Hagner M
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.
Sci Context. 2001 Dec;14(4):541-63. doi: 10.1017/s0269889701000242.
The cerebral localization of mental functions is one of the centerpieces of modern brain research. Though the localization paradigm in its cultural and social interwovenness has been characterized as successful in the last third of the nineteenth century by a variety of historians of the neurosciences, there is also general agreement that localization came under threat around 1900. Besides the so-called holistic protest against the localization of mental functions, the neuroanatomical approach itself was challenged by experimental psychology, psychiatric nosology, and psychoanalysis. This story underestimates the fact that anatomically-based localization remained powerful in response to these multiple challenges. This meant a neuroanatomical revision of tools, concepts, and practices. But this meant also a shift in the cultivation of the cortex from a more philosophical agenda to rather concrete political claims. More specifically, the idea of the cortext as the noblest part of man was supplemented by suggestions concerning its "Höherzüchtung." I will analyze this re-orientation and radicalization in two steps. First, I briefly discuss the anatomical and philosophical account of Theodor Meynert and then turn to Paul Flechsig who in the late nineteenth century inscribed the ability to create culture and civilization into the cortext. Second, I focus on the neuroanatomists Oskar and Cécile Vogt, who began their careers around 1900 and expanded the cultivation of the cortext. Even before World War I, they proclaimed a "cerebral hygiene." Consequently, the Vogts linked their innovative neuroanatomical researches with the rising field of genetics, racial hygiene, and eugenics. In the early Weimar Republic, the Vogts openly supported socialist ideas and were engaged in establishing an Institute for Brain Research in Soviet Moscow, where Lenin's brain was analyzed. By the end of the Weimar Republic, the rhetoric of the Vogts was bluntly authoritarian. Based on a few anatomical examinations of so-called elite brains and the brains of criminals, they made concrete suggestions for eugenics and the breeding of "one-sidedly gifted leaders." Given the remarkable popularity of the Vogts around 1930, their program is an important example of the hubris of predicting and guiding future developments on the basis of scientific authority. It can be regarded as an ironic nemesis that the Vogts - never sympathizing with the political aims of the National Socialists - were forced to finish their careers as influential Kaiser Wilhelm scientists in Nazi-Germany.
心理功能的脑定位是现代脑研究的核心内容之一。尽管神经科学的诸多历史学家认为,在19世纪最后三分之一的时间里,与文化和社会紧密交织的定位范式是成功的,但人们也普遍认为,大约在1900年左右,定位受到了威胁。除了对心理功能定位的所谓整体论抗议之外,神经解剖学方法本身也受到了实验心理学、精神病学分类学和精神分析学的挑战。这个故事低估了这样一个事实,即基于解剖学的定位在应对这些多重挑战时仍然很有影响力。这意味着对工具、概念和实践进行神经解剖学上的修订。但这也意味着皮层培养从一个更具哲学性的议程转向了相当具体的政治主张。更具体地说,关于皮层“高级培育”的建议补充了皮层是人类最高贵部分的观点。我将分两步分析这种重新定位和激进化。首先,我简要讨论西奥多·迈内特的解剖学和哲学观点,然后转向保罗·弗莱施西格,他在19世纪后期将创造文化和文明的能力铭刻在皮层之中。其次,我关注神经解剖学家奥斯卡和塞西尔·沃格特,他们在1900年左右开始职业生涯,并扩展了皮层培养的研究。甚至在第一次世界大战之前,他们就宣扬“脑卫生”。因此,沃格特夫妇将他们创新的神经解剖学研究与新兴的遗传学、种族卫生学和优生学领域联系起来。在魏玛共和国早期,沃格特夫妇公开支持社会主义思想,并参与在苏联莫斯科建立一个脑研究所,在那里对列宁的大脑进行了分析。到魏玛共和国末期,沃格特夫妇的言辞变得公然独裁。基于对所谓精英大脑和罪犯大脑的一些解剖检查,他们为优生学和培育“片面有天赋的领导者”提出了具体建议。鉴于20世纪30年代左右沃格特夫妇的显著知名度,他们的计划是一个基于科学权威预测和指导未来发展的傲慢的重要例子。具有讽刺意味的是,沃格特夫妇——从不认同纳粹党的政治目标——却被迫在纳粹德国以有影响力的威廉皇帝科学家的身份结束他们的职业生涯。