Content area
Full Text
Abstract
The work of Karl Buhler is not particularly well known in English - speaking countries. If Buhler is mentioned at all in texts on the history of psychology, it is in connection with his early work at the University of Wurzburg. This work represents only the start of Buhler's career in psychology. He subsequently produced important work on perception, Gestalt theory, developmental psychology, theoretical psychology and the psychology of language. Buhler's work has had a profound -- though largely unnoticed -- influence on later thinkers. It has also been the subject of a revival of interest in Europe in recent years. This article provides an overview of Buhler's life and work.
In a wide - ranging article on the historiography of psychology, Weimer (1974) has discussed what he calls "the suppression of psychological history" (p. 248). Weimer points out that 'history' is inevitably selective. Historians of psychology -- particularly those who are practising psychologists -- have some general idea of what psychology is and how it ought to be done. This will lead them to select out certain aspects of psychology's past and to ignore others. Weimer argues that this process is not always a conscious one. Few historians of psychology will deliberately suppress 'history'. They are simply not aware of its existence. Works which did not have a major impact on psychology will disappear from the 'collective memory' of psychologists.
Weimer illustrates these points with the example of Karl Buhler (1879 - 1963). One suspects that Buhler was chosen because the example is such a striking one. If Buhler is mentioned at all in texts on the history of psychology, it is in connection with his early work as Oswald Kulpe's assistant at the University of Wurzburg (e.g. Hothersall, 1990; Brennan, 1991; Hergenhahn, 1992; Leahey, 1992a; Schultz & Schultz, 1992). It was Buhler's work on 'imageless thought' which sparked off the famous controversy with Wilhelm Wundt over the methods of the 'Wurzburg School'. Boring (1950) wrote:
Buhler was severely criticized by Wundt, by Durr, who was one of his observers, and by von Aster. Titchener, of course, criticized the entire movement. Buhler, however, left the total picture of thought without important change, and we may thus close our account of the Wurzburg school...