Search

This paper aims to provide a fresh historical perspective on the debates on vitalism and holism in Germany by analyzing the work of the zoologist Hans Spemann (1869–1941) in the interwar period. Following up previous historical studies, it takes the controversial question about Spemann's affinity to vitalistic approaches as a starting point. The focus is on Spemann's holistic research style, and on the shifting meanings of Spemann's concept of an organizer. It is argued that the organizer concept unfolded multiple layers of meanings (biological, philosophical, and popular) during the 1920s and early 1930s. A detailed analysis of the metaphorical dynamics in Spemann's writings sheds light on the subtle vitalistic connotations of his experimental work. How Spemann's work was received by contemporary scientists and philosophers is analyzed briefly, and Spemann's holism is explored in the broader historical context of the various issues about reductionism and holism and related methodological questions that were so prominently discussed not only in Germany in the 1920s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I consider what I have long taken to be the two foundational principles of the Berlin School of Gestalt psychology, namely, that perceptual configurations are "distinguishable from" or "other than" the elements from which they are configured and that the identity of such "elements" is determined by their relation to other elements within perceptual configurations. Yet, while it seems clear that Max Wertheimer (1880–1943), Kurt Koffka (1886–1941), and Wolfgang Köhler (1887–1967) were all committed to the first principle, it is less clear that they were committed (or were all committed) to the second principle. This is perhaps not surprising because commitment to the second principle would seem to undermine the first principle. I note that Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920) appears to have been one of few psychologists clearly committed to the second principle, which is perhaps why, despite appearances to the contrary, he does not seem to have been committed to the first principle. Finally, I discuss some questions raised by this analysis and relate it to recent developments in theoretical psychology and a perennial question in social psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I examine Vygotsky’s holism by considering his usage of ‘microcosm’ and chronicling the term’s origin and development. This exploration leads first to Spinoza’s monism as the primordial source of Vygotsky’s holism. Then, I present the notion of microcosm in the context of German Romanticism and J. W. Goethe. Humboldt’s Cosmos and Lotze’s Microcosmus are presented as 19th-century exemplars of the holistic tradition. Finally, I examine Vygotsky’s usage of the term ‘microcosm’ and argue that this concept cannot be fully understood outside the long tradition of holism in western philosophy. This understanding helps to explain apparent contradictions in his texts as well as affinities with his contemporaries’ philosophy of life and German holistic approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper examines how aesthetic ideals shaped the practice of Nazi medicine. It proposes that Nazi eugenics relied on the conflation of norms of health with norms of beauty determined and performed by Nazi cultures of action. Though theories of biological holism served as vehicles of Nazi ideology, they did so contingently. The anti-totalitarian thinking of biological holist Kurt Goldstein shows that the use of biological holism to promote Nazi ideology was not inevitable. This examination of aesthetic influences on Nazi medicine shows that traditionally speaking ‘non-rational’ factors shaped the Nazi biomedical program’s aims and methods. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Holism in interwar Germany provides an excellent example for social and political influences on scientific developments. Deeply impressed by the ubiquitous invocation of a cultural crisis, biologists, physicians, and psychologists presented holistic accounts as an alternative to the 'mechanistic worldview' of the nineteenth century. Although the ideological background of these accounts is often blatantly obvious, many holistic scientists did not content themselves with a general opposition to a mechanistic worldview but aimed at a rational foundation of their holistic projects. This article will discuss the work of Kurt Goldstein, who is known for both his groundbreaking contributions to neuropsychology and his holistic philosophy of human nature. By focusing on Goldstein's neurolinguistic research, I want to reconstruct the empirical foundations of his holistic program without ignoring its cultural background. In this sense, Goldstein's work provides a case study for the formation of a scientific theory through the complex interplay between specific empirical evidences and the general cultural developments of the Weimar Republic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In pre-World-War-II psychology, two directions in methodological thought—the German–Austrian and North American ways—could be differentiated. After the war, the German–Austrian methodological orientation has been largely abandoned. Compared to the pre-WWII German–Austrian psychology, modern mainstream psychology is more concerned with accumulation of facts than with general theory. Furthermore, the focus on qualitative data—in addition to quantitative data—is rarely visible. Only external–physical or statistical-rather than psychological controls are taken into account in empirical studies. Fragments—rather than wholes—and relationships are studied, and single cases that contradict group data are not analyzed. Instead of complex psychological types simple trait differences are studied, and prediction is not followed by thorough analysis of the whole situation. Last (but not least), data are not systematically related to complex theory. These limits have hindered the growth of knowledge in the behavioral sciences. A new return to an updated version of the German–Austrian methodological trajectory is suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the function of metaphor in the analysis of holism in the Third Reich. Beginning in 1890, a holistic approach to the life and mind sciences developed in Germany as both part and product of a larger cultural cosmology. Even though holistic science began to identify its basic problems, principles and paradigmatic research findings prior to World War I, the coming and especially the catastrophic loss of the war was a real turning point, a crisis for workers within the science--as it was for intellectuals across society in general. One sees the evidence for this among the holists, not only in their letters and explicit statements, but in the dramatic intensification of interest so many of them began to show to make metaphors of wholeness extend.

In early German ecology, the key concept used to refer to a synecological unit was Biozönose (biocoenosis). Taken together with the concept of the Biotop (biotope), it was also understood as an integrated higher-order unit of life, sometimes called a "Holozön" (holocoen). These units were often perceived as having properties similar to those of individual organisms, and they informed the mainstream of German ecology until at least the late 1960s. Here I ask how "organismic" these concepts really were and what conceptual problems they entailed. To do so, I focus on some almost forgotten dissident positions, especially those of (German-born) Friedrich Simon Bodenheimer and Fritz Peus, which I contrast with the mainstream German ecology of the time. In a radical paper published in 1954 that postulated the "dissolution of the concepts of biocoenosis and biotope", Peus in particular elicited a forceful response from many prominent German ecologists. An analysis of the ensuing debate, including especially a colloquium held in 1959 that was partly inspired by Peus' paper, is helpful for sifting the various arguments proffered with respect to a quasi-organismic perception of the biocoenosis in German speaking ecology. Although German mainstream ecologists rejected the notion of the biocoenosis as a superorganism, ontological holism was quite common among them. Additionally, the mainstream concept of the biocoenosis was plagued by several methodological problems and much conceptual confusion, to which the "dissidents" rightly pointed. Some of these problems are still pertinent today, e.g. in connection with more modern concepts such as "ecosystem".

Report on the symposium ’’The Conflict of Forms of Life in Wittgenstein‘s Philosophy of Language‘‘, November 22–25, 1995, Passau, Germany. The main issues were the conflicts between different forms of human life and how Wittgenstein‘s later philosophy contributes to the problem of understanding of other cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]