Abstract
The introduction begins by stressing a continued emphasis, consistent throughout Alexander Luria’s long career, on understanding people’s subjective formation in relation to their social and political environments, and it states the intention of Psychologies in Revolution to similarly contextualise Luria’s own work. The book begins by providing a brief sketch of Luria’s biography, noting that though Luria was not a fervent Marxist ideologue, his research was nonetheless influenced by the constantly shifting priorities of the Soviet state both practically and theoretically.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Alexander Luria, The Man with a Shattered World: The History of a Brain Wound, trans. by Lynn Solotaroff (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 22. First published in Russian as Poteriannyi i vozrashchennyi mir: Istoriia odnogo raneniia [A World Lost and Re-gained: The Story of an Injury] (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo MGU, 1971).
- 2.
Luria, Shattered, p. 22.
- 3.
Luria, Shattered, p. 23.
- 4.
Luria, Language and Cognition, trans. by James V. Wertsch (Washington, DC: VH Winston and Sons, 1981), p. 25.
- 5.
Luria, ‘A Child’s Speech Responses and the Social Environment’ in Soviet Developmental Psychology, ed. by Michael Cole (New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1977), pp. 32–64, p. 35, p. 60. Excerpted from the edited collection Speech and Intellect among Rural, Urban and Homeless Children [Rech’ i intellekt derevenskogo, gorodskogo i besprizornogo rebenka] (Moscow: Gosizdat RSFSR, 1930), p. 32.
- 6.
The term ‘psy-ences’ was introduced by Elizabeth Lunbeck, Emily Martin and Louis Sass in the description of a seminar series and has since been applied to the Soviet and post-Soviet context in Eugene Raikhel and Dörte Bemme, ‘Postsocialism, the psy-ences and mental health’, Transcultural Psychiatry, 53, 2 (2016), 151–175 and Tomas Matza, Shock Therapy: Psychology, Precarity, and Well-Being in Postsocialist Russia (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2018). Raikhel and Bemme define the term as referring ‘broadly to a set of arguments which link professional knowledge and expertise on the mind, brain, and behavior with the wide range of ways in which people conceive of, act upon, and govern themselves and others under conditions of modernity’, p. 154.
It is an extension of the term ‘psy disciplines’, which Nikolas Rose introduced to designate a range of scientific practices that since the nineteenth century have participated in determining how human beings understand themselves and that have helped to enable new forms of governance. See, Nikolas Rose, Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 1–21. Rose briefly discusses the Soviet psy-ences in this publication, declaring that much about the subject ‘remains to be analysed’, p. 15.
- 7.
For a bibliography of Luria’s publications see: Evgenia D. Homskaya, Alexander Romanovich Luria: A Scientific Biography, trans. by Daria Krotova (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 2001), pp. 127–161.
- 8.
Homskaya, pp. 1–2.
- 9.
See A.R. Luria, The Working Brain: An Introduction to Neuropsychology, trans. by Basil Haigh (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1973), p. 105.
- 10.
See K.E. Levitin, ‘Epilogue: Luria’s Psychological Symphony’, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 6, 36 (1998), 33–62, p. 53. Luria’s former collaborator Michael Cole informed me that Luria set aside a few hours every day to keep up with his international correspondence (telephone interview, 23 September 2014). Similarly Oliver Sacks recalled that ‘Luria, after a twelve or sixteen hour working day, would spend hours more with an enormous scientific correspondence, writing constantly to colleagues, former pupils, and friends, detailed, passionate letters, in half a dozen different languages’. Oliver Sacks, ‘Luria and “Romantic Science”’ in The Cambridge Handbook of Cultural-Historical Psychology, ed. by Anton Yasnitsky, René van der Veer and Michel Ferrari (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 517–528.
- 11.
For overviews of Luria’s global influence, see: R.L. Solso and C.A. Hoffman, ‘Influence of Soviet Scholars’, American Psychologist, 46 (1991), 251–253 and David E. Tupper, ‘Introduction: Alexander Luria’s Continuing Influence on Worldwide Neuropsychology’, Neuropsychology Review, 9 (1999), 1–7.
- 12.
T.V. Akhutina, ‘A.R. Luriia: zhiznennyi put’ [A.R. Luria: The Way of Life], Kul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiia, 2 (2012), 2–10, Evgenia D. Homskaya, Alexander Romanovich Luria: A Scientific Biography, trans. by Daria Krotova (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 2001), K.E. Levitin, Mimoletnyi uzor [A Transient Pattern] (Moscow: Izd-vo, 1978) (serialised in English translation in the Journal of Russian and East European Psychology in 1998) and E. Luria, Moi Otets A.R. Luriia [My Father A.R. Luria] (Moscow: Gnosis, 1994).
- 13.
See, for example, Anne-Lise Christensen, Elkhonon Goldberg and Dmitri Bougakov eds., Luria’s Legacy in the 21st Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
- 14.
Luria, The Making of Mind: A Personal Account of Soviet Psychology, ed. by Michael Cole and Sheila Cole (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), p. 174. This book was written directly in English and subsequently translated into Russian.
- 15.
Alexander Luria to Jerome Bruner, March 16, 1976, HUA, Jerome Bruner Papers, General Correspondence 1975–1977, HUG 4242.5, Box 88. Luria had written to Michael Cole shortly before writing to Bruner that the working title for his autobiography was: ‘The Last Book’. Luria to Cole, March 2, 1976, Michael Cole Personal Archives.
- 16.
Luria, Making of Mind, p. 17.
- 17.
For an analysis of his early career, see Michael Paul George Hames, ‘The Early Theoretical Development of Alexander Luria’, PhD, University of London, UCL, 2002. A concise overview of Luria’s career is given in: M.I. Kostyanaya and P. Rossouw, ‘Alexander Luria—Life, Research and Contribution to Neuroscience’, International Journal of Neuropsychotherapy, 1, 2 (2013), 47–55.
- 18.
Luria, Making of Mind, p. 188.
- 19.
Though the book does not discuss interpersonal relationships between the individuals with whom he worked in any detail, by de-emphasising Luria as an individual I hope implicitly to acknowledge the collaborative nature of his research, which saw him devising and conducting experiments collectively, even though his publications tended to be sole-authored. Treating Luria as a solitary genius also risks downplaying one of the most distinctive elements of Soviet psychology: the prominent role allotted to women. Collaboration is the main lens through which Anna Stetsenko has interpreted Luria and Vygotsky’s working practices. See, for example, Anna Stetsenko and Ivan Arievitch, ‘Vygotskian Collaborative Project of Social Transformation: History, Politics, and Practice in Knowledge Construction’, The International Journal of Critical Psychology, 12, 4 (2004), 58–80.
- 20.
Homskaya, p. 1.
- 21.
Though people Luria conducted experiments with may have ended up being classified as such and often belonged to demographics who routinely were, the term ‘marginalised’ here does not intend to imply official forms of disenfranchisement discussed by Golfo Alexopoulos, ‘the millions who were deprived of their rights in the Stalin era and known as the lishentsy, a Russian word which literally means “the deprived” but is often translated as “the disenfranchised”’. Golfo Alexopoulos, Stalin’s Outcasts: Aliens, Citizens, and the Soviet State, 1926–1936 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003), p. 1.
- 22.
Luria, The Nature of Human Conflicts or Emotion, Conflict and Will: An Objective Study of Disorganisation and Control of Human Behaviour, trans. by W. Horsley Gantt (New York, NY: Liveright, 1932), p. 109.
- 23.
A.R. Luria, Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations, trans. by Martin Lopez-Morillas and Lynn Solotaroff (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), p. 6.
- 24.
On Vygotsky, see, for example, Alexei Kozulin, Vygotsky: A Biography of Ideas (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), René van der Veer and Jaan Valsiner, Understanding Vygotsky: A Quest for Synthesis (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991). And more recently: René van der Veer and Anton Yasnitsky eds., Revisionist Revolution in Vygotsky Studies (London: Routledge, 2016) and Anton Yasnitsky, Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography (London: Routledge, 2016). For an example of the meticulous philological approach common in analyses of Vygotsky’s work, see E. Zavershneva, ‘Issledovanie rukopisi L.S. Vygotskogo “Istoricheskii smysl psikhologicheskogo krizisa”’ [An investigation of the manuscript of L.S. Vygotsky’s ‘Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology’], Voprosy psikhologii, 6 (2009), 119–137.
- 25.
Letter from Jerome Bruner to Joan Simon, 26 January 1995. London, Institute of Education (IOE), Brian Simon Papers, DC/SIM/2/10. Only three of the 21 essays in a recent collection on ‘cultural-historical psychology’ are explicitly concerned with Luria’s work and only one of those three considers Luria in isolation from Vygotsky. See Anton Yasnitsky, René van der Veer and Michel Ferrari eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Cultural-historical Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).
- 26.
Luria to Sacks, July 19, 1973, Oliver Sacks Archives, Oliver Sacks Foundation, New York City (transliteration modified for consistency).
- 27.
See, for example, the dedication to Vygotsky in A.R. Luria, Higher Cortical Functions in Man, trans. by Basil Haigh (London: Tavistock Publications, 1966).
- 28.
See, for example, Lev Vygotsky, The Psychology of Art, trans. by Scripta Technica, Inc. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971) and ‘The Historical Meaning of The Crisis in Psychology’ in The Collected Works of Lev Vygotsky, vol. 3, ed. by Robert W. Rieber and Jeffrey Wollock, trans. by René van der Veer (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1997), pp. 233–343.
- 29.
See, for example, Carl Ratner and Daniele Nunes Henrique Silva eds., Vygotsky and Marx: Towards a Marxist Psychology (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2017) or Maria Chehonadskih, ‘Soviet Epistemologies and the Materialist Ontology of Poor Life: Andrei Platonov, Alexander Bogdanov and Lev Vygotsky’, PhD, Kingston University, 2017.
- 30.
David Joravsky, Russian Psychology: A Critical History (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), pp. 246–248.
- 31.
More amusingly he also objected to being hailed as a ‘great’ Soviet psychologist stating bluntly: ‘My work is of average value, and no more’. Luria to Sacks, September 1, 1974, Oliver Sacks Archives, Oliver Sacks Foundation, New York City.
- 32.
David Joravsky, ‘A Great Soviet Psychologist’, New York Review of Books, May 16, 1974, pp. 22–25, p. 23.
- 33.
Following the insights of Michel Foucault’s ‘Lives of Infamous Men’, I have sought in Luria’s scientific publications glimmers of ‘lives whose disarray and relentless energy one senses beneath the stone-smooth words’. Foucault intended to assemble a collection of moments when obscure people suddenly seemed to leap out from dry archival documents whose historical function was to control them; he hoped to register moments of textual dissonance where official language was disturbed, ruffled or interrupted by ‘wild intensities’ that provided a peek into the ordinarily unrecorded ‘quotidian elements of existence’. Michel Foucault, ‘Lives of Infamous Men’ in Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, vol. III, ed. by James D. Faubian, trans. by Robert Hurley et al. (New York, NY: New Press, 2001), pp. 157–175, p. 158, p. 170, p. 175. I discuss this essay in more detail in Hannah Proctor, ‘History from Within: Identity and Interiority’, Historical Materialism, 26, 2 (2018), 75–95.
- 34.
See Svetlana Boym and Marina Mogilner, ‘Kak Sdelana “Sovetskaia Sub’etivnost”?’ [How is “Soviet Subjectivity” Made?], Ab Imperio, 3 (2002), 285–296 and Anna Krylova, ‘The Tenacious Liberal Subject in Soviet Studies’, Kritika, 1, 1 (2000), 119–146. On the tendency of historians to rely on assumptions about psychology without acknowledging the provenance or underpinning of those assumptions, which have histories of their own, see Peter Gay, Freud for Historians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).
- 35.
Boris Groys, ‘Privatizations/Psychologizations’ in History Becomes Form: Moscow Conceptualism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010), pp. 57–68, p. 58.
- 36.
Groys, ‘Privatizations’, p. 59.
- 37.
Wladimir Velminski, Homo Sovieticus: Brain Waves, Mind Control, and Telepathic Destiny (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017). I discuss this book in more detail in Hannah Proctor, ‘Book Review: Homo Sovieticus’, History of the Human Sciences, September 5, 2017, https://www.histhum.com/413/.
- 38.
Oliver Sacks, ‘The Mind of AR Luria’, The Listener, June 28, 1973, pp. 870–873, p. 871.
- 39.
Luria to Sacks, July 19, 1973, Oliver Sacks Archives, Oliver Sacks Foundation, New York City.
- 40.
‘A.R. Luria, Soviet Psychologist, 75; A Pioneer in Studies of the Brain’, New York Times, August 17, 1977, p. 12.
- 41.
Loren R. Graham, What Have We Learned About Science and Technology from the Russian Experience? (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), pp. 5–8.
- 42.
See ‘Professor A. R. Luria’, The Times, September 5, 1977, p. 14. See also, Oliver Zangwill, ‘Professor A. R. Luria’, The Times, September 9, 1977, p. 16.
- 43.
See Daniel P. Todes, Ivan Pavlov: A Russian Life in Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) and Benjamin Zajicek, ‘Scientific Psychiatry in Stalin’s Soviet Union: The Politics of Modern Medicine and the Struggle to Define ‘Pavlovian’ Psychiatry, 1939–1953’, PhD thesis, University of Chicago, 2009.
- 44.
In his first letter to Oliver Sacks Luria took issue with Sacks’ claim in a review article on Luria that he studied with Pavlov: ‘I never was a pupil of Pavlov, and never studied under him, as a matter of fact I met Pavlov twice in my life—both times for a very short time—no more than half an hour.’ Luria to Sacks, July 19, 1973, Oliver Sacks Archives, Oliver Sacks Foundation, New York City. On a trip to the USSR in 1958 (not long after the ‘Pavlovian Sessions’) the American psychiatrist Henry Murray recalled Luria being scathing about Pavlov’s work, saying: ‘Pavlov’s concepts are not adequate to account for the neurodynamics of man though they are all right for animals.’ Henry A. Murray Papers, Harvard University Archives, Miscellaneous Personal Papers and Biographical Notes, 1902–1988, Box 5, Memories of Places visited, USSR, 1958, p. 3.
- 45.
Joseph Wortis, Soviet Psychiatry (Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1950), pp. x–xi. See also: Artur V. Petrovsky, Psychology in the Soviet Union: A Historical Outline, trans. by Lilia Nakhapetyan (Moscow: Progress, 1990), p. 362. This characterisation is also borne out by more recent scholarship, see, for example: Eugene Raikhel and Dörte Bemme, ‘Postsocialism, the psy-ences and mental health’, Transcultural Psychiatry, 53, 2 (2016), 151–175 and Sarah Marks and Mat Savelli eds., Psychiatry in Communist Europe (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).
- 46.
See, Alexei Yurchak, Everything Was Forever, Until It was No More: The Last Soviet Generation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006). Jochen Hellbeck similarly challenges such hermeneutic approaches by stating that a ‘division between inner striving and outward compliance no longer suffices to understand the self-transformative and self-awakening power of Soviet revolutionary ideology’. Jochen Hellbeck, Revolution on My Mind: Writing a Diary Under Stalin (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 11. Also, for part of this trend in scholarship on Soviet subjectivity, see Igal Halfin, Terror in My Soul: Communist Autobiographies on Trial (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003).
- 47.
Christina Kiaer, ‘Was Socialist Realism Forced Labour? The Case of Aleksandr Deineka in the 1930s’, Oxford Art Journal, 28, 3 (2005), 323–334, p. 323.
- 48.
For overviews of Soviet psychology stretching back to the Cold War era, see Raymond Bauer, The New Man in Soviet Psychology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952), David Joravsky, Russian Psychology: A Critical History (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), Alex Kozulin, Psychology in Utopia: Toward a Social History of Soviet Psychology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984), Matza, Shock Therapy, pp. 37–65, John Mcleish, Soviet Psychology: History, Theory, Content (London: Methuen, 1975), A.V. Petrovskii, Psikhologiia v rossii: XX Vek [Psychology in Russia: Twentieth Century] (Moscow: Izd-vo URAO, 2000) and Joseph Wortis, Soviet Psychiatry (Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1950).
- 49.
Walter Benjamin, ‘Moscow’, Selected Writings, vol. 2, ed. by Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eland and Gary Smith, trans. by Rodney Livingstone et al. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005), pp. 22–46, p. 28.
- 50.
Maria Gough’s, The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005), p. 1.
- 51.
Nikolai Chuzhak, ‘Under the Banner of Life-Building (An Attempt to Understand the Art of Today)’ trans. by Christina Lodder, Art in Translation, 1, 1 (2009), 119–151, p. 143. Originally published in Lef, 1 (1923), 12–39.
- 52.
T.J. Clark, Farewell to an Idea: Episodes in the History of Modernism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999), p. 297.
- 53.
Nikolai Krementsov, Stalinist Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 258. The infamous case of the Soviet geneticist Trofim Lysenko historically functioned as the paradigmatic example of the detrimental impact of an explicitly ideological approach to nature (see Dominique Lecourt, Proletarian Science?: The Case of Lysenko (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1977) and Ethan Pollock, ‘From Partiinost’ to Nauchnost’ and Not Quite Back Again: Revisiting the Lessons of the Lysenko Affair’, Slavic Review, 68, 1 (2009), 95–115). Discussions of the pathologisation and imprisonment of dissidents in psychiatric institutions that emerged in the 1960s dominated Western representations of Soviet psychological practices in the Cold War era (see, e.g., Sidney Bloch and Peter Reddaway, Russia’s Political Hospitals: The Abuse of Psychiatry in the Soviet Union [London: Victor Gollancz, 1977]). This scandal tended to cast the USSR as a uniquely punitive and oppressive state rather than considering parallels with contemporaneous psychiatric practices in the West or considering psychological developments in the Soviet context that did not participate in those repressive programmes. The literature on the political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union is very large, see, for example: A.S. Prokopenko, Bezumnaia psikhiatriia: Sekretnye materialy o primenenii v SSSR psikhiatrii v karatel’nykh tseliakh (Moscow: Sovershenno sekretno, 1997), Rebecca Reich, State of Madness: Psychiatry, Literature and Dissent After Stalin (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2018) and Theresa C. Smith and Thomas A. Oleszczuk, No Asylum: State Psychiatric Repression in the Former USSR (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1996).
- 54.
Kiaer, p. 324.
- 55.
Levitin, p. 40.
- 56.
These episodes are succinctly recounted in, Eugenia Kuzoleva and J.P. Das, ‘Some Facts from the Biography of A.R. Luria’, Neuropsychology Review, 9, 1 (1999), 53–56. Levitin claims that during the Doctor’s Plot Luria kept a suitcase packed in case he was arrested and reports that his colleague Homskaya resigned her position in Luria’s laboratory when concerns were raised by authorities about the number of Jewish doctors employed there, Levitin, ‘Epilogue: Luria’s Psychological Symphony’, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 36, 6 (1998), 33–62, p. 39. For a review of literature on the ‘Doctor’s Plot’, see: David Brandenberger, ‘Stalin’s Last Crime? Recent Scholarship on Postwar Soviet Antisemitism and the Doctor’s Plot’, Kritika, 6, 1 (2005), 187–204.
- 57.
On intellectual exchange across the iron curtain (and between different Eastern bloc countries), see Sarah Marks and Mat Savelli, ‘Communist Europe and Transnational Psychiatry’ in Psychiatry in Communist Europe (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), pp. 1–26.
- 58.
Horace Kallen to Luria, February 20, 1958. Cincinnati, OH, American Jewish Archives (AJA), Horace Kallen Papers, MS-1, Box 19, Folder 18.
- 59.
‘O pedologicheskikh izvrashcheniiakh v sisteme narkomprosov (4 iiulia 1936 goda)’ in KPSS v rezoliutsiiakh i resheniiakh s”ezdov, konferentsii i plenumov TsK, vol. 6 (Moscow: Politizdat, 1985), pp. 364–367, translated as ‘On Pedological Distortions in the Commissariats of Education. A Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union July 4, 1936’, in Joseph Wortis, Soviet Psychiatry, pp. 242–245.
- 60.
Levitin, p. 43. See also Akhutina, p. 6 and A.A. Leontiev, ‘The Life and Creative Path of A.N. Leontiev’, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43, 3 (2005), 8–69.
- 61.
Levitin, pp. 41–42.
- 62.
Luria to Wolfgang Köhler, March 6, 1932, Philadelphia, PA, American Philosophical Society (APS), Wolfgang Köhler Papers, Mss.B.K815.
- 63.
Homskaya, p. 125.
- 64.
A.R. Luria, ‘A.R. Luria’ in A History of Psychology in Autobiography, vol. 6, ed. by Gardner Lindzey (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 253–292, p. 255.
- 65.
See, for example, Luria to Bruner, December 20, 1969 and Luria to Bruner, May 26, 1976, HUA, HUG 4242.5, Box 88.
- 66.
Anna Krylova persuasively claims that since the Cold War era historians’ conclusions about Soviet subjectivity might be understood in terms of their divergent interpretations of the relationship between the state and the individual, the official and the unofficial, the public and the private, the sincere and the cynical; despite differences in emphasis (relating to political persuasion etc.) she claims that these binaries remain consistent.
- 67.
Luria’s archives in Moscow—including papers at Moscow State University and his private family archives—remain uncatalogued. Although they have been consulted by various scholars, an in-depth exploration of their contents remains to be published.
- 68.
Works that have informed my methodological approach to reading case histories and other social scientific or medical documents against the grain include: Saidiya Hartman, Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments: Intimate Histories of Social Upheaval (New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2019), Rebecca Lemov, Database of Dreams: The Lost Quest to Catalog Humanity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015) and Edith Sheffer, Asperger’s Children: The Origins of Autism in Nazi Germany (New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2018).
- 69.
Much of the recent secondary literature on Vygotsky consists of careful philological reconstruction aimed at restoring the integrity of his original works and rectifying distortions that arose when his work was edited and translated. In this book I have opted to take Luria’s existing publications at face value as I am less interested in intentions than in effects.
- 70.
Luria outlines the form of ‘syndrome analysis’, fundamental to neuropsychology, that also lay at the foundations of ‘the psychology of personality’ explored in his romantic case histories in ‘A.R. Luria’, History of Psychology in Autobiography, p. 285.
- 71.
Luria, Making of Mind, p. 174.
- 72.
John Forrester, ‘If p, then what? Thinking in cases’, History of the Human Sciences, 9, 3 (1996), 1–25, p. 10.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Proctor, H. (2020). Introduction. In: Psychologies in Revolution. Mental Health in Historical Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35028-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35028-4_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-35027-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-35028-4
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)