PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[1]. See William McDougall, Social Psychology.
[2]. Probably by no means a group, but tending in some instances in that direction, as in the discussion or conference dinners now so common.
[3]. The old definition of the word social has been a tremendous drag on politics. Social policies are not policies for the good of the people but policies created by the people, etc. etc. We read in the work of a continental sociologist, “When a social will is born in the brain of a man,” but a social will never is born in the brain of a man.
[4]. This is essentially the process by which sovereignty is created. Therefore chapters [II-VI] on The Group Process are the basis of the conception of sovereignty given in [Part III] and of the relation of that conception to the politics of reconstruction.
[5]. This is the heart of the latest ethical teaching based on the most progressive psychology: between two apparently conflicting courses of action, a and b, a is not to be followed and b suppressed, nor b followed and a suppressed, nor must a compromise between the two be sought, but the process must always be one of integration. Our progress is measured by our ability to proceed from integration to integration.
[6]. This statement may be misunderstood unless there is borne in mind at the same time: (1) the necessity for the keenest individual thinking as the basis of group thinking, and (2) that every man should maintain his point of view until it has found its place in the group thought, that is, until he has been neither overruled nor absorbed but integrated.
[7]. We must not of course confuse the type of unifying spoken of here (an integration), which is a psychological process, with the “reconciliation of opposites,” which is a logical process.
[8]. I am sometimes told that mine is a counsel of perfection only to be realized in the millenium, but we cannot take even the first step until we have chosen our path.