In the last chapter it was suggested that, despite their apparent differences, Durkheim and Weber were in basic agreement on the nature of social psychological phenomena: both grasped the social dimensions of human psychology and behavior as conceived by early American psychologists. If this is correct, it demonstrates the irrelevance of the holist versus individualist debate with respect to the delineation of the social dimensions of cognition, emotion, and behavior. It does not, however, demonstrate the irrelevance of this debate (or the conceptual distortions produced by it) to our understanding of the historical neglect of the social in American social psychology. The significant role played by the historical association of a social conception of human psychology and behavior with supraindividual theories of the “social mind” or “group mind” is documented in Chapter 5.

However, the aim of the discussion thus far has not been to demonstrate that early American social psychologists were especially influenced by Durkheim (or by Weber or Simmel). Although some no doubt were, others were influenced by European theorists such as Gustav Le Bon (1895/1896) and Gabriel Tarde (1890/1903). The significant role played by the work of such crowd theorists in shaping the later asocial tradition of American social psychology is documented in Chapter 7.

The main aim of the discussion so far has simply been to establish that a good many early American social psychologists shared the same conception of social forms of human psychology and behavior as Durkheim and Weber, irrespective of Durkheim's avowed commitment to holism and Weber's to individualism.