Much like Hasok Chang, who has put forward the idea of a history and philosophy of science that functions as 'complementary science,' Strick is interested in the way in which historical knowledge might be useful in uncovering and helping to reinstate forms of scientific knowledge that have been obscured or deliberately left out in the development of scientific disciplines.

James E. Strick, Wilhelm Reich, Biologist. (London: Harvard University Press, 2015). 467pp. ISBN 9780674736092. (hardcover), £31.95 by Matei Iagher  In his biography of Wilhelm Reich (1983), Myron Sharaf began the section on Reich's scientific work with a warning that he did not have the requisite competence to judge this scientific work, and that the existing literature on this aspect of Reich's work was too unreliable to be used  in making a critical assessment. This caveat could be read as a challenge for historians of science, but as the Reich archives only became available in 2007, the task of providing a competent, historical account of Reich's biological work also had to wait. The wait has not been in vain, as with James Strick’s Wilhelm Reich, Biologist we now have a balanced and thoroughly researched account of Reich's experimental work in the 1930s, which is likely to become the standard for any future historical investigation of Reich's work. Outside of a small circle

of researchers and aficionados, Wilhelm Reich's name does not immediately evoke associations with laboratory biological research. Rather, he is much more well-known as a psychotherapist, a psychoanalyst and Freudian dissenter, and above all, as a forefather of  the 1960s sexual revolution and as an intellectual source for later American and European counterculture. Much of the popular image of Reich is, even today, glazed over with an unsavory patina—an echo of the sensationalist reporting that tarnished his reputation in the 1950s, when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also made him the target of a witch hunt (Reich's books were burnt, and he was eventually imprisoned for contempt of court). Part of the aim of Strick's book is to destroy this popular, pseudo-scientific aura that hangs around Reich, by showing that some of his most controversial theories were rooted in serious, cutting edge research. Methodologically, the book draws on an extensive engagement with the Reich archive (his laboratory notebooks, correspondence, research…

History and Philosophy of Science scholars -- most of whom have an undergraduate background in the natural sciences -- are generally instrumental when it comes to sociology: they use the intellectual tools when they need them but tend not to think of the history of those tools as something of interest. When I started my PhD I shared the common HPS assumption that the interesting questions about the relationship between biological and social science are on the biology side. I quickly realised that wasn't true and that the hope and expectation around sociology -- the desire for it to make people's lives better -- was what drove the project forwards

We are delighted that Chris Renwick has joined the editorial team at History of the Human Sciences. Chris is Senior Lecturer in History at the University of York, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society; he is a historian of modern Britain, specialising in the intersections of politics, biology and society during the nineteenth century. His first book, British Sociology's Lost Biological Roots appeared in 2012, and was shortlisted for the Phillip Abrams Memorial prize ; his second, Bread for All, a history of the welfare State, will be published by Penguin in 2017; he is us currently working on a new book on the intellectual origins of social mobility studies in Britain. To mark Chris's cooption onto the editorial team, HHS web editor, Des Fitzgerald, caught up with him for a short interview.   Des Fitzgerald: Chris, as a historian, you work on the intersection of social science, biology, and politics in Britain in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. What first drew you to this area (I guess as a

PhD student?) - and, in particular what made you situate it in a study of the discipline of *sociology* particularly, which of course was the topic of your first book?   Chris Renwick: Practically speaking, I came to work on sociology via my MA dissertation, which I wrote on the Scottish biologist and sociologist Patrick Geddes’ early career. I’d started out my MA with a broad interest in the social dimensions and applications of Darwinism, which I’d acquired through a number of modules I took with Paolo Palladino, Steve Pumfrey, and Peter Harman when I was an undergraduate at Lancaster. To be honest, I can't remember precisely how I got to Geddes. But a good friend of mine was working on Lewis Mumford -- the American social and architectural critic who was Geddes' main, if reluctant, disciple -- so Geddes was part of the intellectual furniture around me for a while. I could easily have carried on…

These essays demonstrate how ‘work’ with its myriad meanings has different significance – treatment, punishment, reform, exploitation, empowerment – within shifting conditions brought about by colonialism, revolution, war, economic change, and new medical ideologies. The collection makes a great temporal and geographical sweep across the entire modern period to the present day, addressing attitudes and praxis in North America, Japan, India, and Western and Eastern Europe.

Waltraud Ernst (ed.), Work, psychiatry and society, c. 1750-2015 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016). ISBN: 978-0-7190-9769-0 (hardback), £75.00. by Louise Hide Given the amount of work that has been produced on labour and economic history on the one hand and asylum history on the other, it is surprising that the two have not been brought together more often. As this excellent volume shows, these sub-disciplines have much to learn from each other because the meanings given to patients’ work and occupation inside institutions have always reflected wider socio-political concerns on the outside. In this volume, Waltraud Ernst has brought together 17 essays with great skill. Together, they demonstrate how ‘work’ with its myriad meanings has different significance – treatment, punishment, reform, exploitation, empowerment – within shifting conditions brought about by colonialism, revolution, war, economic change, and new medical ideologies. The collection makes a great temporal and geographical sweep across the entire modern period to the present day, addressing attitudes

and praxis in North America, Japan, India, and Western and Eastern Europe. The introduction is impressive. Ernst takes her discussion of patient activity back to the Graeco-Roman era before deftly contextualising it within later periods of feudalism and industrialisation, giving due consideration to the influence of socialism, urbanisation, colonialism and migration along the way. Whilst she identifies a number of themes that the volume addresses as a whole, she has organised the essays loosely by geographical region and time period. Generally, this works well. However, the contributions are a little uneven, not only in terms of their word length, but of their content and approach too: some span a century or more offering an overview of changing attitudes, while others make greater use of case studies to draw out more nuanced interpretations. Inevitably, issues around gender, social class and race are drawn out of wider socio-political contexts, as are responses to overarching questions such as how the notion of ‘industriousness’ has…

The purpose of this event was to consider changes wrought in the broad interdisciplinary field of the history of the human sciences by new developments in the medical humanities, biological sciences, and literary/cultural theory.

"The Future of the History of the Human Sciences" - hosted jointly by History of the Human Sciences and Dr Chris Renwick - saw established scholars and early-career researchers gather in York for a two-day meeting in April 2016. The aim was to consider changes wrought in the broad interdisciplinary field of the history of the human sciences by new developments in the medical humanities, biological sciences, and literary/cultural theory. In so doing, these scholars not only marked the beginning of a new era for History of Human Sciences with a new editorial team, led by Felicity Callard, but also give thanks to the outgoing editor, James Good. You can find out more about the conference on its website and in the reports on this blog from those who attended. Thanks to the kind

permission of many of those who took part, we can now also make available recordings of a number of the talks. Abstracts for each talk can be found here. • Roger Smith, “Resisting Neurosciences and Sustaining History” • Steve Fuller, “Kuhn’s Curse and the Crisis of the Human” • Des Fitzgerald, “The commotion of the social” • Maurizio Meloni, “The Social as the Non-Biological: Genealogy and Perspectives” • Jessica Hendy, “Molecular Archives of Human History: Moving Beyond Text-Based Sources” • Michael A. Finn, “Possibilities and Problems with the Growing Archive” • Peter Mandler, “The Language of Social Science in Everyday Life: What it Does, How it Circulates, How to Track it” • Amanda Rees “Biocultural Evolution Then and Now: The Brain in Environmental Context OR Counterfactualising the History of Biology and Sociology”        

Neuroscience and Critique appears in an established genre – but it has significant virtues of its own. Central among these is the sheer breadth of its scholarship: this is a properly interdisciplinary collection, featuring not only philosophers with interests in critical theory and/or psychoanalysis, but also a geographer, an anthropologist and STS scholar, a neuroscientist, and a psychologist, among others. What holds this disparate collection of interests together is a commitment to not only some kind of critical engagement with neuroscience – but also a shared attention to what, precisely, critique can do, even to what critique might be, as it gets more widely entangled in neuro-sciences and neuro-cultures.

Jan De Vos and Ed Pluth (Eds.), Neuroscience and Critique: Exploring the Limits of the Neurological Turn New York and London, Routledge, 2016, 236 pages, hardback £95.00, paperback £31.99, ISBN: 978-1138887350 What is it about neuroscience? Ever since a group of disparate life sciences – partly propelled by ‘the decade of the brain’ in the 1990s – congealed into what we today call ‘neuroscience,' scholars from the humanities and social sciences have been committed, sometimes intensely committed, to a more-or-less sharp critique of this science, and the unspooling of its socio-political effects. Indeed, in recent years, neuroscience has not only been the object of critical scrutiny, but has become something of a whet-stone on which critique sharpens itself – a sort of funhouse mirror for critical social scientists to figure out what it is, exactly, they stand for. What explains this cultural role of neuroscience in the academy? Is it a fear that, in its powerfully reductive hold over

human subjectivity (so it seems, anyway), neuroscience will ultimately stake a claim to all social, cultural, and human insight – an ‘expectation,’ as Jan De Vos and Ed Puth put it in their introduction to Neuroscience and Critique, ‘that the neurosciences will explain it all?’ (p.2). Neuroscience and Critique appears in an established genre – but it has significant virtues of its own. Central among these is the sheer breadth of its scholarship: this is a properly interdisciplinary collection, featuring not only philosophers with interests in critical theory and/or psychoanalysis, but also a geographer, an anthropologist and STS scholar, a neuroscientist, and a psychologist, among others. What holds this disparate collection of interests together is a commitment to not only some kind of critical engagement with neuroscience – but also a shared attention to what, precisely, critique can do, even to what critique might be, as it gets more widely entangled in neuro-sciences and neuro-cultures. At the heart of the book, then, is a…

The July 2016 issue of History of the Human Sciences (Volume 29, Issue 3) is now published. Abstracts of research articles, plus links to the full text, are below. Elwin Hofman (KU Leuven) - 'How to do the history of the self'' The history of the self is a flourishing field. Nevertheless, there are some problems that have proven difficult to overcome, mainly concerning teleology, the universality or particularity of the self and the gap between ideas and experiences of the self. In this article, I make two methodological suggestions to address these issues. First, I propose a ‘queering’ of the self, inspired by recent developments in the history of sexuality. By destabilizing the modern self and writing the histories of its different and paradoxical aspects, we can better attend to continuities and discontinuities in the history of the self and break up the idea of a linear and unitary history. I distinguish 4 overlapping and intersecting axes along which discourses of

the self present themselves: (1) interiority and outer orientation; (2) stability and flexibility; (3) holism and fragmentation; and (4) self-control and dispossession. Second, I propose studying 4 ‘practices of self’ through which the self is created, namely: (1) techniques of self; (2) self-talk; (3) interpreting the self; and (4) regulating practices. Analysing these practices allows one to go beyond debates about experience versus expression, and to recognize that expressions of self are never just expressions, but make up the self itself. Egbert Klautke (University College London) - '"The Germans are beating us at our own game" - American eugenics and the German sterilization law of 1933' This article assesses interactions between American and German eugenicists in the interwar period. It shows the shifting importance and leading roles of German and American eugenicists: while interactions and exchanges between German and American eugenicists in the interwar period were important and significant, it remains difficult to establish direct American influence on Nazi legislation. German experts of…

We were delighted to publish an in-depth review essay by Colin Gordon, on the new Cambridge Foucault Lexicon, in the July 2016 issue of HHS (Gordon is, among other things, an internationally-renowned scholar of Foucault; he is editor of Power/Knowledge [Pantheon] and co-editor of The Foucault Effect [Chicago]). We were even more delighted that when our colleagues at Sage made the essay open access, a status that will be retained through the end of 2016. You can now access the essay, without subscription, here: http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/29/3/91.full.pdf+html 

Perhaps the most shocking part of this book are the stories of what happened to these Jewish psychologists after fascism had fallen during and after World War Two. Unfortunately, as with many other Jews who had been discriminated against or sacked in a variety of sectors, their reintegration and rehabilitation was neither easy nor straightforward. Would these people simply be offered their former jobs back? Some were happy to stay where they were, but others tried to return to Italy. Others appeared lost – nobody seemed to know where they were or what they were doing. Should those who ‘replaced’ these people be themselves sacked or moved on?

Patrizia Guarnieri, Italian Psychology and Jewish Emigration under Fascism. From Florence to Jerusalem and New York New York, Palgrave Macmillan US, 2016, 275 pages, Hardcover $100.00; E-Book: $79.99,  ISBN: 978-1-137-30655-5/978-1-137-30656-2 by John Foot This is a difficult and at the same time a fascinating book. It has many sites of focus and can also be read as a set of collective biographies or individual pathlines through the worlds of psychology, fascism and Jewish identity in Italy and elsewhere. The overall analysis of the book is linked to the study of psychology and psychologists in Italy – and the way this nascent and marginalised discipline developed in that country before, during and after fascism – and in particular in the city of Florence. Thus, Guarnieri tells us a number of important stories of individuals who carried forward this discipline and taught and research within various areas of psychology. Within this world, in Italy, we quickly come across the all powerful role played by

Agostino Gemelli in the private Catholic University in Milan. As Guarnieri points out, Gemelli had institutional resources behind him. Gemelli, a friar, turns up time and time again in this book as a king-maker, able to create or destroy careers – and someone who, within Italian psychology, it was very difficult to avoid. For me, the most fascinating parts of this volume are those linked to the pernicious effects of Italy’s anti-semitic laws of 1938.  These laws led in most cases to the expulsion of all Jews from academic posts in Italian universities.  These people were forced to find another job – not easy in a country which officially discriminated against Jews and where psychology itself was hardly a major discipline. Guarnieri then takes up individual pathways of certain key psychologists. There is the detailed and extraordinary story of Enzo Bonaventura, who emigrated to Palestine in March 1939 and became Professor of Psychology in the Hebrew University. But perhaps the…

When placed in a broad multicultural and historical context, the Chinese approach to emotion differs substantially and substantively from that favoured in the West. While the West has long been concerned with the ways that emotion can distort 'reality,' the Chinese notion of qing holds that emotion 'discloses something that is true about the person and the world' by grounding the person in reality. This sensitizes the person to the undisclosed or implicit impact that the world has upon us. While Western theory focuses on differences ('symmetry breakdown') that foster action and control, the Chinese privilege symmetry as evidenced by a heightened appreciation of harmony and resonance with others and nature as a whole.

Louise Sundararajan, Understanding Emotion in Chinese Culture: Thinking Through Psychology.  Springer International Publishing, 2015, 201 pages, Hardcover £90.00/-Book £72.99, ISBN: 978-3-319-18220-9/978-3-319-18221-6 by Gerald C. Cupchik Louise Sundararajan’s book offers a comparison between Western and Chinese culture based in part on differing modes of cognition that underlie lived experiences. Her approach is more nuanced than the usual East and West comparison. First, she is careful to focus on Chinese culture instead of making sweeping generalizations about the East. Second, while using the term “West,” she focuses on contemporary Western psychology. Since scientific psychology does not necessarily represent the full scope of knowledge about Western emotions, this book pertains primarily to western psychological conceptualizations of emotions, not Western emotional experiences per se. Sundararajan presents as a scholar with a foot in each of two worlds. On the one hand, she introduces many valuable concepts from Chinese culture and, in particular, the contrast by Confucian and Daoist approaches to life and meaning. On the other hand, she is

well versed and established in the mainstream literature from Western psychology with a bit of philosophy thrown in. Sundararajan summarizes the challenge of understanding Chinese emotions as follows: 'This suggests that a central problem for understanding Chinese emotions is the gap between mainstream western scientific terminology and indigenous Chinese psychology.'  At the heart of her book is the bridging of dynamics of emotional processes in Chinese culture with concepts and findings in the Western empirical tradition. Implicitly juxtaposed against mechanistic thinking in Western psychology is the Chinese approach that focuses on dynamic processes.  Sundararajan explains this difference in terms of that between non-relational and relational cognition. Relational cognition, which applies to Chinese culture, focuses on holistic mind-to-mind transactions based on shared meanings. Western culture embodies more linear non-relational cognition emphasizing mind-to-world transactions and mastery over the environment. Whereas the former is marked by Communal Sharing, the latter is reflected in Market Pricing. Understood in terms of…

Social historians of medicine have been especially adamant that medicine should be framed, as the title of the conference suggests, in its place. Medical knowledges could well be understood in a similar or an identical manner across geographical boundaries, but ultimately they have been influenced by the social and cultural contexts within which they were practiced.

The biennial Society for the Social History of Medicine (SSHM) conference took place at the University of Kent, 7-10 July 2016. The conference was opened by the chairman of the society Carsten Timmermann, and Julie Anderson, who organised the event with half a dozen of other postgraduate students in Kent’s history department. They made it clear that as a biennial meeting of members of the field from all over the world, the programme was kept flexible, to enable historians of medicine of diverse approaches and methodologies to present their work, even beyond social history itself. Nonetheless, the conference was officially titled Medicine in its place: situating medicine in historical contexts. The notion of place was open to different interpretations: physical and geographical places, ‘places’ of knowledge production, and the idea of a ‘social space’ as originally conceived by Henri Lefebvre. However, historians were perhaps in agreement that medicine must be understood, as stated in the title, within the social and cultural contexts in which they were

practiced at the time. ‘Medicine’, often misinterpreted as a branch of western science within the popular imagination, has always been contingently constructed within its own time and space. The clearest reflection of the theme of medicine in its place was how many of the papers discussed medicine as practiced within a specific geographical or physical space. Fabrice Cahen explored the geographically located pathology of congenital hip dislocation in provincial France, while at the transnational level Bill Leeming compared the process of institutional diffusion of prenatal diagnosis between Canada and Mexico. Kate Grauvogel’s fascinating paper discussed the renovation of an infamous mental hospital in suburban Stockholm to a modern residential area, articulating how the stigma associated with mental health was ‘contagious’ to the land even after the function of the space changed. As an appropriate commentary on the role of ‘place’ in the construction of medical knowledge, Steve Sturdy delivered the first plenary of the event on the commercialisation of…