Die Entdeckung des Unbewußten um 1900: Wissenschaftshistorische Anmerkungen zu Sigmund Freud

The Discovery of the Unconscious by Henri F. Ellenberger has become a common topic in the historiography of (dynamic) psychiatry. But many users of this term have still the opinion that Sigmund Freud was the unique discoverer. In reality there was a scientific context at the fin de siècle, which corresponded intensively with Freud's original concepts and formed their implications (e.g. Darwinism, Neurophysiology). Besides well-documented synchronic analogies Freud implanted diachronic traditions within his psychoanalytic theory. Especially, his main work The Interpretation of Dreams implies Greek mythology as well as natural philosophy of romanticism. Freuds special concepts like ‘transfer’ and ‘resistance’ have to be analysed as historical metaphors.     

Science and Religion

Abstract

A dialogue between science and religion must supersede the clash of the past, and here the teachings of Christ and Buddha are considered. Modern cosmological theory is contemplated in relation to these two religions and man's insignificance in the Universe accepted. Various theories of evolution, including creationism, are compared with theories of theology; consciousness is discussed and finally it is argued that spiritual experiences could be subject to a scientific analysis.     

Sigmund Freud's Contribution to the History of the Neuronal Cytoskeleton

In the summers of 1879 and 1881, while Freud was a research student in Ernst von Brücke's laboratory at the Institute of Physiology at the University of Vienna, he carried out an important though seldom remembered investigation on the internal structure of nerve fibers and cells. His contribution to this field is here examined in the context of the 19th-century debate regarding the existence of neurofibrils and of present views on the cytoskeleton. Freud was able to discern separate fine fibrils following straight courses within the nerve fibers, as well as concentric loops of striae surrounding the nuclei and converging towards the processes of the cell bodies in crayfish nervous tissue. He thus confirmed and extended observations made by Robert Remak almost 40 years earlier, which had remained controversial. Electron microscopy of the crustacean nervous system confirmed Freud's main points, which in turn vindicated those of Remak. Both researchers were looking at small bundles of microtubules, and thus they were among the first to picture the lacy intracellular framework that future cell biologists would call the cytoskeleton.     

The World Upside Down: Boas,History, Evolutionism,and Science

A new wave of neo‐Boasian anthropologists advocate retrieving Boas’s sense of historicity. In his theoretical writings, and especially his early exchange with Mason and Powell in 1887, Boas linked history to Alexander von Humboldt’s “cosmographical” method and to inductive science, accusing evolutionists of reasoning deductively on the basis of artibrary classifications. Boas, on the contrary, would not classify but would consider the “individual phenomenon”. Strangely enough, Boas’s presentation of his scientific procedure has more or less been taken at face value, and I question this Boas‐centric view of Boas. Examining Boas’s theoretical statements, his onslaught against evolutionism and his ethnographic practice, I find the accusation of deductive reasoning against evolutionists totally polemical. Furthermore, I discover neither induction nor history or cosmography in his practice, but a Linnaean‐type natural history. In brief, I uncover an inverse image of what Boas presented of himself, and no basis whatsoever for retrieving a historicity for contemporary anthropology.     

The Obvious in a Nutshell: Science,Medicine, Knowledge,and History

The scope and mission of the history of science have been constant objects of reflection and debate within the profession. Recently, Lorraine Daston has called for a shift of focus: from the history of science to the history of knowledge. Such a move is an attempt at broadening the field and ridding it of the contradictions deriving from its modernist myth of origin and principle of demarcation. Taking the move from a pluralistic concept of medicine, the present paper explores the actual and possible contributions that a history of knowledge can offer to the history of medicine in particular. As we will argue, the history of medicine has always been a history of knowledge, but for good reasons has always stuck to the concept of medicine as its object and problem throughout the ages, including the modern, scientific one. We argue that, in the history of medicine, the demarcation between scientific and non‐scientific represents an accident, but is not foundational as in the case of natural science. Furthermore, the history of medicine programmatically played a role in at least two academic domains (history proper and medical education), adjusting historical narratives of medical knowledge to its audience. Accordingly, we underscore that the history of both science and medicine, as traditionally defined, already provides room for almost the whole spectrum of approaches to history. Moreover, their different myths of origin can, and indeed must, be included in the reflexivity of the historical gaze. We argue that the position towards a history of science, medicine, or knowledge is not a question of narrative or theory, rather, it is a question of relevance and awareness of extant contexts.