1901: On the Emerging Science of the Mind
Delivered at Ducksin College by Professor A. L. Hatherleigh, Psychologist
Permit me to begin by observing that every age hath its peculiar mania. The sixteenth discovered geography, the seventeenth inhaled philosophy, the eighteenth dismembered theology, and the nineteenth—our own—has at last turned the lancet upon itself. We have sawn open the skull of the century and found therein not the grey meat of reason but a labyrinth, delicate, aromatic, and most ungovernable. I speak, of course, of psychology, that electric lantern we flash into the theatre of the inner man—where every actor improvises his own undoing.
When I first dissected the will of a patient—a Mr. Gorringe of Deal, whose melancholy resembled a damp carpet—I believed myself engaged upon a clinical extraction. His complaint was simple: he suffered from dreams of extraordinary vanity. Each night he was Napoleon; each morning, a clerk in a vinegar works. My method was empirical. I made him recount the weather of his youth, his mother’s handwriting, the flavour of pew dust during service. We found—after what I flatter myself was only twelve sittings—that the mind drips truth not from reason but from error. “Man’s sanity,” as Dr. Fulke Leverett observes in his suppressed Sketches of the Nervous Gentleman (1899), “rests precariously on the lice of memory.”
Now, some accuse psychology of arrogance—as if to name a motive were to possess it. Yet recall: astronomy, too, began in the superstition of shepherds. If the stars condescend to be plotted, why not the interior firmament? My detractors (Dean Hobbis among them) declare that the soul is the domain of the Church. Excellent; let the Church keep its soul. I prefer the mind, which writhes, breeds mirrors, and produces paradox by spontaneous generation.
You boys are entering the century of surveillance. The successful man of the future will peer through faces as through panes of glass. Your kingships, your explorations, your Board of Trade—all will require a psychologist’s lantern. Observe the Imperial Officer—Colonel Denby, if you like—who governs three tribes in Assam through dream analysis alone. He writes that he interprets the chief’s nightmares as dispatches from the collective instinct, and thereby prevents rebellion by adjusting bedtime stories. Such, I assure you, is governance in embryo. Freud of Vienna has recently advanced a similar hypothesis, though in a vulgar, Teutonic accent.
But let us not be enslaved by these Prussian diagrams of the libido, these fat Atlases of the psyche. The English mind demands subtler wares—something between sermon and séance. To read another’s thought is not to catch a spark but to be momentarily inhabited by it, like a pendulum tuned to foreign time. The teacher feels it when a pupil believes himself misunderstood. The lover feels it when the beloved lies without lying. That is science, gentlemen—if we have the courage to measure it.
Permit me an anecdote, purely experimental. Last term, I decided to test whether anxiety leaves a visible residue. I borrowed from the Chemistry Department a quantity of copper filings and from the boys’ dormitory six unwashed pillowcases. After a fortnight of controlled insomnia, we noted a blue-green bloom upon the fabric. “The mind,” I declared, “oxidises.” Dean Hobbis removed the evidence before I could publish. Yet I remain persuaded that the human secretions contain allegories more eloquent than words. The microscope, I suggest, is a minor novelistic device.
There are those who accuse us—psychologists, I mean—of violating the sanctity of introspection. But rest assured, gentlemen, that introspection is only dangerous when underfed. Feed it hypotheses; it will bloom into vices most instructive. My own introspection, properly nourished, has revealed that any absence of evidence is an invitation to dream. Thus, when I find a blank in history, I supply it with character. We must populate the void lest it colonise us.
You may protest that this smacks of invention—that we conjure causes to amuse our precision. Precisely so. For without fiction, science remains blind. The true psychologist must be part liar, part catechist, part detective, and part architect. Dr. Imogene Felstead of Bath has said: “Data, stripped of conjecture, are the bones of a dead god.” Gentlemen, we animate those bones.
I tell you now, as your future masters may not: the leader of men will soon be the reader of men. Empires are not lost by force but by misinterpretation. The Czar, had he but one decent psychologist in uniform, might discover that rebellion begins in unsatisfied metaphor. I foresee a time when every regiment will have its analytic chaplain, trained not in theology but in the geometry of fear.
Let me offer you a simple exercise. Standing before a mirror, repeat the phrase “I am thinking.” Do it until doubt intrudes—until you cannot distinguish whether you are thinking or observing thought occurring. At that instant, you have become a scientist of the mind. It is a dangerous thrill, yes, but the century will demand such thrills as proof of education.
Now some of you—young Barber, perhaps—will inquire, What use is all this teasing of dream and symptom? Use? My dear boy, a rose has no use, and yet gentlemen of refinement cultivate them in glasshouses. The psyche is our rose. To understand it wholly would be to extinguish it. Better to prune, to graft, to smell extravagantly until its thorns suggest an aftertaste of meaning.
Our forefathers dissected corpses to learn anatomy; we dissect conversation. One can learn more from a man’s hesitation than from his creed. Indeed, I have observed that every hesitation is a microcosm of civilisation—its doubts fossilised in a single breath. Herbert Pauncey, in his fragment On the Nervous Empire (1900), insists that “the British conscience expands upon pause.” I find this rather agreeable.
Beware, however, the tyranny of system. Every classifier is a potential lunatic. The temptation to arrange the world until it resembles one’s preference—that is the oldest psychosis. I confess, at times, I am its martyr. I devise categories until my students resemble specimens and my own reflection refuses identity. Yet even that derangement is data. Do you see? We are conducting a grand experiment, and each of us is involuntarily enrolled.
Thus psychology, far from a mere cabinet curiosity, becomes the blueprint of civilisation. The invisible becomes charted, the hesitant exalted, the ordinary dissected until it reveals its mythic nervousness. Every man contains a minor cosmos of unacknowledged correspondences. If only we could photograph guilt, or frame an image of desire under glass—then our museums would grow luxuriant, unbearable, and correct.
Permit me a final speculation—final only in grammar, not in reach. Suppose the mind is not contained by the skull but drifts, atmospheric, among us, pooling in libraries, absorbing through walls, dissolving into architecture. Then every building is a thought, and Ducksin College—more particularly this hall—is one vast meditation. You breathe each other’s dreams; you recite other people’s repression. The very bricks conduct memory. No wonder, then, that our corridors echo even when empty.
Gentlemen, guard your fantasies, for they are the only empirical evidence of soul. Ignore the pious who demand proof. Proof is for those who have lost intimacy with possibility. You, who will inherit the laboratories and ministries, must learn to think not truly but beautifully; not accurately but with sufficient splendour to resemble accuracy in twilight. The science of psychology—our science—exists to preserve that splendour under the microscope lamp.
Now, if any of you feel faint, be assured: it is not fatigue but the first symptom of comprehension.
You are here: States of Grace > Philosophy