpening of mental faculties or the inculcation of information, the concern with mental health and the ability of individuals to ‘relate’ smoothly with others. The specifically named ‘Life Adjustment’ movement in secondary education came in the 1940s and 1950s, as a summation of general ideas, a codification which proved a perfect target for hostile critics. See Cremin, Lawrence A., The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education 1876–1957 (New York, 1961), pp. 332–8Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 2} Putnam, , Human Motives, pp. 95–104Google Scholar; Putnam, 's more precise discussions were collected in Addresses on Psychoanalysis (Vienna, 1921)Google Scholar, the first volume in the International Psychoanalytic Library, with a sympathetic if slightly condescending introduction by Freud. Cost of publication was met by Putnam's widow.

^{page 56 note 3} Lubove, , Professional Altruist, pp. 88–9Google Scholar; Cremin; Transformation, pp. 207–15, esp. 214–15.

^{page 57 note 1} Katz, Daniel, ‘Edwin Bissell Holt, 1873–1946’, Science, 103 (17 05 1946), 612CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Langfeld, Herbert S., ‘E. B. Holt’, Psychological Review, 53 (09 1946), 251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for more intimate data of Holt's life and eccentricities.

^{page 57 note 2} Quillian, William F. Jr, ‘Evolution and moral theory in America’, in Persons, Stow (ed.), Evolutionary Thought in America (New York, 1956; 1st. pub. 1950), pp. 398ff., esp. pp. 399–400Google Scholar on Spencer, Fiske, Savage; p. 405 on Dewey's scientific ethics; James, William, ‘The gospel of relaxation’, in The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (New York, 1897)Google Scholar; James, , Talks to Teachers on Psychology, and to Students on Some of Life's Ideals (N.Y., 1908, 1st pub. 1900), p. 29 and passimGoogle Scholar. Curti, Merle, Social Ideals of American Educators (Paterson, N.J., 1959; 1st pub. 1935), p. 449Google Scholar.

^{page 58 note 1} Holt, Edwin B., The Freudian Wish, and its Place in Ethics (New York, 1915), passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar; quotations from pp. 48, 65, 98.

^{page 58 note 2} Ibid. pp. 84, 87.

^{page 58 note 3} Ibid. p. 121; ch. 4, ‘Broader aspects of Freudian ethics’. Holt's use of the child-and-flame example was a restatement of one of the central doctrines of ‘modern’ educational theory, the teaching of morality by directly connecting action and consequence in the child's mind, in behaviouristic terms. Cf. Cremin, , Transformation of the School, p. 93Google Scholar.

^{page 59 note 1} Katz, ‘Edwin Bissell Holt’, loc, cit.: ‘It was the genius of Holt that translated and modified Freudian doctrines into the terms of behavioral science. The progress of psychology in the last thirty years has been, to a considerable extent, the implementing and elaborating of Holt's contribution in Freudian Wish.’

^{page 59 note 2} Hall is quoted by Boring, Edwin G., A History of Experimental Psychology, 2nd ed. (New York, 1950), p. 521Google Scholar. The Masses (January, 1916), p. 11. Prince, Morton, ‘A scientific vivisection of Mr Roosevelt’, Current Literature, 52 (05 1912), 518–522Google Scholar. Watson, John B., ‘The psychology of wish-fulfilment’, Scientific Monthly, 3 (1916), 479–87Google Scholar. Groves, ‘Sociology and psycho-analytic psychology’, loc. cit.

^{page 60 note 1} Rieff, , Freud, pp. 329–31Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 2} For example, Persons, Stow, American Minds (New York, 1958), pp. 384–5Google Scholar; Rieff, , Freud, p. 302Google Scholar. By 1916 over 500 self-styled psychoanalysts practised in New York City. For the continuing process of popularization after 1917, see Hoffman, Frederick J., The Twenties, 2nd ed. (New York, 1962), pp. 230–6Google Scholar. Hoffmann, , Freudianism and the Literary Mind (Baton Rouge, 1945), chs. 2 and 3Google Scholar, is the standard account of the reception of Freudian ideas; see also Siever, W. David, Freud on Broadway: a History of Psychoanalysis and the American Drama (N.Y., 1955)Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 3} Personal observation by the author, which could probably be matched by any American living in Europe. I am also indebted to Ronald E. Coons of the University of Connecticut for similar observations of exchanges between German and American scholars.

^{page 61 note 1} Hofstadter, , Anti-Intellectualism, pp. 341–54Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 2} Brown, , Freud and the Post-Freudians, pp. 15–16, 125–69Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 3} Karpf, Fay B., American Social Psychology (New York, 1934), pp. 291–307, 318–27Google Scholar. Rieff, , Freud, 31–2Google Scholar, on Dewey, 's Human Nature and Conduct (1922)Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 4} Harry Stack Sullivan, quoted in Marcuse, Herbert, ‘The social implications of Freudian revisionism’, Dissent (Summer, 1955), p. 228Google Scholar. See also Marcuse, , Eros and Civilization (Boston, 1955), pp. 238–74Google Scholar.