American neurophysiology and two nineteenth-century American Physiological Societies

This article contrasts two American Physiological Societies, one founded near the beginning of the nineteenth century in 1837 and the other founded near its end in 1887. The contrast allows a perspective on how much budding neuroscience had developed during the nineteenth century in America. The contrast also emphasizes the complicated structure needed in both medicine and physiology to allow neurophysiology to flourish. The objectives of the American Physiological Society of 1887 were (and are) to promote physiological research and to codify physiology as a discipline. These would be accomplished by making physiology much more inclusive than traditionally accepted by raising research standards, by giving prestige to its members, by providing members a source of professional interchange, by protecting its members from antivivisectionists, and by promoting physiology as fundamental to medicine. The quantity of neuroscientific experiments by its members was striking. The main organizers of the society were Silas Weir Mitchell, John Call Dalton, Henry Pickering Bowditch, and Henry Newell Martin. The objective of the American Physiological Society of 1837 was to disperse knowledge of the “laws of life” and to promote human health and longevity. The primary organizers were William Andrus Alcott and Sylvester Graham with the encouragement of John Benson. Its technique was to use physiological information, not create it as was the case in 1887. Its object was to disseminate the word that healthy eating will improve the quality of life.     

20世纪3O年代的美国妇女研究述评

在过去几十年中,美国史学界对20世纪30年代的美国妇女历史的研究,在妇女应对危机、妇女与就业、妇女与社会保障、女性主义和妇女组织等方面均取得了一定的成果.目前,中国史学界关于20世纪30年代美国妇女的研究尚属空白.     

《美国历史评论》:第一份科学的美国历史杂志

《美国历史评论》是美国主流的核心历史刊物,更是“第一份科学的美国历史杂志”。它是19世纪末西方史学职业化的产物,也是美国史学科学化、职业化的标志。100多年来,它坚持严肃的专业态度,坚持和发展了自己的栏目内容和形式,主旨是为了繁荣和发展美国的历史学术。它最初不是美国历史协会的机关刊物和出版物,但由于业务发展的需要,《评论》最终成为美国历史协会的“旗舰”。有人批判《评论》内容方面的保守,但细心考察会发现它是美国史学发展的晴雨表,尤其反映了第二次世界大战前后美国史学发展的趋势和变化。     

清教主义与美国民主

受美国“敬祖”学派历史学家的影响,一些中国学者认为,在美国,清教主义是与民主联系在一起的。事实上,这只是一个流传了很久的神话。从２０世纪２０年代起,边疆学派和进步学派的史学家们便不断地打破这个神话。艾德蒙·莫根指出：“新英格兰的清教徒们在当今的声誉并不好。任何渴望达到一定深度的著作家或评论家都注意对他们的批判。无论是激进的还是保守的,都标榜自己反对清教主义的作法。”①当今各派史学家们所反对的清教主义作法,正是那些与民主格格不入的东西。本文将从历史的角度说明清教主义与美国民主之间差距甚远。一、美洲…