It should be repeated that the aim of life-history investigation is not to arrive at such thin generalizations as the statement that the state is a universal father-imago (symbol). What matters to the student of culture is not the subjective similarities of the species, but the subjective differences among members of the same and similar cultures. The life-history configuration is precisely the one which has special meaning for the study of culture, and has its own valid place as an object of investigation in the world of events. * * * * * We may at this point briefly retrace the steps which have been taken in this monograph. The psychopathological approach has been examined in its historical setting, and the distinctive value of the free-fantasy method of using the mind has been illustrated. Its importance, likewise, for the understanding of political types has been shown with special reference to the agitators and the administrators. The general formula for the developmental history of the political man employs three terms: _p_ } _d_ } _r_ = _P_ _p_ equals private motives, _d_ equals displacement on to public objects, _r_ equals rationalization in terms of public interest. _P_ signifies the political man, and } means “transformed into.” The political man shares the _p_, the private motives which are organized in the early life of the individual, with every man, and the _d_, the displacement on to public objects, with some men. The distinctive mark of the _homo politicus_ is the rationalization of the displacement in terms of public interests. Political types may be distinguished according to the specialized or the composite character of the functions which they perform and which they are desirous of performing. There are political agitators, administrators, theorists, and various combinations thereof. There are significant differences in the developmental history of each political type.