Skip to main content
Log in

The politics of physiological psychology Ivan Pavlov’s suppressed defense of scientific freedom and its consequences

  • Papers
  • Published:
Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This statement, first presented at a plenary session of the Pavlovian Society on 9 October 1992, in Los Angeles, California, attempts to assess the recently released speech delivered by Ivan Pavlov in 1923, but publicly brought to light only in 1991, on the subject of “Communist Dogmatism and the Autonomy of Science.” This speech, noteworthy for the courage of the delivery under adverse circumstances no less than the contents of its remarks, compels a new estimate of the place of science in a totalitarian system boasting an ideology of physiological psychology. It also sheds new light on the Russian Nobel laureate and pioneer in the areas of behavior modification induced by the functions of the higher nervous system.

These remarks take an in-depth view of American radical and Marxian appraisals — how they followed the Soviet lead in harnessing Pavlov to the Communist cause, and in attempting to discredit the work of Sigmund Freud. This lethal combination of Communist political needs and ideological proclivities served to rationalize the implementation of slave labor as work therapy during the Stalinist era. The linkage of Pavlov to Makarenko in education and Michurin in biology serves as a case study in the manufacture of tradition. The collapse of the Soviet system permits a recasting of the history of science and Pavlov’s place in Russian life. Such new conditions also provide a lesson in the distortive role of ideology in the evolution of modern science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yevgeny Zamyatin,We: A Novel of the Future. Translated and edited by Mirra Ginsburg. New York: The Viking Press, 1972. p. 157.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ivan Pavlov, “On Communist Dogmatism.”Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy. Vol. 24, No. 4 (Winter) 1991. pp. 466–475.

    Google Scholar 

  3. V.A. Giliarovskii,Psikhiatriia (Psychiatry) p. 390. Moscow: Medgiz Publishers, 1942. Quoted in Joseph Wortis,Soviet Psychiatry. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1950; especially p. 235.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Joseph Wortis,Soviet Psychiatry. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1950; especially pp. 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Harry K. Wells,Pavlov and Freud. New York: International Publishers, 1956. 256 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harvey Fireside,Soviet Psychoprisons. New York: Norton Publishers, 1979. 302 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Peter J. Kuznik,Beyond the Laboratory: Scientists as Political Activists in 1930s America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. pp. 115–117.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ivan P. Pavlov,Psychopathology and Psychiatry. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961. 542 pp. It is not without interest to note that Pavlov’s essays comprise the first 412 pages; the rest is a set of exegetical articles providing an admixture of experimental and ideological supports for Pavlovianism as a quasi-Marxian world view.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Only recently, have systematic efforts to understand the place of science and the professions under the Soviet regime begun. Perhaps the most important effort to date in this regard is by David Joravsky,Russian Psychology: A Critical History. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. 583 pp. This volume represents a major improvement over his earlier volume onSoviet Marxism and Natural Science, 1917–1932. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. 433 pp.

  10. Yi-Chuang Lu, “The Collective Approach to Psychiatric Practice in the People’s Republic of China,”Social Problems. Volume 28, Number 1 (October) 1978, pp. 2–14; and Paul Lowinger, “Psychiatry in China: A Revolutionary Optimism.”Medical Dimensions. Volume 5, Number 11, 1976. pp. 25–31. Despite repeated Human Rights reports concerning the abuse of prisoners, the Chinese government continues to deny any problems. Indeed, it issued aWhite Paper on Criminal Reform in China arguing that China “has a new kind of socialist prison”; one predicated on “dignity and respect.” In contrast to exprisoner reports on slave labor, torture and murder, the report declares that “90 per cent of the prison population participates in labor, while the rest are excused because they are old, disabled or otherwise unfit to work.” The report does note prison labor in 1990 produced 500 million dollars in value. It does not indicate that any of this money ever reached the prisoners.The New York Times, August 12th, 1992, p. A7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Horowitz, I.L. The politics of physiological psychology Ivan Pavlov’s suppressed defense of scientific freedom and its consequences. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science 28, 137–142 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02691216

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02691216

Keywords

Navigation