And the Subject was Made Flesh: The Aesthetic and Corporate Dimensions of Psychology’s Body

  • Henderikus J. Stam


In the development of the discipline of psychology two very different types of beings have stood in as psychology’s subjects of convenience; children and animals. The properties and characteristics attributed to these beings have varied radically over the history of twentieth century psychology with the result that children and animals under one theory looked little like the same beings under another. Despite the difficulties associated with characterizing these “others,” early twentieth century psychologists built bridges to animal psychology and developmental psychology not only for practical reasons but on the presumption that these others were capable of providing the raw material of the discipline. Yet animals and children continually defied the techno-wizardry of psychological theories at the same time as they were its most obvious recipients. This paper develops the thesis that the aesthetic representations of subjectivity made possible by animals and children on the one hand and their place in the corporatist enterprise of the new psychology on the other, made them suitable artefacts for cultivating the new science.


Moral Philosophy Late Nineteenth Century Animal Psychology Interest Representation Intellectual Elite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ankersmit, F. R. (1996). Aesthetic politics: Political philosophy beyond fact and value. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deleule, D. (1992). The living machine: Psychology as organology. In J. Crary and S. Kwinter (Eds) Incorporations (pp. 203–233 ). New York: Zone.Google Scholar
  4. Furumoto, L. (1988). Shared knowledge: The experimentalists, 1904–1929. In J. G. Morawski (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 94–113 ). New Haven, CT: YaleGoogle Scholar
  5. Hall, G. S. (1923). Life and confessions of a psychologist. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  6. Kaufman-Osborn, T. V. (1986). Emile Durkheim and the science of corporatism. Political Theory, 14, 638–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Morawski, J. G. (1992). Self-regard and other-regard: Reflexive practices in American psychology, 1890–1940. Science in Context, 5, 281–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Richards, G. (1996). Putting psychology in its place. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Ritvo, H. (1987). The animal estate: The English and other creatures in the Victorian age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
  10. Schmitter, P. C. (1974). Still the century of corporatism? Review of Politics, 36, 85–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stam, H. J. (1996). A body coporate: Early North American psychology and institutional culture. Paper presented at the 104th Convention of the -American Psychological Association, Toronto, August, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. Stam, H. J. (1999). Technologies ‘R’ us: Psychology and the production of new bodies. In Maiers, W., Bayer, B., Esgalhado, B. D., Jorna, R., and Schraub, E. (Eds) Challenges to theoretical psychology (pp. 332–340 ). Toronto: Captus Press.Google Scholar
  13. Stam, H. J. and Kalmanovitch, T. (1998). E. L. Thorndike and the origins of animal psychology: On the nature of the animal in psychology. American Psychologist, 53, 1135–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Monographs, 2, (4, Whole No. 8).Google Scholar
  15. Titchener, E. B. (1961). The postulates of a structural psychology. In T. Shipley (Ed.), Classics in psychology (pp. 224–243). New York: Philosophical Library. (Original work published in 1898.)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henderikus J. Stam
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations