200 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LI. No. 1313 



of direct and intense concern to psychology; 

 while on the other hand we are equally aware 

 of the fact that many of the studies of the 

 psychologists, such as those on hereditary and 

 group conditions, and on behavior of primi- 

 tive peoples are of considerable interest to 

 anthropology. But when we examine more 

 closely into these relations, we meet with vari- 

 ous setbacks and difficulties. We soon see, al- 

 though again only in a general way, that the 

 psyehttlogists and anthropologists of whatever 

 shade of color can and do exist quite independ- 

 ently; that they actually work to a. very large 

 extent unknown to each other; that as time 

 goes on they associate rather less than more at 

 the colleges and universities; that they pro- 

 gressively drift further apart in nomenclature, 

 methods and other respects, and that in no im- 

 portant way are they really coming closer to- 

 gether. No one, I am sure, would claim that 

 if every anthropologist disappeared to-day, 

 psychology could not go on as well as it 

 has hitherto; and no one could claim on the 

 other hand, that anthropology could not exist 

 without the aid of psychology. 



In our institutions the two branches proceed 

 to-day, as well known to all of us, quite inde- 

 pendently. Our great museums all have their 

 departments of anthropology, but none that 

 of psychology; while in some of the colleges, 

 in the War Department, and the Public Health 

 Service, matters are the reverse. The publi- 

 cations of one of the branches are scarcely 

 known to the workers in the other, and bar- 

 ring rare exceptions there is no thought of ex- 

 changes, references or mutual reviewing of 

 literature. The terminology is divergent, in- 

 struments and methods differ; our most im- 

 portant international congresses and relations 

 are wholly distinct ; at our meetings we mingle 

 only through courtesy and habit; and as has 

 well been shown during the years of war there 

 was no actual cooi)eration of the two branches 

 in this greatest of contingencies, and but little 

 concern in one of what the other might be do- 

 ing or planning. If the anthropologist takes 

 up the list of psychological publications such 

 as furnished by the Psychological Index he 

 will note that as this proceeds from year to 



year it progressively drops reference to anthro- 

 pological publications; and the same condi- 

 tion is observable in the anthropological bibli- 

 ographies in relation to what may be consid- 

 ered more strictly psychological work. 



It is also known to you that for several 

 years now increasingly strong efforts have been 

 put forward from both sides to separate in this 

 association anthropology from psychology and 

 have each form its own section, efforts which 

 now have been successful. 



Bearing all this in mind we can not help 

 asking: Is there really any relation of conse- 

 quence between modern anthropology and psy- 

 chology ? 



There is indeed such a relation; but it has 

 never thus far been sufficiently defined and 

 never as yet sufficiently exploited. This rela- 

 tion is of such a nature, that during the pre- 

 liminary and earlier work in both branches it 

 could and had to be neglected; but as psychol- 

 ogy progresses it will grow in strength, to 

 eventually become of importance. 



I may be permitted, in the first place, to 

 point out the areas of contact and interdigi- 

 tation of the two branches. 



Unfortunately, I meet here with the serious 

 initial difficulty of defining psychology. After 

 striking this snag in the preparation of my 

 address, I turned to a series of the foremost 

 representatives of your science for help, and 

 the help did not materialize. Some of those 

 appealed to would give no definition; others 

 would attempt it only circumstantially, so that 

 it was of little use for my purpose; while the 

 rest defined or inclined to define psychology 

 as the " science of behavior," which characteri- 

 zation does not seem to be sufficiently compre- 

 hensive. 



I then turned to the publications given in 

 the last few volumes of the Psychological In- 

 dex and particularly the volume for 1918, 

 which presumably is the most representative. 

 It gives 1,585 titles. Out of these I found, 

 so far as I could judge from the titles, 14 per 

 cent, dealing with neurology and physiology; 

 28 per cent, dealing with neuropathology and 

 psychiatry; 6.5 jier cent, dealing with sociol- 

 ogy, ethics, and philosophy; 2.5 per cent, with 



