Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

PHRENOLOGIC TENDENCIES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF MENTAL PHENOMENA

PHRENOLOGIC TENDENCIES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF MENTAL PHENOMENA The correlation of structure and function in organisms has many features which appeal to any one who observes the activities of a living individual. What is more natural than to expect that organs which differ structurally should have unlike functions? And in truth the view finds a substantiation in the familiar facts of physiology, which show a remarkable differentiation of animal structure in adaptation to specific uses. Do not muscle and gland, nerve and connective tissue fiber, exemplify in their anatomic individuality the unlikeness of the uses to which they are put in the body? Accordingly we have come to associate certain physiologic phenomena with definite types of structures. The attempt to connect mental processes with special anatomic structures had its beginning years ago. In a sense it was exhibited in the phrenology of earlier days. Some localized part of the brain was presumed to be concerned with each of the different mental states or faculties which went to make up the “units” of the mind. When more precise experimental studies on the cerebral localization of motor and sensory processes widened our knowledge of brain phenomena, the facts elicited by investigations like those of Fritsch and Hitzig, Munk, Goltz and others were hailed by some as conclusive indications of the essential validity of the hypotheses underlying phrenology. Clinical observations taken in connection with post-mortem findings in the brain were also drawn on to support the claims of psychic localization. Flechsig's well-known studies were applied to strengthen the doctrine of an anatomic localization of mental faculties. Histologic investigations have been strained to furnish evidence for some differentiation correlated with assumed independent activities of individual parts of the brain. To quote a recent writer: “There were some who disputed the functional dismemberment of the brain, and withstood the establishment of spatial localizations for definite mental functions, but their voices were not listened to, or their facts were denied, or their arguments disregarded. They contended that the clinical and physiologic facts gave no warrant for a localization in parts of the cerebral cortex of mental functions as such, and furthermore they pointed out the fact that the cortical centers did not operate independently, and that functions could not be considered apart from the totality of the elements involved. The schematism of phrenology was, however, too alluring; it gave a definiteness to diagnosis, and it satisfied certain other practical and theoretical desires.”1 It is not always clearly kept in mind that the possible connection of brain lesions with motor, sensory and associational derangements by no means demonstrates that psychic processes are definitely localized. Professor Franz of the Government Hospital for the Insane at Washington has taken pains, in a recent address from which we quoted above, to express his conviction that mental processes are due to the activities of the brain as a whole. The individual parts “do not work independently; they work interdependently, and it is because of the possible functional or anatomic connections that certain types or kinds of mental states are more in evidence than others.” Precisely because we have been encouraged to associate function with structure so definitely in other fields, a similar tendency to connect mental abnormalities with definite brain-centers is current. But a reaction has set in; and the protest of the opponents has been formally promulgated and is quoted here from Franz as a “sign of the times” rather than as a final pronouncement on the subject. “All that we do know is that certain disturbances of the brain are accompanied by certain mental abnormalities, and that similar mental abnormalities are produced by or accompany diverse lesions. We have no facts which at present will enable us to locate the mental processes in the brain any better than they were located fifty years ago. That the mental processes may be due to cerebral activities we may believe, but with what anatomic elements the individual menial processes may be connected we do not know. Notwithstanding our ignorance, it would appear best and most scientific that we should not adhere to any of the phrenologic systems, however scientific they may appear to be on the surface. We should be willing to stand with Brodmann, believing that mind is a function or an attribute of the brain as a whole, or is a concomitant of cerebral operations, but I at least am unwilling to stand with the histologic localizationists on the ground of a special mental process for special cerebral areas or for special cerebral cell groups.” 1. Franz, S. I.: The New Phrenology, Science, March 1, 1912, p. 321. JAMA. 1912;58(15):1116 Back to top Article Information Editor's Note: JAMA 100 Years Ago is transcribed verbatim from articles published a century ago, unless otherwise noted. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

PHRENOLOGIC TENDENCIES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF MENTAL PHENOMENA

JAMA , Volume 307 (14) – Apr 11, 2012
Download PDF
1 page

PHRENOLOGIC TENDENCIES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF MENTAL PHENOMENA

Abstract

The correlation of structure and function in organisms has many features which appeal to any one who observes the activities of a living individual. What is more natural than to expect that organs which differ structurally should have unlike functions? And in truth the view finds a substantiation in the familiar facts of physiology, which show a remarkable differentiation of animal structure in adaptation to specific uses. Do not muscle and gland, nerve and connective tissue fiber, exemplify...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/phrenologic-tendencies-in-the-interpretation-of-mental-phenomena-VwCrAQrcvU

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.2012.379
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The correlation of structure and function in organisms has many features which appeal to any one who observes the activities of a living individual. What is more natural than to expect that organs which differ structurally should have unlike functions? And in truth the view finds a substantiation in the familiar facts of physiology, which show a remarkable differentiation of animal structure in adaptation to specific uses. Do not muscle and gland, nerve and connective tissue fiber, exemplify in their anatomic individuality the unlikeness of the uses to which they are put in the body? Accordingly we have come to associate certain physiologic phenomena with definite types of structures. The attempt to connect mental processes with special anatomic structures had its beginning years ago. In a sense it was exhibited in the phrenology of earlier days. Some localized part of the brain was presumed to be concerned with each of the different mental states or faculties which went to make up the “units” of the mind. When more precise experimental studies on the cerebral localization of motor and sensory processes widened our knowledge of brain phenomena, the facts elicited by investigations like those of Fritsch and Hitzig, Munk, Goltz and others were hailed by some as conclusive indications of the essential validity of the hypotheses underlying phrenology. Clinical observations taken in connection with post-mortem findings in the brain were also drawn on to support the claims of psychic localization. Flechsig's well-known studies were applied to strengthen the doctrine of an anatomic localization of mental faculties. Histologic investigations have been strained to furnish evidence for some differentiation correlated with assumed independent activities of individual parts of the brain. To quote a recent writer: “There were some who disputed the functional dismemberment of the brain, and withstood the establishment of spatial localizations for definite mental functions, but their voices were not listened to, or their facts were denied, or their arguments disregarded. They contended that the clinical and physiologic facts gave no warrant for a localization in parts of the cerebral cortex of mental functions as such, and furthermore they pointed out the fact that the cortical centers did not operate independently, and that functions could not be considered apart from the totality of the elements involved. The schematism of phrenology was, however, too alluring; it gave a definiteness to diagnosis, and it satisfied certain other practical and theoretical desires.”1 It is not always clearly kept in mind that the possible connection of brain lesions with motor, sensory and associational derangements by no means demonstrates that psychic processes are definitely localized. Professor Franz of the Government Hospital for the Insane at Washington has taken pains, in a recent address from which we quoted above, to express his conviction that mental processes are due to the activities of the brain as a whole. The individual parts “do not work independently; they work interdependently, and it is because of the possible functional or anatomic connections that certain types or kinds of mental states are more in evidence than others.” Precisely because we have been encouraged to associate function with structure so definitely in other fields, a similar tendency to connect mental abnormalities with definite brain-centers is current. But a reaction has set in; and the protest of the opponents has been formally promulgated and is quoted here from Franz as a “sign of the times” rather than as a final pronouncement on the subject. “All that we do know is that certain disturbances of the brain are accompanied by certain mental abnormalities, and that similar mental abnormalities are produced by or accompany diverse lesions. We have no facts which at present will enable us to locate the mental processes in the brain any better than they were located fifty years ago. That the mental processes may be due to cerebral activities we may believe, but with what anatomic elements the individual menial processes may be connected we do not know. Notwithstanding our ignorance, it would appear best and most scientific that we should not adhere to any of the phrenologic systems, however scientific they may appear to be on the surface. We should be willing to stand with Brodmann, believing that mind is a function or an attribute of the brain as a whole, or is a concomitant of cerebral operations, but I at least am unwilling to stand with the histologic localizationists on the ground of a special mental process for special cerebral areas or for special cerebral cell groups.” 1. Franz, S. I.: The New Phrenology, Science, March 1, 1912, p. 321. JAMA. 1912;58(15):1116 Back to top Article Information Editor's Note: JAMA 100 Years Ago is transcribed verbatim from articles published a century ago, unless otherwise noted.

Journal

JAMA – American Medical Association

Published: Apr 11, 2012

There are no references for this article.