Pub Date : 2022-06-26DOI: 10.1177/09526951221096252
N. Maksudyan
This article situates the trajectory of the academic life of Seniha Tunakan (1908–2000) within the development of anthropology as a scientific discipline in Turkey and its transnational connections to Europe during the interwar period and up until the second half of the 20th century. Relying on the archives of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, the archive of the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, the Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes in Germany, and the Prime Ministry's Republican Archives in Turkey, it focuses on the doctoral studies of Seniha Tunakan in Germany and her life as a female PhD researcher in the capital of the Third Reich, as well as her entire research career after her return to Turkey. Through Tunakan's career, the article also provides an analysis of the perpetuation of German race science in the Turkish context, shedding light upon the success of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Anthropologie, menschliche Erblehre und Eugenik (Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics) and its transnational impact.
本文将Seniha Tunakan(1908-2000)的学术生活轨迹置于人类学作为一门学科在土耳其的发展及其在两次世界大战之间直至20世纪下半叶与欧洲的跨国联系中。依托马克斯-普朗克协会、Humboldt-Universität祖柏林档案馆、Auswärtigen Amtes德国政治档案馆和土耳其共和国总理档案馆的档案，它重点介绍了Seniha Tunakan在德国的博士研究，以及她在第三帝国首都作为女性博士研究员的生活，以及她回到土耳其后的整个研究生涯。通过Tunakan的职业生涯，文章还分析了德国种族科学在土耳其背景下的延续，揭示了凯撒·威廉人类学、人类遗传和优生学研究所(Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human genetic and Eugenik)的成功及其跨国影响。
{"title":"Racial anthropology in Turkey and transnational entanglements in the making of scientific knowledge: Seniha Tunakan’s academic trajectory, 1930s–1970s","authors":"N. Maksudyan","doi":"10.1177/09526951221096252","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951221096252","url":null,"abstract":"This article situates the trajectory of the academic life of Seniha Tunakan (1908–2000) within the development of anthropology as a scientific discipline in Turkey and its transnational connections to Europe during the interwar period and up until the second half of the 20th century. Relying on the archives of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, the archive of the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, the Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes in Germany, and the Prime Ministry's Republican Archives in Turkey, it focuses on the doctoral studies of Seniha Tunakan in Germany and her life as a female PhD researcher in the capital of the Third Reich, as well as her entire research career after her return to Turkey. Through Tunakan's career, the article also provides an analysis of the perpetuation of German race science in the Turkish context, shedding light upon the success of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Anthropologie, menschliche Erblehre und Eugenik (Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics) and its transnational impact.","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":"36 1","pages":"154 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44049424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-28DOI: 10.1177/09526951221091137
Valentina Mann
Franz Boas’ articulation of a new historicist and relativistic framework for anthropology stands as the founding moment of the discipline. Accordingly, scholars have sought to trace its source and inspirations, often concluding that Boas’ thought was shaped almost exclusively by his German background and characterized by a foundational methodological tension. Here, I instead show that Boas’ most creative early work benefitted from close interaction with debates in psychology and that his methodological reflections were part of the much wider series of discussions in North America engendered by the importation of the German Geistes-/Naturwissenschaft debate. Central to such debates, as well as to anthropological ones in these years, were the contested definitions of the human mind and of knowledge. Recovering this shared focus reveals the importance of such questions to Boas’ early writings, allowing us to better reconstruct his views on anthropology and to appreciate how he approached the question of how to justify the bounding of human knowledge into specific disciplines.
{"title":"Mind and knowledge in the early thought of Franz Boas, 1887–1904","authors":"Valentina Mann","doi":"10.1177/09526951221091137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951221091137","url":null,"abstract":"Franz Boas’ articulation of a new historicist and relativistic framework for anthropology stands as the founding moment of the discipline. Accordingly, scholars have sought to trace its source and inspirations, often concluding that Boas’ thought was shaped almost exclusively by his German background and characterized by a foundational methodological tension. Here, I instead show that Boas’ most creative early work benefitted from close interaction with debates in psychology and that his methodological reflections were part of the much wider series of discussions in North America engendered by the importation of the German Geistes-/Naturwissenschaft debate. Central to such debates, as well as to anthropological ones in these years, were the contested definitions of the human mind and of knowledge. Recovering this shared focus reveals the importance of such questions to Boas’ early writings, allowing us to better reconstruct his views on anthropology and to appreciate how he approached the question of how to justify the bounding of human knowledge into specific disciplines.","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":"157 - 184"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47234816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-18DOI: 10.1177/09526951211070934
C. Barnett
In a way having oneself psychoanalysed is like eating from the tree of knowledge. The knowledge acquired sets us (new) ethical problems; but contributes nothing to their solution.
{"title":"Criticism as self-analysis","authors":"C. Barnett","doi":"10.1177/09526951211070934","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951211070934","url":null,"abstract":"In a way having oneself psychoanalysed is like eating from the tree of knowledge. The knowledge acquired sets us (new) ethical problems; but contributes nothing to their solution.","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":"219 - 228"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41356955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-18DOI: 10.1177/09526951211066255
S. Pile
Undeniably, at just over 700 pages, Forrester and Cameron ’ s Freud in Cambridge is a big book. It is reminiscent of the kinds of reports that are produced by public inquiries: those major investigations set up by governments to provide an of fi cial review of particular events or actions, often with recommendations (that can be binding, or not). This, then, is the fi nal report of the public inquiry into the in fl uence of Freud upon Cambridge, despite Freud never having set foot in Cambridge. The purpose of the inquiry is to counter the suggestion that Freud had no signi fi cant impact on the intellectual life of Cambridge – and therefore that Cambridge is not, and never has been, subject to the charms and seductions of psychoanalytic thought. More than this, the argument is that Cambridge ’ s Freudian in fl uences have been forgotten, hidden and (perhaps) repressed. As in any public inquiry, searching for evidence of Freud ’ s in fl uence requires the work of forensically attentive detectives: tirelessly gathering scraps of information; carefully assembling fragments into a coherent whole; meticulously laying out events, actions, timelines and pathologies. No clue too small to be overlooked. No lead to be left dangling. This book is a work of indefatigable researchers, determined to lay out all evidences, to make their conclusions incontrovertible. Freud was in Cambridge. And he still is. The public inquiry is now closed – and we can agree with its recommen-dation: that intellectual in fl uences are not always visible or celebrated, and tracing them out requires fortitude, determination and a forensic attention to detail. And also creativity. Creativity? Yes, the Forrester and Cameron inquiry into the in fl uence of Freud requires the careful gathering of facts about, and interviews with, leading fi gures (albeit posthumously). Yet this book also has another homologue: Freud ’ s own Royal
{"title":"A public inquiry into Freud’s influence upon Cambridge","authors":"S. Pile","doi":"10.1177/09526951211066255","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951211066255","url":null,"abstract":"Undeniably, at just over 700 pages, Forrester and Cameron ’ s Freud in Cambridge is a big book. It is reminiscent of the kinds of reports that are produced by public inquiries: those major investigations set up by governments to provide an of fi cial review of particular events or actions, often with recommendations (that can be binding, or not). This, then, is the fi nal report of the public inquiry into the in fl uence of Freud upon Cambridge, despite Freud never having set foot in Cambridge. The purpose of the inquiry is to counter the suggestion that Freud had no signi fi cant impact on the intellectual life of Cambridge – and therefore that Cambridge is not, and never has been, subject to the charms and seductions of psychoanalytic thought. More than this, the argument is that Cambridge ’ s Freudian in fl uences have been forgotten, hidden and (perhaps) repressed. As in any public inquiry, searching for evidence of Freud ’ s in fl uence requires the work of forensically attentive detectives: tirelessly gathering scraps of information; carefully assembling fragments into a coherent whole; meticulously laying out events, actions, timelines and pathologies. No clue too small to be overlooked. No lead to be left dangling. This book is a work of indefatigable researchers, determined to lay out all evidences, to make their conclusions incontrovertible. Freud was in Cambridge. And he still is. The public inquiry is now closed – and we can agree with its recommen-dation: that intellectual in fl uences are not always visible or celebrated, and tracing them out requires fortitude, determination and a forensic attention to detail. And also creativity. Creativity? Yes, the Forrester and Cameron inquiry into the in fl uence of Freud requires the careful gathering of facts about, and interviews with, leading fi gures (albeit posthumously). Yet this book also has another homologue: Freud ’ s own Royal","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":"205 - 211"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47009504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-18DOI: 10.1177/09526951221084503
F. Callard, Sarah Marks
‘ There was a wide road to the unconscious which was neither altogether medical nor psy-chological, neither philosophical nor literary ’ (p. 614). This sentence appears towards the end of Freud in Cambridge , as John Forrester and Laura Cameron re fl ect upon the book ’ s sustained focus on a number of illustrious scientists and other intellectuals in and around Cambridge in the 1920s. Their documentation and analysis of these individuals ’ and groups ’ enthusiasm for Freud in the 1920s challenges not only received histories of the incursion of psychoanalysis into British cultural life, but also how the very history of 20th-century science is told. Our review symposium on Freud in Cambridge provides a further exempli fi cation of the wideness of the road to and out from the unconscious: we bring together an hetero-geneous and interdisciplinary group of scholars who all are in some way tied to the dis-cipline of geography, as well as enthusiastic about the epistemological and analytical challenges posed by psychoanalysis. Paul Kingsbury and Steve Pile are each central to the emergence and consolidation of a geographical sub-discipline named psychoanalytic geography (see Kingsbury and Pile, 2014; Pile, 1997). Jessica Dubow fi gures Freud as a nodal point in a network of Jewish intellectuals for whom conceptions of attachment, history, identity, and territory are radically reworked (see Dubow, 2021). Clive Barnett
“有一条通往无意识的宽阔道路，既不是医学的，也不是心理学的，既不是哲学的，也不是文学的”(第614页)。这句话出现在《弗洛伊德在剑桥》的末尾，约翰·弗雷斯特和劳拉·卡梅伦反思了这本书对20世纪20年代剑桥及其周边一些杰出科学家和其他知识分子的持续关注。他们对20世纪20年代这些个人和群体对弗洛伊德的热情的记录和分析，不仅挑战了精神分析侵入英国文化生活的历史，也挑战了如何讲述20世纪科学的历史。我们在剑桥关于弗洛伊德的回顾研讨会提供了一个进一步的例子，说明了通往和走出无意识之路的广泛性:我们汇集了一群异质性和跨学科的学者，他们在某种程度上都与地理学科有关，同时对精神分析提出的认识论和分析挑战充满热情。保罗·金斯伯里(Paul Kingsbury)和史蒂夫·派尔(Steve Pile)都是精神分析地理学这一地理分支学科出现和巩固的核心人物(见Kingsbury and Pile, 2014;桩,1997)。Jessica Dubow认为弗洛伊德是犹太知识分子网络中的一个节点，对他们来说，依恋、历史、身份和领土的概念都被彻底地重新设计了(见Dubow, 2021)。克莱夫·巴内特
{"title":"Freud in Cambridge Review Symposium","authors":"F. Callard, Sarah Marks","doi":"10.1177/09526951221084503","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951221084503","url":null,"abstract":"‘ There was a wide road to the unconscious which was neither altogether medical nor psy-chological, neither philosophical nor literary ’ (p. 614). This sentence appears towards the end of Freud in Cambridge , as John Forrester and Laura Cameron re fl ect upon the book ’ s sustained focus on a number of illustrious scientists and other intellectuals in and around Cambridge in the 1920s. Their documentation and analysis of these individuals ’ and groups ’ enthusiasm for Freud in the 1920s challenges not only received histories of the incursion of psychoanalysis into British cultural life, but also how the very history of 20th-century science is told. Our review symposium on Freud in Cambridge provides a further exempli fi cation of the wideness of the road to and out from the unconscious: we bring together an hetero-geneous and interdisciplinary group of scholars who all are in some way tied to the dis-cipline of geography, as well as enthusiastic about the epistemological and analytical challenges posed by psychoanalysis. Paul Kingsbury and Steve Pile are each central to the emergence and consolidation of a geographical sub-discipline named psychoanalytic geography (see Kingsbury and Pile, 2014; Pile, 1997). Jessica Dubow fi gures Freud as a nodal point in a network of Jewish intellectuals for whom conceptions of attachment, history, identity, and territory are radically reworked (see Dubow, 2021). Clive Barnett","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":"194 - 197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44086341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-18DOI: 10.1177/09526951211066257
Paul Kingsbury
I first met Sigmund Freud in Lexington, Kentucky early on in the spring semester of 1999. Virginia Blum introduced him to me in a graduate seminar on psychoanalysis, which counted towards the Social Theory Graduate Certificate, at the University of Kentucky. Not the 5-foot 6-inch Austrian male, of course, but what John Forrester and Laura Cameron call the ‘Absent Great Man’ (p. 2), who is activated by various ‘loose networks’ (ibid.) and ‘paths of transmission’ (p. 614).While my encounter with this latter type of Freud took place seven decades or so after the historical setting of the late John Forrester and Laura Cameron’s monumental yet painstakingly rigorous 700-page and 1971-footnote study, there is a great similarity in terms of the transformative effects that the absent Freud had on the many figures at Cambridge University and on students, including myself during that transformative seminar in Lexington. As Forrester and Cameron deftly show us, an absent though wellknown and connected figure who never quite made it to Cambridge can have real, profound, and lasting effects. As a concrete void or ‘vanishing mediator’ (Jameson, 1973), Freud prompted Cambridge undergraduate John Desmond Bernal to write in 1920, ‘I find myself more of a Freudian than any of the others, though I never read a word he wrote’ (quoted on p. 161). Similarly, we learn about Ernest Jones, who in 1922, ‘was clearly ... fretting over the prospect of Freud’s arrival in Cambridge’ (p. 196). Forrester and Cameron’s book also explores the effects Freud had on Cambridge as the result of a surprising number of Cambridge scholars who travelled to Vienna for analysis with Freud himself. On this point, the book provides rich and nuanced insights into what it was like to be analyzed by Freud. Exemplary here is James Strachey’s description:
{"title":"Fort/Da/Freud","authors":"Paul Kingsbury","doi":"10.1177/09526951211066257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951211066257","url":null,"abstract":"I first met Sigmund Freud in Lexington, Kentucky early on in the spring semester of 1999. Virginia Blum introduced him to me in a graduate seminar on psychoanalysis, which counted towards the Social Theory Graduate Certificate, at the University of Kentucky. Not the 5-foot 6-inch Austrian male, of course, but what John Forrester and Laura Cameron call the ‘Absent Great Man’ (p. 2), who is activated by various ‘loose networks’ (ibid.) and ‘paths of transmission’ (p. 614).While my encounter with this latter type of Freud took place seven decades or so after the historical setting of the late John Forrester and Laura Cameron’s monumental yet painstakingly rigorous 700-page and 1971-footnote study, there is a great similarity in terms of the transformative effects that the absent Freud had on the many figures at Cambridge University and on students, including myself during that transformative seminar in Lexington. As Forrester and Cameron deftly show us, an absent though wellknown and connected figure who never quite made it to Cambridge can have real, profound, and lasting effects. As a concrete void or ‘vanishing mediator’ (Jameson, 1973), Freud prompted Cambridge undergraduate John Desmond Bernal to write in 1920, ‘I find myself more of a Freudian than any of the others, though I never read a word he wrote’ (quoted on p. 161). Similarly, we learn about Ernest Jones, who in 1922, ‘was clearly ... fretting over the prospect of Freud’s arrival in Cambridge’ (p. 196). Forrester and Cameron’s book also explores the effects Freud had on Cambridge as the result of a surprising number of Cambridge scholars who travelled to Vienna for analysis with Freud himself. On this point, the book provides rich and nuanced insights into what it was like to be analyzed by Freud. Exemplary here is James Strachey’s description:","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":"198 - 204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46431175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-18DOI: 10.1177/09526951211066251
L. Cameron
explicit. And psychoanalysis, of course, trades in. Forrester ’ s texts are strangely conducive to odd associations and questions, to associations as questions. He was increasingly interested in cases and collaborations, and always interested in teaching, and in the transmission of knowledge. He also seemed to have read everything. assimilating the Freudian doctrine. The objectivity, and honesty of mind, loyalty the Freudian doctrine demanded,
{"title":"Reply to my commentators – Thinking with Forrester: Dreams, true crimes, and histories of change","authors":"L. Cameron","doi":"10.1177/09526951211066251","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951211066251","url":null,"abstract":"explicit. And psychoanalysis, of course, trades in. Forrester ’ s texts are strangely conducive to odd associations and questions, to associations as questions. He was increasingly interested in cases and collaborations, and always interested in teaching, and in the transmission of knowledge. He also seemed to have read everything. assimilating the Freudian doctrine. The objectivity, and honesty of mind, loyalty the Freudian doctrine demanded,","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":"229 - 238"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42649535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-18DOI: 10.1177/09526951211066254
Jessica Dubow
Freud in Cambridge is an astonishing venture: in the design of its individual and group portraits; in the visions, sympathies, accidents, and events that loosely link them; in detailing a lesser-known ‘local’ chapter in the early development of psychoanalysis in England; in scrutinizing that 20-year period (1910–30) in which Freud crashed the gates of Cambridge and trespassed the grounds of its classical ‘High Science’. But if Freud in Cambridge is a monumental intellectual history, it is also a selfconscious ruse. ‘Freud the physical individual never came to Cambridge’ (p. 2). The book, Forrester and Cameron make clear, ‘is the story of his non-arrival’ (ibid.). Or rather, given his short-lived and often chilly reception, this is a study of Freud’s entrance but of his never settling in or staying on. Why, the authors ask, did the unmatched enthusiasm for psychoanalytic theory in the Cambridge of the 1910s and 1920s never attain institutional legitimacy or endow a disciplinary legacy? Why did this episode break off so abruptly – a flurry of impassioned attachments and affiliations that begat little ‘progeny or issue of any kind’ (p. 6), bestowed few pedagogical innovations, and left behind ‘not even a consulting room to be visited by town or gown’? (p. 613). The question of Freud’s appearance, and the more peculiar query of his disappearance, in Cambridge is what I would like to focus on here. For even if the book turns on a bluff, it also reveals Cambridge at its most Freudian: absenting never invalidates but inheres as the real content of our histories, riders are not mere discretionary additions, and
{"title":"Freud in Cambridge: An institutional romance?","authors":"Jessica Dubow","doi":"10.1177/09526951211066254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951211066254","url":null,"abstract":"Freud in Cambridge is an astonishing venture: in the design of its individual and group portraits; in the visions, sympathies, accidents, and events that loosely link them; in detailing a lesser-known ‘local’ chapter in the early development of psychoanalysis in England; in scrutinizing that 20-year period (1910–30) in which Freud crashed the gates of Cambridge and trespassed the grounds of its classical ‘High Science’. But if Freud in Cambridge is a monumental intellectual history, it is also a selfconscious ruse. ‘Freud the physical individual never came to Cambridge’ (p. 2). The book, Forrester and Cameron make clear, ‘is the story of his non-arrival’ (ibid.). Or rather, given his short-lived and often chilly reception, this is a study of Freud’s entrance but of his never settling in or staying on. Why, the authors ask, did the unmatched enthusiasm for psychoanalytic theory in the Cambridge of the 1910s and 1920s never attain institutional legitimacy or endow a disciplinary legacy? Why did this episode break off so abruptly – a flurry of impassioned attachments and affiliations that begat little ‘progeny or issue of any kind’ (p. 6), bestowed few pedagogical innovations, and left behind ‘not even a consulting room to be visited by town or gown’? (p. 613). The question of Freud’s appearance, and the more peculiar query of his disappearance, in Cambridge is what I would like to focus on here. For even if the book turns on a bluff, it also reveals Cambridge at its most Freudian: absenting never invalidates but inheres as the real content of our histories, riders are not mere discretionary additions, and","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":"212 - 218"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48547743","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-28DOI: 10.1177/09526951211049930
Nikola Regent
The article examines Quentin Skinner's influential interpretation of Machiavelli's views on liberty, and the sharp divergence between his methodological ideas and his actual practice. The paper explores how Skinner's political ideals directed his interpretation against his own methodological precepts, to offer a basis for a ‘revival’ of republican theory. Skinner's reinterpretation of Machiavelli as a theorist of negative liberty is examined, and refuted. The article analyses Skinner's claim about liberty as the key political value for Machiavelli, and demonstrates that liberty is secondary to empire on the list of Machiavelli's priorities. Skinner's vocabulary and efforts to tone down or ignore Machiavelli's more aggressive ideas are closely examined. The analysis offered in the article, it is suggested, has wider implications, showing the difficulty of applying contextualism in practice, by the very founder of this approach in the history of ideas.
{"title":"Quentin Skinner, contextual method and Machiavelli's understanding of liberty","authors":"Nikola Regent","doi":"10.1177/09526951211049930","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951211049930","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines Quentin Skinner's influential interpretation of Machiavelli's views on liberty, and the sharp divergence between his methodological ideas and his actual practice. The paper explores how Skinner's political ideals directed his interpretation against his own methodological precepts, to offer a basis for a ‘revival’ of republican theory. Skinner's reinterpretation of Machiavelli as a theorist of negative liberty is examined, and refuted. The article analyses Skinner's claim about liberty as the key political value for Machiavelli, and demonstrates that liberty is secondary to empire on the list of Machiavelli's priorities. Skinner's vocabulary and efforts to tone down or ignore Machiavelli's more aggressive ideas are closely examined. The analysis offered in the article, it is suggested, has wider implications, showing the difficulty of applying contextualism in practice, by the very founder of this approach in the history of ideas.","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":"108 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42453756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-25DOI: 10.1177/09526951211069512
Chiara Lacroix
Victorian anthropologists have been nicknamed ‘armchair anthropologists’. Yet some of them did set foot in the field. Edward Burnett Tylor's first published work, Anahuac, or Mexico and the Mexicans, Ancient and Modern, described his youthful travels in Mexico. Tylor's confrontation with the ‘field’ revealed significant tensions between the different beliefs and attitudes that Tylor held towards Mexican society. Contrasts between the evidence of Mexico's history (prior to European contact) and the present-day society of the 1850s led Tylor to see both progress and degeneration in Mexico, both ‘authentic’ culture and deep cultural mixture. In order to show that he was capable of uncovering the ‘authentic’ Mexican society, Tylor portrayed himself as a professional traveller-ethnographer, even though he was an anthropological novice. The embodied confrontation with the physical field also created tensions in Tylor's relationship to Mexico. Despite Tylor's mainly ethnocentric vision of foreign societies, his experiences of physically navigating the Mexican land and environment led him towards an empathetic relativism with respect to material culture and social practice. At the same time, his role as a traveller encouraged him to see the field as a fluid entity with no clear boundaries, even as he searched for a bounded and untouched Mexican society amidst cultural mixture. Drawing out the tensions resulting from a Victorian traveller's confrontation with the foreign field allows for a more balanced engagement with the works of these Victorian scholars of human diversity, which have often been portrayed as naively ethnocentric.
{"title":"Confronting the field: Tylor's Anahuac and Victorian thought on human diversity","authors":"Chiara Lacroix","doi":"10.1177/09526951211069512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951211069512","url":null,"abstract":"Victorian anthropologists have been nicknamed ‘armchair anthropologists’. Yet some of them did set foot in the field. Edward Burnett Tylor's first published work, Anahuac, or Mexico and the Mexicans, Ancient and Modern, described his youthful travels in Mexico. Tylor's confrontation with the ‘field’ revealed significant tensions between the different beliefs and attitudes that Tylor held towards Mexican society. Contrasts between the evidence of Mexico's history (prior to European contact) and the present-day society of the 1850s led Tylor to see both progress and degeneration in Mexico, both ‘authentic’ culture and deep cultural mixture. In order to show that he was capable of uncovering the ‘authentic’ Mexican society, Tylor portrayed himself as a professional traveller-ethnographer, even though he was an anthropological novice. The embodied confrontation with the physical field also created tensions in Tylor's relationship to Mexico. Despite Tylor's mainly ethnocentric vision of foreign societies, his experiences of physically navigating the Mexican land and environment led him towards an empathetic relativism with respect to material culture and social practice. At the same time, his role as a traveller encouraged him to see the field as a fluid entity with no clear boundaries, even as he searched for a bounded and untouched Mexican society amidst cultural mixture. Drawing out the tensions resulting from a Victorian traveller's confrontation with the foreign field allows for a more balanced engagement with the works of these Victorian scholars of human diversity, which have often been portrayed as naively ethnocentric.","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":"135 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48167026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：