It is exceedingly doubtful if many cultural anthropologists welcome the spirit in which psychoanalysts appreciate their data. The cultural anthropologist can make nothing of the hypothesis of the racial unconscious nor is he disposed to allow an immediate psychological analysis of the behavior of primitive people in any othe sense than that which is allowable for our own culture. He believes that it is as illegitimate to analyze totemism in terms of the peculiar symbolisms discovered or invented by the psychoanalyst as it would be to analyze t most complex forms of modern social behavior in these terms. And h is think that the resemblances between the neurotic and the primitive are more than it not because of a cultural atavism but simply because all human beings are, at rock bottom, psychologically and there is no reason why a significant unconscious symbolism wh gives substitutive satisfaction to the individual may not become socialized on any level of human activity. The service of cultural anthropology to psychiatry is not as mysterious as psychoanalytic mysticism would have us believe. It is of a much simpler and healthier sort, Cultural anthropology has the healthiest all scepticisms about the validity of the concept "normal cannot deny the useful tyranny of the normal in a given society but it believes the external form of normal adjustment to be an exceedingly elastic thing. It is very doubtful if the normalities of any primitive society are nearer the hypothet responses an archaic type of than the normalities of a modern Chinese or Scotchman. One even wonder whether they are not tangibly less so. It would be more than a joke to turn the tables and to suggest tha the psychoanalysis of an ov Pueblo Indian or Toda might denude him suffeiently to set him "regressing" to the psychologically primitive status of an American professor. The sense or theoretical p psychoanalyst has confused the archaic in the conc the archaic in the lite chronological sense. Cultural anthropology is not valuable because it uncovers the archaic in the psychological sen It is valuable because it is constantly of the rediscovering the normal. For the psychiatrist and for the student of personality t is greatest importance, for personalities are not conditioned by a generalized process of adjustment to "the normal" but the necessity of adjusting to the greatest possible variety of idea patterns by and action patterns according to the accidents of birth and biography the cultural The so-called culture of a group of human being as it is treated by patterns of behavior anthropologist, is essentially a systematic list of all the socially inherited which may be illustrated in the actual behavior of all or most of the individuals of the group. The true locus of these processes which, when abstracted into a totality, constitute culture is not society, for the term "society" is itself a cultural construct which is employed by individuals who stand in significant relations to each other in order to help them in the interpretation of certain aspects of their behavior. The true locus of culture is in the interactions of specific individuals and, on the subjective side, in the world of meanings which each one of these individuals may unconsciously abstract for himself from his participation in these interactions. Every individual is, then a representative of at least one sub-culture. Frequently, he is a representative of more can than one sub-culture, and the degree to which the socialized behavior of any given individual be abstracted from the generalized culture of a single group varies enormously from to person