224 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 175 



It was therefore decided not to alter the data, but to refer to facts likely to 

 betray the subject's identity in abstract, rather than in concrete terms. For 

 example, a certain older man is simply referred to as a "father figure," which 

 makes it unnecessary to define the precise relationship between John and this 

 older man. Likewise, it was found possible to discuss points of similarity, 

 complementarity, and difference between this father figure's fatal accident and 

 John's own accident proneness, without describing the actual nature of these 

 two sets of accidents. However, in some instances it was deemed necessary to 

 clarify the seemingly paradoxical psychological characterization of some occur- 

 rence by citing, usually in a footnote, some comparable incident. Thus, the 

 seemingly puzzling statement that John's unions were sociologically exogamous, 

 but psychologically (affectively) endogamous, was clarified by citing other 

 primitive examples of such complex modes of mate selection. 



This mode of disguising the facts has two drawbacks : 



(1) The necessity of characterizing certain critical incidents in abstract, rather 

 than in descriptive, terms, forces one to refer to certain simple matters in a com- 

 plicated technical jargon (e.g., "father figure" replacing a simple kinship 

 term). Much time was spent on editing and reediting this case history, so as to 

 reduce the scientific jargon to an absolute minimum. 



(2) The fact that certain details could only be characterized in abstract 

 terms, may arouse the suspicion that, in some instances, I "overstated the case," 

 so as to strengthen the plausibility of my conclusions. I wish to stress that 

 exactly the opposite policy was adopted. Whenever some detail could not be 

 described in straightforward terms, its abstract characterization invariably 

 understates the case. Thus, if it was not possible to say explicitly that two 

 objects were "identical," they were simply described as "similar," etc. Under 

 no condition was a mere "similarity" transformed into an "identity," etc. In 

 brief, had it been possible to describe the relevant facts in straightforward 

 words, the inferences I drew from them would have seemed far more convincing 

 than they appear to be now. 



Life history : 



For obvious reasons John's life history can only be described in somewhat 

 general terms. 



Social life history: 



Parents. — John's pregnant mother was deserted by his father, who took no 

 interest in his son, either then or subsequently. 



Birth. — Socially speaking, John's birth created appreciable diflSculties for 

 John's mother, since neither his father, nor his father's family, contributed 

 to John's support. 



Siblings. — For all practical purposes John was an only child. 



Psyehosexual development. — (See special section devoted to that topic, 

 below. ) 



Education. — John received only the type of education available to the aver- 

 age Mohave Indian, but, since his family was rather progressive, he successfully 

 integrated his education with the rest of his personality. ( See section on Self- 

 definition, below.) 



Economic status and ivorlc patterns. — During the first eight or ten years of 

 John's life the family was relatively poor. The adults had to earn a living out- 

 side the home, so that John was usually alone during the day and had to per- 

 form a number of household tasks usually performed by adults. The economic 

 status of the family began to improve when John was about ten years old. How- 



