Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences最新文献

This study investigates the development of concepts of psychosis in the Jewish Hospital in Warsaw, within the context of social and historical processes to which the hospital was the subject and a broader scope of European concepts of psychosis. In the years 1898–1909, the first chief physician of the psychiatric ward, Adam Wizel, focused mainly on hysteria. The interest in psychoses was initiated by Maurycy Bornsztajn, who started to promote psychoanalytic ideas. The second decade of the functioning of the Jewish Hospital's psychiatric ward was marked by issues concerning the classification of psychoses. In the third decade, after Poland regained independence, psychosis became the main focus of the hospital's staff. Newly appointed psychiatrists, Gustaw Bychowski and Władysław Matecki, contributed substantially to the psychoanalytic understanding of psychosis. Bornsztajn continued to develop his psychoanalytically based concept of psychosis. Wizel changed his attitude toward psychoanalysis and acknowledged the importance of Freud's discoveries. Władysław Sterling contributed to the biological understanding of schizophrenia. In the last period, 1931–1943, the Jewish Hospital in Warsaw struggled with the consequences of the economic crisis in Poland, Wizel's death, and Bychowski's departure, which resulted in the reduced number of publications in the field of psychosis. Nevertheless, Bornsztajn managed to further develop his concept of somatopsychic schizophrenia and Matecki introduced the category of pseudo-neurotic schizophrenia. The psychoanalytic approach developed by Wizel, Bornsztajn, Bychowski, and Matecki was supplemented with other influences, especially phenomenology. Wizel, Bychowski, and Matecki were advocates of the psychoanalytic psychotherapy of psychotic patients.

Empathic qualitative methods have become emblematic of early Chicago sociology. Yet methods were not formalized through the early 20th century and empathy was not in usage as a term. Only at mid-20th century did methodological formalization in sociology begin to occur, and an additional quarter-century passed before writing about empathy in sociological methods began to crystallize. Nevertheless, a portion of early Chicago sociologists, assimilating pragmatist thought, established a framework for the deployment of empathic acumen. Because empathy involves understanding others, it is argued that it is central to the study of social life. The article contends that understanding empathy must be as central to the social scientist's knowledge as it is to the effective deployment of research methods: a competent quest to generate knowledge about social life is premised on empathy. To heighten awareness of empathy, an epistemology is necessary. To this end, the article examines empathy as situated by a set of organizational and historical conditions that account for its origin and ascendance as a prescriptive characteristic of sociological work. The author draws attention to the significance of suffering and suggests that its religious precepts are transmuted for the conditions under which sociology develops in turn-of-the-century Chicago.

Michel Jouvet (1925–2017) is one of the most important figures in the contemporary history of the neuroscience of sleep and dreams, and one of the most awarded French researchers of the last century. Yet this former CNRS gold medalist and winner of the Cino Del Duca World Prize remains little known—not to say unknown—outside the field of sleep medicine, especially in non-French-speaking countries, where the name of his American counterpart, William C. Dement, is more familiar. Often reduced to his experiments on cats and the discovery of what he called “paradoxical sleep,” Jouvet left behind a rather unique body of work that includes not only countless publications on sleep and dreams—neurophysiological as well as ethnological and psychological—but also major contributions to clinical medicine, two novels and an impressive collection of personal dream accounts and drawings, which now make it possible to explore the nocturnal side of the last 50 years of his life. This article draws on unpublished archives to illuminate all these little-known and unknown aspects of Jouvet's life and work, highlighting his hidden links with 19th-century scientific oneirology and bringing to light its paradoxes.

This essay examines the detailed process of isolating facial data from the context of its emergence through the early work of psychologist Paul Ekman in the 1960s. It explores how Ekman's data practices have been developed, criticized, and compromised by situating them within the political and intellectual landscape of his early career. This essay follows Ekman's journey from the Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute to New Guinea, highlighting his brief but notable collaborations with psychologist Charles E. Osgood and NIH researchers D. Carleton Gajdusek and E. Richard Sorenson. It argues that the different meanings assigned to the human face resulted in how each group developed their studies – examining facial expressions either in interaction, where they shape reciprocal actions in interpersonal communication, or in isolation, where faces surface from the individual's unconscious interior.