What is the significance of social life for the survival of forms of political personality? In some respects this query about politics is closer to everyday attitudes in an individualistic society than is analysis by class or skill. Who has not dramatized politics as a struggle between Stalin and Trotsky, Roosevelt and Hoover? Whether the stakes are exile or dictatorship, presidency or private life, Washington or the old home town, the players are identifiable persons, and their fate is humanly exciting.
However, it is not the fate of the individual Tom, Dick, and Harry that holds our interest. Political analysis is more concerned with the general than with the unique. Our task is to examine the factors affecting success or failure of personality type. The Franklins, Benitos, Adolfs, and Josefs must be seen as instances of more general forms of personal development before we can compare them with predecessors, contemporaries, and successors.
Novelists, poets, and painters have long been preoccupied with the delicate nuances which bind men to one another, or condemn them to stare across seemingly impassable chasms of misunderstanding. Behind the façades of the class and skill struggle run the dialectics of personality. In the Brothers Karamazov are depicted the subtler shades of the subjective which divide one person, and one personality, from another. The modern student has sought to illuminate this obscure terrain in the language of exposition rather than depiction. Such expository works as those of Freud, Klages, Jung, and Kretschmer have be-