In this contribution, I examine several key publications on the physiology of emotions from the 1860s to the 1930s. I focus on physiologists who studied the emotions prior to and following William James’s 1884 Mind article, by critically reflecting on the conceptual and practical origins and constituents of the Cannon–Bard thalamic theory of emotions. I offer a historical corrective to several major assumptions in our histories of the scientific study of emotions.

In this contribution, I interrogate the historical-intellectual narrative that dominates the history of the Schachter–Singer two-factor theory of emotion. In the first part, I propose that a social influence model became generalized to a cognitive view. I argue that Schachter and Singer presented a cognitive theory of emotions in enacting inside the laboratory Schachter’s preceding “social influence” model of emotions and that Schachter’s adoption of a cognitive model of emotion was driven by and was necessary for his previous research on (...) social influence. In the second part, I argue that the Schachter–Singer theory is remarkable not because it introduced a cognitive turn in emotion, but because it presented sympathetic nervous system activation as an essential constitutive element of every emotion. (shrink)

In this essay I argue that the integration of the humanities into “medical humanities” has implicitly medicalized the humanities. This medicalization of the humanities suppresses those dimensions of the humanities that can most significantly contribute to medicine. I present my argument by studying the critical and crucial gap between the humanities as they are presented and taught in the context of medical schools, often as a set of skills, sensitivities, and competencies, and the humanities as they are experienced and lived (...) in the humanities—as an ideological-ethical calling, which saturates and infuses daily life with an ethicizing, politicizing, and ideological critique. It is this core essence of the humanities that is abrogated and annulled in medical humanities. After presenting my argument, I exemplify some of the ways in which my colleagues and I attempt to imbue medical students with the critical and ethicizing outlook and calling of the humanities. (shrink)

In this essay, I examine the genealogy of the numeral transformation of emotions from its earliest beginnings in the late nineteenth century. My main thesis is that the historical encounter between emotion and number should not be viewed solely as a particular instantiation of more general trends in the development of objectifying, quantifying, or trust-building technologies. Rather, emotion-as-number provided an alternative medium for the circulation and expression of emotions in a culture that emphasized restraint. It also empowered the experimenter to (...) produce forbidden emotions inside the modern laboratory; it participated in the construction of a uniquely scientific - in contradistinction to a poetic or feminized - emotion; and it attenuated the tensions that arose when "sublime" emotion was animalized in a Darwinian universe. In making this argument, I wish, among other things, to challenge recent claims concerning the repression of emotion in modern public culture. Emotion, I argue, was not restraint in post-Victorian culture, but rather communicated through a new medium - the number. (shrink)

In this reply, I focus on the question of whether Cannon’s theory was a “centralized” version of James’s. Due to space limitations, I briefly present six observations that problematize this assertion. One of my guiding principles is that theories acquire their meaning within a particular context. From this historical perspective, and in their historical contexts, the theories were quite distinct.