It could be that I am the one out of touch. I confess, I’ve done little research lately in the area of psychology. But shouldn’t I be hearing about them—at least, in some roundabout way? Perhaps in magazines, news articles, and so on?
“There you go again—rambling on and not making it clear what you’re talking about.”
Oh, excuse me! It must be my age.
“Well . . . ?”
Oh, yea. Let’s see . . . I was referring to the “biggies.” Where are they?
“Will you please begin to make sense—or quit?”
It’s all perfectly good sense. Naturally, I am speaking of the predominant psychologists on the scene today.
There used to be biggies, as I like to call them—people like Freud, Adler, Rogers, Jung, Skinner, et al., et al. But are there any such names that predominate today? Who stands out like they did? Who demands study? I don’t know. If I’m remiss—please tell me, and point me to their principal works.
I had thought of updating Competent of Counsel for its 40th birthday next year (Donn has been after me to do so for years). But who would I take on, as I did those mentioned in it? So, bereft of such biggies—at least to my knowledge—I gave up on the idea.
Why, if I’m correct, are there no biggies today? Is it because the field has run out of ideas? Why are there no popular books like I’m OK, You’re OK? Where, in our day, is there a movement like Maslow’s self-actualization movement? Is there none? Is it because the thing to do today is simply to medicate?
I don’t understand why—even in the church— the “evangelical” biggies have all subsided. Is there a tacit admission that integration has failed? Are people tired of tooling up year after year to Larry’s latest “insights?” Has Gary run out of things to say? What’s Norman up to these days? And how about Bruce? Am I simply out of touch? Surely, Ed isn’t to be classified as a “biggie,” is he? It could be. But I suspect not. There seems to be something in the wind—what is it? What is it? What is it?