Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:09:06.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Impossible project of Ivan Pavlov (and William James and sigmund Freud)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

David Joravsky
Affiliation:
Department of HistoryNorthwestern University

Abstract

In different contexts, beginning with different concerns, Pavlov, James, and Freud tried to achieve a neurophysiological explanation of mind, and suffered defeat. James and Freud acknowledged the defeat and attempted, in radically different ways, to construct an interim psychology, hoping that neural explanation would be achieved in the future. Pavlov came to the effort in his fifties, after decades of research that took for granted a sharp separation between neurophysiology and psychology. He changed his mind as he noticed the descent of his discipline from study of whole-body and organ functions to concentration on the neuron and the molecule. Pavlov thought to save the discipline from chaos by providing laws of “higher nervous activity” to serve as an organizing framework. Hence his stubborn refusal to acknowledge the obvious errors in his supposed neural explanation of conditioned reflexes. The Russian context of ideological division and extreme social conflict reinforced the unwitting retreat of Pavlov and his school into a scientistic counterculture, while claiming to be developing the ultimate neural explanation of the mind. In countries of less extreme conflicts, classical conditioning continued to be a focal point of discord between psychologists who accept the inevitability of mentalist concepts and neuroscientists who insist that they must be avoided. In any context, neural explanation of mental phenomena has been a project that is impossible to avoid and impossible to accomplish.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aksel'rod, L. I. 1927. “Nadoelo!Krasnaia nov' 7:171–81.Google Scholar
Amacher, P. 1965. Freud's Neurological Education and Its Influence on Psychoanalytic Theory. New York: International Universities Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Babkin, B. P. 1949. Pavlov: A Biography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bjork, D. W. 1988. William James: The Center of His Vision. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois-Reymond, E. H. 1884. Über die Grenzen des Naturerkennens: Die Sieben Welträthsel. Leipzig: Veit.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, S., and Greenberg, R. P, eds. 1978: The Scientific Evaluation of Freud's Theories and Therapies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gillispie, C. C. ed. 1970. Dictionary of Scientific Biography. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. D., and Kandel, E. R.. 1984. “Is There a Cell Biological Alphabet for Simple Forms of Learning?Psychological Review 91:375–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearst, E., ed. 1979. The First Century of Experimental Psychology. Hillside, N.J.:Wiley.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, H. L. F. 1881. Popular Lectures on Scient Subjects. London: Longmans.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, R. 1968. “Beyond Vitalism and Mechanism: Freud's Concept of Psychic Energy.” In Wolman 1968.Google Scholar
James, W. 1892. Psychology. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. 1950. The Principles of Psychology, 2 vols. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Jennings, H. S. 1962. Behavior of the Lower Organisms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Joravsky, D. 1989. Russian Psychology: A Critical History. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lashley, K. S. 1960. The Neuropsychology of Lashley. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. 1898. The Monadology and Other Philosophical Writings. Translated edited by Latta, Robert. Oxford:Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Luria, A. R. 1973. The Working Brain: An Introduction to Neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Maiorov, F. P. 1954. Istoriia ucheniia ob uslovnykh refleksakh. (History of the Doctrine Concerning Conditional Reflexes), 2nd ed. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Manier, E. 1986. “Problems in the Development of Cognitive Neuroscience.PSA 1986 1:183197.Google Scholar
Memory Systems of the Brain: Animal and Human Cognitive Processes. 1985. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Meynert, T. [1884] 1968. Psychiatry: A Clinical Treatise on the Diseases of the Forebrain. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I. P. 1928. Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes. translated edited by Gantt, W. H.. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I. P. 1932. “The Reply of a Physiologist to Psychologists.Psychological Review 39:91127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlov, I. P. 19511952. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Complete Collected Works), 2nd ed., 6 vols. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I. P. 1959. “Pis'ma Paviova k neveste” (Pavlov's Letters to His Fiancée). Moskva, No. 10:155–81.Google Scholar
Roitbiat, H. L. et al. 1982. “The Meaning of Representation in Animal Memory.The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:353406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schur, M. 1972. Freud: Living and Dying. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F. J. 1979. Freud, Biologist of the Mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Swazey, J. P. 1969. Reflexes and Motor Integration: Sherrington's Concept of Integrative Action. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseitlin, Z. A. 1927. “O matematicheskom metode v estestvoznanii i politicheskoi ekonomii” (On the Mathematical Method in Natural Science and in Political Economy). Vestnik kommunisticheskoi akademii 23:149–65.Google Scholar
Wolman, B., ed. 1968. Historical Roots of Contemporary Psychology. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar