526 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 175 



Unusual and spectacular details tend to distort the scientist's per- 

 ception of the real relationship between the constituent elements of 

 a broad phenomenon. It is not sufficient, however, to view this state 

 of affairs solely as an obstacle impeding the proper analysis of the 

 phenomenon to be studied. Like all difficulties arising in the course 

 of scientific work, the one just mentioned is at once an obstacle and 

 a challenge ; a hindrance to glib generalizing and a signpost pointing 

 toward an important new insight. It is therefore incumbent upon 

 us to give further consideration to problems arising in connection with 

 the scientific utilization of routine, as well as of climactic, events. 



Anthropologists and psychoanalysts alike have been bedeviled by 

 the lure of the unusual and by the fallacy of misplaced emphasis. 

 Just as anthropologists have gradually abandoned their former obses- 

 sion with ritual and belief, and have increasingly emphasized routine 

 modes of behavior, so psychoanalysts have gradually developed also 

 a psychology of the ego, after a long period of intensive — and almost 

 exclusive — preoccupation with the more striking aspects of the uncon- 

 scious. At the same time, many psychoanalysts have shifted their 

 attention from id psychology to ego psychology, and from symptom 

 neuroses to character neuroses.® The similarity between these two 

 developments, which is not fortuitous, has a direct bearing on the 

 proper interpretation of Mohave alcoholism. 



Broadly speaking, the average behavior of the intoxicated Mohave 

 Indian reveals important characteristics of Mohave ego psychology, 

 whereas deviant and sensational forms of drunlien conduct, or mis- 

 conduct, tend to highlight chiefly the unconscious factors in Mohave 

 alcoholism. It is therefore important to emphasize the unspectacular 

 character of the average intoxicated Mohave's behavior, by means 

 of an appropriately unimpressive example, before undertaking an 

 analysis of the more or less unconscious mechanisms involved in 

 spectacular drinking behavior. 



CASE 132: 



I returned to Parker, Ariz., in the summer of 1935. I reached the town in 

 the evening and registered at the local hotel. As I emerged from the hotel and 

 started to walk toward the restaurant, the first person I met was a young Mohave 

 man, with whom I happened to be well acquainted. Since I had not informed 

 my Mohave friends that I had returned fron) Asia, most of them believed me to 

 be either in Indochina or in Franco, and, indeed, never expected to see me again. 

 My friend was therefore surprised to see me and freely expressed his delight at 

 my return. After an exchange of the usual amenities, he spontaneously men- 

 tioned that he was rather intoxicated, and distinctly pleased with his condition. 

 After reminding him of our friendship, I took the liberty of gently rebuking 

 hira for drinking to excess and urged him to go home before he became involved 

 in some trouble. He brushed my objections aside, however, and assured me 

 that he would not get into any trouble. I then made some disparaging remarks 

 about white bootleggers and asked him to name the person who had provided 



• Those line8 were first published in 1948. Since then, the pendulum has sometimes 

 swung so far to the other extreme, that a few psychoanalysts now practically ignore all 

 that is not ego psychology. 



