Has “field theory” been “tried and found wanting”?

Almost everything that Dr. Frank and Dr. Henle have said seems to me to be right. On the other hand it is difficult to agree with some of what Erling Eng has said. He has criticized the Bethel tradition and encounter groups as if they stemmed somehow from Lewin's thinking. I don't believe they did. He believes that Lewin's theorizing became less fruitful when he absorbed some of the American approach. I believe it became more fruitful. He has not mentioned any of the large number of Lewin's specific concepts that seem to me most useful. Most of all, I cannot accept Erling Eng's proposition that Lewin's “field theory” has been “tried and found wanting.” It is true that terms such as “valence” and “vector” are only rarely used today. However, when Lewin's basic, essentially phenomenological concepts are expressed in ordinary common‐sense words such as goals and the perception of paths to goals (terms which he did not invent but which do differentiate him and many others from the strict behaviorists), it seems obvious that they are very much alive. They are, in fact, taken for granted by all of those who refuse to be intimidated by the strict behaviorists' taboo on what they, the behaviorists. call “subjective” — i.e., phenomenological — concepts.