Part I Conclusion: Experimental psychology between two poles 48
4.2 Lewin in the early role conflict between epistemology and experimentation (1911–1921) . 52
Lewin started his academic career in the 1911. Back then, philosophy and natural sciences were institu-tionally intertwined and most students in German universities enjoyed a humanistic education (Bildung)–
interdisciplinary training including classes in philosophy and psychology as well as in natural science.
Against this background, Lewin got a cross-disciplinary education in medicine, botany, physics before he committed himself to a doctorate with Stumpf in 1911.174
As mentioned earlier, in the pre-war years psychology experienced a significant turn towards applied research, which resulted in an “emancipating turn” away from philosophy and towards a self-positioning as an experimental domain. During the war, Stumpf’s Psychological Institut was as dedicated to ex-perimental practice as most other psychological laboratories with adjusted equipment; methodological accuracy as well as quantifiable experimental results were highest priority. Against the background of the hardening academic split and the starting professionalization of experimental psychology, young scholars found themselves in need to specify their intellectual belonging either to the philosophical or to the experimental domain.
Given this, with the beginning of his doctorate Kurt Lewin had to (temporarily) say goodbye to multi-disciplinary scholarship and to commit himself to a unimulti-disciplinary career path. By choosing the super-vision of the experimentalist Stumpf instead of for instance the neo-Kantian philosopher Alois Riehl, he assumed a position in the camp of the experimentalists. This work shows that despite all, both Lewin’s doctoral dissertation and hisHabilitationwork represented attempts to overcome this reinforced frame of a narrow specialization. In both works Lewin tried to integrate interdisciplinary impulses and to cre-ate an epistemological framework complementing his experimental investigation. Lewin’s approach to scholarly work in which a sophisticated epistemological framework has a directive function regarding the experimental research (more Chapter 7) originates from this apprenticeship period.
173Much of Lewin’s professional achievements in the American years was can be traced back to his German work. On continuity and change in Lewin’s carrier see also [Ash, 1992, Sokal, 1984].
174Cf. HUA, Phil. Fac., dissertation file no. 576, sheet 153.
4.2.1 The doctorate: Stick to experimentation!
In 1911, Lewin signed up for a doctorate under Carl Stumpf’s supervision.175 On 20 August 1914, he ended up submitting a work entitled “Die Erziehung der Versuchsperson zur richtigen Selbstbeobach-tung”, for the peer reviewing by Stumpf and Riehl.176 The work was concerned with questions of experi-mental procedures and tried to improve techniques of self-observation in experiments with probands. In reaction to that the two reviewers suggested a revision of the dissertation emphasizing that the candi-date needed to deliver a detailed report on his technical improvements of the experimental apparatus.
Stumpf’s survey states:
“Nun ist diese Arbeit aber nur ein Pazergon zu einer nicht eingereichten, aber meines Wis-sens nahezu fertigen experimentell-psychologischen Untersuchung über die Bedingungen der Assoziation, mit der der Verfasser seit mehreren Jahren beschäftigt ist. Von dieser Arbeit habe ich einen Auszug gesehen, der gute Hoffnungen erweckt. Auch technisch hat sich Herr Levin bei Verbesserungen von Apparaten mehrfach bewährt. Ich möchte daher empfehlen, ihn zuweilen zur mündlichen Prüfung zuzulassen unter der Voraussetzung, dass er später eine dieser Arbeiten in befriedigender Form vorlegt” (C. Stumpf, 29 Aug. 1914).177
The mentioned apparatus improved by Lewin is supposedly a “self-timing memory device” that automat-ically adjusting the presentation speed to the speed of probands’ reactions and a “counting chronogra-pher” that allowed for a continuos measurement of time during the whole experiment.178
The second reviewer Alois Riehl added that the candidate’s work lacked precision.
“Nun könnte zwar, was der Verf. in der vorliegenden Schrift unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Er-ziehung der Versuchsperson zur richtigen Selbstbeobachtung entwickelt sehr wohl selbstän-diges wissenschaftliches Interesse erwecken; allein die Art der Darstellung in ihrer selbst-gefälligen Breite, und der öfters zu bemerkende Mangel an Exaktheit der vorgeschlagenen Fragemethode mindert wesentlich das an sich Verdienstliche der Arbeit des Candidaten” (A.
Riehl, 1 Sept. 1914).179
Nevertheless, Lewin was invited to pass his doctoral exam on 9 September 1914, in terms of a then-common “fast procedure” (Schnellpromotion) before leaving for the front. Upon his return to Berlin in 1916, Lewin submitted a detailed report the reviewers pressured him for. This contained the results of his experimental series verifying Narziss Ach’s association law entitledDie psychische Tätigkeit bei der Hemmung von Willensvorgängen und das Grundgesetz der Assoziation(published in 1917). The work represents an experimental refutation of a then-popular theory of memory and thought. In his influential workÜber den Willensakt und das Temperament (1910) the Würzburg psychologist Narziss Ach had suggested that "determining tendencies" stimulated by an experimenter’s instruction inhibit the subjects’
habit to recall associative connections they had learned earlier. The resulting delay in carrying out the instruction would, thus, be a measure of employed will power (we elaborate on this in Chapter 6). Lewin re-constructed the experiment in which Ach asked observers to learn lengthy series of meaningless syllables, then instructing them either to reverse or rhyme the syllables. Lewin’s prediction was that they would either take longer to complete the "heterogeneous" second task or give wrong answers.
Yet, the surprising result was that there generally was no "inhibitive delay," and only a few errors. As the predicted effects failed to occur even under optimal conditions, Lewin argued that an underlying psychical construct — anintentionintroduced through the experimenter’s instruction – was responsible for the subject’s conduct.180
175Wittmann was the first to reconstruct Lewin’s doctorate procedure; cf. [Wittmann, 1998, 152-155]. After the revision of source material we shall give a summarized and slightly corrected account of this in order to ensure a more sensitive understanding of Lewin’s ensuing career.
176Cf. HUA, Phil. Fac., dissertation file no. 576, sheet 153.
177HUA, Phil. Fac., dissertation file no. 576, sheet 154f. Survey by C. Stumpf, 29 Aug. 1914.
178These are described in later publications. Cf. [Lewin, 1922a, 198f.].
179HUA, Phil. Fac., dissertation file no. 576, sheet 153. Survey by A. Riehl, 1 Sept. 1914.
180See [Ach, 1910b] and [Lewin, 1917].
Both reviewers welcomed the submission of experimental data and approved of the dissertation. Stumpf commented as follows: “Die Versuchsanordnungen sind sehr scharfsinnig und umsichtig erdacht, die Versuche mit grösster Sorgfalt durchgeführt. Der Vf. schliesst daran genauere Bestimmungen über den Begriff der Übung und des Lernens”.181 Lewin’s included reflections on epistemological problems re-mained largely disregarded. Finally, on 15 December 1916, the doctorate procedure was finalized under the signatures of Stumpf, Riehl and Norden, the dean of the Philosophical Faculty.182
This short survey shows that Lewin had troubles to obtain his degree with overly meta-theoretical work.
Instead, a convincing doctoral work had to testify the candidate’s mastery of precise experimental work, and to demonstrate his know-how in designing and conducting psychological experiments. The lack of methodological mastery earned Lewin reproach at first and its demonstration yielded him praise and recognition at the second try.
4.2.2 TheHabilitation: In no man’s land
In August 1918, Lewin was severely wounded and spent over eight months in a hospital recuperating before his discharge from military service.183 Upon his return to Berlin he completed a large monograph entitled “Der Typus der genetischen Reihen in Physik, organismischer Biologie und Entwicklungsge-schichte” ,which he submitted in late 1919 or early 1920 hoping to obtain hisHabilitationand thevenia legendi,i.e. the right to teach, at the Philosophical Faculty of the Kaiser Wilhelm University of Berlin.184 Theoeuvrewas published in 1922 with minor changes, including the title now switched to“Der Begriff der Genese in Physik, Biologie und Entwicklungsgeschichte”.185
TheHabilitationpaper is the first elaboration of Lewin’s comparative theory of science. The paper ad-dresses the challenge of the constitution of scientific disciplines. Lewin argues that this can be achieved only through a systematic examination and reconsideration of basic categories of a discipline. While each science constitutes a closed unit of systematically connected concepts separated from another sciences by a specific logic of construction, concepts of one scientific discipline need to be integrated in one joint system, all other concepts have to be excluded.186
In his original survey of 28 January 1920, Stumpf seemed rather reserved but sympathetic with the candidate’s approach:
“Rein formell betrachtet zeichnet sich die umfangreiche Arbeit, die man ihrer allgemeinsten Tendenz nach auch als einen Beitrag zur allgemeinen Verhältnislehre bezeichnen kann, je-denfalls durch Streben nach Gründlichkeit und Genauigkeit des Denkens aus... Vorausge-setzt, daß die physikalischen und biologischen Fachmänner der Kommission keine wesent-lichen Einwendungen zu erheben finden, mochte ich die Zulassung des Kandidaten [...] zu den weiteren Habilitationsstadien empfehlen” (C. Stumpf).187
In the next step an interdisciplinary committee received the task to evaluate Lewin’s work. Besides the psychologist Carl Stumpf the committee was composed of a botanist, a physicist, a zoologist and two philosophers.188 Already on 27 March 1920, the ongoing Habilitation procedure came to an abrupt end.
181C. Stumpf’s survey, 8.11.1916.
182Cf. HUA, Phil. Fac., no. 576, sheet 158f.
183Cf. [Lewin, 1992b].
184Cf. HUA, Phil. Fac., file no. 1237, sheet 133f.
The GermanHabilitationprocedure consisted of (1) the submission of a dissertation to be judged by expert readers, (2) the review of the candidate’s abilities by a committee appointed by the faculty, (3) the giving of a non-public lecture before the faculty (Probevorlesung), (4) the granting of the teaching right; cf. [Métraux, 1992, 375].
185The Concept of Genesis in Physics, Biology and Evolution, published in 1922, displays only minor deviations from the originally submittedHabilitationpaper; cf. [Métraux, 1983, 18].
186Cf. [Lewin, 1983a]; for a more detailed discussion of this paper see Chapter 5.
187HUA, file no. 1237, sheet 134. Survey by C. Stumpf, 28 January 1920. The emphasis is mine.
188One will find more information on the committee members and their statements in Métraux’s publications. He describes Lewin’s Habilitationprocedure in the introduction to the 2nd volume of theKurt Lewin Werkausgabe. See in German [Métraux, 1983, 18-25] and a short version in English [Métraux, 1992, 374-7]. I further re-sketch the issues relevant to the here presented argument.
Stumpf asked the faculty to cancel theHabilitationas none of his colleagues seemed to find that Lewin’s monograph significantly contributed to the advancement of a natural scientific discipline since in any case the greater part of the submitted monograph dealt with purely philosophical (i.e. non-scientific) matters, as one committee member, the physicist Heinrich Rubens, remarked.
"A monograph submitted to obtain theHabilitationin natural philosophy should provide cer-tain stimulating ideas for natural scientists, but none of the colleagues has mentioned any-thing of value in this respect, and I myself had to express some considerable reservations"
(C. Stumpf).189
It seems that the cross-disciplinary character of Lewin’sHabilitationpaper created an academic situation in which Lewin found himself in no man’s land. Although his work was concerned with the constitution of theories in two natural scientific disciplines, physics and biology, and approached these with an analytic method he attributed to philosophy, both parties did not perceive the work as explicitly belonging to their discipline nor could they determine its concrete experimental or practical value. The strong disciplinary divide existing at that time between the faculties of philosophy and natural science hindered the appre-ciation of borderline work of that kind; a work that did not explicitly demarcate its belonging nor respect the “rules of coexistence” of the disciplines.190
On 28 June 1920, Lewin re-applied forHabilitationwith a series of texts relying on experimental psycho-logical investigations,Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum Grundgesetz der Assoziation, which was an extension of his doctoral dissertation.191 This time Stumpf stated:
The work "on the experimental investigation into the fundamental law of association is an extended version of the doctoral dissertation.It is quantitatively extensive, qualitatively exact and as daring in its aims as it is careful in the performance of the experiments. The author achieves nothing less than the refutation of the fundamental law of associationism [and]
replaces this law [. . .] with the fact of the training of skills. He concludes with developing a theory of training and learning" (C. Stumpf, 10 October 1920).192
Although Stumpf’s appraisal was in parts an exaggeration,193 once the candidate demonstrated neat experimental skills, and a self-positioning at the side of exact science was thus accomplished, the faculty voted unanimously in favor of Lewin’sHabilitation.
As one can see, despite Lewin’s efforts to combine the epistemological and experimental approach he both times found himself in the need to present an explicitly experimental work. While the mastery of concrete methodological skills had to be demonstrated its epistemological implications did not evoke interest. As a matter of fact, Lewin’s research approach relying on the integration of various method-ologies and disciplinary styles opposed the predominant academic reality in which science tended to become more and more independent from the philosophical influence. In the course of his apprentice-ship this mainstream frame rather hindered him in evolving the own research vision. Lewin was forced to (temporarily) align himself to the existing horizon of expectations of the prevailing academic system.
Yet, soon after hisHabilitationhe found a niche that promised the liberty to develop his meta-conception of scholarship. The niche was the heart of Gestalt movement established at the Psychological Institute in Berlin directed by W. Köhler since 1921/22.
189“Da man von einer naturphilosophischen Habil[itations]schrift verlangen muß, daß auch die Naturforscher selbst gewisse Anregungen darin finden, keiner der HH [=Herren] Kollegen aber etwas Verdienstliches in dieser Beziehung erwähnt, und da ich ohnedies selbst nicht unerhebliche Ausstellungen zu machen hatte...” (HUA, file no. 1237, sheet 134. Survey by C. Stumpf).
190Cf. also [Métraux, 1983, 21f.].
191The work was published in 1922, in two volumes of thePsychologische Forschungunder the title "Das Problem der Willens-messung und das Grundgesetz der Assoziation". Cf. [Lewin, 1922a] and [Lewin, 1922b].
192Die Arbeit “ist eine Erweiterung seiner Dissertation,quantitativ umfangreich, qualitativ exakt durchgeführt, ebenso kühn in ihren Zielen wie umsichtlich in der Anordnung der Versuche. Es handelt sich um nichts Geringeres als [um] die Umstoßung des allgemeinen Assoziationsgesetzes... Vf. [= Verfasser] setzt an Stelle des Assoziationsgesetzes in seiner obigen [. . . ] Form die Tatsache der Übung von Tätigkeiten und schließt mit einer Theorie der Übung und des Lernens” (HUA, file no. 1237, sheet 138f.
Stumpf, 10 October 1920. The emphasis is mine.)
193Métraux remarks that Lewin’s refutation of associationism was anything but innovative—Otto Selz had already done this in his book on productive thinking in 1913. See [Selz, 1913]; cf. [Métraux, 1992, 376f.] and [Métraux and Herrmann, 1991].