I.P. Pavlov as a youth

Ivan P. Pavlov’s youthful relations with parents and siblings, formal education, and social activities in Riazan’ are described. The Pavlovs, a highly achievement-oriented family descending from a lowly serf, improved their social status by serving the Russian Orthodox Church. Pavlov, the son of a priest, studied in the 1860s at the Riazan’ Ecclesiastic Seminary for priesthood. The turbulent 1860s’ decade was a period of social and political reforms. Western ideas and science were introduced to Russia. The ambitious and idealistic I.P. Pavlov was influenced by popular essays written by the journalist D.I. Pisarev, the works of the German physiologist J. Moleschott, the English writer G.H. Lewes, the German zoologist C. Vogt and the physiologist M.I. Sechenov. Losing his religious faith, Pavlov abandoned the traditional goal of becoming a priest, and, convinced that science was a road to truth and progress, left Riazan’ to study natural science at the University of St. Petersburg.     

Ivan Pavlov on communist dogmatism and the autonomy of science in the Soviet Union in the early 1920s. 1923.

On 25 September, 1923, two days before his 74th birthday, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov stood before a class of medical students assembled in the auditorium of his Alma Mater, the Military Medical Academy in Leningrad. Pavlov, the recipient of the Nobel prize in medicine in 1904 for his work in physiology, was about to address his first class of the new academic year, and, as was his custom, he had prepared his first lecture on a general theme. This was an especially significant address, however, for in it Pavlov reviewed the impressions he had gathered during his travels in Western Europe and the United States in the summer of 1923, and he criticised the prevailing ideology of Soviet communism by attacking the ideas of Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, then the leading expositor of Bolshevik Marxism. An English translation of the lecture is printed below.     

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

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.     

The second signal system as conceived by Pavlov and his disciples

Pavlov clearly formulated his ideas on thesecond signal system (specifically, language) in the 1930s. This occurred in conjunction with his interest in interspecies differences and in the study of human neuroses. Pavlov proposed that conditional reflexes signal concrete reality while symbolic-language provides abstractions of reality. Phylogenetically, language emerged in the humans because this form of communication had survival value to the species. Pavlov’s disciples L. A. Orbeli and N. I. Krasnogorskii had considered the ontogenetic development of language. The experimental investigation of A. G. Ivanov-Smolenskii extended Pavlov’s empirical study of the function of language in psychopathology. Notwithstanding a sustained interest in language, Pavlov did not develop a theory of language acquisition based upon the conditioning principle. Pavlov’s conceptualization of language may not have been original, nor did it contribute significantly to modern linguistics. It is now mainly of historical interest. It was, nevertheless, important to the conceptualization of neuroses within the context of the theory of higher nervous activity and it had far-reaching political implications for Soviet psychology in the immediate post-World War II period.     

Pavlov and the Rockefeller foundation

Despite the tension between the United States and the Soviet Union in the early 1920’s, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research found ways to assist I. P. Pavlov. In addition to providing scientific literature and financial aid, these institutions and their officers rendered important moral support to the scientific career of Pavlov during his later years. In 1923, as a guest of the Rockefeller Institute, Pavlov visited American scientific laboratories. In 1924, he requested and received a number of books on physiology, and during the 1930’s the Foundation helped him to acquire equipment for his Leningrad laboratory.     

Pavloviana in the USA: Archives of the history of American psychology,university of Akron

This paper represents one step in the effort to locate, examine, and make generally available archival materials related to the life and work of I. P. Pavlov and held outside the Soviet Union, in particular in the United States. The Archives of the History of American Psychology contain fairly extensive correspondence among American psychologists, with informative references to Pavlov, including letters written by K. S. Lashley, R. M. Yerkes, and J. B. Watson. References to Pavlov are also located in a variety of other sources, including reminiscenses of psychologists and R. M. Yerkes’“Obituary” of Pavlov written in 1916. Pictures of Pavlov and his close associates are reproduced from still photographs and motion picture films.     

Ivan Pavlov on communist dogmatism and the autonomy of science in the Soviet Union in the early 1920s

On 25 September, 1923, two days before his 74th birthday, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov stood before a class of medical students assembled in the auditorium of his Alma Mater, the Military Medical Academy in Leningrad. Pavlov, the recipient of the Nobel prize in medicine in 1904 for his work in physiology, was about to address his first class of the new academic year, and, as was his custom, he had prepared his first lecture on a general theme. This was an especially significant address, however, for in it Pavlov reviewed the impressions he had gathered during his travels in Western Europe and the United States in the summer of 1923, and he criticised the prevailing ideology of Soviet communism by attacking the ideas of Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, then the leading expositor of Bolshevik Marxism. An English translation of the lecture is printed below. This article was originally published inMinerva, vol. 29, no. 4 (Winter 1991). Published by permission ofMinerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 19 Nottingham Road, London SW17 7EA, and by permission of the Rockeller Archive Center, North Tarrytown, N.Y.     

Lifshits’ ontognoseology as a version of Lenin’s theory of reflection

In Soviet philosophy, two versions of Lenin’s theory of reflection are represented respectively by Mikhail Lifshits and Todor Pavlov. They both isolate and juxtapose two dialectical elements: reflection and creativity. Within this methodological dilemma, Lifshits’s ontognoseology is an original doctrine of our “mirror” attitude to the world whereby material being is the true subject, while man is a tool of its self-reflection.     

Hypnosis and inhibition as viewed by heidenhain and pavlov

About 1880, Rudolf Heidenhain, then Professor of Physiology and Histology at the University of Breslau, experimentally studied hypnotic phenomena. Heidenhain explained hypnosis physiologically, in terms of cortical inhibition. Subsequently, I. P. Pavlov, who in 1877 and again in 1884 was Heidenhain’s student at Breslau, encountered hypnotic phenomena during conditional reflex experiments. In 1910, Pavlov described hypnotic states and explained them (as had Heidenhain three decades earlier), in terms of partial inhibition of the cortex. As the concepts of inhibition and excitation are cornerstones of Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity, it is of historical interest to search for influences that led Pavlov to incorporate the concept of inhibition into his theory. It is most likely that Pavlov first encountered the concept of central inhibition in the 1860s when reading I. M. Sechenov’sThe Reflexes of the Brain (1863/1866) and that the importance of the concept was augmented by Heidenhain’s use of it in explaining hypnotic phenomena.     

I.P. Pavlov as a youth

Ivan P. Pavlov's youthful relations with parents and siblings, formal education, and social activities in Riazan' are described. The Pavlovs, a highly achievement-oriented family descending from a lowly serf, improved their social status by serving the Russian Orthodox Church. Pavlov, the son of a priest, studied in the 1860s at the Riazan' Ecclesiastic Seminary for priesthood. The turbulent 1860s' decade was a period of social and political reforms. Western ideas and science were introduced to Russia. The ambitious and idealistic I.P. Pavlov was influenced by popular essays written by the journalist D.I. Pisarev, the works of the German physiologist J. Moleschott, the English writer G.H. Lewes, the German zoologist C. Vogt and the physiologist M.I. Sechenov. Losing his religious faith, Pavlov abandoned the traditional goal of becoming a priest, and, convinced that science was a road to truth and progress, left Riazan' to study natural science at the University of St. Petersburg.     

Pavlovvs. Köhler

During the 1920s, I. P. Pavlov’s scholarly interests broadened to consider problem-solving. Distrusting Wolfgang Köhler’s Gestalt explanation of the problemsolving process and its interspecies aspects, Pavlov performed, from 1933 to 1936, a number of experiments, including a replication of Köhler’s building experiment, using chimpanzees as subjects. Confirming Köhler’s findings, Pavlov explained the problemsolving process in terms of unconditional reflexes and the establishment, by Pavlovian conditioning and the Thorndikian method of trial and error, of temporary neural connections identical, on the psychological level, to associations. In contrast to Köhler’s “structural” explanation, Pavlov emphasized the processes of analysis and synthesis. According to Pavlov insight is achieved progressively—as the result of the organism’s problem-solving behavior—contradicting Köhler’s thesis of a sudden subjective reorganization of the environmental situation. Pavlov explained interspecies differences among higher organisms in terms of the range of a species behavior, with the second signal system as the main distinguishing characteristic between human and nonhuman species.     

Recent Russian Pavloviana

In recent years three books have appeared which contribute greatly to our knowledge of Pavlov’s life and work, and of the development of the laboratory in Leningrad which bears his name and his intellectual imprint. These works are (1) A volume of brief, highly personal comments on I. P. Pavlov (Kreps, 1967); (2) A collection of short biographies, pictures, and selective bibliographies of individuals who had worked with Pavlov (Kvasov and Fedotova-Grot, 1967); and (3) An outline of the history of the I. P. Pavlov Institute of Physiology which grew from a most unprepossessing laboratory, taken over by I. P. Pavlov in 1907, into a giant institution with a staff currently exceeding 1,000 (Lange, 1968).     

Schilder and Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity

In the late 1920s, the Viennese psychoanalyst Paul Schilder, after performing a conditioning experiment with human subjects, criticized I. P. Pavlov’s concept of “experimental neurosis.” Schilder maintained that subjective reports by conditioned human subjects were more informative than the objectively observed behavior of conditioned dogs. In 1932, Pavlov published a rejoinder to Schilder’s critique in theJournal of the American Medical Association. Pavlov maintained that Schilder misunderstood the value and implications of the scientific, objective method in the study of experimental neurosis. In 1934, Schilder subjected Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity to an incisive critique in a 1935 article inImago. Schilder objected to Pavlov’s narrow, reductionist conceptualization of the conditional reflex. Schilder reiterated his view that the psychological, subjective explanation of the conditional reflex is preferable to the physiological, objective explanation, and that the inference of cortical phenomena from experimental findings might be improper. Neither Pavlov nor any of his disciples replied to Schilder. The author provides an apology for the Pavlovian position, suggesting that Schilder was unfamiliar with early and late writings of Pavlov.     

Pavlov’s position toward konorski and miller’s distinction between pavlovian and motor conditioning paradigms

Two Warsaw medical students, Jerzy Konorski and Stefan Miller, having read I. P. Pavlov’s works on conditional reflexes, informed him in a 1928 letter that they had discovered a new type of conditioning. A previously neutral stimulus preceded the passive lifting of a dog’s paw which then was followed by feeding; this stimulus then evoked the spontaneous raising of that paw. Pavlov responded informing them that their conditioning of motor responses expanded his theory of higher nervous activity, but that their conditioning paradigm—that they named CRII—did not differ fundamentally from the Pavlovian conditioning paradigm. The replication of the Warsaw experiment in Pavlov’s laboratory failed to provide unequivocal results. From 1931 to 1933, Konorski, working in Pavlov’s Leningrad laboratory, further explored the parameters of CRII. Pavlov insisted that the conditioning of motor movements differs from the conditioning of other sensory analyzers only in that, on the neural level, the motor analyzer is both afferent, that is, perceptive, and efferent, that is, responsive. Konorski was not convinced, and he subsequently maintained that the two conditioning paradigms were fundamentally different.     

Pavloviana inPsychology of the 20th Century: A special review

In the encyclopedicPsychology of the 20th Century three volumes are relevant to the work of I. P. Pavlov, his predecessors, contemporaries, and followers. Volume 1 (1976) provides an extensive account of the history of non-introspective, “objective” psychology. In Volume 4 (1977), examined in this review and consisting of sections on “Theories of Learning” and “Behavior Modification,” separate chapters are devoted to Pavlov’s life and work, and its continuation in the Soviet Union. Classical conditioning is considered in the context of S-R learning theories, interaction with operant conditioning, and development of behavior therapy. Additional materials are likely to be presented in Volume 6 (to be published) dealing with animal psychology, ethology, and physiological psychology.     

Pavlov’s conceptualization of unconditional reflexes,or instincts,within the framework of the theory of higher nervous activity

According to I. P. Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity, the establishment and dissolution of conditional reflexes enhances the higher organism’s adaptation to the external environment. Pavlov asserted that, ontogenetically, conditional reflexes are based upon innate, unconditional reflexes (UR) or instincts. Pavlov did not distinguish between URs and instincts, but he preferred the former term. Phylogenetically the URs emerged out of well-established conditional reflexes during the development of higher organisms. An outgrowth of the experimental conditioning procedure, developed during the second decade of this century, was the observation and delineation of new URs. While studying human nervous and psychiatric disorders in the 1930s, Pavlov elucidated other URs. Pavlov identified 13 major URs, but he failed to formulate an exhaustive classification scheme of URs.     

THE ‘VOLATILE’ MARXIAN CONCEPT OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT

The thesis of this paper is that even some of the most fundamental concepts of Marxism have been used and abused to fit their advocates' purposes. More specifically, the interpretation of the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has been subject to a dual development. First, the dictatorship of the proletariat has come to denote an increasingly violent regime. Second, the term has been used to refer to a rule exercised by an ever smaller segment of society. This paper seeks to analyze and elucidate this much disputed and frequently misunderstood Marxist concept. In the first part Marx's use of the term is examined. The second section explores how the same concept was explicated in the writings of some of the most important first generation Marxist thinkers and "practitioners" like Engels, Lenin, Kautsky, Bukharin, and Stalin. Following the summary of my findings I attempt to formulate some meaningful generalizations about the usage of the concept by Marxist thinkers.     

Pavlov And Skinner: Two Lives In Science (An Introduction To B. F. Skinner's "Some Responses To The Stimulus 'Pavlov' ")

The sesquicentennial of Ivan Petrovich Pavlov's birth in September 1999 is being celebrated in Russia by a special issue of the Russian Journal of Physiology (the former I. M. Sechenov Physiological Journal, founded by Pavlov in 1917). The following article and the address by Skinner that it introduces are scheduled to appear in Russian translation in that special issue. Skinner's “Some Responses to the Stimulus ‘Pavlov’” was his presidential address to the Pavlovian Society of North America in 1966. The following article provides the context for Skinner's address by describing some ways in which Pavlov's research influenced Skinner's contributions.     

Pavlov and the concept of association

I. P. Pavlov was profoundly influenced during his youth by the writings of D. I. Pisarev and I. M. Sechenov. Sechenov explained the voluntary act in terms of the formation of associations among sensory impressions and motor responses. Apparently under Pisarev’s influence, Pavlov studied the physiology of the circulatory and digestive systems. In explaining the formation of the conditional reflex (CR), Pavlov rejected the Wundtian, anthropomorphic conceptualization of CR as suggested by A. T. Snarskii. However, using the objective CR method, the Pavlovians experimentally investigated the formation in the cortex of neural connections, which were equated with associations.     

Pavlov as a psychologist

American psychologists are informed on Pavlov’s work on conditional reflexes but not on the full development of his theory of higher nervous activity. This article shows that Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity dealt with concepts that concerned contemporary psychologists. Pavlov used the conditioning of the salivary reflex for methodological purposes. Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity encompassed overt behavior, neural processes, and the conscious experience. The strong Darwinian element of Pavlov’s theory, with its stress on the higher organisms’ adaptation, is described. With regard to learning, Pavlov, at the end of his scholarly career, proposed that although all learning involves the formation of associations, the organism’s adaptation to the environment is established through conditioning, but the accumulation of knowledge is established by trial and error.