Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:05:51.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-Projection: Hugo Münsterberg on Empathy and Oscillation in Cinema Spectatorship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2012

Robert Michael Brain
Robert Michael Brain*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

This essay considers the metaphors of projection in Hugo Münsterberg's theory of cinema spectatorship. Münsterberg (1863–1916), a German born and educated professor of psychology at Harvard University, turned his attention to cinema only a few years before his untimely death at the age of fifty-three. But he brought to the new medium certain lasting preoccupations. This account begins with the contention that Münsterberg's intervention in the cinema discussion pursued his well-established strategy of pitting a laboratory model against a clinical one, in this case the “master-trope” of early cinema a spectatorship drawn from hysteria, hypnosis, and related phenomena like double-consciousness. Münsterberg's laboratory-oriented account also flowed from his account of cinema technology as an outgrowth of the apparatus of his own discipline of experimental psycho-physiology, which entailed a model of cinema spectatorship continuous with the epistemological setting of laboratory relations. I argue that in The Photoplay and related writings projection functioned in three registers: material, psychological, and philosophical. Münsterberg's primary concern was with psychological projection, where he drew upon his own work in experimental aesthetics to articulate an account of how the basic automatisms of cinema produce a state of oscillation between immersion and distraction. I show how Münsterberg's experimental aesthetics drew upon German doctrines of aesthetic empathy, or Einfühlung, which Münsterberg sought to modify in accordance with the dynamic and temporal characteristics of psycho-physiological experiment. Finally, I argue that Münsterberg's cinema theory was enfolded in his action or double-standpoint theory, in which the transcendental self posits the material, objective conditions of laboratory experience as a means to know itself. This philosophical projection explained cinema's uncanny ability to suspend ordinary perceptions of space, time, and causality. It also made cinema uniquely suited for the philosophical emancipation of a popular mass audience.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 25 , Issue 3: The Varieties of Empathy in Science, Art, and History , September 2012 , pp. 329 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Published References

Adams, Henry. [1907] 1973. The Education of Henry Adams. Edited by Samuels, Earnest. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Alder, Ken. 2007. The Lie Detectors: The History of an American Obsession. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Grant. 1877. Physiological Aesthetics. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Allesch, Christian G. 1987. Geschichte der psychologischen Aesthetik. Göttingen: Verlag für Psychologie Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Andriopoulos, Stefan. 2002. “Spellbound in Darkness: Hypnosis as an Allegory of Early Cinema.” Germanic Review 77:102–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubert, Charles. [1902] 2003. The Art of Pantomime. New York: Mineola.Google Scholar
Azam, Eugene. 1893. Hypnotisme et double conscience. Origine de leur etude et sujets analogues. Paris: Baillière.Google Scholar
Binet, Alfred. 1894. On Double Consciousness. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Bordogna, Francesca. 2009. William James at the Boundaries: Philosophy, Science, and the Geography of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brain, Robert Michael. 2008. “The Pulse of Modernism: Physiology and Aesthetics around 1900.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39:393–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brain, Robert Michael. 2011. “Genealogy of Zang Tumb Tumb: Experimental Phonetics, Vers Libre, and Modernist Sound Arts.” Grey Room 43:89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Peter. 1976. The Melodramatic Imagination: Balzac, Henry James, Melodrama, and the Mode of Excess. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bruno, Giuliana. 2009. “Film, Aesthetics, Science: Hugo Münsterberg's Laboratory of Moving Images.” Grey Room 36:88–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canales, Jimena. 2009. A Tenth of a Second: A History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canales, Jimena. 2011. “Desired Machines: Cinema and the World in its Own Image.” Science in Context 24:329–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cartwright, Lisa. 2011. “The Hand of the Projectionist.” Science in Context 24:443–464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavell, Stanley. 1985. “What Photography Calls Thinking.” In Cavell on Film, edited by Rothman, William, 115–133. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Cohn, Jonas. 1900. “Münsterbergs Versuch einer erkenntnistheoretischen Begründung der Psychologie.” Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 24:1–22.Google Scholar
Cohn, Jonas. 1902. “Der psychische Zusammenhang bei Münsterberg.” Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 26:1–20.Google Scholar
Curtis, Scott. 2009a. “Einfühlung und die frühe deutsche Filmtheorie.” In Einfühlung: Zu Geschichte und Gegenwart eines ästhetischen Konzepts, edited by Curtis, Robin and Koch, Gertrud, 79–102. Munich: Fink.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, Scott. 2009b. “Between Observation and Spectatorship: Medicine, Movies, and Mass Culture in Imperial Germany.” In Film 1900: Technology, Perception, Culture, edited by Ligensa, Annemone and Kreimeier, Klaus, 87–98. New Barnet UK: John Libbey Publishing.Google Scholar
Dessoir, Max. 1889. Das Doppel-Ich. Berlin: Gesellschaft für Experimental-Psychologie zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Dessoir, Max. [1906] 1970. Aesthetics and Theory of Art. Translated by Emery, Stephen A.. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Dror, Othniel. 1999a. “The Scientific Image of Emotion: Experience and Technologies of Inscription.” Configurations 7 (3):355–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dror, Othniel E. 1999b. “The Affect of Experiment: The Turn to Emotions in Anglo-American Physiology, 1900–1940.” Isis 90:205–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drüe, Hermann. 1983. “Die psychologische Ästhetik im deutschen Kaiserreich.” In Ideengeschichte und Kunstwissenschaft. Philosophie und bildende Kunst im Kaissereich, edited by Mai, Ekkehard, Waetzold, Stephan, and Wolandt, Gerd, 71–98. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.Google Scholar
Edwards-Pitt, Coventry. 1999. “Sonnets to the Psyche: Hugo Muensterberg, the Harvard Psychology Laboratory, and the Making of Gertrude Stein's Aesthetics.” Honors Thesis, Department of History of Science, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Ellenberger, Henri F. 1970. The Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fechner, Gustav. [1876] 1978. Vorschule der Aesthetik. New York and Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottleib. [1801/2] 1982. Science of Knowledge with the First and Second Introductions. Edited and translated by Heath, Peter and Lachs, John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottleib. [1800] 1986. The Vocation of Man, edited and translated by Chisholm, Roderick M.. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottleib. [1796/99] 1993. Wissenchaftslehre nova methodo. Translated by Breazeale, Daniel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Fredericksen, Donald. 1977. The Aesthetic of Isolation in Film Theory: Hugo Muensterberg. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
Gaupp, Robert. [1912] 2002. “Der Kinematograph vom medizinischen und psychologischen Standpunkt.” In Medientheorie 1888–1933. Texte und Kommentare, edited by Kümmel, Andreas and Löffler, Petra, 85–99. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gelpi, Adriane. 2001. “Experimental Space and the Problem of Double Consciousness in Turn of the Century Boston.” Honors Thesis. Harvard University. Department of History of Science.Google Scholar
Givler, Robert Chenault. 1915. The Psycho-Physiological Effect of the Elements of Speech in Relation to Poetry. Princeton and Lancaster PA: Psychological Monographs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Rae Beth. 2001. Why the French Love Jerry Lewis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Groos, Karl. 1909. “Das aesthetische Miterleben und die Empfindungen aus dem Koerperinnern.” Zeitschrift fuer Aesthetik 4:161–182.Google Scholar
Gunning, Tom. 2004. “In Your Face: Physiognomy, Photography, and the Gnostic Mission of Early Film.” In The Mind of Modernism: Medicine, Psychology, and the Cultural Arts in Europe and America, 1880–1940, edited by Micale, Mark, 141–171. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
HaleMatthew, Jr Matthew, Jr. 1980. Human Science and Social Order: Hugo Muensterberg and the Origins of Applied Psychology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Hankins, Thomas L. and Silverman, Robert J.. 1995. Instruments and the Imagination. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Miriam Bratu. 1991. From Babel to Babylon: Spectatorship in American Silent Film. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Miriam. 1983. “Early Silent Cinema: Whose Public Sphere?” New German Critique 29:147–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. [1832–1845] 1970. Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik. 3 vols., edited by Moldenhauer, Eva. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Heidelberger, Michael. 1993. “Force, Law, and Experiment: The Evolution of Helmholtz's Philosophy of Science.” Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science, edited by Cahan, David, 461–497. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press:Google Scholar
Hellwig, Albert. 1916. “Hypnotismus und Kinematograph.” Zeitschrift für Psychotherapie und medizinische Psychologie 6:310–315.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann. [1863] 1885. On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music, 2nd English Edition. London: Longmans, Greens.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann. [1878] 1884. “Die Thatsachen in der Wahrnehmung.” In Vorträge und Reden. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1982. “Fichte's Original Insight.” Contemporary German Philosophy 1:15–52.Google Scholar
Herder, Johann Gottfried. [1774] 1964. “Vom Erkennen und Empfindung der menschlichen Seele.” In Herder's Werke. 5 vols. Berlin: Aufbau Verlag 3:7–69.Google Scholar
James, William. 2003. “Letter to Henri Bergson, June 13, 1907.” In The Correspondence of William James. Edited by McDermott, John J. and Skrupsekelis, Ignas K., 377. Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia.Google Scholar
Jarzombek, Mark. 2000. The Psychologizing of Modernity: Art, Architecture, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1790] 1987. Critique of Judgment. Translated by Pluhar, Werner S.. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
Killen, Andreas. 2006. “Psychiatry, Cinema, and Urban Youth in Early Twentieth-Century Germany.” Harvard Review of Psychiatry 14:38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killen, Andreas. 2009. “The Scene of the Crime: Psychiatric Discourses on the Film Audience in Early Twentieth-Century Germany.” In Film 1900: Technology, Perception, Culture, edited by Ligensa, Annemone and Kreimeier, Klaus, 99–111. New Barnet UK: John Libbey.Google Scholar
Koss, Juliet. 2010. Modernism after Wagner. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Koutsaal, Wilma. 1992. “Skirting the Abyss: A History of Experimental Explorations of Automatic Writing in Psychology.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 28:5–26.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Külpe, Oswald. 1907. Der gegenwärtige Stand der experimentellen Aesthetik. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
Langdale, Allan. 2002. “Editor's Introduction: S(t)imulation of Mind: The Film Theory of Hugo Münsterberg.” In Hugo Münsterberg on Film. The Photoplay: A Psychological Study and Other Writings, edited by Langdale, Allan, 1–41. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lange, Carl. 1903. Sinnesgenüsse und Kunstgenuss. Beiträge zu einer sensualistische Kunstlehre. Wiesbaden: Bergmann.Google Scholar
Lenoir, Timothy. 1994. “The Eye as Mathematician: Clinical practice, Instrumentation, and Helmholtz's Construction of an Empiricist Theory of Vision.” In Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science, edited by Cahan, David, 109–153. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ligensa, Annemone and Kreimeier, Klaus, eds. 2009. Film 1900: Technology, Perception, Culture. New Barnet UK: John Libbey.Google Scholar
Lindsay, Vachel. 1915. Art of Moving Pictures. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Lipps, Theodor. 1903. “Einfühlung, innere Nachahmung, und Organempfindungen.” Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie 1:185–204.Google Scholar
MacDougal, Robert. 1902. “The relation of auditory rhythm to motor discharge.” Psychological Review 9:460–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDougal, Robert. 1903. “The structures of simple rhythm forms.” Harvard Psychological Studies 1: 309–416.Google Scholar
Malgrave, Harry, and Ikonomou, Eleftherios. 1994. Empathy, Form, and Space: Problems in German Aesthetics 1873–1893. Santa Monica: Getty Center Publications.Google Scholar
McCormach, Russell. 1976. “On Academic Scientists on in Wilhelmian Germany.” Science and Its Public: The Changing Relationship, edited by Holton, Gerald and Blanpied, William, 157–171. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, William. 1923. “Purposive or mechanic psychology.” Psychological Review 30:273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Steven. 2001. Irresistible Dictation: Gertrude Stein and the Correlations of Writing and Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller-Freienfels, Richard. 1908. “Zur Theorie der ästhetischen Elementarerscheinungen.” Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 32:95–133, 193–236.Google Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1893. Psychological Laboratory of Harvard University. Cambridge MA: University Press of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1898. “The danger from experimental psychology.” Atlantic Monthly 8:159–167.Google Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1899. Psychology and Life. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1900. Grundzüge der psychologie. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1905. Principles of Art Education. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1906. Science and Idealism. Boston: New York: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1909a. Psychotherapy. New York: Moffat & Yard.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1909b. “The Problem of Beauty.” Philosophical Review 18:121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1909c. On the Witness Stand: Essays on Psychology and Crime. New York: Doubleday and Page.Google Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo, Ribot, Theodule, Janet, Pierre, Jastrow, Joseph, Hart, Bernard, and Prince, Morton. 1910. Subconscious Phenomena. Boston: R. G. Badger.Google Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1910. “Die Deutsche Kultur und das Ausland.” Typed manuscript. Hugo Münsterberg Papers. Boston Public Library. Mss.Acc. 2454.Google Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1914. Grundzüge der Psychotechnik. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. [1914] 1925. Psychology: General and Applied. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Münsterberg, Hugo. 2002. Hugo Münsterberg on Film. The Photoplay: A Psychological Study and Other Writings. Edited by Langdale, Allan. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nachtsheim, Stephan. 1984. Kunstphilosophie und empirische Kunstforschung 1870–1920. Berlin: Gebr Mann Verlag.Google Scholar
Pierce, Edgar. 1896. “The aesthetics of simple forms.” Psychological Review 3:270–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieger, Bernhard. 2005. Technology and the Culture of Modernity in Britain and Germany 1890–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rowland, Eleanor Harris. 1907. “A study in vertical symmetry.” Psychological Review 14:391–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Simon. 2012. “Transport Phenomena: Space and Visibility in Victorian Physics.” Early Popular Visual Culture 10:71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidgen, Henning. 2009. “Mind, the Gap: The Discovery of Physiological Time.” In Film 1900: Technology, Perception, Culture, edited by Ligensa, Annemone and Kreimeier, Klaus, 53–66. New Barnet UK: John LibbeyGoogle Scholar
Schmidgen, Henning. 2010a. Die Helmholtz-Kurven. Auf der Spur der verlorenen Zeit. Berlin: Merve.Google Scholar
Schmidgen, Henning. 2010b. “Münsterberg's Photoplays: Instruments and Models at Freiburg and Harvard (1891–1893).” Online publication: vlp.mpiwg berlin.mpg.de/pdfgen/essays/art71 (last accessed 10 March 2011).Google Scholar
Schmidgen, Henning. 2011. “1900 – The Spectatorium: On Biology's Audiovisual Archive.” Grey Room 43:42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweinitz, Jörg. 2006. “Der hypnotisierende Blick: Etablierung und Anverwandlung eines konventionellen Bildes.” In Bildtheorie und Film, edited by Koebner, Thomas and Meder, Thomas, 426–443. Munich: edition text +kritik.Google Scholar
Schweinitz, Jörg. 2009. “The Aesthetic Idealist as Efficiency Engineer: Hugo Münsterberg's Theories of Perception, Psychotechnics and Cinema.” In Film 1900: Technology, Perception, Culture, edited by Ligensa, Annemone and Kreimeier, Klaus, 77–86. New Barnet UK: John Libbey.Google Scholar
Silverman, Robert J. 1993. “The Stereoscope and Photographic Depiction the Nineteenth-Century.” Technology and Culture 34:729–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, Robert. 1975. Movie-Made America. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Stein, Gertrude, and Solomons, Leon. 1896. “Normal Motor Automatism.” Psychological Review 3:492–512.Google Scholar
Stein, Gertrude. 1898. “Cultivated Motor Automatism: A Study of Character in its Relation to Attention.” Psychological Review 5:295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Paul. 1898. Einfühlung und Association in der neueren Aesthetik. Ein Beitrag zur psychologischen Analyse der ästhetischen Anschauung. Hamburg and Leipzig: Voss.Google Scholar
Stern, William. 1902. “Review of Münsterberg, Gründzüge der Psychologie.” Zeitschrift für psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane 28:262–270.Google Scholar
Stetson, Raymond Herbert. 1903. “Rhythm and rhyme.” Harvard Psychological Studies 1:413–466.Google Scholar
Stetson, Raymond Herbert R.H. 1905. “A motor theory of rhythm and discrete succession.” Psychological Review 12:250–270; 293–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vischer, Robert [1873] 1994. “On the Optical Sense of Form: A Contribution to Aesthetics.” Translated by Mallgrave, Harry F. and Ikonomou, Eleftherios. In Empathy, Form and Space: Problems in German Aesthetics 1873–1893, 89–124. Santa Monica CA: Getty Center Publications.Google Scholar
Wundt, Wilhelm. 1862. Beiträge zu Theorie der Sinneswahrnehmung. Leipzig and Heidelberg: C. F. Winter.Google Scholar