Pathfinders in International Psychology [1 ed.] 9781681231457, 9781681231433

Citation preview

Pathfinders in International Psychology

A volume in International Psychology Uwe P. Gielen, Senel Poyrazli, and Harold Takooshian, Series Editors

This page intentionally left blank.

Pathfinders in International Psychology

edited by

Grant J. Rich Consulting Psychologist Juneau, Alaska

Uwe P. Gielen St. Francis College

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data   A CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress   http://www.loc.gov ISBN: 978-1-68123-143-3 (Paperback) 978-1-68123-144-0 (Hardcover) 978-1-68123-145-7 (ebook)

Copyright © 2015 Information Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS

Foreword............................................................................................... vii Florence L. Denmark Preface.................................................................................................... ix 1 The Rise of Modern Psychology: From Western Intellectual Ancestry to Global Practice................................................................... 1 Grant Rich and Uwe P. Gielen

PA RT I PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALING AND THE EMERGENCE OF PSYCHIATRY 2 The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825): From Gaßner to Mesmer to Puységur............... 25 Uwe P. Gielen and Jeannette Raymond 3 Pierre Janet: French Psychiatrist, Psychologist, and Philosopher........ 53 Isabelle Saillot and Onno van der Hart 4 Emil Kraepelin: Experimental Psychology as an Auxiliary Science in Psychiatry and Clinical Empirical Psychiatry as the Foundation of Modern Psychiatry................................................................................... 65 Holger Steinberg

v

vi   Contents

PA RT I I PSYCHOLOGY AS A GROWING INTERNATIONAL EUROPEAN SCIENCE 5 Maria Montessori: The Worldwide Impact of an Italian Educator and Child Psychologist........................................................ 81 Grant J. Rich 6 Lev S. Vygotsky: A Hamletian Spirit With Marxist Dispositions....... 93 Uwe P. Gielen and Samvel Jeshmaridian 7 Alexander R. Luria: A Brief Biography............................................ 105 Tatiana V. Akhutina and Gary Shereshevsky

PA RT I I I TWO AMERICAN AMBASSADORS OF INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 8 Otto Klineberg: International Social Psychologist.......................... 121 Edwin P. Hollander 9 Charles D. Spielberger: Ambassador for Scientific Psychology....... 131 Ann M. O’Roark

PA RT I V THE WORLDWIDE EXPANSION OF PSYCHOLOGY 10 Mustapha Soueif: An Intellectual Portrait of the Father of Arab Clinical Psychology............................................................... 159 Ramadan A. Ahmed 11 Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero: Pioneer of Latin American Psychology....... 175 Rolando Díaz-Loving 12 Durganand Sinha: The Pioneering Work of an Indian Psychologist......................................................................................... 187 Dinesh Sharma

Contents    vii

13 Kuo-Shu Yang: Scholar, Leader, Activist........................................... 201 William K. Gabrenya, Jr. and Chien-Ru Sun 14 Geert Hofstede: Worldwide Psychological Comparisons of Societies.......................................................................................... 213 Peter B. Smith

PA RT V OVERCOMING AFRICA’S COLONIAL HERITAGE AND RACISM 15 Frantz Fanon: Architect of a Psychology of Oppression and Liberation........................................................... 229 Chalmer E. Thompson 16 Saths Cooper: Post-Apartheid Psychologist, Activist, and Leader in South Africa and Beyond.......................................... 241 Grant J. Rich and Judy Kuriansky About the Editors............................................................................... 257 About the Contributors...................................................................... 259 Index................................................................................................... 265

This page intentionally left blank.

FOREWORD Pathfinders in International Psychology is an enlightening book that serves to expand and deepen well-established perspectives on psychology. This book not only contextualizes the discipline of psychology within a broader historical and international setting, but it also serves to demonstrate the truly global forces of the field. One of the most interesting and unique contributions of this book is its ability to bridge the expanse between psychology’s past and its promising future. This is accomplished in an interesting manner by presenting biographical information regarding leading scholars and their contributions to the field, and drawing out the connections from the work of these pioneers to and even beyond the present. The co-editors, Grant J. Rich and Uwe P. Gielen, are both well-known international psychologists. They are Fellows of the American Psychological Association, and very active in Division 52, International Psychology. The engaging material of this text is further enhanced by the excellent contributions of a broad range of prominent scholars. Not only is the material covered diverse and wide-ranging in scope, but the perspective put forth by each author is itself unique and adds to the richness therein. Moreover, the meticulous work of the co-editors, Grant J. Rich and Uwe P. Gielen, creates an overall cohesiveness. While specific international experiences are represented within the volume, the reader is left with knowledge regarding international psychology overall, as well as the field of psychology in general. I particularly enjoyed the section describing the worldwide expansion of psychology, which presents biographies of psychologists and psychiatrists from countries including Egypt, Mexico, India, and Taiwan. This international perspective is incredibly valuable as it adds to the numerous preexisting histories of psychology and presents a more comprehensive

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages ix–x Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ix

x   Foreword

understanding of the field from its beginning to its present. Moreover, beyond simply presenting biographical information, relevant scientific research is also included. Another fascinating section of the book covers racism and Africa’s colonial heritage. By highlighting the lives and experiences of Saths Cooper from South Africa and Frantz Fanon from Algeria, current scholars examine apartheid and the development of a nonracial psychology. While a discussion of this sort is always valuable, it has largely been missing from the field of psychology up until this point. This book combats the pervasive tendency to associate the field of psychology with White males by including often overlooked, but nonetheless essential, scholars from around the world and creating a discourse around their work. The core issues of psychology, whether in the areas of development, personality, research, or pathology, are human issues that influence all individuals, and this text serves to reinforce the humanity and diversity of the field. As such, this book should not only be acknowledged as an excellent contribution to the discipline, but also as a celebration of what psychologists, both past and present, have done. Pathfinders in International Psychology is an essential book for those interested in the history and present status of international, cross-cultural, or counseling/educational psychology. It is essential for students, professionals, and all who share a commitment to understanding greater issues of mental health, diversity, growth, and development in our ever-changing world. This remarkable text fills me with pride for this field and my fellow scholars. It is a volume filled with a spirit of optimism and progression, as it points toward the future and illustrates the innumerable opportunities for developing professionals around the globe. —Florence L. Denmark, PhD Robert Scott Pace Distinguished Research Professor of Psychology Former president of the American Psychological Association

PREFACE The history of psychology is a topic that is inherently fascinating and that has captured the interest of a broad range of individuals and groups, as several recent popular films devoted to the lives of Freud, Jung, and Charcot attest (Thomas, Alexandra, & Cronenberg, 2011; Winocour, 2012). However, the history as written academically by psychologists has too often focused predominately on European psychologists and psychiatrists, particularly those associated intellectually with 19th and early 20th century psychophysics or psychoanalysis, and on the psychology of learning in the United States (such as reflected in the work of Watson and Skinner). In fact, one history of psychology text has been titled Even the Rat Was White (Guthrie, 2003) to reflect this lack of diversity. While several recent textbooks (e.g., Brock, 2009; Pickren & Rutherford, 2010; Shiraev, 2011) and encyclopedias (e.g., Keith, 2013; Rieber, 2012) aim to offer a corrective, notable gaps in the literature remain. Keeping in mind that only about 21%–23% of all living psychologists reside in the United States, the present book provides a global overview of pioneers in international psychology with contributions by distinguished authors from 10 representative nations around the world. In addition to historical figures, we also elected to include some present-day eminent elders of psychology internationally, who help demonstrate that psychology is now a truly global discipline. Chapters in this book offer biographical profiles describing the personal histories and professional contributions of these leading figures in psychology and aim to better represent the diversity of psychology internationally. This volume can serve as a core or supplemental text for a broad range of courses in Psychology, International

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages xi–xiii Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

xi

xii   Preface

Studies, and Education, with particular interest to those teaching international psychology, cross-cultural psychology, and history of psychology. An introductory chapter by Grant J. Rich and Uwe P. Gielen focuses on broad trends related to the history of psychology, noting its focus on the United States to the relative neglect of the rest of the world. The implications of this trend in psychology are discussed, and the value of contextualizing psychology internationally is examined. Moreover, this chapter provides a concise preview of what is to follow. The subsequent chapters offer detailed biographical profiles of eminent healers, psychologists, and a few psychiatrists from around the globe who are representative of the diverse range of scholarship and activities conducted by those who have helped create psychology as an international discipline. These chapter-length profiles present the personal biographies of the psychologists as well as the intellectual contributions to psychology they made. Representative profiles portray psychologists and a few psychiatrists from Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and the Americas. We followed a number of criteria when selecting psychologists for inclusion in our volume. All of them have been prominent in their respective fields even though their prominence and creative contributions are in some cases unknown to most American psychologists. In addition, we include in our volume representative figures whose combined lives cover the 18th to 21st centuries, thus documenting the rise of modern psychology across well over two centuries. Moreover, the selected psychologists and ancestors of modern psychology have been active in a broad range of psychological areas of research, thus counteracting a tendency by psychological historians to favor experimental and quantitatively oriented psychologists over developmental, personality, abnormal, and social psychologists, who approach the central problems of psychology from much more varied conceptual and methodological points of view. Several psychologists in non-Western countries have made it their life’s work to develop an indigenous psychology more suited to the special cultural and social conditions prevailing in their respective countries. Moreover, some profiles focus on figures perhaps best known for their social and political activism and leadership, both in psychology and in various social movements, demonstrating the multiple ways in which psychologists may engage with the real world. Many of the nations represented in this volume are the most populous and influential ones in their respective regions. Together, the countries represent not only a major proportion of the world’s population, but also a broad, diverse sampling of the range of the world’s sociocultural, economic, and political conditions. The countries include some nations with impoverished populations, several developing countries, and some completely industrialized nations.

Preface    xiii

This book aims to serve an important goal: to help better reflect international perspectives in psychology’s past while looking to its future. Toward that end, the authors would like to acknowledge the critical role of Publisher George Johnson, and IAP (Information Age Publishing). His support was instrumental in this project, and we are pleased that this present book represents the first in a series of IAP books from APA’s Division 52 on international psychology. Our deepest gratitude also is extended to Dr. Harold Takooshian for his assistance with this book and to our respective loved ones for their patience and support during this project. Grant J. Rich, PhD Juneau, Alaska, USA Uwe P. Gielen, PhD New York City, USA REFERENCES Brock, A. (2009). Internationalizing the history of psychology. New York, NY: New York University Press. Guthrie, G. (2003). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. Keith, K. (Ed.). (2013). The encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology. Malden, MA: Wiley. Pickren, W., & Rutherford, A. (2010). A history of modern psychology in context. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Rieber, R.W. (Ed.). (2012). Encyclopedia of the history of psychological theories. New York, NY: Springer. Shiraev, E. (2011). A history of psychology: A global perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thomas, J., & Alexandra, T. (Prods.), & Cronenberg, D. (Dir.). (2011). A dangerous method [Motion picture]. Germany: Lago Film. Winocour, A. (Dir.). (2012). Augustine [Motion picture]. France: France 3 Cinéma.

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 1

THE RISE OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGY From Western Intellectual Ancestry to Global Practice Grant Rich and Uwe P. Gielen

This book presents a new approach to the history of psychology by introducing the reader to the biographies of 17 psychologists, psychiatrists, and healers who have been active in 14 countries located around the world. The book’s biographical section begins with the colorful figure of Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815), who was born in Germany, created and practiced Mesmerism in Austria and France, semiretired to Switzerland, and died in Germany. It ends with the biography of the South African anti-apartheid activist and clinical psychologist Saths Cooper (born in 1950), the current president of the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS). Altogether, it covers a timespan of more than 250 years and depicts psychology as an international discipline that has been shaped by a plethora of historical, cultural, political, and intellectual forces.

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 1–22 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1

2    G. RICH and U. P. GIELEN

The volume is not designed to replace existing histories of psychology with their standard cast of heroes and heroines, such as Wundt, James, Freud, Horney, Watson, Wertheimer, Piaget, Skinner, and so on. Rather, the intention behind the book is to contribute to a more comprehensive, balanced, and internationally representative understanding of how psychology evolved across the globe both as an academic discipline and as a field of practice. While there are several recent book-length histories of psychology that aim to include a broad international focus (e.g., Baker, 2012; Brock, 2009; Pickren & Rutherford, 2010; Shiraev, 2011), the present book is unique in that its chapters offer detailed biographical profiles of eminent psychologists and some psychiatrists from around the globe who are representative of the diverse range of scholarship and activities conducted by psychologists. Given the relatively recent development of psychology in the 19th century as a formal academic discipline, it made sense to include several psychiatrists/physicians in this volume, including Emil Kraepelin, Pierre Janet, Maria Montessori, and Frantz Fanon. These physicians, like Freud, Jung, and many other psychoanalysts, made enduring contributions to psychology. As noted in the Preface of this book, the present volume presents chapter profiles of psychologists and psychiatrists that focus upon both their personal biographies and their intellectual contributions, and includes representation from Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas. The chapter authors are also prominent psychologists, and they represent many diverse international regions. In the rest of this chapter, the rise of modern psychology, from its Western intellectual ancestry to global practice, will be outlined through a discussion of the chapters in the various sections of this book. In this context, Table 1.1 provides summary descriptions of the 17 figures profiled in this book. Attention is devoted both to the personalities and to the theory and research of the psychologists and psychiatrists presented throughout the book, with emphasis on noting links across time and space as well as across subdisciplines of psychology and psychiatry. PART I: PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALING AND THE EMERGENCE OF PSYCHIATRY Part I focuses on psychological healing, the emergence of psychiatry, and the implications these subject matters hold for a broadly conceived history of psychology. In the first chapter of the section, Uwe P. Gielen and Jeannette Raymond revisit and reassess the life and impact of Franz Anton Mesmer (1734– 1815). Born in southern Germany, Mesmer predates the formal founding of psychology by more than a century, but it is fitting to begin this volume

Maria Montessori (1870–1952) Lev S. Vygotsky (1896–1934) Alexander R. Luria (1902–1977)

France

Pierre Janet (1859–1947) Emil Kraepelin (1856–1926)

Russia/USSR

Russia/USSR

Italy

Germany

France

Successful exorcist demonstrating subjective power of religious faith in healing activities Founded very influential healing movement: “Mesmerism,” “Animal Magnetism” or “Healing Magnetism” Added psychological perspective to “Animal Magnetism,” changed and legitimatized it in France

Main Contribution

Comprehensive dynamic personality theory aligned with psychotherapy A founder of scientific psychiatry, he introduced major classification system and did cross-cultural research on disorders Early childhood education and progressive reform; first woman physician in Italy Cultural-historical-developmental school, child Introduced major school of thought with development, paedology, defectology lasting influence in psychology Clinical neuropsychology, cortex and associated A founder of clinical neuropsychology, he higher psychological functions introduced complex model tied to specific tests and examinations (Continued)

Nobleman who provided “magneticpsychological” therapy for children and adults; described and induced “artificial somnambulism” (hypnotic trance state) States of dissociation, multiple personality, psychopathology, the unconscious Classification of psychiatric disorders, crosscultural research on disorders, extensive empirical research in mental hospitals Education of children

As an M.D. he magnetized and healed individuals and groups

Germany/Austria/ France/Switzerland

A. M. J. Chastenet, Marquis de Puységur (1751–1825)

Catholic priest who practiced exorcism

Austria/Germany

J. J. Gaßner (1729–1779) F. A. Mesmer (1734–1815)

Areas of Expertise

Country

Person

TABLE 1.1  Brief Descriptions of 17 Figures Profiled in This Book

The Rise of Modern Psychology    3

Canada/USA

Otto Klineberg (1899–1992)

Mustapha Soueif (1924– ) Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero (1918–2004) Durganad Sinha (1922–1998) Kuo-Shu Yang (1932–) Geert Hofstede (1928– ) Frantz Fanon (1925–1961) Saths Cooper (1950– )

Martinique, Algeria, France South Africa

The Netherlands

Taiwan

India

Mexico

Egypt

Charles D. Spielberger Canada/USA (1927–2013)

Country

Person

Main Contribution

International social psychology, group tensions, Undermined American beliefs in innate racial antiracism, antiprejudice, UNESCO differences, early pioneer studying psychology of international relations Measurement of personality “traits” and Worldwide impact on personality research and “states,” health psychology and stress, global psychology organizations community psychology Clinical psychology, response sets, Arab Helped to establish psychology in Egypt and psychology, personality research the Arab world Mexican ethnopsychology, indigenous Founding figure of Mexican psychology who personality traits incorporated cultural perspective Indian ethnopsychology, social change Contributed to culturally appropriate, problemcentered Indian psychology Chinese indigenous psychology, social Leader of indigenous Chinese psychology psychology, modernization movement Comparative study of national and individual Helped to base cross-cultural comparisons on value systems empirically validated value system Psychology of liberation in Africa and Gave voice to African and Black anticolonial elsewhere, anticolonialism movement Anti-apartheid psychology, international First African IUPsyS president, helped regain psychology, counseling legitimacy for South African psychology

Areas of Expertise

TABLE 1.1  Brief Descriptions of 17 Figures Profiled in This Book (continued)

4    G. RICH and U. P. GIELEN

The Rise of Modern Psychology    5

with a discussion of his influence, as Mesmer has frequently been misunderstood and sometimes neglected by psychologists due to his early position in the timeline of psychological history and his reputation as a charlatan. Gielen and Raymond also discuss Mesmer’s prominent French follower, Armand-Marie-Jacques de Chastenet (1751–1825), Marquis de Puységur, and the novel approach to what is rightly viewed as psychological and somatic healings they championed. In addition, the chapter briefly describes the contributions of Austrian priest and exorcist Johann Joseph Gaßner (1729–1779), whose activities overlapped Mesmer’s in time and place, but reflected an alternative view replete with conflicting daemonic and sacred supernatural forces. Gielen and Raymond detail Mesmer’s fascinating biography, such as his marriage to a wealthy widow and his life in a mansion where composers including Gluck, Haydn, and Mozart were hosted. Mesmer’s curing techniques are described, including his use of magnets, massage, the glass harmonica, and theatrics. It seems many of these techniques relied on Mesmer’s charisma together with the power of a situation where the prevailing group dynamics encouraged and supported Mesmer’s presence and worldview. The chapter authors discuss some of the controversies surrounding Mesmer, Puységur, and Gaßner in their own era and note how these figures paved the way for and influenced later figures of immense importance to psychology, including Pierre Janet, Jean-Martin-Charcot, Sigmund Freud, and Carl G. Jung. Gielen and Raymond end by citing modern research literature on psychotherapeutic processes that notes the impact of the therapeutic alliance on client outcomes and the effect of various therapist characteristics, such as therapist charisma and therapist ability, to offer clients both hope that life will improve and convincing explanations for their ailments. Clearly, these 18th century healers may have more in common with today’s clinicians than one may originally have thought. In the second chapter in this section, Isabelle Saillot and Onno van der Hart explore the impact of Pierre Janet (1859–1947). Born in Paris, Janet taught high school philosophy yet felt inspired to enter a life in science after being influenced by the 1881 International Exposition of Electricity and the 1882 publication of an article by Charcot on hypnosis. After earning an 1893 medical doctorate, he soon became France’s leading psychologist, and in 1898 became a Sorbonne lecturer. Widely read, his library contained an extensive collection of books by the older generation of magnetizers and hypnotists such as the Marquis de Puségur, with whose works he was thoroughly familiar. Among his accomplishments was the 1901 founding of the French Psychological Society and the 1903 co-founding of the Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique. In 1929 he was president of the Société Médico-Psychologique, and at the time of his 1947 death he had published over 100 articles and chapters and 30 books. Janet’s key psychological concept was action, and he developed his ideas mainly from his keen

6    G. RICH and U. P. GIELEN

clinical observations, his experimental research, and the treatment of his numerous clients. There is little doubt that he was an inspired clinician. In addition, he developed a comprehensive theory of personality that distinguishes nine layers, ranging from the lower reflexive tendencies all the way up to progressive tendencies that enable a person to engage in individual and original conduct. A pioneer in modern dynamic personality theory and psychiatry, his influence continues to be felt in the discipline of modern traumatology, and the chapter authors argue that his 1919 three-volume, 1,500 page study Les Medications Psychologiques remains relevant today. In particular, the authors note that Janet’s rediscovery in the 1970s has influenced discussions of dissociative disorders in the DSM-III, although they also note that while his complete works are available in French, until recently much of his work had not been translated into English. Saillot and van der Hart also argue that elements of modern psychology such as Gibson’s affordances, studies of embodied cognition, and work by Goldin-Meadow and Bielock on perceptive schemes owe much to Janet. Holger Steinberg concludes this section of the book with a chapter on Emil Kraepelin (1856–1926). Although born in northern Germany in the same year as Sigmund Freud, Steinberg downplays the usefulness of comparisons between the two influential figures since, for instance, Freud focused on neuroses and a biographical/developmental approach, whereas Kraepelin explored psychoses and advanced an approach grounded in neurobiology. However, Kraepelin does have an impressive intellectual lineage, reaching into psychology as an early student and later friend of Wilhelm Wundt, a scholar who is often viewed as psychology’s founding father, and who mentored about 190 doctoral students, including luminaries such as James McKeen Cattell, Edward Titchener, Charles Spearman, G. Stanley Hall, and Hugo Münsterberg. Kraepelin is best remembered today for his classification system of mental disorders that he derived from his extensive archive of psychiatric case studies. Steinberg rightly argues that today’s ICD10 and DSM-5 systems are in many ways indebted to Kraepelin’s systematic approach as developed in the successive editions of his authoritative Textbook of Psychiatry and other publications. Steinberg describes the broad range of activities engaged in by Kraepelin, ranging from his systematic studies of pharmacological effects of recreational (e.g., alcohol and coffee) and medical drugs, to studies of the effects of exercise, sleep, and sense of time. Steinberg argues that Kraepelin should be credited with originating a type of placebo control in psychopharmacological research, as well as developing an innovative technological apparatus to measure reaction time. Finally, Kraepelin may be regarded as a precursor to modern transcultural psychiatry in that he was an early advocate of cross-cultural studies, traveling to Europe, Africa, America, and Southeast Asia to test his theories, which, as Steinberg indicates, were heavily influenced by the problematic

The Rise of Modern Psychology    7

racial ideology and degeneration theory in vogue in that pre-Nazi era. Finally, it is worth noting that though he eventually became head of departments in Heidelberg and Munich, early on, as is also common with many of today’s struggling academics, Kraepelin faced severe financial difficulties, problems with his mentoring relationships and degree completion, and multiple career peregrinations. In sum, these three chapters compose a section that reveals several early figures—Mesmer, Puységur, Janet, and Kraepelin—who were famous in their own eras, and after a period of neglect, have again become the focus of renewed interest and inspiration for modernity. Revisiting these classics now yields much of worth for the current generation of psychologists, as these profiles clearly demonstrate. PART II: PSYCHOLOGY AS A GROWING INTERNATIONAL EUROPEAN SCIENCE Part II of the book focuses upon three European psychologists who reflect psychology as a growing international science: Maria Montessori (1870– 1952), Lev S. Vygotsky (1896–1934), and Alexander R. Luria (1902–1977). Grant J. Rich writes on Maria Montessori, the Italian educator and child psychologist who has become world renowned for the innovative early child education program that bears her name. Montessori, in fact, was arguably the first woman in modern Italy to earn her medical degree, facing tremendous challenges and obstacles not only from the conservative male faculty and student body, but from her own father as well, all of whom viewed medicine as men’s work. After completing her medical degree in 1896, she began educating children with cognitive disabilities while opening her own school in 1907. Montessori quickly noticed that traditional classrooms were dull places that rarely allowed children freedom to explore or choice in activities, and often demanded rote learning, factory-style, of facts of little relevance to the practical lives of young children. Using her scientific training and keen sense of observation, Montessori came to view the need for more individualized instruction and more decision-making granted to young children, without sacrificing discipline or academic rigor. Indeed, she was an early advocate for the value of what modern educators call intrinsic motivation or flow, and argued that engaged children often learn best when their full attention is devoted to the task at hand, tasks they had chosen themselves from carefully prepared educational environments. Indeed, one of Montessori’s major innovations was the implementation of student-centered classrooms, with child-size tables and chairs, and she created many specialized materials, such as wooden cylinders to teach size, thickness, and length, and

8    G. RICH and U. P. GIELEN

numerous practical life exercises, such as using wooden dressing frames with snaps and buttons to teach children to fasten their own clothing. Later in life, Montessori resigned her university position and devoted herself to her writing and to offering intensive international teacher training sessions in many regions of the globe, bringing Montessori education to North and South America, Australia, India, and elsewhere in Asia and Europe. Today there are thousands of Montessori schools worldwide that follow her principles to varying degrees. Notably, much modern research supports many of Montessori’s theories and observations, such as the role of intrinsic motivation in task persistence and the role of age-mixed peer groups in facilitating learning. The second chapter in this section describes the life and contributions of Lev S. Vygotsky. Here, Uwe P. Gielen and Samvel Jeshmaridian describe this key figure in Russian psychology, known especially for his culture-historical theory and his explorations of “mind in society.” As the chapter authors note, Vygotsky’s view of sociocognitive development recognized the critical role that social development and context play in cognitive development. Recognizing the importance of sociocultural factors on cognition remains a major breakthrough that can be attributed to Vygotsky and which continues to influence cognitive psychology and cognitive anthropology today. Furthermore, it should be noted that when some of Vygotsky’s concepts, such as the zone of proximal development, are cited in modern psychology textbooks, they are frequently introduced without contextualizing these concepts in Vygotsky’s own life and sociocultural historical era. In particular, the role of Marxism in his theories is often neglected in modern texts, and on such matters the present chapter in this book offers an illuminating corrective and interpretation for readers interested in a more nuanced understanding of Vygotsky the man, Vygotsky the hopeful political idealist, and Vygotsky the scholar. Gielen and Jeshmaridian describe the broad range of Vygotsky’s thought, which included work in the arts and natural sciences, as well as in experimental psychology. For instance, the young Vygotsky wrote a neglected but impressive book in the psychology of art that focused on Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Later, Vygotsky authored important publications, including Thinking and Speech and Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Vygotsky also wrote on “defectology,” Kornilov’s reactology, Pavlov’s theory, and Freud-Marxism, before finally developing his cultural-historical theory. His ideas about concept formation and the relationship between thought and speech, and between thought and motives, made valuable contributions to psycholinguistics and sociocognitive theory. Not only is Vygotsky’s influence today felt in education, and human development studies in particular, but more generally the range of his intellect continues to touch the fields of linguistics, anthropology, and psychology as a whole.

The Rise of Modern Psychology    9

In the final chapter of Part II, Tatiana V. Akhutina and Gary Shereshevsky detail the biography and intellectual impact of Alexander R. Luria, a neuropsychologist and colleague of Vygotsky who has been ranked as the most influential neuropsychologist in his era and perhaps even in the field’s overall history. Born in 1902 to physician parents, Luria also had a sister who became a psychiatrist. As a student Luria was influenced by Freud and Pavlov, and worked on the psychophysiology of labor. By 1923 Luria was in Moscow at the Institute of Psychology under the direction of Konstantin N. Kornilov, where his young colleagues included Aleksei N. Leontiev and Lev S. Vygotsky. These three young colleagues’ group became known as the “troika,” and the young scholars aimed to critically review the history and present state of psychology. Vygotsky and Luria’s 1929 book included important work by Luria on children’s egocentric speech. The group was very productive, but as the chapter authors describe, political realities increasingly made work difficult, as was apparent in Luria’s 1931 and 1932 expeditions to Central Asia, which resulted in Luria’s departure from the Institute of Psychology. In part due to these political events, Luria refocused on more medical topics; in particular he aimed to examine a group of aphasics, work for which Luria eventually became extremely well-known. While historical conditions required Luria to become a practicing neurologist, he conducted research in his spare time, and from about 1937 to 1941 he developed a “syndrome approach” in neuropsychology, collecting extensive factual data for his archives for the sustained analysis of sensory, motor, and semantic aphasias. During much of the war years he worked in the Urals region, organizing a rehabilitation hospital, and after the war his books on traumatic aphasia and restoration of function after brain injury were global successes. Nevertheless, the political situation at the end of the 1940s in the Soviet Union resulted in the 1951 closure of Luria’s laboratory at the Institute of Neurosurgery, and Luria thus began work on children with cognitive disabilities. After Stalin’s death in 1953, Luria taught at Moscow State University and resumed work at the Institute of Neurosurgery. Late in his life, Luria published detailed book-length case studies on a brain-injury patient and on a man with an extraordinary memory, reflecting a novel and influential approach to scholarship known as the “romantic essay” in psychology. In sum, both Luria’s life and work make for fascinating reading, and they demonstrate clearly how macrolevel social, political, and historical conditions can deeply impact both individual psychologists and the entire development of the discipline both in Luria’s homeland and internationally. Taken together, these three chapters in Part II reflect the growth of psychology as an international European science. Each of the three figures may be clearly placed in the 20th century, and each made contributions that impacted not only psychology, but related fields, such as education,

10    G. RICH and U. P. GIELEN

linguistics, social anthropology, lifespan human development, medicine, and neurology. The lives and intellectual contributions of Montessori, Vygotsky, and Luria remind readers that psychology is in many ways an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary endeavor, and many of the most famous “psychologists” may have received education in related fields (such as medicine) or may have made their most salient contributions to related fields (such as linguistics, education, or neurology). Keeping an open mind when assessing a scholar’s work, rather than engaging in fruitless and counterproductive turf wars between related disciplines, seems to be an excellent strategy to ensure creativity and innovation in psychology. Another important point emerging from this section is that 20th century psychology was clearly becoming more internationalized. For some leaders, like Montessori, the move toward internationalization was a road deliberately taken, with, in her case, the result of countless Montessori schools around the globe today. In the cases of other scholars such as Luria and Vygotsky, international political and historical factors frequently made international collaboration, or even translations or communication, quite difficult. When English translations of such scholars finally became available, one witnessed a dramatic spike in innovation in psychology in the United States and other Englishspeaking nations. Just like being interdisciplinary, being international has benefits for scholarly productivity. PART III: TWO AMERICAN AMBASSADORS OF INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Part III focuses upon two 20th century North American psychologists who may justly be considered American ambassadors of international psychology. Ed P. Hollander discusses the career of Otto Klineberg (1899–1992), the Canadian American psychologist whose work on international social psychology, international relations, group tensions, antiracism, and antiprejudice research beginning in the pre-Civil Rights Era undermined thenprevalent American beliefs in innate racial differences. Indeed, his research figured in the landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned the principle of “separate but equal” schools for Blacks versus Whites in the United States. In fact, much of his research focused on challenging racial superiority theories with solid empirical data. Klineberg had a fascinating educational background: raised in Montreal, Canada, he earned an MD from McGill University (1925) before earning his psychology PhD from Columbia University (1927). At Columbia, he was influenced by such leading psychologists as Robert Woodworth, Gardner Murphy, and Edward Thorndike, but also notably by the eminent anthropologists Edward Sapir and Franz Boas, and two of the latter’s famous

The Rise of Modern Psychology    11

students, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. These anthropologists clearly influenced the budding psychologist’s view of culture and his focus on race relations and cross-cultural issues in assessment. Among Klineberg’s many publications were the books Race Differences (1935), Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration (1935), Social Psychology (1940), Race and Intelligence (1951), and The Human Dimension in International Relations (1964). Klineberg held faculty positions at Columbia University, the University of Paris, and the City University of New York, and also spent a year in China conducting research, as well as time with Native American groups in Washington State in the United States. Klineberg held numerous leadership roles as well and served as President of the World Federation for Mental Health, the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS), the Interamerican Society of Psychology (SIP), and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI). His most enduring legacy though was his influence on intergroup and race relations. His impact continues to be felt today through his own work and that of some of the notable psychologists he influenced, such as Irving Janis and Kenneth and Mamie Clark. In her chapter, Ann Marie O’Roark discusses the distinguished career of Charles D. Spielberger (1927–2013), another 20th century North American psychologist who had a major international impact. Spielberger is perhaps best known for his work on the measurement of personality states and traits, his work in health and community psychology, and in particular, his work on stress and its assessment. By the time he passed away in 2013, his StateTrait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) measure had been translated into at least 66 languages (Oakland, 2014). Spielberger’s educational background was interesting in that his BS was in chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology, before he decided on a career in psychology, ultimately earning his psychology PhD in 1954 at the University of Iowa under the mentorship of the well-known learning theorist Kenneth Spence. Spielberger taught at a variety of institutions, spreading his ideas and research, including Duke University, Vanderbilt University, Florida State University, and the University of South Florida. He had a worldwide impact on personality research and global psychology organizations. For instance, he held a number of high-level leadership positions, including serving as the President of the American Psychological Association, of APA’s Division 52 (International Psychology), the International Council of Psychologists, of the International Stress Management Association, the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP), Psi Chi, the International Honor Society in Psychology, and the International Society for Test Anxiety and Research. Among Spielberger’s many awards were notably the American Psychological Association Award for Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology, the Wilhelm Wundt-William James Award for Substantial and Enduring Contributions to Psychology as a Science and a Profession, and

12    G. RICH and U. P. GIELEN

the Bruno Klopfer Award for Distinguished Contributions to Research in Personality Assessment (Society for Personality Assessment). He held honorary doctoral degrees from three universities. As O’Roark concludes in her chapter on this leading international psychologist, other psychologists may have over 450 publications, designed effective and popular personality measures, and held multiple presidencies, but extremely few have excelled in all three domains. Clearly, Charles Spielberger was one such psychologist, and notably one who utilized his ample talents to pioneer psychology internationally. Klineberg and Spielberger were two crucial figures in helping American psychology to become more international in character at a time when globalization was of little interest to most American psychologists who largely ignored what was happening in psychology around the world. Not only did they assume leadership positions in international organizations but their ideas also had a considerable and lasting impact beyond American borders. PART IV: THE WORLDWIDE EXPANSION OF PSYCHOLOGY Part IV focuses on the worldwide expansion of psychology in the 20th century. Here, five chapters focus on a diverse set of psychologists from around the globe, including Mustapha Soueif (1924–  ) of Egypt, Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero (1918–2004) of Mexico, Durganand Sinha (1922–1998) of India, Kuo-Shu Yang (1932–  ) of Taiwan, and Geert Hofstede (1928–  ) of The Netherlands. These psychologists represent both different geographic regions of the globe as well as different subdisciplines in psychology, demonstrating the growth of psychology beyond its origins in 19th century psychotherapy and psychophysics. Mustapha Soueif, the subject of the first chapter of this section is commonly known as the father of Arab clinical psychology. Born in 1924, he earned his PhD in 1954 from Cairo University. In 1974 he became the first chair of the newly formed psychology department at this university. Soueif has authored 35 books, co-edited 10 others, and written about 200 academic articles and chapters. His supervision of approximately 100 master’s and doctoral theses and dissertations confirms his role in the development of clinical psychology in Egypt and many other Arab nations. Soueif has published on a broad range of topics, including clinical psychology, personality, art appreciation, history of psychology, and the contributions of Muslim scholars to psychology and its early history. His research areas include the psychology of creativity, the interpretation of extreme response sets, drug dependency and cannabis consumption, Egyptian society, and, in recent decades, psychological fitness. This last topic is especially timely as it relates to recent developments in international positive psychology. He has also

The Rise of Modern Psychology    13

written many articles on psychology for the general public, reflecting his interest and concern for the daily life of Egyptians. Among his many roles, Soueif has headed the Committee for the Investigation of Cannabis Consumption, chaired the Egyptian Society for Mental Health, served as Under-Secretary of State Culture, and as President of the Egyptian Association for Psychological Studies. In 1989 he received Egypt’s highest award, the Nile State Award. His productivity across multiple subdisciplines of psychology should serve as a model and reminder that administrators should not attempt to confine psychologists to little boxes as it may stifle creative impulses, hinder the development of innovation, and hinder the profession from making much-needed contributions to public welfare and life. Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero, the focus of the second chapter of Part IV, was born in 1918 in Mexico. He received a BS from the University of Guadalajara and then an MD from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in 1943. Next, he completed both an MA and a PhD in psychology at the University of Iowa. During his time in Iowa he was inspired by lectures by some of the famous psychologists there at the time, including Kenneth Spence, Kurt Lewin, and Robert Sears. Returning to Mexico, he first taught at the Mexico City College and maintained a private practice. By 1948 he began to teach at UNAM, where he initiated the creation of a license to practice psychology program. Díaz-Guerrero’s research has centered on the effects of culture and this work has made him both a true pioneer as well as an icon in Mexican psychology and more generally around the globe. Though his earlier research reflected his medical education, such as work on the role of the endocrine glands, soon he began exploration of such topics as the social and mental health of the urban Mexican. One of his critical publications, co-authored with Wayne Holtzman and with other collaborators, was the book Personality Development in Two Cultures. This book summarized a study of 400 U.S. and 400 Mexican children, which utilized a cross-sequential design spanning 12 years of development. His abiding interest in Mexican cultural influences on psychology continued throughout his career, with a focus on such topics as the impact of the power and supremacy of the father and the effect of the love and sacrifice of the mother in Mexican families. He also researched gender roles in Mexico, such as the role of machismo versus abnegation-virginity, and the roles that children versus parents played in traditional Mexican families. His other research examined a broad range of topics, from the role of educational television to the effect of educational programs on violence to cultural influences on anxiety to the impact of sexual difference on student personality. His work on Mexican ethnopsychology helped define an approach that went well beyond imported European or U.S. ideas to fully incorporate local culture and knowledge. The body of his work culminated in his major 2002 book, Under the Claws of Culture, in which the author summarizes and interprets

14    G. RICH and U. P. GIELEN

50 years of longitudinal and cross-sectional data on the socialization and enculturation processes. As a leader, Díaz-Guerrero was also highly influential. He helped found the Interamerican Psychological Society and served as its president, also receiving the first Interamerican Psychology Award (1976). In sum, Díaz-Guerrero’s legacy is as the preeminent psychologist in Mexican psychology, one whose influence extends well beyond its borders, to Latin America more generally, and to psychology as a whole. In his thougtful chapter on Durganand Sinha, Dinesh Sharma helps contextualize the life and work of this eminent Indian psychologist. A first-generation Indian American psychologist himself, Sharma demonstrates how Sinha paved the way for future Indian psychologists, including Sudhir Kakar and Ashis Nandy, by working through challenging dynamics concerning the place and role of “Western” psychology and more indigenous Indian psychologies. Sinha was born in 1922 in the eastern state of Bihar under British colonial rule, later completing his education with a 1949 MSc in psychology at Cambridge University. After a time as a faculty member at Patna University, Sinha founded the psychology department at Allahabad University, which became a hub of psychological research. Although Sinha was greatly influenced by the experimental methods taught to him by his mentor, the British cognitive psychologist Sir Frederick Bartlett, he also was convinced that psychology needed to be contextualized for the Indian cultural context. Such issues remain relevant today, and Sinha was an early leader in such thinking. Sinha was among the first psychologists to conduct village studies and investigate social change in postcolonial India, opening a new type of psychology in India. Among his books on these topics were 1969’s Indian Villages in Transition and 1974’s Motivation and Rural Development. Sinha also wrote thougtfully on poverty as reflected in his co-edited 1982 book, Deprivation: Its Social Roots and Psychological Consequences. In other research, including his 1986 book Psychology in a Third World Country: An Indian Experience, Sinha aimed to build links between East and West and to decolonize modern psychology. He also studied such topics as rural leadership, student unrest, problems of first-generation learners, childhood fears, and children’s art. As a leader, Sinha helped found the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP), served as President of the International Union of Psychological Sciences (IUPsyS), the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP), and the Indian Psychological Association (IPA), and served as editor of the Indian Journal of Psychology. Perhaps given such productivity one is not surpised to learn that Sinha lectured up to the day before he passed away in 1998. In an aptly named chapter, William K. Gabrenya and Chien-Ru Sun offer an insightful chapter about Kuo-Shu Yang: Scholar, Leader, Dissident. Originally, Yang matriculated at the National Taiwan University (NTU) as a forestry major and became the top student in his class until a bout with

The Rise of Modern Psychology    15

tuberculosis forced him to leave. Upon his return he switched his major to psychology, which at the time was considered a bizarre move by friends and family who wondered why such a promising student would select (what was then) such an uncertain, novel major. After completing his undergraduate degree, NTU hired him as a researcher in animal learning. Eventually, since graduate education in psychology was not then available in Taiwan, Yang pursued a doctorate in social psychology with the leading American cross-cultural psychologist, Harry Triandis, at the University of Illinois. Yang returned subsequently to Taiwan where psychologists faced challenging career prospects, but he felt his services as an educator were more needed in Taiwan than in the United States. He felt it a duty to critique the government and advocate for the public welfare, and so he became involved with publishing a magazine affiliated with political dissidents. Notably, the chapter authors argue that only due to his marriage to the daughter of a political leader was Yang spared from being sent to a penal colony or perhaps even from being executed. Yang is best known for his leadership in the Taiwan indigenous psychology movement, and the chapter authors draw a connection between Yang’s early political behavior and his later agitation for a psychology that was neither European or American but instead uniquely built and suited for the study of Chinese societies such as Taiwan. Yang built cross-disciplinary relationships with an anthropologist and sociologist at the Institute of Academia Sinica in Taiwan and was able to organize a 1980 conference that may be said to mark the start of the Taiwan indigenous psychology movement (TIPM). In building this movement, in 1993, Yang founded and became editor of the journal Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies. By 1998, his article on TIPM in the inaugural issue had been read by 94% of all social psychologists in Taiwan, according to a survey by William Gabrenya Jr. and his colleagues. In 1997, Yang began a new organization, the Foundation for the Advancement of Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, to further expand TIPM. Yang’s leadership also included serving as a founder and 2000–2001 President of the Asian Association for Social Psychology. In 1998, he was elected Academician of Academia Sinica, the highest honor for scholars and researchers in Taiwan, and several years later, in 2003 he was awarded the Guójia Jiǎngzuò (National Professorship), the highest honor for professors in Taiwan. After required age-related retirement from NTU in 1998, Yang taught at several other institutions, including Fu-Jen Catholic University, Fo Guang University, and the Institute of Psychology at Chung Yuan University, from which he ultimately retired in 2012 at age 82. Yang’s leadership and dedication resulted in the Indigenous Psychology Study Group earning a large grant from Taiwan’s Ministry of Education in 2000, and Yang co-chaired the committee managing the psychology

16    G. RICH and U. P. GIELEN

projects, which eventually led to over 200 journal articles and 77 books and book chapters. Among Yang’s ideas is “indigenous compatibility,” a concept which emphasizes that research ought to be conducted by indigenous researchers or at least by researchers with connections to the society under study. Yang also argued for the use of more sensitive and culturally appropriate methods. Often this thinking meant in practice that Western positivist methods would appear to be less effective for capturing the nuances of culture than qualitative or ethnographic methods. Indeed Gabrenya and his colleagues found that most Taiwanese social psychologists could be viewed as utilizing a social constructivist epistemology. In the past, Yang has been critical of a universal psychology, though more recently he has tempered this view by accepting the possibility of a qualified universalism, as long as methods reflecting the cross-cultural indigenous approach are utilized. In addition to his work with TIPM, Yang has conducted several research programs, including one focusing on modernization spanning the 1960s to the 1990s and one aiming to identify indigenous Chinese personality traits. In this approach, which exhibits similarities to the American Big Five Factor Model, Yang found seven dimensions of personality, three of which (competence, other-orientedness, big-heartedness) may turn out to be unique to persons socialized into Chinese and possibly also some other East Asian cultures. In sum, though most of Yang’s publications are written in Chinese, it is notable that some of his works and ideas are available in English, thereby helping to extend his influence beyond Taiwanese and Chinese indigenous psychology to influence other groups and nations in their quests to build their own indigenous psychologies. For Yang, the local became global, the global became local, and back again, demonstrating how international themes relate to indigenous ones and vice versa. In the final chapter of this section, Peter Smith writes on Geert Hofstede. Hofstede, born in 1928 in The Netherlands, has become renonwed for his work describing cultural differences between nations in psychological terms. Hofstede was perhaps specially positioned to research this topic successfully given his personal and academic background. He received a university education in engineering and began to travel to several nations such as the Dutch East Indies and the UK early in his adult life. Subsquently, after a decade of work as an engineer, he pursued a doctoral degree in psychology at Groningen University. His 1964 dissertation focused on the psychology of budget control. Notably and comparable to a good many other Dutch persons, he became a fluent speaker of Dutch, English, French, and German, skills that helped him advance later with his career with IBM, the large multinational computer corporation for which he initially developed his research and ideas. His personnel research at IBM included survey responses from more than 71 nations, and eventually Hofstede took

The Rise of Modern Psychology    17

leave and ultimately left IBM for positions in academe, including six years at the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management in Brussels. Hofstede is most famous for his creation of dimensions of national culture, which include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, short-term versus longterm orientation, and indulgence versus restraint. This work resulted in the landmark publication of the highly influential book Culture’s Consequences in 1980. Chapter author Peter Smith notes that this book has been cited more than 27,000 times in Google Scholar and that works by Hofstede have been cited in English at a rate roughly comparable to those for Freud, Piaget, and Durkheim. Smith also details developments in Hofstede’s work over the years, such as his productive collaboration with Michael Bond, a Canadian psychologist living in Hong Kong, and debates and revisions of Hofstede’s work resulting from publications by McSweeney and by House and the massive Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project. Though Hofstede delivered a retirement address in 1993, he has remained active into his ninth decade, a trend seen in a number of psychologists in this volume, who clearly find psychology to be not just a profession but a passion and a calling rather than a simple career. In addition to his high-impact books, Hofstede has published over 230 articles and has earned eight honorary doctorates; in addition, he was knighted by command of Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands in 2011. Like a number of other psychologists discussed in this volume, Hoftstede’s own background was multidisciplinary, and his impact has been so as well, given that his broad influence extends to sociology, anthropology, and business. Taken as a group, the five psychologists in Part IV demonstrate the global impact and expansion of psychology and offer models for how psychologists can engage not only with other psychologists but with other academic disciplines and with issues of global concern as well. Their work indicates that psychology has tremendous relevance and implications for practical concerns ranging from employee and corporate management to improving the conditions of the truly disadvantaged, such as India’s poor, to developing sensible policy related to drug use to better understanding human creativity, and many others. Such a politically and culturally important impact may also be seen in the lives of the two psychologists who are discussed in the next section. PART V: OVERCOMING AFRICA’S COLONIAL HERITAGE AND RACISM The final section focuses upon Africa and both its colonial heritage and what role psychology and psychiatry have already played and continue

18    G. RICH and U. P. GIELEN

to play in struggles revolving around anti-oppression and liberation. The chapters in this section are devoted to two key figures in these movements: Frantz Fanon (1925–1961) of Martinique and Algeria, and South African Saths Cooper (1950–  ). Both of these figures may be viewed as international psychologists whose key contributions lay more in their leadership than in their research contributions, though their scholarship should not be neglected. In her chapter, Chalmer E. Thompson, a peace psychologist, engages with the perspectives offered by Frantz Fanon, a major architect of the psychology of liberation of oppressed peoples, an intellectual, a political radical, and a revolutionary. Fanon, born on the island of Martinique in the Caribbean in 1925, also spent much time in France as a student and as a fighter for the French Resistance in World War II. This involvement exposed and sensitized him to the rampant racism and oppression directed by White soldiers and leaders against Black soldiers. Later Fanon worked tirelessly in Algeria as a psychiatrist and political activist. There he witnessed disparities in care offered to Algerian versus European patients and advocated for radical changes such as more culturally sensitive treatment. As Thompson notes, a central feature of Fanon’s work is that he “wrote unapologetically about the need for the colonized people of the world to combat the violence exacted on them with violence.” Thompson however, while not diminishing the power or relevance of Fanon’s arguments, also notes alternatives to his approach for liberation, such as the nonviolent approaches of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Despite his brief life of just 36 years, the influence of Fanon continues to be apparent since his 1961 death. In particular, Thompson reminds us that Fanon influenced a broad range of activists around the globe including Che Guevara, Malcolm X, Patrice Lumumba, the U.S. Black Panther Party, and South African Steven Biko. Biko was a close colleague of South African psychologist Saths Cooper, as described in this book in the chapter by Grant Rich and Judy Kuriansky. Thompson discusses some of Fanon’s major ideas and works, ranging from his first book, Black Skin, White Masks (written in 1949–50), to his final book, The Wretched of the Earth (1961), which has been translated into 27 languages. In keeping with the theme of the present volume, international pioneers of psychology, Thompson argues that Fanon should be viewed as a pioneer of psychology and psychiatry due to his examination of the ways in which colonialism impacts both the colonized and the colonizer, thus creating entire sick societies. In Thompson’s view, Fanon called for solidarity among all African-descended peoples. With unity and community come strength and empowerment. Thompson also writes in detail about Fanon’s abiding interest in reversing Blacks’ own incorrect and damaging beliefs about their group’s

The Rise of Modern Psychology    19

characteristics that have resulted from years of oppression and internalization of prevailing majority cultural beliefs. For Thompson, a major part of Fanon’s legacy has been that he stimulates engagement with the struggle and encourages the process of reflection. The continued global popularity of Fanon’s books today is evidence of his enduring influence, both in psychology and postcolonial and cultural studies, and to political activists. The final chapter of this book points to the future, yet reflects past and present realities. In it, Grant Rich and Judy Kuriansky describe the life and contributions of South African psychologist Saths Cooper, an outstanding contemporary figure not only in the psychological community but also in the anti-apartheid struggle and historical fight for human rights in his native country of South Africa. In 2012 the International Union of Psychological Sciences (IUPsyS) elected Saths Cooper as its president, making him the first African to lead this professional organization, which serves as a kind of United Nations for psychologists. Cooper has held numerous other top leadership positions. For instance, he helped create the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA) in 1994, several months before Nelson Mandela became South Africa’s President. The PsySSA was South Africa’s first psychology organization that accepted members without regard to race or gender. Cooper served as its president (from 1996 to 1999 and from 2006 to 2007). Born in 1950 near Durban, South Africa, to a family of Hindu origins, political activism became an important part of Cooper’s life as a college student. When he matriculated in the University College (affiliated with the University of South Africa [UNISA] Salisbury Island, Durban), he helped form the Student Representative Council. His political ideology and involvements led to his 1969 expulsion. By 1971, Cooper helped to encourage Indian activists to endorse the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), an anti-apartheid movement led by Black medical student Steve Biko. Biko’s activism eventually led to his death by police beating in 1977. Cooper had frequent meetings with Biko. The BCM represented psychological liberation and Black pride, in contrast to traditional White values. Cooper felt close to the group, which defined Black so as to include other “people of color,” including Indian-descended South Africans. In fact, Cooper self-identifies as Black, though he is technically from an Indian heritage. Ultimately in the 1970s, Cooper was arrested along with other BCM leaders, leading to incarceration for 9 years, mostly at the infamous Robben Island prison, with much of that time in the same cell block as Nelson Mandela, where he interacted with him daily. Behind bars, Cooper earned his BA degree in psychology through correspondence courses (via the University of South Africa), and when freed, he earned a master’s degree, and honors, in Applied Psychology at South Africa’s University of the Witwatersrand.

20    G. RICH and U. P. GIELEN

Detained again in 1984 for espousing the ideology of a banned political group, upon release, Cooper earned his doctorate in Clinical/Community Psychology at Boston University in the United States in 1989. His post-PhD publications have focused on issues relevant to South African psychology, including its history, current status, and future. He has also published reflections on apartheid and postapartheid psychological issues, including discussions of his insights into the personality and political outlook of Nelson Mandela based upon their shared time in prison, and a recent coedited two-volume set of books entitled Psychology Serving Humanity, which includes key proceedings from the 30th International Congress of Psychology, which was the first ICP held in Africa. Cooper has received many awards and honors, including the IUPsyS Achievement Against All Odds Award, recognizing research carried out under extremely difficult conditions. In 2013 he was appointed Extraordinary Professor at the University of Pretoria. Finally, in 2014, the American Psychological Association awarded him its prestigious Distinguished Contributions to the Advancement of International Psychology award. Saths Cooper deserves to be recognized as an international psychology pioneer in that he was one of the key leaders to restore credibility to South African psychology. It is important to recall that historically, the most important architect of the apartheid regime was the psychologist Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd. He began as a professor of applied psychology at Stellenbosch University but would later serve as South Africa’s Prime Minister from 1958 until 1966. It was under him that apartheid developed into the infamous form of racial domination it became. Thus, Cooper has witnessed psychology as a tremendous force of both oppression and liberation; indeed many of his captors in prison were psychologists who held top prison posts. Yet despite these troubling misapplications of psychology, Cooper was able to see the value of psychology as a positive force for empowerment and healing, and he has devoted his life since his release to advocating for psychology internationally. The singular feature of Cooper’s career is that psychologists can be, and indeed must be, agents for positive social change. CONCLUSION This book is intended to serve several roles. In part it will hopefully serve as a corrective to psychology histories that examine only psychologists from Europe and the United States. While many such histories exist and offer valuable biographical profiles and insights into the intellectual contributions of leading figures ranging from the psychoanalysts Freud, Adler, and Jung to the well-known 19th century and early 20th century psychophysicists and Gestalt psychologists, to some of the behaviorists and learning theorists

The Rise of Modern Psychology    21

such as Watson, Skinner, and Bandura, too often psychologists from other parts of the world have been excluded. Our hope is that this volume demonstrates the internationalization of psychology by highlighting just a few of the leading figures who should merit our attention and who hail from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America, as well as from Europe and the United States. Like other disciplines and the world at-large, psychology has increasingly followed the path of globalization, and so it is only fitting that our histories of the field begin to mirror this exciting development. Another aim of the book is to demonstrate the different ways in which psychologists contribute to our world. As noted earlier, past histories of psychology have often focused on the contributions of experimental psychologists, such as psychophysicists, or clinicians, such as the early psychodynamically influenced thinkers. In contrast, the present book features psychologists from a much broader range of academic psychology subdisciplines, including social/personality and developmental psychology; educational psychology; neuropsychology; abnormal psychology; counseling and clinical psychology; cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychology; political psychology; and community and health psychology. Furthermore, our selection of figures demonstrates that psychologists make contributions in diverse ways. Whereas some are best known for developing innovative, active, and productive research programs, others are most visible because of their leadership activities such as bringing psychology to new nations by introducing novel approaches that reflect a fruitful integration of an ever more international discipline with local knowledge and local needs. Still other psychologists may best be known for their activism, by resisting the status quo, and by working tirelessly for positive social change that impacts not only psychology and the helping professions but society at-large as well. In this volume we aimed not only for geographic and disciplinary and subdisciplinary diversity but also for covering the lives of scholars who can represent the development of the discipline over time. When placed in this context, it may at first seem unlikely to see connections between the late 18th and early 19th century figures of Mesmer and Puységur and the 21st century Cooper, but a closer reading of the present volume yields many delightful and insightful connections in intellectual history. For instance, though born in the mid-20th century, Cooper was trained psychodynamically, including training in hypnosis, which he views as a useful technique. Yet at the same time, Cooper reports that Fanon’s thought and the influence of existentialism also impacted his thinking, along with other eclectic approaches ranging from behaviorism to the work of the internationally known humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers. Likewise, a close reading of the chapters that follow may lead the attentive reader to trace valid and useful geographic connections among various forms of psychology as they developed around the globe. For instance, one learns how two of the

22    G. RICH and U. P. GIELEN

psychologists profiled in these chapters, Charles Spielberger and Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero, began productive cross-national collaboration in an era before such international teamwork became more common. In sum, the present volume represents an opportunity both to reflect upon psychology’s past and to ponder its future. The range of achievements produced by these psychologists is awe inspiring, and our hope is that the next several centuries of psychology will prove as productive as the past, yet grounded in the present, and striving for positive social change in the future. Indeed, a number of the international pioneers represented in this volume may serve as exemplars of what psychology may promise for future generations. REFERENCES Baker, D. B. (2012). The Oxford handbook of the history of psychology: Global perspectives. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Brock, A. (Ed.). (2009). Internationalizing the history of psychology. New York, NY: New York University Press. Oakland, T. (2014). A tribute to Charles Spielberger. Paper presented at the 28th International Congress of Applied Psychology (ICAP), Paris, France. Pickren, W., & Rutherford, A. (2010) A history of modern psychology in context. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Shiraev, E. (2011). A history of psychology: A global perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

PART I PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALING AND THE EMERGENCE OF PSYCHIATRY

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 2

THE CURIOUS BIRTH OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALING IN THE WESTERN WORLD (1775–1825) From Gaßner to Mesmer to Puységur Uwe P. Gielen and Jeannette Raymond

A certain most subtle spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies. —Sir Isaac Newton (1726)

On May 23, 1734, in the southern German hamlet of Iznang, the forester and game warden Antonius Mesmer and his wife Maria Ursula Mesmer welcomed the third of their nine children, Franz Anton Mesmer, to this uncertain world. At the time, his father worked for the powerful Johann Franz II von Stauffenberg, Prince-Bishop of the ancient city of Constance, a city that had played an important role in the history of the Catholic Church. Here the longest Ecumenical Church Council in history had taken place from 1414 to 1418, during which a pope was forced to abdicate, two more competing popes were deposed, a new one elected, and the Bohemian heretic/ reformer Jan Hus burned at the stake. He shared the fate of many women

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 25–51 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

25

26    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

found guilty of practicing witchcraft over the centuries, with the last witch being burned in neighboring Switzerland as late as 1782 (Freuler, 1945). Yet the region around the Lake of Constance would also play an important role in the prehistory and history of psychology, with figures such as Gaßner, Mesmer, Binswanger, Jung, Rorschach’s ancestors, Inhelder, (and the first author of this essay) all coming from this region. Franz Anton Mesmer grew up in a traditional yet evolving Catholic atmosphere, receiving lessons in Latin and music at the cloister school of Grünenberg and later in a Jesuit school in Constance. Afterwards Antonius sent his son to the Jesuit Priest Seminary of Dillingen from where he subsequently moved to the Jesuit University of Ingolstadt, both in Bavaria. Mesmer proved to be an intelligent young boy, and the father probably hoped that his high-minded son would make good, become a priest like his brother Johann, move up in social standing, and thrive as an important figure in the church. Little did he know that instead of becoming a priest, the self-willed son would turn into the famous founder of a powerful “scientific,” if controversial, school of healing, variously called Mesmerism or Animal Magnetism. Mesmer believed that he had discovered a potent, invisible, and all-pervading magnetic fluid that, if blocked in our bodies, will make us ill. To counter these ill-effects, Mesmer developed several dramatic curing rituals that undoubtedly reduced the suffering of many people, although presumably not for the reasons that Mesmer had adduced. Relying on the “magnetic” impact of his touch, “passes” by his hands slightly above the body of his expectant patients, his intense, “mesmerizing” gaze, and his abilities as a theatrical showman, Mesmer represents the archetype of a special type of charismatic healer found throughout the course of human history, no matter what disapproving medical doctors and ever-so-scientific psychologists may have to say about healers like him. This chapter traces the dramatic lives, ideas, and healing activities of Mesmer and his prominent French follower, Armand-Marie-Jacques de Chastenet, Marquis de Puységur (1751–1825). (Although his birth certificate gives as his name Amand Marc Chastenet, he is better known as ArmandMarie-Jacques de Chastenet.) Responding to the impact of late 18th century and early 19th century Enlightenment philosophy, Mesmer, the Marquis de Puységur, and their numerous followers across Europe and eventually the New World inaugurated new approaches to psychological and somatic healing that influenced the lives of innumerable women and men for more than 100 years. To be sure, Mesmer himself did not cast his theatrical healing activities in psychological terms, but the more level-headed Marquis de Puységur did indeed advance such explanations without, however, applying to himself the then rarely used term of psychologist. By inducing “artificial somnambulism” in some of his patients, he discovered what later on would

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     27

be called hypnotic trance states together with some striking manifestations of unconscious mental and emotional forces (Gauld, 1995). Their colorful activities led to the birth of psychological healing in the Western world (Binet & Féré, 1887/1890; Crabtree, 1993; Ellenberger, 1970; Jackson, 1999; Pattie, 1994; Puységur, 1786/n.d., 1812/1980; Wallace & Gach, 2008; Wyckoff, 1975). With Mesmer moving from Swabia to Bavaria to Austria to France and subsequently back to Germany and Switzerland, this unlikely story is also quite international in scope. It touches upon the French Revolution and the Catholic tradition of exorcism while at the same time pointing to the tentative beginnings of dynamic psychiatry and psychology that predate the birth of experimental psychology by a century. In 1778, 101 years before Wilhelm Wundt founded his famous psychology laboratory at the University of Leipzig, Mesmer introduced the Parisian public to some spectacular collective curing rituals together with a bioenergetic theory that, according to him, was fully scientific in nature. Until his death in 1815, the stubborn wizard from the Lake of Constance never wavered in his convictions regardless of what his many critics and detractors had to say (Mesmer, 1814/2007). EUROPE'S INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL MILIEU BETWEEN 1775 AND 1825 The cultural-intellectual climate in Europe during the years 1775–1825 included a rich variety of currents that influenced Mesmer and Chastenet, Marquis de Puységur. Among these forces can be found religious traditions, some of which were increasingly considered old-fashioned (e.g., demonology, exorcism, and witchcraft accusations), optimistic and rationalistic Enlightenment philosophy, the concomitant rise of science, the professionalization of medicine, the slow and uneven rise of scientific though speculative theories in psychology and psychiatry, and the early beginnings in the 1820s of emotion-centered Romanticism. The progression from Mesmer’s theory of Animal Magnetism to Puységur’s psychological and vitalistic conceptions of artificial somnambulism exemplifies the evolving and shifting battles between these intellectual currents that, especially in Paris, were dominated by Enlightenment philosophy, with its emphasis upon rational inquiry, its distrust of merely traditional authority, its search for a just ordering of human affairs, and a sometimes rather speculative approach to scientific and medical questions (Gay, 1995). French Enlightenment philosophy culminated in the French Revolution of 1789, which violently destroyed the French monarchy, abolished many privileges of the nobility, severely undermined the authority of the Catholic Church, and ultimately sent some of its most prominent children to the guillotine. In contrast, Catholicism remained a central institutional and intellectual force in more conservative

28    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

Bavaria and Vienna where Mesmer was educated. Moreover, daily life in Vienna was more tightly controlled by the rulers of the Habsburg Empire and the Church when compared to fashion-ridden life in prerevolutionary Paris. During this era, Paris and Vienna had grown into the leading centers of medicine on the European Continent (Lesky, 1976). Given that the Age of Enlightenment held science in high esteem, medicine became increasingly professionalized together with major improvements in university training, the establishment of hospitals, and the rise of several scientific and medical academies in Paris and elsewhere. Although a good many of the medical theories and healing methods endorsed at that time would subsequently turn out to be of questionable validity, many members of the medical profession began to turn against those they considered unscientific and greedy charlatans (and economic rivals) such as Mesmer. This held true, although the famous Faculty of Medicine at the University of Vienna had conferred upon Mesmer a medical degree with high distinction. Meanwhile, the medical profession had very limited, and at times dubious, means at their disposal to fight successfully against the rampant physical and mental diseases and problems of the times, and so the public’s dire need for the effective treatment of physical and emotional problems persisted among all social classes. In an age when the average life expectancy in France was around 36 years (Institut National d’Études Démographiques, 2013), most connections between physical, emotional, and spiritual “diseases” and how best to treat them remained obscure to even the brightest minds of the times—as they remain today to various degrees. Mesmer and Puységur’s theories and struggles can only be understood in this context. Their innovative yet controversial treatment methods and their cures and pseudo-cures attracted thousands of sufferers together with curious onlookers and skeptical “experts” from various scientific academies and ecclesiastical institutions that pursued their own agendas. Moreover, their methods and their clientele reflected the power structures and prevailing gender roles of society: Educated members of the nobility such as Puységur treated poorly educated peasants as well as their own servants, but not the reverse; middle-aged men treated younger women but the opposite happened only rarely; female patients trembled, emoted, and fainted in response to Mesmer’s gaze and touch but hardly any males followed suit because men were expected to exert greater self-control than the supposedly “weaker sex.” The influential and realistic Deleuze (1850/2010), however, argued that women can be just as successful as magnetizers as the men. The Austrian priest and exorcist Johann Joseph Gaßner (1729–1779), whose astonishing but finally aborted career overlapped with that of Mesmer, will also make a brief appearance in this chapter in order to demonstrate an alternative approach to healing that relied on the putative presence of powerful and sacred supernatural forces. Numerous observations and case studies based on eyewitness reports by often sober and well-trained

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     29

observers have survived, and so we are well informed about the activities of Gaßner (e.g., Hanauer, 1989; Midelfort, 2005) and the “magnetizers” (e.g., Deleuze, 1850/2010) as well as the reactions of many sufferers together with their physical and behavioral symptoms. However, careful longitudinal studies systematically assessing the sufferers’ initial health status, potential changes following the “intervention,” and whether the changes were sustained over time are largely missing, as they are for the other areas of contemporary medicine (Lanska & Lanska, 2007; but see Wienholt, 1802–1806, for 59 well-documented case studies). The progression from Gaßner (sometimes spelled Gassner) to Mesmer to Puységur to a variety of emerging theories about hypnosis and dissociative states marks the development from a supernatural perspective to a naturalistic bioenergetics model to a much more psychological conception of the forces hypothesized to be operative during healing sessions (see Figure 2.1). Here, we interpret these historical developments as representing the evolution of a more modern understanding of the nature of psychological healing that, ultimately, would lead to the rise of dynamic psychology and psychiatry in the later stages of the 19th century (Ellenberger, 1970; Jackson, 1999). In this context, it may be useful to keep in mind that today, religious, biological, and psychological conceptions still are contending with each other for predominance around the globe. For instance, a variety of supernatural forms of healing can be found especially in the rural areas of the poorer countries of Africa and Asia, thus mirroring the situation prevailing in the poor and rural areas of 18th century Bavaria, Austria, and Switzerland. In contrast, psychotherapy is now widely offered as well as accepted by the educated public in Europe and the Americas. But let us now retrace the steps that Mesmer took in order to introduce his novel and bioenergetic form of healing.

Johann Joseph Gaßner (1727–1779, Austria): Supernatural Perspective

Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815, Germany): Bioenergetic/ Physicalistic Model

Armand-Marie Jacques de Chastenet, Marquis de Puységur (1751–1825, France): Psychological Conception of Artificial Somnambulism

Later Developments (1825–1900) • Mesmerism • Evolving Theories about Hypnosis and Dissociation • Dynamic Psychology and Psychiatry • Spiritism/ Spiritualism

Figure 2.1  From Exorcism to Mesmerism to Dynamic Psychiatry/Psychology.

30    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

MESMER IN VIENNA: MARRYING INTO NOBILITY, INVENTING ANIMAL MAGNETISM, AND EXPERIENCING REJECTION FROM HIS MEDICAL PEERS In 1759, Mesmer became a law student at the University of Vienna; shortly afterwards he decided that he would instead study medicine. His many years of study together with his shifts from exploring theology to studying philosophy, then physics and astronomy, then law, and finally medicine suggest an unsettled identity together with corresponding shifts in basic worldview. In truth, however, we know very little about his life and preoccupations in those years. When he was 33 years old, Mesmer completed his degree and dissertation on the influence of the planets on human diseases: Dissertatio Physico-Medica de Planetarum Influx (Physical-Medical Dissertation on Planetary Influences). The dissertation was strongly influenced by the ideas of the British physician, Richard Meade (1673–1754), with some ideas of the illustrious physicist Isaac Newton about subtle and invisible forces hovering in the intellectual background (Newton, 1726). Because theories about the nature of electrical and magnetic forces and “fluids” were widely discussed in those days, Mesmer’s dissertation was not considered to be unusual. Much of the material that he included in his dissertation (and even plagiarized) anticipated his later development of the theory of Animal Magnetism (Pattie, 1994). On January 10, 1768, the young doctor Mesmer married a wealthy, influential, and 10-years-older widow, Maria Anna von Posch. Mesmer acquired a good portion of her family’s wealth, her status, and her home, a mansion on the Danube. Their home became a center for the Viennese aristocracy. Many famous persons were entertained at the mansion, including the composers Gluck, Haydn, and the Mozart family. In fact, 12-year-old Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s light-hearted Singspiel, Bastien und Bastienne is said to have been commissioned and performed in the couple’s private theater in 1768. Mesmer himself played the glass harmonica, the clavichord, and the violoncello, and he believed that music possessed healing properties. The glass harmonica in particular produced unworldly sounds both soothing and evocative in character, although some did feel that they could endanger a person’s mental health. Ironically, Benjamin Franklin, soon to be Mesmer’s nemesis, had developed the then most modern version of this musical instrument. From 1773 to 1774, Mesmer treated Francisca (Franzl) Oesterlin, who was suffering from 15 severe symptoms including paralysis, convulsions, vomiting, pains, and madness. On June 28, 1774, Mesmer decided to treat the patient with magnets. He had heard of this method after his contemporary Maximillian Hell, the professor of astronomy at the University of Vienna, used them to cure stomach cramps in a patient. Moreover, this

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     31

treatment was becoming increasingly popular among English physicians. He applied one magnet to her stomach and two to her legs. According to Mesmer, the patient began feeling severe pain accompanied by a sensation of waves created by a mysterious liquid traveling down her body. Mesmer knew that the magnet could not be doing this alone; it seemed to be some other force that the magnets were controlling. In response, he identified and named this force “animal gravity” or, in later times, Animal Magnetism. For Mesmer, this marked a discovery almost Newtonian in scope—a discovery that deserved to be recognized by all of humanity. His lifelong though frequently unsuccessful struggles to achieve this recognition constituted a central preoccupation in Mesmer’s life. After many treatments, Franzl, who according to Leopold Mozart had originally been nothing but “skin and bones,” made incredible improvements, eventually married Mesmer’s stepson, now called herself Frau von Posch, and a few years later had turned into the almost unrecognizable “plump and fat mother” of three children (Pattie, 1994, p. 32). The news of Mesmer’s success with the magnets spread throughout much of the German-speaking world. Unfortunately, in his treatment of Franzl, Mesmer had used Hell’s magnet, and so Hell received most of the credit. This convinced Mesmer to distinguish his technique and develop his ideas independently of Hell’s. In June of 1775, Mesmer traveled to treat a nobleman of Hungary, Baron Horeczky de Horka, who was suffering from throat spasms. Unfortunately, Mesmer could not cure the sensitive nobleman and the treatments eventually were stopped. However, while he was staying on the Baron’s estate, he did manage to treat a peasant who had lost his hearing several weeks earlier from a thunderstorm. Soon after, back in Vienna, Mesmer treated one of his most famous patients, Maria-Theresia Paradis, age 18, who would also become one of his greatest disappointments. The daughter of a wealthy and influential civil servant, she was talented, intelligent, and graceful. However, she was blind. Maria-Theresa received treatments all of her life for her blindness, apparently undergoing more than 3,000 electric shocks to her eyes in the course of her short life—but to no avail. In those days dangerous medical treatments such as those involving leeches and bleeding of the patient, administration of electrical shocks (an experimental new procedure), and the prescription of poisonous medications containing mercury were not uncommon. By comparison, Mesmer’s procedures were potentially beneficial, less dangerous in character, and yet much more controversial among medical doctors who feared that just about any inspired person could become a magnetizer, thus endangering the livelihood of the doctors. Mesmer attempted to cure Maria-Theresa and after several healing sessions, claimed he had succeeded though her previous physicians denied this.

32    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

Mesmer’s claim, however, was the subject of much debate in the Viennese medical community, which gave Mesmer’s new discovery a chilly response. Some doctors were outright hostile to Mesmer’s technique. Finally, a medical commission interceded and claimed that the patient could only see when Mesmer was present. This drove a wedge between the Paradis family and Mesmer; the patient lost sight permanently and continued to pursue her career as a blind musician. Mesmer responded to this controversy by claiming that the family never had their daughter’s true interests at heart. He suggested foul play: a blind musician was after all much more profitable than a seeing one. Mesmer suffered through a depressive stage for three months after the incident until finally, probably in late 1777, he decided to move to Paris. But before we discuss the steep ups and downs of Mesmer’s career in Paris, we will review some of the magnetic healing therapies that he pioneered in Vienna, Paris, and elsewhere. THE HEALING SESSIONS: DRAMA OR ENTERTAINMENT? Mesmer understood that any type of healing amounted to ceremonial practice; his healing sessions were intentionally theatrical in nature. He once wrote, “If my processes were not reasoned, then they would appear to be absurd and would not have any credibility.” Moreover, he developed several modes of treatment including those suited for individual cases and those adapted to the large groups of clients who flocked to him in Paris. Mesmer had noticed that his healing success did not appear to depend on the use of magnets, and so he introduced a new, physically as well as emotionally arousing form of magnetic treatment without the actual use of magnets. The magnetizer (typically a male) would sit opposite his (often female) patient, with his knees enclosing hers in order to be en rapport with her. He placed one hand on the back of her neck and the other one on her hypochondriac region just below her ribs, or even lower than that. He would either massage her body or, in a more common and restrained version, perform downward “passes” of his hand about one inch removed from her body and limbs. All the while he was gazing fixedly into her eyes while transferring his own magnetic force so that the illness-inducing “blockages” of her magnetic fluid inside her body would be dissolved. The goal of the treatment was to restore the free circulation of that invisible fluid, a process that hopefully would be triggered by a “crisis” during which the patient might swoon, tremble, sweat, experience physical spams, giggle, laugh uncontrollably, and ultimately either lose consciousness or else enter a dreamy and relaxed mental state. In modern American slang, one might say that the hour of the drama queens had arrived.

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     33

Mesmer considered this catharsis, which at times was accompanied by a loss of control over bowel movements and the bladder, necessary for the restoration of the patient’s health. It frequently took several lengthy sessions before the “crisis” occurred. Many younger and single females were said to become quite attached to the magnetizer—no wonder since he apparently was able to induce an orgasmic experience in some of them. Unsurprisingly, some of Mesmer’s patients attended his individual or group sessions not because they needed to be healed but because they anticipated an exciting experience. Quite a few other patients, however, reported few if any magnetic effects in their bodies nor did they display dramatic emotional reactions. Still others mentioned warm currents running through their bodies without, however, experiencing a full-blown “crisis.” Mesmer’s individual magnetic treatments proved to be a great success in Paris. He soon pioneered his highly popular collective magnetizing sessions that took place in a large, specially prepared room. Seeing himself as a sort of “Stage Manager of a Silent Health Mystery Play with Intense Audience Participation,” he wanted to heal as many persons as possible—and also earn more money. Poor patients, however, were frequently treated free of charge by both him and his idealistic followers. When Mesmer entered the elegantly furnished room, absolute silence fell until he began to play the glass harmonica (Gallo & Finger, 2000; Music for the Glass Harmonica, 2001). Each participant would touch her neighbors’ fingers, thus creating a magnetic chain. Mesmer would walk around the healing room, at times wearing golden shoes and a fashionable lilac silk robe, approaching every patient and waving a magnetic wand or his hands over an ailing part of the body. He would be shrouded in near darkness because all of the windows were covered. It was a haunting atmosphere. The hot room, sometimes filled with more than 200 sweating and odor-producing patients at a time, would be decorated with large mirrors to reflect and amplify the all-present magnetic fluid. To this he added various astrological signs in order to mystify and confuse them while suggesting the presence of invisible ancient and cosmic powers. These patients would gather around a long wooden tub, about a foot and a half high, called a baquet; iron rods would stick out of the baquet at 90-degree angles at different heights. The patients would apply these rods to ailing parts of the body. The baquet was filled with ground glass, iron filaments, and magnetized bottles of water. As the tall and prepossessing Mesmer encircled the patients, a good many would fall into crises, screaming, convulsing, trembling, sweating, groaning, evacuating; some laughed. Frequently, a crisis in one patient would soon trigger similar crises in others—a kind of emotional and behavioral contagion (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). After the descent into these crises, the patients were lifted up and transported by Mesmer’s handsome, “Hercules-like” servant into

34    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

the chambre des crises or the salle des crises, where they could regain composure and support each other emotionally (Binet & Féré, 1887/1890; Pattie, 1994; Wyckoff, 1975). The story of Mesmer is a story of sensuous treatments and theatrical effects thought by many doctors to be better suited for the stage. Surprisingly, the 18th century doctor was not always such a shamanistic performer. His legacy and career, proceeding from philosophy, physics, theology, and law to esoteric medicine and psychology, may sound too dubious and flamboyant to be true. Moreover, he was not the only one to bring about dramatic cures. From the autumn of 1774 to the spring of 1775 in a small Franconian town called Ellwangen, the lame, the arthritic, those experiencing seizures, the mad, and many other sufferers flocked to see the modest country priest and Teufelsaustreiber (literally: somebody who drives out devils), Father Johann Joseph Gaßner, in hopes he would heal them so that they could leave behind a life of despair. As held true for Mesmer, Gaßner’s healing activities were controversial in character, public in nature, sometimes involved large crowds, and ultimately led to very serious problems for the healer instigated by “enlightened” but opinionated authority figures. GAßNER VS. MESMER: EXORCISM OF SUPERNATURAL EVIL FORCES VS. THE WOBBLY RISE OF NATURAL SCIENCE The Austrian priest Gaßner (1727–1779) fundamentally preceded Mesmer with regard to some of his clients, practice, and chronology. Mesmer and Gaßner were both very well known in their respective spheres, which overlapped across the beautiful region of the Lake of Constance where both had grown up; indeed, there were many who compared the two and rightfully so (Ellenberger, 1970). Both attracted thousands of sufferers desperate to be healed, and both had spectacular, if variable, careers as healers. Both healed the sick in peculiar ways and strictly according to their own doctrines: Mesmer in the name of Animal Magnetism and Gaßner in the name of Jesus Christ. Both believed in an invisible third power at play; however, these were two very different powers. Mesmer believed that God expresses His will through natural forces whereas Gaßner took it for granted that He also employs supernatural means—as does His powerful and deceitful servant and adversary, the Evil One. According to his doctrine, Gaßner believed that there were two different kinds of diseases: natural ones that physicians can cure and supernatural ones they cannot. The supernatural diseases, in turn, were divided into three distinct categories: the first was any disease based on natural causes or circumsessio instigated by the Devil (or demons) although the symptoms resembled those of a natural illness; the second was another type

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     35

of supernatural disease called obsessio caused by sorcery; and finally, possessio, which was the direct possession by a demon or other demonic power. Gaßner's healing sessions would begin with the ill person declaring his faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. Upon this declaration, Gaßner would then say, in Latin, that if the disease was supernatural then the severity of the patient’s symptoms would increase and they would systematically move around in the patient’s body according to Gaßner’s commands; for him that meant a clear confirmation of the demonic nature of the illness. Gaßner's patients were those who were susceptible to possession by demons, and they included sinners, those who were inconsolably forlorn, very anxious or very angry persons, and people who doubted Jesus Christ (especially during harsh times). And as with Mesmer, everyone had a chance to be healed, including “Jews, Turks [Muslims], heathens, Catholics, Protestants, [and] Calvinists . . . [as long as they] firmly believe in Jesus Christ” (Gaßner, 1775/2013; Midelfort, 2005). On the other hand, Mesmer believed that he had discovered a fluid that exists inside every living and nonliving thing in the universe. When the fluid is not balanced throughout the body, disease can occur. In addition, Mesmer understood that the human body is in fact very similar to a magnet; for example, he thought that like a magnet the body has poles. In 1775, Mesmer was asked to testify as a scientific expert by a Bavarian commission charged with investigating the widely discussed exorcism activities of Gaßner, who had begun to attract thousands of desperate sufferers in search of a cure. The former theology student and medical authority Mesmer testified that, yes, Father Gaßner is a sincere and effective healer but his successes are really due to his superior animal magnetic powers rather than his outmoded exorcism beliefs and rituals. The otherwise self-assured Mesmer even conceded that Gaßner might possess magnetic powers superior to those he himself possessed! But whereas Mesmer was soon elected a corresponding member of the prestigious Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Gaßner, after a few more investigations by various Church and worldly commissions, was sent to an obscure village by his embarrassed superiors and by papal order, and furthermore told to sharply curtail his activities as an exorcist (Hanauer, 1989). There was no stopping the influence of 18th century Enlightenment philosophy, even in the halls of the Catholic Church, although numerous poorly educated peasants and others continued to believe in the presence of powerful demonic forces. However, the Church, while accepting exorcism as a legitimate religious ritual, had ordered its priests to perform it only rarely and then in secret. Indeed, this fully regulated ritual practice continues to be performed today in the Vatican (cf. Weiler, 2007, for the earlier Roman Ritual for exorcism).

36    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

MESMER ON THE WORLD STAGE: DAYS OF GLORY AND RIDICULE IN PARIS Arriving in February of 1778, Paris was a fertile ground for Mesmer’s ideas while Vienna had been openly hostile. Mesmer had left Vienna and his unloved wife behind while setting his sights on Paris as a promising new environment in which to showcase his theories and practices. News of Mesmer’s success in Vienna had already spread to Paris where he soon became a celebrity. Much of this can be attributed not only to his success but also to the political climate in Paris, which was drastically different from that in Vienna. The Viennese government was stable and old-fashioned. The more educated people of Vienna, under the influence of the Enlightenment, took a semisecular perspective and were skeptical of his preternatural practices. However, the ortgeist (“spirit of the place”) in Paris was that of a collective consciousness; people would become interested in one idea but soon after forget about it. Moreover, the growing prerevolutionary restlessness and frenzy allowed the French to shift focus from one fleeting craze to another (Darnton, 1968). This too influenced Mesmer’s reception. Initially, Mesmer enjoyed much success in Paris. Establishing his own healing salons, Mesmer attracted a large and wealthy company of patients; those who were not patients were curious participants. Soon he relocated his home and his rapidly expanding practice from the fashionable Place Vendôme to the equally fashionable but more capacious Hôtel Bullion on Rue Coq-Héron. At this time Mesmer was fully utilizing his baquet. Mesmer had become so popular in Paris that often during healing sessions there was insufficient room for everyone to sit at the baquet. It was during this time that Mesmer began magnetizing trees in order to have even larger healing sessions; this is a technique that his disciple Chastenet, Marquis de Puységur, would use as well. Believing himself to be a great discoverer, Mesmer came to Paris not only to escape the unrelenting intellectual environment in Vienna but also to be fully accepted into the scientific and medical community, which he believed to be possible in Paris. So far, both the Society of Medicine and the Academy of Sciences had rejected his ideas. He had yet to approach the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, until he met Charles Nicolas d’Eslon (1750– 1786). D’Eslon was a well-connected member of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris and he was Mesmer’s only chance at having an audience with the community’s members. D’Eslon was thoroughly impressed with the quick and potent effects of Animal Magnetism after witnessing Mesmer’s healing in action. D’Eslon’s colleagues also wanted to hear Mesmer discuss his theories and so they requested that he write them down in a formal mémoire (essay or discourse). For this reason, the Mémoire sur le Découverte du Magnétisme Animal (Essay on the Discovery of Animal Magnetism) was published in 1779;

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     37

in it, Mesmer describes not only his theories on Animal Magnetism but also provides a brief summation of the history of the practice. Mesmer presented the work at a dinner engagement with the highly conservative Faculty of Medicine, but the Faculty still could not agree on the existence of Animal Magnetism. Regardless, d’Eslon and Mesmer continued to work together; in 1780, d’Eslon published a book, Observations sur le Magnétisme Animal (Observations on Animal Magnetism). However, because the Faculty of Medicine never officially supported Mesmer’s work, d’Eslon’s membership was eventually revoked. With the publishing of both Mesmer and d’Eslon’s work, Animal Magnetism began to gain much more publicity, but often negative in character. Mesmer did, however, have several allies, including Nicolas Bergasse, a lawyer who believed that Mesmer could cure people and that others just did not understand his unique techniques. When Mesmer did not achieve the recognition that he desired in Paris, he threatened to leave. After hearing this, his patients caused an uproar that attracted the attention of Queen Marie Antoinette, originally from Austria, who eventually convinced him to stay. The government now provided him a pension and rent money for his practice so long as he took in students who were appointed by the government. Mesmer agreed to this arrangement as long as he was able to help in picking his students. There were several commissions on Animal Magnetism, and the beginning of these commissions was the beginning of the end for Mesmer’s career in France. In 1784, the King appointed four members of the Faculty of Medicine (Michel-Joseph Majault, Charles-Louis Ballin, Jean d’Arcet, and renowned Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, a champion but also a later victim of the guillotine together with the fellow committee members Jean-Sylvain Bailly and the famous and influential chemist, Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier) to investigate the scientific validity of Animal Magnetism. These members asked for more support from the Royal Academy of Sciences and so, five additional members were added to the commission, including the aging Benjamin Franklin, an expert on electricity as well as being the American Foreign Minister to France, and Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier. The purpose of this commission was to “unravel the causes and utility of magnetism. The question of existence is primary . . . Animal Magnetism may well exist without being useful but it cannot be useful if it does not exist” (Franklin et al., 1784/1987, p. 79, as cited in Lanska & Lanska, 2007)—a seemingly logical conclusion that nevertheless proved misleading because it misrepresented the power of belief and imagination, the potential impact of the healer’s gaze and touch, and the importance of group psychology. Moreover, the members of the commissions were well aware that the Period of Enlightenment had its “dark side” consisting of alchemists, occultists,

38    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

wizards, self-appointed healers, imposters, charlatans, and esoteric writers that attempted to redefine science and perhaps even to destabilize regimes (Fleming, 2013). It seemed to most members of the commission that Mesmer might well belong in this company of potentially troublesome obscurantists, and thus his activities needed to be stopped. The Commissioners used a variety of clever experiments in order to test and disprove Mesmer’s theory of Animal Magnetism. One experiment included asking a woman to sit on one side of a door and having the Commissioners lie to her, telling her that d’Eslon was on the other side of the door magnetizing her; however in reality he was not (Lanska & Lanska, 2007). According to the report, “it was barely a minute of sitting there in front of the door before she began to feel shivers . . . [and] after the third minute she fell into a complete crisis” (Franklin et al., 1784/1987, p. 77, as cited in Lanska & Lanska, 2007). In another experiment, d’Eslon magnetized an apricot tree in Franklin’s garden in Passy, France, while several other trees were not magnetized. A young man who had been handpicked by d’Eslon was blindfolded and led to a nonmagnetized tree which, however, he believed had been magnetized. He was asked to hug the tree for 2 minutes. After hugging the first tree, “he experienced diaphoresis, coughing, and a mild headache,” and with every new nonmagnetized tree the symptoms grew worse (Lanska & Lanska, 2007, p. 312). Moreover, another experiment included a young woman being invited to interview for a position as a seamstress, this of course being a lie. While a female confederate interviewed her, someone tried to magnetize her through a concealed doorway for a half an hour, but with no results (Colquhoun, 1831/2003; Lanska & Lanska, 2007). Mesmer did not care about either of the commissions and therefore all of the responsibility fell on d’Eslon who, according to the ungrateful Mesmer, did not practice true Animal Magnetism. Eventually, after conducting some revealing experiments as well as much observation and discussion, the Franklin Commission concluded, “The experiments reported are consistent and also decisive; they authorize the conclusion that the imagination is the real cause of the effects attributed to animal magnetism” (Franklin et al., 1784/1987, p. 79, as cited in Lanska & Lanska, 2007). The commissioners did admit, however, that some of the reported cures might nevertheless be real in nature. Some 20,000 copies of the Commission’s report were printed and distributed throughout Paris, which had a tremendous and troublesome impact on Mesmer and his clientele. Indeed, contentious pamphlets, ridiculing theater plays, a gross caricature of Mesmer in a carnival procession, amusing but highly disrespectful cartoons alluding to titillating sexual happenings, and entertaining ditties about the widely known conjurer made the rounds and entertained “tous Paris” (Darnton, 1968). Nevertheless, Mesmer does not seem to have been involved in any

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     39

sexual liaisons or improprieties either in Paris or in Vienna. Some of the profuse gossip, however, claimed or implied just that without concerning itself much with the truth. Instead, and oddly enough, Mesmer’s actual sexual life appears to have been nonexistent in spite of his suggestive healing methods; perhaps he was impotent (Pattie, 1994). Subsequently there were two more commissions, one of which was led by some members of the Royal Society of Medicine. This commission did not provide significant results either, concluding that Animal Magnetism was an after-effect of imagination and possessed some qualities that should be attended to. However, the results of the first commission, the Franklin commission, had already done a great amount of damage to Mesmer’s reputation although “business was still good.” The many separate commissions investigating Mesmer’s healing activities and his underlying theory were guided by political considerations; power struggles and disagreements within the scientific academies; the economic and professional interests of the medical profession; the desire of stuffy old men, concerned fathers, and doubtful husbands to guard the morality of excitable young and not so young women; and efforts to validate a specific rationalist and scientific worldview in the face of plausible alternative views. However, the interests of those who wished to be healed of diseases or “problems” that doctors found difficult to diagnose or ameliorate were frequently ignored. And so, in order to render it more acceptable, the practice of magnetic healing needed to be toned down, divested of some of its more provocative procedures, and endorsed by well-known Frenchmen rather than being propagated by a quarrelsome upstart from abroad who spoke poor French. Although not a medical doctor, the level-headed, even-tempered, altruistic, and well-connected yet self-effacing Marquis de Puységur was just the right man for the occasion. THE MARQUIS DE PUYSÉGUR AND THE ORIGINS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALING Armand-Marie-Jacques de Chastenet, Marquis de Puységur (1751–1825) was born on March 1, 1751, to a distinguished line of French nobility. The story of Puységur’s early life is not well documented. His story picks up in April of 1784 when Puységur, now 33 years old, served as an artillery officer and a colonel of the regiment in Strasbourg. It was at this time that he decided to journey back to his estate in Buzancy near Soissons (62 miles northeast of Paris). Recently, he had become fascinated with a movement called Animal Magnetism. He had been introduced to the theory by his brother Antoine-Hyacinth-Anne de Chastenet de Puységur (1752–1809), also known as Comte de Chastenet. Comte de Chastenet had gone to Mesmer 4 years

40    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

earlier for treatment after being diagnosed with dry asthma, which several Parisian doctors had failed to cure. He attended Mesmer’s healing sessions for 3 months and eventually found himself cured. After his experience, the distinguished Comte de Chastenet became enthralled by the science of Animal Magnetism and began to treat others. Shortly afterwards, his brother Puységur took a course with Mesmer on Animal Magnetism. Planning a trip to Buzancy, he intended to practice some of his newfound knowledge. Puységur became one of Mesmer’s most famous disciples. However, he would soon take a drastically different approach to Animal Magnetism; in fact, Puységur, more than Mesmer, is today credited with informing the future fields of dynamic psychology and psychiatry, and especially so in France. The case of Victor Race, one of Puységur’s first cases, allowed his fame to flourish. Puységur treated Race, age 23, who had been suffering from an ailment of the lungs, likely some form of pneumonia. Young Race was bedridden, suffering from pain in his side, coughing fits, and a terrible fever. Puységur magnetized Victor, and after a few minutes, the patient fell into a sleep-like state for which Puységur was unprepared. Following his recent training, Puységur expected Victor to fall into crises which typically involved some form of hysteria, attended by convulsions, sweating, or trembling. Mesmer believed that the more one went into crises, the closer one might travel toward healing. However, Race continued to speak clearly as though he was still awake while immersed in this sleep-like state. Race predicted the course of his disease and the best way to treat it; Puységur called this pressensation, a phenomenon he would later observe in many of his other patients. In their “lucid sleep,” somnambulistic patients seemingly exhibited what some might now call parapsychological abilities, although both Puységur and Mesmer attributed them to their natural “inner sense” that somehow perceived and knew what the person in a normal conscious state would and could not know. However, in the following Romantic era, Mesmerism would often merge with supernaturally oriented Spiritism to create an atmosphere of invisible powers and manifest spirits, especially in Germany and the United States (Kerner, 1829), although Mesmer would not have approved of these developments. But let us return now to Puységur’s patient. Victor also discussed personal matters that seemed to worry him. Puységur did not want to further upset Victor, so he told the patient to imagine himself in a variety of pleasant situations. He should picture himself at a shooting contest, or even dancing at a party. Upon hearing these cues, Victor began to act out the scenes. Upon witnessing the patient’s activity, Puységur allowed Victor to continue, hoping that the sweat from the exercise would relieve his symptoms. Finally, after Puységur brought Victor out of his sleep-like state, the patient ate something he had been for days too ill

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     41

to digest. The case of Victor ushered in Puységur’s theory of magnetic or artificial somnambulism. In Puységur’s account of Victor’s treatment, he describes four basic characteristics of magnetic somnambulism: (a) a sleep-like state in a person, (b) suggestibility, (c) rapport, and (d) no recollection of the session. The rapport is the essential element: it is the relationship between the magnetizer and the somnambulist. Busy elaborating on his new theory, Puységur began to stray from Mesmer’s firm belief in the restoration of a person’s magnetic flow. Mesmer believed that “magnetic passes” would fix the flow of the magnetic fluid. However, Puységur shifted his focus to the more psychological aspects of magnetizing. He believed that proper circulation could be restored in the patient with the use of rapport, if the magnetizer willed it. Puységur focused on two key concepts, encapsulated simply in two words: croyez and veuillez—believe and want. He wrote, I believe in the existence within myself of a power. From this belief derives my will to exert it. The entire doctrine of Animal Magnetism is contained in the two words: Believe and Want. I believe that I have the power to set into action the vital principle of my fellow-men; I want to make use of it; this is all my science and all my means. Believe and want, Sirs, and you will do as much as I. (Ellenberger, 1970, p. 72)

Puységur, much more than Mesmer, believed in the importance of dialogue and rapport between the magnetizer and the somnambulist. Puységur emphasized the practice of verbalizing one’s thoughts, which marks a drastic difference between Mesmer and Puységur’s theories; it signaled an evolution from nonverbal to verbal healing. Consequently, the science of magnetism shifted from teacher to pupil and from a physiological science to a psychological one. During his treatment, Victor continued to discuss personal matters that he found quite distressing. Puységur said, in a tone that anticipated that of a classic Freudian theorist, You should know that this man has internal trouble. This trouble is caused by his sister with whom he lives and who is fighting him for an endowment left him by his mother. This sister is the most spiteful woman of the district. She enrages him day and night. (Wallace & Gach, 2008, p. 560)

While in a magnetic state, Puységur suggested that Victor seek out an answer to his dilemma, whereupon he told him the location of the deed to his mother’s house so that Puységur could keep it safe. Treatments continued for several days until Victor appeared to be cured. Allegedly, Puységur demonstrated to Mesmer his star patient, Victor, on two separate occasions, but Mesmer’s reaction is undocumented.

42    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

Another case was that of Henri-Joseph Claude Joly, 19, who suffered from a progressive and chronic deafness for most of his life. On October 13, 1784, he came to Puységur in search of help. Several days later, in a somnambulistic state, Joly confided in his magnetizer that he had an abscess in his head and that if it were removed he would be cured of his illness; in fact he predicted that the abscess would be removed in two installments. Within the next several days, the abscess dislodged itself from his brain through his nose. A few days afterwards, “Joly woke from the somnambulist state with a bad headache and an hour later was discovered stretched out on the ground in Puységur’s park choking and rattling as if in his death agony” (Gauld, 1995, p. 45). A similar incident occurred 2 days later, but on this occasion a “thick white substance, mixed with little blood” (Gauld, 1995, p. 45) was dislodged from his nose, and two weeks later he claimed his hearing had completely returned. The schoolmaster Philippe-Hubert Viélet, 36, came to Puységur for treatment because he was suffering from a respiratory issue. In a somnambulistic state he stated that his symptoms were due to abscesses in his spleen. Viélet believed that some of the abscesses would be excreted through the bowels and some of them would be coughed up from his chest. And indeed, 2 days later Viélet spit up waste that was completely black (Puységur, 1786/n.d.). As the news of Puységur’s success spread rapidly, more and more people sought him out for treatment. Of course, Puységur could not help everyone. Instead, he magnetized an elm tree, a method that Mesmer applied often, hanging long cords from it and encircling it with large stone benches, thereby turning it into a baquet (or healing mandala) of sorts. Patients would tie the rope to the ailing parts of their bodies and hold each other’s thumbs, creating an enormous circle. According to Puységur, 62 of the 300 individuals who came for treatment were cured. Indeed, this setting was not drastically different from the ancient Druid tradition of sacred trees and their mysterious healing powers, a tradition that had left traces among the peasants of the French countryside (Ellenberger, 1970). In May of 1785, Puységur received a letter from a Masonic society in Strasbourg asking him to teach his techniques to others in the society. He agreed and gave a series of lectures; during that time, he and 18 other founding members established the Societé Harmonique des Amis Réunis (Harmonic Society of Reunited Friends). The Society focused on training others to become magnetizers who, unlike the fellow freemason Mesmer, would charge no fees for their healing activities. The Society was reputable and well regarded, and by 1789, it had acquired 188 members. Moreover, many similar societies grew into existence across France. However, in 1789 the entire Magnetism movement was halted by the start of the French Revolution and many of the relevant societies were dissolved as well. During the Revolution, Puységur was imprisoned for 2 years along with his wife, Marie

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     43

Amélie, and his children. Unlike many noble prisoners of the Revolution, the liberal Marquis and his family escaped death and managed to keep their property even though later, in 1814, Napoleon ordered that he be shot. This, however, did not happen. Upon being released from prison, Puységur became Mayor of Soissons. He continued to experiment with Animal Magnetism and reported healing many (Ellenberger, 1970; Pattie, 1994). Before the threat from Napoleon in 1812, Puységur published Les Fous, les Insensés, les Maniaques et Frénétiques ne Seraient ils que des Somnambules Désordonnés? (The Mad, the Crazy, the Maniacs and Frenzied: Are They not Disordered Sleepwalkers?). In this book, he elaborates on the case of Alexandre Hébert, 12, who began suffering from a mental condition and had to move frequently from home to home, never finding effective treatment. He suffered often from severe headaches, which caused him to go into fits of screaming, moaning, weeping, and thrashing his head against the wall. Eventually he came to Puységur for care, and the relationship they developed makes clear the importance of rapport. Alexandre was desperate for attention and Puységur was very willing and able to give him the attention he so desired. Alexandre, like Victor, could predict the course of his ailment and prescribe treatments that would remedy his symptoms. For example, Alexandre would predict when he would go into fits, and when he did, Puységur would magnetize him and calm him down. One time while treating Alexandre, Puységur forgot to put him in a trance as he had prescribed; this caused Alexandre to go into a severe fit. Puységur eventually calmed the boy down; however, every time Puységur would leave the room his fit would come back. This led to Puségur having Alexandre stay with him in his own bedroom for 6 months so the boy could get some sleep. It is important here to note that although not much is known about Puységur, much of his personality is revealed through the interactions he had with his patients and his case studies. When Alexandre was magnetized he would tell Puységur about his early childhood, his family, and his education. This case demonstrates the significance of the rapport between the magnetizer and the somnambulist; it is clear Alexandre became dependent on Puységur, and one could argue that this was a case of early psychotherapy. Indeed, the empathetic Puységur liked to treat young children. In France at least, he became the father of Animal Magnetism after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1815. After the reign of Napoleon, the French people reinstated the Bourbon monarchy and on May 29, 1825, Charles X was crowned in the Cathedral of Reims. Numerous spectators gathered, one of them being the Marquis de Puységur, who at this time was 74 years old. It is speculated that due to the high humidity, Puységur fell ill and was taken back to Buzancy where the noble therapist died on August 1 (Ellenberger, 1970).

44    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

COMPARING MESMER AND PUYSÉGUR Although their theories of Animal Magnetism evolved to be quite different from each other, Puységur still believed that he was a mere disciple of Mesmer. Both believed in the existence of a magnetic fluid that flowed throughout the universe in its entirety. However, as previously alluded to, there were differences between their doctrines and practices. One difference between Mesmer and Puységur was that Mesmer believed that the path to healing involved crises. On the other hand, Puységur believed that crises were not necessary and, depending on the circumstance, could be detrimental to a patient’s health. Puységur believed that the concept of chambre des crises was in a way inhumane. Mesmer had to constantly divide his attention between those in crisis and the others. Puységur strongly disagreed with this practice and felt as though Mesmer was abandoning his patients. Puységur understood that crises may occur; however, they should never be provoked. In his practice of Animal Magnetism, Puységur attempted to keep his patients in very tranquil states at all times. In addition, Puységur criticized Mesmer for his lack of availability to his patients. Unlike Mesmer, the generous Puységur, in general, was always available, frequently canceling prior engagements to attend to their needs. Mesmer’s understanding of Animal Magnetism was purely physical. Of course, there is no denying that Mesmer understood the psychological importance of healing, as his healing sessions often involved dramatic demonstrations in order to enhance any expectations of being healed. But this is not something he recorded in his doctrine nor is it a technique he discussed. Moreover, Mesmer overlooked the significance of magnetic somnambulism, probably because it was not a discovery of his own. In fact, the opinionated Mesmer, who tried to keep as much control over his discovery as possible, did not mention Puységur in any of his writings, ever. Unlike his mentor, Puységur did discuss the psychological aspects of healing. He believed that humans are perfect electric machines, and through thought or want they could change how the energy flows through their bodies. When a magnetizer and a somnambulist fall into a rapport with one another, the magnetizer can redirect the flow of his patient’s energy. Puységur believed that this required a great amount of trust between the magnetizer and the patient. The magnetizer also must have “good will” and have no sort of malicious intent. It is interesting to compare Mesmer and Puységur’s careers. Mesmer’s rapid ascent in Europe’s intellectual capital, Paris, resembles that of a bright and colorful comet that spreads its light widely but soon disappears from view. During his lifetime, its afterglow could also be seen in some mostly provincial cities in Germany, Switzerland, and France. In contrast, Puységur’s career created a softer glow that, however, would continue to warm the hearts of

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     45

his many patients and followers for a long time to come. Yet the modest and generous Puységur was right to call himself a disciple of his argumentative master, Mesmer. Without Mesmer’s creative and outlandish theory, treatment methods, and personality, those “mesmerizing” treatments would never have come into existence. Nor would Puységur, together with the exotic and biracial adventurer Abbé Faria (1756–1819), who originally hailed from Portuguese Goa (on the Indian subcontinent), be considered the grandfather of hypnosis today (Crabtree, 1993; Gauld, 1995). LATER DEVELOPMENTS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS After the exasperated though wealthy Mesmer left Paris in 1785, he began to fade from public view. His numerous medical followers in France did not dare mention his name because the Royal Society of Medicine in Paris would remove from their rosters the names of all those who openly supported “Mesmerism.” Mesmer’s provocative but unsettled scientific claims, his ambitions, and his uncertain prospects led him to engage in restless travels that took him to various places in France, Germany, and Switzerland, where he continued to practice for some years in the city of Frauenfeld, located not far from Constance. Although arguments about money had figured prominently in his earlier career in France, he did not charge his Swiss patients any fees. In truth, Mesmer’s character displayed throughout his life a curious mixture of greed, ambition, and generosity, of scientific curiosity together with an almost delusional belief in his personal powers and prerogatives. Yet his subsequent retirement found him in the nearby small German town of Meersburg, the summer seat of the Prince-Bishop of Constance. Here he spent his last years as an obscure gentleman doctor, seemingly forgotten by much of the larger world. Indeed, many thought he was no longer alive. In 1812, however, the magnetizer Dr. Carl Christian Wolfart was sent by the Prussian Commission for the Investigation of Magnetism to visit Mesmer. After becoming an eager disciple of the still charismatic old man, Wolfart was in 1817 appointed “Professor for Healing Magnetism” by the prestigious University of Berlin and also assumed leadership of a new and soon-to-be famous clinic that offered “healing-magnetic” treatment free of charge to the poor. These and related developments ensured that “Healing Magnetism” or “Animal Magnetism” would continue as a major force in many German-speaking states throughout much of the 19th century. Hundreds of articles, pamphlets, and books either upholding or criticizing the idea and practice of Animal Magnetism were published over the following years; indeed, many Romantic thinkers such as the philosopher

46    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

Schopenhauer came to believe that Mesmer had discovered a mysterious vitalistic force together with its body-related manifestations and its spiritual, unconscious, and parapsychological underpinnings. Many famous authors such as Balzac, Dickens, and Poe agreed with him and wrote evocative stories in which those powers apparently manifested themselves in various disguises. Kerner (1856) and Wolfart (1815) have left us some charming descriptions of the last years of the miracle healer. Having finally made some sort of peace with an often ungrateful world, the serene Mesmer led an active social life and exerted an almost magical force over the many birds that flocked to him. As the sun set over the Lake of Constance on a mild summer evening, passersby might hear him improvise marvelously on his beloved glass harmonica or sing an old song with his mellow baritone voice. Closing the circle of his eventful life, he had returned to the lake where he had been born some 81 years earlier and where he had first experienced that mysterious force of life about whose very nature the members of all those (in his mind) dubious commissions had chosen to remain ignorant. Suffering from a cerebral hemorrhage, partial paralysis, and abdominal pains, he died on March 5, 1815—it is said with a smile on his face. His deeply attached canary, so the Romantic author and admirer Kerner assures us, died soon thereafter, seemingly unwilling to continue life without his kindly master. Moreover, Wolfart convinced the “Magician from Lake Constance” in his last years to put into words his mature understanding of those hidden forces that rule over our health and our illnesses, together with his philosophy of life and his resentful musings about those stupidities that according to him had been committed by governments and all those incompetent and envious doctors (Mesmer, 1814/2007; Wolfart, 1815). These words of a proud if eccentric man constitute his testament for all those who wish to hear his message—or at least to smile. Indeed, various forms of “magnetic healing” and “energy healing” continue to be practiced today, although they tend to be dismissed by most medical doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists. It seems that nothing much has changed at least in this regard between the 19th and the 21st century: rationalists and those more in awe of their intuitions and their larger inner self are still fighting it out and presumably will do so for some time to come. Mesmer’s French followers such as Puységur and Deleuze (1850/2010) as well as some of his German followers such as Wienholt (1802–1806), Kluge (1811), and Wolfart (1815) succeeded in systematizing, “domesticating,” and institutionalizing Animal Magnetism, thereby making it more acceptable to the educated public and to selected members of the medical profession. However, it continued to remain a controversial idea and practice among many medical doctors, scientists, and sober rationalists of

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     47

all persuasions who distrusted its appeal to the emotions, the imagination, and the senses. They doubted the ability of somnambulistic patients to perceive the inner side of their bodies and to predict the course of their own cures, the existence of mysterious unconscious forces supposedly unlocked by those magnetizers, the sensual and seemingly seductive quality of certain interactions between male doctors and some of their quivering and fainting female patients, and of course the theatrical show that surrounded Doctor Mesmer’s Wizard of Oz–like appearance in his healing salons. In response, more restrained and scholarly practitioners such as Deleuze (1850/2010) wrote widely read textbooks on Animal Magnetism that not only contained many well-documented case studies but also eliminated most of the more sensational and morally suspect aspects of Mesmer and Puységur’s healing activities. In this “cleaned up” version, magnetic healing was practiced throughout much of the 19th century in countries as far apart from each other as Russia, the United States, and the French colony of St. Domingue in the Caribbean. Moreover, Animal Magnetism paved the way for the rise of dynamic psychiatry and psychology in the second half of the 19th century. Intermingled with Mesmerism and the practice of hypnosis, romantic ideas about the creative yet potentially demonic powers of the unconscious and the prevalence of dissociative states in psychologically disturbed patients (cf. Crabtree, 1993) created an intellectual atmosphere out of which a more sophisticated dynamic psychology and psychiatry emerged in places such as Paris (Pierre Janet and Jean-Martin Charcot), Nancy (Ambroise-Auguste Liébeault and Hippolite Bernheim), Vienna (Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler), and Zurich (Carl Gustav Jung) (Ellenberger, 1970; Gauld, 1995). Moreover, we may add here that whatever the shortcomings and improbabilities of Mesmer and Puységur’s ideas about invisible magnetic forces, the two pioneers remained in tune with phenomena at the heart of psychological healing that can be found throughout the ages (Frank & Frank, 1993; Jackson, 1999). In contrast, many of their scientific and medical adversaries did not. We may note, parenthetically, that Carl Jung was born in the small Swiss village of Kesswil, located on the Lake of Constance a mere 15 miles from the magnetizer’s birthplace. He resembled Mesmer somewhat in his tall and sturdy appearance, his upbringing in a religious though Protestant family, his love of nature, his charismatic impact on women, his theory of a larger, highly perceptive but nonconscious self in tune with cosmic forces, his interest in some of the more mysterious and hidden aspects of healing, and his willingness to stick out his neck when defending a new, creative, yet controversial theory of healing. However, Mesmer derived his theory from natural science whereas the more introverted Jung aimed at a fusion of psychological and spiritual perspectives regarding the unconscious.

48    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND

Psychoanalytically inclined readers may be tempted to conclude that Gaßner, Mesmer, and Puységur’s patients mostly suffered from a variety of ill-defined psychosomatic, hysterical, and fictitious disorders. That, however, is unlikely to have been the case (Deleuze, 1850/2010; Midelfort, 2005; Wolfart, 1802–1806). Instead, a good many of them experienced ordinary physical diseases that sometimes were ameliorated—be it permanently, temporarily or only superficially—in ways that modern psychologists and psychiatrists still fail to fully understand (cf. Taylor, 2011 for a summary of recent efforts to understand the psychology of health and mind-body connections). Thus, when searching for a better understanding of the forces active in healing, it will not do to replace one invisible and fictitious cause (“Animal Magnetism”) with another invisible and conjectural cause (“unconscious thoughts, motives, and feelings that somehow make us sick”). Nor is it useful to bemoan the fact that Mesmer was too much of a showman. After all, a good many shamans and faith healers around the world display colorful personalities that leave their imprint on many of their impressionable—yet frequently improving—clients (Kalwait, 2000). There remains the distinct danger, however, that patients with serious physical diseases are misled by their faith healers and fail to consult bona fide medical doctors. When evaluating the activities and divergent theories of Gaßner, Mesmer, and Puységur, it is advisable to adopt a broadly cross-cultural and historically informed perspective such as that offered by Frank and Frank (1993). They argue that psychotherapy is above all a form of persuasion and healing that shares crucial features with many other ways of influencing and healing found throughout the history of humankind. Thus, it should not be surprising that, despite the fact that Gaßner, Mesmer, and Puységur advanced quite different explanations regarding the nature and postulated success of their healing sessions, their followers and patients frequently displayed similar physical, behavioral, mental, and emotion-driven symptoms. Systematic modern research on the effectiveness and “outcomes” of a variety of psychotherapeutic approaches demonstrates that it is the success of the “therapeutic alliance” (that is, what Mesmer, Puységur, and later on Janet called being en rapport or else magnetic rapport), the healer’s committed interest and sympathy for the sufferer, the nature of often nonverbally communicated emotional currents in the healing sessions, shared belief systems between healer and patients, and the healer’s personal and socially reinforced charisma and reputation that tend to determine the outcome of the healing effort. Successful outcomes are not due to the precise nature or supposed scientific validity of the healer’s underlying theory (Jackson, 1999; Wampold, 2014). The successful healer engenders hope, offers culturally and personally convincing interpretations, and makes a deep impression upon his (or her) patients. This holds as true for the psychoanalyst who appeals to the invisible, powerful, yet difficult-to-decipher forces of the

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     49

unconscious as it does for Mesmer or Puységur with their conviction that an invisible “magnetic” or “electric” force rules over our health and sickness, life and death. As for the healer Gaßner, it seemed obvious to him that God and the Devil will remain forever so much more powerful than those weak and sinful humans with their vainglorious scientific aspirations. Had he not experienced the devious machinations of the Evil One and his minions both in his own soul and body as well as in the lives and bodies of innumerable sufferers? Had not Jesus of Nazareth himself been a divine exorcist and healer superior to all the healers that came after him? Had not his followers’ faith in the active presence of divine power and grace healed many of them? That, at any rate, remained his firm belief regardless of the secular and religious opposition he encountered, especially in his later years. Many modern efforts to employ only scientifically validated, “evidencebased” therapies look rather peculiar and culturally and historically uninformed when seen in this cross-cultural yet research-based perspective. After all, Mesmer and Puységur had also practiced “evidence-based” and (more or less) “scientific” approaches to healing—and who is to say that they were less successful in their activities than modern behavior therapists, psychoanalysts, humanistic clinicians, client-centered counselors, and biologically oriented psychiatrists whose widely divergent theories cannot all be equally true. Perhaps, modern therapists on their way toward becoming “master therapists” (Sperry & Carlson, 2014) should aim instead to be as generous, kind, and self-sacrificing as Puységur, as inventive, charismatic, and nonverbally persuasive as Mesmer in his better moments, as spiritual and modest as Gaßner, and as pragmatic as a modern cognitive behavioral therapist from the American Midwest—and that all at once, please. Our clients could really profit from such a comprehensive and integrated approach to healing! REFERENCES Binet, A., & Féré, C. (1887/1890). Animal magnetism. New York, NY: Appleton. Colquhoun, J. C. (1831/2003). Reports of the experiments on animal magnetism [Report of the French Royal Academy of Sciences, 1831]. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. Crabtree, A. (1993). From Mesmer to Freud: Magnetic sleep and the roots of psychological healing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Darnton, R. (1968). Mesmerism and the end of the enlightenment in France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Deleuze, J. P. (1850/2010). Practical instruction in animal magnetism (rev. American ed.). Charleston, SC: Nabu. D’Eslon, C. N. (1780). Observations sur le magnétisme animal. London, England/ Paris, France: Didot.

50    U. P. GIELEN and J. RAYMOND Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious: The history and evolution of dynamic psychiatry. New York, NY: Basic. Fleming, J. V. (2013). The dark side of the Enlightenment: Wizards, alchemists, and spiritual seekers in the age of reason. New York, NY: Norton. Frank, J. P., & Frank, J. B. (1993). Persuasion and healing: A comparative study of psychotherapy (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Freuler, K. (1945). Anna Göldi, die Geschichte der letzten Hexe. Frankfurt/M., Germany: Büchergilde Gutenberg. Gallo, D. A., & Finger, S. (2000). The power of a musical instrument: Franklin, the Mozarts, Mesmer, and the glass harmonica. History of Psychology, 3, 326–343. Gaßner, J. J. (1775/2013). Weise, fromm und gesund zu leben, auch ruhig und gottselig zu sterben, oder nützlicher Unterricht wider den Teufel (11th ed.). Munich, Germany: Bavarian State Library. Gauld, A. (1995). A history of hypnotism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gay, P. (1995). The Enlightenment: An interpretation. New York, NY: Norton. Hanauer, J. (1989). Johann Joseph Gaßner (1727–1779). Teufelsbanner und Wunderheiler. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Bistums Regensburg, 23, 430–439. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Institut National d’Études Démographiques. (2013). Life expectancy in France. Retrieved from http://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/graph _month/life_expectancy_france/ Jackson, S. W. (1999). Care of the psyche: A history of psychological healing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kalwait, H. (2000). Shamans, healers, and medicine men. Boston, MA: Shambhala. Kerner, J. (1829). The Seherin von Prevorst: Eröffnungen über das innere Leben des Menschen und über das Hereinragen einer Geisterwelt in die unsere (Vols. 1–2). Stuttgart, Germany: Cotta. Kerner, J. (1856). Franz Anton Mesmer, Entdecker des thierischen Magnetismus. Frankfurt/M., Germany: Literarische Anstalt. Kluge, C. A. F. (1811). Versuch einer Darstellung des animalischen Magnetismus als Heilmittel. Berlin, Germany: Salfeld. Lanska, D. J., & Lanska, J. T. (2007). Franz Anton Mesmer and the rise and fall of animal magnetism: Dramatic cures, controversy, and ultimately a triumph for the scientific method. In H. Whitmaker, C. U. M. Smith, & S. Finger (Eds.), Brain, mind, and medicine: Neuroscience in the 18th century (pp. 301–320). New York, NY: Springer. Lesky, E. (1976). The Vienna Medical School of Psychiatry of the 19th century. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mesmer, F. A. (1779/1998). Mémoire sur la découverte du magnetisme animal. Edmonds, WA: Holmes. Mesmer, F. A. (1814/2007). Mesmerismus, oder System der Wechselwirkungen: Theorie und Anwendung des thierischen Magnetismus als die allgemeine Heilkunde zur Erhaltung des Menschen (K. C. Wolfart, Ed.). Berlin, Germany: In der Nikolaischen Buchhandlung.

The Curious Birth of Psychological Healing in the Western World (1775–1825)     51 Midelfort, H. C. (2005). Exorcism and enlightenment: Johann Joseph Gassner and the demons of eighteenth-century Germany. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Music for the Glass Harmonica. (2001). Glass harmonica [CD]. Naxos, DDD 8.555295. Newton, I. (1726). Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica (3rd ed.). 2.547. Pattie, F. A. (1994). Mesmer and animal magnetism: A chapter in the history of medicine. Hamilton, NY: Edmonston. Puységur, A. (1786/n.d.). Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire et à l’établissement du magnétisme animal. Facsimile Eighteenth Century Collections Online Print Editions. Puységur, A. (1812/1980). Les fous, les insensés, les maniaques et les frénétiques, ne seraient-ils que des somnambules desordonnés? Paris, France: Théraplix. Sperry, L., & Carlson, J. (2014). How master therapists work: Effecting change from the first through the last session and beyond. New York, NY: Routledge. Taylor, S. E. (2011). Health psychology (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Wallace, E. R., & Gach, J. (2008). History of psychiatry and medical psychology: With an epilogue on psychiatry and the mind-body relation. New York, NY: Springer. Wampold, B. (2014). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Weiler, Fr. P. T. (2007). Roman ritual (Christian burial and office for the dead, exorcism, blessings reserved to religious or to certain places, Vol. 2). Syracuse, NY: Preserving Christian Publications. Wienholt, A. (1802–1806). Heilkraft des thierischen Magnetismus (Vols. 1–3). Lemgo, Germany: Meyer. Wolfart, K. C. (1815). Erläuterungen zum Magnetismus. Berlin, Germany: Nicolai. Wyckoff, J. (1975). Franz Anton Mesmer: Between god and devil. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 3

PIERRE JANET French Psychiatrist, Psychologist, and Philosopher Isabelle Saillot and Onno van der Hart

A propos the bicentennial of the French Revolution, the Editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry, John Nemiah, wrote in December 1989 that the publication in 1889 of Pierre Janet’s L’Automatisme Psychologique (Psychological Automatism) was, from a scientific point of view at least, perhaps of equal magnitude (Nemiah, 1989). Until recently, this masterpiece had never been translated into English or any other language; in 2013 an Italian edition was published: perhaps symbolic of the growing interest in Janet’s monumental work. HISTORICAL AND INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT Pierre Janet grew up in a period of intense intellectual activity in Europe. Around 1850, both rational and empirical psychology would undergo their revolution, thanks to a new knowledge-production method: experimental

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 53–64 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

53

54    I. SAILLOT and O. VAN DER HART

research together with its peer-reviewed publication system. Pierre Janet’s leitmotiv was to build modern psychology on these new revolutionary foundations and his results were among the first ones representing this psychological knowledge and methods renewal. At the beginning of Pierre Janet’s career, the first psychology laboratories were just being built in Europe. Wundt had created the first one in Leipzig, Germany in 1879. Beaunis founded the psychology laboratory of the Sorbonne University in 1889; he was succeeded by Bourdon, who founded the one at Rennes University in 1896. A new psychology was challenging the old spiritualist one: Taine promoted experimental psychology while Ribot employed within psychology the hierarchy of functions proposed by neurologist Jackson together with his law of functions dissolution. The first Psychology Chair was created for Ribot at the Collège de France, Paris, in 1888, and psychology entered the academic world. During Janet’s youth, Europe was marked by the popular success of a wild “spiritist movement.” While famous mediums were on the front page of all journals, some physicians engaged in rigorous studies: in 1840, Despine treated Estelle, a famous case, by magnetism; in 1859 Briquet wrote his book on hysteria and somnambulism; around 1870, Taine discussed the two mental states of the “Macnish Lady”; Azam published in 1876 one of the most famous cases of “double consciousness,” Félida X; and during the 1880s Louis Vivet’s multiple personalities were widely studied (Faure, Kersten, Koopman, & Van der Hart, 1997). PIERRE JANET’S LIFE AND CHARACTER Pierre Janet was born in Paris on May 30, 1859, the son of Jules Janet and Fanny Hummel in an upper-middle-class family. The Janet family could already count several celebrities in their midst; for instance, Janet-Lange, a 19th century drawing artist, and Pierre’s uncle Paul Janet, an influential philosopher of the Cousin school, who played an important role in young Janet’s life. His cousin Paul Janet, son of the latter, an engineer, became director of the Paris Electricity Graduate School. Pierre Janet passed his childhood with his brother and sister in the village of Bourg-la-Reine. In the garden he discovered his lifelong passion, botany. He was a pupil in Fontenay-aux-Roses, then at the Sainte Barbe high school in Paris. During high school a painful crisis made him relinquish his religious belief, which may have been the starting point of his lifelong passion for the psychology of belief and emotions. In 1879 he went to the École Normale Supérieure and obtained his agrégation in 1882. Janet then became a teacher of philosophy in a high school in Le Havre. During this time, two events had a profound effect on him. The first, in

Pierre Janet    55

1881, was the International Exposition of Electricity, where it became clear that the future would be dominated by science. The second was the publication of an article by Charcot (1882), which reestablished the scientific status of hypnosis. At the local psychiatric hospital in Le Havre, now bearing his name, Janet devoted his spare time to volunteer work with psychiatric patients, involving treatment and experimental research about which he published a series of nationally and internationally well-received scientific articles. These studies formed the basis for his doctoral dissertation in the humanities, L’Automatisme Psychologique (Janet, 1889). This consistently innovative work immediately received much attention and fame. Pierre Janet set up in Paris and obtained a medical doctorate in 1893 with a study on the mental state of hysterics. He married Marguerite Duchesne in 1894 and would have three children with her. From 1895 on he replaced Ribot as a lecturer at the Collège de France and in 1898 he became a lecturer at the Sorbonne University. At the time, Janet was already considered the leading psychologist in France and one of the greatest in Europe. In 1901, Pierre Janet founded the French Psychological Society. In 1902, he was elected Chair of Experimental and Comparative Psychology at the Collège de France, a position he held until 1934. A hard working person his whole life, in 1903 he became co-founder of the Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique, in 1913 a member of the Institut de France, and in 1929 president of the Société Médico-Psychologique. From approximately 1900 onwards, he would be invited worldwide to give lectures, for example, in Boston, Chicago, London, Rio de Janeiro, and at Harvard University. Several of these lectures (Janet, 1907, 1923/1924, 1919/1925), as well as some of his other books and articles (e.g., Janet, 1901/1977, 1921, 1937), have been published in English. Pierre Janet retired in 1934, but worked till his death due to a pulmonary congestion in February 1947. By then he had published over 100 scientific and clinical peer-reviewed articles and book chapters as well as approximately 30 books. PIERRE JANET’S MAIN IDEAS AND THEIR LONG-TERM IMPACT Continuing Ribot’s endeavor, Janet advocated for an autonomous psychology as an experimental area. On a conceptual level, he showed immediately a profound originality; already in his doctoral dissertation he argued that the key psychological concept should be neither Condillac’s perception, Paul Janet’s consciousness, nor Maine de Biran’s effort, but action. “Several philosophers, above all Condillac, wondered what happens when an isolated sensation is introduced into a statue devoid of thought. . . . they didn’t

56    I. SAILLOT and O. VAN DER HART

tell us that with every sensation the statue would move” (Janet, 1889, p. 55). This “action primacy” (Prévost, 1973) made him the first psychologist who overcame the Cartesian division between mind and body. Janet would develop a general psychology and a pathological psychology whose object is action, conduct. According to this view, the main “properties of acts” (Janet, 1926/2008a, p. 210) are the individual’s force (or fatigue) and his or her psychological tension, that is, the capacity to use one’s force efficiently. Psychological functions like emotions, language, problem-solving, and belief are gradually modified along with the person’s amount of force or fatigue and psychological tension (Janet, 1923). Janet arranged these stages in his famous “hierarchical table of human actions” (or tendencies) (Janet, 1926/2008a, p. 210) that showed the degrees of action easiness: All the mind’s functions are not equal and do not present with the same degree of easiness. Mental operations seem to be displayed in a hierarchy whose superior degrees are difficult to reach and unreachable for our patients, while the inferior degrees remain at their disposal. (Janet, 1909, p. 361)

A detailed presentation of this hierarchy is presented in De l’Angoisse, Vol. 1 (Janet, 1926/2008a). Psychopathology: Main ideas Janet’s main ideas developed from his clinical observations, experimental research, and treatment of patients whose symptoms were subsumed under two broad classes of mental disorders, that is, hysteria and psychasthenia. Hysteria and Dissociation Janet’s 1889 doctoral dissertation forms a part of the origins of modern traumatology. His medical thesis, L’État Mental des Hystériques (1894), completed, with some additions, his 1889 opus whereas Névroses et Idées Fixes (1898) presented more clinical cases. These works opened the field of the diagnostic modeling and treatment of dissociative patients. According to Janet’s action-focused approach, there are two kinds of activities: activities that preserve and reproduce the past (habits or automatic acts) and actions which are directed toward integration. Integrative activity “reunites more or less numerous given phenomena into a new phenomenon different from its elements . . . to maintain the organism in equilibrium with the changes of the surroundings” (Janet, 1889, p. 487): this function organizes the present. Reproductive activities only manifest integrations that were created in the past. Already in Le Havre, Janet interpreted his hysterical patients’ symptoms as manifestations of a lack of synthesis, (i.e., a lowered integrative capacity)

Pierre Janet    57

which dissociated their personality into different “existences” (Janet, 1889) or “systems of ideas and functions” (Janet, 1907). In many cases, he was able to relate the development to traumatic experiences. For the person functioning in daily life, these dissociative systems—each with its own sense of self, memories, and action tendencies—have become subconscious (Janet was the first to coin the concept of the subconscious). When a dissociative subsystem of the personality has executive control, Janet observed, either the “normal” subsystem is not present at all and subsequently does not have any memory of the episode—that is, a situation of dissociative amnesia—or the person as such keeps a certain awareness of the intrusion and ascribes the phenomenon to an external influence, such as a spirit or another person—that is, the depersonalization effect. He also observed that the fewer functions the “normal” subsystem has at its disposal, the more they belong to the second subsystem. Thus, in the well-known clinical cases of Azam’s Félida X., together with Janet’s “Lucie 3,” “Marceline,” and “Félida artificielle,” this second dissociative subsystem was functioning at a higher level, leading to more complete actions in more complete ways, than the “normal” subsystem. He also established that many dissociative patients may have more than two dissociative subsystems. Van der Hart and Friedman (1989) presented extensive summaries of Janet’s studies of hysteria. Psychasthenia At the beginning of the 20th century, Pierre Janet elaborated another category of psychological disorders that he subsumed under the label of psychasthenia. In Les Obsessions et la Psychasthénie (1903), he described its characteristics in great detail. And in his book, Les Névroses (1909), he offered a beautiful comparison between dissociation (hysteria) and psychasthenia. In psychasthenia, the diminished integrative capacity manifests in a lowering of the psychological tension and thus in a weakening of those functions with which the individual acts on reality, of realizing reality. This results in the person experiencing feelings of “derealization.” Moreover, the individual substitutes inferior and exaggerated actions in the form of doubts, agitations, anxiety, tics, and phobias, and in the form of obsessions and compulsions. With his emphasis on “primacy of action,” Janet regarded both hysteria and psychasthenia as being characterized by exhaustion, that is, they consist of particular difficulties to act. He stated, We find [here] the reduction of the acts . . . , above all the acts that present some other difficulty . . . Someone who is resting, who is stopping and shrinking his action, is totally, though only for a while, in the situation of the melancholics and he shows the same conduct. (Janet 2008b, p. 289)

58    I. SAILLOT and O. VAN DER HART

Treatment In most of his studies on hysteria and psychasthenia, Janet also paid much attention to treatment, both in extensive case studies and in textbooks. In 1919, he presented in Les Médications Psychologiques, an impressive study of three volumes and 1,500 pages (published in English in 1925), the history of the main therapeutic approaches. His exposé in these works of the treatment of trauma-related disorders is still outstanding. He carefully discusses their indications and effects according to patients’ diagnoses and strengths and weaknesses, otherwise scarcely discussed at that time. Both Ellenberger (1970) and Bühler and Heim (2011) have presented beautiful summaries, while Van der Hart, Brown, and Van der Kolk (1989) showed how his treatment of hysterical patients was a precursor of modern phaseoriented therapeutics. Psychopathology: Long-Term Impact The rediscovery of Pierre Janet in the 1970s in the United States had a major impact on the formulation and inclusion of the dissociative disorders in the DSM-III (APA, 1980). Subsequently, Janet’s studies of hysteria and dissociation in particular became ever more influential, as is highlighted in a number of English language publications in 1989 celebrating the centennial of the publication of L’Automatisme Psychologique (e.g., Putnam 1989; Van der Hart et al., 1989; Van der Kolk & Van der Hart, 1989). Following this milestone, internationally many more clinical and research articles, book chapters, and books in the fields of dissociation and posttraumatic stress have harkened back to Janet’s pioneering studies. A recent important research study in this regard is Somatoform dissociation (Nijenhuis, 2004). Indeed, his complete oeuvre has been now republished in French. The electronic journal Janetian Studies has already published dozens of original articles about Janet’s life and works. In 2006, two influential books disseminating Janet’s ideas were published. Firmly grounded in Pierre Janet’s studies on dissociation as well as in his psychology of action, The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization (Van der Hart, Nijenhuis, & Steele, 2006) is now acknowledged as a classic in the field. The authors argue that the severity of trauma may manifest in an increasingly complex dissociation of the personality, with simple posttraumatic stress disorder displaying the basic form of dissociation, consisting of one dissociative subsystem—they speak of a dissociative part—functioning in daily life, and another such subsystem engaged in reenactments of the traumatic experience and in related defensive actions. On the other end of the continuum, dissociative identity disorder involves the most complex dissociation

Pierre Janet    59

of the personality. The authors also show how Janet’s phase-oriented treatment approach can be adapted to increasing levels of dissociation. Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy (Ogden, Minton, & Pain, 2006), a major practical and theoretical source for understanding the central role of fixed sensorimotor patterns in traumatized individuals, has Janet as its most cited author and is rooted in his psychology of action. Finally, a number of studies of Janet’s crucial work on trauma and dissociation have appeared in the American Journal of Psychotherapy (e.g., Bühler & Heim, 2011; Heim & Bühler, 2006). Beginning in the 1980s, several international societies were created in the fields of trauma, dissociation, and posttraumatic stress. All of them honor Pierre Janet as the pioneer in the field: the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD); the International Society for the Study of Traumatic Stress (ISSTS); the European Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ESTD); the European Society for the Study of Traumatic Stress (ESSTS); the Pierre-Janet-Gesellschaft in Germany; and the Réseau Janet (formerly Institut Pierre Janet), France, as an international information platform (Saillot, 2012). Psychology: Main Ideas Pierre Janet was one of the last experimental researchers to investigate human conduct as a whole, not its elementary cognitive processes only. Furthermore, his psychology has been developed within the rigorous frame of experimental research published in peer-reviewed journals, Janet’s books representing mere developments of his research articles. Already in 1889 Janet wrote, “The method we used is the one of the life sciences . . . We checked our hypotheses by experimentation” ( Janet, 1889, p. 4). Pierre Janet’s main originality was to describe all psychological phenomena from the perspective of actions: He considered even language and thoughts to be actions ( Janet, 1927). A few examples will present this idea in more detail. Perceptions Are Actions In Janet’s view, people and objects are better defined by what can be done with them than by their physical properties. For instance he wrote, “When we perceive an armchair . . . , we already have in ourselves the characteristic action of an armchair, what we formerly call the perceptive scheme, that is, the action to sit down” ( Janet, 1925, p. 53). Les Débuts de l’Intelligence (1935) and L’Intelligence avant le Langage (1936) are good introductions of Janet’s psychology of perception and other elementary psychological phenomena.

60    I. SAILLOT and O. VAN DER HART

Feelings Are Regulatory Actions Feelings are reactions to one’s own actions before they become mental phenomena that can be expressed in words. Janet distinguished four main feelings: fatigue, effort, triumph, and failure (Janet, 2000a, 2000b). These four basic types may combine with our actions to create more complex ones. For example, the act of fleeing will give rise to the feeling of fear when it is regulated by effort, hence becoming the conscious expression “I’m scared.” As Janet stated, “It is not sure that the frog jumping into the water at the slightest shivering of the ground has a fear-emotion, it has a fleeing act analogous to a reflex” (Janet, 2008b, p. 455), but at the sociopersonal stage and above, this act combines with the reaction of effort and transforms it: “It is this transformation added to the activation of any tendency . . . that we should consider the real emotion.” (Janet, 2008b, p. 455). Because they regulate current actions while being executed, feelings play a central role in our ability to live in the present moment and to create our autobiographical memories. De l’Angoisse à l’Extase (1926/2008a) and L’amour et la Haine (1932) are dedicated to the definition and characterization of feelings in terms of the amount of force and tension (i.e., the ability to act efficiently upon the real world). Around 1910, Janet introduced the concept of tendency. He wrote, “Tendencies are dispositions to certain acts” ( Janet, 2004, p. 91). The notion of tendency allowed Janet to account for otherwise complex notions, for instance, the completeness of actions: the more a tendency is activated, the more the associated action is complete. Tendencies have several stages of activation: they can be latent (no action), erected (idea of action), a desire (action starting), and so on until the action is fully completed (and the tendency discharged); for instance, “reflexes are explosive acts that once started go on till the tendency is totally discharged” ( Janet 1926/2008a, p. 213) while on the contrary “the suspension of the activation of tendencies is the main property of perceptive conducts” ( Janet 1926/2008a, p. 214): A fox can “discharge” its eating tendency and therefore complete its eating action, only after having suspended this tendency until the rabbit is really caught. Reflective Will and Belief Are the Results of Inner Deliberation “Reflection is a conduct doing inside ourselves the discussion of an assembly” (Janet 1926/2008a, p. 224). Different tendencies arise, are compared to each other, and one is eventually selected. The result of deliberation about acts is will, the result of deliberation about ideas (i.e., reasoning) is belief. Reflective will and belief should be distinguished from “reflexive” will and belief, which are adopted without inner deliberation, being immediate and impulsive, like a mental “reflex.”

Pierre Janet    61

Psychology: Long-Term Impact The rediscovery of Pierre Janet has proceeded at a slower pace in experimental psychology, but several clues indicate a growing concern. Action-focused research, in particular, has started to acknowledge Janet’s pioneering works (Saillot, 2013). For Janet, perception is already an action, a position that he reinforced by his concept of “perceptive scheme.” Gibson’s notion of “affordance” (1977) is a quasi-equivalent of Pierre Janet’s “perceptive scheme,” a construct widely used in current research. In the field of “embodied cognition,” many studies confirm Janet’s works. Berthoz (2000), adopting Janet’s (1953) view that perceptual action is predictive wrote: “Perception is inseparable from action. It predicts the future” (p. 255). Neuropsychological studies also support Janet’s “perceptive scheme” model, stating that the motor system must be activated in order to perceive objects (e.g., Goldin-Meadow & Beilock, 2010). Janet’s claim of the identity between action and perception is strongly supported by empirical studies showing that there is “no dissociation between perception and action” (Coello & Delevoye-Turrell, 2007, p. 667). Janet’s “dynamic psychology” can be compared to the new field of “dynamic social psychology” (Nowak, Vallacher, Tesser, & Borkowski, 2000), the study of psychological variables in time. While Janet explained actions by referring to the amount and availability of forces acting on the subject, current “dynamic” studies don’t take forces into account. Yet Janet showed that the modification of someone’s forces in order to modify his or her personality’s evolution over time constitutes the core of the therapeutic endeavor: The difference between temporal and dynamic approaches should be kept as well as investigated in the light of Janet’s results, as some forthcoming works (e.g., Saillot, 2014) are about to show. In this field, Janet’s works continue to prove relevant for current experimental and clinical research. CONCLUSION Janet was a famous psychologist during his time, but much of his influence has remained hidden for a long time. His main influence today pertains to the dissociation of the personality, the dissociative disorders, and their treatment. However, it was not until 1970, when Ellenberger’s The Discovery of the Unconscious was published, that at least the Anglo-Saxon clinical world began to gradually become more aware of the hidden treasures that his oeuvre contains. This was probably the source of inspiration of Hilgard’s Divided Consciousness (1977), in which this psychologist first combined Janet’s studies on hysteria and dissociation in his neodissociation theory.

62    I. SAILLOT and O. VAN DER HART

In his illuminating chapter on Janet, Ellenberger compared Janet’s work to a vast city buried beneath ashes, like Pompeii: “It may remain buried forever. It may remain concealed while being plundered by marauders. But perhaps it may also be unearthed some day and brought back to life” (Ellenberger, 1970, p. 409). Many of his ideas have yet to be taken up and further developed. There is some evidence that since then the process of unearthing Janet’s work has been underway, though those engaged in such endeavors are usually concerned with discovering only one section of it, for example, the concern with psychopathology. This holds true even though his important contributions to the study of psychosis—for instance, the issue of pseudohallucinations versus hallucinations—has so far remained buried. (In this context, it is still little known that Janet had influenced, via Jung, Bleuler’s thinking on schizophrenia.) Yet Janet’s general psychology is most relevant also to the current field of experimental psychology, as some works have recently shown. These works and this chapter may help those involved in the study of psychopathology or psychology to better understand Janet’s important contribution and high potential for supporting future developments and innovations. REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Berthoz, A. (2000). The brain’s sense of movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1997) Bühler, K.-E., & Heim, G. (2011). Etiology, pathogenesis, and therapy according to Pierre Janet concerning conversion disorders and dissociative disorders. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 65, 281–309. Charcot, J. M. (1882). Sur les divers états nerveux déterminées par l’hypnotisation chez les hystériques [On different nervous states as they appear when hysterics are hypnotized]. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 44, 403–405. Coello, Y., & Delevoye-Turrell, Y. (2007). Embodiment, spatial categorization and action. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 667–683. Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious. New York, NY: Basic. Faure, H., Kersten, J., Koopman, D., & Van der Hart, O. (1997). The 19th century case of Louis Vivet: New findings and re-evaluation. Dissociation, 10, 104–113. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2010). Action’s influence on thought: The case of gesture. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 664–674.

Pierre Janet    63 Heim, G., & Bühler, K.-E. (2006). Psychological trauma and fixed ideas in Pierre Janet’s conception of dissociative disorders. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 60, 111–129. Hilgard, E. R. (1977). Divided consciousness. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Janet, P. (1889). L’automatisme psychologique: Essai de psychologie expérimentale sur les formes inférieures de l’activité humaine. Paris, France: Alcan. Janet, P. (1907). The major symptoms of hysteria. London, England: Macmillan. Janet, P. (1909). Les névroses. Paris, France: Flammarion. Janet, P. (1921). The relation of the neuroses to the psychoses. In A psychiatry milestone: Bloomingdale Hospital centenary, 182–1921 (pp. 115–146). New York, NY: Society of the New York Hospital. Janet, P. (1923). La tension psychologique et ses oscillations. In G. Dumas (Ed.), Traité de psychologie (Vol. 1, pp. 919–952). Paris, France: Alcan. Janet, P. (1924). Principles of psychotherapy. New York, NY: Macmillan. (Original work published 1923) Janet, P. (1925). Psychological healing. New York, NY: Macmillan. (Original work published 1919) Janet, P. (1927). La pensée intérieure et ses troubles. Paris, France: Chahine. Janet. P. (1928). L’évolution de la mémoire et de la notion du temps. Paris, France: Chahine. Janet, P. (1932). L’amour et la haine. Paris, France: Éditions Médicales Norbert Maloine. Janet, P. (1935). Les débuts de l’intelligence. Paris, France: Flammarion. Janet, P. (1934). L’intelligence avant le langage. Paris, France: Flammarion. Janet, P. (1937). Psychological strength and weakness in mental diseases. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Factors determining human behavior (pp. 64–106). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Janet, P. (1977). The mental state of hystericals: A study of mental stigmata and mental accidents. Washington, DC: University Publications of America. (Original work published 1901) Janet, P. (2004). Intégrale des leçons au Collège de France 1902–1934 (summaries). Paris, France: L’Harmattan. Janet, P. (2008a). De l’angoisse à l’extase: Études sur les croyances et les sentiments, Vol. 1. Paris, France: L’Harmattan. (Original work published 1926) Janet, P. (2008b). De l’angoisse à l’extase: Études sur les croyances et les sentiments, Vol. 2. Paris, France: L’Harmattan. (Original work published 1928) Nemiah, J. C. (1989). Janet redivivus: The centenary of L’automatisme psychologique. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 1527–1529. Nijenhuis, E. R. S. (2004). Somatoform dissociation. New York, NY: Norton. Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. R., Tesser, A., & Borkowski, W. (2000). Society of self: The emergence of collective properties in self-structure. Psychological Review, 107, 39–61. Ogden, P., Minton, K., & Pain, C. (2006). Trauma and the body: A sensorimotor approach to psychotherapy. New York, NY: Norton. Prévost, C. (1973). La psycho-philosophie de Pierre Janet. Paris, France: Payot. Retrieved from www.alapage.com. Putnam, F. W. (1989). Pierre Janet and modern views of dissociation. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2, 413–429.

64    I. SAILLOT and O. VAN DER HART Saillot, I. (2012). Petit historique de la dissociation. In M. Kedia (Ed.), Dissociation et mémoire traumatique (pp. 1–28). Paris, France: Dunod. Saillot, I. (2013). Grand angle: Le lien connaissances-activité chez Soubelet (2010), un commentaire dans la perspective de la psychodynamique expérimentale. Psychologie Française, 58, 53–66. Saillot, I. (2014). Grand angle: Variabilité intra-individuelle chez Ninot et CostalatFouneau (2011), un commentaire dans la perspective de la psychodynamique expérimentale. Psychologie Française. Van der Hart, O., Brown, P., & Van der Kolk, B. A. (1989). Pierre Janet’s treatment of posttraumatic stress. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2, 379–396. Van der Hart, O., & Friedman, B. (1989). A reader’s guide to Pierre Janet on dissociation: A neglected intellectual heritage. Dissociation, 2, 3–16. Van der Hart, O., Nijenhuis, E. R. S., & Steele, K. (2006). The haunted self: Structural dissociation and the treatment of chronic traumatization. New York, NY: Norton. Van der Kolk, B. A., & Van der Hart, O. (1989). Pierre Janet and the breakdown of adaptation in psychological trauma. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 1530–1540.

CHAPTER 4

EMIL KRAEPELIN Experimental Psychology as an Auxiliary Science in Psychiatry and Clinical Empirical Psychiatry as the Foundation of Modern Psychiatry Holger Steinberg

Emil Wilhelm Magnus Georg Kraepe­lin was born on February 15, 1856, in Neustrelitz, the residence of the small grand duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz in northern Germany at the time (on his biography, see Weber, Holsboer, Hoff, Ploog, & Hippius, 2000–13). He was the seventh and last child of Karl Krae­pelin, an actor, reciter, and teacher of music (1817–1882), and Emilie Dorothea Auguste Johanne (née Lehmann, 1819–1896). After the small local court theater closed, the family led a modest, petty bourgeois life. His elder brother Karl Kraepelin (1845–1893), who later became a wellknown botanist and zoologist, played an influential role in awakening Emil Kraepelin’s interest in the natural sciences. While still in grammar school, Kraepelin studied Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920), an eminent psychologist, philosopher, and physiologist, and his two-volume Lectures on the Human

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 65–78 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

65

66    H. STEINBERG

and Animal Soul (Wundt, 1863). The impression left by this work and the close contact to a local family doctor, with whom young Kraepelin loved to go to see patients, are said to have shaped Kraepelin’s desire to become a psychiatrist. Today, Kraepelin is best known for his system of classification for “mental disorders” and as a key influential figure in the history of psychiatry and the history of abnormal psychology. To pursue this career, he began to study medicine in Leipzig in April 1874 (Steinberg, 2001). After a brief stay in Würzburg, where he read Wundt’s Basics of Physiological Psychology (Wundt, 1874), Kraepelin returned to Leipzig to attend seminars with Wundt who had accepted his appointment as one of two professors of philosophy and was establishing his experimental psychological laboratory. Indeed, the establishment of this laboratory around 1879 is frequently considered to signify the birth of psychology as a science, and Wundt is frequently designated “the founder of psychology as a formal academic discipline” (Schultz & Schultz, 2012, p. 66). Wundt’s main interest was to investigate the human mind and prove the notion that basic mental processes were caused by stimuli impinging upon the sensory and nervous system. On the basis of psychophysiological experiments on perception, attention, and reaction, and their duration in time under different conditions, Wundt presented the first validation for this assumption. Wundt also analyzed more complex processes like association, memory, and human thinking. Following the example of physiology, he developed experimental psychological test procedures to willingly evoke mental processes and make them predictable. In the long run, Wundt wanted to analyze all mental phenomena with laboratory-scientific methods. (Later Wundt was to revise this claim, specifically for higher mental functions.) Due to the fact that Wundt established the experiment and empirics in psychology, he is regarded as one of the fathers of scientific (physiological) psychology. As early as the 1890s, Wundt’s students carried his new approach all over Europe and to, above all, the Americas. Among his approximately 190 doctoral students were, to name only a few who studied or worked at his institute as visitors or colleagues for a longer period of time, James McKeen Cattell (1860–1944), Edward Titchener (1867–1927), Charles Spearman (1863–1945), Edward Pace (1861–1938), G. Stanley Hall (1844–1924), Vladimir M. Bekhterev (1857–1927), Hendrik Zwaardemaker (1857–1930), Oswald Külpe (1862–1915), Ernst Meumann (1862–1915), Wilhelm Wirth (1876–1952), Willy Hellpach (1877–1955), Gustav Wilhelm Störring (1860–1946), Felix Krueger (1874–1948), Hugo Münsterberg (1863–1916), August Kirschmann (1860–1932), and Alfred Lehmann (1858–1921). During its peak, Wundt’s institute had 40 assistant positions. Before the start of the summer semester in 1877, Kraepelin applied in person to study with Wundt and even attended his seminar on “Psychological Society.” However, since he was offered an assistantship at the

Emil Kraepelin    67

Department of Psychiatry at Würzburg University, nota bene while still a student, Kraepelin went back to Würzburg in the summer of 1877 where he completed his medical studies and his MD thesis. After taking up a post at the Upper Bavarian Psychiatric Country Asylum in Munich, Kraepelin began to wonder whether conducting psychological tests on his mentally ill patients could produce valuable insights into the nature of mental diseases and the mental processes that caused them. Kraepelin hoped to identify the differences in the basic mental processes between the mentally healthy and the mentally ill persons (Hoff, 1994; Steinberg, 2001). In order to properly conduct such experiments on mentally ill patients, Kraepelin deemed it necessary to directly work and study with Wundt in Leipzig. He was also feeling increasingly dissatisfied with his job in Munich, particularly because of his inability to truly help his patients instead of merely sedating them. He also began to doubt his boss Bernhard von Gudden’s (1824–1886) approach to understanding the nature of mental disorders and felt he was wasting his time making thousands of brain preparations for him. It also became clear that Gudden would not promote his Habilitation, at least not in the foreseeable future (Kraepelin, 1983). (In Germany, submitting a book-long Habilitation after one has received the doctorate is an important and necessary step in the pursuance of an academic career.) So Kraepelin reapproached Wundt for employment to “follow his favourite inclination for psychology” and not “having to continue working as a psychiatrist solely for that purpose” (of securing his income) (Steinberg, 2002, pp. 41–43). Wundt could not grant Kraepelin’s request, but he suggested that Kraepelin apply for a position of assistant doctor at the university hospital for psychiatry that opened in January 1882. Thus, Kraepelin contacted Paul Flechsig (1847–1929), a “brain-psychiatrist” like Gudden, was accepted, and began to work in Leipzig in February 1882 (Steinberg, 2001). However, the head and the assistant doctor never got along and were constantly arguing. Their antagonism may have been exacerbated right from the start when Kraepelin turned down Flechsig’s offer to help him with his habilitation, of course preferably on a brain-anatomical topic or a clinical matter, rather than a pharmaco-psychological one (Steinberg, 2001). Soon after Flechsig accepted him as his senior assistant, Kraepelin confirmed his quasi-application with Wundt and requested Wundt’s approval of his plan to “analyze the impact of some of the most well-known nervines (psychotropic substances such as chloral hydrate, potassium bromide, hashish, possibly also amyl nitrite, strychnine, etc.) on the response time” (Steinberg, 2002, pp. 52–53, 56). What flourishes today as cognitive neuropharmacology had its first appearance under the name of pharmaco-psychology. While still in Leipzig, continuing in Dorpat and ending around 1892 with his appointment in Heidelberg, Kraepelin designed and performed a systematic series of pharmacological experiments by investigating the effects of common

68    H. STEINBERG

recreational (alcohol, coffee, tea) and medical drugs (amyl nitrite, chloral hydrate, chloroform, ethyl ether, morphium, paraldehyde) on simple visual reaction times and more complex cognitive processes (Müller, Fletcher, & Steinberg, 2006). Soon after Wundt approved Kraepelin’s habilitation project, Flechsig’s dissatisfaction with his assistant grew, in particular since it became clear (in March and April 1882) that Kraepelin simply took advantage of him as the provider of the necessary financial support to pursue his “pet subject.” Kraepelin’s research at Wundt’s laboratory was extremely time-consuming, and as a result, Kraepelin had to neglect his clinical work. This situation was worsened by the fact that, at least at that time, Kraepelin’s interest in the patients was rather research-oriented and purely psychopathological in nature (Kraepelin, 1881/1882a; Kraepelin, 1883). In mid-June 1882, as a consequence of serious failures in hygiene and other shortcomings, Kraepelin was dismissed without notice and left in a financially difficult situation (Steinberg 2001; Weber et al., 2000–2013). Still he was determined to qualify as Privatdozent (assistant professor) because this would give him the right to collect tuition fees from his students. Against Flechsig’s opposition and with the help of Wilhelm Erb (1840–1921), Professor of Special Pathology and Therapy and Head of the Medical Outpatient Clinic where Kraepelin had been volunteering to retain contact with patients, Kraepelin pursued his Habilitation in autumn 1882. Instead of undertaking time-consuming research on a specific topic which would involve designing, conducting, and analyzing special experiments, resulting in a specifically authored thesis, he used previously published papers (including one that was being published) to be accepted instead. Two of these three papers could be referred to as products of Wundt’s new school of thought (Steinberg, 2001). Notwithstanding this, it must be acknowledged that Kraepelin’s pharmaco-psychological studies, including his On the Modulation of Simple Psychological Processes by Some Medicines (Kraepelin, 1881–1883), submitted for his habilitation, became one of his particular experimental psychological research interests. By deliberately inducing artificial psychosis he hoped to gain insights into the nature of general psychosis. Using an empirical approach, Kraepelin investigated how mental processes were affected by pharmaceutical substances. Furthermore, the tentative conclusions drawn from studying and comparing the effects of individual remedies suggested attractive possibilities for future research. The work was considered genuinely innovative and was included in the list of early studies that led to the establishment of a whole new scientific discipline, pharmaco-psychology. Archival sources show that Kraepelin’s habilitation was approved owing to his third paper, On the Influence of Acute Diseases on the Development of Mental Illnesses (Kraepelin, 1881/1882b), which hence should be referred

Emil Kraepelin    69

to as his actual habilitation thesis. After successfully passing his oral examinations, Kraepelin was awarded the title of Privatdozent and on October 21, 1882, was officially included in the teaching staff of Leipzig’s medical faculty (Steinberg, 2001). In the following semesters, Kraepelin offered lectures and courses (Criminal Psychology and Exercises on How to Write Forensic Reports; Pathology and Therapy of Mental Illnesses with Particular Reference to Forensic Psychopathology; Anatomy and Physiology of the Brain [for students of other than medicine] with Particular Reference to Psychology, with Demonstrations; Experimental Psychology [in particular Psychophysical and Time Measurements] with Demonstrations and Practical Exercises; On Deception and Delusion), some of which had to be canceled, presumably due to a lack of student interest as Kraepelin’s lectures were not relevant to pass one’s final exams. Moreover, unlike Flechsig who offered similar lectures, he was not a member of any examination board which may have made his lectures even less attractive (Steinberg, 2001). Kraepelin still could not find paid employment in Leipzig. He had no choice but to return to Munich in the last days of October 1883 and reassume his post as assistant under Gudden, who made it possible for Kraepelin to confirm his habilitation and become recognized as an academic teacher at Munich University. To do so, Kraepelin held an audition lecture in March 1884, On the Psychological Standpoint in Psychiatry (Weber et al., 2000–2013). In their letters over a span of 40 years, Kraepelin and Wundt remained close friends until the latter’s death in 1920. He visited Leipzig and saw his teacher during several of his trips (Steinberg, 2002). Wundt left his stamp on Kraepelin, teaching him a primarily descriptive and empirical approach to things (Hoff, 1994). Back in Munich, the situation had not changed, and Kraepelin did not find sufficient scientific stimulation. Gudden did not appreciate experimental psychological tests, so Kraepelin could only pursue his “favorite inclination” outside his job. The lectures he held at Munich University were also poorly attended (Weber et al., 2000–2013) and hence his position was on the whole not very lucrative. Combined with his desire to marry his fiancée of many years, Kraepelin decided to leave his academic ambitions and accept the post of senior consultant at the Silesian Province Mental Asylum at Leubus (today Lubiąż in Poland) with a heavy heart (Steinberg & Angermeyer, 2002). After 8 weeks in Silesia, in October 1884, Kraepelin married Ina Schwabe (1855–1944) and subsequently had eight children, of which only four daughters survived birth and early childhood. Antonie Schmidt-Kraepelin (1887–1962) later followed in her father’s footsteps and opened a private practice as a doctor of psychiatry and neurology. The period in Leubus proved to be a short one, just like his appointment as senior consultant and head of the psychiatric ward at Dresden

70    H. STEINBERG

City Hospital. On June 1, 1886, Kraepelin happily resumed an academic career after being appointed Fellow Professor of Psychiatry and Head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Dorpat (today Tartu in Estonia) (Steinberg & Angermeyer, 2001). Although located in the Russian Empire, the well-established Baltic university was mainly German-speaking at the time. Kraepelin’s years in Dorpat marked the peak of his psychological research resulting in several purely psychological or pharmaco-psychological works. The results of Kraepelin’s pharmacological studies were published in three long papers written in Munich, but mainly Leipzig (Kraepelin, 1881/1882a; 1881–1883; 1882), and they reached a peak in an ambitious and comprehensive monograph, On the Modulation of Simple Psychological Processes by Some Medicines (Kraepelin, 1892a). This he wrote in Dorpat and Heidelberg where he was Professor of Psychiatry and head of the university’s Department of Psychiatry between 1891 and 1903. In this monograph, Kraepelin explained, The results of an extensive series of experiments into the psychological effects of various drugs . . . The method of investigation was essentially that of psychological time measurements. By pursuing the sequence of events composed from processes as diverse as possible, it could be established how different aspects of our psychological life can be influenced by individual drugs. In general, there was a notable difference between perception and psychological processing of external stimuli on the one hand and motor performance on the other hand, inasmuch the effect of the studied drug turned out to differ in these two domains. Overall, the dosage of the drug played a major role. (Kraepelin, 1892b, p. 641)

Kraepelin’s publications were written in the scientific German of his time, often verbose and poorly structured. The strange mixture of objective data and introspective reports is not easy to comprehend for present-day readers. In most of his pharmacological research, Kraepelin himself was the first test subject (Kraepelin, 1881–1883). In addition, the number of people involved in the test, as well as the number of tests itself, are remarkably small in most of his studies, and Kraepelin had severe problems with intra- and interindividual variations of reaction times at baseline. He mainly used descriptive statistics and had serious problems interpreting his data, because baseline variability and the effect of practicing often overrode the drug effects. In addition, most pharmacological studies performed by Kraepelin were not randomized (Kraepelin, 1892a). Considering the historical context of his pharmacological publications, it becomes evident that Kraepelin was a creative scientist who introduced several methodological innovations. He used an innovative mechanical apparatus developed by Matthäus Hipp (1813–1893) (Hipp’s chronoscope),

Emil Kraepelin    71

which allowed temporal resolution to measure reaction times in milliseconds. In his studies with alcohol, he used systematic variation of dosages, blended the drug with raspberry syrup “in order to improve the utterly unsavory taste,” and performed a “pilot test with a bottle of sparkling water” in order to verify whether measured reaction time changes are caused by “the stimulating action of carbonic acid” or by “the unpleasant feeling of a full stomach” (Kraepelin, 1881–1883, pp. 575–576). This seems to be the origin of a placebo control in the area of psychopharmacological research without the single or double-blind design. There were only a few explicit regulations on ethics in Kraepelin’s time. Nevertheless, he considered ethical problems when recruiting volunteers for experiments with morphine (Kraepelin, 1892a). He was aware of potential side effects and even tested most drugs on himself before persuading colleagues and friends to participate in his experiments. Indeed, other neuroscientists of his time like psychotherapist Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) also struggled with questions related to drugs and ethics. Over the past few decades, several studies have tried to compare Kraepelin and Freud, simply because they were born in the same year. Such comparisons are of little use since both followed completely different approaches, which is also evident when considering that they had very different kinds of patients. Kraepelin was mainly in touch with severely mentally ill patients, most of them psychotics in need of in-patient treatment, and in this context he followed and developed the scientific school of psychiatry. This, however, was never Freud’s intention. Running a successful private practice, Freud mainly worked with neurotic patients. Indeed, their overall approaches were fundamentally different. Kraepelin followed the neurobiologically oriented scientific approach that viewed mental illnesses as entities given by nature, whereas Freud followed a hermeneutic-biographical approach, suggesting that mental illnesses were the result of a person’s wrong development which one needed to pinpoint and correct, if possible. The aim of Kraepelin’s (and many of today’s) psychopharmacological experiments was to gain a better understanding of cognitive deficits and treatment effects in patients with neuropsychiatric diseases. In his review paper for “Schmidt’s Jahrbücher,” he introduced “model psychosis,” a pharmacologically induced state in healthy volunteers that mimics disease processes (Kraepelin, 1882). After his dismissal from the psychiatric hospital, Kraepelin could not perform any psychological experiments with psychiatric patients in Leipzig. His first comparisons of drug-induced model psychoses and real neuropsychiatric diseases were performed in Dresden and Dorpat (Steinberg & Angermeyer, 2002); yet, since his neuropsychological approach was new and far ahead of his time, he did not come up with any comprehensive conclusions (Hildebrand, 1993).

72    H. STEINBERG

In autumn/winter of 1887, Kraepelin founded the Dorpat Psychological Society. Soon it had 14 members, mostly physicians who became permanent staff at the first local laboratory of experimental psychology, which Kraepelin had established in the rooms of his department in 1888. During his years at Dorpat, Kraepelin supervised seven graduate students’ works on topics in experimental psychology. Therein (Kraepelin and) his students investigated the effects of exercise and tiredness on mental functions, the depth of sleep, the ability to guess distances, and the sense of time. Later they analyzed memory in time and space (as mediated by skin and muscle senses) as well as concentration. The experiments in Kraepelin’s laboratory were carried out on a heuristic and self-motivating basis: he and his students constructed most test appliances themselves, sometimes in cooperation with the laboratory at the Institute of Physics or with the university engineer (Steinberg & Angermeyer, 2001; Weber et. al., 2000–2013). Parallel to this, Kraepelin obtained a lot of clinical experience and refined his approach, which is clearly revealed in the second, fully revised edition of his famous Textbook of Psychiatry (Kraepelin, 1887). Therein, as one example, Karl Ludwig Kahlbaum’s (1828–1899) idea that any illness shows a progression is elaborated more clearly than before, and Kraepelin tried to provide descriptions of typical courses for each individual illness. However, it was not until the fourth edition of his Textbook that he developed his own nosology (classification of diseases). Since the latter came out in 1893, much of the preparatory work must have been done in Dorpat (Kraepelin, 1893). Yet as early as his study On the Knowledge of Psychophysical Methods, Kraepelin (1890) revealed considerable dissatisfaction with the way experimental psychology had developed. What he criticized most was that the methods of measurement were discussed in an inappropriately lengthy manner. According to Kraepelin, the only way to improve them would be to provide empirical facts derived from better and more careful testing. Yet, instead of collecting practical experience, there was too much theoretical dispute and setting up of new formulas. Kraepelin repeated his hopes to gain a deeper insight into the nature of mental disorders with his psychological and pharmaco-psychological experiments. Until then, however, neither of the two approaches had revealed any satisfactory results. Feeling that experimental psychology had stagnated somehow, Kraepelin finally turned to an empirical and clinical approach to psychiatry, which he was to perfect later on. Kraepelin dealt with and promoted experimental psychology while working predominantly in the clinical field. He founded the famous Psychological Institute in Heidelberg and co-edited a specialized journal titled Psychologische Arbeiten (Psychological Works), nine volumes of which were published between 1895/1896 and 1925/1928. Even while in Munich, where he was Professor of Psychiatry and Head of the Department of Psychiatry between

Emil Kraepelin    73

1903 and 1922, Kraepelin performed experimental pharmaco-psychological and psychological research. His view on its applicability to psychiatry, however, changed considerably over time. Kraepelin merely regarded his studies in this field as a contribution to psychology. His workplace in Dorpat might have been an influential personal factor. Although the university was German-speaking, most patients were not, and so the language barrier prevented efficient communication. As a result, he was virtually forced to use methods to examine his patients and establish certain diagnostic criteria that did not require extensive linguistic competence. This background may also help explain his scrupulous medical histories, the diagnostic cards (Stammkarte and Arbeitskarte), and his use of statistics for findings. Together with observing (and establishing) the clinical course of illnesses, his statistical and empirical approach allowed him to develop a new classification of illnesses. Within that nosology, his division of endogenous psychoses into dementia praecox (later elaborated in Eugen Bleuler’s [1857–1939] concept of schizophrenia) and manic-depressive disorders (affective disorders) proved to be of great importance for psychiatry and abnormal psychology. Hence, one can say that his clinical empirical research promoted his own insights and the development of psychiatry, whereas experimental psychological research was time-consuming, and the results produced were insufficient to compensate him for his efforts (Kraepelin, 1892a). Although his comprehensive monograph, On the Modulation of Simple Psychological Processes by Some Medicines (Kraepelin, 1881–1883), provides many ideas and interesting thoughts as well as a few confounding details, it is rather poor with regard to practical results that could have furnished new clues for psychiatry as a science. Topics which are actually marginal in this context capture the reader’s attention, such as Kraepelin’s attitude toward alcohol. He acknowledged its practical use to support sleep or to calm people down, as well as to increase physical and mental capacity, even if only for a short time. He continued that anxiety, obsessions, or agoraphobia could also be treated more easily by administering small doses of alcohol, since in this way the patients’ self-confidence would be increased, while in turn forming a good basis for a systematic treatment of the illnesses mentioned. For the same reason, alcohol could help in the treatment of melancholia. However, Kraepelin maintained that alcohol only had an effect on the symptoms of an illness and would never cure the illness itself. Moreover, its application had one major disadvantage: patients could get addicted to it (Kraepelin, 1892a). Still, more than 90 years after his death, Emil Kraepelin remains one of the most prominent figures in international psychiatry. On the one hand, as professor and head of departments in Heidelberg and Munich and, from 1917 on, founder and first head of the German Institute for Psychiatric Research (Weber, 2000), he headed institutions that determined

74    H. STEINBERG

and set trends in the development of the discipline. On the other hand, he developed several highly original and innovative ideas. These include his vision of psychiatry as an interdisciplinary and multidimensional science analyzing the etiology, pathogenesis, symptomatology, outcome, and postmortem examination results of each individual patient. In addition, these results could then be compared with the existing body of knowledge in order to update or revise it accordingly, if needed. In this way, Kraepelin contributed significantly to overcoming the one-sided brain-anatomical and brain-pathological approaches of so-called brain psychiatry. Indeed, the individual editions of his Textbook of Psychiatry, where Kraepelin presented his views, constituted the state of the art in psychiatry. Basic insights and principles as produced by Kraepelin are mirrored in present-day international classifications of mental diseases. One could even say that the ICD-10 and the DSM-5, today’s most recent nosological systems, are in many ways based on Kraepelin’s work and ideas; these two widely used, though not uncontroversial, nomenclatures, which are very similar to one another, represent a return to descriptive psychiatry in which careful observation of symptoms, signs, and the unfolding of mental diseases become the diagnostic criteria themselves (Compton & Guze, 1995). The very nature of the criteria prominently characterizes Neo-Kraepelinism, a movement in the 1970s in the United States that has since determined mainstream thinking in psychiatry. How this operationalizing and “biologizing” renaissance in the field compares to its great model and patron remains controversial (Decker, 2007). What is certain however is that Neo-Kraepelinians used Kraepelin’s classification as a basis because it features clearly separated illnesses and entities distinguished by different symptoms and disease progressions that are thought to be the result of neurobiological dysfunction. North American psychiatry took a great interest in this scientific and operational approach after the psychoanalytic era had ended, and this nosology provided the opportunity to separate illnesses or patients into distinct conceptual “drawers.” It was hoped that, given the precise criteria and scientific basis, this nosology would help solve (or at least reduce) the problem of diagnostic unreliability in psychiatry. In daily practice, newly developed neuroleptic and antidepressive medication made it necessary to apply clear criteria as to when to use what, that is, to apply therapies empirically on the basis of an established diagnosis. No other psychiatric nosology in the past had been so near to the practical needs of modern psychiatry as Kraepelin’s classification. Last but not least, Kraepelin had become a renowned figure in international psychiatry, and so his authority served as a good reassurance for others and their own approaches (Klerman, 1978). His pharmaco-psychological studies laid the basis for modern pharmacological psychiatry. In the last three decades, a special branch of psychiatric

Emil Kraepelin    75

research has revived his idea to gain new insights into mental illness with the help of psychological-physiological experiments, meaning experimental psychology. Indeed, with new, more sophisticated apparatuses and designs, neuropsychology has already provided promising new findings in clinical psychiatry. In addition, Kraepelin’s experimental psychological approach has also enriched aspects of modern psychology, primarily work psychology. Knowledge of the course of the “work curve” is based on his research (Kraepelin, 1902). During his long research journeys through Europe, Africa, America, and particularly his 1903–1904 expedition to Southeast Asia, Kraepelin pioneered culture-comparative studies on the epidemiology of different mental illnesses. He enriched his field studies with results obtained from contemporary research. He also exchanged views with several colleagues, including those from European overseas colonies, the United States, and Brazil (Weber et al., 2000–2013). Hence, Kraepelin can be regarded as one of the forefathers of what is now called transcultural or comparative psychiatry, or ethnopsychiatry (Bendick, 1989). Kraepelin soon became a prominent and highly independent researcher, yet he might have been influenced and stimulated by Wilhelm Wundt, who, as stated earlier, had promoted and applied a comparative and introspective approach to higher mental functions while focusing on social and collective phenomena, such as language, customs, traditions, mythology, and religion. Hence, Kraepelin’s transcultural comparative psychiatric studies of his later years can be seen as falling in this tradition. He went on a Balkan excursion in 1905 and spent several weeks at the Buitenzorg Mental Asylum on Java to conduct comparative psychiatric studies that he recognized could enrich the mother discipline. Discussions of these studies can be found in Kraepelin’s renowned textbook, particularly the chapter on the causes and triggering factors of mental diseases. In general, and this was typical for contemporary comparative research, Kraepelin’s comparative studies are influenced by race ideology and degeneration theory, and he was a proponent of eugenics as well, which certainly needs to be earmarked as morally dubious as well as outdated and inconsistent with today’s approaches. After discussing difficulties encountered while conducting comparative research and pointing out a general lack of data on indigenous ethnic groups and tribes, Kraepelin tried to draw some cautious conclusions. One of these was that the “White races” and the Japanese were particularly prone to suffering from mental diseases. He also found differences among the members of the same “race” living under different circumstances; for example, Jews living in Europe and in North America. Due to their practice of marrying within the same family, they also suffered from mental diseases more often than others, he argued. After the abolition of slavery, Blacks were more prone to mental diseases, yet he

76    H. STEINBERG

did not draw any more specific conclusions from that. More interesting in this regard are his comparative data on the prevalence of known mental diseases, intoxications, and abuse of stimulants among different races and populations. Pertinent examples include alcohol abuse as prevalent among Germanic people, marijuana among “Orientals” (Asians), and opium among the Chinese. He also found evidence for progressive paralysis being extremely uncommon among Turks, Persians, Abyssinians (Ethiopians), Malaysians, “Australian negroes,” and African “negro peoples,” despite a high prevalence of syphilis. In contrast to that, a growing percentage of Europeans living in these areas showed progressive paralysis similar to that found in Europe. Hence, he concluded that Europeans showed a particular proneness to developing progressive paralysis from syphilis, perhaps due to changes in the brain which made it less resistant. However, Kraepelin found no evidence that differences in climate and nutrition have an influence on the prevalence of mental illnesses. On Java, Kraepelin discovered that dementia praecox (schizophrenia) composed a large part of mental diseases (77%), but he could not determine whether it was more prevalent in general or not. For mental diseases without any clear external causes, by which he presumably meant mostly endogenous psychoses and neuroses, Kraepelin established cultural differences in their course. So, while Europeans always showed depression in the early stages of dementia praecox and dementia in the end, Javanese suffered from “confused excitement” in the beginning and confusion and lack of clarity toward the end. Delusions (“content thought disorders”), acoustic hallucinations (“deceptions”), and catatonic symptoms like negativistic stupor were rarely encountered among Javanese. In addition, affective disorders, which were also rare, showed different symptoms and courses. With regard to depression, Kraepelin found that the Javanese displayed less intense symptoms and recovered more rapidly, and severe depression did not seem to exist at all. As a result, he concluded that a tendency to commit suicide was not a serious issue among indigenous populations in Java (Kraepelin, 1904a; 1904b; 1909). By stimulating research based on particular questions, and later gathering professionals of different specialties in the German Institute for Psychiatric Research, Kraepelin and his concept of a clinical empirical psychiatry were the patrons of several auxiliary sciences of present-day psychiatry such as neuropathology, neurohistology, genetics, and family research. However, the question must be raised whether Kraepelin, who was both deeply conservative and highly nationalistic, also supported tendencies that later culminated in Nazi psychiatry’s euthanasia crimes against hundreds of thousands of patients. Yet, since he died in Munich on October 7, 1926, he did not witness these terrible developments.

Emil Kraepelin    77

REFERENCES Bendick, C. (1989). Emil Kraepelins Forschungsreisen nach Java im Jahre 1904. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ethnopsychiatrie. Feuchtwangen, Germany: Kohlhauer. Compton, W. M., & Guze, S. B. (1995). The Neo-Kraepelinian revolution in psychiatric diagnosis. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 245, 196–201. Decker, H. S. (2007). How Kraepelinian was Kraepelin? How Kraepelinian are the Neo-Kraepelinians?—From Emil Kraepelin to DSM-III. History of Psychiatry, 18, 337–360. Hildebrandt, H. (1993). Der psychologische Versuch in der Psychiatrie. Psychologie und Geschichte, 5, 5–30. Hoff, P. (1994). Emil Kraepelin und die Psychiatrie als klinische Wissenschaft. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Klerman, G. L. (1978). The evolution of a scientific nosology. In J. C. Shershow (Ed.), Schizophrenia: Science and practice (pp. 99–121). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kraepelin, E. (1881/1882a). Ueber die Dauer einfacher psychischer Vorgänge. Biologisches Centralblatt, 1, 654–672, 721–733, 751–766. Kraepelin, E. (1881/1882b). Ueber den Einfluss acuter Krankheiten auf die Entstehung von Geisteskrankheiten. Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 11, 137–183, 295–350, 649–677 and 12, 65–121, 287–336. Kraepelin, E. (1881–1883). Ueber die Einwirkung einiger medicamentöser Stoffe auf die Dauer einfacher psychischer Vorgänge. Philosophische Studien, 1, 417– 462, 573–605. Kraepelin, E. (1882). Über psychische Zeitmessungen. Schmidts Jahrbücher der inund ausländischen gesammten Medicin, 196, 205–213. Kraepelin, E. (1883). Compendium der Psychiatrie. Leipzig, Germany: Abel. Kraepelin, E. (1887). Psychiatrie. Kurzes Lehrbuch für Studierende und Aerzte (2nd ed.). Leipzig, Germany: Abel. Kraepelin, E. (1890). Zur Kenntnis der psychophysischen Methoden. Philosophische Studien, 6, 493–513. Kraepelin, E. (1892a). Über die Beeinflussung einfacher psychischer Vorgänge durch einige Arzneimittel. Jena, Germany: Fischer. Kraepelin, E. (1892b). Ueber die centrale Wirkung einiger Arzneimittel. Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 24, 641–642. Kraepelin, E. (1893). Psychiatrie. Ein kurzes Lehrbuch für Studirende und Aerzte (4th ed.). Leipzig, Germany: Abel/Meiner. Kraepelin, E. (1902). Die Arbeitscurve. Philosophische Studien, 19, 459–507. Kraepelin, E. (1904a). Vergleichende Psychiatrie. Centralblatt für Nervenheilkunde und Psychiatrie, 27, 433–437. Kraepelin, E. (1904b). Psychiatrisches aus Java. Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Psychiatrie, 61, 882–884. Kraepelin, E. (1909). Psychiatrie. Ein Lehrbuch für Studierende und Ärzte, Vol. 1. (8th ed.). Leipzig, Germany: Barth. Kraepelin, E. (1983). Lebenserinnerungen (H. Hippius, G. Peters, & D. Ploog, Eds.). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

78    H. STEINBERG Müller U., Fletcher P. C., & Steinberg H. (2006). The origin of pharmacopsychology: Emil Kraepelin‘s experiments in Leipzig, Dorpat and Heidelberg (1882– 1892). Psychopharmacology, 184, 131–138. Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2012). A history of modern psychology (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Steinberg, H. (2001). Kraepelin in Leipzig. Eine Begegnung von Psychiatrie und Psychologie. Bonn, Germany: Psychiatrie-Verlag. Steinberg, H. (2002). Der Briefwechsel zwischen Wilhelm Wundt und Emil Kraepelin. Zeugnis einer jahrzehntelangen Freundschaft. Bern, Switzerland: Huber. Steinberg, H., & Angermeyer, M. C. (2001). Emil Kraepelin’s years at Dorpat as professor of psychiatry in nineteenth-century Russia. History of Psychiatry, 12, 297–327. Steinberg, H., & Angermeyer, M. C. (2002). Der Aufenthalt Emil Kraepelins an der schlesischen Provinzial-Irrenanstalt Leubus. Fortschritte der Neurologie–Psychiatrie, 70, 252–258. Weber, M. M. (2000). Psychiatric research and science policy in Germany: The history of the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Psychiatrie [German Institute for Psychiatric Research] in Munich from 1917 to 1945. History of Psychiatry, 11, 235–258. Weber, M. M., Holsboer, F., Hoff, P., Ploog, D., & Hippius, H. (Eds.). (2000–2013). Edition Emil Kraepelin. Vols. 1–8. Munich, Germany: Belleville. Wundt, W. (1863). Vorlesungen über Menschen- und Thierseele. Leipzig, Germany: Voss. Wundt, W. (1874). Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie. Leipzig, Germany: Engelmann.

PART II PSYCHOLOGY AS A GROWING INTERNATIONAL EUROPEAN SCIENCE

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 5

MARIA MONTESSORI The Worldwide Impact of an Italian Educator and Child Psychologist Grant J. Rich

The word education derives from the Latin term “educare”—to lead out— as in, to assist someone from a state of ignorance to a state of insight, to illuminate rather than obfuscate. Without a doubt, one of the 20th century’s greatest educators has been and continues to be Maria Montessori. In particular, Montessori became known for the educational system that bears her name, and which focuses upon individualized learning based upon the particular child’s cognitive-developmental level and interests rather than on the then-popular mass rote learning in traditional schools. She was especially critical of educational systems that seemed to thwart and stifle student creativity and learning by forcing students to follow blueprint schemas designed for typical or average students rather than plans that noted individual differences. Her work on early childhood education has been highly influential, as has her approach that involves hands-on, concrete learning to promote cognitive development. In addition, her views on the roles of peers and the value of peers and near-peers in education have been shared

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 81–91 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

81

82    G. J. RICH

with other and later psychologists, for instance, as in Lev Vygotsky’s work on the zone of proximal development (see Chapter 6 in this volume). In 1896, Montessori became the first woman in Italy to earn her medical degree. She then began her work educating children, ultimately opening her own school in 1907. When she passed away in 1952, she had earned an international reputation, and today her schools as well as schools inspired in part by her approach, can be found on six continents. This expansion and current interest can serve as a great testament to her enduring influence, especially given the reality that most social science research is quickly forgotten. BASIC BIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND Maria Tecla Artemesia Montessori was born on August 31, 1870, in (Chiaravalle) Ancona, Italy, a city about 170 miles northeast of Rome, on the Adriatic Sea. Her family was educated and middle-class, but Italy at the time held conservative views regarding women in education. Thus, Maria faced many obstacles on her path, from not only her male classmates and professors, but also from her family, especially her father Alessandro. Her father was a descendent of a noble family from Bologna and had a military background (Standing, 1962, p. 21). He worked as an official for the Ministry of Finance in the local tobacco factory. Her mother, Renilde, exceptionally well educated for the era, was a great-niece of Italian geologist-priest Antonio Stoppani. The Montessori family moved to Florence in 1873 and then to Rome in 1875. When Maria began school at age 6, her accolades were not especially noteworthy, though she earned awards for good behavior and for “women’s work.” By age 13, Maria entered secondary school, studying various subjects from Italian and history to math and science, and graduating with excellent grades. At age 16 she began to attend the Regio Istituto Tecnico Leonardo da Vinci, again studying multiple subjects ranging from Italian and history to math, chemistry, physics, botany, and foreign languages. She graduated at age 20 in 1890 in physics-mathematics and elected to study medicine, though she had also considered engineering. In her pursuit of the medical education she was discouraged by many, including her father and Guido Baccelli, professor at the University of Rome. She nonetheless enrolled in 1890, taking courses in natural sciences and other topics, earning a diploma di licenza in 1892, which permitted her to enter the medical program in 1893, as she had also completed other required courses in languages. Frequently harassed by students and professors for being a female, she was required to dissect the naked cadavers alone, after the males had left, as co-educational dissection was considered scandalous in the conservative

Maria Montessori    83

Roman Catholic Italy of the day. Despite all of these challenges, she completed her medical degree from the University of Rome La Sapienza in 1896, even winning an academic award in her first year, and thus became the first woman physician in all of Italy. That year she was also selected to represent Italy at an international feminist congress in Berlin, and she was mentioned in the press in many nations (Standing, 1962, p. 27). Her thesis was published in 1897 in Policlinico. Notably, on March 31, 1898, Mario, her only child, was born. Maria did not marry the father, who was another physician, but continued on with her research and practice. Sadly, while Maria attempted to keep the relationship secret, when it was exposed, she opted to place Mario in foster care, only to be reunited with Mario in his teens. Mario later became deeply involved with Maria’s research and dissemination programs as her collaborator. Maria Montessori truly began her professional career by working with poor, underprivileged city children at Rome’s Orthogenic School in 1899, becoming its director in 1900. Most of these children were viewed as “deficient or insane” in the language of the day and would likely be viewed as cognitively delayed or disabled today. She was dissatisfied with the passive, traditional approach to the learning she witnessed, which she felt led to poor learning outcomes. Montessori founded her own school in 1907, for three to seven year olds living in the poor Rome neighborhoods. At this Casa dei Bambini, located at 58 Via dei Marsi near the University of Rome, Montessori applied her scientific and empirical approach to evaluating education methods, developing a sense that readiness was a key variable for student success, and thus children ought to be able to learn at a pace that was individualized for their level of preparation. While she drew inspiration from some 18th and 19th century French physicians, such as Jean Marc Gaspard Itard (renowned for his work with the so-called feral child, the wild boy of Aveyron; see Lane, 1979) and from Édouard Séguin, her primary innovation came from her own observations and explorations with the children with which she worked. In particular, Montessori spent countless hours developing materials for classroom use that would optimize student engagement and learning; many of these objects remain in Montessori classrooms to the present day, such as sandpaper alphabets and lacing boards. It is important to note though that Montessori was not an “anything goes” style educator; she valued respect and discipline and the importance of teaching these qualities to students (e.g., Montessori, 1912/1964, 1962/1967). In fact, some have critiqued Montessori education as too structured, with its special materials and routines. A closer analysis of her writings and classrooms would suggest these critiques to be misplaced (Lillard, 2007). As an example of the freedom in the Montessori classroom, one can point out the fact that the special learning materials would not be locked away in a cabinet but placed instead in open shelves close to the floor where

84    G. J. RICH

children could select the items that most interested them, again facilitating student engagement and promoting intrinsic motivation at developmentally appropriate levels. Other practical adaptations in the Montessori system included the innovation of developing and constructing child-sized materials such as tables and chairs, as well as sample kitchenware such as childsized bowls and knives. Rather than focus on traditional style rote learning of irrelevant facts, Montessori students relished learning practical skills, such as they would encounter at home, and her physician background was apparent in her teaching practical hygiene skills as well, such as the use of a handkerchief to blow one’s nose and maintaining a clean food-preparation environment. After completing her medical degree in 1896, Montessori continued further study, auditing several courses in pedagogy in 1897, which helped shape her thinking through review of earlier thought on education. By 1898, she had already written several articles, and in 1899 she was named a councilor to the National League for the Protection of Retarded Children. She lectured on the topic in a teacher training program at the College of Rome and also went on a several-weeks-long national tour. She soon was appointed a hygiene and anthropology lecturer at one of the only two teacher training schools in Italy for women. By 1900, the National League opened its Orthophrenic School to train teachers to work with children with cognitive disabilities, and Montessori was appointed co-director. Notably, the teacher training school included a laboratory classroom, and there Montessori was able to develop some of the materials and theories for which she was to become famous. She left the school in 1901 and in 1902 enrolled in a philosophy degree program at the University of Rome. While she did not graduate, the coursework in philosophy and psychology-related topics influenced her own intellectual development beyond her medical school training. Between 1903 and 1904 she published four articles on what she came to call “scientific pedagogy,” work that viewed education as serious business to be approached empirically and with a scientific method that focused on evidence and data. By 1904 she became a lecturer in anthropology at the University of Rome, having conducted anthropological research with Italian children, and lectured at the University’s Pedagogic School until 1908. Lectures based on this period were published in Pedagogical Anthropology (1908/1913). Montessori’s schools and her personal reputation grew and expanded, and by 1909 she offered the first teacher training course in her new methods. With the success of the first Casa dei Bambini came other Montessori schools, the second one in 1907, three more in 1908, and by 1909 Montessori-style education found its way to Switzerland. By 1912 Montessori education was found in many European cities, including Paris, with plans for expansion to Australia, North and South America (including the United States), and

Maria Montessori    85

several Asian nations, including China, Korea, and Japan. A set of popular articles in the North American publication McClure’s Magazine brought her work to the attention of such luminaries as Alexander Graham Bell, and by 1913 there were 100 Montessori schools in the United States. Montessori’s book The Montessori Method (1912/1964) became a solid seller, and she traveled to the United States on successful tours in 1913 and 1915. At one lecture at New York’s Carnegie Hall, 5,000 people attended (Standing, 1962, p. 63). In 1915 she relocated to Barcelona, Spain, and devoted much of the next several decades to offering teacher trainer workshops. She made considerable inroads in Spain, but by 1920 the Catalonian independence movement demanded Montessori take a political stand in favor of Catalonian independence. When she refused, support for her programs was removed. With the rise of political tensions there, Montessori programs declined, despite the fact that Montessori herself remained in Barcelona for over a decade more. She left permanently in 1936, with the start of the Spanish Civil War. Not surprisingly, during these years, with her increased travel and teacher training work, she had resigned her University of Rome position in 1919. Montessori education continued to spread around the globe. For instance, Montessori first lectured in the Netherlands in Amsterdam in 1917 and by the mid-1930s there were about 200 Montessori schools there. Montessori’s first visit to England was in 1919, where she offered one of her well-known teacher training courses. Montessori schools and groups were also created between about 1913 and 1936 in places ranging from Belgium to Russia, Serbia, Canada, India, Indonesia, and New Zealand. In Italy, the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini impacted Montessori’s work greatly; Montessori had met Mussolini in 1924, and he had offered to support her programs, even founding a Montessori teacher training program in 1927. Notably though, a split eventually occurred, with a focus on Montessori’s public lectures on peace and education. The result was that Maria and her son were placed under political watch. She left Italy in 1934 after resigning from the Italian Montessori Society (Opera Montessori) and indeed the Italian government stopped Montessori programs in Italy by 1936. After departing Barcelona in 1936, Montessori briefly lived in England and then relocated to Laren, near Amsterdam. In 1938 the Theosophical Society invited her to lecture in India. By 1939 she left with her son, now also her collaborator, for India, where they remained mostly in Madras and Kodaikanal until about 1946, while also lecturing in Kashmir, Ahmedabad, and Adyar. Intriguingly, the great Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore was an advocate, and many Tagore-Montessoristyle schools were founded in India during these years. During her time in India she also met Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru (Standing, 1962, p. 70). It is important to place these geographic peregrinations both in the context of the increasingly militaristic years leading up to World War II as well

86    G. J. RICH

as Montessori’s own personal mission to spread her ideas widely and well around the globe. Also notable is that Montessori began to speak more frequently on peace and education during the 1930s at such places as Brussels, Copenhagen, Geneva, Nice, and Utrecht, and material from these peace conferences was eventually published in Peace and Education (1932). Indeed, Montessori was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and was awarded the French Legion of Honor and an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Amsterdam. Finally, in 1946, after the end of World War II, Montessori returned to Amsterdam; her movements had been curtailed since 1940 when England entered the war and all Italians (such as those in the colonies, including India) were considered enemy aliens. After the war, she continued her travels, especially in Europe and India, and in 1947, she returned to Italy to reopen the Opera Montessori. Several of her final books or revisions were published in these years, including The Absorbent Mind (1949) and The Discovery of the Child (1962/1967). Busy and productive until her final years, Maria Montessori passed away from a brain hemorrhage on May 6, 1952, in Noorwijk-onSea, the Netherlands at age 81. She is buried in the small cemetery of the Catholic Church at Noorwijk (Standing 1962, p. 72). MAJOR PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS Montessori’s Casa dei Bambini for poor children in Rome’s San Lorenzo area was a popular success and countless visitors arrived and left enthused, spreading her ideas around the globe. She attracted the attention not only of educators but also of politicians and inventors. For instance, from the United States, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and even Woodrow Wilson offered their support (Standing, 1962, p. 63). In addition to the positive student outcomes, the empirical basis of the program was considered innovative, as in the careful selection and development of the special Montessori materials. These include her development of equipment such as metal insets, tying frames, color tablets, rough and smooth boards, sandpaper letters, the spindle box, the binomial cube, a triangle tray, musical bells, and wooden cylinders (this last one to teach size, thickness, and length). In addition, she presented activities such as practical life exercises, including table washing and dressing frames, the latter being square wooden frames with snaps, buttons, or zippers to help teach children to develop the needed facility and experience to fasten their own clothing (Lillard, 2007). By the mid 1920s there were tens of thousands of Montessori schools internationally, and over 1,000 Montessori schools existed in the United States. In more recent years it has been more difficult to assess precisely

Maria Montessori    87

how many nations may be considered to have Montessori schools, and to define precisely which schools should be viewed as Montessori schools. Some argue for over 6,000 Montessori schools in the United States today, most of which focus on children aged two to six, though there appears to be an increase in Montessori schools that serve older children, with about 250 U.S. middle schools utilizing some aspects of the Montessori model (Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, 2005a; Lillard, 2007). In counting such schools, for instance, must the school call itself a Montessori school to be considered a Montessori school? Perhaps it utilizes some Montessori materials and philosophy but not all. Other schools may call themselves Montessori schools but use few if any of the original Montessori materials or philosophy, and of course teacher training ranges widely in quality. The American Montessori Society in the United States has accredited about 50 Montessori teacher education centers in the United States, and there are other Montessori associations as well, including the one created by Maria Montessori in 1929, the Association Montessori Internationalize (AMI), and the North American Montessori Teachers Association (NAMTA). Such a situation makes evaluating modern Montessori schools a true research challenge. In perhaps the best modern single volume evaluation of Montessori’s approach, Angeline Stoll Lillard (2007) reviews the “science behind the genius,” by examining Montessori’s theory and Montessori schools in light of contemporary research from developmental psychology, human development, early childhood education, and related fields. In particular, Lillard singles out eight insights Montessori developed from her observations of children and schools. These eight principles merit quoting (Lillard, 2007, p. 29): 1. That movement and cognition are closely entwined, and movement can enhance thinking and learning; 2. That learning and wellbeing are improved when people have a sense of control over their lives; 3. That people learn better when they are interested in what they are learning; 4. That tying extrinsic rewards to an activity, like money for reading or high grades for tests, negatively impacts motivation to engage in that activity when the reward is withdrawn; 5. That collaborative arrangements can be very conducive to learning; 6. That learning situated in meaningful contexts is often deeper and richer than learning in abstract contexts; 7. That particular forms of adult interaction are associated with more optimal child outcomes; and 8. That order in the environment is beneficial to children.

88    G. J. RICH

Readers interested in a close examination of how Montessori’s philosophy and today’s Montessori’s schools measure up will find the Lillard (2007) book essential reading. While she is clearly enthusiastic about the Montessori approach, she does not shy away from noting places where research is lacking or where data may be more complex and nuanced than originally predicted by Montessori’s theoretical work. For instance, Montessori notably encouraged children to make choices about what materials they would work with and when. This then-novel idea was that student interest would be engaged during the process of selection and that allowing students some free choice of activities would enable teachers to observe and facilitate children’s psychological needs, and children would likely select developmentally appropriate materials. It is indeed true that modern research supports the value of learner-focused decision-making, but it is also true that modern research has pointed out that sometimes having too many choices can be detrimental to educational outcomes and well-being (e.g., Schwartz, 2005). At any rate, in addition to spreading her system of education to many schools around the globe, much contemporary research in developmental psychology, education, and human development supports major points claimed by Montessori in her writings, especially with respect to her insights regarding motivation, mastery, learning, and what the Fiume, Italyborn psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and his colleagues have termed the flow experience (Lillard, 2007). Flow may be defined as a state of optimal experience that people report when they are intensely involved in doing something they enjoy doing; the state is similar in a number of respects to the concept of intrinsic motivation (as opposed to extrinsic motivation, such as working to receive grades or gold stars) (Rich, 2013). Indeed, ample modern research indicates many cases in which extrinsic motivation degrades academic performances and reduces learning outcomes (Lillard, 2007). Utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data from diverse samples around the globe, and examining both child and adult samples, the flow experience has been linked to a number of positive outcomes, from enhanced athletic and musical performance to improved creativity and academic achievement (Rich, 2013). Csikszentmihalyi clearly views Montessori’s view of the value and reality of a toddler’s deep engagement with her sensorial classroom materials as evidence that children of this age experience flow (Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, 2005a). While much of Montessori’s work focused on children aged 2 to 6, and most Montessori programs today work with this population, she did also write on older children and adolescents, and recently there has been a renewal in modern research investigating the utility of her approach for older children. For instance, Rathunde and Csikszentmihalyi (2005a, 2005b) have examined middle-school students’ motivation and quality of experience by comparing Montessori to traditional school environments. Using

Maria Montessori    89

the Experience Sampling Method, which uses alarm pagers to randomly signal students throughout the day, at which time participants fill out brief questionnaires about their emotions, cognitions, and environments, the authors assessed nearly 300 students, finding that the Montessori students reported greater positive mood, energy, intrinsic motivation/flow, and focused interest while engaged with academic school activities (Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, 2005b). Further investigation by these scholars of the social context of middle school found that the Montessori students, compared to the students in the traditional middle-school environment, reported more positive perceptions of teachers and their school environment, and were more likely to perceive their classmates as friends while at school. Furthermore, the researchers found that the Montessori students spent more time being engaged with school-related activities, from tasks and chores to group work and individual projects (Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, 2005a). The deep engagement often found in the best Montessori classrooms may be linked to several elements of the flow experience, in particular, a balance of challenges and skills, and a perception by the participant that an activity is simultaneously both like work and like play. If an activity is too challenging, anxiety may result; if not challenging enough, the activity may seem dull and boring. Thus, allowing students to select their own materials from the prepared environment helps facilitate a skillsand-challenges match conducive to flow. The deep engagement of attention present in flow was recognized in much earlier work by John Dewey when he noted such relations as “playful and serious at the same time” (Dewey, 1910/1997). Dewey’s thinking has received some modern empirical support with older adolescents, in work by Schmidt and Rich (2000) that utilized a sample of nearly 30,000 Experience Sampling Method responses from 866 adolescents. Participants were asked to indicate if the activity they were doing when signaled was more like work, more like play, like both work and play, or like neither work nor play. Teenagers spent about 29% of their time in activities perceived to be worklike, 28% of their time in activities perceived to be play-like, 24% of their time in activities they perceived to be neither like work nor play, but only about 9% of their time in activities they perceived to be simultaneously both like work and play. Notably, it is activities falling in the last category, namely, those that are seen by participants to be both like work and play, that are most likely to be flow-like. The implications for education and development seem evident when placed in the context of both Montessori and Csikszentmihalyi’s work. In other words, helping children—or adolescents—find activities that balance their challenges and skills, and which are simultaneously perceived by them to be valuable and productive, yet also play-like, is conducive to psychological states such as intrinsic motivation that are linked repeatedly in the research literature to positive learning outcomes.

90    G. J. RICH

Thus, further research ought to explore Montessori-influenced pedagogical approaches with older adolescents beyond the middle-school age and even into college classrooms. The empirical research base as well as the pertinent theoretical framework suggest that learning opportunities that are flow-like and reflect the deep engagement and absorption described by Montessori ought to be valuable pedagogically for students of all ages. Nevertheless, additional research on such topics and populations is needed. To conclude, Montessori’s reputation as an international psychology pioneer seems assured. Not only did she develop an innovative new educational system that was empirically based, she also worked tirelessly to see that her ideas were disseminated across the globe. Today, over 60 years after her passing, her legacy is apparent in the many academic books and articles that continue to evaluate and broaden her approach. Countless laypersons, such as parents who consider sending their children to Montessori schools, make her a household name in a number of nations. Even working Italians, who until recently could spot the visionary visage of Maria Montessori on every 1,000 Lire banknote, have been kept aware of her work while conducting their daily business. Such far-ranging and long-term impact clearly demonstrates that Maria Montessori truly deserves to be viewed as an international psychology pioneer. REFERENCES Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1910) Lane, H. (1979). The wild boy of Aveyron. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lillard, A. S. (2007). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Montessori, M. (1913). Pedagogical anthropology. New York, NY: Stokes. (Original work published 1908) Montessori, M. (1932). Peace and education. Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education. Montessori, M. (1949). The absorbent mind. Madras, India: Theosophical Publishing House. Montessori, M. (1964) The Montessori method. New York, NY: Schocken. (Original work published 1912). Montessori, M. (1967). The discovery of the child. New York, NY: Ballantine. (Original work published 1962). Rathunde, K., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005a). The social context of middle school: Teachers, friends, and activities in Montessori and traditional school environments. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 59–79. Rathunde, K., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005b). Middle school students’ motivation and quality of experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. American Journal of Education, 111, 341–371.

Maria Montessori    91 Rich, G. (2013). Finding flow: The history and future of a positive psychology concept. In J. Sinnott (Ed.), Positive psychology: Advances in understanding adult motivation (pp. 43–60). New York, NY: Springer. Schmidt, J., & Rich, G. (2000). Images of work and play. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & B. Schneider (Eds.), Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the world of work (pp. 67–94). New York, NY: Basic. Schwartz, B. (2005). The paradox of choice. New York, NY: Harper. Standing, E. M. (1962). Maria Montessori: Her life and work. New York, NY: Mentor Omega.

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 6

LEV S. VYGOTSKY A Hamletian Spirit With Marxist Dispositions Uwe P. Gielen and Samvel Jeshmaridian

Since the mid-1950s, Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky has been widely considered a key figure in Russian psychology as well as an important developmental psychologist all over the world. With his broad knowledge of the arts, sciences, world literature, and philosophical works, Vygotsky’s thinking was unique and progressive for his time. He was an influential thinker and a prolific writer who, with his cultural-historical theory, explored sociocognitive development, that is, the development of mind and consciousness in society. Looking admiringly back to the Golden Age of Russian literature of the 19th century, Lev Vygotsky viewed himself as a son of the Silver Age of Russian culture, but he also looked forward to a future when Russia’s “feudal” backwardness would be reversed through decisive revolutionary actions accompanied by social and cultural transformation. In this interpretive essay, we explore Vygotsky’s life and thought in the context of the evolving Soviet society and state of his day, a context whose impact on Vygotsky’s theorizing many Western psychologists and educators

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 93–104 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

93

94    U. P. GIELEN and S. JESHMARIDIAN

prefer to minimize. Our essay is in part based on an earlier article in which we focus on the political forces of his day that helped shape his preoccupations and what he sometimes calls his overall method (i.e., his general theoretical approach) (Gielen & Jeshmaridian, 1999). According to Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory, the development of all higher cognitive processes and functions is naturally social and hence, all social development has a cognitive basis. Social and cognitive processes are integrally connected due to the processes (mechanisms) of internalization and externalization. The social basis of higher cognitive processes, in turn, is intertwined with the prevailing economic conditions in a given society. Using Marxism as a starting point, Vygotsky developed a threefold vision focusing on phylogenetic, sociohistorical, and ontogenetic development (Vygotsky & Luria, 1930/1993). The three processes of development could be brought together by a common Marxist vision based on the concepts of general and societal evolution, dialectical materialism, determinism, and the central importance of physical and psychological tools. Within this Marxist theme, Vygotsky’s special focus was on children’s development and education within their historically and culturally constituted environments, an education that, however, was also aimed at creating the ideal Soviet citizen and society of the future. Vygotsky argued that internalized signs mediate between environment and behavior, and that these sign-tools act as “psychological tools” structuring memory, attention, self-control, intentional behavior, and other higher psychological processes and functions. These internalized signs are prominently shaped by or derived from the interiorization of speech. Speech, in turn, develops out of social communication and social interaction. LEV VYGOTSKY’S LIFE AND EDUCATION Vygotsky came from a rather well-to-do Jewish family and spent his early childhood in Orsha, a provincial place between Minsk and Gomel in today’s Belarus. His heritage was both Russian and Jewish, and he shared both cultures equally. As a child, Vygotsky read two books in Hebrew that exerted a strong influence on his thinking, the Talmud and the Torah. These historical books shaped his thinking, his everyday activities, and more indirectly, his approach to science. He would later endorse a historical and dialectical (but not religious) approach that reflected a similar dramatic emphasis on cultural-historical development, the struggle between good and evil forces, collective action, the hope for collective salvation, insight into the ultimate meaning of history, and the same comprehensive quality of arguing that he had learned to appreciate in the Talmud and the Torah. His later focus

Lev S. Vygotsky    95

centered on historical materialism and dialectical materialism, a focus that helped him develop three methods to tackle the critical questions of social existence. At the university, Vygotsky dabbled in medicine, law, philology, linguistics, and philosophy before settling on psychology. Though he did not receive a systematic education in psychology, he was widely read and studied many of its historical figures and some of the most influential thinkers of his time including Piaget as well as various colleagues in the German-speaking countries. However, Vygotsky never became a simple follower of any of them. Despite fighting against bouts of tuberculosis, Vygotsky continued writing under an inner creative compulsion and completed most of his work in a mere 10 years. Given these conditions and his literary imagination, many of his writings possess a sketchy, hurried, and impressionistic quality. His work remained an unfinished torso with much of it unpublished for many years because of political tensions and other reasons. Moreover, some of his central ideas changed over time. Even today, some 80 years after his death, it is not always clear what Vygotsky “really” wished to say given the many shifts and transformations in his theorizing over the years (e.g., Zavershneva, 2010). Vygotsky’s explorations began in the arts, followed by the natural sciences, and eventually ended up with experimental psychology. Focusing on his favorite character, Hamlet (see below), The Psychology of Art (Vygotsky, 1974) remains to this day one of the best books in this field, but it is still underestimated by both Russian and American researchers. Vygotsky’s talent enriched four major areas of knowledge of the time: linguistics, psychology, education, and anthropology. Vygotsky wrote about experimental psychology, defectology, Kornilov’s reactology, Pavlov’s theory (a critical appraisal), and Freudo-Marxism (an attack) to finally develop his cultural-historical theory, contributing not only to psychology but also to cultural anthropology. Vygotsky also impacted the realms of psycholinguistics and sociocognitive theorizing with his ideas regarding concept formation and the relationship between thought and speech as well as between thought and motives. After moving to Moscow in 1924, Vygotsky became a significant force in Soviet psychology (Daniels, 1996, p. 49), together with a group of talented collaborators, including Alexander Luria, Alexei Leontiev, Lidia Bozhovich, Alexander Zaporozhets, Natalia Morozova, Rosa Levina, and Liya Slavina (Yaroshevsky, 1989). Though still young, the well-read, charismatic Vygotsky provided the central theoretical inspiration for this group (Luria, 1979). During the following decade, Vygotsky became a central figure in an evolving network of scholars, which would help to preserve his legacy after his death in 1934 (Yasnitsky, 2011).

96    U. P. GIELEN and S. JESHMARIDIAN

VYGOTSKY’S OUTLOOK ON HUMAN EXISTENCE IN THE FACE OF A DEBILITATING DISEASE While attending gymnasium in the town of Gomel, Vygotsky began to write his most passionate and personal work: an analysis of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, which he later submitted as his doctoral dissertation. Russian intellectuals have often sublimated their religious strivings in literature and art, and the young Vygotsky followed this time-honored tradition. He was in so many ways a Hamletian himself, often referring to “My Hamlet” at his dissertation defense in 1916 and afterwards. In his dissertation, Vygotsky explored the metaphysical forces manifested in Hamlet’s mysterious encounters with ghosts and shadows, and he fully identified himself with the death-haunted, existential hero. Given Vygotsky’s early debilitating encounters with tuberculosis, the romantic opposition of the forces of life and death in Hamlet’s youthful character found a ready echo in his lively adolescent soul (Vygotsky, 1974). He responded deeply to Hamlet’s brooding melancholy and to his awareness of the solitariness of human existence which time will soon bring to its inevitable end (Kozulin, 1990). On the eve of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, Vygotsky experienced an existential alienation that may have originated from mixed feelings of personal dissatisfaction, discontent with the seemingly disastrous course the Russian society was pursuing, and the hope that a future communist society based on scientific principles would overcome the anti-Semitism endemic in Russian society. Given this psychological situation, Vygotsky was ready to listen to the Bolshevik siren calls for national (and ultimately universal) redemption and societal reconstruction. For him, the bloody destruction of the old society ushered in a new era of hope together with a passionate commitment to a vision promising a better future for all of humanity. Like others, Vygotsky was attracted to Marxism because he perceived it as modern, scientific, and future-directed in contrast to the dismal conditions under the Czarist regime, which was “feudalistic,” reactionary, dogmatic, anti-Semitic, and backwards when compared to Western and Central European political developments. Vygotsky naturally became a Marxist scientist, adopting Marxist versions of determinism and dialectics as his analytical tools. Vygotsky believed that Marxism provided the key to solving crucial scientific dilemmas and overcoming the current “crisis of psychology” (see also Bühler, 1927). As a Jew, he had experienced the fear of pogroms and oppressions in his own hometown of Gomel. In Vygotsky’s eyes, Marxian ideology together with the Bolshevik vision of proletarian freedom seemed to be the carriers of rational, humanistic, and European promises of salvation and redemption. To overcome Russia’s general backwardness, there were two widespread types of thoughts in the Jewish community: the evolutionary and the revolutionary. Vygotsky belonged to the revolutionary wing.

Lev S. Vygotsky    97

In the early 1920s, discussions on how to best use Marxism were still in progress. For about 15 years following the Bolshevik revolution, there continued to be more or less open debates about the various perspectives on Marxism and its role in creating a new society. For instance, the social democrat Martov expressed his doubts as to the relevance of Marxist economic doctrine to the postwar world: The state of the world is at present so exceptional that it does not at all fit into our usual schemes of Marxist analysis; to infer the main line of development requires fresh scientific study which would significantly add to and might possibly change the economic conceptions of Marx. (Getzler, 1967, p. 225)

(The young Vygotsky, too, derived from Hegel, Marx, and Engels a more general approach than a specific theory concerning psychology, which in his view remained to be developed.) However, at the behest of his party comrade Vladimir I. Lenin and others, Martov was soon accused of violating Party discipline, exiled for disobedience, and sent to his death in exile in 1923. The suppressing mechanisms in the Party, the systematic exploitation of class hatreds, and the calculated use of terror were not invented in one day, but they were nevertheless inherent in the Party. They constituted crucial aspects of the Bolsheviks’ Party discipline and of the Party’s overall approach to dealing with political disagreements and problems. Marxist-Leninist discussions and “dialogues” were growing in psychology as well as in ideological debates regarding society, politics, and economics. At times, they appeared to have a hidden agenda, namely, to discover the intellectuals and important thinkers in the various intellectual fields and areas of activity, and then set them against each other to ensure that they would destroy each other. In politics, the end of relatively free Marxist discussions had already occurred in the early-middle 1920s, in political economics in the second half of the 1920s, in pedagogy and psychology in the mid-1930s, and in biology during the late 1930s. Thus, in the early 1930s, restrictions of Bolshevik scientists regarding freethinking about social issues appeared (McNeal, 1988; Rigby, 1966). The Communist leaders succeeded in making scientific schools fight each other. Once a winner had emerged in these struggles, his position would then be declared the only truly Marxist and scientific one by the dominant leaders. Such a sequence of events occurred in many different fields, including philosophy, biology, linguistics, political economics, and psychology (Solzhenitsyn, 1973, p. 50). The Party had only limited interest in science, unless it gave the Party leaders power and control over the citizens or led to fame in the international arena. In this way, Soviet science tended to become an instrument for political manipulation and suppression.

98    U. P. GIELEN and S. JESHMARIDIAN

Moreover, many in the new generation of Bolsheviks were poorly educated, resented those with higher education, and were suspicious of them. They could easily enforce their restrictions in a fragile society, which for a brief period had been trying to become open. As a result of local party meetings and “scientific discussions,” great thinkers were turned into victims and scapegoats, helping the Bolshevik/Communist Party to “reveal the hidden enemies of the people.” In this context, Vygotsky’s foremost co-worker, Luria, had abandoned his potentially dangerous study of cultural psychology to concentrate on the clinical aspects of neuropsychology, saving him from getting involved in most of the ongoing ideological and political disputes (Luria, 1979; see also Chapter 7 in this volume). Vygotsky himself was not attacked directly but nevertheless was implicitly perceived by many as a persona non grata. Moreover, between 1929 and 1934 (the year of Vygotsky’s death), the Communist Party waged war against the “reactionary” peasantry of the USSR, which made up four fifths of the population. Following Leninist-Stalinist theory, the leadership perceived an independent peasantry to be a major threat to the rule of the Communist Party and decided to destroy the peasantry through the twin processes of dekulakization and collectivization. Dekulakization meant the deportation or outright killing of millions of kulaks, a term which in practice referred to those peasants who either owned small plots of land or resisted the Party’s collectivization plans in any way. Terror and famine engulfed these kolkhozes (collective farms), a time during which an estimated 12.0–14.5 million persons may have died (Conquest, 1987; but see also Tauger, 1991). Moreover, in Central Asia during 1928–1932, devastating famines occurred because Stalin’s Soviet Government requisitioned livestock and food commodities from the nomadic and seminomadic herders that made up large proportions of the populations in the Uzbek Soviet Republic, the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Kazakhstan. Ohayon (2013), for instance, has estimated that about one third of the four million Kazakhs in Kazakhstan died as a consequence of the Soviet campaign to sedentarize them, in addition to the several hundred thousand Kazakhs that migrated to neighboring regions. In Russia as well as in the West, these events are less well known than, for instance, the Holodomor (holocaust) in the Ukraine. While these bloody events were unfolding in 1931 and 1932, Vygotsky and Luria organized two psychological expeditions to Soviet Central Asia to validate Vygotsky’s Marxist hypothesis about the close connection between the political-economic, educational, and social-cognitive dimensions of human existence. Vygotsky, who because of illness and other reasons did not participate in these expeditions, predicted that the introduction of schooling as well as the ongoing transition from the “feudalistic” conditions prevailing in the traditional villages of Uzbekistan and Kirgizia to the

Lev S. Vygotsky    99

more modern, scientific, and collective forms of agricultural production in the kolkhozes would induce former peasants to think in less “primitive” and more modern, “scientific,” and logical ways about cognitive and social issues and problems. The research by Luria’s group seemed to prove that, for instance, the traditional, mostly illiterate Muslim peasants and pastoralists in his study were unable to solve simple syllogisms or to engage in counterfactual thinking because their minds remained wedded to the concrete circumstances of their lives. In contrast, some of the more modern and bettereducated persons gathered in the kolkhozes and elsewhere comprehended many of the syllogisms and could also engage in counterfactual thinking about hypothetical situations. In Piagetian terms, the latter findings would seem to indicate the presence of some kind of formal operational thinking. Vygotsky and Luria, however, were sharply criticized for their “cross-historical” and cross-cultural interpretations of the expeditions’ results, and so much of this research remained unpublished for several decades. Vygotsky and Luria’s experiments and simplistic interpretations were based on Marxist assumptions about the evolution of society, an evolution that “Socialist Reconstruction” and forced industrialization were trying to enforce. While celebrating their experimental results as providing important support for their cultural-historical theory, the two psychologists either overlooked or remained ignorant of the widespread suffering, terror, and continued Soviet Russian imperialism that went hand in hand with “Socialist progress” in Uzbekistan, Kirgizia, and Kazakhstan in particular, as well as in the Soviet Union more generally. Their Marxist convictions and their (implicit) Marxist “idealism” blinded them to the sheer inhumanity of Socialist Reconstruction. Although they themselves were certainly not Stalinists, as Marxists they were reluctant to grasp the inherently totalitarian nature of the evolving new society and its intensifying tendency to starve peasants and nomadic herders into submission, send them to “educational labor camps,” or kill them outright. It might be useful in this context to try explaining how Vygotsky’s humanistic idealism blinded him to the deeply destructive nature of Bolshevik revolutionary action. Idealism, in general, is based on a person’s unwillingness and motivated inability to perceive his or her Jungian shadow and the shadows of idealized others, that is, both one’s own and the others’ inherent potential for deception, self-deception, indifference, destructiveness, and cravings for power. Such tendencies are then unconsciously projected onto one’s (perceived) adversaries, enemies, and members of various outgroups and outcasts (e.g., capitalists, “enemies of the people,” traitors of the Proletarian cause, “backwards” peasants resisting the expropriation of their property in the name of Socialism, Muslim and other clerics, kulaks, conservative thinkers declared to be reactionaries, etc.). Seen in this light, idealism is a form of self-deception that helps the person maintain a more

100    U. P. GIELEN and S. JESHMARIDIAN

acceptable picture of oneself and certain others. For all his creative psychological theorizing, Vygotsky was an idealist for much of his life, neither fully understanding himself nor his complicity in the supposedly liberating but in fact highly destructive drive toward a Communist society. Moreover, the task of understanding the rapidly changing society was made more difficult because there existed no historical model of how a Communist society might either develop positively or go astray. Although Marxist intellectuals frequently claim that they act and think on behalf of “the people,” these privileged members of the Soviet intelligentsia were in fact (or implicitly expected to become) a part of the power elite of their country. Although Vygotsky was more resistant to such corrupting influences than his coworker Leontiev (1978), he could not escape them altogether. In addition, Vygotsky had remained in Moscow during the expeditions for medical reasons, and so he was not directly exposed to the unfolding events in the Ukraine and more generally the rural areas of the Soviet Union, nor is it likely that he fully understood the conditions then prevailing in far off Central Asia. In 1936, two years after Vygotsky’s death, the Central Committee of the Communist Party issued a special Executive Decree banning testi (tests) and outlawing “pedology” (Takooshian & Trusov, 1992). Pedology was a kind of action-oriented educational psychology emphasizing a psychological approach to child development, testing, and certain kinds of intervention by educators. Because Vygotsky had been both a leading representative of pedology (also spelled paedology) and a central figure behind the expedition to Soviet Central Asia, he had committed two dangerous “sins.” On one hand, he wanted to classify Soviet children into groups according to their thinking abilities; on the other, he tried to prove that some peoples in certain social classes within an “absolutely free country” were more advanced than others. This decree meant that Vygotsky’s ideas, in general, were now considered “bourgeois” in nature and therefore in contradiction to the supposed truths of Marxism-Leninism. However, although Vygotsky’s works were to various degrees suppressed, they never fully disappeared from psychological discourse in the Soviet Union (Fraser & Yasnitsky, 2012/2014). Vygotsky serves as an example of a kind of Marxist thinker who, in search of Marxist truth, was trying to develop a metacognitive dimension of human learning in relation to development (Ivic, 1989). Because he was a cosmopolitan thinker in contact with psychologists in other parts of Europe as well as a cosmopolitan Jew, he was bound to be attacked by the new Bolsheviks, who themselves were slavophilic, ideologically and politically intolerant, and enmeshed in the mechanisms of political power that were evolving into an evermore totalitarian state. While the time of “open and free” discussions was coming to an end, the stage of revolutionary scapegoating was intensifying in the early 1930s.

Lev S. Vygotsky    101

Unable to understand why this should be so, Vygotsky nevertheless realized that he was now considered to be outside “true” Marxism. Bluma Zeigarnik, Vygotsky’s assistant in a psychiatric clinic, remembered how Vygotsky ran to and fro in the clinic, saying, “I do not want to live any more, they do not want to consider me a Marxist” (Joravsky, 1989; Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1991). As Koestler and others have pointed out, former Marxists tend to experience a powerful psychological disorientation when they leave the Party or are excommunicated from it (Crossman, 1950; Koestler, 1941). For the sensitive and highly social Vygotsky, the Party was a home and Communism a philosophy of life that provided hope and meaning to his suffering. When he realized that he had been placed outside this home, his hopes dwindled, the meaning of his existence evaporated, and he had to face death alone. He doubted that the legacy of his brief life would survive in the face of rapidly mounting political hostilities, although many of his former co-workers would continue to endorse his ideas more or less openly after his death. Vygotsky also started to believe that “Sabbath was created for Man, not Man for Sabbath.” By this he meant that ideas exist to serve man, rather than man being the servant of ideas; Marxism should serve society and the people rather than the other way around. As a free thinker, he liked to cite the New Testament, but such citations were now becoming more and more dangerous; he could be accused of religious feelings and idealism in a society where materialism and atheism had become the obligatory way of scientific thinking. Given that philosophical materialism is in direct conflict with philosophical idealism, Vygotsky’s use of independent ideas (including his use of religious and psychological concepts) was perceived as a threat to Marxist-Leninist ideology and its central conception of class warfare. VYGOTSKY’S WORK: IN SEARCH OF A CENTRAL ORGANIZING FORCE According to Vygotsky’s theory, culture organizes human cognition, and human conduct is intertwined with all higher psychological functions as they emerge in ontogeny. At the same time, the Soviet policymakers declared that the Communist Party was the only organizing force in life. The Soviet State viewed itself as the principal source and arbiter of the arts, sciences, and everyday life of its citizens, who were becoming tools of the state. Both the dominant leaders of the Bolshevik Party and Vygotsky were in search of “a true organizer,” that is, the one and only organizing principle. In this sense, both sides were true Marxists. Their ways diverged, however, when they discussed the functions of Marxism, which, in Vygotsky’s words, concerned the question of whether Man was to serve Sabbath or Sabbath,

102    U. P. GIELEN and S. JESHMARIDIAN

Man. The Bolshevik leaders did not oppose Vygotsky’s “culture-organizing force,” but in a modest way they “had to” admit that they were indeed the source and core of the Soviet culture. The leaders’ satellites and followers, in turn, supported their leaders’ claims and were eager to prove their loyalty and ideological purity so that they might survive and prosper on the ideological battlefield. Many Soviet Marxists found in the Party a home where they formed intense if frequently conflicted and ambivalent bonds with each other. In Eriksonian terms they assumed a “totalistic identity,” an identity anchored in a highly dynamic, struggling community with shared goals possessing a semisacred quality. Their lives were now focused on a powerful and deeply moral purpose, lifting them out of and above their otherwise quotidian existence. For Vygotsky as well as for many others, to be excluded from such a community meant a kind of social-spiritual death and a confrontation with the stark fact that they had staked their existence on a chimera. With their illusions and distorted self-perceptions, few were ready for such confrontations. Even Vygotsky’s most widely cited concept—the Zone of Proximal Development, which pointed out how under the guidance of adults children learn to accomplish actions that they later accomplish independently— contains political implications. For a Marxist educator, the idea of a Zone of Proximal Development (cf. Bodrova, personal communication, June 1997) could be used to support to the proclaimed and ultimate goal of Soviet education: to create the new Soviet Man who would help create and exemplify the emerging ideal Communist society. In this context it may be maintained that the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development has a subtle authoritarian tint which distinguishes it, for instance, from Piaget’s more individualistic and democratic emphasis on discovery learning. VYGOTSKY AND U.S. PSYCHOLOGY Vygotsky described the Zone of Proximal Development as the distance between the actual development and the level of potential advancement that could be determined through the process of problem solving (Vygotsky, 1978). Many years later, American psychologists would appropriate Vygotsky’s concept of a Zone of Proximal Development by employing the term scaffolding, as developed by Wood and Middleton (1975), Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), and others. Vygotsky had never used the concept of scaffolding in his papers, but this term, together with the idea of “cooperative learning,” is today being used more or less synonymously in U.S. psychology.

Lev S. Vygotsky    103

In this context, it is both interesting and surprising to learn how and when Vygotsky’s ideas began to gain visibility in the United States. Originally, after his death in 1934, his then poorly known ideas largely disappeared from view in this country, only to be rediscovered in the 1960s and 1970s. An important step in this development occurred in 1962 when his most important work, Thought and Language (later on rendered as Thinking and Speech), was first translated into English. However, many of his Marxist comments were omitted from the translation for manifest political reasons. After all, the country had just gone through the rabidly anti-Communist McCarthy era, and so the editors of the 1962 translation may have engaged in self-censorship in order to avoid political problems for themselves. Speaking more generally, many Vygotskyites in the West have considered his Marxist ideas to be of limited intellectual value when compared to the richness of his psychological legacy. Today, many of the more pragmatically oriented American psychologists treat Vygotsky’s work as a kind of psychological gold mine that exists to be plundered for nuggets of insight and wisdom and hints for new research and new interpretations of research results. In contrast, they tend to pay insufficient attention to the question of how, and for what purposes, this gold mine was brought into existence in the first place. At the same time, many psychologists and historians like to claim that social scientific theories need to be considered in their historical, cultural, and political contexts before their true meaning and potential validity can be fully assessed. In this context one could ask whether this claim may not also hold true for Vygotsky, the idealistic, Marxist, developmental and educational psychologist condemned to live in an increasingly totalitarian country where millions of hapless peasants together with so many other victims were destroyed in order to create the “ideal” society of the future— a society which in so many ways turned out to be a monstrosity? REFERENCES Bühler, K. (1927). Die Krise der Psychologie [The crisis of psychology]. Jena, Germany: Verlag Gustav Fischer. Conquest, R. (1987). The harvest of sorrow: Soviet collectivization and the terror famine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Crossman, R. H. S. (Ed.). (1950). The god that failed: Six studies in Communism. London, UK: Hamilton. Daniels, H. (Ed.). (1996). An introduction to Vygotsky. London, UK: Routledge. Fraser, J., & Yasnitsky, A. (2012/2014). Deconstructing Vygotsky’s victimization narrative: A re-examination of the “Stalinist suppression” of Vygotskian theory. Unpublished manuscript, University of Toronto, Canada. Getzler, I. (1967). Martoy: A political biography of a Russian social democrat. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

104    U. P. GIELEN and S. JESHMARIDIAN Gielen, U. P., & Jeshmaridian, S. (1999). Lev S. Vygotsky: The man and the era. International Journal of Group Tensions, 28, 273–301. Ivic, I. (1989). Profiles of educators: Lev S. Vygotsky (1896–1934). Prospects, 19, 427–36. Joravsky, D. (1989). Russian psychology: A critical history. New York, NY: Blackwell. Koestler, A. (1941). Darkness at noon. New York, NY: Macmillan. Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Luria, A. R. (1979). The making of mind: A personal account of Soviet psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McNeal, R. H. (1988). Stalin: Man and ruler. New York: New York University Press. Ohayon, I. (2013, September 28). The Kazakh famine: The beginnings of sedentarization. Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence. Retrieved from http://www.massviolence.org/The-Kazakh-Famine-The-Beginnings Rigby, T. H. (1966). Stalin. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Solzhenitsyn, A. I. (1973). The gulag archipelago 1918–1956: An experiment in literary investigation. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Takooshian, H., & Trusov, V. P. (1992). Post-Soviet psychology. In U. P. Gielen, L. L. Adler, & N. A. Milgram (Eds.), Psychology in international perspective: 50 years of the International Council of Psychologists (pp. 54–69). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger. Tauger, M. B. (1991). The 1932 harvest and the famine of 1933. Slavic Revue, 50, 70–89. Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1974). The psychology of art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (1993). Studies on the history of behavior: Ape, primitive, and child. (V. I. Golod & J. E. Knox, Eds. & Trans.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Original work published 1930) Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89−100. Wood, D., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 181−191. Yaroshevsky, M. G. (1989). Lev Vygotsky. Moscow, Russia: Progress. Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Vygotsky circle as a personal network of scholars: Restoring connections between people and ideas. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45, 422–457. Zavershneva, E. I. (2010). The Vygotsky family archive: New findings. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48, 34–60.

CHAPTER 7

ALEXANDER R. LURIA A Brief Biography Tatiana V. Akhutina and Gary Shereshevsky

We present a biographical essay on Alexander R. Luria, one of the founders of neuropsychology and one of the most influential historical figures in this field. We show how Luria’s work and scientific system was shaped by the cultural-historical context of his times, from the early 20th century to the 1970s. In particular, it was heavily influenced by his collaboration with Lev S. Vygotsky, leading to the subsequent development of his diagnostic and rehabilitation methodology based on an understanding of higher psychological functions as dynamic, changing in structure according to the stage of their development, and heavily influenced by sociocultural factors. Luria was able to synthesize a large and disparate amount of material and formulate a comprehensive theory of cortical functioning, while at the same time maintaining an individual-centered approach to assessment and rehabilitation. In a survey of neuropsychologists conducted by Charles Long in the 1980s, Luria was ranked first among the top 10 founders of neuropsychology (Puente, 1998). His influence is strong today; the preface of the

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 105–117 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

105

106    T. V. AKHUTINA and G. SHERESHEVSKY

Handbook of School Neuropsychology has called Luria “the most famous of all neuropsychologists” (D’Amato, Fletcher-Janzen, & Reynolds, 2005, p. ix). Alexander Romanovich Luria lived a vibrant and full life. From a young age, he was very active and gifted in many ways, while writing a lot with great ease. For instance, as a professor, he addressed the students in the beginning of a fall semester as follows: “I rested very well during the summer, wrote a book” (meaning his famous romantic essay, The Man with the Shattered World [1971/1987]). About his life, Luria writes, “I divide my entire biography into two periods: small, insignificant—before meeting Vygotsky, and big, significant—after meeting him” (Luria, 2003, p. 270). Luria was born on July 16, 1902, in Kazan in a Jewish family. Kazan, situated at the confluence of the Volga and Kazanka rivers in European Russia, was at that time a big industrial and cultural center with a predominantly Tatar Russian population. Its university is the third oldest in Russia. Luria’s parents were physicians: Roman Albertovich Luria, his father, was a famous gastroenterologist, and Evgenia Viktorovna Luria, his mother, was a practicing dentist, which was rare for a woman at that time. The family also had a younger daughter, Lydia, who became a psychiatrist. After completing school, Luria studied law at Kazan University. He graduated in 1921. In the autumn of 1922 he began studying at the medical and pedagogical departments of Kazan University. However, he did not finish his studies as he moved to Moscow in 1923. Alexander was an active and hard-working student. He expressed an interest in the teachings of Sigmund Freud and formed a psychoanalytic group. He wrote to Freud and received a response from him along with the permission to publish a book translation. Luria enrolled in the Kazan Institute for Scientific Organization of Labor with the intention of applying Ivan P. Pavlov’s concept of “conditioned reflex” to psychological studies. He conducted experiments on the influence of language-mediated instruction on reaction time among foundry workers. In order to publish the experimental results, Luria decided to create a journal called Issues in the Psychophysiology of Labor. He traveled to Petersburg to meet the famous neurologist and psychiatrist Vladimir M. Bekhterev and successfully invited him to be one of the editors of the journal. Luria’s articles caught the attention of Professor Konstantin Nikolayevich Kornilov, who had just been appointed a director of the Institute of Psychology in Moscow. He invited the young and promising colleague to his institute. In 1923, Luria moved to Moscow and assumed the post of Scientific Secretary of the Institute. Kornilov posited a goal of developing a materialistically based psychology. In this context, Luria offered a study of motor reactions and developed a “combined motor method” for “objective psychoanalysis.” Among the

Alexander R. Luria    107

young colleagues of Luria was Aleksei N. Leontiev, who showed inventiveness in developing technical equipment for the test. Together, they studied affective reactions in students during exams—how emotionally salient words such as “failure” were registered by the instrument as emotional reactions: a prototype for the modern polygraph. In January 1924, Luria, as a successful young researcher, traveled to Petrograd (St. Petersburg) in order to attend the second national psychoneurology convention. This is where he met Lev S. Vygotsky; a meeting that changed the course of his scientific path. After his talk with Vygotsky, Luria asked Kornilov to give him (Vygotsky) a position at the Institute of Psychology. Vygotsky was appointed to the group, which otherwise consisted of Luria and Leontiev. They named the group “troika” (triumvirate). This group became known for the advancement of cultural-historical psychology. Beginning in 1924, Vygotsky delivered several presentations at the Institute, among which was “Consciousness as a Problem of Behavioral Psychology.” He became the recognized leader of the troika. At Vygotsky’s apartment, the troika conducted a critical review of the history and current state of psychology: “Our aim, overambitious in the manner of the times, was to create a new, comprehensive approach to human psychological processes” (Luria, 1979, p. 40). The foundation of this approach was Vygotsky’s theses on the social origins of the human psyche. The results of the work on the genetic line of investigations were summarized in Vygotsky and Luria’s book, Essays on the History of Behavior: Ape, Primitive Man, and Child, which was published in 1929 (1929/1993). The most difficult assignment was Luria’s chapter on children, where he described the data from other authors, as well as those from his own group, on the development of cognitive functions. In this chapter, Luria wrote on egocentric speech from the respective positions of Piaget, who viewed such speech as reflecting children’s difficulties taking the perspectives of other people, and of Vygotsky, who viewed private speech as a foundation for controlled attention, planning, and problem-solving. This theoretical inconsistency was discussed by Vygotsky, Luria, and Leontiev, and the contradictory nature of their position was recognized by Vygotsky. Mentioning Luria’s inconsistency in a letter to Leontiev (dated July 23, 1929), Vygotsky wrote, “This is not a personal fault of A. R., but of the whole “epoch” of our thought” (Vygotsky, 2004, p. 14). In accordance with their general idea, Luria had to emphasize “the split of the developmental line into natural-psychological and cultural-psychological development in a child’s behavior” (Vygotsky & Luria, 1929/1993, p. 37). Vygotsky, soon after, reconsidered this separation based on his ontogenetic theory as well as Vygotsky and Luria’s research on psychopathology.

108    T. V. AKHUTINA and G. SHERESHEVSKY .

In the mid-1920s, Luria began his work at the Clinic of Nervous Diseases in order to analyze the disintegration of behavior in patients with neuroses, with the help of his combined motor method. In 1926, Vygotsky joined him in order to investigate the role of mediation (by word or symbol) in behavior. Vygotsky and Luria conducted investigations of aphasia and experiments on the rehabilitation of movement in patients with Parkinson’s disease. On October 9, 1930, Vygotsky delivered a speech on “Psychological Systems” at the Clinic of Nervous Diseases. He stated, In the process of development, historical development of behavior in particular, it is not so much the functions that are changed as we earlier thought (and it was our error). What is changed and modified are rather the relationships, the links between the functions. New constellations emerge which were unknown in the preceding stage. . . . The development of such new flexible relationships between functions we will call a psychological system. (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 92, emphasis in original)

Vygotsky formulated the theoretical nucleus of Russian neuropsychology based on his principles of social genesis and of the systemic and dynamic formation of higher psychological functions (HPF). Moreover, he posited to his colleagues the problem of the study of “psychological systems and their fate.” Vygotsky described the group’s previous understanding of the transformation of lower (elementary) psychological functions into higher ones as a mistake. In the context of the new understanding, they stated, for instance, that “perception develops further by entering into a complex synthesis with other functions, particularly speech” (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 94). In 1930, Vygotsky wrote in Tool and Symbol, Higher mental functions are not built up, as a second story over elementary processes, but [they] are new psychological systems that include a complex merging of elementary functions that will be included in the new system, and themselves begin to act according to new laws. (Vygotsky, 1999, p. 43; see also notes from Dec. 1932, as cited in Zavershneva, 2010)

Unfortunately, many contemporary authors are inconsistent when they are describing the views of Vygotsky and Luria because they do not notice the theoretical shift that occurred in their work in 1930. Vygotsky’s circle was highly productive, with 16 presentations and reports from May 1930 to March 1931, as mentioned by Luria (for more on these documents, see Akhutina, 2012; on Vygotsky’s circle, see Yasnitsky, 2011). At the same time, dark political clouds were gathering above Vygotsky’s group, questioning its very existence. At the Institute of Psychology, and even at various clinics, the atmosphere became inhospitable for them.

Alexander R. Luria    109

As is well known, the years of Stalin’s rule in Soviet Union were marked by periodic waves of persecution for ideological or political reasons, resulting in imprisonment, exile, or execution. Ultimately this persecution affected millions of people. The threat of persecution also hung over the theoretical direction taken by Vygotsky and his group. Letters from 1930 to 1931 between Vygotsky, Luria, and Leontiev were full of the anticipation of an upcoming “discussion with political authorities.” In August of 1931, Vygotsky wrote to Aleksei N. Leontiev, “The results for this year are worse than deplorable, and perspectives of the upcoming year—worse than nebulous. The picture is brightened by the unusual, unexpected, most joyous successes of A. R. [Luria], who did more than all of us this year” (Vygotsky, 2004, emphasis in original). Moreover, the group planned an expedition to Central Asia. Its purpose was to find evidence for cultural-historical psychology by examining how a changing culture can influence psychological processes. Given that the majority of the population in Central Asia was illiterate, it was postulated that the people’s enrollment in school education may have changed their cognitive processes. Luria’s expeditions to Central Asia in the summers of 1931 and 1932 were not only successful, but also became grounds for his political persecution. Commenting on the significance of the expeditions’ results, Vygotsky wrote to Luria in a letter dated August 17, 1932, Experimentally shown on factual data—more rich than in any ethno-psychological investigation, and more pure and valid than Lévy-Bruhl’s, the phylogenetic presence of thinking in complexes and dependence on it of the different structure of all main psychological systems, all main kinds of behavior—and in perspective—of consciousness itself. (Vygotsky, 2004, p. 36, emphasis in original)

These findings were published in their country of origin only in 1974. After the second expedition in 1932, the (politically) controlling committee began operating at the Institute of Psychology. “I was blamed for all deadly sins, up to racism, and I had to leave the Institute of Psychology,” said Alexander Luria (as cited in E. A. Luria, 1994, p. 96). It was during this time, toward the end of the 1930, that Vygotsky’s group was invited to work in Kharkov at the Ukrainian Psycho-Neurological Institute. Vygotsky, who was responsible for his entire family (consisting of his mother, wife, daughters, sisters), did not move to Kharkov because of the horrific famine taking place in Ukraine. During this man-made famine of 1932–1933, millions of Ukrainians and people of other nationalities were starved to death by Soviet authorities on the orders of Josef Stalin. Luria was appointed as the new leader of the division, with Vygotsky as the spiritual leader. This change in leadership is apparent in Luria’s archival document—the report of the 1932 meeting of the division in Kharkov—in which Vygotsky reported the plan of work. Furthering the ideas of the 1930 report, he introduced the

110    T. V. AKHUTINA and G. SHERESHEVSKY

“problem of psychological systems” as the main problem. To solve it he suggested, 1) psychological qualification of symptoms . . . ; 2) analysis of connections of separate symptoms (what is considered primary and secondary symptoms = syndrome structure); 3) analysis of symptom formation mechanisms (hence the ways of psycho-orthopedics). (Akhutina, 2012)

From December 1931 to March 1934, Luria worked in Kharkov and Moscow (except in the summer of 1932, when he went to Central Asia). Having enrolled in a Kharkov medical institute, Luria and Vygotsky both resumed their study of medicine. Luria’s letter to his future wife, Lana Lipchina, dated July 9, 1933, described his typical workday: I am finishing with my aphasics, attempting to persuade the respectable elders that father’s brother is completely different from brother’s father, that “black” is not “less dark” . . . , and so on. There is a flood of wildly interesting material right now: agnosia and agraphia, post-partum psychoses with aphasia . . . we are drowning in the rarest of materials. I am fully tied up in medicine: sitting with Vygotsky over pathophysiology—and of course, thinking of you.” (as cited in E. A. Luria, 1994, pp. 80–81)

The group began to have internal issues amongst themselves. On February 5, 1932, Leontiev wrote a letter to Vygotsky delineating theoretical and personal difficulties occurring inside the “troika” (Leontiev, 2003, pp. 231–235). Leontiev thought that the “system of ideas is in danger,” and that Luria’s path of expansion of ideas led to their erosion. He accused Luria of lacking an understanding of cultural psychology—“systemic and philosophical” in its utilitarian use, and wrote to Vygotsky that “I should not be together with A. R.” (Leontiev, 2003, pp. 233, 235, emphasis in original). A. N. Leontiev thought that the focus should be on the “problem of philosophical understanding” of the main concepts of cultural psychology. Leontiev began to independently build on the original ideas of Vygotsky (Vygotsky’s reaction to Leontiev’s position was reflected in his notebook from 1932; see Zavershneva, 2010). Luria pursued a different path in the development of Vygotsky’s ideas. It should be noted that Luria’s wife, Lana Pimenovna Lipchina, played an important role in his life. She was his second wife; they lived together for 44 years and died 6 months apart from one another. “Their meeting was a rare fortune,” wrote Elena Luria, the daughter of Alexander and Lana. Elena added that at that time after the criticism of his Central Asian expeditions, he was going through a serious psychological crisis. He was forced to terminate the most

Alexander R. Luria    111 interesting research and most of the time worked in Kharkov. Mother helped father persevere through these hard years as well as other hard times. (E. A. Luria, 1994, p. 78)

From October 1933, Luria worked at the medico-genetic institute where he arranged a psychological investigation of twins; he also continued to study medicine in Moscow. Luria worked at the Institute of Experimental Medicine, to which he was invited by Vygotsky in 1934. On the night of June 11, 1934, Vygotsky died of tuberculosis of the lungs. The Vygotsky group was thus orphaned by the death of its leader. In July of 1936, an infamous directive of the Central Committee of the Communist Party was published, followed by a series of persecutory publications that attacked psychologists and geneticists. In December of 1936, Luria left both jobs and became a full-time medical institute student, a decision that presumably saved his life. The year of 1937 was no less horrific, as the wave of politically and ideologically based arrests expanded, frequently resulting in imprisonment or death. In that year, Lydia Romanovna (Alexander Luria’s sister) and her husband were arrested. Immediately after completing medical school in 1937, Luria applied for a position at the N. N. Burdenko Institute of Neurosurgery. He became a practicing neurologist and conducted his own research during his free time. This led to the development of a diagnostic system for the investigation of the impairments of higher psychological functions subsequent to the focal brain lesions. As he later remembered, his 2 years at the Institute of Neurosurgery were the most productive years in his life (Luria, 1979, p. 131). What distinguishes Luria’s methods of neuropsychological assessment? He followed Vygotsky’s idea of the systemic structure of HPF (Higher Psychological Functions), where every HPF is a functional system consisting of several links, with each one contributing in a specific way to the operation of the system and being subserved by a specific part of the brain. He believed that the impairment of any one of the links would cause the whole functional system to be compromised, but the level and nature of the impairment depended on which links were damaged. Thus, the diagnostic system had to include probes to evaluate all of the links of the functional system in question. Describing the period of his work from 1937 to 1941, Luria noted that clinical work forced him to reconsider the main style of investigation. Compared to the usual path of problem identification, hypothesis formulation, choice of a method of hypothesis testing, analysis of the facts confirming or disconfirming a hypothesis, a different logic had to be adopted. In clinical work, the path was different: The starting point is not a clearly defined problem but an unknown bundle of problems and resources: the patient. The clinical investigator begins by making careful observations of the patient in an effort to discover crucial facts. In

112    T. V. AKHUTINA and G. SHERESHEVSKY the beginning, he can ignore nothing. Even data that at the first glance seem insignificant may turn out to be essential. At some point the vague contours of factors that seem important begin to emerge, and the clinician forms a tentative hypothesis about the problem. But it is still too early for him to say definitely whether the facts he has picked out are important to the problem or extraneous. Only when he has found a sufficient number of compatible symptoms that together form a “syndrome,” does he have a right to believe that his hypothesis about the patient might be proved or rejected. (Luria, 1979, p. 132)

The “syndrome approach” in neuropsychology, developed by Luria, can be seen in this description of the logic of clinical assessment. In the prewar years, he collected a large quantity of factual material on the analysis of the three types of aphasia: sensory, motor, and semantic. His archive holds large folders of this material. The sensory aphasia material was the basis for his doctoral (doctor of sciences) dissertation in medicine, defended in 1944. Prior to this, in 1936, Luria defended a doctoral dissertation in pedagogical science on the psychology of affect, as investigated with the “combined motor method.” In 1937, Lana P. Lipchina defended her PhD dissertation in biology, and in December of 1938, Elena Luria was born. Elena Luria subsequently became a biologist and wrote a wonderful book on her father based on her memories and on factual documents (E. A. Luria, 1994). At the onset of war in 1941, Luria was an associate of the neurological clinic at the Institute of Experimental Medicine. He was appointed to organize a rehabilitation hospital in the Southern Ural region in Kisegach. Luria’s prewar research became the foundation for his assessment and development of rehabilitation methods for impaired functions. In Kisegach, he supervised a group of 30 people. Among those 30 were the psychologists Bluma V. Zeigarnik, Alexander V. Zaporozhets, Sergei Y. Rubinstein, Esfir S. Bein, and Olga P. Kaufman. Luria worked in Ural for over 3 years. At the end of 1944, he returned to Moscow and began working at the Institute of Neurology and the Institute of Neurosurgery. He prepared two books which brought him worldwide fame: Traumatic Aphasia (1947/1970a) and Restoration of Function after Brain Injury (1948/1963). They were translated into English in 1970 and in 1963, respectively. In 1966, the first edition of Higher Cortical Functions (1966/1980) was released in English. When I (T. A.) was in the United States in 1982, every neuropsychologist that I met had a copy of Higher Cortical Functions and/or Traumatic Aphasia on their shelves. In the Soviet Union, however, the end of 1940s marked another difficult period. In August 1948, the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences held a session. In the summer of 1950, the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Medical Sciences held a joint session called the “Pavlovian

Alexander R. Luria    113

Session.” These sessions had tragic consequences for genetics, psychology, physiology, neurology, and psychiatry. Psychology became “persona non grata.” The teachings of Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, as interpreted by the pathophysiologist A. G. Ivanov-Smolensky, became the only teachings that held any official credibility. Natalia Traugott, a student of Pavlov, spoke to her colleagues about a [joint] plenum of the Society of Psychiatrists and Society of Physiologists (as cited in E. A. Luria, 1994): Everyone present at this meeting had to repent while the presiding committee of three people, who were intimately affiliated with Ivanov-Smolensky, decided if the repentance was acceptable. Luria also repented since the presiding committee had concluded that he had damaged the progress of aphasia science. After the proceedings, Luria felt depressed and expected to be arrested. He felt tormented over the perceived damage that he had inflicted upon his patients. Lana Pimenovna told him, “Do not believe, do not believe—these are dark ages. Do not believe!” (as cited in E. A. Luria, 1994, p. 146). She was able to reassure him. The Pavlovian session greatly affected Luria’s scientific career. In 1951, his laboratory in the Institute of Neurosurgery was closed. He left to work at the Institute of Defectology, which was created in the 1920s with the active participation of Vygotsky. Along with his students, including Evgenia D. Homskaya, Vladimir I. Lubovsky, and Olga S. Vinogradova, he studied the verbal regulation of action in normal children as well as in children with various forms of intellectual and developmental disabilities. He studied the formation of voluntary action and its internalization according to Vygotsky’s conceptualization, but had to use Pavlovian terminology. For example, he called the language system the “secondary signal system.” After 1945, Luria worked at Moscow University as a Faculty of Psychology member. The Chair of the Faculty of Psychology was A. N. Leontiev. Luria delivered lectures on general psychology and, beginning in the spring of 1950, on neuropsychology. Later Olga Vinogradova recounted his lectures: We went to the lectures with patient rounds at the Burdenko Institute. A. R. made an absolutely stunning impression: handsome, charming, and wellspoken, he subordinated any audience to his charm. . . . Pavlovian session, and as a result we, psychologists, learned that there is no science of psychology, there is no psyche, but there are only conditioned reflexes. Essentially this did not reflect on the lecture courses delivered to us by A. R. He knew Pavlovian teachings entirely and while in his lectures the lexicon and beauty of direct psychological language had changed, the knowledge imparted by him was at the true scientific level. (as cited in E. A. Luria, 1994)

In January of 1953, descriptions of the Doctors’ Plot, sometimes called the “Case of the Poisoning Physicians” (the arrest of the famous professor physicians, who were mostly Moscow Jews, in 1951–1952), were published

114    T. V. AKHUTINA and G. SHERESHEVSKY

in the newspapers. These physicians were accused of conspiring to plot to assassinate Soviet leaders. This case carried a blatantly anti-Semitic slant which influenced numerous managers at medical and scientific institutions to try and get rid of employees with “inappropriate” surnames (i.e., surnames that reflected a Jewish heritage) and to erase such names from various dissertations. Because of this, E. Homskaya had to leave the Institute of Defectology. Luria, at that time, asked his younger colleagues to accompany him so as not to travel alone and to notify his family in case of his arrest. In March of 1953, Stalin died. The series of political “thawing periods” began, while Luria continued his work. He taught at Moscow State University and, in 1959, resumed his work at the Institute of Neurosurgery. Neuropsychology, once again, dominated his work. Due to the “thawing period,” he was once again able to travel to the conferences abroad. However, every time he did so, he had to obtain permission from the local Communist Party committee and the higher administration. In July 1957, together with A. N. Leontiev, he went to Brussels to attend the International Psychological Congress and to meet his acquaintances from the 1929 Congress, where he had delivered a report of his own and a joint report with Vygotsky (on egocentric speech). Using their connections, Luria and Leontiev negotiated the publication of Vygotsky’s books in English and French. Due to their efforts, Vygotsky’s books appeared in the USSR in 1956 and 1960. In August of 1977, Luria passed away, to be followed by Leontiev in January 1979. Both men died before the (incomplete, censored) collection of Vygotsky’s works began to be published in 1982. A complete version of his works is still awaiting its publication. In 1962 and 1969, the first and then the second expanded editions of Higher Cortical Functions in Man were published. In these books, Luria presented the results of his neuropsychological investigation of cognitive functions, describing main syndromes of impairment in cortical lesions, together with his diagnostic methods. Concurrently, a new wave of research brought to his attention the “vertical” connections between the deep and the cortical brain structures. Luria’s group became interested in the processes that controlled the level of the brain’s self-activation (Luria, 1979, p. 159). This approach was used by Luria and E. Homskaya in the study of frontal lobe functions. The concept of the three functional units of the brain also arose from this approach. The units include the first unit for regulating cortical tone (Energy Unit), the second unit for receiving, analyzing, and storing information, and the third unit for programming, regulation, and verification of activity (Luria, 1973; for a popular explanation see Luria’s [1970b] article in Scientific American). The full extent of Luria’s relatedness to his patients, empathy and insight into their condition was apparent in Luria’s book, The Man With the

Alexander R. Luria    115

Shattered World (1971/1987). Its co-author was Lev Zasetskiy, a patient with a brain injury who recorded his feelings and memories over a quarter of a century (his notebooks contain nearly 3,000 pages). This book, together with The Mind of the Mnemonist, is also referred to as one of the two Romantic Essays, given the literary, lively, and empathetic descriptions of patient case studies that are accessible to most readers. In 1971, Luria began experiencing heart problems, no longer able to walk as fast as before when he was able to outpace his younger colleagues on the staircase. He had many plans which he hurried to fulfill. On August 8, 1972, Luria wrote to Jerome Bruner, Unfortunately, (and totally unexpectedly!) I turned seventy, and I can barely hope for many years of activity. At the same time I have to do a lot: my two volumes of Neuropsychology of Memory are ready and are going into print. I hope for them to be published in Russian and English; they are the results of the last 7–8 years of work. I am currently working on the next book: Fundamental Issues in Neurolinguistics [1976], which will be a return to the issues in aphasia on a new foundation and reconsideration of many things done recently . . . . And then—a plan for the last book, collaboration with Jenya Homskaya, which will be a new analysis of “frontal” syndromes. If you add to these a book on Principles of General Psychology, which we have to submit to print together with Leontiev, and which is at two thirds of its completion (one volume), you can imagine that I need to have time in order to do all this. (as cited in E. A. Luria, 1994, p. 204)

In 1975, A. R. decided to write one more book in the romantic science genre—his autobiography. He wrote two versions: in Russian and in English. The English version, The Making of the Mind, was published in 1979 by Michael Cole, and the Russian version came out in 1982, edited by E. Homskaya (see her book on Luria’s autobiography: Homskaya, 2001). In June of 1977, Luria sent out a manuscript for the second Englishlanguage edition of Higher Cortical Functions. In the beginning of July 1977, his wife, Lana P. Lipchina, fell ill; an operation revealed that she had cancer with metastases. The diagnosis was concealed from A. R., but while waiting for the doctor, he saw the chart and read the diagnosis. This was right after his 75th birthday. Lana was discharged and the couple went to the academic sanatorium, Uzkoe. There, on August 14 at 7 p.m., Luria was on the phone requesting medication for his wife. He started to feel sick, collapsed, and the doctor of the sanatorium was unable to resuscitate him. On the writing desk in the couple’s room at the sanatorium remained an open manuscript of an unfinished article. As A. R. would say, “People come and go, but their ideas and actions remain.”

116    T. V. AKHUTINA and G. SHERESHEVSKY

REFERENCES Akhutina, T. V. (2012). Kommentarii k dvum dokumentam iz arhiva A. R. Lurii [Commentaries to two documents from A. R. Luria’s archive]. Voprosy Psihologii, 4, 71–85. D’Amato, R. C., Fletcher-Janzen, E., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of school neuropsychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Homskaya, E. D. (2001). Aleksandr Romanovich Luria: A scientific autobiography (D. E. Tupper, Ed.). New York, NY: Kluver/Plenum. New York, NY: Kluver Academic/Plenum. Leontiev, A. N. (2003). Stanovlenie psihologii deyatel’nosti: Rannie raboty [Formation of activity psychology]. A. A. Leont’ev, D. A. Leont’ev, & E. E. Sokolova (Eds.). Moscow, Russia: Smysl. Luria, A. R. (1963). Restoration of function after brain injury. New York, NY: Macmillan. (Original work published 1948) Luria, A. R. (1970a). Traumatic aphasia. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. (Original work published 1947) Luria, A. R. (1970b). The functional organization of the brain. Scientific American, 222, 66–78. Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. New York, NY: Basic. Luria, A. R. (1976). Basic problems of neurolinguistics. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Luria, A. R. (1979). The making of mind. A personal account of Soviet psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Luria, A. R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in man (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic. (Original work published 1966) Luria, A. R. (1987). The man with a shattered world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1971) Luria, A. R. (2003). Psihologicheskoe nasledie: Izbrannye trudy po obshchei psihologii [Psychological heritage: Selected works on general psychology] (Zh. M. Glozman, D. A. Leontiev, & E. G. Radkovskaya, Eds.). Moscow, Russia: Smysl. Luria, E. A. (1994). Moi otec A. R. Luria [My father A. R. Luria]. Moscow, Russia: Gnosis. Puente, A. (1998). Primenenie Lurievskogo podkhoda v SShA [The application of Luria’s approach in North America]. In T. V. Akhutina & E. D. Khomskaya (Eds.), I Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya pamyati A. R. Luriya. Sbornik dokladov [First International Luria Memorial Conference: Collection of selected contributions] (pp. 73–75). Moscow, Russia: Russian Psychological Society. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 3: Problems of the theory and history of psychology (R. W. Rieber & J. Wollock, Eds.). London, England: Plenum. Vygotsky, L. S. (1999). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 6: Scientific legacy (R. W. Rieber & M. J. Hall, Eds.). New York, NY: Plenum. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Pis’ma k uchenikam i soratnikam [Letters to students and colleagues]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 14, Psikhologiya [Moscow University Bulletin. Series 14] Psychology, 3, 3–40.

Alexander R. Luria    117 Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria A. R. (1993). Studies on the history of behavior: Ape, primitive, and child (V. Golod & J. E. Knocks, Eds. & Trans.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Original work published 1929) Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Vygotsky circle as a personal network of scholars: Restoring connections between people and ideas. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45, 422–457. Zavershneva, E. I. (2010). The Vygotsky family archive: New findings. Notebooks, notes, and scientific journals of L. S. Vygotsky (1912–1934). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48, 34–60.

This page intentionally left blank.

PART III TWO AMERICAN AMBASSADORS OF INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 8

OTTO KLINEBERG International Social Psychologist Edwin P. Hollander

Otto Klineberg, a Canadian American social psychologist, was born on November 2, 1899 in Quebec City and raised and educated in the multilingual, multiethnic milieu of Montreal, where he earned his bachelor’s degree in 1919 and an MD in 1925, both from McGill University. He then studied psychology for a PhD at Columbia University, awarded in 1927, and mainly taught there, becoming an American citizen in 1938. Late in his career, he was a faculty member at the University of Paris, and afterward returned home to be associated with the City University of New York Graduate Center. A dedicated internationalist, he brought social psychology to the world, and the world to social psychology by his influential books and far-reaching research on race and intelligence, international relations, and social psychology. Klineberg spoke to the New York Academy of Sciences Psychology Section in 1984, saying he considered his major contributions to be in cross-cultural studies, race differences, international relations, mental health and illness. At home in New York, Paris, Rome, or São Paulo, he was fluent in most

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 121–129 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

121

122    E. P. HOLLANDER

romance languages, in addition to English, German, and Chinese, which he had acquired on a fellowship to study emotional expression among the Chinese in China in 1935–1936. He later learned Portuguese to serve as a visiting professor at the University of São Paulo in 1945–1947, receiving an award from Brazil for his contributions to the development of psychology there, including the founding of a department of psychology at that institution. Among his other influential roles on the international scene, he was president of the World Federation for Mental Health (WFMH), the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS), and the Interamerican Society of Psychology (SIP). He also authored a widely used and translated text, Social Psychology (1940/1954). Klineberg’s place as a prominent internationalist was notably signified by his service twice at UNESCO in Paris. He was Director of the Applied Social Research Division there in 1953–1955, after being head of the “Tensions Project,” from which he produced his book Tensions Affecting International Understanding (1950). As Director, he took pride in having supported the funding of research by Gardner and Lois Barclay Murphy on the partition of India, to create Pakistan, leading to the book, In the Minds of Men (Murphy, 1953). He also authored the integrative book on persisting cross-national problems, The Human Dimension in International Relations (1964). In 1963, as part of the early activities of the APA Committee on Psychology in National and International Affairs, Klineberg facilitated contact for some of us so that we could perform research of use to the United Nations. When we visited the then UN Undersecretary General Ralph Bunche, a distinguished Black leader who had been chairman of the Political Science Department at Howard University and was the highest-ranking American at the UN, he embraced Klineberg as an old friend, evidence of their warm relationship. Klineberg’s valuing of relationships was commented on by his son Stephen, Professor of Sociology at Rice University, who spoke of his father at the 100th anniversary celebration of his birth, held by the New York Academy of Sciences Psychology Section. He said, He supported the decision to raise his children as Quakers, the religion my mother joined but he did not, remaining an agnostic “humanist,” as he often described himself. His philosophy of life was marked by a deep faith in human beings, in the power of reason and evidence to solve disputes and to move humanity forward. Although he participated in many of the Conferences for Diplomats under Quaker auspices in Switzerland and worked closely with American Friends on issues of race relations and nuclear arms, he was never tempted himself to become a Quaker. But I remember feeling as I was growing up in the Quaker faith that my father exemplified more fully than anyone I had known two of the great teachings of Friends—that there is something of God in every person (no matter how difficult it may be at times to discern it), and that one can affirm with certainty the essential equality

Otto Klineberg    123 of all human persons. [His] extraordinary love of people, his belief in their essential goodness . . . more than anything made him so beloved by so many. Life is filled, he used to say, with self-fulfilling prophecies: If you treat people in the firm belief that they are essentially good people who mean well, they will be likely to act in ways that confirm those expectations. And the most important and enduring body of his scholarly research was predicated on his deep conviction about the essential equality of all peoples, his absolute confidence, long before it became generally accepted, that the evidence would disprove any and all theories of ethnic or racial superiority. (S. Klineberg, 1999)

In a 1974 autobiographical chapter, Klineberg credited his parents, brought to Canada as youngsters from Central Europe and modestly educated, who stressed education’s importance to all of their eight children, four of whom went on to graduate degrees. Though they did not have much money, “We were brought up in a friendly and warm atmosphere and conservative Jewish tradition, with a strong emphasis on education and scholarship” (1974, p. 164). The headline for The New York Times obituary of this much-admired figure in modern American psychology featured his study that contributed to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision overturning “separate but equal” schools. He found that children from all-Black schools in the South who migrated to integrated schools in the North had improved their intelligence test scores to a level equaling Northern-born Blacks. This work played a significant part in his longtime challenges to racial superiority theories. In retrospect, Klineberg’s many contributions to the social sciences were a gift, considering that he might have instead practiced medicine with his MD earned from McGill University in 1925. It was there earlier that he received his first-class honors bachelor’s in psychology and philosophy in 1919. He was awarded the Prince of Wales Gold Medal with a tuition scholarship to study for an MA in philosophy that he received in 1920 at Harvard University. There he heard Floyd Allport’s social psychology lectures and participated in a psychology seminar with Herbert Langfeld, with whom he was associated later in the International Union of Psychological Science. After receiving his MA, he intended to continue toward a PhD in psychology but was advised instead to get a professional degree because of poor prospects for an academic job in Canada. With the possibility of entering psychiatry, he went to McGill’s Medical School. But on completing the 5-year program, which included an internship, he found psychiatry very limited there, although developments were occurring in neurology at McGill, ultimately pioneered by Sir Wilder Penfield. However, by chance in medical school in 1923, Klineberg had the rare time to elect a course in social psychology:

124    E. P. HOLLANDER It was given by a young instructor, listed as a visiting assistant professor from Harvard (and) was based entirely on McDougall . . . The lectures dealt with one instinct after another. . . . I’m not sure whether there were more instincts than classes, but it worked out fairly well in that we finished the list of instincts by the end of the year. I remember his saying only one research technique was applicable in social psychology and that was observation. This is an indication of how far psychology has moved since that day. (Klineberg, 1990, p. 36)

Despite or because of this introduction, and still determined to become an academic psychologist, he went on to Columbia University in 1925 to study for a PhD in social psychology. There he was influenced by the teachings of Robert Woodworth, who said that all psychology may be social psychology, and who later encouraged him to write his preeminent 1940 text, which was a landmark, emphasizing the importance of culture. Among its themes, he presented the “dependable motives” that persisted across cultures, with variations in their expression, as his alternative to more static instinct theories. The book also indicated the direction of applied areas of work in the field, not least regarding race and international relations. It was published in translation and came out in a second edition in 1954. The original version was assigned as our textbook in Daniel Levinson’s undergraduate social psychology course that I took at Western Reserve University just after World War II, and it was a revelation. In a real sense, Klineberg’s book became a gateway into the field for many of us. It led me to enroll in graduate work in it, including two courses with him a few years later when I was at Columbia University, where he was an encouraging supporter of my dissertation research that included peer evaluations of leadership. Indeed, though a figure of great esteem in the world of the social sciences, Klineberg communicated an openness to ideas and approachability that were very sustaining to graduate students, while setting high standards for scholarship. His advisement was a chance to visit with him, as I continued to enjoy doing in later life. He was very “companionable,” and a charming host and storyteller, as was his wife, Selma. He spoke very precisely in moderate tones, with traces of his Canadian background that had the quality of diplomatic understatement. This manner, with his fluency in many languages, made him a superb international spokesperson for psychology on the world stage. The eminent anthropologist Franz Boas, from Germany, was also very influential in Klineberg’s development. A seminal figure in cultural anthropology, he founded the doctoral program in it at Columbia. His lectures were attended by Klineberg, who became acquainted with two wellknown Boas students, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, whose master’s degree was in psychology. Both of them furthered Boas’ views of culture’s

Otto Klineberg    125

importance in their doctoral work. Boas himself had done his doctorate in physics at the University of Kiel, with an interest in geography, to the extent that he lived among Eskimos for a year on Baffin Island in the Arctic. He completed a book on that experience, in keeping with his focus on the relationship between subjective experience and the physical world. Boas had been encouraged as a doctoral student by Hermann L. F. von Helmholtz, an eminent figure in psychophysics research. In that era, another famous researcher was Wilhelm Wundt, founder of the experimental psychology laboratory at Leipzig in 1879, who eventually turned his attention to writing a multivolume series on Völkerpsychologie [Folk Psychology]. It represented an early foray into culture at a time, as Pickren (2010) has pointed out, when “culture became a boundary object” in the emerging identities of psychology and anthropology as scientific disciplines. Other influential figures with whom Klineberg studied were Gardner Murphy, his psychology colleague and friend, 5 years his senior, at Columbia University. There also were Edward Sapir in anthropology, and a major psychologist of learning, Edward Thorndike at Teachers College, whose lectures he appreciated, and whom he referred to as “kindness personified.” Klineberg brought these streams together in his doctoral dissertation by studying the speed of reaction on performance tests for children of different backgrounds. Among his results, he found that, compared with White children, children from the Yakima Tribe in the State of Washington were less concerned with speed and made very few errors given their deliberateness. He was surprised, and commented, This was an unexpected discovery . . . it was the substantial variation in speed which struck me as the real difference in behavior. I don’t have to add that since so many intelligence tests and performance tests are based upon speed, in part, this seemed to me to be a fundamentally important factor. (Klineberg, 1990, p. 42)

He stated, significantly, that it raised basic issues about culture’s effects on tests of learning. After completing his PhD at Columbia University in 1927, Klineberg went to Europe on a 2-year fellowship to study national differences on psychological tests among children. His results showed greater similarities than differences between nations. On his return in 1929, he took up a position as research associate in anthropology offered by Boas. Here he began his landmark research on psychological characteristics of African Americans and Native Americans, continuing the line set in his dissertation that led to his books Race Differences (1935a), Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration (1935b), and Race and Intelligence (1951). These works put him at the center of the controversy about beliefs in racial superiority, from which he did not flinch. He quotes a reviewer of the second work saying that it was

126    E. P. HOLLANDER

“hidden dynamite” (Klineberg, 1990, p. 39). His research provided scientific evidence that helped to overturn generations of entrenched beliefs in race-based inferiority. In 1931 he was appointed to the first of his psychology faculty positions at Columbia University until his retirement in 1961, before which he had been the first chairman of a short-lived social psychology department there, with Richard Christie, Stanley Schachter, and William McGuire, among others. It was a successor to Columbia University’s interdepartmental doctoral program, co-directed by Paul Lazarsfeld in sociology and Goodwin Watson in psychological foundations at Teachers College, joining Klineberg, in which this writer received his PhD in 1952 with the latter two on his dissertation committee, together with Robert L. Thorndike, eminent psychometrician son of Edward L. Thorndike. Invited by Jean Stoetzel to join him in teaching social psychology as a visiting professor at the University of Paris in 1960, Klineberg took up fulltime residence there in 1962 to continue his research at the International Center for the Study of Intergroup Relations that he established, with Marissa Zavalloni, a Columbia PhD who had studied with him there, as Assistant Director. Among their publications together was Nationalism and Tribalism among African Students (1969), based on a study commissioned by UNESCO. This research revealed the complexity of socialization faced by students coming to the West with anchors in both their tribes and new nations in Africa. As Director of his Center, he and his students studied race problems, minorities, immigrants, national characteristics, and other issues in the area of culture and personality. His span of studies with colleagues included such topics as cross-national student values and political attitudes, and the effects of study abroad. When I visited him in Paris, in 1966–1967, he was seated in the courtyard of his academic building, surrounded by students he was advising. In addition to his usual lecturing at the University, he had been flying regularly to give lectures to university audiences in Rome. Early in his career, when Klineberg spent a year in 1935–1936 in China researching the emotional expression of the Chinese, with a Guggenheim Fellowship, he found then-current stereotypic views, that the Chinese did not display emotion, were mistaken and likely prejudicial. Regarding the relation of his values and his research, Stephen Klineberg (1999) said, He succeeded better than most scholars in the social sciences in combining his values and beliefs with his research. He was firmly convinced that the methodologies of the social sciences would ultimately unmask the false beliefs that kept us from a truth that would confirm the basic values in which he believed. He loved to recount as evidence of the power of social science research the several examples of respected scholars who had once claimed that race differences were biological and who later recanted on the basis of new evidence. Carl C. Brigham, for example, completely rejected the conclusions

Otto Klineberg    127 of his 1923 book, A Study of American Intelligence, in which he asserted innate differences in mental capacity among Nordics, Alpines, and Mediterraneans; and in so doing, he confirmed the conclusions Otto himself had reached in his first international research on these issues (in 1927–1928). Otto also liked to cite the example of Florence Goodenough, who came to recognize that her Draw-a-Man test was not, as she had originally thought, independent of the influence of culture and previous training. Throughout virtually all of his own lifetime of research work, he sought to show how psychology could help to improve human lives—by demonstrating the falsity of racist doctrines, by identifying paths toward the reduction of international tensions, by showing how student exchanges could be made more fruitful and effective, by addressing the problems of mental health in cross-cultural context. (S. Klineberg 1999)

After returning to New York in the early 1980s, Klineberg was appointed to the faculty of the City University of New York Graduate School and University Center. With the support of its late president, Hal Proshansky, a one-time student of his, and other friends and colleagues, we established a lecture series there to honor Klineberg in his 90th year. He and his wife were present for the inaugural Klineberg Lecture on racial prejudice by Jack Dovidio, then at Colgate University now at Yale University, in September 1990. The second was given in May 1992 by Claude Steele of Stanford University. Subsequent speakers, in the years following included Rupert Brown of the University of Canterbury, and Marilyn Brewer then at Ohio State University. All dealt with topics of interest to Klineberg, especially the effects of intergroup relations on individuals. Klineberg had been elected President of the Eastern Psychological Association (EPA) in 1947–1948. Forty-one years later, when elected to that office in 1988–1989, I was authorized to recommend $1,000 as a gift from EPA’s endowment to go for a worthy cause. The EPA Board agreed to have it go to the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSÍ), for which Klineberg had served as an early president in 1943–1944, to support the creation of an intercultural and international award in Klineberg’s name, since he had served as a distinguished past president of both organizations. With additional support from Harold Proshansky, President of the City University of New York Graduate Center and Seymour Feshbach, then SPSSI President, the award was established and Klineberg was named its first recipient. He received it at the New Orleans Convention of the APA in August 1989, in the presence of his family, many colleagues, and friends. At that event, he concluded with these expressions of thanks: I don’t know whether you realize what a wonderful, heartwarming experience it is for me to find toward the end of a long career that the kind of research I have been doing is considered worthy of being continued by others when I can no longer do it properly myself. I am also proud of the fine committee

128    E. P. HOLLANDER who will be in charge. This is a very precious gift you have given me, and I thank you for it. (Klineberg, 1989)

He also was willing to speak out, critical of social psychology relying too much on research with American college sophomores, rather than extending it to a wider study population to increase the power of generalizations. Klineberg served in U.S. governmental roles, with the Office of War Information in World War II, and the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey in Germany, afterward. Among his numerous honors are the Kurt Lewin Memorial Award in 1956 from SPSSI. As already noted, he was the first recipient of the Klineberg Award for Intercultural and International Relations created by SPSSI in 1989 to honor his work. APA gave him its Award for Contributions of Psychology to the Public Interest in 1979, and for Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology in 1992. Going beyond these accolades, perhaps Klineberg’s greatest achievement was in the inspiration he provided through his values and character. Deeply committed to humanity at-large, Klineberg was also very concerned about individuals with whom he was associated, many of whom benefited from his enduring legacy. On a grand scale professionally, Klineberg was a determined and compelling leader who displayed an inexhaustible optimism about applying social psychology internationally. Among the notable social psychologists who had been influenced by him in their graduate studies were Kenneth and Mamie Clark, who did landmark work on intergroup and race relations, and Irving Janis, who made many contributions to the understanding of attitudes and developed the concept of “groupthink” about group decision-making. Klineberg showed his dedication to the potential of social psychology by persistently actualizing it in his life’s work. His unquenchable spirit remains alive for those of us influenced by this admirable psychologist, who was an outstanding “world citizen.” NOTE 1. A devoted family, Otto and Selma Klineberg’s three children are Rosemary Coffey, a freelance editor and former teacher in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Stephen at Rice University in Houston, and John, an aeronautical engineer, whose last NASA position was as Director of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

REFERENCES Klineberg, O. (1935a). Race differences. New York, NY: Harper.

Otto Klineberg    129 Klineberg, O. (1935b). Negro intelligence and selective migration. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Klineberg, O. (1951). Race and intelligence. Paris, France: UNESCO. Klineberg, O. (1954). Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt. (Original work published 1940) Klineberg, O. (1950). Tensions affecting international understanding. Social Sciences Research Council Bulletin, 62. Klineberg, O. (1964). The human dimension in international relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Klineberg, O. (1974). Autobiographical entry in G. A. Lindzey (Ed.), A history of psychology in biography (Vol. 6, pp. 161–182). New York, NY: Prentice-Hall. Klineberg, O. (1989). SPSSI award presentation. Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Klineberg, O. (1990). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 602, 35–50. Klineberg, O., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). Nationalism and tribalism among African students—A study of social identity. Paris, France: Mouton. Klineberg, S. (1999, April 19). Otto Klineberg: A son’s appreciation. Centenary celebration. New York, NY: Academy of Sciences, Psychology Section. Murphy, G. (1953). In the minds of men. New York, NY: Basic Books. Pickren, W. E. (2010, March 5–7). Otto Klineberg: Between anthropology and psychology. Historian’s Address, Eastern Psychological Association, Annual Meeting, New York, NY.

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 9

CHARLES D. SPIELBERGER Ambassador for Scientific Psychology Ann M. O’Roark

When Western scientific psychology identifies its initial international diplomatic corps, Charles D. Spielberger will likely be named first. An ambassador with foresight and courage to pioneer collaborative evidence-based research, he transformed scientific psychology on three levels: individual assessment, intergroup dynamics, and international impact. Hailed as “Charlie” by acquaintances and associates around the globe, this man of commanding stature and boundless energy embraced his life and work with a dedicated passion for psychology (APA 1991, 2014). Tables 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 provide details about his awards, honors, research, and psychometric tests. A renaissance man who seemed to be continually on the move, he valued meaningful, constructive productivity and optimal human functioning. A startling 48-page curriculum vita (USF, 2009) records awards and honors (n = 24) (see Tables 9.2 and 9.3), academic career path employment (n = 5), consultancies (n = 12), sponsors for research and conferences (n = 28), key leadership roles (n = 18), and publications (n = 464).

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 131–155 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

131

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children Test Attitude Inventory

State-Trait Personality Inventory Test Anxiety Inventory State-Trait Anger Scale: Preliminary Manual

1973 STAIC

1979 STPI

1981

STAXIP

1980 TAI2

Police Stress Survey

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

1970 STAI

1977 TAI1

Instrument title

Year

Publisher/Administration

Translations Noted in CV

www.mindgarden.com/products/ Hindi, 1973; Hungarian, 1975; Portuguese, 1976; stai.htm [adult] Mind Garden. Italian, 1982; Spain/Spanish, 1983; Russian, Menlo Park, CA 1983; Bengali, 1986; Hebrew, 1988; French, 1988; Norwegian, 1990; Japanese, 1997; Croatian, 2000; Korean; Chile/Spanish, 2007. Spielberger, Edwards, Wwwmindgarden.com/products/ Spain/Spanish, 1976; Puerto Rico, Panama, Montuari, Lushene stai.htm [children] Mind 1986; Arabic, 1986; Mexico/Spanish, 1988; Garden. Polish, 1989; Romanian, 2007 Spielberger, C. D. Consulting Psychology Press, Inc./Scientific & Academic Publishing Co. Spielberger, C. D. Center for Research in Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology, USF. Spielberger, C. D. www.mindgarden.com/products/ Hungarian, 1985; Iranian, 1983; Hindi, 1987; stpi.htm Mind Garden. Italian, 1988; Japanese, 1992; Russian, 2004 Spielberger, C. D. Human Resources Institute, Brazil/Portuguese, 1992; Italian, 1992; German, University of South Florida, 1992; Czech, 1994; Singapore/Chinese, 1996; Tampa, FL Spanish, 1997; Korean, 1997; Romanian, 1999; India, 1999 Spielberger, Human Resources Institute, Westberry, Grier, University of South Florida, Greenfield Tampa, FL (continued)

Spielberger, C. D.

Author[s]

TABLE 9.1  Spielberger’s Psychometric Tests

132    A. M. O'ROARK

Rationality/ Emotional Defensiveness Scale State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory Job Stress Survey Self-Expression and Control Scale

1988 R/ED

State-Trait Personality Inventory 1999 STAXI2 State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, 2nd Ed. 2001 Heinz Coping Inventory-Ego Threat 2002 STDEP State-Trait Depression Questionnaire 2002 LDM Lifestyle Defense Mechanisms

1995 STPI

1994 JSS SECS

STAXI1

Instrument title

Year Center for Research in Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology, USF. PAR, Inc. Www4.parinc.com Odessa FL

Publisher/Administration

Translations Noted in CV

Center for Research in Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology, USF. Spielberger, Human Resources Institute, Lundford, Reheiser University of South Florida, Tampa, FL

Krohne, Schmukle, Burns, Egloff, Spielberger Spielberger, C. D.

Chile, 2008; Spain, 2008

(continued)

Spielberger, Vagg PAR, Inc. Www4.parinc.com German, 1996; Dutch, 2002; Norwegian, 2004 van der Kamp, Ploeg, Swets en Zeitlinger, Lisse, the Dutch, 1987 Ensink, Spielberger, Netherlands van Elderen, Maes Spielberger, C. D. www.mindgarden.com/products/ Note: Combines Scales: Anxiety, Anger stpi.htm Mind Garden [Temperament, Reaction, In, Out, Control], Curiosity, Depression Spielberger, Vagg PAR, Inc. Www4.parinc.com Odessa FL

Spielberger, C. D.

Spielberger, C. D.

Author[s]

TABLE 9.1  Spielberger’s Psychometric Tests (continued)

Charles D. Spielberger    133

Perceptual Curiosity Scale

2004 PCI

Collins, Litman, Spielberger

Author[s]

2009 STAXI- State-Trait Anger C&A Expression 2nd Inventory, Child/ Ed. Adolescents

Brunner, Spielberger

STAXI- State-Trait Anger del Barrio, Aluja, C&A Expression Spielberger Inventory for Children and Adolescents 2008 Trust: State-Trait and Murray Dissertation. Individual & Group Spielberger, C. D.

Instrument title

Year

Center for Research in Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology, USF.

Human Resources Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL Center for Research in Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology, USF.

Publisher/Administration

TABLE 9.1  Spielberger’s Psychometric Tests (continued)

Note. Brunner is translating into five languages

Spanish, 2004

Translations Noted in CV

134    A. M. O'ROARK

Vital Sign Emotions: CDS

Anxiety Psychometric Test

PUBLISHED Anxiety, Anger, Curiosity, Depression, Job Stress, Rational Emotional Defense, Coping, Lifestyle Defense, Self-Expression and Control, Test Anxiety, Test Attitude Unpublished: Measures of TRUST 2012: Fukuhara Award for Advanced International Psychology Research and Service-International Council of Psychologists, Inc., 71st Conference, Sevilla, Spain 2005: Wilhelm Wundt-William James Award for Substantial and Enduring Contributions to Psychology as a Science and a Profession-European Association of Psychology. 2003: American Psychological Foundation Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in the Application of Psychology. Elevated to Fellow in 14 APA Divisions Sigma Xi Society for Behavioral Medicine American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

467

55,000

51,300

24 14 1 1 1

Citations

Google

Archival Records 15,000

17

Publications

Measures

Awards And Honors Fellow Status

5 Book Series. 6 Journal Editor/Associate Editor Founded J. of Community Psychology Continuously Increasing

Numbers Break Outs

Categories

TABLE 9.2  C. D. Spielberger: Summary Numbers

(continued)

ICP, Inc. 2009 CV

2009 USF Curriculum Vitae Academic Data Base Internet Search 7/14/14 Academic Data Base 2009 CV

Source

Charles D. Spielberger    135

33

70

Grants

Graduate Students Doctoral/Phd, Other Degrees Language Translations/ Adaptations

60 10 66 7 6 9 3 1 5

18

Presidencies

66 State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 7 State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children 6 Test Anxiety Inventory 9 State-Trait Anger Inventory 3 Job Stress Survey 1 STAXI-CA & State-Trait Depression Questionnaire 5 Brunner’s STAXI-C&a, 2nd Edition

100th APA Pres.; 25th IAAP Pres; Society of Community Psy.; Society of Clinical Psy.; Internat’l Psy.; Media Psy.; STAR; ICP, Inc.; ISMA (International Stress Mgmt Assoc); SPA, Inc.; Southeastern Psy. Assoc.; Psi Chi; Council of Scientific Society Presidents Vice Pres.: Am. Psy. Foundation; Institute of Health Promotion and Education; Interamerican Society of Psy. (SIP). 6 State & Federal Law Enforcement & U.S. Dept. of Defense 5 R. J. Reynolds, USF & Others (tobacco use & health) 4 National Institute of Mental Health (NIMS) 16 European Academic sources; One-time Group Support 37 USF; 23 Florida State Univ.;Vanderbilt; Duke 10 Estimate of Non-PhD Graduate Students

Numbers Break Outs

Categories

TABLE 9.2  C. D. Spielberger: Summary Numbers (contined)

2009 CV APA, 2014 T. M. Brunner: website

2009 CV APA, 1991

2009 CV

2009 CV

Source

136    A. M. O'ROARK

1982 1977 1973 1968 1961

1984

1989 1985

2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1991 1990

2003

2005

Presented By

Fukuhara Award. International Council of Psychologists, Inc. (ICP, Inc.) Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology American Psychological Association (APA) Substantial & Enduring Contributions to Psychology as Science & Profess European Congress of Psychology (EFPA) Honorary Lifetime Diplomate National Anger Management Association (NMA) Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in Application of Psychology American Psychological Foundation (APF) Honorary Doctorate of Science Kent State University, Kent, Ohio (KSU) Distinguished Contributions to Clinical Psychology Society of Clinical Psychology, APA Division 12 (APA) Lifetime Contributions Award Intern’l Society for Stress & Anxiety Research (STAR) Diplomate, American Board of Assessment Psychology American Board of Assessment Psychology (ABAP) Distinguished Contributions to Knowledge and Professional Practice American Psychological Association (APA) Distinguished Sustained Contributions to Education in Psychology American Psychological Association (APA) Honorary Degree: Honoraris Doctoris Causa Hungarian University of Physical Education. Prague Honorary Degree: Doctor of Humane Letters, Honoraris Doctoris Causa Pacific Graduate School of Psychology (PGSP) Distinguished Contributions to Research in Personality Assessment Society of Personality Assessment, Inc. (SPA, Inc.) Contributions to Scientific Research and Professional Practice Society of Clinical Psychology, APA Division 12 (APA) Distinguished University Research Professor University of South Florida (USF) Outstanding Faculty Researcher Sigma Xi, University of South Florida (USF) Fellow, Academy of Behavioral Medicine Research Academy of Behavioral Medicine (ABM) Distinguished Practitioner of Psychology National Academies of Practice (NAP) Distinguished Contributions to Community Psychology APA Division 27 (APA) Distinguished Contributions to Psychology for Theory and Research Florida Psychological Association (FPA) Distinguished Scholar Award University of South Florida (USF) Fellow, American Psychological Association (INITIAL: Div. 12) APA Div.: 1, 3, 5, 8, 12, 13, 17, 26, 27, 38, 42, 46, 47, 52 Diplomate in Clinical Psychology American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP)

2012 Advanced International Psychology Research and Service

Year Award

TABLE 9.3  C. D. Spielberger’s Awards and Honors

Charles D. Spielberger    137

138    A. M. O'ROARK

Spielberger’s publications advanced and internationalized an interdisciplinary knowledge base, endowing 21st century science with an elegantly articulated body of literature on turn-of-the-century psychological assessment plus 17 published psychometric tests/measurement instruments (see Table 9.1 for details on the psychometric tests). Most of this is produced with a broad spectrum of student and colleague co-authors, testifying to his international and transversal collaboration and ambassadorship. Dr. Spielberger’s publications include chapters, monographs, and major articles as well as co-editorship of five book series with as many as 17 volumes in a series that include chapters from numerous psychologists around the world (Spielberger & Sarason, 2005). Spielberger’s mentoring, coaching, and wordsmithing talents included associate editorship for 6 journals and appointment to editorial boards for 37 journals (USF, 2009). Charlie was also known for graciously responding to requests for contributions to newsletters, public media interviews, and general-reading books and magazines (APA, 1991; Spielberger, Kase, & Sikes, 1978; Spielberger & London, 1982, 1983, 1990; USF, 1979). Charlie is recognized for his influence as a psychological scientist-researcher, as an international statesman-leader, as an entrepreneurial businessman, and as a professor who mentored hundreds of students and colleagues. Although he relished the succinct clarity captured in statistical analyses (Spielberger, 1983), no numbers, figures, or tables (see Figure 9.1 and Tables 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4) can capture the warmth of admiration associates felt for him, nor the depths of his affection for the 60 doctoral students who are carrying his ideas and thinking into the future. Charlie’s early University of South Florida (USF) student, William D. Anton, for example, continues to live in the Tampa Bay Florida area near the USF campus and Spielberger’s Center for Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology. Dr. Anton, founder of CEOeffectiveness.com, is President and CEO of Anton Holdings, Inc. and author of Business Success through Self-Knowledge (Anton, 2013). He advises CEOs, directors, and senior business leaders on people and culture issues. His dissertation addressed one of Charlie’s earliest research interests: An Evaluation of Process and Outcome Variables in Systematic Desensitization of Test Anxiety (see Table 9.4, 1975). From the middle range of Spielberger’s USF doctoral students, Gerard Jacobs, co-editor of the Handbook of International Disaster Psychology (Spielberger, 2006a), focused his research to Behavioral Management of Chronic Headache (see Table 9.4, 1982). Dr. Jacobs is director of the Disaster Mental Health Institute and Professor in the Clinical Psychology Training Program at the University of South Dakota, in the northwestern United States. He is one of the American Red Cross’ six initial Disaster Mental Health Managers for national disaster teams and on their Critical Response Team. He responded to the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center

Charles D. Spielberger    139 THE PROTECTOR Goals Survival Value

ANXIETY

Defenses Distress Potential

Feelings associated with anxiety are: worry, tension, apprehension Productive Logic associated with anxiety: “If I remain alert to possible dangers, I can assure success.” Goals associated with anxiety are: security, safety Dangers & Risks for professionals and executives include: • Preoccupation with work at the expense of attention to self and relationships • Immediate relief sought via alcohol, drugs, sex • Reduced ability to adapt to change

THE EXPLORER Goals Survival Value

CURIOSITY

Defenses Distress Potential

Feelings associated with curiosity are: wonder, attraction, possibility, mystery Productive Logic associated with curiosity: “If I investigate new ideas and information, the good things of life will be discovered.” Goals associated with curiosity are: adventure, creative innovation Dangers & Risks for professionals and executives include: • Preoccupation with testing, experimenting at the expense of maintaining current productivity levels. • Immediate change sought via manipulative, insensitive “politics” or edicts • Reduced ability to be seen as steady, trustworthy, realistic because of highly visible flexible, optimistic behaviors

THE HERO Goals Survival Value

ANGER

Defenses Distress Potential

Feelings associated with anger are: injustice, irritation, impeded, frustration Productive Logic associated with curiosity: “If I point out flaws and react to insults directly, the good things of life will be achieved.” Goals associated with anger are: competence, justice, success Dangers & Risks for professionals and executives include: • Preoccupation with fairness to those to whom one is loyal prevents seeing other points of view • Immediate action impluses can demonstrate of less competence and result in less success • Reduced ability to complement anything that is less than full excellence, can discourage fledgling efforts and under-estimate the importance of milestone progress

Figure 9.1  Vital Sign Emotions: The Spirit Model. Source: O’Roark, 2000, pp. 192–193; 2012, p. 159.

Anton Bedell Peters

Hobfoll

Hibler Gonzalez

Hiland Algze

Ward

Silva de Crane Rosario Frain Florence

Grier Jacobs Spaulding Russell Weinberg

1975–03 1975–06 1976–06

1977–08

1977–12 1978–06

1978–08 1979–08

1981–06

1981–08 1982–04

1982–04 1982–12 1982–12 1983–08 1983–08

Kenneth Gerard Harry Stephen Richard

John

David Benjamin

Neil Hector

Steven

William Jeffrey Ruth

Sue

Sikes

1983–12

Effects of Reading Readiness and Parent Effectiveness Training on Anxiety in Reading Achievement in Elementary School Children An Evaluation of Process and Outcome Variables in the Systematic Desensitization The Role of Suggestion in the Desensitization and Relaxation Treatments of Test Anxiety The Effects of Anxiety, Curiosity, and Instructor Threat on Student Verbal Behavior in the College Classroom A Study of the Personal Characteristics of College Students Who Volunteer to Work as Tutors in an InnerCity Preschool Program The Effects of Stress on State Anxiety in Air Traffic Controllers Effect of Systematic Desensitization, Study Counseling and Anxiety-Coping Training in the Treatment of Test Anxious Students With Good and Poor Study Type A Behavior, Anxiety, Job Satisfaction, and Life Stress as Risk Factors in Myocardial Infarction Combinations of Cognitive Therapy With Systematic Desensitization and Study Counseling in the Treatment of Test Anxiety The Predictive Validity of Personality and demographic Variables in the Selection of Law Enforcement Officers The Role of Anger, Hostility, and Aggression in Essential Hypertension The Effects of Anxiety, Curiosity, and Perceived Instructor on Verbal Behaviors in a Simulated College Classroom A Study of Job Stress in Police Officers and High School Teachers Behavioral Management of Chronic Headache Pain, Anxiety, and Depression in Orthopedic Surgery Patients Anger, Hostility, and Aggression in Myocardial Infarction and Essential Hypertension Environmental Stress, Coping and Health: A Test of the Buffering Hypothesis and Two Stress Process Models (continued)

First Name Dissertation Title

PhD Year Last Name

TABLE 9.4  C. D. Spielberger’s 37 PhD Students

140    A. M. O'ROARK

Clement Murray Golden Ritterband Sydeman

Collins Oliveira Owen

Brunner

Abdullatif Ozer Litman Haselhuhn

1993–12 1994–12 1995–12 1998–08 1998–12

2000–12 2001–12 2003–08

2004–08

2007–08 1982–04 2000–08 2012–08

Qutayba Abdulkad Jordan Gretchen

Thomas

Robert Brian Ashley

Veronica Michael Jill Lee Sumner

Ernest Timothy Anthony Susan Eldra Karen Danette

Johnson Worden Greene Krasner Solomon Pellegrin Hann

1984–08 1987–08 1988–08 1989–12 1989–12 1991–12 1993–08

Anger and Anxiety as Determinants of Elevated Blood Pressure in Adolescents: The Tampa Study Anger, Hostility, and Coronary Heart Disease Coronary Heart Disease in Anxious Angry Hearts Psychosocial Correlates of Progression in Breast Cancer Personality Characteristics and Coping Mechanisms of Women With Breast Cancer Trust, Gender, and Coronary Artery Disease: Psychometric Analysis of the Concept of Trust Personality and Lifestyle Defenses of Breast Cancer Patients Psychosocial Correlates of Delay of Cancer Patients in Seeking Medical Evaluation Emotions, Lifestyle Defense and Coping in Breast Cancer Patients Trust, Hostility, and CAD Psychosocial Factors in the Progression of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Evaluation of Depression, Emotional States, and Personality Traits in Cancer Patients Impact of Negative Emotions on Recurrent Cardiovascular Events Following Hospitalization for Myocardial Infarction or Unstable Angina Measurement of Curiosity as a Multidimensional Personality Trait Evaluation of Refinements in the Assessment of Stressors Evaluation of Differences in Depression, Defensiveness, Social Support, and Coping Between Acute and Chronic CHD Patients hospitalized for Myocardial Infarction or Unstable Angina Evaluating Anger, Depression, and Anxiety in Aggressive/Homicidal and Depressive/Suicidal Children and Adolescents Effects of Trait Anxiety and Cognitive Appraisals on Emotional Reactions to Psychological and Physical Stressors Worries of College Students and Their Relationship to Trait and Test Anxiety Construct and Predictive Validity of Measures of Epistemic and Perceptual Curiosity The Experience, Expression & Control of Anger in Court-Ordered Assault & Domestic Violence Offenders Participating in Cognitive-Behavior Anger Management Intervention

First Name Dissertation Title

PhD Year Last Name

TABLE 9.4  C. D. Spielberger’s 37 PhD Students (continued)

Charles D. Spielberger    141

142    A. M. O'ROARK

and worked with APA task forces studying responses to the Oklahoma City bombing, the tsunami in Southeast Asia, the Japanese tsunami, and New Orleans’ Hurricane Katrina. Jacobs received two U.S. presidential citations as well as 12 other awards and honors. A more recent doctoral student, Dr. Thomas M. Brunner (see Table 9.4, 2004) is a licensed clinical psychologist practicing in the southwestern part of the United States, Tucson, Arizona. Dr. Brunner’s expertise is with children and adolescents. He published a measure of anger for youth, the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI-2 C/A) (Brunner & Spielberger, 2009), which is being adapted into five languages and used with hundreds of youths in U.S. athletic, school, medical, outpatient, and forensic settings. The title of his USF dissertation reflects the later period of Spielberger’s research: Evaluating Anger, Depression and Anxiety in Aggressive, Homicidal and Depressive Suicidal Children and Adolescents (see Table 9.4, 2004–2008). EARLY YEARS Born on March 28, 1927, in Arkansas, the U.S. heartland region, Charles Donald Spielberger, who achieved international recognition for conceptualization of and basic research on Emotional Vital Signs (Spielberger, Ritterband, Sydeman, Reheiser, & Unger, 1995; see Tables 9.1, 9.2, and Figure 9.1), succumbed to congestive heart failure on June 12, 2013, in Tampa, Florida. Charlie worked on correspondence and manuscripts at his University of South Florida office in Tampa throughout his emeritus years (2003–2013). He participated in American Psychological Association Annual Conventions and international fall conferences in Spain through 2012 in spite of declining health. His grandparents Jack and Julia Spielberger immigrated to the United States in the 19th century from Hungary via Vienna, Austria, to Arkansas. Thus, Charlie, who enjoyed being a football player during his youth, doubly treasured his honorary Doctoris Causa from the Hungarian University of Physical Education in Budapest (see Table 9.3). His father, Abe R. Spielberger, was the oldest of Jack and Julia’s six children. A. R. and his wife, Ellie, moved from Arkansas with Charlie and his younger sister, Joyce (born 1929) to Atlanta, Georgia, where they established a soft drink business. Charlie’s formal education began in the Atlanta public school system and continued there through 1944, his first year at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). He enrolled to study chemistry with the intention of entering the family business. At the end of his first year, the height of World War II and holocaust horrors, he enlisted in the Navy. He served on active duty as a radio and electronic technician in 1945–1946 and continued with the Naval Reserve, retiring as a commander in 1979. As a reserve

Charles D. Spielberger    143

officer, he consulted to and trained psychologists at Veterans Hospitals and engaged in Department of Defense research projects. HIGHER EDUCATION A transversal life emerged from several of Charlie’s strong, persevering characteristics: openness to learning and experience, focus flexibility from nano-micro to global-macro, and an enormous intellective capacity fueled by curiosity and infused with respect for consilience of knowledge. After active duty with the Navy, Charlie completed the Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in chemistry at Georgia Tech (1949), then shifted career direction. After graduation, he accepted the first of what would become a lifetime of traveling work ventures. Charlie served as national field secretary for his college fraternity, Alpha Epsilon Pi, the global Jewish fraternity founded to provide opportunities for men seeking the best possible college experience. A harbinger of the future, this mentoring venture resulted in a scholarship offer for studies in psychology at the University of Iowa in exchange for supervising the establishment of a new chapter of his fraternity there. At Iowa, Charlie earned bachelor’s (1951), master’s (1953) and doctoral (1954) degrees. His dissertation under the tutelage of Kenneth Spence addressed anxiety and stuttering (Spielberger, 1954). Continuously building on implications derived from meticulous research, Charlie extended psychological understanding of effects of stress and optimal human functioning (Spielberger & Sarason, 2005). He established evidence-based links between behavior, health, and autonomic emotional experiences of anxiety, anger, and curiosity (Greene, Schocken, & Spielberger, 1991; Spielberger, 2006b; Spielberger, Crane, Kearns, Pellegrin, & Rickman, 1995; Spielberger & London, 1990; Spielberger, Reheiser, Poston, & Foreyt, 2000). Since each emotion is powered by neuro-chemical activity, Charlie collectively described them as “vital sign emotions” (Spielberger et al., 1995). His scientific advances began with research describing, defining, and assessing individual differences in the experience and expression of these three basic emotions and then later, investigating complex experiences of depression, coping, rational defenses, and trust as well as job stress. Insights from this basic research led to informed development of applied techniques. These interventions in turn permitted controlled studies of consequences, indicating which educational and clinical techniques provided harmful and/ or ameliorating effects on life stress and well-being (Spielberger, Gonzalez, & Fletcher, 1979; Spielberger, Sydeman, Owen, & Marsh, 1999b). Dr. Spielberger never ceased learning. He learned from wisdom recorded by scholars of the past, from strong voices in present thinking, and from

144    A. M. O'ROARK

intimations of the future, especially implications of research by his students. Nor did he cease looking for solutions to problems and pathways forward. His principle-based common ground strategy encouraged high achievement among undergraduates across the United States in his first job and developed into a unique competence and approach that facilitated working with global leaders in science and academic disciplines, even across politically charged national and cultural divides (Spielberger & Diaz-Guerrero, 1982). His influence was felt in Russia, in Mexico, in India, in Japan, in Spain, and on each continent during a dawning zeitgeist of psychology as relevant for everyday living. CAREER PATH Spielberger’s academic career began with an appointment in psychology and psychiatry at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, where he developed the foundations for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970). This psychometric instrument shows individual differences in anxiety levels using normative tables. Anxiety is measured for the present (state anxiety) and long term (trait anxiety). In testimony to the universality of the experience of anxiety, the STAI has been translated and adapted to 66 languages and dialects with more than 15,000 archival records (see Tables 9.1 and 9.2). While at Duke University, Charlie initiated projects translating basic research into treatment interventions and educational programs (Spielberger, Sydeman, Owen, & Marsh, 1999b). He obtained a Mental Health Project Grant (1959–1962) from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health for “Improving the Academic Adjustment of Anxious College Freshmen” (Spielberger et al., 1979). During the Duke years, Charlie independently provided consulting to a North Carolina community services center that inspired his establishment of a new specialty field within the discipline of community psychology, a field that hails him as primary founder. A few years later, in 1972, he organized the Journal of Community Psychology, the first of his publishing, editing, and authoring ventures with more than half a dozen publishing firms. He continued work on verbal conditioning and anxiety at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee (1962–1967), where he was promoted to Professor of Psychology in 1962. During 1965–1967, on leave from Vanderbilt, he served as Training Specialist in Psychology at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Following two years in DC, 1967 to 1969, Charlie accepted a position as professor and director of clinical training at Florida State University (FSU), Tallahassee, Florida. A first marriage that included the adoption of several children ended in 1971. During the first half of 1972, at the FSU

Charles D. Spielberger    145

Study Center in London, England, he participated in the first of five work periods abroad. His other four assignments were two terms as Research Fellow at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study and two terms as visiting professor, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, Spain. In the fall of 1972, Charlie joined the faculty at the then newly established University of South Florida in Tampa, where he was director of clinical training and provided the leadership for obtaining APA accreditation for the USF doctoral program in psychology. His second wife, Carole Lee, and her son, Nicholas, whom Charlie adopted, moved with him. Carol continued her career in classical ballet at nearby St. Leo College. In 1977, Charlie organized and directed the USF Center for Research in Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology, where he hosted, mentored, and supervised dozens of researchers and colleagues from around the world. In 2003, some 31 years after joining USF’s faculty, he became Distinguished University Research Professor Emeritus, continuing to participate in professional association leadership, consulting, writing, and research. COLLEGIAL-DIPLOMATIC ADVANCEMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY Dr. Spielberger’s advancement of the discipline of psychology is especially felt in the field of Assessment Psychology (Butcher & Spielberger, 1983). He used his knowledge of statistical analysis to advance personality assessment and psychometric methods while responding to requests to adapt his tests for use in other cultures and languages (Spielberger & Sharma, 1973; see Table 9.1). After publishing more than 23 articles on translation and adaptation of his measures and co-chairing and authoring a review of the 1994 APA revisions of test standards, Charlie co-edited a watershed work, Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment (Hambleton, Merenda, & Spielberger, 2005). A telling anecdotal example of true need for new methodology in cross-cultural test use is captured in the discovery that the Spanish word used for anger in Spain and in Mexico implies rape. Charlie incorporated insights of the earliest pioneers in behavioral physiology, psychoanalysis, and psychology for questionnaire development (Spielberger, 1966). He used visionary logic to obtain grants for exploring the relationship between stress and tobacco use (Spielberger et al., 2000); stress in sports (Spielberger, Sydeman, Owen, & Marsh, 1999a); as well as for interdisciplinary conferences that pooled information about the impact of data linking personality and stress and health conditions, such as executives and heart diseases (Greene et al., 1991; Spielberger, 2006b); breast

146    A. M. O'ROARK

and stomach cancers (Ritterband & Spielberger, 2001), ulcers, vascular and other medical problems (Spielberger & London, 1990). He used entrepreneurial and problem-solving skills as President of the Society of Personality Assessment, Inc. (SPA), which subsequently benefitted multiple professional organizations. As SPA President, he calmed internal debates over methods for interpreting Rorschach inkblots and about becoming part of the American Psychological Association. He increased membership, moved the journal from an in-house production to a professionally published journal, and assisted in activation of an international Rorschach association. Spielberger reflected on progress in SPA’s 50th anniversary publication: For me, the most exciting development in the SPA over the past decade is that the Society is now fully living up to its name as a truly ecumenical organization that embraces all facets of personality assessment. Objective and projective techniques are given equal emphasis at our midwinter meetings, not only in their applications in clinical settings, but also in industrial and educational contexts. I am especially pleased with the accomplishments of the Board of Directors in expanding the programs of the Society and increasing the membership from less than 1,000 in 1986 to almost 2,000 as we approach our 50th Anniversary celebration. Although the phenomenal growth of the SPA can be attributed in part to a renaissance of interest in personality assessment, a more important fact is that we are providing a forum for the exchange of ideas emanating from diverse points of view. . . . In these days of continuing inflation and an outrageous national debt, I am very proud of the fact that the Society has managed to expand its purposes, increase the page allocation of our Journal by more than 30%, enrich the quality of our midwinter meetings, publish this special History-Directory volume, and add a small surplus to our reserve funds, while maintaining the same dues level for the past 5 years. . . . The future is indeed bright. (Exner & O’Roark, 1989, pp. 50–51)

Charlie achieved similar development patterns in the American Psychological Association while being Treasurer and then the 100th President (1991–1992). Stabilization of APA finances was brought about by the sale of the unprofitable Psychology Today publication plus adjustments in land holdings, investment portfolios, and financings (Spielberger, 1990). His term as 25th President of the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP) (1998–2002) is described by José Maria Prieto of Complutense University, Madrid, Spain, and former IAAP Secretary General (APA, 2014): [An instance of his intense leadership is seen] in the International Association of Applied Psychology. . . . He chaired the publications committee in 1986 and it meant not only supervising the protocol to increase quality controls on articles submitted by authors who were quite often not so fluent in English, but [also] increasing the Impact Factor of the journal during his

Charles D. Spielberger    147 term in office (up to 1994). . . . The outcome was his role of main editor of four book series as well as editor in chief of 14 volumes devoted to Health Psychology and Behavioural Medicine and [finally, compiling of] the International Encyclopaedia of Applied Psychology. His achievement was due to the engagement of leading figures of psychology all around the world and maintaining high standard quality controls in publications. (J. M. Prieto, personal communication, 2013)

Dr. Prieto’s collaborations with Charlie began in 1984 at the 23rd International Congress of Psychology held in Acapulco, Mexico, and they, together with a number of European IAAP colleague-friends, were able to introduce the first use of psychometric assessment tests in Russia. A mutual friend, Wojciech Jaruzelski, served as go-between for the Kremlin, via the Institute of Psychology in Moscow. At that time, Western psychological associations encouraged participation from Eastern European countries, and during the 1980s and 1990s, Charlie searched for reliable scholars and researchers in eastern European universities or institutes, mainly in Poland and Hungary. Tests or questionnaires were practically forbidden in the Soviet Union (see Gielen & Jeshmaridian, this volume), and researchers were using tools derived from the experimental analysis of neuropsychological functioning after Alexander Luria’s (1902–1977) operational models (see Akhutina & Shereshevesky, this volume). Prieto recalled how Charles spent a major portion of his time and capabilities in traveling all around the world and in variable circumstances. Prieto described Charlie’s purpose as short- and medium-term collaboration across borders and cultures. These collaborative efforts began in Latin America when Charlie first became an officer in the Interamerican Psychological Society (SIP), 1976–1983. Charlie served as SIP Vice-President from 1976 t0 1979, co-chairing the XVI Interamerican Congress held in Miami (1976). During those years, he collaborated with Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero, who founded the SIP association in 1951 and is included in this volume (see Chapter 11) as not only a pioneer of international psychology but also of Latin American Psychology. Although of different age cohorts, both men studied with Kenneth Spence at the University of Iowa, used scientific methods to link biological variables and behavior, addressed sociocultural impacts on individuals, developed psychometric assessment tools, and initiated projects with psychologists in other countries to advance scientific psychology. In addition to searching out and recruiting talented psychologists to engage in joint venture research, in 1980, Charlie launched a project in Europe to bring together early career researchers from 35 countries to bring focus to a new field of psychological specialization based on the subject of their doctoral dissertations and his first psychometric stream of research (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995): the International Society for Test Anxiety

148    A. M. O'ROARK

Research (STAR). This required obtaining multidisciplinary recognition across national variations in academic programs as well as organizing profitable STAR conferences each year for over three decades. Through this undertaking, Prieto (personal communication, 2013) reports that Spielberger demonstrated to the international community an ecumenical problemsolving capacity, indefatigable diplomacy in delicate circumstances, and a visionary entrepreneurial competence. Charlie’s leadership and creative problem-solving initiative served a wide range of professional associations. He was president of large and small organizations (e.g., eight APA Divisions; the Southeastern Psychological Association; STAR; the Society of Personality Assessment; the International Council of Psychologists, and two terms as President of Psi Chi, the National Honor Society in Psychology). Recognized transversally, he served as chair of the National Council of Scientific Society Presidents. He held diplomates in clinical and assessment psychology and was a founding Diplomate in the American Board of Assessment Psychology (ABAP) (1995). The U.S. National Academies of Practice recognized him as “a distinguished practitioner of psychology.” Associations honored Charlie with awards recognizing his contributions to psychology and to their organization. Some 6 of his 24 awards came from APA, culminating with the 2005 Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology Award and the 2003 Gold Medal award for Life Achievement in the Application of Psychology (see Table 9.3). VITAL SIGN EMOTIONS Crossing the divides between medical, social, and psychological streams of knowledge, elucidation of “vital sign emotions” may well be Charlie’s most lasting paradigm shift. Approximately 51,300 Google references suggest emergence of transversal personality models and theories. Following the establishment of essential and necessary distinctions in state and trait values in individual assessment and a constellation of work around anxiety, for 20 years, Spielberger focused on developing measures of the intensity and frequency of anger, the emotion that proved to impact physical health more seriously than anxiety. Spielberger’s major lines of research included (a) personality assessment, especially basic emotions such as anxiety, anger, and curiosity; (b) complex psychobiological processes such as initiating stimulus through perceptual interpretation to emotional reaction; and (c) examining effects of salient individual, social, and situational variables. He has purified and simplified testing techniques, melded separated streams of research, and collated historical and meta-analyses of advances in psychological science.

Charles D. Spielberger    149

Of seven areas of findings, three relate to alleviation of disabling, universal phenomena (anxiety, anger, depression), one to a pleasurable emotion (curiosity), and three are preventive survival phenomena (coping and defense, trust, job stress). Following trails of clues about individual productivity and achievement of innate capabilities, Charlie combined the assessment of the three emotional motivators and depression to create a compound assessment of personality: the State Trait Personality Inventory (STPI) (Spielberger & Vagg, 1982). STPI assessment profiles, in effect, mapped the SPIRIT of personality. SPIRIT is an acronym descriptive of the model Spielberger used to understand individual differences in pivotal inner variables, and was developed for use in executive effectiveness courses: Stress-related Personality Indicators of Reactions and Individual Traits (O’Roark, 1988, 2000/2012) (see Figure 9.1 for more information about the SPIRIT model). Spielberger’s most-referenced psychometric topics are briefly described below (see Table 9.1 for further details about the psychometric tests). Anxiety Charlie’s most widely known assessment instrument is the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Adapted for use in 66 languages and dialects (see Table 9.1) and widely recognized as the international standard measure of anxiety, STAI has more than 15,000 citations in archival publications. Due to its widespread use, anxiety may be known as a significant transversal, universal, and etic human variable-characteristic. In a glossary prepared for use with Stress, Emotions, and Heart Disease, Charlie defined Anxiety as a psychobiological emotional state or condition, consisting of feelings of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry, with associated muscular tension and activation of the autonomic nervous system. State Anxiety may vary in intensity and fluctuate over time as a function of the individual’s perception of external stressors as personally threatening. Trait Anxiety indicates differences between people in the disposition to perceive external events or internal cues [thoughts, memories] as personally dangerous or threatening.

Two components of anxiety were considered to be emotionality and worry. Emotionality refers to autonomic reactions—blood pressure, heart rate, galvanic skin resistance—evoked by situations in which the stressors evoked some evaluation of the person. Worry refers to concern about the consequences of failure. Emotionality has been found to spark task-irrelevant thoughts and behaviors that interfere with attention and concentration. Worry involves self-derogatory thoughts that reduce efficiency of new learning and recall of past information.

150    A. M. O'ROARK

Analysis of Test Anxiety, one of the earliest anxiety subtypes, showed that the most effective improvements for students came when they were given instruction in ways to eliminate or minimize thoughts that interfered with task concentration, thoughts that were self-critical, and thoughts that incorrectly assessed the significance of the pending event. New information about study habits and skill also reduced Test Anxiety levels, especially when provided in a two-stage program. The first stage reduces negative thinking and expectations, while the second stage provides instruction on competencies related to learning and test taking. Anger Spielberger discovered evidence of the more debilitating and life threatening role of anger (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983). He organized and convened research workshops and institutes that brought cutting-edge scientists from across the country and around the world to juxtapose the latest findings. He defined anger in the following terms: State Anger is an emotional state marked by subjective feelings that vary in intensity from mild annoyance or irritation to intense fury or rage, accompanied by muscular tension and arousal of the autonomic nervous system. Intensity varies as a function of perceived injustice, being attacked or treated unfairly by others, or frustration resulting from barriers to goal directed behavior.

Trait Anger shows individual differences in anger proneness. Anger was further found to have two separate sources of provocation: temperament and reaction. These were found to have two modes of expression: in and out. The addition of the anger control factor refers to the extent to which individuals express, suppress, and control their anger (Spielberger, Reheiser, & Sydeman, 1995). Curiosity Building on research by William James and Daniel Berlyne, Charlie assessed intellective curiosity as a characteristic key in prompting exploratory behavior, the drive to be innovative and creative, and as likely the first to emerge of these three survival emotions that guide an infant’s developmental path (Spielberger & Starr, 1994). Separating intellectual curiosity from thrill-seeking curiosity, he developed psychometrics to assess state and trait aspects of this third vital sign, neurochemical emotion. Research associates curiosity with beneficial symbiotic effects on anxiety (Spielberger,

Charles D. Spielberger    151

Peters, & Frain, 1981) and on chemistries of T-cell production and growth of dendrite connections between brain cells. Spielberger’s glossary defines curiosity: A pleasurable emotion characterized by feelings of inquisitiveness, interest in novel stimuli, and a subjective desire to seek out and explore the environment. Arousal of autonomic nervous system is associated with elevations in State Curiosity . . . [which] is intellectual in nature and different from sensation seeking and pleasure.

Depression Separating anxiety from other aspects of clinical depression experiences, Spielberger uncovered the importance of assessing the presence and absence of positive and negative emotions when assessing depression. Glossary definition excerpts note that State Depression refers to persons who may be experiencing low, mild or high levels of a transitory depression. Depressive episodes may be attributed to events being experienced at or near the time of responding to the questionnaire. Physiological conditions that accompany elevated levels of State Depression include changes in appetite, sleep and activity. Other associated conditions are decreased energy, difficulty thinking, concentrating, making decisions. . . . In Trait Depression, at higher levels there may loss of interest and pleasure in usual activities, changes in weight, and suicidal thoughts.

Cross-cultural assessment projects highlighted differences in “response sets” (see chapter by Ahmed in this volume) reflecting differences in sociocultural norms (Spielberger, Ruela-Casal, Agudeio, Carretero-Dios, & Santolaya, 2005). The euthymic and dysthymic scales of depression revealed uniqueness in the Japanese response set (Hidano, Fukuhara, Iwawaki, Soga, & Spielberger, 2002). Trust Investigations emerging from the study of angry hostility showed trust to be a multifaceted characteristic. The findings indicated three levels of trust: self, others, and organizations. Furthermore, trust and distrust seem to be orthogonal. As with all of Dr. Spielberger’s streams of research findings, current data provide clues to selecting future studies.

152    A. M. O'ROARK

Job Stress Dr. Spielberger’s statistical analysis of Job Stress Survey (JSS) data indicate two primary factors of work stress: job pressures and lack of support (Spielberger & Vagg, 1998). Once established, through collaborative work with the Florida State Police Department (Spielberger & Vagg, 1981), the instrument was adapted to other occupations. Eventually other language communities and businesses/agencies were enabled to adapt items in terms of stressors unique to that group or culture. A guidebook for JSS used in organizational consulting, called Optimal Challenge, was one of the few unfinished projects on Charlie’s desk. SUMMARY In a time of multifaceted complexities, Charlie Spielberger synthesized streams of research in cognitive, behavioral, affective, and neurobiological psychology and clarified more than a half dozen human mysteries associated with “psychological vital sign” emotions. Consolidating and extending scientific insights, then applying that knowledge to significant problems of well-being, he engaged in basic research that produced methodological and conceptual advances in psychology, in personality assessment, and in translating evidence into programs for wellness. He refined state-trait distinctions in the universal phenomena of anxiety and stress, in the experience and expression of anger as a critical factor in coronary heart disease, highlighted the importance of the presence and absence of both positive and negative factors in depression, and pinpointed central components of variables contributing to constructive, creative living—curiosity and trust. Charlie’s creative thinking and innovative problem-solving talent is recognized and valued not only in basic research and applied psychology, but also for putting psychological principles to work in resolving differences of opinion among members of professional organizations. It is likely that few assessment instruments will be constructed in the future that do not include measures that sort out state from trait dimensions. The importance of anger in health and community disturbances is increasingly recognized and will be a key variable as civilized nations attempt to contain and reduce global violence. Influenced in an early-life career shift by WWII, Charlie was able to step beyond any residuals of anger to work toward positive respect for every person’s well-being. It is unlikely to be accidental that the conference of the International Council of Psychologists, held in Tel Aviv, Israel, during his 1986 presidential year was given the title: International Psychology for Peace and Understanding (see Table 9.2).

Charles D. Spielberger    153

Charles Donald Spielberger was not confined or defined by an era of time, nor a place on the earth, not by social causes or religious catechism, nor by prejudices or dwelling on righting past injustices or insanities. He was a scientist-psychologist who focused on “what have you done for psychology recently,” who loved his work as well as his students, his colleagues, and his community. He always expected and hoped for excellence in productivity and application of talents. While some are reported to jest that he was a source of stress as well as a source of knowledge about stress, all cherished his generosity, his integrity, his kind heart, and his brilliant logical diplomacy: A pioneer who understood the meaning of accepting life’s optimal challenges. REFERENCES American Psychological Association (APA). (1991, March). Presidency crowns ‘love affair’ with field. APA Monitor, 6–7. American Psychological Association (APA). (2014). Charles Donald Spielberger 1927–2013. Obituary. American Psychologist, 69, 297–298. [O’Roark, A.M., Prieto, J.M., & Bruner, T. M.]. Anton, W. (2013). Business success through self knowledge. Lutz, FL: CEOeffectiveness. Brunner, T. M., & Spielberger, C. D. (2009). The State Trait Anger Expression Inventory, Second Edition, Child Adolescent (STAXI-C/A). Sarasota, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Butcher J. N., & Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.). (1983). Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Exner, J. E., Jr., & O’Roark, A. M. (Eds.). (1989). Fiftieth anniversary history and directory: Society for Personality Assessment. Separate Issue No. 1: Journal of Personality Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Greene, A. F., Schocken, D. D., & Spielberger, C. D. (1991). Self-report of chest pain symptoms and coronary artery disease in patients undergoing angiography. Pain, 47, 319–324. Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.). (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hidano, T., Fukuhara, M., Iwawaki, S., Soga, S., & Spielberger, C. D. (2002). Manual STAI-JYZ (Japanese version of STAI-Y). Tokyo, Japan: Jitsumu Kyoiku Shuppan. O’Roark, A. M. (1988, March). The SPIRIT measures: A microbattery assessment for managers and executives. Presented at the midwinter meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment, New Orleans, LA. O’Roark, A. M. (2000/2012). The quest for executive effectiveness: Turning vision inside out. charismatic-participative leadership (2nd ed.). Nevada City, CA: Blue Dolphin/ Symposium. Ritterband, L. M., & Spielberger, C. D. (2001). Depression in cancer patient population. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 8, 85–93.

154    A. M. O'ROARK Spielberger, C. D. (1954). The effects of stuttering behavior and response set upon tachistoscopic visual recognition thresholds (Doctoral dissertation). State University of Iowa, Iowa City. Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Academic. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: STAI (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Spielberger, C. D. (1990). Report of the Treasurer—1989: The 1980’s: A roller coaster decade for APA finances. American Psychologist, 45, 807–812. Spielberger, C. D. (2006a). Preface. In G. Reyes & G. A. Jacobs (Eds.), Handbook of international disaster psychology (Vol.1, pp. xv–xvii). Westport, CT: Praeger. Spielberger, C. D. (2006b). Effects of stress, emotion, and Type-A behavior on heart disease and psychological disorders. In Q. Jing, M. R. Rosenzweig, G. d’Ydewalle, H. Zhang, H. C. Chen, & K. Zhang (Eds.), Progress in psychological science around the world (Vol. 2, pp. 125–137). New York, NY: Psychology. Spielberger, C. D., Crane, R. S., Kearns, W. D., Pellegrin, K. L., & Rickman, R. (1995). Anger and anxiety in essential hypertension. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, Z. Kulcsar, & G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Stress and emotion: Anxiety, anger and curiosity (Vol. 14). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Spielberger, C. D., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1982). Cross-cultural anxiety: An overview. In C. D. Spielberger & R. Diaz-Guerrero (Eds.), Cross-cultural anxiety (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Hemisphere/McGraw-Hill International. Spielberger, C. D., Gonzalez, H. P., & Fletcher, T. (1979). Test anxiety reduction, learning strategies, and academic performance. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr., & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and affective learning strategies. New York, NY: Academic. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). STAI manual for the StateTrait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press. Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Spielberger, C. D., Kase, J., & Sikes, S. (1978, Spring). Anxiety, curiosity, creativity. Psi Chi Newsletter, 4, 1–3. Spielberger, C. D., & London, P. (1982). Rage boomerangs. A key to preventing coronaries is emerging: Learning to handle anger and avoid seven deadly responses. American Health, 1, 52–56. Spielberger, C. D., & London, P. (1983). Job stress, hassles and medical risk. American Health, 2, 58–63. Spielberger, C. D., & London, P. (1990, January/February). Blood pressure and injustice: Learning to control angry reactions to unfairness can help cut the danger of high blood pressure. Psychology Today, 48, 50, 52. Spielberger, C. D., Peters, R. A., & Frain, F. (1981). Curiosity and anxiety. In H. G. Voss & H. Keller (Eds.), Curiosity research: Basic concepts and results. Weinheim, Federal Republic of Germany: Beltz. Spielberger, C. D., Reheiser, E. C., Poston, W. S. C., & Foreyt, J. P. (2000). Personality, motivational and situational determinants of regular and occasional use of smokeless tobacco. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 1159–1170.

Charles D. Spielberger    155 Spielberger, C. D., Reheiser, E. C., & Sydeman, S. J. (1995). Measuring the experience, expression and control of anger. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders: Definitions, diagnosis, and treatment. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Spielberger, C. D., Ritterband, L. M., Sydeman, S. J., Reheiser, E. C., & Unger, K. K. (1995). Assessment of emotional state and personality traits: Measuring psychological vital signs. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Clinical personality assessment: Practical approaches (pp. 42–58). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Spielberger, C. D., Ruela-Casal, G., Agudeio, D., Carretero-Dios, H., & Santolaya, F. (2005). Analysis of convergent and discriminant validity of the Spanish experimental version of the State-Trait Depression Questionnaire (ST-Dep). [In Spanish]. Actos Esp Psiquiatr, 33, 374–382. Spielberger, C. D., & Sarason, I. G. (Eds.) (2005). Stress and emotion: Anxiety, anger, and curiosity (Vol. 17). New York, NY: Hemisphere/Taylor & Francis. Spielberger, C. D., & Sharma, S. (1973). Development of the Hindi edition of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Indian Journal of Psychology, 48, 11–20. Spielberger, C. D., & Starr, L. M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr., & M. J. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Spielberger, C. D., Sydeman, S. J., Owen, A. E., & Marsh, B. J. (1999a). Stress and anxiety in sports. In D. Hackfort & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Anxiety in sports: An international perspective (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Hemisphere/Harper & Row. Spielberger, C. D., Sydeman, S. J., Owen, A. E., & Marsh, B. J. (1999b). Measuring anxiety and anger with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the StateTrait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). In M. E. Marquis (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment. Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum. Spielberger, C. D. & Vagg, P. R. (1981). Professional manual for the Florida Police Standards Psychological Test Battery (Monograph Series Three, No. 4). Tampa, FL: Human Resources Institute, University of South Florida. Spielberger, C. D., with Vagg, P. (1982). Preliminary manual for the StateTrait Personality Inventory. The Center for Research in Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (Eds.). (1995). Test anxiety: Theory, assessment, and treatment. Washington, DC: Hemisphere/Taylor & Francis. Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. (1998). Professional manual for the Job Stress Survey (JSS). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. University of South Florida (USF). (1979). Dr. Charles D. Spielberger: USF’s director of the Center for Research in Community Psychology is also an expert on stress and anxiety. USF TODAY, p. 9. University of South Florida (USF). (2009). Faculty annual reports: Spielberger CV. Tampa, FL: USF.

This page intentionally left blank.

PART IV THE WORLDWIDE EXPANSION OF PSYCHOLOGY

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 10

MUSTAPHA SOUEIF An Intellectual Portrait of the Father of Arab Clinical Psychology Ramadan A. Ahmed

The purpose of this chapter is to shed light on the life and achievements of Egyptian psychologist Mustapha I. Soueif, widely known as the father of Arab clinical psychology. The chapter reviews his life, his contributions, and his influence on Arab and international psychology. In order to illustrate the context in which Soueif made his contributions, this chapter also includes some comments on the development and current status of psychology in Egypt and other Arab countries. Mustapha I. Soueif was born in Cairo, Egypt, on July 17, 1924. He received his BA in philosophy (1945) and his MA (1949) and PhD (1954) in psychology from Cairo University, Egypt, where he began teaching in 1950. In 1957, he obtained, under Hans Eysenck’s and M. B. Shapiro’s supervision, a diploma in clinical psychology from London University. In 1970, he was appointed Chair Professor of Psychology of the Department of Philosophical and Psychological Studies, and in 1974, he became the first chairman of the newly established psychology department at Cairo University.

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 159–173 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

159

160    R. A. AHMED

From 1984 until today, Professor Soueif has served as Professor Emeritus of Psychology. Having supervised around 100 MA and PhD theses as well as plus over 20 MD dissertations, he has played a crucial role in the development of clinical psychology in Egypt and many other Arab countries (Ahmed, 1992, 1997, 2004, 2012; Ahmed & Gielen, 1998; Darweesh, 1996). Soueif is regarded as one of the most respected psychologists in the Arab world. A prolific writer, he has authored 35 books, edited and coedited some other 10 books, and written more than 200 scholarly articles and chapters on a variety of topics in clinical psychology (Soueif, 1958c, 1985, 1987, 1991b, 1998a, 2001b, 2005; Soueif & Metawlly, 1961), personality (Soueif, 1958b, 1965a, 1968), creativity (Soueif, 1950, 1960), art appreciation (Soueif, 1950), drug abuse (1967, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976a, 1976b, 1976c, 1990, 1996, 1998b, 2009; Soueif, El-Sayed, Darweesh, & Hannourah, 1980; Soueif et al., 1987, 1990), and the history of psychology in Egypt (Soueif, 1988, 1991a). Besides emphasizing the contributions of Muslim scholars to the history of psychology (Soueif, 1965a), he has published a great number of articles in Egyptian and Arab magazines for the general public. A large number of books reflect his deep concern for issues related to daily life in Egyptian society (Soueif, 1994b, 1999, 1999–2005, 2004, 2013). BECOMING A PSYCHOLOGIST When he was 17 years old studying in secondary school, Soueif made a significant shift in his academic life. He was the only son in a middle-class family, in which the mother was a daughter of a well-known religious cleric and the father an ordinary civil servant. The young Mustapha was encouraged to be a scientist to fulfill his mother’s dream. So he became a student in the science branch at the secondary school with the ultimate goal of joining the faculty of medicine and becoming a medical doctor. However, in a contest organized by the Ministry of Education in Cairo for Arabic language and literature, he won a prize that consisted of a small sum of money and a set of books, one of which included an Arabic translation of Will Durant’s book The Story of Philosophy (Soueif, 1994b). After reading this book and various writings by Plato, Aristotle, Horace, F. Bacon, Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, and Engels, Soueif decided to join the Philosophy Department at the Faculty of Arts at Cairo University instead of studying medicine. The family, especially his mother, were shocked and tried hard to convince him to fulfill the family’s dream by becoming a medical doctor. However, Soueif was determined to join the world of philosophy. At that time, Egyptian and other Arab families held great expectations for their male offspring. Being the only son, Soueif found himself in a great

Mustapha Soueif    161

dilemma. On one hand, he wished to fulfill his mother’s dream, but on the other, he felt strongly that his true path led in another direction. At the Faculty of Arts in Cairo University, he enjoyed studying philosophy as well as attending lectures in other fields given by great Egyptian and European scholars such as Taha Hussein (The Dean of Arab Literature) and A. Lalaende (The French Philosopher). Upon graduating, Soueif was invited, among other students, to meet his psychology professor Yousef Mourad, who asked him about his plan for the future. When Soueif said, “I am going to study aesthetics as a subject for the MA degree,” the professor replied with, “You can study aesthetic questions from a psychological point of view.” Soueif took his professor’s advice to heart, and between 1945 and 1954, Soueif published two studies: The Psychology of Creativity in the Arts: With Special Reference to Poetry in 1949 (Soueif, 1950) and Principles of Psychosocial Integration with Special Reference to the Development of Social Responses in Infants and Children in 1954 (Soueif, 1954a). As a young man, Soueif wrote poetry, thereby following an Arab humanistic tradition, but once he decided to study psychology, he destroyed his works of poetry in order to pursue the more rigorous and conceptual path of psychology. As was true for many educated Egyptians of his day, Soueif was exposed to both Egyptian and Western intellectual teachings in high school and in university. Moreover, he read widely and was familiar with many Western books that he often attempted to read in English. After obtaining his MA in 1949, Soueif married Fatma Moussa, a Cairo University English literature professor who passed away a few years ago. He has three children: two daughters and a son. His youngest daughter, Laila, became a professor of mathematics at Cairo University; the eldest one, Ahdaf, is a well-known novelist; the son, Alaa, is an engineer. RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS Soueif has chaired the Committee for the Investigation of Cannabis Consumption in Egypt since 1966. Beginning in 1967, he served as an advisor to the Egyptian Ministry of Public Health for about three decades. He was also the Under-Secretary of State for Culture from 1968 to 1971, acted as the Rector for the Academy of Arts, Ministry of Culture from 1969 to 1971, where he suggested and implemented a battery of psychological tests aimed at selecting the most qualified students to join the academy, and served as President of the Egyptian Association for Psychological Studies (EAPS) from 1970 to 1971. In later years, he was appointed Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the National Council for Addressing Drug Abuse and Addiction in Egypt. In 1989, he received the Egypt State Merit

162    R. A. AHMED

Award for Social Sciences (Psychology), and Egypt’s highest award, the Nile State Award (Ex: Mubarak Award) for Social Sciences in 2006. From 1991 to 1993 he distinguished himself as the Chairman of the Egyptian Society for Mental Health. On the international level, Soueif has served as the Vice Chairman for WHO’s Scientific Group on the Use of Cannabis, has been a member of the Section of Epidemiology and Community Psychiatry of the World Psychiatric Association (1982–1993), and was similarly associated with that Association’s Section on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence as a member of the WHO Expert Committee for Drug Dependence (1971–1995). His travels as a Visiting Professor and Guest Researcher have led him to the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital, University of London, UK (1955–1957 and 1963–1964); the Max-Planck-Institut für Psychiatrie, Munich, Germany (1969–1970); Lund University, Sweden (1972); and Kuwait University, Kuwait (1988), where he has evaluated the major curricula of the Department of Psychology. Soueif has also offered scientific testimony on the psychological effects of cannabis consumption to a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate in 1974. In addition, he has served on the boards of numerous international, national, and regional scientific journals. For instance, he served as an associate editor for Africa and the Arab World for World Psychology (1995–1998). Moreover, he is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of the recently established National Review of Drug Abuse and Dependency, which is being published by the National Centre for Social and Criminological Research, Cairo, Egypt. Soueif is a member of numerous local, regional, and international scientific organizations and associations, including the New York Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. At least three different interviews have been conducted with Professor Soueif (Ahmed, 1997; British Journal of Addiction, 1988; Khalifa, 2000), and he was an invited speaker and/or a guest on numerous Egyptian TV programs and radio broadcasts. RESEARCH AREAS The Psychology of Creativity Soueif’s MA thesis, entitled The Psychology of Creativity in the Arts: With Special Reference to Poetry, was completed in 1949 and published as a book in 1950 (Soueif, 1950). Notably, he achieved this endeavor before J. P. Guilford initiated his project exploring creative thinking abilities and factors. In 1954, as part of his doctoral dissertation, Soueif investigated the principles

Mustapha Soueif    163

of psychosocial integration with special reference to the development of social responses in infants and children in an Arabic milieu. Soueif’s interest in creativity continued for over 30 years. He and his students conducted various studies investigating the creative process in areas such as the writing of novels, short stories, painting, and plays (Soueif, 1978, 1991a; Soueif & Ahmed, 2001). A considerable number of Soueif’s students opted to study variables influencing creativity rather than its inherent dynamics. An interesting study here was Soueif and El-Sayed’s work on the relationship between personality and creativity factors (Soueif & El-Sayed, 1970). All linear correlations estimated between the two groups of test variables did not differ significantly from zero. However, when eta was calculated all correlations turned out to be highly significant. Other students researched the relationship between creative thinking abilities and age, from childhood through adulthood. In 1960 Soueif published a study under the title, “Tests of Creativity: Review, Critique, and Clinical Implications.” He suggested that tests of creativity would be sensitive to the onset of mental disorder. Extreme Response Sets Another research topic that attracted Soueif’s early attention was extreme response sets, especially their relation with intolerance of ambiguity, neuroticism, and extroversion (Soueif, 1958a, 1958b, 1965b, 1968). How Soueif, his students, and his colleagues conceptualized and researched this topic is well reported in a monograph published in 1968 (in Arabic). Soueif stated that throughout the late 1940s and early 1950s, he was impressed by K. Lewin’s theory on the dynamics of personality; for example, rigidity, flexibility, and psychic tension. He read with admiration J. S. Kounine’s works (1943) on intellectual development and rigidity, and H. H. Anderson’s theory (1943) on domination and socially integrative behavior. Thereafter, some sort of incubation took place ending up with the emergence of extreme response sets as a measure of intolerance of ambiguity. In 1958 Soueif published his first work on extreme response sets in the British Journal of Psychology (1958a). Topics investigated by research workers, thereafter, included relationships between extreme response sets and social marginality, delinquency, neuroticism, psychoticism, extraversion, and creativity. J. S. Brengelmann (1959a) found that positive extremeness differentiated more reliably than negative extremeness between normal and abnormal participants. A more interesting finding by the same researcher was that Germans scored higher than English nationals on extreme responses (Berngelmann, 1959b). In Egypt, Hannourah (1968) reported that urban citizens scored higher than rural citizens on extremeness. Though he has

164    R. A. AHMED

not worked on extreme response sets for the last three decades, Soueif still feels that the topic’s potential has not yet been exhausted. In other words, the topic is still researchable, promising important new findings. Drug Dependency and Cannabis Consumption Soueif’s interest in investigating drug abuse led to the launching of the Cannabis Consumption Program in November 1957, sponsored by the National Center of Social and Criminological Research, established in Cairo in 1956. From 1957 through 1974 the concerned Committee carried out a number of research activities, including, inter alia, constructing an interviewing schedule and administering it to numerous groups of cannabis takers and controls, together with 12 objective test variables. To educate the Arab community about the health and social issues surrounding cannabis consumption, the Committee published two volumes (in Arabic): the first (in 1960) reports the relevant points of methodology, and the second (1964) presents the related results. In this context, Soueif wrote for the U.N. Bulletin on Narcotics to inform Western readers regarding Egyptians’ endeavors (Soueif, 1971). The fact that cannabis was the most prevalent drug among Egyptian users throughout the 1950s and 1960s prompted Soueif to concentrate his research efforts on its effects. Among his most important findings were the following: • There exists a sustained association between chronic consumption of the drug (for 5 consecutive years) and short-term memory deficit and psychomotor retardation, and • There is a strong positive association between duration of hashish consumption and the tendency to take opium. The drug scene in Egypt changed drastically in the early 1970s. Given that most of the drugs on the black market were smuggled across the Sinai Peninsula, the political-military events occurring on the Egyptian Eastern front from 1967 to 1973 nearly obstructed this route. The smugglers had to find another route using the port of Salloum on the Western border of the country. However, this made the drug extremely expensive for the Egyptian customer. At the same time, therapeutic psychotropic drugs were being sold to users as cheaper substitutes for hashish. Reacting to this newly emerging sociopolitical situation, Soueif decided that the Committee’s program should grow into a broader research project. In 1975, the Standing Project on Drug Abuse was established. Under this umbrella, a number of large-scale epidemiological studies were carried out

Mustapha Soueif    165

to uncover the patterns and extent of drug abuse among various sectors in Egyptian society (e.g., Soueif et al., 1987, 1990). It should be noted, en passant, that the group’s recently written articles are being published in the National Review of Drug Abuse and Addiction, founded in Egypt in 2003 with Soueif as editor-in-chief. There is an abundance of information regarding the dimensions of the problem among secondary school pupils, male and female university students, working men in the manufacturing industries, and men and women in rural districts. One interesting result that kept emerging in these studies and that should be emphasized is the importance of differentiating between experimenters, occasional users, and long-term regular users. Only one fourth of experimenters turn into occasional users; the rest drop the whole experience for good. In turn, one fourth of the occasional users turn into long-term regular users, and the rest remain permanent occasional users. Soueif considers this finding pivotal for developing proper policies to handle the drug abuse problem in the country. At this juncture it may be appropriate to give a brief account of the law passed in 1989 to address the problem of drug smuggling, trafficking, and nonmedical use. Compared with its predecessor (Law 182 for the year 1960), the 1989 law imposed harsher penalties for almost all transgressions of the new law. However, this 1989 law also stipulates that any addict or abuser who expresses a serious desire for, and an acceptance of, prescribed instructions for treatment and rehabilitation shall not be prosecuted. To actualize these persuasive conditions, a presidential decree (Decree 46 for the year 1991) was passed to the effect that a special fund should be established to finance all relevant efforts including the establishment of facilities for treatment and rehabilitation. For additional information regarding the abovementioned points, the reader is referred to “The National Strategy for Addressing the Drug Problem,” as published in 1992, and revised and updated in 2007. (N.B. A copy of the Strategy can be obtained from the National Centre for Social and Criminological Research; Embabah, Cairo, Egypt.) Noteworthy is the fact that an English translation of the Strategy has been completed and may be published in the future. Appropriately Defining Concepts in Psychology The question of how to define psychological concepts preoccupied Soueif’s mind for a long time (Soueif, 1954b, 1962, 1978). He first expressed this concern in a paper published in 1954 right after obtaining his PhD (Soueif, 1954b). Apparently what attracted him to reflect on this question was the fact that it lay at a crossroad between psychology, philosophy, and methodology. In a 1994 article entitled “Defining Psychological Concepts: A Borderline Problem Between Psychology and Philosophy (Soueif,

166    R. A. AHMED

1994a), Soueif clearly states how he was disillusioned about operationism, which was proposed in the 1930s as the right strategy to answer this highly complex question. Without claiming to provide any ready-made solution, Soueif prescribes four steps: First, to reject the position adopted by P. W. Bridgman (the physicist) and H. Feigl (the logical positivist), who stated that a concept was equal to the sum of operations pertaining to its utilization and/or actualization. Second, it should be made clear that to define a concept, for example, intelligence, as what measurements of intelligence gauge, leads to a refutable tautology. Indeed, any psychological concept has a focal substantive meaning together with a broader margin of connotations. Ignoring this fact would hinder one’s ability to understand what it means to try to improve a certain measurement of intelligence (e.g., the Binet Test), as has been the case with all other psychological concepts (e.g., rigidity, inhibition). Third, it would be a strategic mistake for psychologists to commit to concepts coined by physicists as guiding models for defining and measuring psychological concepts. After all, we should always remind ourselves that physical sciences have their own paradigms. Psychology, being a discipline that lies at the interface between social and biological sciences, may be better advised to act on a paradigm of its own. Fourth, Soueif contends that psychologists and philosophers of science should make a joint effort to try to answer the following question: Is logical positivism qualified to present itself as an adequate philosophical frame of reference for psychology? Clinical Issues In order to better understand Soueif’s pioneering role in the world of Arab clinical psychology, it might be best to first introduce some information concerning the general state of psychology, particularly clinical psychology, which prevailed in Egypt during the 1930s–1950s: 1. Educational psychology was first acknowledged in the early 1930s. The Higher Institute of Education for Males was established in Cairo then. The most prominent name associated with the institute was A. H. El-Koussey, who in 1934 received his PhD in educational psychology in London. 2. In 1934, a clinic was established at the institute. The clinic was devoted to the assessment and remedy of scholastic disabilities. A similar clinic was established in 1947 at the Institute of Education for Females. 3. During the late 1930s, Y. Mourad, A. E. Rageh, and M. Zeiwar returned to Egypt after being qualified in France. They taught academic psychology and psychoanalysis at the three universities existing at

Mustapha Soueif    167

the time: Cairo, Alexandria, and Ain Shams. There was not a single psychology department then. Mourad and Rageh introduced psychology to students from the Philosophy Departments in Cairo and Alexandria universities; Zeiwar targeted students from the Sociology Department at Ain Shams University. A few years later a subsection of psychology was launched there. Unfortunately this subsection suffered from a hidden but sustained conflict between representatives of psychoanalysis and those supporting academic psychology. 4. In 1948, the first clinic for children and adolescents was launched as a joint project sponsored by both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education. The clinic was meant to provide a reasonably integrated psychiatric service to school pupils. It was headed by a psychiatrist who worked with the help of a psychologist and a social worker. The role of the psychologist in this clinic did not differ much from the corresponding role at the two Institutes of Education. 5. In the early 1950s, a debate flared up between psychiatrists and psychologists revolving around the following question: Should a psychologist be permitted to administer psychotherapy to neurotic patients? Noting that the arguments presented by both psychologists and psychiatrists were rather confused and replete with rhetoric, Soueif preferred not to participate in this confrontation. Toward the end of 1957, Soueif returned from London after studying clinical psychology under M. B. Shapiro and receiving training under the guidance of H. J. Eysenck while conducting postdoctoral research. It was then that Soueif started to pay more attention to researching clinical issues. In addition, he was recognized by the British Psychological Society as a chartered clinical psychologist. Many MA and PhD students worked under his supervision to address clinical topics, and he published a significant paper entitled, Practicing Clinical Psychology in the Egyptian Cultural Context: Some Personal Experiences (Soueif, 2001a). The following main themes guided his endeavor: (a) creating the academic climate deemed necessary for acknowledging and supporting clinical psychology as a discipline in Egypt, (b) shaping with great care the ensuing relationship with psychiatrists, and (c) working out an adequate orientation to guide decisions concerning the administration of available techniques of assessment and treatment to Egyptian clients (Soueif, 2001a). Soueif published a book in Arabic titled Clinical Psychology (Soueif, 2001b), which included discussions of “The cultural dimension in the clinical work” and “The relationship between psychology and medicine in Egypt: Past, present and future.” It should be noted that Soueif has always emphasized points of methodology. He devoted an entire book (in Arabic) to Problems of Methodology in Clinical Research (Soueif,

168    R. A. AHMED

2005). Among the topics addressed are single-case experimental designs, epidemiology, and theorizing in empirical research. Soueif’s Conception of Psychological Fitness Throughout the last two decades, Soueif has been developing “psychological fitness” as a comprehensive and culture-fair concept to replace the traditional terms “psychological” or “mental health.” His ideas resemble to some degree current efforts to establish an international positive psychology. In this context, Soueif (1991b) wrote: Like many other concepts . . . in the behavioral sciences, the substantive content of the term positive mental health is very much loaded with cultural elements. One way of addressing this condition in the spirit of sound research and adequate practice is to adopt a culture-fair frame of reference. (p. 9)

According to H. C. Triandis, different cultural frameworks occupy different positions on a continuum of individualism versus collectivism. Soueif states that “psychological fitness” refers to a level of psychological health which would accrue from the occurrence of some sort of harmony between psychic processes going on in the individual and standardization requirements imposed by the cultural context. Taking these two facts into account, it follows that experts on psychological health will have to work out the necessary formulae to attain an optimal level of psychological fitness that suits every culture. In other words, experts no longer should consider it enough to consult Euro-American references for squeezing out the required formulae. Psychological fitness is conceptualized by Soueif as an activation of a cluster of functions. Each function composes a certain blend of psychic, social, and cultural ingredients. Five of such functions identified are 1. Planning vs. impulsivity: This implies some form of calculating the ratios of costs vs. benefits and social approval vs. disapproval for a given behavior. 2. Autonomy vs. conformity: On the way to making any sort of judgment, the individual gives different weights to self-conviction and to traditional and/or widely accepted beliefs/norms. 3. Consistency vs. dissonance: To what degree are individuals consistent or inconsistent across different situations and across various age-stages? 4. Enmeshment vs. individuation or group-centrism vs. ego-centrism: To what degree is an individual enmeshed in, and focused on, a given social group rather than being individuated or focused on the self?

Mustapha Soueif    169

5. Adequate vs. inadequate handling of reality including its sociocultural and psychic aspects: To what degree is an individual capable of assessing realistically sociocultural processes, event structures, and his/her own patterns of thoughts, emotions, impulses, and intentions? Soueif admits that he has a good deal of work to do to ripen his idea of psychological fitness. Examples of questions to be answered include: • • • • •

Is psychological fitness an end product or a process? Can we identify conditions that are congenial to psychological fitness? How can one quantitatively assess psychological fitness? Can we identify syndromes of “misfitting”? How can we ameliorate “misfitting”? In other words, How should misfits be treated, if at all?

Psychological Interpretations of Egyptian Society From an early age on, Soueif was interested in and concerned about life in society and tried to familiarize himself with sociopolitical issues, forces, and movements in Egypt; however, he did not adopt any relevant dogmatic ideologies. He believed that all political regimes or systems should be based on democracy. In his opinion, democracy should be founded on social justice so that the essential needs of the people are satisfied while avoiding gender, religious, racial, or ideological prejudices in the process. During the last two decades, Soueif has become more interested in presenting his own psychological research findings, such as those on personality, creativity, and drug dependency, in an easily understandable form to the public. Examples are included in his six-volume Psychology in Our Social Life, with each volume being published one year after the other from 1999 to 2005. For several decades, Soueif has been writing articles for Al-Hilal, Egyptian Monthly Magazine, as well as publishing several books addressing societal concerns for his fellow Egyptian citizens. Relevant examples include Egypt: Present and Future (1999); My Country and I: Progression along the Twentieth Century (2004); Our Egypt: . . . Striving Towards a Better Future (2013). CONCLUSION Although he has reached the golden age of 90, Professor Soueif still practices cognitive behavior therapy in his own private clinic. Moreover, he continues to deliver a doctoral course on Methods of Research in Clinical Psychology at the Department of Psychology at Cairo University.

170    R. A. AHMED

Soueif believes that it is important for a social scientist to monitor social life as well as society’s problems in an attempt to objectively analyze them and hopefully work out adequate solutions. Apart from his distinguished scientific contributions, Soueif, who has been concerned and involved in the general life for over five decades, is widely considered in Egypt and other Arab countries as one of the most respected thinkers. He has been elected a member of the Supreme Council of Culture and is responsible for granting the State prizes for merit in the social sciences. He, himself, was granted the highest state prize: the Nile Prize in 2006. Nevertheless, he remains very much reserved in his relationship with the media. He says that being a media star is dissonant with his self-image. REFERENCES Ahmed, R. A. (1992). Psychology in the Arab countries. In U. P. Gielen, L. L. Adler, & N. A. Milgram (Eds.), Psychology in international perspective: 50 years of the International Council of Psychologists (ICP) (pp. 127–150). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Ahmed, R. A. (1997). An interview with Mustafa Soueif. World Psychology, 3, 13–28. Ahmed, R. A. (2004). Psychology in Egypt. In M. J. Stevens & D. Wedding (Eds.), Psychology in international perspective (pp. 387–403). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Ahmed, R. A. (2012). Egypt. In D. B. Baker (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the history of psychology (pp. 162–181). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ahmed, R. A., & Gielen, U. P. (1998). Psychology in the Arab countries. In R. A. Ahmed & U. P. Gielen (Eds.), Psychology in the Arab countries (pp. 3–48). Cairo, Egypt: Menoufia University Press. Anderson, H. H. (1943). Domination and socially integrative behavior. In R. G. Barker, J. S. Kounine, & H. F. Wright (Eds.), Child behavior and development (pp. 469–483). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Brengelmann, J. C. (1959a). Abnormal and personality correlates of certainty. Journal of Mental Science, 105, 142–162. Brengelmann, J. C. (1959b). Differences in questionnaire responses between English and German nationals. Acta Psychologica, 16, 339–355. British Journal of Addiction. (1988, February). Conservation with Mustapha Soueif. British Journal of Addiction, 83(2), 131–139. Committee for the Investigation of Hashish Consumption in Egypt. (1964). Report II: Hashish consumption in Cairo city: A pilot survey. Cairo, Egypt: National Centre for Social and Criminological Research [in Arabic]. Committee for the Investigation of Hashish Consumption in the Southern Region of U. A. R. (1960). Report 1: The interviewing schedule: Construction, reliability, and validity. Cairo, Egypt: Dar al-Maaref Press [in Arabic]. Darweesh, Z. A. (1996). Mustapha Soueif: Deviation and creativity. Journal of the Faculty of Arts, Cairo University, 64, 7–93 [in Arabic].

Mustapha Soueif    171 Hannourah, M. A. (1968). Rural and urban areas in the Egyptian society: A comparison between levels of tension: An experimental study. National Review of Social Sciences, 5, 341–367 [in Arabic]. Khalifa, A. M. (2000). An interview with Professor Mustapha Soueif. The Journal of Social Sciences (Kuwait), 25, 130–140 [in Arabic]. Kounine, J. S. (1943). Intellectual development and rigidity. In R. G. Barker, J. S. Kounine, & H. F. Wright (Eds.), Child behavior and development (pp. 179–197). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Soueif, M. I. (1950). The psychology of creativity in the arts: With special reference to poetry. Cairo, Egypt: Dar el-Maaref [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1954a). Principles of psychosocial integration: A developmental cross-cultural study. Cairo: Dar el-Maaref [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1954b). Concepts in social psychology. In Y. Mourad (Ed.), Yearbook of psychology (pp. 223–232). Cairo, Egypt: Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1958a). Extreme response sets as a measure of intolerance of ambiguity. British Journal of Psychology, 49, 329–334. Soueif, M. I. (1958b). Extremeness of response and delinquency. National Review of Criminology (Egypt), 1, 24–38 [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1958c). The role of the clinical psychologist in the psychiatric clinic. Journal of Mental Health (Egypt), 1, 10–32 [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1960). Tests of creativity: Review, critique and clinical implications. Annals of the Faculty of Arts, Ain Shams University (Egypt), 5, 19–43. Soueif, M. I. (1962). An introduction to social psychology. Cairo, Egypt: Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1965a). Al-Farabi and Ibn Khaldoun. In L. K. Meleika (Ed.), Readings in social psychology in the Arab countries (Vol. 1, pp. 3–37). Cairo, Egypt: National House for Printing and Publishing [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1965b). Response sets, neuroticism, and extroversion: A factorial study. Acta Pschologica, 24, 29–40. Soueif, M. I. (1967). Hashish consumption in Egypt with special reference to psychosocial problems. Bulletin on Narcotics, 19, 1–12. Soueif, M. I. (1968). Extremeness, indifference and moderation response sets: A cross-cultural study. Acta Psychologica, 28, 63–75. Soueif, M. I. (1971). The use of cannabis in Egypt: A behavioural study. Bulletin on Narcotics, 23, 17–28. Soueif, M. I. (1972). The social psychology of cannabis consumption: Myth, mystery and fact. Bulletin on Narcotics, 24, 1–10. Soueif, M. I. (1973). Cannabis ideology: A study of opinions and beliefs centering around cannabis consumption. Bulletin on Narcotics, 25, 33–38. Soueif, M. I. (1975). Chronic cannabis users: Further analysis of objective test results. Bulletin on Narcotics, 27, 1–26. Soueif, M. I. (1976a). Cannabis type dependence: The psychology of chronic heavy consumption. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 282 (Part VI), 121–125. Soueif, M. I. (1976b). Some determinants of psychological deficits associated with chronic cannabis consumption. Bulletin on Narcotics, 28, 25–42. Soueif, M. I. (1976c, June 28–July 2). The differential association between chronic cannabis dependence and impairment of psychological function: A theoretical framework.

172    R. A. AHMED Paper presented at the International Institute on the Prevention and Treatment of Drug Dependence, Hamburg, Germany (pp. 106–118). Lausanne, Switzerland: ICAA Publication. Soueif, M. I. (1978). Modern psychology: Its structures and models. Cairo, Egypt: AngloEgyptian Bookshop [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (Ed.). (1985). A source book of clinical psychology. Cairo, Egypt: Dar alMaaref [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1987, October 18–22). Mental health: Towards a culture-fair definition. Paper presented at the Cairo World Congress for Mental Health, Cairo, Egypt. Soueif, M. I. (1988). National scientists’ mission in the Arab world, or toward an Arab national school in the behavioral sciences. National Review of Social Sciences (Egypt), 25, 103–141 [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1990). Drug abuse treatment in the Egyptian cultural context. National Review of Social Sciences (Egypt), 27, 83–96 [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1991a). Psychology in Egypt throughout half a century: A dialogue between science and society. Egyptian Journal of Psychological Studies (Egypt), 1, 17–30 [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1991b). Mental health: Towards a culture-fair definition. National Review of Social Sciences (Egypt), 28, 1–11. Soueif, M. I. (1994a). Defining psychological concepts: A borderline problem between psychology and philosophy. National Review of Social Sciences (Egypt), 31, 115–148. Soueif, M. I. (1994b). We and the future. Cairo, Egypt: Al-Hilal Book Series [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1996). Drugs and society: An integrative approach. Kuwait City, Kuwait: Alam al-Maarifah Series No. 205 [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1998a). Clinical psychology in Egypt. In R. A. Ahmed & U. P. Gielen (Eds.), Psychology in the Arab countries (pp. 425–447). Cairo, Egypt: Menoufia University Press. Soueif, M. I. (1998b). Drug use, abuse, and dependence. In R. A. Ahmed & U. P. Gielen (Eds.), Psychology in the Arab countries (pp. 495–516). Cairo, Egypt: Menoufia University Press. Soueif, M. I. (1999). Egypt: Present and future. Cairo, Egypt: Al-Hilal Book Series [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (1999–2005). Psychology in our social life (Vols. 1–6). Cairo, Egypt: Al-Dar Al-Mesria-Al-Lubaneniah [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (2001a). Practicing clinical psychology in the Egyptian cultural context: Some personal experiences. International Journal of Group Tensions, 30, 241–266. Soueif, M. I. (2001b). Clinical psychology. Cairo, Egypt: Al-Dar Al-Messria Al-Lubnania [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (2004). My country and I: Progression along the twentieth century. Cairo, Egypt: Al-Hilal Book Series [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (2005). Problems of methodology in clinical research. Cairo, Egypt: Al-Dar Al-Messria Al-Lubaneniah [in Arabic].

Mustapha Soueif    173 Soueif, M. I. (2009). The natural history of an investigation into drug abuse among university students. The National Review of Drug Abuse and Addiction (Egypt), 6, 1–14 [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I. (2013). Our Egypt . . . Striving for a better future. Cairo, Egypt: Al-Dar AlMassria Al-Lubaneinah [in Arabic]. Soueif, M. I., & Ahmed, R. A. (2001). Psychology in the Arab countries: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Group Tensions, 30, 211–240. Soueif, M. I., & El-Sayed, A. M. (1970). Curvilinear relationships between creative thinking abilities and personality trait variables. Acta Psychologica. 34, 1–12. Soueif, M. I., El-Sayed, A. M., Darweesh, Z. A., & Hannourah, M. A. (1980). The Egyptian study of cannabis consumption. Cairo, Egypt: National Centre for Social and Criminological Research. Soueif, M. I., Hannourah, M. A., Darweesh, Z. A., El-Sayed, A. M., Yunis, F. A., & Taha, H. S. (1987). The use of psychoactive substances by female Egyptian university students compared with their male colleagues on selected items. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 19, 233–247. Soueif, M. I., & Metwally, A. (1961). Testing for organicity in Egyptian psychiatric patients. Acta Psychologica, 18, 285–296. Soueif, M. I., Youssef, G. S., Taha, H. S., Abdel-Monim, H. A., Abu-Sree, O. A., Badr, K. A., . . . Yunis, F. A. (1990). Use of psychoactive substances among male secondary pupils in Egypt: A study on a nation-wide representative sample. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 26, 63–79.

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 11

ROGELIO DÍAZ-GUERRERO Pioneer of Latin American Psychology Rolando Díaz-Loving

Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero was born August 3, 1918, in the outskirts of Guadalajara, Mexico. His mother, Eva Guerrero de Díaz, and his father, Antonio Díaz, raised three girls and five boys. Although finances were tight during their youth, the men were compelled to achieve and to become successful providers, while the girls took care of them, since the father worked all day and their mother was sick at a young age. Humberto, the oldest, became a lawyer, Antonio an ophthalmologist, Julio a professional goal keeper, as well as a shoe salesman, together with Javier, the youngest. Very early in his life, Díaz-Guerrero discovered his vocation when a professor discussed psychology. At the end of the class he approached his teacher and asked him where he could study this intriguing new science. He was informed that at that time it was not possible in Mexico and that his best opportunity would be to study medicine and then psychiatry, and that would be as close as he could get. In fact, in the early parts of the 20th century, the only place in Mexico that had psychology was the National University of Mexico, where it was taught in doctoral seminars. In view of

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 175–186 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

175

176    R. DÍAZ-LOVING

his dreams and in search of the keys to understanding human behavior, after he got a BS from the University of Guadalajara in 1937, he attended medical school at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). During this time, a master’s in psychology was added to the doctorate in psychology offered at the National University; and because Díaz-Guerrero was able to attend these courses they fueled his interest in human behavior. Finishing his medical studies (MD, 1943), he received a scholarship for postgraduate studies at the University of Iowa, where he completed master’s and doctoral studies in neuropsychiatry and psychology (University of Iowa, MA, 1944; PhD, 1947) and heard lectures by renowned psychologists such as Kenneth Spence, Kurt Lewin, and Robert Sears. During this time, he was also a resident in clinical psychiatry, from 1944 to 1945, at the Iowa State Psychopathic Hospital; and a resident in clinical neurology at the Iowa University Hospital, Iowa City. In addition to his academic endeavors, he met an Australian dentistry student, Ethel, whom he married in Chicago on November 1, 1946. He returned to Mexico with Ethel V. Loving and began his psychiatric practice and taught undergraduate psychology at the Mexico City College in 1945–1946, where he was also the head of the Psychology Department from 1946 to 1952. Many of his contributions during these years were centered on the effects of culture on mental health and therapeutic practice (Díaz-Guerrero, 1959). At the same time, he started to teach in the master’s and doctoral programs (1948–1958) at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and initiated the creation of a license to practice psychology program that opened in 1959. During his sabbatical from the National University, he acted as senior resident at the Psychiatric and Neurological Institute of the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida (1954–1955). The 1950s decade was also marked by the birth of his son, Rolando Díaz-Loving, in 1954 and his daughter, Cristina Eva Díaz-Loving, in 1957. Their mother, Ethel, died on June 6, 1966. Díaz-Guerrero’s cross-cultural marriage and his return to Mexico strengthened his conviction regarding the important role of culture in determining human behavior. Díaz-Guerrero’s psychological research and his inclusion of culture as an important aspect of his work make him a pioneer and leader in Mexican psychology and an icon in the field of psychology in general. His early medical education was obviously evident in his first publications, in which the relationship between biological variables and behavior is central. One of his articles from this time, which is based upon his dissertation, is titled The Role of Endocrine Glands in Neuromuscular Development and Regeneration (DíazGuerrero, 1947). However, discussion of the impact of culture on behavior soon appears in his work in his interest on its effects on mental health. At this stage, his publications centered on the conceptualization and operationalization of psychological variables rooted in culture, such as in the

Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero    177

case of his work on anthropocultural values, which served as the precursors of his work on the historic-sociocultural premises, which he postulates as the way to conceptualize and measure culture through norms and beliefs. During this decade, Díaz-Guerrero published papers with such titles as the Theory and Preliminary Results of a Test to Determine the Degree of Personal and Social Mental Health of the Urban Mexican (Díaz-Guerrero, 1952) and Neurosis and the Mexican Family Structure (Díaz-Guerrero, 1955). By the 1960s, Díaz-Guerrero’s interest in the sociocultural basis of behavior crystallized in, among other research projects, the book Personality Development in Two Cultures, written with Wayne Holtzman, which appeared simultaneously in Spanish and in English (Holtzman, Díaz-Guerrero, & Swartz, 1975a; 1975b). This research project broke ground on many different fronts, and it entailed a cross-cultural study of 400 children in Mexico and 400 children in the United States, with a cross-sequential design (i.e., a combination of longitudinal and cross-sectional designs “so that a span of 12 years of development could be covered in only six calendar years of repeated testing” [Holtzman et al., 1975a, p. 21]), starting with groups in the first grade of elementary school, second grade, third grade, and so on, until the first grade of junior high school. The groups were followed longitudinally for 6 years, with a large battery of personality, cognitive and emotional development, and behavioral pattern measures. In this decade he also spent a couple of sabbatical years at the University of Texas at Austin as a visiting professor and consultant to the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health (1960, 1967). Other activities during the 1950s and 1960s included the foundation of the Interamerican Psychological Society in Mexico City on December 17, 1951. He then was its president for the 1967–1969 period, and in 1976 was the first recipient of the Inter-American Psychology Award for Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking psychologists for his contributions to the science and profession of psychology in the Americas. Among his major contributions of this era were the definition of sociocultural concepts in a valid, reliable, and culturally appropriate manner, and the development of objective measuring instruments for these constructs. He further inspired a generalized interest in cross-cultural psychological research, which he promoted by using his own research inquiries as examples. At the same time, his research into the idiosyncratic characteristics of the Mexican population set the stage for the development of other indigenous psychologies (Díaz-Guerrero, 1961). Together with his students, he found that the culture in which an individual develops will specify the foundations and structure of acceptable and desirable behavioral norms. Hence, “socioculture” can be defined as a system of thoughts and ideas (norms, roles, beliefs, etc.) that offer a hierarchy of habits, needs, values, and cultural premises (Díaz-Guerrero, 1963, 1965). These in turn guide interpersonal relationships, govern the roles that must be carried out, and

178    R. DÍAZ-LOVING

provide the rules for the interaction of each individual for each role. In other words, these premises offer the rules to the where, when, with whom, and how of behavior. Díaz-Guerrero goes on to point out that these sociocultural norms are a guide to how we should behave within the family, the group, society, and any institutional superstructure. In addition, the directions of these norms also affect the development of one’s personality, one’s goals in life, one’s coping style, and one’s perception of humanity and of gender (Díaz-Guerrero, 1964, 1967a, 1967b, 1979). It becomes clear from his research that our behavior, development, attitudes, beliefs, values, and our self in general depend on the sociocultural context in which we grow and develop. In other words, the way we think, the things we think about, the way we relate to friends and strangers, and our tastes and our way of life are being formed as each and every one of us interacts with our parents, our families, our neighbors, our schoolmates, and our environment. Among other effects regarding the development of Mexican youth, Díaz-Guerrero also observed the effects of this development on social anomie (Maslow & Díaz-Guerrero, 1960). Díaz-Guerrero´s work on the psychology of Mexicans grounded his aspirations toward a scientific and cultural psychology, and additionally offered valid and reliable measurements that resulted in culturally relevant and interpretable data. The journey begins, without a doubt, with his historicpsycho-sociocultural premises. This is the study of the norms proposed, developed, examined, and described by Díaz-Guerrero that regulate behavior in Mexican culture. These specify that the socioculture in which an individual grows and develops is the foundation for the formation of national character and define the acceptable behavior norms and rules of human interaction. In this way, social behavior is partially determined and directed, depending upon the way in which each person adapts to, and believes in, what their cultural dictates (Díaz-Guerrero, 1965). The second step after specifying that the sociocultural ecosystem serves as the ontological ground in which individuals learn the correct ways of interaction with their world was the operationalization of the Mexican premises. A historic-sociocultural premise is a simple or complex statement that provides a group with the roots behind the logic of understanding and negotiating their world. Díaz-Guerrero extracted premises from proverbs, sayings, and other types of popular communication. After carrying out careful content analysis based on these data, the crucial role of the family in traditional Mexican culture became evident. The cultural traditions, values, beliefs, and actions immersed in these premises indicate the correct ways to behave in different interpersonal situations and relationships. In sum, two principles describing the traditional Mexican family appear to emerge: the power and supremacy of the father, and the love and the absolute and necessary sacrifice of the mother. With respect to these two cardinal premises,

Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero    179

over 80% of wide population segments reported high degrees of adherence, indicating that they served as important guides in their lives (DíazGuerrero, 1961, 1972a). Psychometric analysis of the answers given to the normative affirmation inventory offers a variety of statistically robust, conceptually clear, and theoretically congruent factors. First of all, Díaz-Guerrero identified a central dimension of traditionalism termed affiliative-obedience versus active self-affirmation, which stipulates that children and youngsters must always obey their parents and that everyone should love their mother and respect their father (Díaz-Guerrero, 1964). This means that children must always show regard to their parents and to those older than them, who in return must protect and care for them. With regard to this structure, it must be made clear that in Mexican culture, there is a rigid hierarchical disposition that awards respect and power to those at the top of the pyramid, in contrast with other cultures where respect is shown to those perceived as equals (Díaz-Guerrero & Peck, 1963). The traditional factor is complemented with a gender dimension, with “machismo” versus abnegation-virginity as the axis (Díaz-Guerrero, 2000). This orientation is derived from the degree of attachment to statements such as “men are more intelligent than women,” “docile women are better,” “men must be the heads of the household,” and “women must remain virgin until marriage.” It is worth noting that abnegation mirrors the belief that the group and its needs supersede those of the individual. It is in this way that it is fundamental to satisfy the needs of others before one’s own (Avendaño-Sandoval & Díaz-Guerrero, 1992; Avendaño-Sandoval, Díaz-Guerrero, & Reyes-Lagunes, 1997). In other words, self-modification coping styles are preferred over self-affirmation as guides to interaction. Lastly, the relevance of the status quo and cultural rigidness grows out of the acceptance of the role that men and women carry out in the family. This is reflected in proverbs such as “women must be faithful to their husbands,” “the majority of daughters would like to be like their mothers,” “women must always be protected,” “young women must never go out alone at night,” and, for the children, “when parents are strict, children grow up being good.” In sum, this work concludes that Mexican society is built upon a hierarchical structure based on respect for others, particularly parents and kin (Díaz-Guerrero & Peck, 1967). The internalization of these premises produces abnegation, a cardinal trait in Mexican culture, which is sustained as true by Mexican men and women who believe that satisfying others’ needs is more important than satisfying their own. A similar term for this concept, used recently in the psychology literature, is collectivism. The emphasis here is placed on harmonious interpersonal relationships in which individual needs are set aside for the well-being of the group. Originating in abnegation, a vertical hierarchy in the culture is produced, built on power,

180    R. DÍAZ-LOVING

affection, and obedience, and evident in the way that authority is exercised within the family (e.g., “a child must always obey and respect his/her parents”) (Díaz-Guerrero & Peck, 1963). On May 10, 1969, Díaz-Guerrero married Rosario Ahumada Vasconcelos, an educator, and had a second daughter, Rosario Díaz Ahumada. By the 1970s, ideas of integrating cross-cultural psychological perspectives into mainstream psychology had become more consolidated (Davidson, Jaccard, Triandis, Morales, & Díaz-Guerrero, 1976; Díaz-Guerrero, 1977a, 1977b). Keeping in mind the need of “majority” countries (countries in which the majority of the world´s population live) to work out solutions to substantial problems related to educational, social, economic, and individual development, Díaz-Guerrero and his collaborators researched and published profusely in applied areas (e.g., Díaz-Guerrero, 1973). A few examples of these lines of study are found in such representative publications as Personality Development of Mexican School Children (Díaz-Guerrero, 1970); Occupational Values of Mexican School Children: A Comparative Inter- and Cross-Cultural Study (Díaz-Guerrero, 1972b); and the work done in collaboration with distinguished psychologist Charles Osgood (the 1962 President of the American Psychological Association) on the semantic differential as a methodological technique to describe the semiotics of language in research pondering the study of meaning. Other projects focused on the pertinence and effect of educational programs on violence (Díaz-Guerrero, 1976b), on sexual differences in the development of Mexican students’ personalities (Díaz-Guerrero, 1974), and on the influence of television, as in a case study investigating Learning by Televised Sesame Street in Mexico (Díaz-Guerrero, Bianchi Aguilar, & Ahumada de Díaz, 1975; Díaz-Guerrero & Holtzman, 1974; Díaz-Guerrero, Reyes Lagunes, Witzke, & Holtzman, 1976). With the same orientation, but with the objective of expanding knowledge of the psychology of the Mexican, he published a seminal paper in American Psychologist on this theme (Díaz-Guerrero, 1977a), in which he added a novel gender perspective to the context of the study of personality and culture. Another area of interest is found in his work with eminent psychologist Charles Spielberger (who would become 1991 President of the American Psychological Association) on anxiety across cultures (Díaz-Guerrero, 1976a, 1982a). As an epilogue to the 1970s, Díaz-Guerrero coordinated a series of projects from which he postulated a transdisciplinary and cultural conception expressed in a historic-bio-psycho-sociocultural theory of human behavior (1977b). The 1980s found Díaz-Guerrero in charge of several decades of solid and robust intercultural and intracultural findings that led him toward developing a more comprehensive theory of Latin-American psychology (DíazGuerrero, 1986b, 1987). By this time, he also had established a national and

Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero    181

international reputation among his peers. Among other accomplishments, after serving on the board of the International Union of Scientific Psychology for many years, several of them as Vice-President of the Union, he presided over the 1984 International Congress of Psychology in Acapulco, Mexico, the first time it has been held in a Latin American or developing country. Conceptually, he had already created a theory of the Psychology of the Mexican, to which he now added the study of health (Díaz-Guerrero, 1984, 1994/2006). In addition, he reinterpreted and redirected his research toward adapting psychology to a sociocultural perspective (DíazGuerrero, 1982b). This synthesis gave way to incorporating a structural perspective to the functionalist tradition in psychology in his study of the characterizations of human beings according to gender, which appears in the study of roles, personality, and the status of women (Díaz-Loving, Díaz-Guerrero, Helmreich, & Spence, 1981). This research led the way to mixed studies that incorporated individual and social variables. Continuing with his quest to integrate behavioral and cultural psychology, DíazGuerrero described the need to incorporate the effects of contextual and cultural niches in which human beings develop into psychological studies, as is evident in his groundbreaking studies: The Sociocultural Ecosystem and the Quality of Life (Díaz-Guerrero, 1986a), and Toward an Ecosystemic Psychology (Díaz-Guerrero,1989). As a corollary to the research published on the integration of functional, structural, and ecosystem variables, DíazGuerrero summarized his approach in the theoretical and methodological creation and delimitation of a new branch of psychology, Ethnopsychology (Díaz-Guerrero, 1986b, 1991a; Díaz-Guerrero & Díaz-Loving, 1990, 1992, 1994a, 1994b). Díaz-Guerrero’s accumulated body of work reflects three clear themes. First is the characterization of the effect of culture on psychological variables, as in the projects The Subjective World of Mexicans and North Americans (Díaz Guerrero & Szalay, 1993), and The Problem of an Operational Definition of Mexican National Identity (Díaz Guerrero, 1991b). His second wave of thought led him to establish the basic precepts of Mexican Ethnopsychology (Díaz-Guerrero, 1992a, 1992b, 1993, 1994/2006, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1998), to examine the impact of time on select phenomenon as reported in The New Philosophy of Life and to study in detail the concept of “abnegation” (Díaz Guerrero, 1993, 2000). The third trend in his research demonstrated his interest in cross-cultural findings that indicated that values depend on the degree of satisfaction, difficulty, and intensity of needs, as described in several publications on human values and needs (Díaz-Guerrero, 1998; Díaz-Guerrero & Díaz-Loving, 2001). The culminating work that described Díaz-Guerrero’s lifelong journey to incorporate culture into psychological thought is his book Under the Claws of Culture (Díaz-Guerrero, 2002). In it, he reports longitudinal and

182    R. DÍAZ-LOVING

cross-sectional data spanning 50 years with regard to the socialization and enculturation processes responsible for the maintenance of the sociocultural premises. In fact, he goes into detail on the significant effects that political, economic, and social changes have had on the way Mexicans think and act when it comes to the realms of family, male-female interactions, and interactions between parents and their children. The book consolidates a life’s work dedicated to psychological research. However, his rich academic legacy not only reflects well on his own research, in addition, he opened up the field for Mexico and for Latin America. His influence is also evident in the infrastructure he created for many universities; his leadership in the professional arena; his education of several generations of psychological thinkers, researchers, and practitioners; the internationalization of psychology; and the connections he created between Mexican psychologists and psychologists around the world. In addition to discussing his academic contributions, it is interesting to reflect on Díaz-Guerrero as a person. As was typical of Díaz-Guerrero’s personality, he could easily and humorously trick family and colleagues as to his retirement status with his recurrent “life, you owe me nothing, we are in peace” philosophy, and a typical workday that started at five in the morning with exercise, going down to his office from six to eight, having breakfast in 15 minutes, and then going back to his office from then until two. In the afternoons, he read, swam a quarter of a mile, and sometimes played tennis. This routine repeated itself from Monday to Saturday. The truth is that he continued exploring new horizons and intellectual directions until his last breaths. In fact, at the time of his passing, he had already begun a research project on the impact of culture on cognitive, political, and economic development. Honoring his work and his life can only be done by continuing his work with the same persistence, creativity, passion, and attention to accuracy. In recognition of the legacy of this scientist, and as an example of what a psychologist should embody, allow me to mention a few of Díaz-Guerrero’s notable traits and favorite expressions. His laughter was without a doubt a distinctive characteristic, and his untiring humanistic and optimistic philosophy is reflected clearly in some of his favorite sayings, such as “Well, it seems like everything is going very well.” In addition, his characteristic of perennial resiliency is evident in his often-used line, “Life is hard sometimes.” Rogelio Díaz Guerrero parted, as he said the night before he died, to the celestial spheres, on December 8, 2004. He was accompanied in these final steps by Lucy Rodriguez, his wife from Bolivia whom he married in 1991; his children, Rosario Díaz-Ahumada, Cristina Díaz-Loving, and Rolando Díaz-Loving (together with his wife Maricela Gonzalez de Díaz); and his grandchildren, Mariana Díaz-Gonzalez and Daniel Rolando Díaz-Gonzalez.

Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero    183

REFERENCES Avendaño-Sandoval, R., & Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1992). Estudio experimental de la abnegación [An experimental analysis of abnegation]. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 9, 15–19. Avendaño-Sandoval, R., Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Reyes-Lagunes, R. (1997). Validación psicométrica de la segunda escala de abnegación para jóvenes y adultos [Psychometric validation of the second measure of abnegation for adolescents and young adults]. Interamericana de Psicología, 31, 47–56. Davidson, A. R., Jaccard, J. J., Triandis, H. C., Morales, M. L., & Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1976). Cross-cultural model testing: Toward a solution of the etic-emic dilemma. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 1–13. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1947). The role of the endocrine glands in neuromuscular development and regeneration (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1952). Teoría y resultados preliminares de un ensayo de determinación del grado de salud mental, personal y social del mexicano de la ciudad [Theory and preliminary results of a test to determine the degree of personal, and social mental health of the urban Mexican]. Psiquis, 2, 31–56. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1955). Neurosis and the Mexican family structure. American Journal of Psychiatry, 112, 411–417. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1959). Socratic therapy. In S. W. Standal & R. J. Corsini (Eds.), Critical incidents in psychotherapy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1961). Estudios de psicología del Mexicano (1st ed., 6th ed., 1994, reprinted 20 times). México, D.F.: Trillas. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1963). Sociocultural premises attitudes and cross cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 1967, 2, 79–87. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1964). La dicotomía activo-pasiva en la investigación transcultural [The active-passive dichotomy in cross-cultural research]. Proceedings del IX Congreso Interamericano de Psicología, 144–149. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1965). Sociocultural and psychodynamic processes in adolescent transition and mental health. In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif (Eds.), Problems of youth in transition (pp. 129–152). Chicago, IL: Aldine. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1967a). Sociocultural premises, attitudes, and cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 2, 79–87. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1967b). The active and the passive syndromes. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 1, 263–272. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1970). Personality development of Mexican school children: A research project. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 4, 255–260. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1972a). Una escala factorial de premisas histórico-socioculturales de la familia mexicana [A factorial scale of the historic-sociocultural premises of the Mexican family]. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 6, 235–244. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1972b). Occupational values of Mexican school children: A comparative inter- and cross-cultural study. Totus Homo, 4, 18–26. Díaz-Guerrero. R. (1973). Interpreting coping styles across nations from sex and social class differences. Journale Internationale de Psicologie, 8, 193–203.

184    R. DÍAZ-LOVING Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1974). La mujer y las premisas histórico-socioculturales de la familia mexicana [Woman and the historic-sociocultural premises of the Mexican family]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 6, 7–16. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1976a). Cross-cultural research on test anxiety and general anxiety in Mexican and American children. In C. D. Spielberger & R. Díaz-Guerrero (Eds.), Cross-cultural anxiety. New York, NY: Wiley. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1976b). Los niños frente a la violencia. Un modelo para una psicología histórico-sociocultural al servicio de la comunidad. In S. Genovés & J. Passy (Eds.), Comportamiento y violencia. México: Editorial Diana. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1977a). A Mexican psychology. American Psychologist, 32, 934–944. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1977b). Culture and personality revisited. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 285, 119–130. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1979). The development of coping style. In R. Díaz-Guerrero, W. H. Holtzman, & H. Thomae (Eds.), Personality development in two cultures. Basel, Switzerland: Karger. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1982a). Fuentes de ansiedad en la cultura mexicana [Sources of anxiety in Mexican culture]. Enseñanza e Investigación en Psicología, 8, 65–75. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1982b). The psychology of historic-sociocultural premise. Spanish-Language Psychology, 2, 383–410 Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1984). Behavioral health across cultures. In J. Matarazzo et al. (Eds.), Behavioral health: A handbook of health enhancement and disease. New York, NY: Wiley. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1986a). El ecosistema sociocultural y la calidad de la vida [The sociocultural ecosystem and the quality of life]. México: Trillas. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1986b). Hacia una etnopsicología. In AMEPSO (Coordinator), La Psicología Social en México, 1, 5–9. México: Asociación Mexicana de Psicología Social. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1987). Historic sociocultural premises, ethnic socialization and intercultural interaction. In J. S. Phinney & J. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization (pp. 239–250). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Díaz-Guerrro, R. (1989). Towards an ecosystemic psychology. In J. A. Keats, R. Taft, R. A. Heath, & S. H. Lovibond (Eds.), Mathematical and theoretical systems (pp. 229–240). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1991a). Historic-sociocultural premises (HSCPs) and global change. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 665–673. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1991b). El problema de la definición operante de la identidad nacional mexicana, III [The problem of an operational defintion of Mexican national identity, III]. Revista de Psicología Social y Personalidad, 7, 23–61. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1992a). Mexican ethnopsychology. Revista Puertorriqueña de Psicología, 8, 21–35. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1992b). The need for an ethnopsychology of cognition and personality. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 29(314), 19–26. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1993). A Mexican ethnopsychology. In J. Berry & U. Kim (Eds.), Indigenous psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1994/2006). Psicología del Mexicano: Descubrimiento de la Etnopsicología (6th ed.). México, D.F.: Trillas.

Rogelio Díaz-Guerrero    185 Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1995). Origins and development of Mexican ethnopsychology. World Psychology, 1, 49–68. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1996a). La etnopsicología en México [Ethnopsychology in Mexico]. México: Revista de Psicología Social y Personalidad, 12, 1–13. (Published in 1998). Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1996b). Forum on early and recent developments in ethnopsychology. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 30, 85–139. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1998). La declinación de los valores. Este País, 86, 39–40. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (2000). Is abnegation a basic experiential trait in traditional societies? In J. W. Berry, R. C. Tripathi, J. B. P. Sinha, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Psychology in human and social development: Lessons from diverse cultures. New Delhi, India: Sage. Díaz-Guerrero, R. (2002). Bajo las garras de la cultura: Psicología del Mexicano II [Under the claws of culture]. México, D.F.: Trillas. Díaz-Guerrero, R., Bianchi Aguilar R., & Ahumada de Díaz, R. (1975). Investigación formativa de Plaza Sésamo. Una introducción a las técnicas de preparación de programas educativos televisados. México, D.F.: Trillas. Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Díaz-Loving, R. (1990). Interpretation in cross-cultural personality assessment. In L. Adler (Ed.), Assessment of children, personality, behavior and context (pp. 491–523). New York, NY: Guilford. Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Díaz-Loving, R. (1992). La etnopsicología Mexicana. El centro de la corriente. Revista de Cultura Psicológica, 1, 41–55. Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Díaz-Loving, R. (1994a). Etnopsicología sistemática, origen y reciente desarrollo. Anthropos, 156, 60–63. Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Díaz-Loving, R. (1994b). Personality across cultures. In L. L. Adler & U. P. Gielen (Eds.), Cross-cultural topics in psychology (pp. 125–138). Westport, CT: Praeger. Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Díaz-Loving, R. (2001). An approach to the origin of values. Psychology and Education: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 38, 49–53. Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Holtzman, W. H. (1974). Learning by televised Plaza Sésamo in Mexico. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 632–643. Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Peck, R. F. (1963). Respeto y posición social en dos culturas [Respect and social position in two cultures]. In VII Congreso Interamericano de Psicología (pp. 116–137). Edited for the Sociedad Interamericana de Psicología, México, D.F. Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Peck, R. F. (1967). Estilo de confrontación y aprovechamiento: Un programa de investigación. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 1, 127–136. Díaz-Guerrero, R., Reyes Lagunes, I., Witzke, D. B., & Holtzman, W. H. (1976). Plaza Sésamo in Mexico: An evaluation. Journal of Communication, 26, 145–154. Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Szalay, L. B. (1993). El mundo subjetivo de Mexicanos y Norteamericanos [The subjective world of Mexicans and North Americans]. México, D.F.: Trillas. Díaz-Loving, R., Díaz-Guerrero, R, Helmreich, R. L., & Spence, J. T. (1981). Comparación transcultural y análisis psicométrico de una medida de rasgos masculinos (instrumentales) y femeninos (expresivos). Revista de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Psicología Social, 1, 3–33. Holtzman, W. H., Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Swartz, J. D. (1975a). Personality development in two cultures: A cross-cultural longitudinal study of school children in Mexico and

186    R. DÍAZ-LOVING the United States. Austin, TX: Hogg Foundation Research Series, University of Texas Press. Holtzman, W. H., Díaz-Guerrero, R., & Swartz, J. D. (1975b). Desarrollo de la personalidad en dos culturas: México y Estados Unidos [Personality development in two cultures]. México: Trillas. Maslow, A. H., & Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1960). Delinquency as a value disturbance. In J. G. Peatman & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Festschrift for Gardner Murphy. New York, NY: Harper.

CHAPTER 12

DURGANAND SINHA The Pioneering Work of an Indian Psychologist Dinesh Sharma

INDIAN PSYCHOLOGY AFTER INDEPENDENCE My path to cultural psychology was through the “royal road of the unconscious,” by taking a self-reflective journey through the writings of Freud, Jung, Erikson, Adler, Rank, Fromm, and many post-Freudians, including Bob LeVine (1982), my advisor at Harvard, and Sudhir Kakar (1980), the eminent Indian psychoanalyst. While I trained in clinical psychology and experimental methods, I did not discover the works of Professor Durganand Sinha till much later. Yet Sinha was one of the best known cross-cultural psychologists of his time, and his works continue to inspire many psychologists to this day. Given that I had discovered Indian psychology through the works of Kakar, as I have written about it elsewhere (Sharma, 2004, 2014), and later through the writings of Ashis Nandy, who has written extensively about the Indian political and social realities (Nandy, 1983), my comments in this chapter will be colored by my readings of these leading theorists of the

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 187–199 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

187

188    D. SHARMA

Indian psyche, culture, and politics. Kakar pioneered the application of Freudian and Eriksonian psychoanalysis to the Indian context, with a penetrating analysis of childhood, family, and the Hindu life cycle. Nandy, on the other hand, wrote incisively about the construction of Indian self and politics within the context of colonialism and Westernization. While Kakar was entirely trained overseas, in Germany and the United States for his professional training, Nandy was totally an Indian product, a homegrown social and political psychologist trained in India to understand the Indian mind in all its wild and twisted permutations. Kakar applied the Western methods of psychoanalysis with great skill and insight. His works are based on a universal model of the human mind, drawn from clinical realities of middle-class Indian patients. Nandy’s work examines postcolonial social and political trends that span the whole of India—tribal, rural, modern and postmodern—perhaps, serving as “the conscience of a nation,” a phrase I am borrowing from Ashis Nandy’s wellknown journalist and filmmaker brother Pritish Nandy. However, both Kakar and Nandy are known to step outside the Western methods and models of research to theorize about India’s past and present. In these alternative frames of mind, both work in an uncharted terrain representing an Indian way of thinking about the world. In the West, Nandy is known as a postcolonial intellectual who challenges the hegemonic discourse of Western epistemology, science, and rationality, all the while using Western methods to understand India’s idiosyncratic politics. Kakar, on the other hand, often uses the novel to explore historical realism through fiction, experimenting with protagonists who are breaking cultural barriers of Hindu norms, rules, and prescriptions related to caste, sex, and hierarchy. Coming from different theoretical viewpoints and cultural upbringings—Kakar is a North Indian Punjabi who lives in Goa, while Nandy is Bengali who has made Delhi his home—both theorize about what it means to be an Indian when Indian identity is being highly contested. Kakar’s gaze for the most part is turned inward toward the inner self, while Nandy’s focuses on India’s political self and its booming and buzzing diversity. However, both of these leading Indian theorists were informed by the works of Durganand Sinha, who preceded them by at least a generation. As Girishwar Mishra (2013) has elaborated, Sinha was one of the leaders of modern Indian academic psychology, who made the indigenization of Western psychology a theoretical and methodological issue: After noticing that strict adherence to western methods and themes are not sufficient and realization of the richness of Indian culture Sinha took the initiative to develop a psychology that could be applied to a range of Indian issues. A need for developing a theoretical framework more consonant with Indian culture to better address the needs of the country was felt. This led to

Durganand Sinha    189 development of a problem oriented psychology which addressed macro level issues. Later he recognized indigenization in which modification of western theories and concepts to suit the Indian context as well as using insights from ancient Indian resources. (p. 1179)

The issues Sinha identified, which Kakar and Nandy later explored in greater depth, are still relevant today, namely, how to translate Western psychology to a local cultural context. Translating between cultures, on the face of it, appears easier than it really is, and the challenges are not merely philosophical and methodological but also practical. In this chapter, I wrestle with the same questions Sinha has raised. Is the translation between asymmetrical cultures even possible, when the methods, theory, and practice are so completely dominated by the Western idioms and tropes of cultural research? In the age of globalization, what are the unique challenges to cross-cultural work that psychologists must confront on a daily basis? Is it even possible to define an Indian identity without Western languages, education, methods, and cultural import? The issues Sinha worked on all his life are still relevant today even as Westernization and market reforms now spread throughout the world. My central claim is that, especially in countries like India and China, Sinha’s ideas will be relevant for many decades to come. We will forever vacillate between the dynamics of indigenization and Westernization, between the ethnic and the global, and between the local context and increasingly hyperreal international frames of reference. Never settling on either, psychologists will forever be searching for a cultural interpretation of the local worlds in global settings, on the one hand, and universalistic analysis of local dynamics, on the other. Durganand Sinha was born in a village in 1922 in the eastern state of Bihar under British India; it is the third-most populous state in India, considered one of the backward states in terms of literacy. Sinha was a product of at least two different worlds—traditional village and urban India, combined with the elite English education. He trained at Cambridge University, completing an MSc in psychology in 1949; he did not earn a doctorate as this was rare in those days. In the same year, he joined Patna University as a faculty member. He later joined Allahabad University (Uttar Pradesh, India), in 1961, and founded the psychology department, where he stayed throughout his life. Allahabad is one of the oldest universities in India, also known as the “Oxford of the East.” Allahabad was a hub of psychological research during his reign. He was a pioneer of societal development in psychological research, creating a Centre for the Study of Social Change and Development at Allahabad, which later became a University Grants Commission (UGC) Centre for Advanced Study (CAS) in Psychology. One of the challenges he confronted was how to bring Western psychology to the

190    D. SHARMA

Indian context in the service of national development. He pioneered many journals, organizations, ideas, and interests, and generated many students who are heads of departments in various universities in India and abroad. As one of his leading protégés Janak Pandey told me in an interview, Professor Sinha was truly an academic and he did not work for a living. His background was of a princely state [Banally, Bihar], and therefore, those who did not know him well thought of him as authoritarian and feudal. After my return to India in 1974 after my PhD at Kansas State as a Fulbright Scholar, I was working at IIT Kanpur and I was appointed as Professor by Allahabad University on his initiative. He was active academically till the end. He expected quality, meaningful, and contextually relevant work from the colleagues. (J. Pandey, personal communication, June 17, 2014)

Although strongly influenced by the experimental methods of his day, He also strongly believed that psychology must be contextually relevant, and therefore psychology should not only be cross-cultural but should be also indigenous. He is considered one of the pioneers for the development of crosscultural psychology and making a beginning of an indigenous approach. (J. Pandey, personal communication, June 17, 2014)

Hailing from the state of Bihar, Sinha was fluent in English, Hindi, and many of the local dialects, shaping his thinking about culture. Limited facilities in the Indian university settings did not frustrate the Cambridge-trained psychologist. Sinha often did innovative research with meager resources. Pandey claims (1998), one of Sinha’s earlier papers, “Behavior in a Catastrophic Situation” in 1952 in the British Journal of Psychology became one of the data points for Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance. In 1958, when Sinha moved to IIT Kharagpur, he started the psychology department, focusing on teaching industrial psychology to technology students, while he examined problems in industrial settings. In the second decade after independence (1957–1967), there was a major expansion in Indian universities, where Allahabad University took the lead in setting up a department in scientific psychology and Sinha was chosen to head the department. From Allahabad, he led the search for a culturally appropriate psychology throughout his life. He lectured the day before he passed away (March 23, 1998) at a university in Madhya Pradesh. His wife, Radha Sinha, continues to live in the house in Allahabad, where they hosted many world-renowned psychologists and thinkers. His two sons, Premanand (Gopu) and Snehanand (Ravi) did not pursue careers in psychology, but both his daughters-in-law, Gita Sinha and Mala Sinha, are well known in the field.

Durganand Sinha    191

ON THE SEARCH FOR AN AUTHENTIC PSYCHOLOGY As Sinha was trained during the British colonial period, prior to independence in 1947, his thinking reflected the European tradition of experimental psychology. While he may have constantly fought for the cause of a culturally appropriate psychology, how far he may have succeeded is not clear. Was he able to break through the shackles of experimental methods? This is a debatable issue. He made research more responsive to the Indian social realities, but did he venture outside the positivist tradition? It is not clear. This was a challenging task then, as it is now, because the received view of science was dominant in the academic culture, and the prevailing systemic constraints discouraged movement in newer areas. Girishwar Mishra argues Sinha’s professional career as a teacher and researcher “shows a steady progression.” Sinha conducted experimental studies of memory and cognitive processes (Davis & Sinha, 1950a, 1950b) in the tradition of his mentor Sir Frederick Bartlett. Bartlett was the first experimental British psychologist at the University of Cambridge, a forerunner of the cognitive psychology movement. Sinha developed a test for manifest anxiety, which became a classic (Sinha, 1963). While working on these themes, Sinha struggled with the domination of Western theories and models and therefore engaged in exploring a productive interface of EuroAmerican theories with the insights from indigenous thought systems of India (Sinha, 1965). Sinha was probably one of the earlier psychologists to conduct village studies, analyze social change, and place psychology within India’s postindependence social context. He saw India as a new democratic republic aspiring for speedy socioeconomic development. He was clearly an optimist. It has taken India more than six decades to grasp the full force of development, and we don’t really know whether Indian psychologists have fully grasped the Indian economic elephant that is unwieldy and slow moving. Sinha tried to enlarge the research agenda to deal with social change. The study of motivational problems of villagers was not a new one, but an innovation in theory and methods within Indian psychology. He published his ideas in Indian Villages in Transition (1969) and Motivation and Rural Development (1974b). This opened a new field of psychology in India. Again, Pandey (1998) suggests that “his position on indigenous psychology never suggested Balkanization of psychology as a discipline. He believed in socio-culturally, contextualized, yet universal scientific psychology.”   While relating psychology to social change, Sinha also became interested in the analysis of changes in value orientation across generations. He published results of his empirical study in The Mughal Syndrome (1974a) and in a book chapter (Sinha, 1979). His findings were well received.

192    D. SHARMA

Village studies were critical to shaping Sinha’s theory of indigenization. The capacity to handle macrolevel variables loomed large in his mind, and his was one of the first systematic attempts within Indian psychology to deal with the glaring problems of development. How can you construct a human psychology based on experiments with laboratory animals, such as rats and pigeons, when the majority of the population itself lives below the poverty line as if in a subspecies-level human existence? What is the basis for a Western experimental psychology and methods in India when you are confronted with markedly different social structures, such as caste, income, and gender inequality? Does this make the cultural borrowings from the West almost moot? Due to these visual and mental acuities, Sinha undertook the study of poverty and deprivation. Applying Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, he constructed the ecology of Indian poverty and deprivation. The edited volume, entitled Deprivation: Its Social Roots and Psychological Consequences (Sinha, Tripathi, & Misra, 1982), became a central book in the field. According to Mishra (2013), Sinha drew attention to the role of layers of psychological and institutional contexts and conditions—from the micro to the macro levels—which impact the psychological concomitants of poverty and proceeded to a schematic model of the relationship between poverty, its psychological consequences and their outcomes. (p. 1179)

He encouraged a number of important psychologists to pursue this area of research, including Janak Pandey, R.C. Tripathi, and many others. Finally, Sinha’s interest in cross-cultural issues was rooted in his thinking about comparing East and West (or Purav aur Paschim, as the popular Hindi film suggests). Again, this is an age-old concern of most Indian writers; there isn’t much new to say about this topic except to repeat the old clichés (to quote Rudyard Kipling, “East is East. West is West, Never the Twain Shall Meet”) (Kipling, 1895). For instance, Kakar and Nandy have also examined this issue in great depth; Nandy has highlighted the fact that Kipling was an English child who was born in India, and went on to write such popular books as the children’s bestseller The Jungle Book, but later converted to defend the British Empire. However, Sinha argued for building linkages between East and West while addressing the problems of academic psychology (Sinha, 1965). True to his disciplinary creed, in his last book in collaboration with Ramesh C. Mishra and John Berry (1996), Ecology, Acculturation, and Psychological Adaptation, Sinha applied an ecocultural model to tackle this issue. It is not easy to decolonize modern psychology while working within the discipline, which began as a historical stepchild of Western enlightenment. But Sinha gave it his best shot. His Psychology in a Third World Country: An

Durganand Sinha    193

Indian Experience (1986) is testament to this attempt. Mishra argues that this book was part of the larger undercurrent in the internationalization of psychology, along with a special issue of International Journal of the Psychology in 1984. Sinha’s contribution to Indigenous Psychologies (1993), edited by Kim and Berry, and a chapter in the second edition of the Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (1997) edited by Berry, Poortinga, and Pandey, make a case for developing an authentic psychology. He argued for a paradigmatic change, one that can be called indigenization of psychology from within psychology. Sinha was clearly an early champion of the indigenization of psychology. Here, his work may have reached its highpoint within the cross-cultural psychology movement. Professor Sinha worked collaboratively with Henry S. R. Kao of the University of Hong Kong, which led to Asian Perspectives on Psychology (1997), Social Values and Development: Asian Perspectives (1988), and other writings. He was committed to bridging psychological theory and practice in the cultural context. This led him to found Psychology and Developing Societies, a journal published by Sage (in India) in 1989, which continues to host diverse perspectives representing challenges to mainstream psychology. INDIGENOUS SAMPLES AND OTHER WAYS OF KNOWING At a fundamental level, like many of us who have followed his work, Professor Sinha was looking for an alternative, relational, or symbiotic model of human development, a conceptual framework that connects humans with other beings, nature, technology, development, and change. To the extent that India, and now all of Asia, has embarked on a path of market reforms, the task of looking for an alternative to “Western academic scientific psychology” (WASP) has become easier and harder at the same time. It is easier as some of the yardsticks for measuring change and development across different cultures are now the same, such as the use of the global Human Development Index, the Happiness Index, and such. It is harder because the contextual forces are now even more virulent and evident than ever before. The different faces and voices of local cultures are vying for equal attention in the social-media and technologically driven culture. Recognizing the strengths and limitations of Western academic scientific psychology, Sinha was able to provide directions for the future. Again, as one of his recent colleagues Mishra (1998) claims, Sinha, by his initiative, vision, and commitment was able to gauge the changes which were necessary to meet societal challenges. He changed the priority of research by demonstrating and setting examples through the study of issues

194    D. SHARMA like rural leadership, student unrest, problems of first generation learners, familial pattern and psychological development, fears in children, change proneness in villagers and analysis of paintings by children. He changed the framework and climate of doing research by advocating a dialogue between the text and context, theory and practice and culture and psychology.

Sinha was a member of the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP), which he helped found. He was President and Fellow, and remained a member of the executive boards of both the International Union of Psychological Sciences (IUPsyS) and the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP). Sinha also served as the president of the Indian Psychological Association (IPA), the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology (IAAP), and the Psychology Section of the Indian Science Congress Association (ISCA). He remained an advisor of the National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) and a member of various policymaking bodies, like the United Grants Commission (UGC), the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), and the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR). Besides editing the Indian Journal of Psychology, he founded a new journal, entitled Psychology and Developing Societies (Sage), to encourage dialogue on these matters and to further the development of Indian psychology. In addition, he remained on the boards of several other journal publications. INDIGENOUS PSYCHOLOGY IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION Yet Sinha’s search for an alternative to the Western academic scientific psychology remained elusive. As summarized by Allwood and Berry (2006) “indigenous psychology is still a ‘little culture’ dominated by Western psychology” certainly within the Indian context. The reasons for this historical impasse are deeply rooted. First, the scientific method is universal. While contextual forces can be taken into account, it must be done through the standard scientific method. For example, see Shweder and Bourne (1982) on the critique of mainstream psychology with respect to contextual variations. If psychologists step outside the scientific method, they are in another discipline, belonging perhaps to the arts, literature, fiction, opera, and poetry. The heavy emphasis over the past two decades on the context in the social sciences may not be able to overcome the positivist “black-box” orientation in psychology, especially as we push heavily toward brain studies, neurosciences, and deeper into the human genome. I think Kakar and Nandy have ventured out of the Western academic scientific psychology with varying degrees of success; hence their works have been noticed.

Durganand Sinha    195

Second, due to its colonial past, India has never been able to shake off its colonial baggage entirely (Nandy, 1983); what is truly authentic Indian without the Western influence of language, culture, habits, and manners is very difficult to pin down, especially in modern India after economic liberalization. There is a push-pull dynamic that occurs in Indian society toward everything Western. Indians love and hate the West, simultaneously, in a split-personality kind of disorder. Western psychology follows a similar dynamism in India. Perhaps in other contexts, such as China and Japan, where colonialism was not the dominant system for long periods, indigenous psychologies may have fared better. The indigenization of psychology has been talked about throughout the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, but to the degree India has been opened up to liberal market reforms beginning in the 1990s and beyond, Indian psychological issues may appear to be similar in symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment to their Western middle-class counterparts. This only complicates the situation on the ground. My historical assessment of the Indian psychological scene is fully supported by an in-depth study offered by Paranjpe (2006, p. 67) and many others, who have come to the strikingly same conclusion: The dominance of Western models that began in the colonial days continued well into the postcolonial decades. A common trend was to replicate studies published in British and American journals following their experimental procedures or paper and pencil tests. The imitation was often blind. . . . During the 1970s a majority of Indian psychological studies began to be perceived as Western imports that had no connection with life in India. Dalal (2002) quotes Ashis Nandy’s pithy words published in 1974: “Indian psychology has become not merely imitative and subservient, but also dull and replicative.” (p. 5)

In his authoritative review of the literature of the 1971–1976 period sponsored by the Indian Council of Social Science Research, the well-known psychologist Udai Pareek (1980) concluded that there were “signs of growing crisis in psychology” insofar as psychology had “failed to make a thrust in the national life” (Vol. 1, p. ix). Finally, during the past 20 years, India has seen more social and cultural change in all aspects of society than it did in the previous 40 years of independence. If Sinha were alive today, what would he observe and study? My best guess is that he would be excited about some of the changes he would witness. He would ask us to look at the macropicture carefully and follow some of the same modalities of change that he himself studied, such as economic deprivation, societal development, poverty, and issues of social change among villagers. The pace of change, which has increased rapidly, would be critical to his thinking. He would still urge us to look for microinequities in the system due to caste, gender, and poverty.

196    D. SHARMA

Most of all, he would have come full circle in his own thinking about Indian psychology. Having witnessed Indian society change rapidly over the last two decades toward Western models of behavior and lifestyles, he might have realized that the search for an alternative to Western academic scientific psychology would be fleeting, always in search of a new project. And the search for India’s indigenous roots is never ending. He may have come to realize that these days the “local” and the “global” are present at all times in all behavioral contexts. All societies operate both in the local time and place, and increasingly in a global time-and-work cycle. Watching the spread of technology and media in Indian society today, he would have perhaps become more interested in the recent changes that have impacted Indian individuals and families, positively or negatively, from the campaign against political corruption led by Anna Hazare or AAP, to the horrific rape epidemic which has led to legal reforms. He would still urge us to work on indigenization, but also to focus on the macro-indicators of developmental change. He would implore us to focus on the experimental method without losing sight of the real-world laboratory outside the experimental conditions. He would still build collaborations with psychologists in other Asian countries and foster exchange with Europe and the United States. In today’s India, Sinha’s search for indigenous sources of culture would lead him to the globally oriented places of work, such as the call centers in Noida and Bangalore. Equally important, his search for macrovariables in the formation of local identities may have led him to McDonalds and Internet cafes or to global websites and chat rooms where Indian youth now hang out. Sinha would still be inspiring us to look for the micro- and macrolevel behavior in the local cultural contexts, but perhaps with a different intent and focus toward rapid social change. Bound by the experimental method, he would still parse the Indian society and culture into independent and dependent variables to be examined, modeled, and studied. SINHA’S PLACE IN SCIENTIFIC PSYCHOLOGY My perspective within psychology has been broad-based. I have been trained in positivist methods and narrative psychology. I have conducted double-blind randomized controlled experiments as well as in-depth ethnographic fieldwork. I have written from the experimental standpoint and from the standpoint of an ethnographer and journalist, who is aware of his biases and discloses them openly. I have worked in the private sector and in academia. Hence, my allegiances to any particular method are tenuous, suspect, and not always trendy.

Durganand Sinha    197

Very much like Thomas Cook and Donald Campbell’s quasi-experimental methodology (1979) and Ali Mazrui, Patrick Dikirr, and Shalahudin Kafrawi’s insightful analysis of globalization and civilization (2008), I believe in a multimethod, multimeasure approach to the social sciences. No single method is adequate to answer a research question completely. The manner of phrasing the research questions and the methods deployed predetermine to some extent the results you may collect. Thus, any one finding, even in a tightly controlled experiment, may be suspect of a sampling bias and to a whole host of other factors within the study design. For example, see the literature on the issues that plague even randomized clinical trials (Sharma, 2007, 2010). Every finding may be subject to replication, revision, and refutation. It is within this context that much of what is considered Western academic scientific psychology or WASP (as Sinha called it) may be seen as suffering from a huge sampling bias, foremost, and perhaps from other faulty design issues when this method is transported to other cultures (Arnett, 2008; Kagan, 2012). Thus, much of what the indigenous psychologies movement that Sinha and his colleagues fostered was a significant correction against the sampling bias long overdue in mainstream psychology. How can you build a global psychology simply on the basis of middleclass Euro-American norms and standards? At least our sample universe must include the target population we are generalizing to and speaking about? This has been the claim of feminists, cultural theorists, and other postpositivist scientists who lay claim to the Romantic legacy of Western enlightenment. Carol Gilligan (1982) made this argument with respect to moral psychology, as did Shweder (e.g., Shweder & Bourne, 1982), and many cross-cultural psychologists with regard to different societies and cultures. However, we must ask, Does the sampling bias correction solve the problems of cross-cultural research? Do the epistemological values inherent in Western science reasonably carry over to other contexts? Are other ways of knowing just as valid as rational empiricism? I think Sinha and the call for indigenous psychologies touched on these questions in interesting but perhaps also fleeting ways. Thus, Sinha’s work may have paved the way for the arrival of deep thinkers who could examine the Indian psyche and culture from the inside out, using multiple methods, and not solely relying on positivism and experimental design. The experiments that Sudhir Kakar and Ashis Nandy undertook throughout their careers have been made possible partly by the work Durganand Sinha and his colleagues, who “softened” Western sciences in the fields of psychological and cultural analysis. As a member of the first generation of scientists to practice psychology in postindependence India, Sinha understood the tropes and tricks of Western academic scientific psychology and

198    D. SHARMA

how best to critique them systematically. This is his lasting contribution and legacy to the project of internationalizing psychology, when India was in infancy, beginning to walk on its own feet after independence. REFERENCES Allwood, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2006). Origins and development of indigenous psychologies: An international analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 41, 243–268. Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Davis, D. R., & Sinha, D. (1950a). The effect of an experience upon the recall of another. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2, 43–52. Davis, D. R., & Sinha, D. (1950b). The influence of an interpolated experience upon recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2, 132–137. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kagan, J. (2012). Psychology’s ghosts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kakar, S. (1980). The inner world: A study of childhood and society in India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. Kipling, R. (1895). The ballad of East and West. In E. C. Stedman (Ed.), A Victorian anthology (pp. 596–598). London, UK: Bartleby. LeVine, R. A. (1982). Culture, behavior and personality. New York, NY: Aldine. Mazrui, A., Dikirr, P., & Kafrawi, S. (2008). Globalization and civilization: Are they forces in conflict? New York, NY: Global. Mishra, G. (1998, September). Obituary: Durganand Sinha: IACCP celebrates the life of one its founders. Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 32(3), 4. Retrieved from http://www.iaccp.org/bulletin/V32.3_1998/toc.html Mishra, G. (2013). Durganand Sinha. In K. Keith (Ed.), The encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology. New York, NY: Wiley. Mishra, R. C., Sinha, D., & Berry, J. D. (1996). Ecology, acculturation and psychological adaptation: A study of Adivasis in Bihar. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Nandy, A. (1983). The intimate enemy: Loss and recovery of self under colonialism. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. Pandey, J. (1998). Durganand Sinha: Obituary. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 691–694. Paranjpe, A. C. (2006). From tradition through colonialism to globalization: Reflections on the history of psychology in India. In A. C. Brock (Ed.), Internationalizing the history of psychology (pp. 56–77). New York: New York University Press. Pareek, U. (Ed.). (1980). A survey of research in psychology, 1971–76 (2 vols.). Bombay, India: Popular Prakashan. Sharma, D. (2004). Childhood, family and sociocultural change in India: Reinterpreting the inner world. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

Durganand Sinha    199 Sharma, D. (2007, March/April). The anthropology of big pharma. Health Affairs, 26, 590–591. Sharma, D. (2010, March). Outsourcing Big Pharma. Health Affairs, 9, 563-564. Sharma, D. (2014). Psychoanalysis, culture and religion: Essays in honor of Sudhir Kakar. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1982). Does the concept of the person vary across cultures? Culture, Illness, and Healing, 4, 97–137. Sinha, D. (1952). Behavior in a catastrophic situation: A psychological study of reports and rumours. British Journal of Psychology, 43(3), 200–209. Sinha, D. (1963). Manifest anxiety in an Indian sample. Journal of Psychology, 69, 261–265. Sinha, D. (1965). Integration of modern psychology with Indian thought. In A. J. Sutchi & M. A. Vick (Eds.), Readings in humanistic psychology (pp. 265–279). New York, NY: Free Press. Sinha, D. (1969). Indian villages in transition: A motivational analysis. Delhi, India: Associated. Sinha, D. (1974a). The Mughal syndrome. New Delhi, India: Tata/McGraw-Hill. Sinha, D. (1974b). Motivation and rural development. New Delhi, India: Minerva. Sinha, D. (1979). The young and the old: Ambiguity of role models and values among Indian youth. In S. Kakar (Ed.), Identity and adulthood (pp. 56–64). Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. Sinha, D. (1984). Psychology in the context of third world development. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 17–29. Sinha, D. (1986). Psychology in a third world country: The Indian experience. New Delhi, India: Sage. Sinha, D. (1989, March). Editor’s note. Psychology and Developing Societies, 1, 1–2. Sinha, D. (1993). Indigenization of psychology in India and its relevance. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 30–43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sinha, D. (1997). Indigenizing psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H., Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Vol. I. Theory and method (2nd ed., pp. 129–169). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Sinha, D., & Kao, H. S. R. (Eds.). (1988). Social values and development: Asian perspectives. New Delhi, India: Sage. Sinha, D., & Kao, H. S. R. (Eds.). (1997). Asian perspectives on psychology. New Delhi, India: Sage. Sinha, D., Tripathi, R. C., & Misra, G. (Eds.). (1982). Deprivation: Its social roots and psychological consequences. New Delhi, India: Concept.

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 13

KUO-SHU YANG Scholar, Leader, Activist William K. Gabrenya, Jr. and Chien-Ru Sun

FROM POLITICAL REFUGEE TO ACADEMIC STAR 1948: A few bars of gold changed hands . . . and the Nationalist Chinese Air Force spirited a teenage Kuo-Shu Yang and his family out of Shandong Province and into the history of psychology. An insurgency led by Mao ZiDong and the Communist Party of China had finally overthrown the government of the Republic of China controlled by the Kuomintang (KMT) party after a 21 year civil war, sending 1.3 million military and government personnel as well as the Yang family into exile on the island province of Taiwan. Isolated in its last redoubt, the KMT continued to fight for its survival, a questionable proposition until the appearance of the U.S. Seventh Fleet in the Strait of Taiwan at the beginning of the Korean War. All generations, in all places, have experiences that shape their values and expectations. Born on December 22, 1932, to a bourgeois family of manufacturers, Kuo-Shu Yang (楊國樞 pinyin: Yáng Gúo-Shu) had no choice but to flee China to survive, and then grew up in the virtual military camp that characterized Taiwan at that time. The island was governed by

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 201–212 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

201

202    W. K. GABRENYA and C.-R. SUN

the KMT under often harsh martial law for 38 years and remained poor until it began to industrialize in the 1960s. Although a quintessentially unlikely place for the birth of a scientific movement, it was in this context that Yang grew to be the intellectual and organizational leader of the Taiwan indigenous psychology movement and one of the world’s most respected Chinese psychologists, as well as a political dissident opposed to the Nationalist government. Yang matriculated at National Taiwan University (NTU) after completing his secondary education at the Affiliated Senior High School of National Taiwan Normal University. NTU is now among the most prestigious universities in Chinese-speaking nations. The motivation to be the number one student in the number one school (and perhaps in the number one major or field) runs strongly through Chinese educational and academic culture. Seeking to excel academically, and indeed in all endeavors, forms a narrative arc through Yang’s life, the first of five themes that might be thought to characterize him as a person, a scholar, and an activist. Yang initiated his university education as forestry major under a prestigious scholarship and was the top student in his class, but after contracting tuberculosis he was forced to leave the university (Yang, personal communication, August 5, 1989). During his recovery from TB, he had the opportunity to read a banned magazine, Free China (Zìyou Zhongúo), which led to his interest and later participation in the democracy movement in Taiwan. The editor of Free China eventually spent 20 years in prison, but Yang was more fortunate, as described in a later section. Upon his return to NTU, he changed his major to psychology, precipitating a struggle with the chair of the forestry department over his scholarship in which Yang prevailed. A second theme that characterizes much of his life—steadfast rejection of arbitrary authority and taken-for-granted norms—was foreshadowed in his choice of psychology. Yang (1997) reminisced, “In those years in Taiwan, taking psychology as a college major was something peculiar to most ‘sensible’ people and even considered crazy if the one who did it was a male” (p. 62). Upon completion of his undergraduate degree in 1959, NTU hired him back as a Department Teaching Assistant, allowing him to conduct individual research in areas of animal learning. His interests gradually shifted to social and personality psychology, a change that Yang attributes to his “humanistic inclination” (Yang, 1997, p. 63). A higher degree in social psychology could only be obtained in the West at that time, so Yang pursued a PhD with Harry Triandis at the University of Illinois, one of the most prestigious social psychology programs. By all accounts, Yang was a star student. Triandis recalls that “Yang Kuo-Shu was brilliant and an independent student. He contributed to the Analysis of Subjective Culture (Triandis, Vassiliou, Vassiliou, Tanaka, & Shanmugam, 1972) and I included his name on the front page” (Triandis, personal communication, August 29, 2013).

Kuo-Shu Yang    203

During the 1960s and through the 1990s, a large proportion of the graduates of Taiwan’s best high schools and universities took higher degrees in the West and attempted to make their lives outside Taiwan in order to take advantage of better opportunities and to escape the existential political uncertainties in Taiwan, as the People’s Republic of China remained (and still remains) poised to invade the country. However, pointing to a third important theme in Yang’s life, he chose to return to his native (if adopted) land upon receiving his PhD in 1969 to establish a career, initially under difficult circumstances. He attributes this repatriation to his judgment that greater knowledge of his own culture would engender better research as well as his observation that Chinese had heretofore been ignored in psychological research. He felt that it was in Taiwan that his contributions as a teacher and scholar were more strongly needed. REPATRIATION AND POLITICAL DISSIDENT The career prospects of a “returned PhD” to Taiwan are described in Gabrenya, Kung, and Chen (2006). Far poorer resources were available to build a career of the kind modeled by the University of Illinois faculty, who had at their disposal all the assets needed by a working research psychologist of that era. Nonetheless, Yang was scientifically productive during the early years of his return to NTU and proved to be a highly popular lecturer who attracted many students. His considerable talents as a public speaker ultimately served him well as a leader of an intellectual movement later in life. Like many people who repatriated to Taiwan at that time and through the 1980s, he was disappointed by the political and social situation in Taiwan and became involved in a movement to democratize Taiwan. Following the tradition of the Confucian scholar (a fourth theme), he believed that his societal role, indeed obligation, was to criticize the government and promote the welfare of society and people. In this sense he is a classic Chinese liberal (Metzger, 1998, 2005) and could be thought of as an heir to the Chinese May Fourth Movement or “Chinese Enlightenment”of 1919 (Schwarcz, 2002), applying modern principles of liberalism and science to changing an entrenched authoritarian state. Thus, he became involved in publishing the magazines Thought and Word (Sĭ yú Yán) and Intellectual Magazine (Dàxúe Zázhì). Political dissidents at that time were sent to the Green Island penal colony or executed, but Yang’s recent marriage to Lee Pen-Hwa (Lĭ Běn-Húa), the daughter of a Nationalist general, saved him from prison and possibly also saved his life. His bold stand against the ruling party foreshadowed his strong, principled position against Western psychology in the following decade. Years later, under a wholly different government, Yang returned to politics to found the Taipei Society (Chéng

204    W. K. GABRENYA and C.-R. SUN

Shè; http://www.taipeisociety.org) in order to provide a third voice in a famously conflictual two-party democratic system. In the traditional style of Chinese scholars, the Taipei Society seeks to reform the state and promote the welfare of society and people through the influence of scholars. The Taipei Society website notes that “The purpose of our organization is . . . to integrate a variety of knowledge and our collective influence to promote freedom, fairness, diversity, and equal distribution of wealth in modern society and work.” INTELLECTUAL DISSIDENT AND LEADING SCHOLAR-ORGANIZER Fellow Travelers Two critical events guided Yang in his path to leadership in the Taiwan indigenous psychology movement. He reports becoming disillusioned with the Western-inspired psychology being taught and practiced in Taiwan, and in 1976 he found common ground with an anthropologist (Yih-Yuan Li) and a sociologist (Chung-I Wen) who were on staff at the Institute of Ethnology of Academia Sinica (Yang, 1997). Academia Sinica is the premier research center in Taiwan, a successor to an organization that existed in China prior to the civil war. Following a one-year stint as department chair at the new Department of Psychology of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, he returned to Taiwan and leveraged his relationship with Academia Sinica to organize a seminal conference (1980), which essentially launched the indigenous psychology movement. The Harvard Epiphany The second critical event was his “Harvard epiphany.” While on sabbatical at Cornell University in 1988, he had the occasion to participate in a seminar at Harvard alongside such luminaries as Arthur Kleinman (eminent cultural psychiatrist) and Jerome Kagan (influential developmental psychologist). Prior to this event, Yang had viewed a “Sinicized” psychology in a reformist manner, that is, hoping to add cultural elements to a universal psychology in order render it more relevant and compatible with Chinese society and culture—similar to the universalist stance of cross-cultural psychology (Adamopoulos & Lonner, 1994). However, as he reports in Yang (1997) and in personal communications, his interaction with the Harvard seminar participants inspired his insight that Western psychology has nothing to offer to Chinese people, hence a new, uniquely Chinese psychology

Kuo-Shu Yang    205

must be developed from the ground up based in native Chinese philosophy and social traditions. Media and Organization The Taiwan indigenous psychology movement (TIPM) came of age with the founding of the journal Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies (Bentu Xinlixue Yanjiu 1), edited by Yang. In its inaugural issue, Yang (1993) published his seminal statement of the fundamental principles of the TIPM, “Why must we develop a Chinese indigenous psychology” (Wǒmen wèishéme yào jiànlì zhongguórénde běntŭ xinlǐxúe? [Yang, 1993]). When asked why the journal did not include English abstracts (in contrast to many non-English language journals) in its initial years of publication, Yang replied (paraphrasing), “It is for us, not for you” (personal communication, n.d.).2 Point taken! In a survey of a purposive sample of academic psychologists in Taiwan in 1998, Gabrenya, Kung, and Chen (2006) found that 94% of social and 53% of cognitive psychologists had read this article, indicating broad diffusion of knowledge of the movement, if not acceptance. The core content of this article is also related in Yang (1997), often in direct translation. At the time of this writing, 39 issues have been published, averaging 300–400 pages each. Yang stepped down as editor in 2009. The central ideas of the TIPM were developed and propagated by an expanding group of members, facilitated organizationally by an active organization, the Indigenous Psychology Research Group, which has met regularly since 1988 at NTU (Hwang, 2004), by the journal, and through a series of conferences organized by Yang and others that meet in Taiwan and elsewhere (in Taipei, 1995; Hong Kong, 1997; Beijing, 1999; etc.). A new organization, the Foundation for the Advancement of Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, was initiated by Yang in 1997 to promote and encourage teaching and research in the area. One of the most ambitious attempts by Yang to bring indigenous ideas and research skills to Chinese outside of Taiwan was a series of summer workshops conducted in China. With the help of colleagues and students, Yang brought these workshops to Shanghai, Kunming, Lusan, Neimenggu, and Shanhaiguan from 1991 to 1997. A skillful and tenacious organizer, Yang was involved in the founding of the Asian Association for Social Psychology, served as its president in 2000–2001, and hosted its 1999 conference at Academia Sinica. Gabrenya et al.’s (2006) sample overwhelmingly viewed Yang as the leader of the TIPM. As a powerful, senior psychologist and Fellow of Academia Sinica by the late 1990s, he had considerable influence on social psychology in Taiwan. Prior to his retirement from NTU in 1998, Yang supervised a large number of doctoral students and led a highly rigorous seminar on indigenous

206    W. K. GABRENYA and C.-R. SUN

psychology. Faced with academic retirement age regulations, he took a position at Fu-Jen Catholic University (1998–2001) and subsequently at Fo Guang University, a new private university founded by a Buddhist order (2001 to 2006). He retired once again but, energetic and deeply committed to the movement, in 2007 he moved to Research Center for Psychological Science, chaired by Wen-Ying Lin at Chung Yuan University, from which he finally retired in 2012 at age 82. Excellence and Research Productivity A milestone in research within the indigenous tradition commenced in 2000 when the Indigenous Psychology Study Group won a large, highly competitive grant in the Taiwan Ministry of Education’s “Program for Promoting Academic Excellence of Universities” (Hwang, 2004). Multiyear grants were awarded to about 25 researchers. Kwang-Kuo Hwang and Yang chaired the committee, which managed the indigenous psychology project titled “In Search of Excellence for Chinese Indigenous Psychological Research,” dividing it into five subject areas: family, interpersonal relationships, self, psychotherapy, and organizational behavior, each with a subdirector. Eventually, 24 journal articles and 77 books and book chapters would be published out of this project. Yang (2009) summarized TIPM scholarly activities through 2009, noting five major research areas that included 53 topics and identifying 26 key active researchers. INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS Although many of Yang’s publications are only available in Chinese, most of his ideas can be found in English. The article that came out of his 1999 Asian Association for Social Psychology conference keynote address provides a good overview of his thinking at that time (Yang, 2000). A full exposition of his ideas is beyond the scope of this chapter, but several core principles and research programs stand out. Indigenous Compatibility Yang proposed the controversial concept “indigenous compatibility” (běntǔ qìhéxìng) in his 1993 article, asserting that for research to possess indigenous compatibility (IC) it must have several necessary qualities: First, it must be conducted by local (native) researchers who have connections to the society being studied based on demographics (nation,

Kuo-Shu Yang    207

ethnicity), making it possible to share ideas and behaviors with people in that society. Being local is not sufficient, however: researchers must be sensitive to their indigenous roots in the society and pay attention to these roots. The researcher need not live the precise lifestyle of the local people being studied, but by calling on a lifetime of experience in the society, they should be able to understand them sufficiently nonetheless; that is, participant observation is not crucial. In his 2000 paper, Yang expanded the concept to include characteristics of the research (theory, methods) as well as the researcher, and proposed that indigenous research could be defined as “any study, or any series of studies, with a sufficient level of IC, no matter what theoretical or methodological perspectives are actually adopted” (p. 250). Yang (1993, 2000) presents lists of “do’s” and “don’ts” for achieving IC. Yang’s position concerning IC of the researcher has been challenged by Hwang (1993) and others because it assumes that only an insider can perform research having sufficient IC. Yang (1997) subsequently modified his position to allow for the participation of suitably knowledgeable and experienced foreign researchers (personal communication, February 26, 2009). Methodology Methods and methodology are essentially taken for granted in Western neopositivist psychology, wherein researchers might be characterized as adopting a “naïve positivism,” but these issues are actively debated among indigenous psychologists, as well as within cultural psychology and other social sciences. Gabrenya (2004) has speculated on why an indigenous movement would adopt an ethnographic or qualitative methodology. Yang’s position has been that the methodology needs to fit the subject matter, but experimental methods popular in the West are only adequate for indigenous research if used with care. For example, in studying indigenous concepts such as yuán (fate, predestination), the investigator is analyzing a deeply contextualized social form or meaning that may be unique within that culture. Understanding these meanings and associated behaviors in context begins with a broad qualitative approach and may at some point incorporate quantitative elements. Thus, some indigenous research resembles ethnography or fieldwork in sociology. The controversies that accompany quantitative versus qualitative research throughout the social sciences are associated with epistemology as well (Duberley, Johnson, & Cassell, 2012). Gabrenya et al. (2006) found that most social psychologists in Taiwan ascribed to a social constructivist epistemology.

208    W. K. GABRENYA and C.-R. SUN

The Cross-Cultural Indigenous Approach The most important position taken by an indigenous psychology movement is its stance concerning the potential for a universal psychology. Yang’s position, as noted above, evolved over time from a universalist to a relativist position, but in recent years has gradually moved back to a qualified universalist position, supported by a research methodology he termed the “cross-cultural indigenous approach” (CCI) (kùawénhùa běntǔ xinlǐxúe qǔxiang; Yang, 1998, 1999). To most cross-cultural psychologists, the CCI strategy will appear to resemble Berry’s (1990) classic proposal for developing cross-culturally comparable (equivalent) derived etics.3 Derived etics are identified by decomposing a construct, often developed originally only in one culture, into elements that are deemed to be shared across cultures and those that are culturally unique. However, the CCI approach requires that researchers begin with qualitative IC research in all of the cultures in which they are interested, that is, indepth contextually informed studies must be performed by IC researchers, in contrast to the shallow “research by 747” tradition of cross-cultural research at a distance (Doob, 1980). CCI research ideas are decentered from the beginning rather than developed by researchers in one culture, and then brought to researchers in another. The ideal result would be a study that compared only derived etic concepts, appropriately measured, with attention to the emic elements in each participating culture. The Psychological Transformation of the Chinese People Although Yang is now best known for his theorizing and leadership in the TIPM, he conducted two important research programs, one of which is highly central to indigenous psychology. The earlier of these was his lengthy study of Chinese modernity, spanning the late 1960s through the mid-1990s. This research was most active during the 1980s, a critical decade in Taiwan as increasing wealth and pressure for democratization and the development of civil society transformed the country (Marsh, 1996). Hardline KMT repression and some violence early in the decade, along with the founding of an opposition political party, gave way by the end of the decade to the lifting of what at that time was the world’s longest-running period of martial law; and soon after to the founding of the first democratic political system in a Chinese society. In this rapidly changing context, the study of individual modernity was important and exciting. Major English language sources for this work are Yang (1988, 1996, 2003). Although focused almost entirely on Taiwanese, his methodological approach in this research

Kuo-Shu Yang    209

program was transitional: using traditional psychometric methods but seeking to understand the experiences of Taiwanese as their society modernized and democratized. While some of the findings in this research program were descriptive of Taiwanese social change, Yang (1988, 1996) proposed an important modification of Inkeles and Smith’s (1974) convergence theory of modernization. The problem at hand was to account for an increasing number of exceptions to the expected convergence pattern, often involving the persistence of traditional cultural elements such as many Americans’ rejection of the theory of evolution through natural selection. Termed in English “a cultural-ecological interactionist theory of psychological modernization or transformation” (Yang, 1996, p. 494), he developed a distinction between individual-level constructs, such as values, personality, and behavioral patterns that are functionally related to specific modernization processes (industrialization, technological innovation) and those that are not. Whereas hard work, conscientiousness, and punctuality are critical to the success of industrial societies, many superstitions and religious beliefs are irrelevant and need not change. Yang’s research program on Taiwanese modernity provides evidence for a fifth theme that runs through his career: a highly systematic and thorough style of research and theory, as evidenced by the development of his elegantly designed Traditionality-Modernity (TM) scales (Yang, 1986). Hwang (2003) has criticized the TM scales for problems of content validity and for uncritical adoption of the Western notion of modernization, but they continue to be used (e.g., Gabrenya, Lin, Hue, Kao, & A, 2010). More recently and continuing to the present, Yang (1999, 2006) has developed an extensive research program that extends his earlier work on the Chinese relational orientation and indigenous concepts, such as yuán, to identify indigenous Chinese personality traits in a dimensional approach similar to the Western Five Factor Model4 (FFM; e.g., McCrae & Terracciano, 2008). Seven dimensions were found, four of which overlapped with the FFM (industriousness, agreeableness, extraversion, optimism), while three appeared to be unique to Chinese (competence, other-orientedness, big-heartedness). Although a single model represented people in both Taiwan and China adequately, large mean differences were found between regions, genders, and samples (student/community) for most dimensions (Hsu, Wang, & Yang, 2001). The presence of unique dimensions in this carefully developed instrument points to the danger of uncritically adapting Western instruments for use in other cultures while the demographic differences reveal the risk of characterizing Chinese (or any) society as homogeneous.

210    W. K. GABRENYA and C.-R. SUN

HIGH HONORS Yang’s long and productive career as a scientist and charismatic leader of an intellectual movement has earned him not a few honors. In 1998, he was elected Academician of Academia Sinica, the highest honor for scholars and researchers in the country, and served as its vice president from 1996 to 2000. In 2003, he was awarded the Guójia Jiǎngzuò (National Professorship), the highest honor for professors in Taiwan. Most recently, he received the Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to Psychology Award at the 8th Meeting of the International Conference of Chinese Psychologists (August, 2013, Beijing, China). A CALLING, NOT JUST A CAREER Perhaps the overarching theme that captures and celebrates Yang’s achievements is that he is a passionate researcher who takes psychological research and service to society as his lifetime interest. At his 80th birthday party, he said (paraphrasing in translation), Being a psychologist is not just a job or profession to me—it’s a calling. I take it as my lifetime vocation and I wake every morning with a smile, appreciating the fact that I am a psychologist and I have another new day to keep doing what I enjoy.

NOTES 1. The English and Chinese names of the journal are not strictly identical. 2. The journal has required English abstracts since 2000. 3. The terms “etic” and “emic” (derived from and rhyme with “phonetic” and “phonemic”) are used in cross-cultural psychology to indicate constructs that are shared and meaningful across cultures and to those that are only meaningful in a single culture. Etic constructs are in principle comparable, assuming adequate methods. Emic constructs must be understood in the context of the society in which they are found. In anthropology, these terms refer to a research strategy that takes a Western science approach in which theories meaningful to scientists are tested in any culture; versus a strategy that focuses on the local peoples’ indigenous theories and meanings (Harris, 1979). Derived etics are identified by discovering emic constructs from two or more cultures that are judged to be similar. 4. The five dimensions of the FFM are Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Openness, and Neuroticism or Stability.

Kuo-Shu Yang    211

REFERENCES Adamopoulos, J., & Lonner, W. (1994). Absolutism, relativism, and universalism in the study of human behavior. In W. J. Lonner & R. Malpass (Eds.), Psychology and culture (pp. 129–134). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Berry. J. W. (1990). Imposed etics, emics, and derived etics: Their conceptual and operational status in cross-cultural psychology. In T. N. Headland. K. L. Pike, & M. Harris (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate (pp. 84–99). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Doob, L. W. (1980). The inconclusive struggles of cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 59–73. Duberley, J., Johnson, P., & Cassell, C. (2012). Philosophies underpinning qualitative research. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative organizational research (pp. 15–34). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Gabrenya, W. K., Jr. (2004). A sociology of science approach to understanding indigenous psychologies. In B. N. Setiadi, A. Supratiknya, W. J. Lonner, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Ongoing themes in psychology and culture (pp. 131–149). Jakarta, Indonesia: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. Gabrenya, W. K., Jr., Kung, M.-C., & Chen, L.-Y. (2006). Understanding the Taiwan indigenous psychology movement: A sociology of science approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 597–622. Gabrenya, W. K. Jr., Lin, W.-Y., Hue, C.-W., Kao, C.-H., & A, N.-E. (2010, July). Are Taiwanese becoming (ever more) modern? A 2-year longitudinal study. In W. K. Gabrenya (Convener), On Becoming “Modern”: Quantitative and Qualitative Studies of Societal and Individual Change. Symposium presented at the 20th Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Melbourne, Australia. Harris, M. (1979). Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. New York, NY: Vintage. Hsu, K.-Y., Wang, D.-F., & Yang, K.-S. (2010). Taiwan yu dalu huaren jiben xingge xiangdude bijiao [Differences between Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese on Chinese basic personality dimensions: A preliminary study]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 16, 185–223. Hwang, K. K. (1993). Indigenous compatibility: Direction or criterion of academic research. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 1, 159–171. Hwang, K. K. (2003). Critique of the methodology of empirical research on individual modernity in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 241–262. Hwang, K. K. (2004). “Húarén bentu xinlixúe yánjiu zhuiqiú zhúoyuè jìhuà” de zonghúigù [An overview of the Chinese indigenous psychology excellence program]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 22, 3–10. [in Chinese] Inkeles, A., & Smith, D. H. (1974). Becoming modern: Individual change in six developing countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Marsh, R. M. (1996). The great transformation: Social change in Taipei, Taiwan since the 1960s. Armonk, NY: Sharp. Metzger, T. A. (1998). The Western concept of the civil society in the context of Chinese history. Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University.

212    W. K. GABRENYA and C.-R. SUN Metzger, T. A. (2005). A cloud across the Pacific: Essays on the clash between Chinese and Western political theories today. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2008). The Five-Factor Model and its correlates in individuals and cultures. In F. J. R. Van de Vijver, D. A. van Hemert, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures (pp. 249–283). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schwarcz, V. (2002). The Chinese enlightenment. In T. Buoye, K. Denton, B. Dickson, B. Naughton, & M. K. Whyte (Eds.), China: Adapting the past and confronting the future (pp. 75–78). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Chinese Studies. Triandis, H. C., Vassiliou, V., Vassiliou, G., Tanaka, Y., & Shanmugam, A. V. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York, NY: Wiley. Yang, K. S. (1986). Studies on Chinese individual traditionality and modernity: I. The construction of multidimensional scales. Unpublished manuscript, National Taiwan University. [in Chinese] Yang, K. S. (1988). Will societal modernization eventually eliminate cross-cultural psychological differences? In M. Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology (pp. 67–85). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Yang, K. S. (1993). Women weishenme yao jianli zhongguorende bentu xinlixue [Why do we need to develop an indigenous Chinese psychology?]. Indigenous Psychological Research, 1, 6–88. [in Chinese] Yang, K. S. (1996). The psychological transformation of the Chinese people as a result of societal modernization. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 479–498). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Yang, K. S. (1997). Indigenising Westernised Chinese psychology. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Working at the interface of cultures: Eighteen lives in social science (pp. 62– 76). London, England: Routledge. Yang, K. S. (1998). Xinlixue yanjiude bentu qihexing jiqi xiangguan wentide [Issues in the indigenous compatibility of psychological research]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 8, 75–120. [in Chinese] Yang, K. S. (1999). Towards an indigenous Chinese psychology: A selective review of methodological, theoretical, and empirical accomplishments. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 41, 181–211. Yang, K. S. (2000). Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 241–263. Yang, K. S. (2003). Methodological and theoretical issues on psychological traditionality and modernity research in an Asian society: In response to KwangKuo Hwang and beyond. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 263–286. Yang, K. S. (2006). Indigenous personality research. In U. Kim, K. S. Yang, & K. K. Hwang (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context (pp. 285–341). New York, NY: Springer. Yang, K. S. (2009, September). Shehui yu renga xinlixue zai Taiwande fazhan ji yanjiu huigu yu qianzhan [The development of social and personality psychology research in Taiwan: Review and future perspectives]. Presentation at Chung Yuan University. [in Chinese]

CHAPTER 14

GEERT HOFSTEDE Worldwide Psychological Comparisons of Societies Peter B. Smith

Geert Hofstede was to achieve fame through his pioneering attempts to describe the cultural differences between the nations of the world in psychological terms. Rather than focus on universal aspects of humanity, he sought to map the diversity of human cultures. Except where indicated otherwise, this account is drawn from autobiographical accounts (Hofstede, 1980, 1997), interviews (Culture Does not Exist, 2011, 2014), and his own website (www.geerthofstede.eu). A more extended autobiographical account is available in Hofstede (1997). EARLY EXPERIENCES He was born on October 2, 1928, as Gerard Hendrik Hofstede, in Haarlem near Amsterdam in the Netherlands. He was the youngest of three children and his father, Gerrit Hofstede, was the director of Haarlem Polytechnic

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 213–226 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

213

214    P. B. SMITH

College. In 1930 his father became the Head of Technical and Vocational Education at the Dutch Education Ministry, and the family moved to The Hague. His mother, Evertine Hofstede, had been a medical analyst in the Haarlem city health service. The family were Protestant Christians, which is the predominant affiliation in the northern part of the Netherlands. His childhood was for the most part harmonious, and during the economic recession of the 1930s his family lived on a modest but adequate income. Geert’s high school years, 1939–1945 coincided with World War II. He enjoyed his classical education with Latin, Greek, and three foreign modern languages. In the last year of war, schools were closed, but final year students nevertheless received a diploma, in his case Gymnasium beta. The Hofstedes endured the 5 years of the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands without physical suffering, but detesting the occupiers. Only in the latter part of this period did he come to realize the implications of events that he had witnessed, such as the disappearance of his Jewish schoolmates. In 1945 he enrolled at a Polytechnic College. His curriculum included a year of internships, and as part of this he traveled in 1947 to the Dutch East Indies colony and back as an assistant ship’s engineer, becoming a witness to Indonesia’s struggle for independence. Upon his return he switched to Delft Technical University. As a student he experienced cultural differences firsthand when visiting a girlfriend in the UK, and was more startled by the unexpected contrasts between the Netherlands and the UK than by his visit to Indonesia. After graduation he served 2 years with the military, working as a technical officer, and then gained further practical experience by taking a job as a mechanic in an Amsterdam factory, wanting to experience working life from the bottom up. Through these various experiences, he acquired extensive knowledge of everyday organizational life. Thus, like other pioneers of psychology such as Hans Eysenck and Carl Rogers, his original training and experiences were in disciplines other than psychology. His engineering education provided him with a propensity and preference for precise forms of measurement that found subsequent expression in his approach to research. Through schooling he had also become a fluent speaker of Dutch, English, French, and German. In 1955, he married Maaike van den Hoek, a linguist, and they subsequently had four sons, one of whom, Gert-Jan, has collaborated with his father in preparing some of the more recent publications. For the next decade he worked as an engineer in professional and managerial roles for three different Dutch companies. Already during his Delft studies he had been influenced by a book on worker motivation by a Dutch Jesuit priest, A.M. Kuylaars (1951). Following the gradual evolution of his interests from engineering to human behavior, he enrolled in Groningen University as a part-time doctoral student in 1964, where his introduction to social psychology was facilitated by his adviser Herman Hutte. His thesis concerned the

Geert Hofstede    215

psychology of budget control, based on studies of six Dutch manufacturing plants. During a trip to the United States, he visited Chris Argyris at Yale and Andrew Stedry at MIT, who had published on the same subject. In 1967 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Social Science, cum laude, for his thesis (Hofstede, 1968). By this time, he had taken up a position with the European division of IBM (International Business Machines). IBM is a U.S.-owned multinational that was a major pioneer in the development of computers, particularly the large mainframe computers that were the growth point in this field at that time. The company had more than 90,000 employees located in more than 100 nations. Hofstede’s work with IBM was to provide the basis of his distinctive research program. THE IBM SURVEY Hofstede joined IBM Europe in 1965 as a trainer in international executive development, with the additional assignment of creating a Personnel Research Department for the European division. Since the company’s founding in 1914, IBM had acquired a distinctive reputation of concern for the well-being of its personnel. In the 1960s this had led to the use of surveys of the work-relevant attitudes and opinions of their employees, starting with the United States and Britain. Hofstede undertook to extend this research to IBM’s other subsidiaries. This approach had first to be “sold” to the various country General Managers, a function nearly always filled by local nationals. Hofstede became the survey salesman, for which task his language skills were an asset. Supported by his counterpart in IBM’s head office, he assembled a team of six European colleagues, whose task was to construct a survey focused on issues of concern to IBM’s European employees. After extensive pilot interviews with employees, the survey included around 180 questions, partly universal, partly function-specific. The data collection, including translation into locally spoken languages, was handled by the various national subsidiaries. The first round, between 1967 and 1970, yielded around 60,000 responses. By 1970, personnel research was more firmly established throughout IBM. The team commenced a second series of surveys, using a core of 60 questions, with additional locally relevant items. The core items referred to aspects of job satisfaction, differing types of work motivation, and perceptions of different aspects of organizational practices. Between 1970 and 1973, this second set of surveys yielded another 60,000 responses, around half of which were from those who had also participated in the first survey. Survey responses came from as many as 71 nations in all, but some nations had too few respondents for their data to be relevant for subsequent analyses. As the data accumulated, Hofstede and his colleagues quickly became

216    P. B. SMITH

aware that the profiles of scores from different nations varied systematically, and that these variations could be of scientific interest to a wider audience, but they lacked the time for further analysis. In 1971, Hofstede obtained leave from IBM in order to teach at IMEDE in Lausanne, Switzerland, now the Institute for Management Development. His leave gave him time to dive deeper into the data, strengthening his view that these could be used to map the way in which the cultures of different parts of the world varied from one another. Expecting to return to IBM in 1973, he proposed creating a research project on the national culture effect. His American boss deemed the subject too academic for IBM and suggested giving it to a university. Firmly committed to pursuing his interest, Hofstede left the company and devoted himself entirely to analyzing the data. It was agreed that he could retain access to the database as long as he did not mention the company’s name in his publications. During the ensuing 6 years he worked on these analyses at the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management in Brussels. IBM later agreed to give modest financial support to the project. In order to have a sounding board for his conclusions, he combined his Brussels job with a part-time professorship at the European Institute for Business Administration at Fontainebleau near Paris. IDENTIFYING CULTURAL DIMENSIONS Mean survey scores for responses from different nations can vary for many reasons. Hofstede considered the possible effects of differences in age, gender, and occupation within his overall sample. He computed the national average score on each item for respondents in each of seven different types of marketing or service role present within every nation (e.g., systems engineers, office products customer engineers) and then averaged the seven scores for each survey item. This procedure gave him a set of comparable mean scores, but he still had two problems to solve. He had to decide how large a sample from a particular nation had to be to justify inclusion, and he had to decide how best to summarize what he had found. Initially, choosing 50 respondents per country as a minimum, he limited his comparison to 40 nations (Hofstede, 1980), but he subsequently discovered that reducing his minimum to 20 did not substantially change the conclusions, so that his later publications contained scores for 50 nations and three regions. The second edition of his book also added scores for 16 more nations not covered in the original IBM surveys but calculated from various replications by others (Hofstede, 2001).

Geert Hofstede    217

In his first analysis, he had eliminated from consideration all items that did not rank nations with adequate consistency between the first and second surveys. This left him with data from 44 items. The first issue on which systematic differences between nations were evident was their handling of power differences and hierarchy. The surveys had been formulated around 1968, a revolutionary period in many countries, and consequently they contained several power-related questions. He summarized the national variance in attitudes toward power and inequality as a dimension based upon the responses to three items, which, following the Dutch social psychologist Mulder (1977), he named Power Distance. In a similar way, another dimension calculated from three items relating to a need for structure were labeled Uncertainty Avoidance, a term borrowed from Cyert and March (1963). Finally, he focused on 14 items referring to different work motives. After correcting these scores for variations between nations in acquiescent responding, two further dimensions of variation were identified, which he named Individualism-Collectivism (contrasting societies where one is expected look after oneself with those where one is expected to remain integrated into groups, defined by scores on six items) and MasculinityFemininity (contrasting what he calls tough versus tender societies, defined by scores on eight items). The findings were reported in working papers between 1974 and 1979, and finally integrated into a book. He does not explicitly describe how he arrived at the decision to seek dimensions of culture, but his initial engineering education certainly affected his preference for structured thinking. He was influenced by the suggestion of the anthropologist Kluckhohn (1951) that we need to identify such dimensions and felt his approach to be supported by an extensive review by the sociologist Inkeles and the psychologist Levinson (1969), which proposed three “standard analytic issues.” These turned out to be rather similar to the dimensions of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and a combination of individualism and masculinity. His dimensions of national-level variation were established through the use of factor analysis. However, a central and innovative aspect of his project was the way that he conducted these analyses. After repeatedly and fruitlessly conducting factor analyses of the individual-level data, he came to realize that if one wishes to represent variations between nations one must first discount variations between individuals. He therefore factor analyzed the nation-level mean scores for each survey item rather than individuals’ scores. It had been known for some time that variables do not necessarily correlate with one another in the same way when analyzed at different levels of abstraction (Thorndike, 1939), but this reasoning had not been considered in relation to variations between nations. Hofstede’s “ecological” factor analyses tell us about the ways in which

218    P. B. SMITH

particular attributes of nations go together. To presume that they also tell us about the individuals within each society is to commit the ecological fallacy, as Hofstede has repeatedly emphasized. This aspect of his work has been frequently misunderstood, as we shall see. THE COLLECTIVE PROGRAMMING OF THE MIND Having identified a series of dimensions along which nations varied, Hofstede worked to establish their validity and usefulness. He understood his dimensions as characterizing sets of values prevailing within a particular nation that would not necessarily be endorsed by any specific individual, but which would provide a set of contexts within which individuals progressively learn ways of understanding the world around them and of behaving within it. Given his background, it is interesting that he chose a computer metaphor to describe this process. To determine the predictive validity of his dimensions, he therefore correlated them with all available nation-level indices of values or behaviors that could be drawn from other sources. He quickly established that the dimensions of Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance correlated strongly negatively with one another, even though he had identified them in separate ways, and that both these dimensions were also strongly correlated with each nation’s wealth. In computing correlations with other indices he therefore always controlled for wealth. It is the dimension of individualism-collectivism that has evoked strongest interest and subsequent development among psychologists, but each of the four dimensions did show a broad range of significant correlations with independent indices, and these provided the basis for the manuscript that he prepared for publication in the late 1970s. The origins of the data were initially concealed, with the corporation involved being described by the pseudonym, Hermes. The completed book ran to some 800 pages, and initial contacts with publishers were discouraging—none of those approached wished to publish it. Fortunately, two pioneers of cross-cultural psychology, John Berry and Walter Lonner, had initiated a monograph series in cross-cultural psychology in 1975, to be published by Sage. Through them it was agreed that the book would be accepted as the fifth in this series. A shortened version was duly published as Culture’s Consequences in 1980, followed by an abridged edition without the technical appendices in 1984. After publishing his book, Hofstede became a Personnel Director for a U.S.-owned multinational, but negotiated a part-time contract that also allowed him to continue his research. In 1983, he became Rector of a management development institute, and in 1985 was also appointed to a parttime chair in organizational anthropology at the University of Maastricht.

Geert Hofstede    219

Leaving his other job in 1986, he became the founder of the university’s international management program, the first in the Netherlands, adding “international management” to his chair title. IMPACT AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS The cumulative impact of this single publication has been remarkable. At the time of writing this piece in 2013, Google Scholar reports that the 1980 edition of Culture’s Consequences has been cited in the work of subsequent writers more than 27,000 times, while the 2001 edition has been cited an additional 9,000 times. Furthermore, the three editions of Hofstede’s Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (1991, 2005, 2010), which present the same data in less technical ways, have been cited a further 18,000 times. In all, works published by Geert Hofstede have been cited in English around 84,000 times, a figure in the same range as those for Freud, Piaget, and Durkheim, among other Europeans. Several reasons can be seen as to the way in which this impact has been accomplished, and these will be considered in turn. Linkage With Additional Dimensions An early stimulus was provided by the work of Michael Bond, a Canadian based in Hong Kong. Bond had also identified national differences in values using a U.S. measure. In discussion with Hofstede, Bond wondered whether the nature of the Hofstede dimensions had been influenced by the Western origins of the survey items. Bond therefore asked the help of his Chinese colleagues to design a survey based on non-Western, Chinese traditional values and administered it to students in 23 nations, finding four dimensions of nation-level variation (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987). When the two sets of dimensions, based on quite different samples and questions, were compared, three of the four dimensions from each source were found to correlate well with an equivalent dimension from the other source (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). The additional dimension identified by Bond, named as Confucian Work Dynamism, turned out to be strongly predictive of nation-level economic growth, and this finding led Hofstede to add it as a fifth to his four IBM dimensions, renaming it Long Term Orientation. In the 2000s, Michael Minkov from Bulgaria succeeded in replicating this dimension from data collected though the World Values Survey among representative samples of adult populations (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Geert’s son Gert-Jan had become a co-author in the 2005 edition of his student book; Minkov joined them in the 2010

220    P. B. SMITH TABLE 14.1  Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture Dimension

High Scoring Nations

Low Scoring Nations

Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism (vs. Collectivism) Masculinity (vs. Femininity) Short-Term Orientation (vs. Long-Term Orientation) Indulgence (vs. Restraint)

Accept social inequality Avoid ambiguity and stress Group memberships are fluid and voluntary Emotional gender roles differ Focus on the present and past Relatively free gratification of basic human drives

Reject social inequality Accept ambiguity and stress Group memberships are predetermined Emotional gender roles are relatively similar Focus on the future Gratification of drives should be controlled by strict norms

edition, promulgating the continuing development of this type of dimensional analyses of culture. The dimensions deriving from Hofstede’s work (in the meantime extended to six) are briefly summarized in Table 14.1. Fuller definitions are provided by Hofstede (2011). Linkage With Organizational Culture In the early 1980s the subject of corporate cultures became popular. At that time, Hofstede had co-founded an Institute for Research in Intercultural Cooperation (IRIC), first located in Arnhem and later at Maastricht University, and he felt challenged to apply his experience with culture research to the organizational level, comparing different organizations within the same countries instead of subsidiaries of the same corporation in different countries. Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders (1990) identified six dimensions along which the culture of 20 organizations within the Netherlands and Denmark varied. These dimensions were focused on organizational practices. For instance, practices were rated as either process-oriented or results-oriented, employee-oriented or job-oriented, and either parochial or professional. These dimensions have a more explicitly organizational focus than those identified at the nation level. As a demonstration of how the same data can yield different results at each level of analysis, Hofstede, Bond, and Luk (1993) next re-analyzed at the individual level the same data that had defined organization-level dimensions in this survey, now finding a set of dimensions that resembled McCrae’s “Big Five” personality dimensions. Many organizations now survey their organization culture, although not all of them do so in the ways that Hofstede developed.

Geert Hofstede    221

Linkage With Key Emerging Topics A particular impetus toward the study of individualism-collectivism was provided by the publication of Individualism and Collectivism by Harry Triandis (1995) and by an international conference on individualism-collectivism held in Korea in 1990, for which the principal organizer was Uichol Kim, a former student of Triandis (Kim, Triandis, Kağıtçıbaşı, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). Hofstede’s work was not especially salient in either of these works, and in a preface that he wrote for the Kim et al. (1994) volume, he observes that he regards all his dimensions as equally important, though individualism-collectivism may have particular relevance to psychology. It remains the case that individualism-collectivism has continued to attract the lion’s share of attention, despite Hofstede’s attempt to broaden the focus, for instance, by bringing together studies relating to the masculinity-femininity dimension (Hofstede & Associates, 1998). DEBATES AND APPLICATIONS Hofstede’s perspective has been extensively scrutinized and evaluated, for instance, after the publication of the second edition of Culture’s Consequences. Commentators have frequently highlighted the distinctiveness of IBM, the lack of face validity of some of the items defining his dimensions, and the extent of global change since the time that the data were collected. His most persistent critic has been McSweeney (2002), who noted the small amount of overall variance that is explained by nations compared to individuals, which he sees as threatening the plausibility of using averages to characterize nations. He also doubted the replicability of dimensions and questioned in what sense they can be considered causal. Finally, he claimed that in Hofstede’s writings the behaviors of individuals are rather often used to explain and describe national differences, which would be contrary to Hofstede’s own precepts. Hofstede (2002) responded in characteristically robust manner to these criticisms. While conceding that there are limitations to defining cultures in terms of nationality, he pointed out that data are often assembled on the basis of nationality and that using these data has been preferable to waiting for alternative databases to become available. The GLOBE Project During the 1990s, a large international research team was assembled by Robert House of the University of Pennsylvania, with the purpose of

222    P. B. SMITH

surveying cultural variations in effective leadership. Their intention was to build on Hofstede’s pioneering work and to design a new study that would overcome some of the methodological shortcomings that were inevitably present in the earlier study, since it had not initially been designed as a research project. More than 160 researchers participated in what became known as the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) project, collecting data from managers in three specific industries in 61 nations. A key part of this project involved defining and measuring new dimensions of cultural variation. However, the conceptualization of these dimensions was heavily influenced by Hofstede’s work, including dimensions for power distance and uncertainty avoidance, and two separate dimensions of collectivism, as well as separate dimensions for assertiveness and gender equality intended to represent masculinity-femininity. Each dimension was tapped twice, once in relation to the perceived practices of members of one’s nation and once in relation to respondents’ values as to how others should behave. The principal results of the GLOBE study were published by House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta (2004). Nation-level scores for the collectivism dimensions and for power distance mostly correlated quite well with the equivalent Hofstede dimensions, while those for uncertainty avoidance correlated negatively. An extensive debate then occurred, with Hofstede (2006) critical of the methods employed by the GLOBE researchers, who in turn argued that their methods were more rigorous and more statistically defensible than those employed by Hofstede (Javidan, House, Dorfman, Hanges, & Sully de Luque, 2006). This debate marked an important development in the dissemination of the perspective pioneered by Hofstede. In contrast to the earlier critiques by McSweeney (2002) and others, the protagonists to this debate were agreed that it was fruitful to measure dimensions of cultural variation: they differed only on how best to do it. It is evident with hindsight that there were measurement weaknesses in both projects, but the outcome is that we are now better informed as to relevant issues and ways of addressing them (Smith, 2006). The debate continues (Hofstede, 2010). Cultural Distance A quite separate strand of series that derive from Hofstede’s work has evolved over the past three decades. Kogut and Singh (1988) examined the way that businesses chose to invest (through mergers, acquisition, licensing, etc.) in overseas locations that are more or less culturally similar to one’s own. They constructed an index of cultural distance by simply pooling the arithmetic difference between the scores for any two nations on all

Geert Hofstede    223

four Hofstede dimensions. Such a crude procedure is statistically indefensible, and using distance scores for each dimension separately is preferable (Shenkar, 2001). The results of this type of study were initially confusing, but more recently it has become apparent that if one takes into account a company’s goals the results become much more clear. Where companies wish to integrate activities, cultural similarity works best, but where a company wishes to maintain separate business units in different locations then cultural distance can be beneficial (Stahl & Voigt, 2008). Marketing The Hofstede dimensions have also been extensively employed in the fields of advertising and marketing (de Mooij, 2010, 2011; de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). Advertisements that exemplify values that are congruent with the positioning of nations on the Hofstede dimensions are found to be more frequently employed and more effective. For instance, advertisements in individualist nations more frequently offer informational persuasion, while those in collectivist cultures more often seek to imply a relationship with the consumer. CONCLUSION Hofstede delivered his retirement address at the University of Maastricht in 1993. However, it is evident that he has remained active well into his ninth decade in the promulgation of the distinctive perspective on culture that he has pioneered. In addition to the widely cited books already noted in this chapter, he has published 237 papers in a wide range of academic journals and has provided a recent summary of his own perspective and results in a freely available source (Hofstede, 2011). Their principal impact has been to establish the value of nation-level comparative studies, a perspective that has been carried forward through the work of House et al. (2004), the value surveys of Schwartz (e.g., 2004), the beliefs surveys of Bond et al. (2004), and the activities of researchers involved in the World Values Survey (e.g., Inglehart & Baker, 2000). Hofstede’s activities have not gone unnoticed, and he has been awarded honorary doctorates by eight European universities, as well as honorary fellowships and other awards by numerous professional associations. A Hofstede chair in cultural diversity was created within the University of Maastricht in 2006. In 2011, he was knighted by command of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, being admitted to the rank of Ridder in de Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw. His contributions have by no means been restricted to the field of psychology, having been noted also

224    P. B. SMITH

by scholars in sociology, anthropology, and business. However, they have a great deal of relevance to psychology and exemplify a willingness to work across boundaries, be they academic or geographic, that encourages us all to do likewise. REFERENCES Bond, M. H., Leung, K., et al. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 548–570. Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143–164. Culture Does Not Exist. (2011/2014). Retrieved from http://www.international. gc.ca/cil-cai/magazine/v02n03/1-3.aspx?lang=eng Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. De Mooij, M. (2010). Global marketing and advertising, Understanding cultural paradoxes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. De Mooij, M. (2011). Consumer behaviour and culture: Consequences for global marketing and advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2010). The Hofstede model: Applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research. International Journal of Advertising, 29, 85–110. Geert Hofstede. (2013). [Home page]. Retrieved from www.geerthofstede.eu Hofstede, G. (1968). The game of budget control. London, England: Tavistock. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, England: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (1997). The Archimedes effect. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Working at the interface of cultures: Eighteen lives in social science (pp. 47–61). London, England: Routledge. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55, 1355–1361. Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 882–896. Hofstede, G. (2010). The GLOBE debate: Back to relevance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1339–1346. Hofstede, G. (2011, December). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. Retrieved from http:// scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8 Hofstede, G., & Associates (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Geert Hofstede    225 Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4–21. Hofstede, G., Bond, M. H., & Luk, C. L. (1993). Individual perceptions of organizational cultures: A methodological treatise on levels of analysis. Organization Studies, 14, 483–583. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across 20 cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286–315. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V. & GLOBE Associates (2004). Leadership, culture and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51. Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1969). National character: The study of modal personality and socio-cultural systems. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 418–506). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Sully de Luque, M. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 897–914. Kim, U. Triandis, H. C., Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç, Choi, S. C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kluckhohn, C. (1951). The study of culture. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences (pp. 86–101). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 411–432. Kuylaars, A. M. (1951). Werk en leven van de industriële loonarbeider, als object van een sociale ondernemings-politiek [Work and life of the industrial wagelabourer, as object of a social entrepreneurial-politics]. Leiden, The Netherlands: Stenfert Kroese. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s identification of national cultural differences: A triumph of faith–a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55, 89–117 Mulder, M. (1977). The daily power game. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 43–73). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 519–536. Smith, P. B. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: The GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 915–921.

226    P. B. SMITH Stahl, G. K., & Voigt, A. (2008). Do cultural differences matter in mergers and acquisitions? A tentative model and meta-analytic examination. Organization Science, 19, 160–176. Thorndike, E. L. (1939). On the fallacy of imputing the correlations found for groups to the individuals or smaller groups within them. American Journal of Psychology, 3, 122–124. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

PART V OVERCOMING AFRICA’S COLONIAL HERITAGE AND RACISM

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 15

FRANTZ FANON Architect of a Psychology of Oppression and Liberation Chalmer E. Thompson

The well-being and the progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians, and the yellow races. We have decided not to overlook this any longer. —The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon (1961)

The worldwide popularity of Frantz Fanon’s writings in the 52 years since his death in 1961 may come as a surprise to many. For one, he died at a young age, 36 years, and therefore did not have the opportunity that many other pioneers enjoyed in contributing to the profession after years of study. Two, Fanon spoke and wrote unapologetically about the need for the colonized people of the world to combat the violence exacted on them with violence. As psychology and psychiatry are professions steeped in Eurocentric traditions, such attention would certainly (and has) garnered heavy criticism and rejection in some circles. Despite the relatively short span of his life, Fanon transformed the conventional practice of “colonial psychiatry” in his time, wrote extensively as a political strategist for the Algerian Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN;

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 229–240 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

229

230    C. E. THOMPSON

National Liberation Front), and authored widely read books which would eventually become essential reading in postcolonial studies programs. Fanon is known to have influenced activists throughout the world including Che Guevara, Amilcar Cabral, Agostinho Neto, Nelson Mandela, Kwame Nkrumah, Mehdi Ben Barka, Steven Biko, Malcolm X, and Patrice Lumumba (Fanon-Mendès France, 2012; Turner & Alan, 1986), as well as members of the U.S. Black Panther Party. As pertaining to Fanon’s insistence on the use of violence against the oppressor, it is the stance of this writer that to ignore or downplay these provocative writings is ultimately to avoid the hard question of how do we eliminate the racial violence that has wreaked havoc, and continues to reel uncontrollably, in the lives of peoples in societies across the globe? Like the construction of nuclear weapons to signal the power of one nation to another, would not the shoring of might also convey a level of regard, a recognition of one’s strength of presence? These are the questions that mental health professionals, in my view, ought to confront as it appears that the constant revival of Fanon’s works is in part a response to the accuracy of his pronouncements over the half-century. These are the questions that are important to the well-being of societies and the individuals who live in them; they also can create discomfort for most. I address these matters later in this chapter. Fanon is a pioneer in psychology and psychiatry because of his insights on the extent to which colonialism affects both the colonized and the colonizer. To demonstrate these impacts, he drew out data that were overwhelmingly dismissed or “twisted” by his fellow psychiatrists, as in the mental health consequences of sanctioned torture on Algerian patients. Besides his clinical data, Fanon wrote about his observations of people in their daily lives, as in the phenomenon of Black exceptionalism. This phenomenon refers to the observation that Black people throughout the world who ascend socially and economically in rank tend also to justify and even contribute to the oppression of other Blacks. They believe themselves to be the exception to Black inferiority. To Fanon, colonialism creates sick societies in which the violence and exploitation exacted on oppressed groups, as well as the evolving patterns that are etched in everyday life, become normalized. These sick societies shape and help define the existence of all people who live in these colonized regions of the world, and in Toward the African Revolution, Fanon (1964) spoke of the lived experiences, or the “national realities,” of African-descended people in particular. Fanon wrote about his observations of how the pathologies are exhibited in the encounters of the people in these societies, both inter- and intraracially. These pathologies morph into psychic distresses. Recursively, individuals and the societal institutions engage in ways of being whereby those who conform to the suppression of knowledge and perspectives become swept into the dehumanization of

Frantz Fanon    231

“others.” The denial and suppression tactics perpetuate the pathologies, like the unfair mass incarceration of Blacks in the urban United States, whose second-class citizenship as felons and ex-felons gives rise to severe problems within the society overall (Alexander, 2012). Numerous scholars agree with Bullock (2005) that Fanon’s writings are “indisputably powerful among African nationalists, literary scholars, and postcolonial critics” (p. 225). His works have been debated, analyzed, critiqued, and his name honored in articles, books, and at annual conferences (Bulhan, 1985). Two films, Frantz Fanon: Black Skin, White Masks (Nash & Julien, 1996) and Frantz Fanon: His Life, His Struggle, His Work (Djemai, 2001), have been made about his life and work, and he received an international tribute in 1978 at the United Nations by the Special Committee Against Apartheid. There is a Boulevard Frantz Fanon, a Frantz Fanon Hospital, and a Frantz Fanon High School—all located in Algeria. In Milan, Italy, a center was named after him, and yet another in Lagos, Nigeria, and then there is the Fanon Research and Development Center and the Fanon School in Los Angeles, California, as well as the Fanon Institute of Research and Training located in Boston, Massachusetts. The Frantz Fanon Collection is located in the Countway Library of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the Fanon Foundation in Paris is directed by his daughter, Mirielle Fanon-Mendès France. Several have written biographies about him, including but not limited to Alessandrini (1999), Bulhan (1985), Caute (1970), Geismer (1971), Gendzier (1974), Macey (2012), Nayar (2013), and SeyiOtu (1996). Gibson (1999, 2003, 2011a, 2011b), Gordon, Sharpley-Whiting, and White (1996), and most recently, Flores-Rodríguez and Jordan (2012) have compiled collections in edited books or special journal issues on Fanon’s works. The Wretched of the Earth (1961), written only months before his death, has been translated into 27 languages. In the next sections, I present background information about this noted pioneer and address the significance of his contributions to a psychology of oppression and liberation. BACKGROUND Frantz Omar Fanon was born on July 20, 1925, in Martinique, an island located in the Caribbean. Martinique is approximately 50 miles long and 22 miles wide and one of the most highly populated regions in the Antilles. Martinique is inhabited largely by African-descended people whose presence stems from generations of the transatlantic slave trade by Europeans and European Americans. The original Indian population of the island was quickly decimated as a result of violence committed by Europeans and several diseases introduced to the island by European invaders. Europeans

232    C. E. THOMPSON

exploited the Black inhabitants by forcing them into the sugar cane industry. Also on the island lived a smaller group of middle-class Blacks and “mulattoes,” and a small population of extremely wealthy Europeans of French and Spanish descent, the Békès, who controlled the wealth on the island. Martinique, together with Guadeloupe, constitute the French Antilles, and both continue to be a territory of France. Fanon’s father was a customs inspector and his mother would eventually become a shopowner when her husband eventually gave up his job. By most biographical accounts, the family was considered middle class. Fanon was the fifth child of eight children, the youngest of four sons, in what Bulhan (1985) described as a close-knit family. Fanon was close to his mother, a woman who exerted much influence over all of her children, and whose letters to her son Fanon concluded with the words “Your mother who marches with you” instead of her typical ending in letters to her other children, “Your mother who prays for you.” Young Frantz went to the Lycée Schoelcher, where one of his teachers was the famous writer and poet Aimé Césaire. Césaire’s influence on Fanon was clear, and in his first book, Black Skin, White Masks (1952) (written in 1949–1950), Fanon includes passages from Césaire’s works to support his own formulations about the impact of racial oppression on Blacks in Martinique and abroad. In interviews by Bulhan with family and friends, Fanon is described as someone who set high expectations for himself as well as others. He displayed a high level of integrity, believing that one practiced what one preached. As someone fiercely dedicated to the ideals of liberty and justice, Fanon expected the same from others. He was also creative in his writings as displayed in the variety of his forms of writing (e.g., poetic narrative in one chapter of Black Skin, White Masks and in another, rich case study analyses of his patients). He was described as having a calm demeanor (Bulhan, 1985). In 1943 at the age of seventeen, Fanon fled Martinique to fight for the French resistance against the Nazi occupation during World War II. What Fanon discovered during the war and later wrote about was his direct confrontations with racism on a personal level. Given his steady exposure to personal racism by way of egregious mistreatment and abuse, Fanon expressed anger over the sacrifice of life that he and other Antilleans made for a people who showed hatred and contempt toward them. He wrote of how General De Galle praised and commended the French soldiers, but not the Antillean and Senegalese soldiers. He would later write that “[racism is] not the whole, but the most visible, most day-to-day and, not to mince matters, the crudest element of a given structure” (Fanon, 1964, p. 32). Following his discharge from the Free French Forces, Fanon returned briefly to Martinique, but soon afterward returned to France, where he became a student at the Faculty of Medicine in Lyon. Besides his courses, Fanon “attended the lectures given by the philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty,

Frantz Fanon    233

read Sartre’s magazine, Les Temps Modernes, and took a special interest in Freud and Hegel” (Fanon-Mendès France, 2012, p. 9). Fanon-Mendès France, Fanon’s daughter, writes further that his first book, Black Skin, White Masks (1952), was supposed to be his doctoral thesis and is “a fundamental milestone in the struggle against racism, in the decoding of the mechanisms of segregation and racism’s political stakes” (p. 9). In 1953, Fanon began as the head of psychiatry at the Blida-Joinville Hospital in Algeria, where he observed the disparities in the care given to the Algerian versus the European patients. Colonial psychiatry in Algeria and other Francophone African countries was an extension of the racial world order of the day, that of proving the supposed inferiority of non-European people and the “natural” superiority of the French (Bullock, 2005). He departed from convention in providing humane and culturally responsive treatment to his Algerian patients. Fanon was loath to discover the manifestation of racial hierarchies at the hospital, and as a result, would eventually leave this post to join the FLN. Bulhan (1985) wrote that “In 1956, when the government adopted a policy of generalized brutal military repression, he resigned his position at the hospital stating that, as a psychiatrist, he could not release his patients into a society that fundamentally alienated and dehumanized them” (p. 10). Fanon also was eventually expelled from Algeria by the colonial authorities in January of 1957; he then traveled to Tunis, the external headquarters of the Algerian Revolution, to continue his work as an FLN revolutionary. In Tunis, Fanon wrote a series of essays for El Moudjahid, a revolutionary newspaper and a central organ of the FLN, and which were eventually published in two books, A Dying Colonialism (1959), and Toward the African Revolution (1964). From 1957 onward, he consulted with revolutionaries and spoke at conferences throughout the world and became the Algerian ambassador for Ghana. Even though he was exiled, he received full diplomatic status as an ambassador. Although the circumstances surrounding his final days are inconsistently reported, it has been claimed that CIA agents prevented him from receiving the medical treatment he needed in a timely manner. Because of the lapse of time in receiving the needed treatment, his condition worsened quickly after he was eventually admitted to the hospital. In 1961, Fanon died of leukemia at the Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland. His final words, written hours before his death, show his dedication to the revolution: Death is always with us and that what matters is not to know whether we can escape it but whether we have achieved the maximum for the ideas we have made our own. What shocked me here in my bed when I felt my strength ebbing away along with my blood was not the fact of dying as such, but to die of leukemia, in Washington, when three months ago I could have died facing the enemy. . . . We are nothing on earth if we are not in the first place the

234    C. E. THOMPSON slaves of a cause, the cause of the peoples, the cause of justice and liberty. (as cited in Bulhan, 1985, p. 35)

As a revolutionary of the FLN, he contributed courageously to Algeria’s liberation as a nation in 1962, the year following his death. FANON, VIOLENCE, AND SOCIETY Fanon’s biographer Bulhan (1985) writes, From the fourteenth century to the present, Europe and its descendants have been embarked on an unprecedented mission of violence and self-aggrandizement throughout the world. Meanwhile, an intellectual debate on the human condition had been raging in academic circles. A discipline called “psychology” emerged by the sixteenth century . . . even though the roots of this new discipline reach back to ancient civilizations. . . . From its beginning to the present, the discipline has been enmeshed in that history of conquest and violence. This fact is all too often unappreciated and conveniently avoided. (p. 37)

It is estimated that Europeans savagely kidnapped, held captive, and transported 12 million Africans across the Atlantic Ocean (Eltis & Richardson, 1997). Slave shippers took a careful accounting of the substantial number of casualties during these voyages, with approximately 15% of the enslaved Africans being thrown to the sharks during the voyages. Considered the largest long-distance coerced migration in history, abductors came from Britain, Portugal, the United States, and France. In recent examinations of records, an estimated four out of five of the Africans were kidnapped from four regions—the Gold Coast, the Bights of Benin and Biafra, and West-Central Africa. Enslaved Africans were “delivered” to the Caribbean and to the Americas. That psychology has been implicated in serving a history of conquest and violence has been well documented in the United States (e.g., Gould, 1996; Grier & Cobbs, 1969; Guthrie, 2003), with evidence that during the period in which the enslavement of Africans was still legal, “draptomania aethiopica,” the so-called diagnosis for lazy enslaved people, could be applied to the wretch who dared risk his or her life to escape from what can best be described as crushing human debasement. Fanon was astute in noting that the theorists and philosophical writers of his time were not merely overlooking an oppressive reality. They also formulated, made efforts to prove, and nurtured ideologies about the inferiority of colonized groups and the relative superiority of the colonizer groups. Diouf (2003) aptly describes the phenomenon of the enslavement of Africans, as well as the promulgation of this oppression, as a holocaust. An understanding of this

Frantz Fanon    235

history in all its horrific manifestations is but one crucial step to examining the debasement as well as the gravity of imperialist greed and the birth of capitalism. Diouf writes, “It is an epic story of the immense development of European nations through the cultural and scientific contributions of societies elsewhere” (p. 39), and with it, the dramatic underdevelopment of countries devastated by conquest. The history reveals itself in currentday reality with the mining of natural resources in African and Caribbean nations by multinational corporations, accompanied by persistent poverty; corrupt governments who often are aligned with wealthier, developed nations; and imperialist aggression and greed (Nzongola-Ntalaja, 2012). It is a history that continues to advance at personal levels as well. To Fanon, there was a need to make sense of what he experienced firsthand as someone born into a life of substandard living conditions by virtue of his race. As Fanon wrote, I came into the world imbued with the will to find meaning in things, my spirit filled with the desire to attain to the source of the world, and then I found that I was an object in the midst of other objects. Sealed into that crushing objecthood. (1953, p. 109)

Fanon’s search for explanation was largely unsuccessful despite his extensive reading of philosophical and psychological works of his day. For example, nowhere was it captured in his search that the use of the oppressor’s language spawned notions of the oppressed’s belief of his or her own inferiority, and that in his own homeland of Martinique, Blacks delighted in the use of the oppressor’s language, which they perceived to be posh while demonizing those whose dialect was closer to their native tongue. Fanon’s insights about the stripping of native language as a tool of colonialism proved to be far more complex than the fact of the oppressed’s desire to garner approval from White colonial masters. He was deeply aware that a yoke existed, a bond between the oppressor and the oppressed. This yoke was constantly constructed and reenacted at all levels, whereby oppressed people try to “ascend” to a less oppressed state but ultimately come to know and even accept that such ascension will never be equivalent to the stature of the oppressor. In other words, such ascension would never reach the state of human, which is reserved for Whites. Whites as an undeniable part of this racial caste structure depend on the underdevelopment and ire of the “lower” caste member, yet Fanon’s concern was for this latter group. Drawing from Karl Marx, Fanon’s writings were targeted especially at the Lumpenproletariat, who are the neediest and occupy the lowest rung of societal hierarchies. Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, addressing Whites, wrote in his preface to The Wretched of the Earth (Fanon, 1961),

236    C. E. THOMPSON A “French-speaking” ex-native [Fanon] bends the language to new requirements, fashions it for his own use, and speaks to the colonized alone: “Natives of all the underdeveloped countries unite!” What a downfall. For the fathers, we were the only interlocutors; for the sons, we no longer count; we are the object of their discourse. Of course, Fanon mentions in passing our infamous crimes at Sétif, Hanoi, and Madagascar, but he does not waste time condemning them; he makes use of them. He demolishes the tactics of colonialism, the complexity of relations uniting and opposing the colonists and the “metropolitans.” For the sake of his brothers, his aim is to teach them how to outwit us. (pp. xlv–xlvi, emphasis in original)

Fanon believed that because colonized people would always be treated brutally when they made strides to liberate themselves from colonialism, it was necessary that they overcome the fear to defend themselves, collectively and as needed, with violence. That oppressed people turned on other oppressed people violently (as in “Black-on-Black crime”) was indicative of misguided rage and a fear of Whites. He believed that overcoming this fear is crucial to a process of decolonization. Not unlike the formulations of Brazilian educator-thinker Paulo Freire (1973), Fanon also saw that efforts by the colonizer to help with the liberation of the oppressed would come in the form of false kindness, an aid that is cloaked in goodwill but that will not usurp the ruthlessness of colonization. Fanon believed that the oppressed need to work together collectively to rediscover ways of being that do not mimic the behaviors, beliefs, and values of the oppressor, and to be deliberate about all manner of action in fighting oppression. MORE ON FANON’S PSYCHOLOGY OF LIBERATION Fanon’s twofold aim was to increase Black consciousness, defined as an “awakened” understanding of a world in which the pall of human indignation is often masked and normalized, and to provoke African-descended people to become decolonized and thus psychologically liberated. Both emphases were strong for Fanon, since the insistence to act without consciousness, on the one hand, could translate into unplanned, reactionary behaviors. Reactionary behaviors would fail to integrate the level of maturity and creativity necessary to carry forward the struggle. On the other hand, to develop consciousness without action is merely to become fixed in fear and to conform to the stronghold of colonialism. Fanon was quite critical of intellectuals whom he saw as occupying the “exceptional” case and who too often substantiated the status quo rather than worked to overturn it. Purely cognitive activities were not enough to destroy the “zombie” state of a colonized mind.

Frantz Fanon    237

Fanon’s twin aims call for solidarity on the part of African-descended people. Steven Biko, the assassinated South African leader who was inspired by Fanon, further stated that the call for Black consciousness is the most positive call to come from a group in the Black world for a long time. It is more than just a reactionary rejection of Whites by Blacks. The quintessence of it is the realization by Blacks that in order to feature well in this game of power politics, they have to use the concept of group power and to build a strong foundation for this. Being a historically, politically, socially and economically disinherited and dispossessed group, they have the strongest foundation from which to operate. The philosophy of Black consciousness, therefore, expresses group pride and the determination by Blacks to rise and attain the envisaged self. (Biko, as cited in Turner & Alan, 1986, p. 21)

Fanon was invested in reversing in Blacks the assumptions they held about their collective character. These assumptions, that Blacks are “culturally deprived” or that Blacks are inherently more violent, less intelligent, lazier, and are worse parents than Whites, can lead to conclusions about Black people’s stature as humans relative to White people. To Fanon, the very thought of Blacks needing to persistently question their humanity was a call for a new humanity, an insistence for Blacks to reject their status as subhumans that is cast within their “national reality,” a reality which is replete in pathology. Provocatively, and as mentioned earlier, he also offered that “violence is man recreating himself” (Fanon, 1961). Hence, in killing the oppressor, oppressed people would discover their own humanity. To Fanon, this act of killing the oppressor is a tool for liberation and for ending the myth of White invincibility/Black inferiority. CONCLUSIONS, AND A PERSONAL LOOK AT VIOLENCE AS A SOLUTION TO LIBERATION Oppression is a stripping away of humanity, both physically—acutely by way of violent acts of abuse and torture and chronically through the distribution of meager resources for survival—and psychically. The failure to recognize its pernicious impacts is partly the result of sociopolitical climates that mask and diminish the lived experiences and perspectives of oppressed others. By extension, the inclination to diminish these perspectives occurs with processes of depersonalizing the people who express them. As a peace psychologist, I am not inclined to promote violence of any sort. In fact, my gradual understanding of oppression globally led me to pursue an understanding of peace-building and reconciliation. But the inclination to not promote violence is not the same as the inclination to peer

238    C. E. THOMPSON

more closely at it in all of its manifestations, not only as a tool for domination, but also as a tool for liberation. The conditions of the Lumpenproletariat in Egypt, Syria, Kenya, and Tunisia in the past 2 years have already created an eruption of violence, which Fanon viewed as an inevitability. Fanon believed that the preparedness to kill when the need presents itself sends a call that “enough is enough.” From the standpoint of the oppressed, how can my own humanity be wrapped up in yours when you fail to recognize my humanity? I also have searched for alternatives to liberation besides violence. One such alternative is the organized efforts of oppressed groups to nonviolently confront the injustices—approaches made famous by Mahatma Ghandi in India and Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States. Certainly, these respective movements did not quell the violence that the oppressor wielded in retaliation of the nonviolent confrontation. Is the aim to avoid violence altogether? This seems unlikely. And although the extent of success achieved from these movements is clear based on a number of spheres, there also is evidence of a seemingly intractable and virulent strain of oppression which King (2015) spoke of in the latter years of his life. And yet another alternative is the pursuit of redress for past wrongs. As Fanon once noted, the business of negotiating with oppressors is futile. Waterhouse (2009) provides some evidence of this futility in his excellent review of reparations programs throughout the world. According to Waterhouse, there are three main forms of reparations: compensation, restitution, and reconciliation. Compensation refers to financial settlements, while restitution refers to some form of return of lost land or resources by imperialist groups to their original owners. Reconciliation entails symbolic acts of correcting past wrongs such as formal apologies, as one example, or public testimonials by perpetuators of the crimes. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of South Africa is one example on the reconciliatory form of reparations. But in presenting details of the abuses, and of the relative success of the various forms of reparations, Waterhouse noted that all too frequently these efforts are absent of victims’ perspectives, consequently, those affected by the oppression have played either no role or a very small one in the important process of healing. More importantly, in the number of cases in which reparations have been accorded, most are what Waterhouse refers to as “bad” or “ugly” because they fall substantially short in responding to the scale of the abuses exacted on oppressed groups. In the case of the South African TRC, many perpetrators were unwilling to apologize or even admit to the abuses they were accused of committing, hence posing a problem to reconciliatory objectives. At best, these programs will need to be inclusive of victims to assist in defining what reparations are most appropriate, attend comprehensively to the extent of the oppression, and involve both perpetrators as well as the beneficiaries of the

Frantz Fanon    239

oppression to relinquish the goods that have established their wealth and indeed their stature as human relative to the oppressed. The metamorphoses of oppressors also seem unlikely. Peace scholar Elise Boulding (2000) wrote that the pursuit to end violence entails immense bravery and that colonized groups will ostensibly have very different views on what ought to constitute peaceful ways of being as compared to colonizer groups. In short, there will be a struggle. She offered further that practically, peace culture, values, and practices motivate us to keep trying, to keep learning, to keep developing new skills that will help us deal with greed-generated violence, impatience, and the desire for power over others. Most urgently, peace culture visioning must keep before the human race the possibility of open flexible structures that can handle large-scale interactions without compulsion and oppression. And peace culture visions must keep reminding us that social compassion begins in the small, the local, but it never ends there—it only opens new paths to the greater whole. (p. 55)

I have not resolved my struggle, but for now will continue to advance my goal of inspiring others toward a future of nonviolence. Yet I acknowledge that this struggle, which includes summoning courage to speak out against injustice in all forms, linking together with the “least of these,” and engaging in regular conversations about the use of violence (and the forming of grassroots police forces), is a good one. Inspired by Fanon’s works, my engagement in the struggle is occasioned by a continual process of reflection as I relentlessly pursue the ideal of seeing all others as wrapped up in my own humanity. My hope is that such engagement is deemed worthy of other mental health professionals. REFERENCES Alessandrini, A. C. (1999). Frantz Fanon: Critical perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: New Press. Boulding, E. (2000). Cultures of peace: The hidden side of history. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Bulhan, H. A. (1985). Frantz Fanon and the psychology of oppression. New York, NY: Plenum. Bullock, A. (2005). The critical impact of Frantz Fanon and Henri Collumb: Race, gender, and personality testing of North and West Africans. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41, 225–248. Caute, D. (1970). Frantz Fanon. New York, NY: Viking. Diouf, S. A. (2003). Fighting the slave trade: West African strategies. Athens: Ohio University Press.

240    C. E. THOMPSON Djemai, C. (Producer, Director). (2001). Frantz Fanon: His life, his struggle, his work. [Motion picture]. Martinique/France: ArtMattan Productions. Eltis, D., & Richardson, D. (1997). Routes to slavery: Direction, ethnicity, and mortality in the Atlantic slave trade. London, England: Cass. Fanon, F. (1952). Black skin, white masks. New York, NY: Grove. Fanon, F. (1959). A dying colonialism. New York, NY: Grove. Fanon, F. (1961). The wretched of the earth. New York, NY: Grove. Fanon, F. (1964). Toward the African revolution. New York, NY: Grove. Fanon-Mendès France, M. (2012). The contribution of Frantz Fanon to the process of liberation of the people. The Black Scholar, 42, 8–12. Flores-Rodríguez, D., & Jordan, J. (2012). Introduction: The continuing relevance of Fanonian thought: Remembering the life and work of Frantz Fanon. The Black Scholar, 42, 3–7. Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Geismar, P. (1971). Fanon. New York, NY: Dial. Gendzier, I. L. (1974). Frantz Fanon: A critical study. New York, NY: Pantheon. Gibson, N. (1999). Rethinking Fanon: The continuing dialogue. Amherst, NY: Humanity. Gibson, N. (2003). Fanon: The postcolonial imagination. Cambridge, England: Blackwell. Gibson, N. (2011a). Fanonian practices in South Africa: From Steve Biko to Abahlali baseMjondolo. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Gibson, N. (2011b). Living Fanon: Global perspectives. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Gordon, L. R., Sharpley-Whiting, T. D., & White, R. T. (1996). Fanon: A critical reader. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. Gould, S. J. (1996). The (mis)measure of man. New York, NY: Norton. Grier, W. H., & Cobbs, P. M. (1969). Black rage. New York, NY: Bantam. Guthrie, G. (2003). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. King, M. L. (2015). The radical King. Boston, MA: Beacon. Macey, D. (2012). Frantz Fanon: A biography. New York, NY: Verso. Nash, M. (Producer), & Julien, I. (Director). (1996). Frantz Fanon: Black skin, white mask [Motion picture]. United Kingdom: California Newsreel. Nayar, P. (2013). Frantz Fanon. New York, NY: Routledge. Nzongola-Ntalaja, G. (2012). Following the path of revolution: Frantz Fanon’s political legacy for Africa. The Black Scholar, 42, 36–44. Sekyi-Otu, A. (1996). Fanon’s dialectic of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Turner, L., & Alan, J. (1986). Frantz Fanon, Soweto and American Black thought. Chicago, IL: News and Letters. Waterhouse, C. (2009). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Moral agency and the role of victims in reparations programs. Florida International University Legal Studies Research Paper Series, #08-25.

CHAPTER 16

SATHS COOPER Post-Apartheid Psychologist, Activist, and Leader in South Africa and Beyond Grant J. Rich and Judy Kuriansky

In 2012, the International Union of Psychological Sciences (IUPsyS) elected South African psychologist Dr. Sathasivan Cooper as its President. This event was extraordinary, in that Cooper was the first African as well as the first person who is not from North America or Europe to be elected to head this eminent group, which currently includes 82 national member psychology organizations from around the globe. Sathasivan Cooper, commonly known as “Saths,” is of Indian heritage, but identifies as Black. This identification is far from trivial, and indeed it represents core values that Cooper embraced during the anti-apartheid struggle, when, as a young man, he aligned himself with the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), working closely with leaders (including Steve Biko) of this human rights movement in his native South Africa. As described later in this chapter, this political movement allowed various people of color to stand together, increasing political power.

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 241–255 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

241

242    G. J. RICH and J. KURIANSKY

Notably, Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) leader Steve Biko was not the only well-known anti-apartheid leader Cooper knew well. Indeed, like the late South African President Nelson Rohihlahla Mandela, Cooper was imprisoned for his rebellious actions against apartheid and discrimination at Robben Island, the infamous prison off the Cape Town coast. Cooper shared the same exact cell block as Mandela and spent a total of 9 years in prison, interacting with Mandela frequently (Kuriansky, 2013b, 2013c; Mandela, 1995; Rich & Gielen, 2012). Ultimately, similar to Mandela, Cooper came to be elected President, Mandela of South Africa, and Cooper of both the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA) and the International Union of Psychological Sciences (IUPsyS). Both leaders made an impact not only nationally, but also internationally, demonstrating through their actions leadership values that represent unification. The announcement of Cooper’s IUPsyS election was made during the 30th International Congress of Psychology (ICP), which is held under the aegis of the IUPsyS. Despite the founding of ICP in 1889, the 30th ICP in 2012 was the first one held in Africa, and Cooper also served as the ICP 2012 President, which had “Psychology Serving Humanity” as its theme. Over 6,000 delegates from 103 nations attended this conference. As eminent international psychologist Rainer Silbereisen (2012) noted then, “Dr. Cooper is recognized as one of the key psychology leaders to have restored credibility to South African psychology.” Silbereisen’s comment takes on added significance when one remembers the history of South African psychology (Louw, 2012). One of the major architects of the apartheid regime was the South African psychologist Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd, who was appointed in 1928 as Chair of Applied Psychology and Psycho Technique at the University of Stellenbosch, the major Afrikaner University near Cape Town. In fact, Verwoerd later served as South Africa’s Minister of Native Affairs beginning in 1950 and then as Prime Minister from 1958 until his assassination in 1966. As historian Leonard Thompson writes, “During Verwoerd’s premiership, apartheid became the most notorious form of racial domination that the postwar world has known” (2000, p. 189). Though many have used the word “miracle” to describe the transition in South Africa from 1990, when Nelson Mandela was still in jail and no Blacks could vote, to 1994, when Mandela was democratically elected President in a truly multiracial election, South Africa’s struggles—with major disparities in health, race, poverty, crime, and more—continue (Rich & Gielen, 2012). The new generation of South African psychologists forms a vital part of this journey toward healing. This chapter focuses on the biography and contributions of Saths Cooper, a truly extraordinary international psychologist whose life and work merit the close attention and kudos of psychologists— and all who value social justice—around the globe.

Saths Cooper    243

BASIC BIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND Sathasivan Cooper was born June 11, 1950, outside Durban, South Africa, in a rural region of the nation near Claremont Township, where he lived until his middle teens. Durban is the largest city in the South African province of KwaZulu-Natal and the second largest city in South Africa. Being ethnically diverse, it is notable as a city for having the highest density of Indians outside of India. His parents, Alimal and Appasamy, ran a school on their farm property outside the city. Cooper’s family lived on this property until the government reclassified the land as being only for people of Zulu origin, and so his family had to move. He completed high school in Durban and went to the University College for people of Indian origin. Based on his background, he grew up understanding the Zulu language, and since his ancestors hailed from South India, he spoke Tamil, although he does not commonly speak these languages these days. He also understands Afrikaans and Xhosa, two other South African languages, and he speaks English as well. His father changed the spelling of his family surname as a strategy to avoid the legal restrictions placed upon Indian families under the apartheid regime. Frequently, it was only when authorities met him face-to-face that they realized they had already committed to and agreed to various actions and decisions with a person they had incorrectly assumed was White and English. In fact, it was this clever strategy that allowed Cooper’s family to build the school on their property. The Cooper family background was Hindu, but not strict, and the future psychologist reports attending occasional religious services with a Catholic aunt. In an interview with the second author (Kuriansky, 2015), he describes his “religious involvement as not high,” and though not a believer in any particular religion, he notes that there are “good precepts in all religions, if the followers follow those precepts.” He adds that “religion in many ways can be a liberator . . . or an imprisonment because it narrows your focus” (Kuriansky, 2015). Today he describes a belief in “essential humanism . . . and the sensitivity in human beings whoever they may be,” adding that “the test of any person’s worth or all our worth is how we deal, and how we treat, the worst among ourselves,” such as how a convicted murderer is treated. “If we claim for that person to be treated in the same way as he may have treated his victims, how different are we from him?” he adds (Kuriansky, 2013a). Such debates about accountability and forgiveness recall many similar debates in post-apartheid South Africa, such as Black psychologist Pumla Godobo-Madikizela’s struggles to reconcile her conflicting impulses with respect to her post-apartheid interviews at Pretoria Central Prison with Eugene de Kock, the police officer who commanded state-sanctioned death squads in the apartheid era, and is now serving a 212-year sentence for his crimes against humanity (Godobo-Madikizela, 2003).

244    G. J. RICH and J. KURIANSKY

Cooper is the eldest of three sons, with one brother working in the healthcare industry and the other brother working as a professor of pathology at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine. Growing up, he recalls he often played the “big brother role” since one brother was 2 years younger, and his other brother was 5 years younger (Kuriansky, 2015). Such family dynamics perhaps influenced Cooper in later life, when peers and colleagues looked to him as head of various organizations and leader of numerous groups. Cooper notes that his mother taught him “perseverance, determination, and the value of being contrary,” while his father taught him to “be who you are” (Kuriansky, 2015). Even as a young boy, Saths pushed boundaries, and a rebellious streak was quite evident in high school, as he readily acknowledges. He describes an event at his all-boys school in which he was caned along with several other boys for playing a prank on a boring history teacher that involved carefully placed stink bombs below the teacher’s chair. The boy Saths was then, as now—the leader—and the principal was especially strict with this ringleader, noting along with the punishment that he did not expect such behavior from Saths, and that “when gold rusts, silver has got very little chance,” words that have stayed with Cooper up to this day (Kuriansky, 2015). Some years later, when Cooper was expelled from the university, this same man helped Cooper in his hour of need, by finding temporary teaching positions for him. Political activism became an integral part of Cooper’s life as a high school student, upon his enrollment from 1964 to 1967 at Sastri College, Durban. The next year he matriculated in the University College, Salisbury Island, Durban (which was affiliated with the University of South Africa [UNISA]), where he found himself allied with other students to form the Student Representative Council. His political ideology and opposition to the ethnic character of the university supposedly led to the university expelling him in 1969. Despite winning a scholarship from a British university, he was prevented from attending because the South African government denied him a passport. By 1971, Cooper, as a leader of the Natal Indian Congress, encouraged Indian activists to embrace the movement known as the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), a grassroots anti-apartheid activist movement led by Black medical student Steve Biko, which burst onto the scene in South Africa starting in 1968. Biko’s activism eventually led to his arrest and death by police beating in 1977 at age 30, becoming a martyr to the cause. Cooper had frequent meetings with Biko and felt aligned with the Biko-led BCM group, especially since they defined Black to include other “people of color,” above all the large number of South Africans of Indian descent. The BCM represented psychological liberation and Black pride, in contrast to traditional White values, and against what BCM members considered

Saths Cooper    245

“condescending” values of White liberals. The group ran medical clinics as well as consciousness-raising classes to propagate its ideology. Cooper was a key co-organizer with Biko of a 1972 national strike aimed at bringing universities to a standstill. In fact, when asked how he identifies ethnically, Cooper answered with a response that helpfully contextualizes that era, and his involvement with the Black Students Organization in South Africa. As he notes, We identified intellectually as part of the oppressed. So all those who would have previously been called non-White, we said, we are not really non-White, because if you left out “White” out of that term, you were left as “non,” and we are not “non.” We are not “nons,” we are people. We have an identity and we identify as Black, with Black meaning anybody who had a different way. So it was a politically loaded student organization. Remember this was in the late 1960s, when there was a lot of political organization and opposition, so they secretly had spies everywhere. Everyone was listening, phones were tapped. It was a very oppressive system; it was a police state . . . , I was banned. You could be tortured. You could not have a fixed gathering. I could not meet with more than one other person. If I met with two people, it could be seen as a gathering. I was under house arrest . . . Being in my twenties, it was severe restriction . . . All this happened, and so my identity was a Black consciousness ideology in South Africa. Ethnically, I am the fourth generation of indentured stock, but I identified as part of the oppressed majority, and I played that role. I identify myself now as a South African, and I regard myself as Black, especially when an oppressive system is in place. I am a fellow human being; whether Jewish from Brooklyn or Black from South Africa, your ethnicity is given to you, and your religious identity is between you and your maker. We are imprisoned by those labels. We shouldn’t be. We should be recognized by the richness we bring to our human interaction. (Kuriansky, 2015)

This group, though self-identified as nonviolent, nonetheless staged protests and worker strikes such as the Durban Strike of 1973. In 1972, Cooper was elected Publicity Secretary at the Black People’s Convention and not surprisingly, he was arrested the next year for assaulting a policeman. Over the next years, he became a leader in organizing “Viva FRELIMO” rallies in South Africa, in support of the Mozambique political party that supported liberation from Portugal. In 1974, he was arrested along with other BCM leaders, under the Terrorism Act and the Riotous Assemblies Act, which led to his incarceration for a total of 9 years, mostly at the infamous Robben Island prison, from September 1974 until December 1982, with a majority of that time in the same cell block as Nelson Mandela, where he interacted with him daily (Cooper, 2014). Cooper reports that he exchanged a great deal with Mandela, despite the fact that he was in his mid-20s when he arrived and Mandela was in his late 50s, and the pair played tennis and jogged together and shared that space for five and a half years. They held many

246    G. J. RICH and J. KURIANSKY

discussions about political topics such as how Cooper’s Indian origins fit with his work with his Black colleagues and the latest smuggled news, as access to newspapers was not permitted. The pair did not agree fully on all issues, and that is perhaps not surprising as both were leaders with strong opinions. For instance, while, according to Cooper, Mandela thought time would heal all problems, Cooper at first disagreed to some extent—coming from a more youthful rebellious headstrong nature—but then came around, noting, “I learned the value of patience that certain things can be done if you are patient about it . . . rather than want to change now or yesterday.” (Kuriansky, 2013a, 2015; Rich, 2015). Cooper (2014) notes that the major political difference on his arrival at Robben Island between Mandela and the ANC political organization and Cooper’s generation was the ANC’s view of Africans, Coloreds, Indians, and Whites as four spokes of the ANC wheel, whereas Cooper and the BCM believed all Blacks were oppressed by racist White power and thus unity as Blacks (composed of what others term Africans, Coloreds, and Indians) was essential (Cooper, 2014). Ultimately, after the fall of the apartheid regime, Cooper’s political activism was vindicated in 1998, when he was declared a “victim of gross human rights violations” by South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. With his expulsion from university at age 18 in 1969 began years of alternating studying for psychology degrees and being banned and jailed. Behind bars, the avid student was eventually permitted to earn his BA degree in psychology through correspondence courses (via UNISA, the University of South Africa), and once he was freed, he continued pursuing psychology and earned a master’s degree, and honors, in applied psychology at South Africa’s University of the Witwatersrand. Detained again in 1984 and 1986 under the States of Emergency, Cooper was a leader of the Azanian People’s Organization, which replaced the Black People’s Convention and the South African Students’ Organization, which were banned after Steve Biko’s death. Devoted to education, Saths had been awarded a Fulbright Scholarship, which he was only able to take up in November 1986 as he was incarcerated from June to September and was given his first passport (valid only for the United States) in October 1986. He went to Boston University, where in December 1989 he obtained his PhD in clinical/community psychology after 3 years of study (Cooper, 1990). His dissertation compared three groups, African American, Hispanic, and White high school adolescents, who were engaged with violence or carrying weapons in the Boston school system. He also earned a diploma in gerontology and became a university lecturer. He earned a certificate in violence prevention from the Massachusetts Department of Health and Hospitals, and a diploma in advanced clinical hypnotherapy from the National Guild of Hypnotists. In the United States, he became President of the South African/Azanian Student Movement and the Southern Africa Education Center. In the 1990s

Saths Cooper    247

until about 2002, Cooper served as a psychologist in applied practice, and in 2003, he was named the Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of Durban-Westville, which joined with the University of Natal, establishing the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Moreover, while teaching at the University of the Western Cape in South Africa, he has mentored many students and supervised many doctoral students. Personally, Cooper was married, but like with many other activists, that marriage ended while he was imprisoned for years at Robben Island. (For instance, another example would be Nelson and Winnie Mandela’s divorce after Nelson’s release from 27 years in prison.) There were no children from that first marriage, but Cooper does have three children, two sons and one daughter, all in their 20s. Both of his sons were born in Boston and are finishing law degrees, while the daughter has made the Dean’s list at the University of New Hampshire, enrolling in psychology and women’s studies. In 2002, he separated from his second wife, with whom he was together for 16 years, and now is in a long-term, long-distance relationship with a neuropsychologist—she lives in Durban, while he lives in Johannesburg. MAJOR PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS Saths Cooper has made many types of contributions to psychology, but the most notable ones are his activism and leadership, as demonstrated starting with his youthful rebellion and continuing to the present day. He has served in numerous top positions, in addition to his 2012 election as President of IUPsyS, noted at the beginning of this chapter. For instance, in 1991 he served as National Director of the Institute for MultiParty Democracy in Johannesburg, South Africa, where he facilitated the engagement of political groups, leading to the Convention for a Democratic South Africa and the eventual negotiated settlement in South Africa. To help reconstruct the community and deal with violence in the run-up to the first democratic elections in South Africa in April 1994, he became Executive Director of the Family Institute in Johannesburg, which established the first national toll-free multilingual antiviolence helpline. Given the values he learned from his parents (contrariness, perseverance, determination, and the value of staying true to oneself), not unexpectedly, Cooper got mired in controversy again in 2003, when as ViceChancellor and Principal of the University of Durban-Westville, he was accused of behaviors such as preferentially appointing Indians to higher positions and phone tapping an opponent. Politics led him to meet numerous world-renowned activists. His association with South African religious leader and Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu began in 1983 when he founded and convened the National

248    G. J. RICH and J. KURIANSKY

Forum, and later Cooper became Director and Chair of the Archbishop Tutu Scholarship Fund in the United States during the late 1980s. Cooper notes that while he himself is “not a religious person,” he views Tutu as a “person with enormous ability to understand where people come from . . . a person of immense humanity . . . people like him, or like the Dalai Lama and others, are people from whom you get a sense of serenity and peace, and that I suppose is the result of reflection and meditation,” adding that “Desmond is a great human being,” admiring his integrity and the fact that he seems able to engage with people from all social strata (Kuriansky, 2013c, 2015; Rich, 2015). In the years of apartheid and in the nascence of democracy, Cooper was instrumental in boosting psychology in Africa to help people heal from trauma, and to support the struggle for human rights. In bringing psychology to the forefront in South Africa and to the attention of the international community, Cooper helped create the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA) in January 1994, just several months before Nelson Mandela became South Africa’s President. The PsySSA was South Africa’s first psychology organization that accepted members without regard to race or gender (Dingfelder, 2013). Cooper served as its President from 1996 to 1999 and from 2006 to 2007, spearheading Memoranda of Understanding with worldwide national psychological associations. The PsySSA is especially vital to South African psychology. Psychology as a discipline today may be said to be more fully developed in South Africa than in any other nation on the continent, with nearly 8,000 licensed South African psychologists practicing in 2009 (Cooper & Nicholas, 2013). Of course, many challenges remain. For instance, though 11 official languages are spoken in South Africa, most psychologists speak English or Afrikaans, not Xhosa, Sotho, or other indigenous languages, and this makes therapy and assessment more difficult, as even translators may miss cultural nuances (Dingfelder, 2013). Thus, Cooper advocates for psychology training that helps students understand diversity while simultaneously respecting individuality. Nevertheless, the gains made so far have been extraordinary, and when asked, Cooper points out several aspects of contemporary South African psychology that may be instructive to psychologists in other nations such as the United States (Dingfelder, 2013). For example, Cooper works diligently to ensure psychology is not only a service for the wealthy, noting that South Africa has a burgeoning community psychology movement that is making psychology available to severely impoverished people, especially in remote and outlying areas. Some people think psychology is a luxury—they say, you can’t eat it, you can’t feed people with psychology, so what’s the point? However, when we bring psychology to rural areas, we quickly get overbooked. (Kuriansky, 2013a)

Saths Cooper    249

Toward this end, he notes, South Africa’s compulsory year of public service for newly licensed clinical psychologists has created a culture in which psychologists interact with very disadvantaged communities, helping empower them to deal with the pressures of life. Without these programs, psychology would remain an elite domain. (Dingfelder, 2013)

Cooper has held numerous other leadership positions. For instance, he chaired the South African National Committee for IUPsyS beginning in 1997 and the Professional Board for Psychology at the Health Professions Council of South Africa (and was its first non–medical/dental professional to be Vice President). He also served on the board of the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP) and was the first sub-Saharan African to be elected Vice President of IUPsyS, serving on its Executive Board from 2000 to 2008. He further represented IUPsyS at the World Conference on Sustainable Development and the World Summit on Racism, and was instrumental in initiating the Pan-African Psychology Union. In addition, he has represented South Africa at scientific and cultural forums sponsored by the United Nations and its agencies, including UNESCO. PERSPECTIVES AND INTERESTS Cooper’s theoretical perspective as a psychologist reflects multiple approaches. He notes he was trained psychodynamically and thus aspects of Freud make sense to him, but adds that there are also components of behaviorism that are meaningful to him (Kuriansky, 2015). While Cooper is clearly a 21st century psychologist looking toward the postcolonial and post-apartheid future (Bowman & Cooper, 2012; Rich, 2015), his life experiences have shaped his worldview in powerful ways. Thus, it perhaps is not a contradiction in such a nuanced, complex man as Cooper that he has been trained in hypnosis and views it as a useful technique even today when used appropriately, though it is a modality first inspired by the 18th century ideas of Puységur and Mesmer (see chapter in this book by Gielen & Raymond). At the same time, his experiences with oppression have led him to consider the value of approaches such as existentialism, and he reports that especially in the 1960s and 1970s, he felt philosophers such as Jean Paul Sartre had much of value to say. Cooper notes that he likes humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers, whom he met in 1984 when Rogers came to South Africa, noting Rogers had humility and deference . . . , he was not a judgmental person . . . and tried to make sense of my experience even though it was foreign to him, and not part

250    G. J. RICH and J. KURIANSKY of his knowledge, but he tried to put it into his paradigm, but not in a way that was dogmatic. (Kuriansky, 2015).

Indeed, Cooper insists that psychologists should not impose their frame of reference upon their clients who instead need to develop their own ideas about their lives and the problems they are attempting to come to grips with. Cooper has been a major figure, or played a major role, in many areas of policy and expertise, in a broad range of mental health fields. On women’s issues, Cooper has been vocal. Recently, he was interviewed about shocking rapes, including of older women, in South Africa. Rape is not a new phenomenon in South African society and literature, he said, but there are several root causes of sexual violence against women that must be conquered, including power relations, developmental socialization issues, and economic and social conditions. He lamented becoming numb to this violence, as once many in society did with regard to apartheid (Kuriansky, 2015). Advocating for youth, Cooper is Chair of Conquest for Life, an organization that helps disadvantaged youth in areas like Johannesburg’s Soweto. Cooper distinguishes youth advocacy from youth riots, and advises that youth find “meaningful channels to express their frustration,” using, for instance, the power of persuasion and not stooping to the same low levels of those people who may have wronged and excluded these youth. He chaired the Government Task Team to Curb Child Pornography and the Ministerial Committee on Health Research Ethics, and headed a national study on prepubescent rape, which was reported to the Cabinet, and he contributed to the National Youth Development Program. In his work to help families, he coordinated the International Year of the Family conference in South Africa on behalf of the United Nations in 1993 (Kuriansky, 2015). To aid the homeless, he played a key role in Operation Masakhane for the Homeless in the early 1990s. Cooper also created a national toll-free helpline to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in all languages in South Africa for crisis intervention. Cooper has long maintained an interest in the arts, with youthful interests in drama as well as the visual and performing arts. In cultural arts, Cooper was involved back in the late 1960s and early 1970s in theater as co-founder of the Natal Drama Foundation and the South African Black Theatre Union, and later as chair of the Soweto Dance Theatre Company starting in the early 1990s. He has assisted in creating museums, like the Robben Island Museum, the Apartheid Museum, and the Nelson Mandela Gateway, and he has served as advisor to several television series like Stories from the Island, Behind the Badge, Jika Jika, and Hola Ha Monate (Kuriansky, 2015). In policy, he has contributed directly to changes in legislation such as the Film and Publications Act, the Employment Equity Act, and the Criminal Procedure Act. He is also a sought-after commentator on mass media,

Saths Cooper    251

speaking on radio and television, and he is regularly quoted in print about various psychological, social, political, and economic issues. His advice on policy has been sought by various public and private sector agencies, the military, the police, and the scientific community, including the Combined Committees on Child Abuse, the National Prosecution Authority, and the Council on Higher Education. Since 2013, he has been Vice President of the International Social Science Council. PUBLICATIONS, INVOLVEMENTS, AND ACHIEVEMENTS The author of over 60 professional articles and other publications (e.g., Cooper, 2007, 2014; Cooper & Nicholas, 2012; Tyson, Schlachter, & Cooper, 1987), his academic publications have often centered on issues relevant to psychology in South Africa. For instance, he has written several valuable chapters detailing the history, current status, and future of psychology in his nation (e.g., Cooper & Nicholas, 2012, 2013). Such works detail the history of psychology, from its beginnings in South African philosophy departments until R. W. Wilcocks was appointed Professor of Logic and Psychology at the University of Stellenbosch in 1917, modeling a laboratory after Wilhelm Wundt’s experimental one in Europe. Cooper then notes the increasingly segregated nature of South African psychology, which seemed to parallel developments in the nation as a whole over the 20th century. In particular, he details the role played by Dreyer Kruger, a leading phenomenologist, who also helped lead the segregation movement to maintain the South African Psychological Association (SAPA) as purely White. SAPA was the first professional psychology association in South Africa and was formed in 1948, soon after the apartheid government came to power. In its early years, there was much debate over whether Blacks should be admitted as members, and when in 1961 Blacks were selectively admitted, it led to the resignation of 44 psychologists who wrote a joint letter noting they had joined since they had believed the organization was for Whites only. Hendrik Verwoerd, who later became South Africa’s Prime Minister and major architect of apartheid, was among those who resigned. Later, Cooper details the 1994 inauguration of the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA) which “unified SA psychology and . . . is an independent nonracist and nonsexist professional association that relies on membership dues and receives no government funding” (Cooper & Nicholas, 2012, p. 95). In his work, Cooper notes how the new democracy in South Africa led to great transformations, and for psychology this has meant many Blacks have now dominated leadership positions in psychology and Black professors have been appointed to all psychology departments.

252    G. J. RICH and J. KURIANSKY

Cooper’s other academic publications have ranged from deep meditations on apartheid and post-apartheid psychological issues, including discussions of his insights into Nelson Mandela based upon their shared time at Robben Island (Cooper, 2014), and incisive criticism of work aiming to utilize psychology to better understand the apartheid mind (Bowman & Cooper, 2012), in which he draws from, as well as critiques, such thinkers as his colleague Steve Biko and Frantz Fanon (see the chapter by Thompson in this book). His other academic publications have included intriguing experimental research utilizing the “prisoners dilemma” game as a behavioral measure of cooperation versus competition between White and Black co-players, finding during the apartheid era, that in his university student sample, some results indicate some White students demonstrated reverse discrimination with Black students in this setting, while Black students tended to cooperate more with Black confederates, reflecting greater ingroup cooperation (Tyson et al., 1987). A further example of Cooper’s research is his published case study of Mrs. A. in South Africa, which serves as a touchstone for discussions about how language, race, class, and gender, and South Africa’s past all may impact the therapeutic relationship, as may occur when psychologist and client may have different backgrounds (Cooper, 2007). Also a businessman, Cooper is an Executive Chair of Kenako Consulting Ltd., a wellness company; Director of Uni-Africa Investments Ltd.; a director of the Board of Healthcare Funders of Southern Africa; and he serves as chair of Community Investments Southern Africa Ltd. In those roles he has facilitated investment and development in South Africa. Given his diverse contributions, Cooper has received many awards. Impressive among them is the Achievement Against All Odds Award from IUPsyS, which honors research carried out under extremely difficult conditions (Rich & Gielen, 2012). Cooper is a Fellow of the National Academy of Psychology in India and in 2002 was named the first Fellow of the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA). In 2012, he was elected Honorary Fellow of the British Psychological Society and of the Psychological Society of Ireland in 2013, and in August 2013 he was appointed Extraordinary Professor at the University of Pretoria. Since 2014, he has been Honorary Professor at the School of Social Sciences at the University of Limpopo in Polokwane, South Africa. The IAAP honored him with its Distinguished Professional Contributions Award in July 2014. Shortly thereafter, in August 2014, the American Psychological Association awarded him its prestigious award for Distinguished Contributions to the Advancement of International Psychology. In its award announcement, the APA highlighted Cooper’s “record of public and policy engagement, peer reviewed papers and keynote and invited addresses on ethics, community psychology and on the historical, social, political and cultural factors in the development of international

Saths Cooper    253

psychology” and his commitment “to education and training in psychology and to establishing a globally acceptable standard for international accreditation and credentialing of psychologists” (APA, 2013). CONCLUSION Reflecting on Cooper’s career, an especially salient feature is his dedication to action. For instance, when asked to explain why there is so much violence in the world, including in South Africa, Cooper urges that psychologists don’t need to continue to research and write about it; what we need now is to start doing, by looking at our research findings and putting them into policy that can start changing the view that society tolerates violence . . . we can take all the research that we have and begin to formulate policies, proposals, and help policymakers understand those proposals and the necessary preventions and interventions that need to happen to (1) prevent violence, and (2) intervene when violence breaks out. We need to go back to basics and create a culture of peaceful coexistence and better understanding amongst human beings, and this can only happen if we go back to teaching kids about this in Kindergarten and school levels. It can also happen by having positive messages come out in the multimedia. (Kuriansky, 2015)

Cooper’s 9 years of imprisonment and many decades-long journey through extreme challenges, and his subsequent education and leadership roles, have let him witness psychology as a “powerful force for liberation as well as oppression” (Dingfelder, 2013, p. 32). Cooper, “much to his surprise, encountered just as many prominent psychologists in prison as he had in school—but instead of professors, they were his captors” and, in truth, “psychologists held the top three administrative posts on Robben Island” (Dingfelder, 2013, p. 32). However, despite the deeply troubling history of South African psychology, as reflected in psychologist/Prime Minister Verwoerd’s development and implementation of the apartheid policy, and despite the fact that Cooper had many experiences in prison with then-prominent South African psychologists working to support the racist regime, Cooper was able to see the promise of psychology as a discipline that could offer insight into people, convey empowerment, and envision a perspective effectively linking theory to real-world practice. Saths Cooper appears to have come to a place of some understanding and peace, as well as deep insight. With his family ancestry in India and with his apartheid generation background, he never accepted an indentured servant mentality. As Cooper remarks,

254    G. J. RICH and J. KURIANSKY This is personal liberation. You can be liberated in an oppressive system. In my worst moments, when I had been tortured and been at the mercy of my interrogators, I recognized that even though they may have been huge burly guys, they were more afraid, despite their size, of what you stood for. So you played on that. That developed my psychological repertoire, a certain understanding of why people do such things, why people do the worst unremitting forms of racism the world has ever known. We would never do to them what they do to us. So I became a master of surprise. When you are persecuted, you don’t want to do that to other people. Once you experience it, you understand why people commit it, and you don’t want to use the methods of the oppressor. (Kuriansky, 2015)

In describing his vision for psychology, Cooper notes that “in many ways, psychology’s last frontier is in Africa, because it has developed in certain places and is almost nonexistent in large tracks of Africa [leading to the development of the Pan African Psychology Union] to play a helping professional role” (Kuriansky, 2013a). Thus, he emphasizes the need to “protect psychology where it struggles” and to play an advocacy role for psychology as “we are supposed to be experts, so we must up the ante, and fly the psychology flag high, to ensure the pride that psychology deserves is given to it” (Kuriansky, 2015). It is fitting that this 21st century psychologist offers some sage advice to young people going into psychology today. Cooper comments that psychology’s future is wide open and inviting. Never before in the history of humanity is psychological insight more needed. The economists and other people responsible for shaping society have failed us. Psychology is at the cusp of really coming into itself. Therefore we need the brightest minds out there to engage in relevant research that impacts socially. (Kuriansky, 2015)

When asked why today’s youth should become psychologists rather than focus on career paths that are more lucrative, he notes, “If you do your bit, and do it well, the satisfaction and the privilege of entering the innermost sanctums of peoples’ hearts and minds will be truly fulfilling” (Kuriansky, 2015). His own life and work, from his young age to the present day, clearly demonstrate the power of one committed activist psychologist to change an unjust system through breaking the boundaries of artificial ethnicity and through organizing fellow human beings to action. REFERENCES American Psychological Association (APA). (2013, December). APA announces 2014 International Award recipients. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/international/pi/2013/12/award-recipients.aspx

Saths Cooper    255 Bowman, B., & Cooper, S. (2012). Critiquing the critical [Review of the book A critical psychology of the postcolonial: The mind of apartheid, by D. Hook]. PsycCRITIQUES, 57. Cooper, S. (1990). Correlates of violence among-weapon-carrying adolescents. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. Cooper, S. (2007). Psychotherapy in South Africa: The case of Mrs. A. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63, 773–776. Cooper, S. (2014). The Mandela I knew. South African Journal of Psychology, 44, 3–5. Cooper, S., & Nicholas, L. (2012). An overview of South African psychology. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 89–101. Cooper, S., & Nicholas, L. (2013). Counseling and psychotherapy in South Africa: Responding to post-apartheid counseling needs. In R. Moodley, U. P. Gielen, & R. Wu (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy in an international context (pp. 61–71). New York, NY: Routledge. Dingfelder, S. (2013, April). South Africa’s shameful past and hopeful future. Monitor on Psychology, 44, 32. Godobo-Madikizela, P. (2003). A human being died that night: A South African woman confronts the legacy of apartheid. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Kuriansky, J. (2013a, December 4). Interview: International Psychologist Saths Cooper [DVD]. Kuriansky, J. (2013b, December 27). Christmas behind bars with Nelson Mandela: Recollections of younger anti-apartheid activist Saths Cooper. Huffpost WorldPost. Retrieved January 19, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judykuriansky-phd/christmas-behind-bars_b_4505933.html Kuriansky, J. (2013c, December 16). Nelson Mandela and Saths Cooper: Two generations of anti-apartheid activists share a prison cell block and become a president. Huffpost WorldPost. Retrieved January 19, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-kuriansky-phd/nelson-mandela-and-saths-_b_4442634.html Kuriansky, J. (2015). Saths Cooper: From political prisoner to professional presidency all in the pursuit of human rights. Manuscript submitted for publication. Louw, J. (2012). South Africa. In D. B. Baker (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the history of psychology: Global perspectives (pp. 496–512). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Mandela, N. (1995). Long walk to freedom. New York, NY: Little, Brown. Rich, G. (2015). Saths Cooper: A truly extraordinary psychologist. Manuscript submitted for publication. Rich, G., & Gielen, U. (2012). Reflections on the 2012 International Congress of Psychology in Cape Town, South Africa. International Psychology Bulletin, 16, 44–48. Silbereisen, R. (2012, July 27). Cooper receives top psychology award. Cape Times (Cape Town), p. 5. Thompson, L. (2000). A history of South Africa (3rd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Tyson, G. A., Schlachter, A., & Cooper, S. (1987). Game playing strategy as an indicator of racial prejudice among South African students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 473–485.

This page intentionally left blank.

ABOUT THE EDITORS

Uwe P. Gielen received his PhD in social psychology from Harvard University. His work has centered on international psychology, cross-cultural family studies and counseling, Chinese American immigrants, and the cross-cultural study of moral reasoning. He is the founder and director of the Institute for International and Cross-Cultural Psychology as well as Professor-Emeritus of Psychology at St. Francis College in New York. Besides having served as a past chair of the Psychology Steering Committee of the New York Academy of Sciences, he is a former president of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research, the International Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association, and the International Council of Psychologists. He has edited, co-edited, and co-authored 22 volumes concerned with cross-cultural and international psychology. Recent volumes include Childhood and Adolescence: Cross-Cultural Perspectives and Applications (2004, 2015 in press), Families in Global Perspective (2005), Toward a Global Psychology (2007), Principles of Multicultural Counseling and Therapy (2008), Psychology in the Arab Countries (1998, 2008), and Handbook of Counseling and Psychotherapy in an International Context (2013). Uwe Gielen has lectured and given scientific presentations in 33 countries. Grant Rich received his PhD in Psychology: Human Development from the University of Chicago. His work focuses on international positive psychology, on mixed methods, on optimal cross-cultural human development, and on integrating traditional and contemporary healing modalities in crosscultural context. He was editor of APA’s International Psychology Bulletin from

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 257–258 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

257

258    About the Editors

2010 to 2014. He received the President’s Award for Extraordinary Service: APA Division of International Psychology (2014). He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and Divisions 1 (General Psychology), 2 (Teaching), and 52 (International Psychology). He has taught courses including cultural psychology, comparative human development, and the history of psychology at several institutions across the globe, recently in Alaska and Cambodia. He has authored dozens of articles, chapters, and reviews for AAA, APA, and other publications. He has presented at international conferences from Africa and Australia, to Europe, Mexico and the Caribbean, to the Middle East. He is editor of the academic research book, Massage Therapy: The Evidence for Practice (2002), which includes scholars from several nations. A nationally certified massage therapist, he has served on medical missions internationally, and traveled to over 22 nations. Recently he has contributed several biographical entries on cultural psychologists to encyclopedias devoted to the history of cross-cultural psychology.

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Ramadan A. Ahmed, PhD, is a past professor of psychology in the College of Social Sciences, Kuwait University, Kuwait. He received his PhD degree in cognitive psychology from Leipzig University, Germany in 1981. His research interests cover topics such as moral/cognitive development, risk perception, orientation toward forgiveness, identity statuses, the perception of parental acceptance-rejection, children’s drawings, women issues, and the history of psychology. With U. P. Gielen, he edited the first English volume on Psychology in the Arab Countries (1998). His publications include more than 65 scientific papers, 45 book chapters, and 3 books. Having presented his research at several local, regional, and international conferences and meetings, he received Egypt’s State Incentive Award for Social Sciences (Psychology) in 1994, and the APA Division 52’s Outstanding International Psychologist Award in 2008. Tatiana V. Akhutina, Prof., PhD, is the head of the Laboratory of Neuropsychology at Lomonosov Moscow State University. She was a student of Alexander Luria, one of the founders of cultural-historical psychology and neuropsychology. Her first scientific publications were in the fields of neurolinguistics and rehabilitation. For the last 20 years, Tatiana Akhutina has worked in the field of child neuropsychology. She is an author of Overcoming Learning Disabilities: A Vygotskian-Lurian Neuropsychological Approach, published by Cambridge University Press (2012).

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 259–263 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

259

260    About the Contributors

Florence L. Denmark is an internationally recognized scholar and policymaker. She received her PhD from the University of Pennsylvania and has six honorary degrees and numerous awards, including APA’s Outstanding Lifetime Contributions to Psychology. Denmark is a Distinguished Research Professor of Psychology at Pace University. A past president of the APA, Eastern Psychological Association (EPA), Psi Chi, and the International Council of Psychologists (ICP), Denmark holds fellowship status in the APA, EPA, the Association for Psychological Science, and the Society of Experimental Social Psychology. Denmark is currently the main NGO representative to the UN for the International Council of Psychologists as well as a representative for the International Association for Applied Psychology. Rolando Díaz-Loving received his PhD in social psychology and Distinguished Alumnus Award from the University of Texas at Austin. He currently is professor and Head of the Research and Graduate Division in Psychology at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. He specializes in couples and family relationships and cross-cultural psychology and ethnopsychology. His bio-psycho-social-cultural theory on human relationships has guided research about family and couples relationships. He has co-edited 12 volumes of Social Psychology in Mexico, published 128 articles in scientific journals, 62 chapters, and 14 research books. William Gabrenya is a professor of cultural and social psychology at Florida Institute of Technology and has taught at National Taiwan University and Jacobs University Bremen, Germany. He has served as the editor of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology’s (IACCP) Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin and is currently its Secretary-General. His research focuses on expatriate/repatriate adjustment, modernity, social stratification, indigenous psychology movements and cultural differences in sexual behavior, with an area interest in Chinese society. Onno van der Hart, PhD, is Emeritus Professor of Psychopathology of Chronic Traumatization at Utrecht University, the Netherlands, and a psychologist/psychotherapist in private practice. He has specialized in the diagnostics and treatment of clients with complex trauma-related disorders, including the dissociative disorders, and his consultations, teaching, and research are also in this area. He is a past president of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Edwin P. Hollander has been CUNY Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Baruch College and the Graduate Center since 1989, teaching doctoral and master’s courses. Now emeritus, the latest of his six books is Inclusive Leadership (2009). Previously Professor at SUNY Buffalo, he served there

About the Contributors    261

as Provost of Social Sciences and Administration, and before as founding director of the Doctoral Program in Social/Organizational Psychology. His BS in psychology is from Case Western Reserve and his MS and PhD are from Columbia University. Subsequently, he taught at Carnegie Mellon, Washington (St. Louis), and American University (Washington). He has also been a Fulbright Professor at Istanbul University, an NIMH Senior Fellow at the Tavistock Institute in London, and visiting faculty at the University of Wisconsin, Harvard University, Oxford University, and the Institute of American Studies in Paris. Samvel S. Jeshmaridian received his PhD in psychology from the Academy of Sciences, USSR, in 1989. Currently, he teaches Psychology and Sociology courses at TCI College of Technology and the City University of New York. Previously, he taught at Yerevan State University, Ajarian University, Armenia, and Central European University, Budapest, Hungary. He has served as a senior researcher in the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia. Samvel Jeshmaridian holds an Honorary Doctorate in Sociology from the European Union. Judy Kuriansky is an international psychologist, having given workshops and trainings from Belgrade to Brazil, and done disaster relief in Sri Lanka, Haiti, China, Japan, and Australia. A clinical psychologist at Columbia University Teachers College and Peking University in China, she is also an international journalist, often on CNN and China’s CCTV. Her many books include Beyond Bullets and Bombs: Grassroots Peace Building Between Palestinians and Israelis. On the board of the U.S. Board for Africa and an APA Fellow, at the United Nations she is an NGO representative and Chair of the Psychology Coalition. Ann Marie O’Roark, ABAP, of St. Augustine, Florida, is mother of two children, with 30-years’ consulting, teaching, and research focused on leadership, assessment, and strategic planning. Born into a Kentucky military family, she was named outstanding graduate at the Nürnberg American School, Germany, and at the University of Kentucky; she earned her MA and PhD at the University of Florida. She has served as Deputy Secretary of Education and Arts and Assistant State Treasurer of Kentucky; President of APA Division 13, and President of the International Council of Psychologists. She is an elected fellow in four APA divisions as well as the author of The Quest for Executive Effectiveness. Ann was a colleague-collaborator with C. D. Spielberger from 1982 through 2013. At the time of his death they were working on an unfinished manuscript entitled Optimal Challenge: Using the Job Stress Survey with Organizations, Groups, and Individuals.

262    About the Contributors

Jeannette Raymond graduated in 2014  from the Honors Program at St. Francis College as a psychology major and French minor. In addition, she  served as  a research assistant at the Institute for International and Cross-Cultural Psychology and at the Center for the Study of Pinniped Ecology and Cognition as well as the President of the Psi Chi chapter and the Dun Scotus Honor Society. Currently, she is a research assistant at the HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies at Columbia University.  Isabelle Saillot, PhD, is Coordinator of the Janet Network and Chief Editor of Janetian Studies. Her research is focused on Pierre Janet’s relevance for current experimental psychology. She was a founding member and French representative at the European Society for Trauma & Dissociation (ESTD) and has been President of the Institut Pierre Janet for 8 years. She is a board member and mission delegate of the French Psychological Society. Dinesh Sharma is a cultural psychologist, marketing consultant, and  an acclaimed author, with a doctorate from Harvard University. He is associate research professor at the Institute for Global Cultural Studies, SUNYBinghamton and adjunct professor in organization leadership at Fordham University. His biography of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama in Hawai’i and Indonesia, was rated as one of the Top 10 Books of Black History. His recent edited book, The Global Obama (co-editor, U. P. Gielen) was published by Routledge Press. Gary Shereshevsky, PhD, is a clinical neuropsychologist at Staten Island University Hospital, also working as a clinical and neuropsychologist at a number of clinical settings throughout New York City. His graduate degrees are from Pace University in New York and Saint Petersburg State University, Russian Federation. He holds professional licenses in New York State and the United Kingdom. Research interests and specialty areas include lifespan developmental neuropsychology, neuropsychological rehabilitation, visual-spatial functions, and cross-cultural assessment applications. Peter B. Smith obtained his PhD from the University of Cambridge in 1962. He is currently Professor Emeritus of Social Psychology at the University of Sussex, UK. He is author or editor of 10 books, including Understanding Social Psychology Across Cultures (2013), and more than 180 other publications. For 6 years he was editor of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology and he is a former president of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. Holger Steinberg is a university lecturer, and a specialist in the history of psychiatry at the Archives for the History of Psychiatry, Department of

About the Contributors    263

Psychiatry and Psychotherapy at the University of Leipzig, Germany. He has mainly been researching the history of psychiatry in German-speaking countries in the 19th and 20th centuries. In several books and papers he has dealt with, among other issues, conceptual, nosological, and therapeutical aspects. He edited the annotated correspondence of Emil Kraepelin with his teacher Wilhelm Wundt, and published a comprehensive study of Emil Kraepelin’s years in Leipzig. Chien-Ru Sun is a social psychologist and currently an associate professor at National Chengchi University in Taipei, Taiwan. She is also an important and active member of the Foundation for the Advancement of Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies. Her major research topics are the Chinese self, self-regulation, motivation, social inclusion, and impression formation. She also believes that being a psychologist is not just a job but a calling and enjoys her work a lot. Chalmer E. Thompson is associate professor of counseling and counselor education and Associate Dean for Research and Academic Affairs at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.  She is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association’s Society of Counseling Psychology and Society for the Psychology Study of Ethnic Minority Issues.  She works with Ugandan colleagues at Kyambogo University to establish new degree programs and to better root sound psychological science and theory in applied settings throughout the nation.

This page intentionally left blank.

INDEX A

responsibilities, 247, 249 self-identification, 245 theoretical perspectives, 249 Tutu, 248 values, 243 youth advocacy, 250

Animal magnetism, 26, 30 client practices, 49 efficacy of, 48 experiments on, 38–39 legacy of, 45–47

D

C Cooper, 1, 241 activism, 244 business endeavors, 252 conception of psychology, 253–254 controversy, 247 Cooper’s publications, 251–252 early years, 243–244 education, 246 honors, 252–253 imprisonment, 242, 245 IUPsyS election, 242 Mandela, 245–246 psychology in South Africa, 248 Psychological Society of South Africa, 248 public legislation, 250–251 rape, 250

Díaz-Guerrero, 13, 175 applied research, 180 collectivism, 179 conception of socioculture, 177–178 early years, 176 ethnopsychology, 181 human values, 181 later life, 182 legacy, 182 psychology of Mexico, 178–179 research, 176–177

F Fanon, 18, 229 African enslavement, 234

Pathfinders in International Psychology, pages 265–268 Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

265

266   Index Algeria, 229–331 alternatives to violent protest, 238–239 colonialism, 235–236 conception of sick societies, 230–231 death, 233 early years, 232 education, 232–233 exposure to racism, 233 impact, 231 responsibilities, 229, 233 societal goals, 236–237 violent protest, 230

French psychology, 55 hysteria 58 integrative activity, 56 intellectual climate, 54 legacy, 58–59, 61–62 psychasthenia, 57 psychology of perception, 59 reflection, 60 reproductive activities, 56 success, 55 tendencies, 60 treatment, 58

K H Hofstede, 16, 213 cultural dimensions, 217–218, 220 cultural distance, 222–223 early years, 213–214 education, 214–215 GLOBE project, 222 IBM survey, 215–216 impact, 219 individualism-collectivism, 218, 221 influence on marketing, 223 legacy, 223–224 limitations of research, 221 modifications of research, 219 Netherlands, 16–17, 213–214, 219–220, 223 organization culture, 220 publications, 218 responsibilities 218–219

J Janet, 5, 53 action primacy, 5, 56 depersonalization effect, 57 dissociative amnesia, 57 early years, 54 education, 55 feelings, 60

Klineberg, 10, 121 dependable motives, 124 diplomacy, 122 education, 121, 123 honors, 127–128 influences of legacy, 128 international psychology, 121–122, 126–127 racism, 126–127 relationships, 123 research, 125–126 social psychology, 123–124 UNESCO, 122, 126 Kraepelin, 6, 65 chronoscope, 70 clinical psychology, 72 comparative cross-cultural research, 75 early years, 65, 67–69 ethics, 71 goals, 71 habilitation, 67–69 Java, 75–76 lab, 72 legacy, 74–76 limitations, 70 nosology, 73–74 pharmaco-psychology, 67–69, 70–71 placebo study, 71 Wundt, 66

Index    267

L Luria, 8, 105 demise, 113 development of psychological testing equipment, 106–107 downfall, 110 early life, 106 education, 106 later life, 115 marriage, 110–111 neurological assessment, 111 neuropsychology, 105–106, 112–113 political issues, 108–109 research in Asia, 109 resurgence, 114 social genesis, 108 syndrome approach, 112 Troika, 107 Vygotsky, 107

M Mesmer, 1–2, 5, 25 animal magnetism, 26, 30, 40, 45 case studies, 31 controversy, 32 death, 46 education, 26, 30 Gaßner, 28, 34 healing sessions, 32–33 Jung, 47 legacy, 34 marriage, 30 medicine, 28 outcomes, 48 success, 33–36 technique, 35 treatment, 30 values, 28 Montessori, 7, 81 advocacy for peace, 85–86 conception of education, 83–84 challenges, 82–83 early years, 82–84 education, 8, 84–85, 86–87

flow experience, 88 implications, 90 legacy, 81–82 limitations, 88 Montessori schools, 81–90 scientific pedagogy, 84 students, 89 later years, 86

P Puységur, 5, 26, 39 artifical sonambulism, 26, 41 animal magnetism, 40 case studies, 42–43 death, 43 Harmonic society of reunited friends, 42 influences on, 27 magnetic rapport, 48 Mesmer, 44 pressensation, 40

S Sinha, 14, 188–189 challenges to cross-cultural work, 189 conception of psychology, 191 education, 189–190 globalization, 195–196 indigenization of psychology, 193 Indian psychology, 187, 191–192, 194–196 indigenous psychology, 194 influences of, 195 influences on, 88 legacy, 197–198 limitations, 196–197 poverty, 192 responsibilities, 194 village studies, 191–192 Soueif, 12, 159 achievements,161–162 clinical psychology, 167

268   Index defining psychosocial concepts, 165–166 drug dependency, 164 early years, 160 education, 161 extreme response sets, 163–164 legacy, 169–170 opposition to operationism, 166 psychological fitness, 168 psychology in Egypt, 166–167 research, 162–163 social concerns, 169 Standing Project on Drug Abuse, 164–165 summary numbers, 160 Spielberger, 11, 131 career, 144–145 conception of anxiety, 149–150 curiosity, 150–151 diplomacy, 146–148 early years, 142 education, 143 honors, 137 influence, 145 International Society for Test Anxiety Research, 147–148 job stress, 152 legacy, 152–153 psychometric tests, 132–134 Spielberger’s vital sign emotions, 139, 142, 148 State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAXI), 144 stress management, 145 students, 138, 140–142 summary numbers, 135–136, 138

V Vygotsky, 8, 93 cross-cultural theory, 98–99 cultural-historical theory, 94 culture-organizing force, 102 conflict with Bolshevism, 97–98, 100–102 Communism, 98

early life, 94–95 Hamlet, 96 in the United States, 102–103 idealism, 99–100 influence, 95 Judaism, 95 later life, 101 legacy, 103 Luria, 98–99 Marxism, 94, 96, 97 psychology of art, 95 Soviet psychology, 95 Zone of proximal development, 102–103

Y Yang, 14, 201 education, 202–203 Chinese modernity, 208–209 Harvard epiphany, 204 honors, 210 indigenous Chinese personal traits, 209 indigenous comparability, 206–207 indigenous methodology, 207–208 later career, 206 political dissent, 203–204 Taiwan Indigenous Psychology Research Group, 205