VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

December 13, 1937

Dear Red :

I have been hearing a good bit about Dollard's book from our
sociologists here, and I shall be delighted to review it. I am quite
sure that I can finish it by April 15th, although I could not get to
it in time for your spring number. So send it up and I shall begin
dipping into it, with the hope that I can generate something in the
way of an adequate 'cerebral brew' in respect of Mr. Dollard.

Jimmy Waller is doing very well, considering that several bones
were broken. I am ashamed to say that I've been to see him only twice,
but I have heard from him oftener from Overton Williams.

There is a bit of possible news concerning me. I am close to
leaving Vanderbilt to go, of all places, to Vassar. Things haven't reached
any final stage yet and will not until after I visit the place in early
January. I hope that I won't have to go and I shall not if the University
shows any disposition to keep me. But after the 'war' last spring I don't
know that I am wanted here. And what with a salary of five thousand, the
chairmanship of a department of five people (for only slightly more work
than we have in our 'department' with about one and a half men), laboratory
space of 30 rooms outside lecture rooms, etc. etc., it sound pretty good.
Chink and I are in quite a stew over what to think about it. I hate to
follow the familiar pattern of going to the North for purely professional
advantages, but on the other hand I cannot afford to stay here if there is
no future. Well, we shall see !

Our best to Cinina, to the Brooks and to Pipkin,

As ever,

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

February 19, 1938

Dear Red :

I have been so much delayed by the consequences of having accepted the appointment at Vassar that I shall not be able to get the review to you by Monday, as I had planned. But I shall finish it by the middle of the week, or by Friday at the latest. I shall make every effort to get it to you before Saturday. I have everything else cleared off the deck now and will put all of my time on it.

I hope that this will not upset your schedule.

Our best to you both,

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

3/1/38

Dear Red :

This is still a day late. But believe me, I have written every word of this *standing up* . I have been afflicted with a skin infection upon an anatomical area which leaves me able to lie or stand, but not sit. I never knew before just what part of a college professor's anatomy was the most important : In any case I must apologize not merely for the delay but for the condition of the manuscript . I have been using Mrs. Nichol's typewriter, placed upon a high bureau. I hope that the printer can make everything out.

The paper is considerably longer than I expected it to be. I had not intended to write so much on Dollard's general position, but it seemed to me that I might as well have a go at the "negro question", as well as at his methodology, since he makes so much of it in the book.

I have been thinking that I would propose an article on the Duke University people, or rather on Parapsychology in general and the Duke experiments in particular. But I don't know whether or not it is worth the effort or whether it would be appropriate to your journal. Some of my stuff in this paper on "scientific logic" etc. would perhaps serve as a fore-runner to it. At any rate, think about it and if you decide you could use it I would do it if I could possibly get to it before going to Vassar.

VASSAR COLLEGE

POUGHKEEPSIE · NEW YORK

*Department of Psychology*

March 6, 1939

Mr. Cleanth Brooks,
Southern Review,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Dear Cleanth :

I'm sorry that I was delayed a whole week in getting to read
Muller's paper. But last week seemed to be about the busiest I've had
all year.

It seems to me that his article is sound and very well done. So far as I know the methodological implications of modern physical theory, Muller's tune is not off key. Two or three times I thought that he would be caught "flat" or "sharp", but in the next sentence or paragraph the proper qualification would be added. For example, I rather leaped to the conclusion that the over-worked principle of indeterminacy would be set up as a sort of analogical license for humanistic speculation (p. 6), but on the next page the obvious scientific attitude about the facts of "indeterminacy" is indicated.

And again, while I am a little bit suspicious of people who set too
much store by Korzybski, the particular ideas which Muller's utilizes
from K. are "well taken".

I like particularly the notion that science, philosophy, criticism
etc. are all alike in being intellectual constructions; none of them
deals directly with experience, but only mediately through the language
of constructs.

There is one paragraph which does not seem to me to be very clear.
(The second one on p. 20 and going over to p. 21). He doesn't show just
wherein "monistic philosophies" answered the question :"Where did the Soul
come in?"; except perhaps in the second half of the third sentence, and by
implication in the next few lines. The gist of the paragraph is the evils
of dualism and it seems to me that if monistic solutions to the question
raised are mentioned they might receive a little more explication. But this
is a very minor point and doesn't affect his argument.

I have done a good bit of work on the Russell paper, which I am thinking
of calling "The Search for Social Philosophy"; and thereby attacking a
somewhat more general problem than a strict analysis of Russell's book would
entail. In fact, a good bit of my argument would perhaps be complementary
to Muller's piece, since he and I share many common views about the
meaning of a pragmatic approach to the study of values... I expect to
send the paper in within two weeks. Is that soon enough for your Spring number ?
In any case, I am going to Nashville for Spring vacation on March 24th and I
shall certainly get it off before that date.

Mrs. Lanier joins me in sending our best regards to you all,

Yrs.,

Nashville, Tenn.

March 30, 1939

Dear Red :

I suppose that the deadline for your Spring number has already passed,
and I hope that my failure to get the Russell paper to you did not incon-
cience you. I suppose that you had plenty of material on hand anyway.

I had counted on getting the damned thing finished about a week ago
but simply could not do it. And then I had to come home during our spring
vacation to see my mother, who has been in very bad condition following Bruce's
death.

The principal reason why I haven't finished the paper is that after
reading the Russell book I was hard put to it to decide what could be written
about it. It is so trivial, unsystematic and aimless that a whole paper
on it, even with liberal support from his earlier work, would have been to give
to it an importance in the magazine which it doesn't deserve. After much
trial and error casting about for something that I could take hold of I
finally decided to untitle the paper "Science and Society", to make it something
of a general methodological consideration of the problems which would fall
under such a heading and to consider both Russell's work and the chapter in
Dewey's new Logic on "Social Inquiry". The fact that the title is also the name
of the Marxian quarterly is not entirely unintentional, since I shall indicate
something of the spurious manner in which many of the Marxians use the term
"science". But the paper will be based mainly upon Russell and Dewey, as
exhibits.

I hope that this departure from your original commission will not disturb
your equilibrium, for the paper will be more substantial that a piece based
solely on Russell.

Best regards to you all,