INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 40 (6), 395–406

The project of an International Congress of Psychology

by J. Ochorowicz (1881)

Serge Nicolas Hedvig Söderlund

CNRS UMR 8581, Université René Descartes Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest Centre for
(Paris V) and EPHE, Boulogne-Billancourt, Geriatric Care, Toronto, Canada
France

S ince the second part of the 19th century, there has been a great increase in the number of international
scientific congresses, and they appear a necessary step in the maturation of knowledge. The first person to
explicitly suggest the necessity of an international congress of psychology was Julian Ochorowicz (1850–1917),
who was considered the founder of Polish psychology. In 1881 he sent an article to Théodule Ribot, editor of
Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, entitled ‘‘Project of an International Congress of Psychology,’’
which was published in Ribot’s journal. In it he described the dispersed state of psychology in 1881 and the
previous 50 years, including 12 subdisciplines ranging from psychophysics to the psychology of art, and how it
should aim for unification. He suggested collective efforts to progress rapidly, with widespread collaboration and
the continuous exchange of observations, information, and experiments. Having international congresses would
constitute a forum for such exchanges, and in his article he outlined the steps that should be taken for putting
together the first international congress of psychology. The proposal was quite extensive and fanciful, making
Ribot somewhat doubt its realizability. Nevertheless, the first international psychology congress took place in
Paris in 1889, 8 years after the publication of Ochorowicz’s article. This quick development could be attributed to
the creation of the psychology societies, one of the first being La Société de Psychologie Physiologique, which was
created in France in 1885. The creation of this society also contributed to psychology being recognized as a
scientific domain. In line with this, the final programme of the congress was less extensive than that proposed in
Ochorowicz’s article, focusing on physiological aspects and ignoring the philosophical ones. In the present paper,
the historical context of Ochorowicz’s article is outlined, followed by a translation of his article.

A u cours de la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle, les congrès scientifiques internationaux se sont multipliés; ils
apparaissaient comme une étape nécessaire dans la maturation du savoir. La première personne qui a
explicitement proposé la nécessité d’un congrès international de psychologie fut Julian Ochorowicz (1850–1917),
considéré comme le fondateur de la psychologie polonaise. En 1881, il envoie un article à Théodule Ribot,
directeur de la « Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger », ayant pour titre « Projet d’un congrès
international de psychologie » qui fut publié dans le journal de Ribot. Dans l’article, il décrit la psychologie en
1881 et son état de dispersion depuis une cinquantaine d’années, comprenant 12 sous-disciplines allant de la
psychophysique à la psychologie de l’art, et propose des solutions pour son unification. Il suggère une prise de
conscience collective pour avancer rapidement, avec des collaborations et des échanges continus d’observations,
d’informations et d’expériences. Les congrès internationaux constitueraient un forum pour ce genre d’échanges.
De plus, dans l’article, il décrit les étapes nécessaires pour mettre en place le premier congrès international de
psychologie. La proposition était très large et un peu utopique, ce qui a rendu Ribot un peu sceptique sur la
possibilité de réaliser une telle manifestation. Néanmoins, le premier congrès international de psychologie se tint à
Paris en 1889, 8 ans après la publication de l’article d’Ochorowicz. Ce développement rapide peut certainement
être attribué à la création des sociétés de psychologie. Une des premières d’entre elles, la Société de psychologie
physiologique, fut créée en France en 1885. La création de cette société contribua aussi à ce que la psychologie
soit reconnue dans le domaine scientifique. En lien avec cela, le programme final du congrès fut plus restrictif que
celui proposé dans l’article d’Ochorowicz puisqu’il fut centré sur les aspects physiologiques de la psychologie en

Correspondence should be addressed to Serge Nicolas, Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale, CNRS UMR 8581, Université
René Descartes (Paris V) and EPHE, 71, avenue Edouard Vaillant, 92774 Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex, France (E-mail: nicolas@
psycho.univ-paris5.fr).
We are grateful to Ben Dyson for editing the English of this paper.
# 2005 International Union of Psychological Science
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/00207594.html DOI: 10.1080/00207590444000375
 396 NICOLAS AND SÖDERLUND

laissant de côté les aspects philosophiques. Cet article contient la traduction du texte d’Ochorowicz et est précédé
par une description du contexte historique de sa publication.

D esde la segunda mitad del siglo 19, el número de congresos internacionales cientı́ficos ha aumento, lo que
parece un paso necesario para la maduración del conocimiento. La primera persona que sugirió
explı́citamente la necesidad de un congreso de psicologı́a fue Julian Ochorowicz (1850–1917), considerado el
fundador de la psicologı́a polaca. En 1881 envió un artı́culo a Théodule Ribot, editor del Revue Philosophique de
la France et de l’Étranger, titulado ‘Project of an International Congress of Psychology’ que Ribot publicó en su
revista. En él describı́a el estado disperso de la psicologı́a en 1881 y los 50 años previos, lo que incluye doce
subdisciplinas que abarcan de la psicofı́sica a la psicologı́a del arte, y cómo debe aspirar a la unificación. Él
sugirió el esfuerzo colectivo para progresar rápidamente, con la colaboración amplia y el intercambio continuo de
observaciones, información y experimentos. El congreso constituirı́a un foro para tales intercambios, y en este
artı́culo delineó los pasos que debı́an seguirse para organizar el primer congreso internacional de psicologı́a. La
propuesta era extensa y ambiciosa, lo que hizo dudar a Ribot de su viabilidad. No obstante, el primer congreso
internacional de psicologı́a se llevó a cabo en Parı́s en 1889, ocho años después de la publicación del artı́culo de
Ochorowicz. Este rápido desarrollo podrı́a atribuirse a la creación de las sociedades cientı́ficas, de las cuales una
de las primeras fue La Société de Psychologie Physiologique creada en Francia en 1885. La creación de esta
sociedad también contribuyó a la psicologı́a al reconocerse como un dominio cientı́fico. Dentro de este contexto,
el programa final del congreso fue menos extenso que el propuesto en el artı́culo de Ochorowicz, al concentrarse
en los aspectos fisiológicos e ignorar los filosóficos. En el presente trabajo, se delinea el contexto histórico del
artı́culo de Ochorowicz, seguido de una traducción de su artı́culo.

INTRODUCTION: FROM THE WHIMSICAL 1992). It was his interest in the latter that
PROJECT OF JULIAN OCHOROWICZ TO THE explained his work in fields such as hypnosis, as
ORGANIZATION OF THE FIRST well as metapsychic and occult phenomena.
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF In 1881 he sent an article to Théodule
PSYCHOLOGY Ribot (1839–1916; for a biography, see
Nicolas & Murray, 1999) entitled ‘‘Project of
Since the second part of the 19th century, there has an International Congress of Psychology’’
been a great increase in the number of interna- (Ochorowicz, 1881). This article was published in
tional scientific congresses. For as long as scientific the Revue Philosophique de la France et de
fields have constructed their own history, con- l’Etranger (founded by Ribot in 1876), but his
gresses have appeared as a necessary step in the project appeared fanciful to most people, first and
process of the maturation of knowledge. Two foremost to the editor of the journal (Ribot, 1889):
general characteristics of international congresses ‘‘Eight years ago, in 1881, one of the members
during the second half of the 19th century have of this meeting sent me, from Lemberg, a full
been listed (Rasmussen, 1990): (1) the major programme for the International Congress of
organizing role played by the scientific societies; Physiological Psychology. At the time, it seemed
(2) the impetus given by Great Exhibitions. to me both extremely seductive, and yet at the
The first person to explicitly suggest the same time something of a fantasy. In any case, I
necessity of an international congress of psycho- was quick to publish this appeal that our colleague
logy was Julian Ochorowicz (1850–1917; for a had addressed to the community of psychologists,
biography, see Domanski, 2003), who was con- hoping that it would eventually bear fruit.’’
sidered to be the founder of Polish psychology. It At that time there were many disciplines that
seems fair to introduce him here, even if he has not sheltered under the umbrella of psychology, and
otherwise left his mark on the history of psycho- psychologists came from diverse fields: there were
logy. Julian Ochorowicz was a neurologist who physiological psychologists, psychiatric psycholo-
obtained his PhD in Leipzig in 1874; in 1880 he gists, medical psychologists, and psychologists of
took the position of privat-docent at the Polish philosophy; other psychologists were interested
university of Jan Kazimmierz in Lemberg (the in occult phenomena, telepathy, clairvoyance,
German name of the Ukranian town of Lvov that etc. This lack of unity in psychology explained
was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire). Ribot’s misgivings about Ochorowicz’s suggestion.
According to Nuttin (1992), he taught a psycho- However, the reasons that Ochorowicz (1881) gave
logy that combined the principles of Wundt and for the creation of an international congress were
French psychopathology (Misiak, 1984, in Nuttin, very relevant. He pointed out that psychology had
 PROJECT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS (1881) 397

changed a great deal in 50 years, and that it was fables, an inventor, a future plane pilot and the
getting closer to the natural sciences. He suggested first metapsychist.’’ He had hoped to give scientific
that it would require collective effort to progress status to occult and supranormal phenomena, as
rapidly, with widespread collaboration, and the Charcot had given scientific status to hypnotism.
continuous exchange of observations, information, Richet thought that the congress could be held
and experiments. He insisted on the necessity for during the famous Great Exhibition of 1889, and
mutual knowledge and respect as this was the best precipitated the congress by convincing the new
way to lay to rest polemics that were often just Society of Physiological Psychology. This Great
misunderstandings and confusions of terminology. Exhibition was organized to celebrate the centen-
The programme was extensive; the entire field of ary of the French revolution, and the historical
psychology was covered: general psychology, context was one of competition and reprisal after
physiological and pathological psychology, animal the defeat by Germany in 1871. It was important
psychology, the psychology of art, the psychology for France to appear full of vitality, novelty, and
of history, psychophysics, ethology, etc., and all ingenuity for the occasion. This had been achieved
their associated histories. It may have been the with several technical projects, including the
very breadth of the programme that was at first prestigious Eiffel tower, but also with many
alarming, but also seductive, to Ribot. It was clear scientific projects such as the development of
that such a congress could be very helpful, but congresses. Richet, who was at that time vice-
there were doubts as to whether it was practically president of the new Society of Physiological
possible, and the importance of the task was such Psychology, suggested to the others members that
that it was daunting. Nevertheless, Ribot knew they should organize the first International
that such a congress would eventually occur. If he Congress of Psychology. It was described as
had thought that the idea itself was absurd he physiological, emphasizing the scientific aspects
would not have published Ochorowicz’s article. and avoiding the philosophical ones. After obtain-
Despite Ribot’s doubts, the first International ing the hard-won agreement of the members of the
Congress of Psychology took place in Paris a few society, a committee for the organization of the
years later (1889). In his opening talk, Ribot congress was set up with Jean-Martin Charcot,
admitted in front of his distinguished audience and the undisputed head of neuropsychiatry in France,
Ochorowicz himself: ‘‘I was not expecting such a as its president. But the programme that was
rapid fruition: I blame myself for not having had established for the first International Congress was
enough faith.’’ What are the factors that explain less ambitious than the one proposed by
this rapid fruition? As Nuttin noted (1992), the Ochorowicz (see Nicolas & Meunier, 2002).
main factor is surely the creation of the psychology The role of the Sociétés Savantes was central for
societies. They formed the technical infrastructure the Congress of 1889 and the subsequent con-
that was needed to organize a congress of this gresses. Without this group of people, whose
importance. In 1885, in France, the Society opinions covered all areas, regular meetings of
for Physiological Psychology (La Société de the Congress would not have been possible. The
Psychologie Physiologique) had been started and impetus given by the Great Exhibitions was also
this paved the way for the official creation of a important for the first Congress of Psychology.
psychology based on experiments, inaugurated by These efforts illustrate the desire of the French
Théodule Ribot’s chair (1888) at the Collège de political establishment to promote the organiza-
France (Nicolas & Charvillat, 2001). Among other tion of congresses during the Great Exhibition.
things, it also paved the way for the organization Indeed, more than half of the congresses in 1889
of the first International Congress of Psychology. had their first meeting during the Great
The society was founded under the auspices of Exhibition, with the International Psychology
Théodule Ribot and Jean-Martin Charcot, whose Congress being just one of them. This first
interests were to dominate the tone of the work international meeting in 1889 in Paris was very
conducted by the society. This society was without important in the history of the institutionalization
doubt the first step in the recognition of psychol- of scientific psychology because it was, alongside
ogy as a scientific domain. At the end of 1888, lectures, journals, and laboratories, one of the
Charles Richet (1850–1935), the physiologist, major factors that promoted the field. The history
future winner of the Nobel Prize (1913), and of international congresses has been discussed in a
famous investigator of spiritualism, took up the variety of articles (Claparède, 1929; Montoro,
ideas of Ochorowicz. Piéron (1954) says of him Carpintero, & Tortosa, 1983; Montoro, Tortosa,
that ‘‘he was at the same time an eminent disciple & Carpintero, 1992; Piéron, 1954), and for details
of Claude Bernard, a poet, a dramatist, a maker of on the origins of the first International Congress,
 398 NICOLAS AND SÖDERLUND

the posthumous publications of Joseph Nuttin THE PROJECT OF AN INTERNATIONAL

(1992) are clearly the most comprehensive (see also CONGRESS OF PSYCHOLOGY1,2
Nicolas & Meunier, 2002).
Manuscript received March 2004 Psychology has ceased to be a philosophical
Revised manuscript accepted September 2004
science. Even though this is now a well-known
fact, only few philosophers want to declare it out
REFERENCES loud. It could therefore be called ‘‘the public
Claparède, E. (1929). Esquisse historique des Congrès
secret’’ of contemporary philosophy.
Internationaux de Psychologie. Proceedings and Wolff, the systematic successor of Leibniz,
papers of the IXth International Congress of should be considered the departure point of this
Psychology. Princeton, NH: The Psychological progressive emancipation. He had the good idea to
Review Company. divide his metaphysical psychology into psycholo-
Domanski, C. W. (2003). Julian Ochorowicz (1850–
1917) et son apport dans le développement de la gia empirica and psychologia rationalis (1710), and
psychologie du XIXe siècle. Psychologie et Histoire, this would soon have important consequences. It
4, 101–114. can even be said that it had larger effects during
Montoro, L., Carpintero, H., & Tortosa, F. (1983). Los Wolff’s time than in the beginning of our century.
origenes de los congresos internationales de psicolo-
His ‘‘disciple’’ Bilfinger (1725) already saw quite
gia. Revista de Historia de la Psicologia, 4, 43–57.
Montoro, L., Tortosa, F., & Carpintero, H. (1992). Brief clearly the shortcomings of psychology at that
history of international congresses of psychology time. He no longer considered it to be a completed
(1889–1960). In M. Richelle & H. Carpintero (Eds.), system, but rather a science to create, and he
Contributions to the history of the international sincerely complained about it; quam paucæ sint
congresses of psychology (pp. 75–89). Valencia,
Spain: Revista de Historia de la Psicologia observationes, quam nulla fere experientia!…
Monographs. Once this division of psychology had been
Nicolas, S., & Charvillat, A. (2001). Introducing acknowledged, the strangeness of its position
psychology as an academic discipline in France: started to become apparent, which was between
Théodule Ribot and the Collège de France (1888–
1901). Journal of the History of the Behavioral
ontology, general cosmology, and theology. The
Sciences, 37, 143–164. discipline was put hither and thither, but an
Nicolas, S., & Meunier, F. (2002). The causes, course appropriate and definitive place for it could not
and consequences of the first international psycho- be found. In line with this, Crusius and Daries
logy congress stand in Paris in 1889. Teorie & made it a part of logic. Dalham and Heutsch, and
Modelli, 7, 19–40.
Nicolas, S., & Murray, D. J. (1999). Théodule Ribot Bonnet and Robinet (following the example of
(1839–1916), founder of French psychology: A Locke and the ancients) brought it close to
biographical introduction. History of Psychology, 2, physics. Casmann, Winkler, Sperling and Zeisold
277–301. gave it a position in anthropology, whereas
Nuttin, J. R. (1992). Les premiers congrès internatio-
naux de psychologie. In M. Richelle & H. Carpintero Schönfeld (1764) positioned it among the natural
(Eds.), Contributions to the history of the international sciences. Others, yet, persisted in considering it a
congresses of psychology (pp. 7–74). Valencia, Spain: branch of metaphysics.
Revista de Historia de la Psicologia Monographs. However, the improvement of former psychol-
Ochorowicz, J. (1881). Projet d’un Congrès
ogy had started. Bilfinger admitted that the old
International de Psychologie. Revue Philosophique
de la France et de l’Étranger, 12, 1–17. doctrine de commercio animi et corporis could be
Piéron, H. (1954). Histoire succinte des congrès inter- eliminated from psychology. In Reucsh’s opinion
nationaux de psychologie. L’Année Psychologique, (1754), the rational part of psychology should be
54, 397–405. considerably reduced since its hypothetical char-
Rasmussen, A. (1990). Jalons pour une histoire des
congrès internationaux au XIXe siècle: Régulation acter was too pronounced. Dalham (1756)
scientifique et propagande intellectuelle. Relations dreamed of a xat’ ejoxgn psychology, which
Internationales, 62, 115–133. would no longer deal with metaphysical mysteries
Ribot, Th. (1889). Discours prononcé à l’ouverture du concerning the union of body and soul, but whose
Congrès international de psychologie physiologique
(Paris, 1889): La psychologie physiologique en 1889.
1
Revue Scientifique, 44, 177–178. Translation of Ochorowicz, J. (1881). Projet d’un Congrès
Stachowski, R. (1992). Julian Ochorowicz’s (1850–1917) International de Psychologie. Revue Philosophique de la France
law of reversibility and its relevance to the mind- et de l’Étranger, 12, 1–17 (translator’s note).
2
body problem. In H. Carpintero, E. Lafuente, R. Plas Mr Ochorowicz, professor at the University of Lemberg, has
& L. Sprung (Eds.), New studies in the history of sent us this piece of work which he has written in our language
psychology and the social sciences (pp. 275–280). (French, translator’s note). We are particularly happy to
Valencia, Spain: Revista de Historia de la publish it since we have already heard of similar projects being
Psicologia Monographs 2. presented by various persons (editor’s note).
 PROJECT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS (1881) 399

efforts would focus exclusively on the investigation France, Romagnosi in Italy, and Suiadecki3 in
of phenomena of understanding. To him, this was Poland represented this intermediary epoch,
how a unity of opinions could be possible. Finally, especially Herbart. He is the one that should be
Krüger (1756) even dared to omit the chapters on put in the lead of this epoch. First, for the
the essence and immortality of the soul from remarkable importance of his work in psychol-
psychology, ‘‘because,’’ he said, ‘‘experiments do ogy, and then for the perhaps slow but yet
not tell us anything about it.’’ Moreover, it was also decisive influence he had on his compatriots.
Krüger, in his Versuch einer Experimentalseelenlehre They were the least willing to be disillusioned by
(1756), who introduced the medical experiment into the old speculative procedures. The very title of
the science of the soul, which was, according to his his main book is a good indicator of that time’s
expression, subject of ‘‘immense gaps.’’ aspirations, as well as of this change of ideas
Hence, one can see that in the very middle of the which was both unexpected and insufficient, and
18th century, in this romantic and warm Sturm- which had just taken place in the stifling atmo-
und Drang-Period, one was quite close to modem sphere of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. This
requirements. Unfortunately, these were intuitions change announced itself as a ray of light, which
and instinctive aspirations rather than conscious would soon end up dispersing the darkness:
and mature convictions. Being premature, they ‘‘Psychology as a science renovated on the basis
remained sterile. It was only a century later that of experiments, metaphysics and mathematics’’
the xat’ ejoxgn psychology, which had been (1825). This is what you could call prodigal. ‘‘On
perceived by Delham and Krüger, was born in the basis of experiments,’’ good, this is what we
the works of Spencer (1855) and Bain (1855–59). need. ‘‘Metaphysics?’’ We have had enough of
What was done during this whole century? A this one; it has made its way around the world
beautiful dream was dreamt about things in and psychology has nothing more to ask from it.
themselves. It was probably a surprising and ‘‘Mathematics?…’’ Why not? But unfortunately,
splendid scene, this succession of bold systems,
this idea was too precocious for 1825. In short,
evoked by Kant, which took place in front of the
we see a two-sided reform, with one side watch-
eyes of a tired audience who had had enough of
ing the past and the other aiming at the future.
the revolutionary disruptions of the 18th century.
This is, however, a rule of evolution. Progress is
A revolution took place there as well, but it was a
accomplished slowly, and ideas are only carried
revolution from beyond the grave. There was a
out part by part. Do we not, even in our day, see
transcendent renewal with a rebirth and realiza-
prehistorical philosophy join the most beautiful
tion of all the metaphysical aspirations from the
discoveries of modern science, in the spirit of
past, this whole religion of the unknowable, which
Lotze, Fechner, or Hartmann?… What is certain,
had its methods, I was going to say its language; its
though, is that the idols of substantialist meta-
axioms, that is, its entities, and it had its own
world, where the absolute governs in peace. physics will decrease in number for every day that
The modest science of psychic phenomena had goes by, and that the empirical method, on the
not played any part in this magnificent representa- contrary, will gain ground. One must go all the
tion. It was disgraced by the philosophers, it was way to Halle in order to hear Professor Erdmann
invaded by the waves of transcendentalism, and say that the purely empirical way to treat
the teaching of it in schools was limited. The psychology (die bloss empirische Behandlung),
French sensualists’ doctrine, which after all was used since the second half of the 18th century,
only a doctrine and not a science, was demolished ‘‘deprived it more and more from its scientifical
by the reaction. The associationist theory of the character!… 4’’ Fortunately for science, Leipzig is
Scots was forgotten or misunderstood, at least on rather close to Halle, and Fechner, Wundt, and
the continent, and again one took the habit of Drobisch exist in order to deny such a heresy.
confounding empirical and rational psychology.
An indigestible mix was made of the two, and then 3
Jean Suiadecki, mathematician and psychologist (1756–
a whole generation in the beginning of our century 1830), the most radical of quoted philosophers, and a resolute
was nourished with it. enemy of metaphysics in psychology, considered a ‘‘science of
In certain aspects, 1825 constituted an ideal psychic phenomena.’’ In his general ideas, he was a precursor of
limit, a moment of transition, where an equilibrium Auguste Comte. His major work, Philosophie de l’entendement
of two opposed tendencies was created. Here, the humain (1822), contains, among other things, a remarkable
chapter on the experimental genesis of all mathematical
reformative ideas elaborated by the 18th century conceptions.
met the metaphysical habits of the past. Herbart 4
J.-E. Erdmann. Grundriss der Psychologie. Leipzig, 1873,
in Germany, James Mill in England, Jouffroy in p. 1.
 400 NICOLAS AND SÖDERLUND

It is now 1881. Bain, Spencer, Wundt, Taine, was already The Observers of Mankind Society in
and others have shown us what an exact psychol- Paris. Its aim was to organize and unify anthro-
ogy is: It is based on observation and experiments, pological observations made in different loca-
and it accumulates facts and looks for rules. tions of the world. Gérando published his
Psychological literature has quickly progressed. A ‘‘Considerations of different methods used for
multitude of monographs, articles, and notes fill observation of savage people8’’ for this society’s
our libraries and journals. Psychology govern the members. Finally, in 1821, Suiadecki claimed with
universities with sovereign power, and ‘‘the time is ardour and decisiveness that it was about time
coming when one will be psychologist only, in the once and for all to end the eternal debates of
same way that one is exclusively a physicist, philosophical sects, and to constitute a unique
chemist or physiologist5.’’ I would even say: ‘‘If psychological science, unaware of conflicts
you look attentively at recent work in psychophy- between the systems…
sics, physiological psychology, psychiatry, forensic Almost a century has passed since this took
psychology, pedagogy, comparative psychology of place. The same conditions are waiting to be
animals, races, and nations, ethology, or person- fulfilled, the same voices are heard9, and the same
ality psychology, etc., etc., a conclusion can soon need for unity is sensed. The only difference is that
be drawn: In 50 years from now, it will be now it is sensed more generally, that is has become
impossible for one person alone to embrace all clearer, more eager, and that its realization now is
these branches, and each of them will have its own possible, which was not the case in 1800.
specialists!6’’ It would be superfluous trying to show that
This is the product of unavoidable progress. But philosophical psychology has made no step toward
if it is the case that psychology starts to have the unity. One could even claim that it has only
specialists, if the work will be divided, and if the managed to specify and multiply the differences.
individual observations will overflow, what have Do we not see, even in our days, herbartian,
we done to give it another equally essential hegelian, krausian, etc. systems of psychology
condition, a condition sine qua non of the progress, being taught here and there, ruling each other
namely the unity of research? The truth is that we out? But what is the point of recalling old
have not done anything. And still this question has phantoms who will, sooner or later, die from
been imposed on science for a long time. Already exhaustion, and who will leave the heritage of the
at the end of the last century and at the beginning few empirical and analytical truths they have in
of ours, sound minds that were not infatuated with common to a unique positive psychology? Even in
verbal speculations of transcendentalism managed the domain of scientific psychology, or rather what
to perceive this default and tried to find a way to is about to become scientific psychology, there is a
get rid of it. A Norwegian priest, Schönfeld7, was total divergence in individual efforts in spite of a
struck by the prevailing discordance between the fundamental unity of methods (acknowledged
psychology of Descartes, Locke, Wolff, Drusius, even if not practised). There is often an even
and Helvetius, and he invited the scientific larger disagreement there than in the manuals of
societies to proceed for unification. In 1772, metaphysics in the middle of the last century.
Ulrich, professor in Iéna, renounced the introduc- Because of the total absence of any kind of work
tion of psychology within his system since, he said, organization and a lack of close relations between
it was not yet established. He also thought it would scientists from different countries, the same
be beyond his capacity to use all the observations discoveries are made 10 times with long intervals
scattered in the works of doctors and in academi- between them. Or else, there are complaints about
cal theses. Nevertheless, this was his goal when he gaps that have actually been filled long ago in a
gathered and put together the index of a neighbouring country, where they unfortunately
‘‘Psychological Library.’’ In 1785, Charles use a rather unknown language. Psychophysical
Moritz, a dreamer passionate about the science laws are often discussed, but psychophysical
of the soul, created the first psychological journal: experiments are not replicated. Those who in fact
Magazin zur Erfahrungsseelenkunde. In 1800, there do disagree about the methodological details, or
use different methods, make it so that it is
5
Th. Ribot, La psychologie allemande contemporaine, Paris,
8
1879, p. XXVI. F.-A. Carus, Geschichte der Psychologie, Leipzig, 1808,
6
J. Ochorowicz, Poyadanki i spostrzezenia. Wrazsawa, 1879, p. 757.
9
p. 312. See the article of Lewes in Mind, 1876, nu2; the introductions
7
D. N. Schönfeld. Anweisung zur Kenntniss seiner Selbst, etc. by Mr. Ribot; the foreword by Mr. Brentano in his Psychologie
Bütrow, 1764. vom empirischen Standpunkte, 1874, etc.
 PROJECT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS (1881) 401

impossible to unify the results. As for methods of Bergmann14 will answer no, Jessen15 yes; in
internal observation, they are hardly even con- France, Bouillier16 will answer no, Colsenet17
sidered. If you want to know the entire literature yes; in Russia, Troicki18 will answer no,
on a specific topic, you must go through all Uschinski19 yes … and so on.
countries’ general catalogues since there is no Where does this international confusion come
complete catalogue devoted exclusively to psychol- from? Only from the fact that there is no unity in
ogy. But all these destitutions are still nothing terminology, that everyone uses the word accord-
compared to the primitive chaos governing the ing to the meaning that suits him or her. Mill gives
terminology. The simplest and most used terms are us evidence of this. He hardly contests the
employed in the most diverse circumstances. For existence of unconscious states, but he attributes
example, the word sensation is used to designate them to the nerves and not to the mind. From a
external or internal stimuli, or else the physical phenomenist point of view, this is obviously only a
state of a nerve, the psychic state of the brain, a matter of terminology.
feeling, an idea, a quality of the body, some of the Here is another example: Is it possible to perceive
conscious psychic processes, only in superior several impressions or imagine several representa-
animals or in all animals, and sometimes it even tions at the same time? Bain, Wundt, Morell,
includes plants… This is not how they proceed in Horwicz, etc., say no. Volkmann, Helmholtz,
physics! What would you think of a physicist for Lotze, Lange, and Bonatelli20 say yes. There are
whom the word temperature, for example, would even scientists who maintain both positions at the
not only be a term designating the quantity of heat same time. Drossbach21, for example, makes us
which acts on a thermometer, but who could also acknowledge (p. 119) the necessity of a simulta-
use it for designating phenomena of latent heat neous consciousness of several perceptions (‘‘in
and of specific heat, etc.? … And yet, this is how einem Zeitmomente zugleich’’), while he, a few
we proceed in psychology. pages further on (p. 240), maintains an absolute
There is not a single word that is used in the impossibility of such simultaneousness (‘‘nie meh-
same, precise, and defined way by all positivist rere zugleich’’). The cause of the confusion remains
psychologists. It is also common that the same the same, that is, the total absence of an exact and
author, even among the most distinguished ones, generally acknowledged definition: What one
gives us examples of striking indecision. If, for means by a perception, and where the composed
example, one wants to know what modem representation starts. It is not something inacces-
psychology means by the word consciousness, sible to the human mind to know whether the
Bain says in the first edition of Senses and Intellect image of a man on a horse contains one
that it is a ‘‘synonym of the feeling,’’ and, in the representation or two. One only has to agree
second, that he prefers to use it for expressing ‘‘at about it, that is all22.
one and the same time our objective and subjective Other examples: With respect to their intensity,
states…’’ Does he want to include all these states? are the minimum sensations pleasant or painful?
We can not know this, since, on one hand, in According to Wundt’s curve they are pleasant,
Mental and Moral science10 and in his Logique11, according to Horwicz they are painful, and for
he seems to admit that it is ‘‘a term which most other psychologists they are only indiffer-
represents all states of the feeling subject (all ent… Of course this is no longer a question of
sentient states)’’, whereas on the other hand, in the terminology: One can not agree on calling what is
Appendix of Senses and Intellect, he says that painful pleasant, as has been possible when
‘‘consciousness does not necessarily follow the
intellectual operations.’’ If this is the case with 15
Bain, what can we think of the others? And can Physiol. d. mensch. Denkens, 1872, p. 59 etc.
16
De la conscience en psych. et en morale, 1872, p. 60 and
you be surprised when you are convinced that, in others.
front of a fundamental question: Are there 17
La vie inconsciente de l’esprit, 1880.
18
unconscious mental operations?, in England, J. St Author of a big piece of work in Russian on the German
Mill12 will answer no, Morell13 yes; in Germany, psychology of the XIXth century (1867).
19
In his Russian work on German psychology, published in
1871.
10 20
Edition of 1875, p. 93 of the Appendix. La coscienza e il meccanesimo interiore. Padova, 1872, p. 87.
11 21
Book V, ch. v. Die Genesis des Bewusstseins, 1860.
12 22
An exam. of s. W. Ham. Phil., ch. VIII and IX. It is still improper usage that makes the word idea
13
An introd. to mental phil., part. 1, ch. III. sometimes a representation (Vorstellung) and sometimes a
14
Grundlinien e. theorie des Bewusstseins, 1870, p. 35 conception (Begriff). This results in inconveniences and even in
continued. contradictions.
 402 NICOLAS AND SÖDERLUND

comparing what is simple to what is composite. attention. If we do not want to waste our time and
But this is always a consequence of lacking unity delay progress, we should, for the moment, protect
for the accumulation of facts necessary for a strict ourselves from this tendency to construct original
and uniform induction. When elaborating their systems that cover everything but explain little.
general ideas, Horwicz thought of a certain group Once this restraint has been put into practice we
of sensations, whereas Wundt was inspired by will probably have fewer inventors, but certainly
others. And since there is no truly complete more inventions.
classification of all minimum sensations (which I may be accused of imposing too strong ties on
can only be done through collaboration of several the free outbursts of thought, and of condemning
observers), disagreement persists. wide and profound philosophical hypotheses …
The same confusion, if not bigger, is found when But in this there are two facts of nature to
it comes to a general classification of all psychic distinguish. First, there are the conditions for
phenomena. If a reader who is unfamiliar with progress of a hardly born science, a science of facts
psychology is to read the best manuals of and induction. Then there are the justified but
this ‘‘experimental’’ science, like those by Bain, premature pretensions of a possible science, a
Spencer, Wundt, Brentano, Volkmann, and science of reasoning and deduction. There is
Carpenter, such great differences will be found in physics and physical philosophy. The first one
the arrangement of topics, in their preponderance hardly deals with too large and too profound
on each other, and in the general method itself, questions: It only generalizes experiments. The
that he or she will think of it as six different latter deals with the rest: questions such as
sciences rather than six compendiums of one single atomicity, the nature of molecules, the unity of
science. forces, laws of universe’s equilibrium, the actual
However, this reproach should not be misunder- essence of force; in short, it consists of everything
stood. Psychology has progressed, and it is in this
that is above direct experimentation.
very progress that one of the determining causes of
There is zoology and zoological philosophy. One
the disagreement that checks us can be discovered.
is restricted to observation, description, and
This phenomenon is observed everywhere, but
natural classification, whereas the other is con-
nowhere to this extent, and there is no reason for it
cerned with problems of the origin of beings,
to be permanent. Progress is not a synonym of
spontaneous generation, laws of transformation,
disorder, and order will take place provided that
relations with the surrounding environment, gen-
we contribute to it.
eral realms of creation, etc.; that is, everything
This need for unity can be sensed, but in order
beyond the limits of specific observation.
to satisfy it, proceedings are made in an individual
manner, which is too hasty and not very scientific. In the same way there is psychology. This science
Through speculation, one single fundamental and is descriptive like zoology, and at the same time
typical fact is pursued to thereafter infer all the explicative like physics, but it is nevertheless
others. This is how various psychological systems exclusively empirical. There may be a philosophi-
with a personal imprint were born. It goes without cal science that presumes the other one, and it
saying that since these systems are arbitrary, they could suitably be called philosophical psychology.
do not match. If you ask which is the primitive and It is here that solutions of general questions would
fundamental process of psychic life, Wundt will belong, questions such as the origin of psychic life,
say that it is reasoning, Horwicz that it is the its gradual evolution in the hierarchy of beings, the
feeling, and Hartmann that it is the will. So here we essence of psychic force, the possible application of
are with an artificial pseudo-unity that is true from laws of correlation between forces and psychic
a certain viewpoint, but false from all the others. phenomena, the fundamental problems of mind
Considering these theories, it is obvious that we and matter, etc.
are in a state very similar to that where general Can this branch of philosophy that has been
biology was at the beginning of our century. It drained by progress be saved? Will it be assured a
was discussed which of two kingdoms preceded more respectable position than that of metaphy-
the other: Were the first living beings plants or sical, or ‘‘rational,’’ psychology? For the moment
animals? ‘‘They were protists,’’ answered Haeckel, there is no other way than to do the following: Not
and he was right. In short, in this artificial worry about it, and, on the other hand, direct and
psychogeny I only see a moderate assembling of concentrate all individual efforts in order to make
old methods and metaphysical systems, which actual psychology progress; that is, specify the
necessarily have traces of individual originality, methods, gather the observations, and slowly
under risk of not being considered worthy of generate general laws.
 PROJECT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS (1881) 403

No one will doubt the fact that no mind, no domain in particular that an agreement between
matter how vigorous, will succeed in creating the scientists is needed, and it would be helpful if the
entire body of a big science alone. Collective work congress could create a ‘‘Methodological manual’’
is necessary. This has already been understood, which would be used as a practical guide for
and it is even practised. However, one thing is psychological research. Such a book, which is
lacking in the best current tendencies: work necessary for the regular procedure of studies, is
organization. lacking. Instead, there is only a continuation of the
Therefore, we have to find a way to achieve it. I former debate between the two general methods—
only see one, and I submit it to the psychologists physiology and introspective psychology. This
for a judgement: through the means of an debate has long been split by practice. There is
international congress. no longer, or at least there should no longer be,
I think this project should be brought about in question of an exclusive use of one of these
the following way. First, a discussion opened by methods. Psychology has not only the right, but
the editorial staff of Revue philosophique could also the duty, to take its fund where it finds it.
clarify the main issues more than I have done here. What remains to be done is to specify the
Then, unless it causes too many objections, we methodological details, the particular methods,
should proceed in a somewhat arbitrary way. I and above all, those that are likely to be applied
would like to impose the charge of a temporary in the domain of internal observation, an area
dictatorship on the editorial staff of the Revue. which is too neglected these days. Only Mr Galton
They should arrange an organization committee, has tried to give it a methodological organiza-
which should discuss practical issues, fix location tion23. And yet, through the unfairly forgotten
and time for the first session, and send out observations of Fechner24, Weisse, Drobisch,
invitations to scientists in all countries. As for Volkmann, Hankel, etc. on internal psychophysics,
the location, one could choose between Paris, and through my own experiments, I am still
London, Brussels, Leipzig, Vienna, and Bologna. completely convinced, in spite of the incredulity
The general rules were conceived on the model of the Revue’s25 honourable director, that internal
of the international congress of anthropology and experimentation is far from impracticable.
prehistorical archaeology, and they will, among Moreover, having announced and recom-
others, contain the following paragraphs: mended the empirical method in psychology for
such a long time, it is time to start using it. It has
1. The congress cannot take place in the same
been said somewhere that the best way to prove
country twice in a row.
the possibility of movement is to walk. So let us try
2. Only those who have applied and who have
to walk, and let the congress light the way.
paid the annual subscription may take part
The section of general psychology will not have
in the congress and have access to its
any trouble in resembling a large number of
publications.
collaborators, since it would be appropriate to
3. Orally presented dissertations, short
invite all of those who acknowledge the experi-
speeches, and reports from the sessions
mental method, without considering their meta-
will be published under the control of a
physical opinions.
commission elected by the assembly.
II. Physiological psychology relies on experi-
4. French is the only language accepted for
mentation in laboratories. The aim of this section
oral presentations and for publication of
will be to assemble and discuss everything that
the report, with exception for special cases.
relates to the physiology of the nervous system. It
5. Metaphysical questions are excluded from
will be one of the big tasks of the congress to attain
all discussions.
a reasoned synthesis of this multitude of experi-
And now, let us go through the main divisions of ments, spread out in medical annals. These are
contemporary psychology to seize the character of rarely useful to psychologists, who are unfamiliar
suitable discussion questions for the Congress. with medicine. Scientists who are both psycholo-
They are neither fewer, nor have less topics than gists and physiologists should accomplish this kind
those of anthropology or prehistorical archeology.
Here they are: 23
See his psychometrical experiments in Brain of 1879; Revue
I. General psychology is mainly based on internal philosophique of 1879, p. 677, and the article of Bain on statistics
of imagination in Mind of this year.
experiments and analyses of common facts. It 24
Fechner, Element der Psychophysik, Leipzig, 1860, XX vol.
embraces all issues of terminology, classification, II, p. 478 and forward.
25
and psychological methodology. It is in this La psychologie allemande contemporaine, p. 19, 20.
 404 NICOLAS AND SÖDERLUND

of report, which, among other things, would have and others), there is only one mental illness
the advantage of considering the weak points of that justifies irresponsibility, namely dementia,
our physiological knowledge and pointing out although we know that there are many other
future directions. forms of insanity that exclude responsibility even
III. Pathological psychology is mainly based on more. Indeed, the Austrian law talks about
psychiatrists’ observations. Nevertheless, it also madness in general, but as a criterion it adds the
contains all the exceptions or abnormalities following expression: ‘‘a madness in which the
observed outside the hospitals, i.e., cases of accused did not know what he was doing’’ (§ 2 of
aphasia, deaf-mutes, microcephalics, people born 1852). However, this formulation does not only
blind, sleepwalkers, hypnotized persons, mediums, exclude the cases of ‘‘folie raisonnante,’’ mono-
etc. Here we should expect the gathering not only mania, and melancholy, but also many cases of
of psychiatrists, but also of doctors, who until now dementia where it would be impossible to prove
have been dealing exclusively with theory. Besides, that the mental patient was unaware of commit-
it is well known how much psychiatry itself suffers ting a crime. Finally, the Russian law (art. 10 of
from the need of scientific agreement to fix the 1875 and others) is cautious to the extreme. Its
nomenclature, and how desirable it is that this main criterion is ‘‘a total loss of consciousness.’’
agreement is made with the knowledge and This obviously reduces the number of crimes
participation of normal psychology. committed by mental patients, and they can
IV. Psychophysics. This part of the congress’ almost be attributed to pure accidents.
work may be among the most instructive ones. Moreover, laws in general do not distinguish
After a convention of methods has been fixed, between the ideas and the feelings of good and
experiments should be undertaken. There will be bad. The difference is very important, as has been
no better occasion than in this assembly of men, perfectly pointed out by Dr Despine.
who are specialized in, or at least familiar with, All these gaps cannot be filled by any project in
scientific procedures. If it is true that psychophy- particular, but it is almost certain that a vote of the
sics has not taken any step forward since 1860, I psychology congress would end up having the legal
am certain it will take several in only one session of corps’ attention.
the congress. VI. Zoological psychology is considered by
It is unnecessary to add that in the name many, not without reason, to be one of the bases
psychophysics I do not only include research of general psychology. Unfortunately, it is still in a
considering the relations between perceptions and childhood state. The numerous observations,
excitations, research made by Fechner, Hering, although mostly superficial, are not lacking.
Delboeuf, etc., but also the experiments made by What is lacking is rather the means of specifying
Wundt, Helmholtz, du Bois Reymond, Donders, them, collecting them, and confronting them to
Exner, and others. These experiments were each other, having agreed on the methods and the
designed to determine the speed of nervous nomenclature. Hence, this would be the task of the
transmission and basic mental operations. One congress, in which not only zoological psycholo-
may hope that even new methods will be applied to gists should take part, but also professional
new questions, for example in order to determine zoologists.
how to measure emotions, the perception of VII. Pedagogical psychology and ethology. No
dimensions, the force of reflex bending, etc. one would doubt pedagogy as only being applied
Finally, the psychophysical work of the congress psychology. However, to hold on to this concep-
should lead to the publication of tables and other tion, it is not enough to edify general psychology
schematic models aimed at popularizing and alone. Special research on children’s mental
multiplying the experiments. development must also be done, as MM. Taine,
V. Forensic psychology. There is much to do in Darwin, Kussmaul, Egger, Perez, Ferri,
this branch of psychology. The Germans Simonowicz, and others have done. The obtained
(Hoffbauer, Heinroth, Friedreich, Willbrand, results should also be applied, in order to establish
Günther, etc.) have mainly elaborated this field, rules of accurate teaching and education. It would
and it is only in the recent work of Kraft-Ebing, be one of the biggest merits of the congress if it
Maudsley, Benedict, etc., that it has taken a more succeeds in modifying the erroneous psychological
positive direction. However, even though this grounds on which the organization of high
young science may not be perfect, today’s criminal schools, and median schools in general, is
laws have not caught up with what forensic based. In these grounds, the psycho-physiological
psychology has already proved. An example will laws are violated on almost every point.
illustrate this. In the French penal code (art. 170 Everywhere there is a dominance of work
 PROJECT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS (1881) 405

overload, a preponderance of formal science over enriched lately, considering the number of authors
concrete science, or else a premature specializa- that have contributed to it: they are Mrs Burgess,
tion. One starts with the abstraction instead of the MM. Burgess, Klasowski27, Carus, Duchenne,
sensation. Proceeding is made servilely by using Lemoine, Gratiolet, Piderit, Harless, Bain,
rules, instead of helping and guiding free develop- Spencer, Darwin, Hecker28, and Hersing29.
ment. Also, too many things are taught, so that IX. Psychology of art, that is, the study of
only few of them are taught well. The education of mental conditions that on one hand determine the
meanings, aesthetic and moral feelings, and production of artistic work, and on the other hand
imagination is completely neglected, and one is determine the aesthetic sensations that it brings
satisfied by forcing the child’s mind to follow a about. It is with this double point of view that
route as narrow and painful as it is distant from psychology is used as the basis of aesthetics. There
life. Generally, in order to learn a thousand is currently an intense movement in this field that
particularities of erudition, one uses twice the time seems to reform past German aesthetics from top
that would be necessary for learning twice as well to bottom.
what should really be learned. However, it would One only has to recall the names of Taine,
be sufficient to recall the acknowledged laws of Dumont, Helmholtz and Brucke, Fechner, Sully,
perception, forming of ideas, memory, and asso- and Grant-Allen. Otherwise, there are distin-
ciation to discover all these shortcomings. This is guished authors in the Slav literature who,
not to say that the congress should resolve the unfortunately, remain unknown to the majority
questions of pure and specialized pedagogy: The of scientists.
only thing in question is a discussion of related X. Psychology of history is intended to replace
main psychological truths. And in order to give the philosophy of history, which is not yet
them more solidity, it would be suitable to add sufficiently founded. As a matter of fact, Vico’s
observations concerning the formation and classi- Scienza nuova was also a psychology of history
fication of characters and temperaments to those rather than a philosophy of history, at least in the
that were quoted. Characterology or ethology sense of Hegel. It is easy to divine that in this name
would hence be a part of the congress’ occupa- I include all the psychological truths concerning
tions. However, it should not be considered in the mankind’s mental evolution, the psychogeny of
sense of J. St. Mill, that is, as a deductive science by science, of art, and of religions, in the way that it
pure application. Instead, it should be an inductive was outlined by Lubbock, Tylor, or Spencer. On
science based on monographs. It is regrettable that the other hand, there is also the ethology of
it is not much studied nowadays, and that no-one nations or the science of national characters,
has pursued the work of Mr Bain, apart from the developed under the name Völkerpsychologie by
pessimistic Characterology of Bahnsen. Steinthal and Lazarus.
VIII. Pathognomony. In this name I include the XI. Mathematical psychology. At present, it has
study of signs exterior to our feelings. This study is only one representative: Mr W. Drobisch, my
very instructive for general psychology, since it honourable professor from Leipzig. There is
enlightens the very essence of our pleasures and therefore little hope of seeing the congress deal
pains. The domain of this research is larger than with it, even though the psychology of mathematics
one usually thinks, since it does not only embrace might be considered.
the expression of temporary feelings (see the XII. Finally, the history of psychology, which is
famous piece of work of Mr Darwin), but also completely abandoned by modern science. There
the more extended expression of pathological are only three manuals of this genre, whose quality
pain26. I do not talk about the third point of view, varies strongly. The one of G. Carus (1808) is a
that of Lavater’s physiognomony, which studies conscientious piece of work rich in details, but the
the stable and usually innate expression of facial exposition stops at the doorstep of our century,
features. It is not sufficiently founded as a science. and it has been standing there ever since. That of
Nevertheless, a few rational propositions are professor Harms (1877) would deserve praise if it
found in it, concerning the union of the physical had been published half a century ago (it is
and the moral, especially as expressed by G. G. sufficient to say that for M. Harms, psychology
Carus in his Symbolik der menschlichen Gestalt is still a metaphysical science, and that for him,
(Leipzig, 1852–8). Pathognomony has been rather
27
Author of a Russian book on la Théorie et la Mimique des
26
See Physiognomonie des malades [Kranken-physiognomo- sentiments, 1849.
28
nik] of Dr Baumgaerther, Stuttgart, 1839, with the atlas of 72 Physiologie Pus. Psychologie de Lachens, 1873.
29
large coloured plates from life. Der Ausdruck der Auges, Stuttgart, 1880.
 406 NICOLAS AND SÖDERLUND

experimental psychology hardly exists). For the opinion would be a benefit for science—in the
current century there is a voluminous essay on the end, the educated audience and those who are
German (and English) psychology by M. Troicki, interested in psychology studies would be engaged
which has been very useful for the Russian to take notice of the daily observations. This
literature. There are also the two well-known would be in accordance with the methodological
volumes by Mr Ribot. These have a desirable indications and the detailed questionnaires worked
counterpart in Philosophie expérimentale en Italie out by the congress. It is only through the means
by Mr Espinas, a book which is very useful, and of such resources that we will succeed in seeing the
that I will only reproach for one thing: a contra- positive science of mental phenomena increase
dictory title. A similar report on French contem- from year to year and move forward, thanks to the
porary psychology is waiting for its author. united efforts of all scientists of all countries. And
When listing the divisions above, I had no it is only by then that we will have the right to
intention whatsoever to suggest that the congress augur the future, in line with the old expression:
should constitute this many different sections. Multi pertransibunt, sed augebitur scientia…
Maybe it will only create one. Obviously this I know quite well that the idea I have just
depends on the number of assistants and their declared may be subject to many objections, like
decisions, and it would therefore be superfluous to any new idea. One can attack the reasons for
deal with it in advance. My aim has only been to the project itself, and the difficulties in carrying
point out the different directions in the immense it out. However, I do not see any serious
domain of psychology research, and to show that obstacle. Besides, it is always important to be a
the congress would neither be lacking issues to little optimistic if you want to be successful with
discuss, or scientists to discuss them. whatever novelty it may be. Let us therefore be
Is it still necessary to insist on the advantages of optimistic, provided that our optimism is not
an international congress? To me they are obvious. passive… Let us go on with the realization of the
First, there is the mutual education of psycho- congress. If it will only do us the favour of
logists. This is an important benefit to hope for, pointing out the weak point of psychology’s
especially since it has become clear that it is not current state, this will be a step forward: A first
possible for one man alone to be equally occupied step towards improvement. It would at least be the
by all questions of psychology. Second, by the best favour one could do to this rejuvenated
means of a congress, it would be easy for science, which has rightly been called the most
psychology to have other specialists participate, beautiful and dignified science of mankind.
that is to tie the bonds that unify psychology with
the other inductive sciences, and to put it in Dr Julian Ochorowicz
harmony with recent discoveries, whatever disci- ‘‘Privat-docent’’ of psychology at the University
pline they belong to. Finally—which in my of Lemberg