CURRENT STATUS AND EVALUATION

We have already seen that Murray's theoretical conceptions undergo

a constant process of re-examination and modincation. In fact, as this
chapter is written his theory is being at least partially recast. Even
in the face of this constant flux, however, certain elements stand firm.
At no time has his deep interest in the motivational process wavered
nor has he shown any inclination to desert his descriptive and taxo-
nomic activities. Similarly, his theory has always emphasized the
importance of unconscious sources of motivation and has throughout
stressed the relation of psychological process to brain process. Thus,
 Munay•a Per,onology 201
although it seems likely that future developments may drastically
change the theory in some respects, it also seems likely that certain
core emphases will remain constant.
Murray's fonnulations have been found useful not only by his
students but also by many other investigators and clinicians interested 1

in studying personality. His concepts of need and press have had a 1

wide usage, particularly among clinicians and investigators who have .

used the Thematic Apperception Test. Few persons who have been 'i
concerned with the details of classifying human behavior have failed
to gain something &om the several important "lasdficatioos which
Murray bas proposed. As we have indicated, his inftuence upon the
current methods or procedures for assessing personality has been pro-
found. Both in the development of speciSc instruments and in the
presentation of a point of view his work has had a great deal to do
with contemporary developments in this area. Fully as important
u these substantive contributions has been Murray's capacity to in-
trigue, excite, and inspire his students and colleagues. The enthusiasm
and conviction with which he has imbued his students fs undoubtedly
responsible to a considerable extent for the fact that they have played
such an important role in the development of personality research.
Which of the features of bis theoretical position have been of most
influence? Perhaps the most distinctive component in Murray's posi-
tion, as suggested earlier, is the careful and sensitive treatment of the
motivational process. There has been a strong tendency on the part
of recent personality theorists to deal with motivation through one
of two rather simple paths. The first path assigns all behavior to a
remarkably small number of cardinal motives so that everything can
be viewed as stemming from these master motives. The second path
assumes that the number of motives is legion and that each individual
is driven by motives which are so complex and so uniquely diJferent
&om those of other individuals that it is not possible to specify motives
which can be wefully applied to more than one person. This alterna-
tive denies the utility of any attempt at a general classification of
motives. Murray's position is clearly between these easy extremes. ,
He grants the complexity of human motivation and firmly avers his
conviction that the process cannot be represented adequately in terms
of two, three, four, or flve general motives. However, he insists that
there are motives of sufficient generality that can be used fruitfully to
represent the behavior of all or most individuals within specified
groups. Thus, he faces realistically the task of developing a set of
constructs which will do justice to the complexity of human behavior,
 Theorlel of Peraonality
but at the same time will be carefully specified so that they can be
used repeatedly by di.flerent investigators. The result, as we have
aeen, ii a classiJication of motives that is probably more widely useful
than any other comparable classiJication.
Murray's theory and his research have played a crucial role in
promoting a more serious interest in psychoanalytic theory on the
part of academic psychologists. In the era when Murray Srst came
to the Harvard Psychological Clinic psychoanalysis was largely an
alien and a tretpasser within the domain of psychology. The 1Ubse-
quent twenty-five years have found Freud firmly ensconced as one
of the intellectual giants of our field, and this shift is in no small
part attributable to the importance of Murray's example.
As we have seen, bis theory possesses the unique feature of a simul-
taneous emphasis upon the importance of the past of the organism and
the present context within which behavior takes place. In a psycho-
logical world where most theorists have self-consciously developed a
preoccupation with the contemporary field, or else have turned to the
past of the organism as the sole key to understanding behavior, it is
decidedly healthy to have one position where both of these classes of
determinants are given their due. His interest in the field or en-
vironment within which behavior takes place led to the distinctive
system of press concepts which permits the investigator to represent
the perceived environment as well as the objective environment It is
one thing to spealc generally of the importance of the environment
and quite another thing to undertake the grim and exacting task of
specifying categories in terms of which the signi6cant aspects of the
environment can be represented. Murray is one of a remarkably
small number of theorists who have undertaken this task.
The negative aspects of Murray's theory are in many respects the
mirror image of the positive. To a considerable extent the main
criticisms of the theory are closely related to the originality, the in-
corporativeness, and the complexity of the theory. We have already
agreed that the most serious allegation which can be leveled against
any theory is the charge that it does not lead to research. The critic
may maintain that in Murray's system there is definitely a set of con-
cepts, and a related set of empirical definitions, but that there is no
set of exp1icitly stated psychological assumptions linked to these con-
cepts in such a manner as to produce testable consequences. Cer- .
tainly it is true, as the studies we have brie8y sampled reveal, that the
research which Murray and his students have done is not to be con-
sidered in any direct way the consequence of his theory. His investi-
 Muff'afl, Per80R0logy 208
gatlons have not been focused on testing predictions which derive
explicitly &om his theoretical position. In defense of the theory it
must be admitted that its assumptions and concepts do provide a
general point of view concerning behavior which clearly bas a lot to
do with the specific manner in which particular research problems are
approached. Further, the de&ned variables are applicable to most
or many such problems. One may claim with considerable justice that
these functions are about all that most personality theories are
equipped to do at present.
Some critics have felt that the theory is so broadly incorporative a1 '.
to lose the power or vigor that would attach to a more limited and . . ...
specialized point of view. Thus, the very qualities which make the
theory complex and at the same time protect it against many of the
usual criticisms that are raised against personality theories might com-
bine to reduce the effectiveness of the theory as a compelling point
of view. It is as though the theory says so much that no single thing
Is said with a salience and conviction that makes it stand out from
the rest of the theory, or that makes the theory itself stand out from
others.
In spite of the breadth and diversity of Murray's theoretical formu- ',
lations it is clear that he has devoted more of bis attention to the moti- '
vational process than he has to the learning process. This bas led
some critics to believe that Murray's theory suffen from an inability
to account for the manner in which motives become transformed and
develop. Although bis classification of motives is uniquely useful, and
bis .methods for measuring motivation of central importance, be has
relatively little to say concerning the exact process whereby these mo-
tives develop.
Murray's patience and skill as a taxonomist have led him to create
10 many fine distinctions and detailed classifications that some ob-
serven feel that he has been unnecessarily romplex in his approach
to the study of behavior. It is certainly true that the number of
different categories he has developed, coupled with bis tendency to
change or modify these frequently, and bis further tendency to intro-
duce new terms for describing these concepts produce considerable
confusion in the casual reader. While one may maintain that the
task of a taxonomist is to represent reality accurately and not neces-
sarily to malce his reader happy, it must be admitted that many of
Murray's variables have not seen extensive and prolonged application
to empirical data.
204 Theoriu of Per,onality
In general Munay's writings and his research are not fashionable
within the existing psychological world. There is too much of the poet
and too little of the positivist in his make-up. He is at home with his
imagination, he is willing to speculate &eely about issues that offer no
hnmediate possibility for empirical translation, and he is willing to
make bis unbridled speculations public. None of these are qualities
that lead to immediate acceptance on the part of professionals who are
still sensitive concerning their suspended position between the natural
sciences and the humanities. There is a strong tendency for the ex-
perimentalist to dismiss as mere subjectivity the problems and issues
raised by bis contemporaries who do not choose to be bound by
manipulable method and technique. Thus, understandably, many
investigators have considered Munay's writings irreverent in the re-
spect they show for experimental technique and distressing in the com-
plex considerations which they introduce as necessary for an ade-
quate understanding of human behavior.
In any 6nal appraisal of Murray's contributions one must combine
the theory, the man, and bis research. There can be no doubt that
this combination bas introduced a note of vivid originality into an area
of research sorely in need of such qualities. In the long run one of
the great enemies of empirical and theoretical progress is the Jixation
upon stable but trivial events, and there has been no more ruthless
critic of trivial investigation and formulation in personality research
than Henry Munay.