Whatever Happened to Karl Buhler?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Whatever Happened to Karl Buhler? ADRIAN BROCK example of Karl Buhler (1879-1963). One York University suspects that Buhler was chosen because the example is such a striking one. If Buhler is mentioned at all in texts on the history of psychology, it is in connection with his early Abstract work as Oswald Kiilpc's assistant at the Uni- The work of Karl Buhler is not particularly versity of Wiirzburg (e.g. Hothersall, 1990; well known in English-speaking countries. If Brcnnan, 1991; Hcrgcnhahn, 1992; Leahcy, Buhler is mentioned at all in texts on the his- 1992a; Schultz & Schultz, 1992). It was tory of psychology, it is in connection with his Buhler's work on 'imageless thought' which early work at the University of Wiirzburg. This sparked off the famous controversy with work represents only the start of Buhler's Wilhelm Wundt over the methods of the career in psychology. He subsequently pro- 'Wiirzburg School'. Boring (1950) wrote: duced important work on perception, Geslall theory, developmental psychology, theoretical Buhler was severely criticized by Wundt, by psychology and the psychology of language. Durr, who was one of his observers, and by Buhler's work has had a profound — though von Aster. Titchcncr, of course, criticized the largely unnoticed — influence on later entile movement. Buhler, however, left the thinkers. It has also been the subject of a total picture of thought without important revival of interest in Europe in recent years. change, and we may thus close our account of This article provides an overview of Buhler's the Wurzburg school and return once again life and work. to Kiilpc. (pp. 4O6A01). Boring mentions Buhler only in the context In a wide-ranging article on the historio- of Kiilpe's students at Wurzburg and as the graphy of psychology, Wcimcr (1974) has editor of Kiilpe's posthumous "Vorlesungen" discussed what he calls "the suppression of [Lectures] (Kiilpe, 1920). With regard to the psychological history" (p. 248). Weimer latter, Boring only comments that "Buhler points out that 'history' is inevitably selective. may even have introduced llusscrl to Kiilpc" I Iistorians of psychology — particularly those (p. 408). If this was Buhler's only work of any who arc practising psychologists —- have significance, then his minor role in the his- some general idea of what psychology is and tory of psychology would be perfecdy jus- how it ought to be done. This will lead them tified. Let us lake a closer look at this to select out certain aspects of psychology's 'minor' Figure in order to see why Buhler is past and to ignore others. Weimer argues such an interesting case. that this process is not always a conscious one. Few historians of psychology will delib- Concept of Gestalt erately suppress 'history'. They arc simply Biihlcr's work as part of the 'Wiirburg not aware of its existence. Works which did School' represents only the start of his career not have a major impact on psychology will in psychology. He subsequendy moved, disappear from the 'collective memory' of together with Kiilpe, to the University of psychologists. Bonn in 1909 and to the University of Weimer illustrates these points with the Munich in 1913. It was during his stay in Bonn that Biihler became interested in Canadian l'sychology/l'sychologie canadienne, 35:3 Ehrenfels' concept of 'Gestalt' and applied 320 Brock this to the study of perception. The results ary. Bolgar (1964) wrote: of this work appeared under the title, Die Gestaltwahrnehmungen [The Gestalt Percep- Any account of Biihler's life would be incom- tions] (Buhler, 1913). This was one of the plete if il did not convey his impact as a earliest attempts to experiment with Gestalt teacher. His curiosity was contagious, his lan- phenomena.1 During his stay in Munich, guage was vivid and rich in new terms, his Biihler turned his attention to developmental arguments were vigorous and unexpected, psychology. His major work on the subject — whereas his obvious enjoyment of the business Die geistige Entwicklung des Kindes [The of thinking held his audience of several hun- Mental Development of the Child] — dred students spellbound through many appeared in 1918 (Biihlcr, 1918). This work courses in general psychology, (p. 678) was widely used in teacher-training institutes and had already reached its 6th edition by Many of Buhler's students went on to become 1930 (Buhler, 1930a). An abridged version of prominent in the United States. Egon the book — Abri$ der geistigen Entwicklung Brunswik moved to Berkeley and established des Kindes [Oudine of die Mental Develop- a close collaboration with Edward Tolman ment of the Child] — appeared in 1919 whom he had befriended in Vienna. Paul (Buhler, 1919). This had reached its 5th Lazarsfeld moved to Columbia and eventually edition by 1929 (Buhler, 1929a). An English became President of die American Sociologi- translation appeared in the following year cal Association. Else Frenkel-Brunswik is per- (Buhler,, 1930b). These works helped to haps best known as one of the authors of The establish Biihler's reputation as one of Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, Frenkel- Europe's leading authorities on develop- Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford, 1950). The mental psychology. Buhler is one of the most productivity of die Vienna Institute alone frequendy-cited authors in Vygotsky's Thought would merit Buhler an important place in the and Language (1934/1986). history of psychology (C Buhler, 1965a; Buhler had become director of the Vienna Wellek, 1968; Weimer, 1974). Psychological Institute in 1922. With die help and support of his wife, Charlotte Buhler, he Possible Integration rapidly transformed it into one of the major Buhler turned his attention to theoretical centres of psychology in Europe. Like the and mctiiodological issues in the 1920s. In Leipzig Institute many years earlier, it Die Krise der Psychologie [The Crisis of Psy- attracted students from all over die world. chology], he examined the different 'schools' Charlotte Buhler (1965a) wrote that the of psychology (e.g., Gestalt psychology, Vienna Institute had students from 18 differ- behaviourism, psychoanalysis) and oudincd ent countries at the 11th International Con- proposals for how dicir results might be gress of Psychology in Paris. Some of the integrated. The work originally appeared as better known figures who studied there an article in the journal, Kant-Studien [Kant include: Hedda Bolgar, Egon Brunswik, Studies] in 1926 (Buhler, 1926b). It was Rudolf Ekstein, Herbert Fcigl, Else Frenkel- reissued as a book in 1927 and again in 1929 Brunswik, Heinz Harunann, Marie Jahoda, (Biihler, 1927; 1929b). This work is regarded David Klein, Paul Lazarsfeld, Konrad Lorenz, as a 'classic' in German-speaking countries. Neal Miller, Karl Popper, Rene Spitz, Edward A third edition of the book was published in Tolman, Goodwin Watson and Albert Wellek. 1965 and a fourtii edition in 1978 (Buhler, Biihler's reputation as a lecturer was legend- 1965a; 1978). In his review of the third edi- tion, G. W. Allport (1966) wrote: 1 Buhler subsequently became involved in a dispute with Kofika over the originality of 'Gestalt' psychol- One wonders why some of the most important ogy (Biihler, 1926a). psychological treatises in the German Ian- Whatever Happened to Karl Biihler? 321 guage have remained untranslated for dec- Biihler decided to reject the offer. He was ades. One thinks, for example, of Fechner's now at the peak of his career. He had Psychophysik, of Brcntano's Psychologic vom already made important contributions to the empirischen Standpunkt, and of the work here psychology of diought, perception, Gcstalt under review, Buhlcr's Die Krise der theory, developmental psychology and Uicor- Psychologie. The last named was published in etical psychology. The best was yet to come. 1927, reissued in 1929, and again in 1965. Biihler went on to produce a series of Recently, I have heard rumors that all three important works on language and expression of these neglected classics arc now in the in the 1930s: Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissen- process of belated translation. I hope that the schaflen [The Axiomatization of the Lan- rumors become realities, (p. 201). guage Sciences] (Biihler, 1933a); Ausdrucks- theorie [Theory of Expression] (Biihler, Unfortunately, the work has still not been 1933b); Sprachtheorie [Theory of Language] translated into English. This may explain why (Biihler, 1934). The latter has been des- it is so rarely discussed by English-speaking cribed as "the richest, most original and theoretical psychologists.2 precise book that has ever been written on 3 Biihler became one of the most eminent the subject" (Marias, 1967; p. 15). This work psychologists of the time. He lectured has had a profound — though largely unnot- throughout Europe during his years in iced — influence on later thinkers. In their Vienna (Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, book on Symbol Formation, Werner and Great Britain, Hungary, Norway, Spain, Kaplan (1963) wrote: Sweden). He spent academic 1927/8 in the United Slates where he gave guest lectures In this presentation, we shall draw consider- at Stanford, Johns Hopkins and Harvard ably on the views of Karl Biihler whose Universities. He also spoke at the APA con- Sprachlheorie, we believe, presents the most vention in 1927 and took part in the advanced psychological analysis of the general 'Wittenberg Symposium' on feelings and structure of language, (p. 52) emotions (Biihler, 1928a; 1928b). Biihler returned to the United States in 1929 to give The authors add in a footnote: a series of guest lectures at die University of Chicago and to take part in the 9th Interna- It is regrettable that Biihler's book is neither tional Congress of Psychology in New Haven discussed nor even cited in any of the recent (Biihler, 1930c). He was elected President of works on language by American psychologists, the German Psychological Society in the (p.