[In the following review, Watson contrasts Adler's stress on social cooperation to the sexual theories of Freud and the metaphysics of Jung.]

No statement on the meaning of life from Dr. Adler can avoid comparison with the statements of Freud and Jung, yet it seems strange that these writers should so consistently neglect each other's conclusions, and should follow exclusively, with what seems an almost compulsive energy, their own lines of thought. Dr. Jung has more than either of the others made allowance for his rivals, and, in relegating them to different types, has admitted their use and function. Dr. Adler in this last of his numerous publications [What Life Should Mean to You] seems completely satisfied with his own view, which has the undeniable advantage of standing firm and four-square on the ground of common sense. There is much kindly wisdom and a well-nigh convincing assurance in the way in which he answers his own categorical statement: What Life Should Mean to You. Co-operation is his panacea, and in every chapter he emphasizes the importance of co-operation in curing all human ills. Yet in judging of his book we cannot forget the emphasis with which Freud or Jung would stress other means to the satisfying of man's nature; each portrays a different aspect, each offers a solution for the satisfying of his need. To make the simplest comparison. Adler is the wise family physician—Freud the scientific psychologist, and Jung is the metaphysician who wishes to see all metaphysics in terms of psychology. In their differences they mark the stage of our modern development; and we must seek back to the wisdom of the past to find these differences resolved into harmony. There is an ancient Indian fable which tells how the gods and demi-gods brought their offerings to Man on his first birthday. The last and the greatest of these gifts, which the high gods concealed under many lesser blessings, are as follows: first, the power to express will in action, second the power to find sensual gratification, third the power to find fame through service to his kind, and fourth and last, peace. Dr. Adler lays his emphasis so heavily upon the first and third, chiefly on the third, that he seems scarcely aware of the second and fourth. He speaks of other schools of psychology with an impatience, which bordering on contempt, does little to enhance his own wisdom. He would find in cooperation an escape from all ills; through co-operation alone can happiness and fame come to the individual; it is the flowering of the third gift. Dr. Adler does not tire of urging the expediency of such action. He is full of good advice and sound maxims. So too was Polonius, and indeed Dr. Adler might be considered a Polonius amongst psychologists. He can give advice not only to the children but to the parents—and very good advice too. All parents and educators should read this book, and few readers will find themselves proof against the home-thrusts of his analysis. Yet excellent as these precepts may be, it would seem unlikely that such simple confidence and such homely moralizings would ever rescue Hamlet from his doubt, or save Ophelia from drowning.

Modern psychology is as yet exploring the ways of self-realization. Freud has delved to the roots of sensual gratification, has glimpsed also the need of the fourth way, told of in the Indian story, but seeing the fourth, last and perhaps greatest of the gifts from the angle of modern, mechanistic science, has described it as Death. The great religions of the world have known it in its life-expressing reality, and Dr. Jung in his commentary on The Secret of the Golden Flower, has seen it from a very different angle from that which defines the Freudian death-principle. Yet the old fable is not resolved, only very partially stated in modern terms. It is doubtful whether it can ever be so stated; the images by which we speak of these things remain indistinct, and ancient symbols still serve our vague concepts. The genius of Freud has led his followers deep under the surface of human nature; from a purely psychological approach, he has discovered a spiritual and complementary opposite of sensual gratification, and by so doing has rendered simple, moralistic solutions, such as that offered by Dr. Adler, no longer completely adequate. Dr. Adler remains limited in his view of one aspect of human nature, and, for this very limitation, it may well be that he is the most practically useful of all modern phychologists. He is unembarrassed by speculation, and with cheerful confidence defines the meaning of life, the relation of mind to body, the meaning of memories and dreams, the significance of family and other environmental influences. He resolves the problems of adolescence, of criminality, of love and marriage. All this no doubt is very useful as far as it goes, but to many readers it will give the impression of falling short of all but a superficial view of human nature. Cooperation is a good word, never to be despised, but Dr. Adler's essentially unpoetic approach to life, which prevents him from recognizing the genius of Freud, marks his limitation. Yet this is no reason why we should not be grateful for the sincere and kindly presentation of one aspect of man's fourfold destiny.