502 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 175 



(4) A limited validity of even this supernaturalistically orieuted system, 

 attributable to the Mohave tendency to "psychologize" the universe . . . 

 which is slightly similar to, yet not quite the same as, the "animation 

 of the universe" by auimists. 



(5) A lack of an explicit general theory of psychopathology (pt. 1, pp. &-38), 

 due primarily to the essentially nonscientific, supernaturalistic orienta- 

 tion of the Mohave. 



These characteristics of Mohave psychiatric thought explain why 

 so many of their data, as well as some — though not all — of their special 

 etiological theories and therapeutic practices (e. g., the examination of 

 dreams) are valid even in terms of modern dynamic psychiatry, despite 

 many differences of detail and despite the fact that the implicit overall 

 pattern of Mohave psychiatric thought — so far as one is able to infer it 

 from their disjointed special theories — is essentially different from the 

 basic psychoanalytic theory of psychopathology. 



The last point to be examined is the practical itse to which a knowl- 

 edge of Mohave psychiatry may be put by the theoretically sophisti- 

 cated clinical psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, who is ever on the look- 

 out for better and more workable theoretical formulations. 



The problem can be discussed from two angles : 



(1) In terms of the possibility of reformulating, and then actually putting to 

 use, the valid segmental insights of the Mohave "psychiatric shaman." 



(2) In terms of the usefulness of becoming familiar with a different system of 

 thinking about psychopathology, true or false though this system may be. 



The relevance of Mohave 'psychiatry for the clinical psychiatrist. — 

 It is implicit in the preceding paragraphs that the clinical psychiatrist, 

 who wishes to derive substantive ideas from the primitive and from 

 ancient authors, will benefit more from a study of Mohave, Tembu 

 (Laubscher, 1937), aesculapian (Dodds, 1951), or inquisitorial (Zil- 

 boorg and Henry, 1941) psychiatry than from the perusal of the writ- 

 ings of Hippocrates, Galen, or Lombroso, since, after flowering in 

 primitive and mystical cultures and groups, psychiatric insight gradu- 

 ally declined in quality and, above all, in prestige, perhaps precisely 

 because it dealt with raw — and, in fact, very raw — material.^" 



By contrast the clinical psychiatrist looking for guidance in natural- 

 istic methodology will find little that is new and stimulating in the 

 works of the naturalistic ancient students of mental disorder. In brief, 

 the unsophisticated but essentially psychologistic psychiatry of primi- 

 tives, such as the IMohave, can provide many valuable stimuli for the 

 clinical research psychiatrist, even if these naive psychiatric ideas 

 seem only weird superstition to the undynamic psychiatrist whom, 

 like the poor of the Gospel, we shall always have with us. 



** Compare In this context the criticism to which Archimedes was subjected when he for- 

 sook tlie pursuit of pure, 6i)eeulatlve, science in order to devise engines for the defense of 

 his home city. This, to the Greek Intelligentsia, was a disgraceful act, since applied and 

 experimental science was worthy only of those who worked with their hands (cheir 

 -f ergon). 



