Lange vs James on Emotion, Passion, and the Arts

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

Abstract

According to what is now the standard account in the history of psychology, in the 1880s William James and the Danish physician Carl Georg Lange independently developed a strikingly new theory, commonly referred to as the ‘James–Lange’ theory of emotion. In this paper it is argued that this standard account is highly misleading. Lange's views on affect in his (1885) Om Sindsbevægelser were more cautious than James allowed, and not open to criticisms that have often been levelled against the theory of emotion that James claimed he shared with Lange. In fact, Lange argued for distinctions that James did not mention in his discussion of Lange's work. Even with regard to the primary emotions, the two thinkers’ explanatory models diverged significantly. The contrast between James and Lange on affect is especially striking in their respective discussions of topics in aesthetics, as is established with reference to Lange's little-known (1899) Bidrag til Nydelsernes fysiologi som grundlag for en rationel æstetik.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)39-56
JournalRoyal Institute of Philosophy Supplement
Volume85
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2019

Fingerprint

Art
Emotion
Passion
William James
Physicians
History of Psychology
1880s
Criticism
Thinkers
Aesthetics

Cite this

@article{1ae8829bfb4d48c3a1d3426102a6dcb9,
title = "Lange vs James on Emotion, Passion, and the Arts",
abstract = "According to what is now the standard account in the history of psychology, in the 1880s William James and the Danish physician Carl Georg Lange independently developed a strikingly new theory, commonly referred to as the ‘James–Lange’ theory of emotion. In this paper it is argued that this standard account is highly misleading. Lange's views on affect in his (1885) Om Sindsbev{\ae}gelser were more cautious than James allowed, and not open to criticisms that have often been levelled against the theory of emotion that James claimed he shared with Lange. In fact, Lange argued for distinctions that James did not mention in his discussion of Lange's work. Even with regard to the primary emotions, the two thinkers’ explanatory models diverged significantly. The contrast between James and Lange on affect is especially striking in their respective discussions of topics in aesthetics, as is established with reference to Lange's little-known (1899) Bidrag til Nydelsernes fysiologi som grundlag for en rationel {\ae}stetik.",
author = "Paisley LIVINGSTON",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1017/S135824611800067X",
language = "English",
volume = "85",
pages = "39--56",
journal = "Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement",
issn = "1358-2461",

}

Lange vs James on Emotion, Passion, and the Arts. / LIVINGSTON, Paisley.

In: Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, Vol. 85, 07.2019, p. 39-56.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lange vs James on Emotion, Passion, and the Arts

AU - LIVINGSTON, Paisley

PY - 2019/7

Y1 - 2019/7

N2 - According to what is now the standard account in the history of psychology, in the 1880s William James and the Danish physician Carl Georg Lange independently developed a strikingly new theory, commonly referred to as the ‘James–Lange’ theory of emotion. In this paper it is argued that this standard account is highly misleading. Lange's views on affect in his (1885) Om Sindsbevægelser were more cautious than James allowed, and not open to criticisms that have often been levelled against the theory of emotion that James claimed he shared with Lange. In fact, Lange argued for distinctions that James did not mention in his discussion of Lange's work. Even with regard to the primary emotions, the two thinkers’ explanatory models diverged significantly. The contrast between James and Lange on affect is especially striking in their respective discussions of topics in aesthetics, as is established with reference to Lange's little-known (1899) Bidrag til Nydelsernes fysiologi som grundlag for en rationel æstetik.

AB - According to what is now the standard account in the history of psychology, in the 1880s William James and the Danish physician Carl Georg Lange independently developed a strikingly new theory, commonly referred to as the ‘James–Lange’ theory of emotion. In this paper it is argued that this standard account is highly misleading. Lange's views on affect in his (1885) Om Sindsbevægelser were more cautious than James allowed, and not open to criticisms that have often been levelled against the theory of emotion that James claimed he shared with Lange. In fact, Lange argued for distinctions that James did not mention in his discussion of Lange's work. Even with regard to the primary emotions, the two thinkers’ explanatory models diverged significantly. The contrast between James and Lange on affect is especially striking in their respective discussions of topics in aesthetics, as is established with reference to Lange's little-known (1899) Bidrag til Nydelsernes fysiologi som grundlag for en rationel æstetik.

U2 - 10.1017/S135824611800067X

DO - 10.1017/S135824611800067X

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 85

SP - 39

EP - 56

JO - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement

JF - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement

SN - 1358-2461

ER -