Today I generate another posting from the Mason Committee Report The Behavioral Sciences at Harvard published in June, 1954. Here we have a quick trot through Harvard’s own history of behavioral and social sciences, the splitting of some of its divisions into departments and the creation of new departments and schools. It is an extremely convenient collection of names and dates to help us see where economics and economists fit into the larger academic community during the first half century or so following the emergence of political economy and government at Harvard College. You can tell an economist chaired the committee, it’s so much about us. I have added boldface to help readers of this blog find stuff they might (should) be interested in.
________________________
[p. 18]
HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AT HARVARD
The future historian of Harvard will note that a new term began to be prominent in University documents during 1953-1954. A reorganization of course offerings in the Graduate School of Education created the “behavioral sciences” as a prominent new rubric. Reports in the Business School allude to present and planned developments in the “behavioral sciences” and this survey utilizes the new term as an inclusive category to define the area of its inquiry.
If the term is of recent birth, Harvard’s activities in the area of the behavioral sciences certainly are not. Taking the loose definition of the behavioral sciences, which we have adopted (at least provisionally) for this survey, their cultivation at Harvard goes back at least to the emergence of Harvard as a modern university in the second half of the nineteenth century. At least some of the behavioral sciences shared in the rapid growth of Harvard to university stature at the end of the nineteenth century. The reorganization of 1890, establishing the system of Divisions and Departments of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, brought into existence a Division of History, Government, and Economics. Prior to this time there had been instruction in all of these fields, and Harvard could already point to distinguished scholars in some parts of them. History, after a “false dawn” in 1838 when Jared Sparks was appointed to the new McLean Professorship of Ancient and Modern History, was rapidly coming to strength under the inspiration of Henry Adams and the young men bringing new methods and standards from the German universities. Economics had begun its emergence from moral philosophy in the early Seventies when anxiety that sound currency doctrines be heard in Harvard College led to the appointment of Charles F. Dunbar as Professor of Political Economy. The study of government was comfortably developing in the work of a group of historians who were predominantly concerned with constitutional and institutional history.
Today the Division of History, Government, and Economics has been reduced to a shadowy holding company for three powerful and [p. 19] autonomous departments. In 1890-1891, the situation was different. Prior to the reorganization, the Harvard College faculty had indeed been subdivided into departments, but they were very loose and informal bodies, so casual in their operation that regular meetings were not held nor formal records kept. After 1891, a new structure of departments established itself firmly, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences quickly became the nexus of self-contained subdivision that it is today. History and government naturally fell together in a department first labeled that of “History and Roman Law” which in 1895 became the Department of History and Government.1 The split of this joint department into the present Departments of History and Government took place considerably later, in 1911. A Department of Political Economy was in existence from 1879, and economics courses enjoyed a separate listing under this heading until the present Department of Economics became established in 1892.
Within this evolving framework, Harvard quickly pushed to a place of prominence in studies in this area. In history the dominant pattern of activity was clear:
“Institutional History was uppermost at Harvard in the last third of the nineteenth century. Maine and Stubbs in England, Waitz in Germany, Fustel de Coulangcs in France, initiated an eager search into the origins and development of political institutions, believing therein to find the true explanation of human progress. Henry Adams introduced the fashion to Harvard. To take a sample year, 1890-91, there was hardly a history course in the catalogue, save History I, and those given by Emerton, which did not smack of Verfassungsgeschichte. There was Constitutional Government (later Government 1), Constitutional History of England since George I, and Principles of Constitutional Law, by Professor Macvane; English Constitutional History from 1485 to George I, and Early Medieval History “with special reference to Institutions,” by Mr. Bendelari; French History to Louis XIV, with the same emphasis, by Dr. Snow; Constitutional History, Constitutional Development, and Federal Government by Professor Hart; Early American Institutions, by Professor Channing; and three more courses on English Constitutional History by Dr. Gross. Certainly no institutions in the United States or England today would offer so much constitutional history. . . “2
The doctoral dissertations accepted before 1900 in history and government reflect this concentration of interest. In a total of thirty-one accepted during the period 1873-1900, twelve were in United States national and colonial history, ten were in English institutional history, three were in “government and international law.”3 While Harvard initially lagged behind Johns Hopkins in its production of Ph.D.’s, it was early in the field, and its staff played a prominent role in the professionalization of historical study. They were active in the establishment of the American Historical Association (1884) and can claim [p. 20] to have been the prime movers in starting the American Historical Review. The intimate connection between political science and history which was fostered by the joint department and the nature of historical studies in this early period served to give the study of political science a strong historical cast. But instruction in political science extended beyond clearly historical courses, and Government 1 by 1900 was established as one of the great introductory courses with more than four hundred students.
After beginnings in the Seventies with the appointment of Charles F. Dunbar as Professor of Political Economy, Harvard’s work in economics quickly took on strength in the Eighties. The year 1886 is notable for two events: the establishment of the first professional economics journal in the English language, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which has been continuously published under the auspices of the Department since that date; and the appointment of Frank W. Taussig, who became perhaps the central figure in a generation of growth in Harvard economics. As Professor Taussig modestly remarks in his own survey of department history, after 1886, the Department of Political Economy “was able to present a substantial offering.”4 From the first, the work of the Department showed a strong concern with contemporary issues of public policy, but it also reflected the late nineteenth-century concern with economic history in the appointments of William J. Ashley (1892) and Edwin F. Gay. Economics 1 took its place alongside History 1 and Government 1 as one of the famous introductory courses and like them attracted more than four hundred students by 1900.5 A temporary dip in activity occurred shortly after the turn of the century, but the foundations were laid for an exuberant later development.
The history of the other behavioral sciences in this early period is more varied, tentative, and uncertain. Anthropology got off to an early start with the Peabody bequest in 1866 establishing the Peabody Museum and the Peabody Professorship of American Archaeology and Ethnology. The terms of the bequest were such that part of it had to be left to accumulate until it had reached a specified level. The building which now houses the Peabody Museum was not begun until 1876, and the Professorship was not filled until 1887 (by Frederick Ward Putnam).6 The gathering of collections, however, began almost immediately after the Peabody bequest, and the first Report dates from 1868. By the Nineties the Museum collections had grown impressively, [p. 21] and the University acquired a major resource when the Museum became an integral part of it in 1897. Instruction in anthropology was almost lacking before 1890, there being no undergraduate courses and only a few graduate students. The reorganization of 1890 established a Division of American Archaeology and Ethnology, but no regular course in general anthropology was offered until 1894-1895. During the Nineties the Division shared in the general expansion of the University, increasing its staff and offerings so that by 1903 its old title was inappropriate, and it became the Department of Anthropology which still exists. The Nineties saw the beginning of a long series of archaeological and ethnological expeditions in the Americas and elsewhere which have enriched the collections of the Museum and the literature of the field. Studies and instruction in physical anthropology began at this time and have continued to the present day.
Psychology at Harvard is relatively old. Professor Boring when interviewed in the course of this survey has emphasized the point:
“America was very early in the development of experimental psychology, and the development was centered largely at Harvard. James had a very small laboratory as early as Wundt, actually — that is, in 1875. It is true that Germany led the world in experimental psychology in the 1890’s, but there was a great push in America to get psychological laboratories started, and I would say that they lagged behind Germany by less than ten years. In America there was a laboratory developed at Johns Hopkins in 1883, and ours here at Harvard officially began in 1892, although, as I said, there was a small laboratory before that.”
William James not only began experimental studies in psychology at an early date; in 1875 he offered a course in the Relations between Physiology and Psychology, and in the following year he presented another psychology course under the label of Natural History 2. His enthusiasm for experimental psychology led him to raise the necessary funds for the official establishment of the Psychology Laboratory in 1892. He did not, however, want to devote himself primarily to this work, and at his instigation Dr. Hugo Muensterberg was brought from Freiburg, first temporarily (in 1892), then after a brief interval, as a permanent Professor of Psychology in 1897. The early years of the new century saw important additions to the staff (in E. B. Holt and Robert M. Yerkes) and the availability of new space for the laboratories in Emerson Hall (1905). Instruction in psychology grew rapidly, but no independent department appeared. In 1913 psychology courses won separate listing, and the title of the sheltering department was expanded to become the Department of Philosophy and Psychology.
Sociology began its Harvard career in at least two places. The broad concern about social problems which swept over American society in the last third of the nineteenth century and did so much to establish sociology as an academic discipline had its representation at Harvard. The Reverend Francis Greenwood Peabody was giving a course in [p. 22] Practical Ethics in 1881, and from 1883 he offered another in Ethical Theories and Moral Reform. In 1905 it became possible, largely through the benefactions of Andrew Tredway White, to establish instruction of this sort more amply in a separate Department of Social Ethics. The early years of the new department saw expanded work in various types of social problems and a somewhat cautious venture in the direction of professional social work training.7
Not all of Harvard’s early sociology was contained in this lineal ancestor of its present work in sociology. The Department of Economics appointed an assistant professor of sociology in 1893, and after his appointment in 1901 Thomas Nixon Carver regularly gave sociology courses. There was further concern with sociology in connection with such subjects as labor problems, but in summing up the situation to 1929, Professor Taussig found cause to lament Harvard’s failure to “keep pace with the forward movement of economic science … in the field of the social applications or implications of the subject.”
Our sketch thus far has brought the account of the behavioral sciences at Harvard down to the years preceding the first World War. The subsequent years were crowded and active ones, but they have put their imprint so clearly on the present that we may hope to bridge them quickly, reserving details for the contemporary picture presented in Section B.
The organization of the behavioral sciences at Harvard has seen both fission and fusion in the twentieth century. We have noted the splitting off of Social Ethics in 1905 from its parent Department of Philosophy. The next fission was that between Government and History in 1911. In this, as in other organizational changes at Harvard, personalities and special local problems played their role, but the development of the fields themselves made the change a natural one. As Harvard developed rapidly into one of the major American centers of historical study, the heavy concentration in constitutional and institutional history yielded to more diversity. Many of Harvard’s great historians continued to write history in which political events and institutions bulked large, but the range of interests became increasingly catholic. In the history of religions George Foote Moore and others continued and ornamented an established Harvard tradition, Charles H. Haskins ranged over a vast field of medieval studies, Frederick J. Turner brought a sweeping perspective on American democracy, and by 1924 the University had a recognized practitioner of the “new” history in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. An era arrived in which social and economic history took established positions among the common varieties of historical writing so that they now look like older trends in the 1954 picture. A glance at the list of doctoral dissertations submitted [p. 23] to the Department shows a steady and strong growth in American and modern European history paralleling the over-all growth of the Department to a commanding position in the production of the professional historians.8
Since its independent establishment in 1911, the Department of Government has shown continued loyalty to its older union with History. In Charles Mcllwain it had an inspiring continuator of the tradition in English constitutional history and thought. The new Department rapidly expanded its concern with political theory and made new ventures in constitutional and international law, American national, state and local government, comparative government, and international relations. The establishment of the Graduate School of Public Administration in 1937 broadened and strengthened work on matters related to contemporary public policy. A steady rise in the popularity of government as a field of undergraduate concentration brought the Department in the years after World War II into the demanding position of caring for more undergraduates than any other department.
The Department of Economics has continued to grow until it stands today among Harvard’s largest. The concern with the issues of the day which engaged Harvard economists from the first has persisted. The tradition of government consulting blossomed with the work of Taussig, Ripley, Gay and Day during World War I, and in the ill-fated Harvard Economic Service Harvard economists in the Twenties ventured predictions on the course of business conditions. Theoretical economics was pursued with distinction, and a rounded development of the field could be pointed to as a basis for a commonly recognized position of leadership. The Graduate School of Public Administration at its founding could draw on a department with vigorous interests in economic policy, and it in turn provided stimulus and facilities for such work.
Anthropology at Harvard during the early decades of this century continued activities on the wide front established in the Nineties. While Harvard could claim no single figure of such commanding leadership as Boas at Columbia, men like Dixon, Tozzer, and Hooton took major places in the development of American anthropology. A long series of Peabody Museum expeditions extended all over the globe and established Harvard’s position of leadership in Middle American archaeology, Southwestern archaeology, Old World prehistory, and other fields. The large-scale Irish expedition in the Thirties brought widely-known results, and it is perhaps less well remembered that the Yankee City study had its inception in the Department of Anthropology. The Forties brought an important organizational change in the establishment of the Department of Social Relations (1946). This move, which relocated part of the work in [p. 24] Social Anthropology in a new department, has resulted in a substantial expansion of the total numbers of anthropologists on the Harvard staff and of the range and quantity of anthropological investigation.
The chapter on psychology in an official history of Harvard published in 1930 was written by a philosopher, Ralph Parton Perry. Professor Perry notes at the beginning of his account: “Harvard is almost the only American university in which Philosophy and Psychology still constitute a single department.”9 This tardiness of Harvard in following the movement toward an independent status for psychology continued until 1934, when the Department of Psychology was established with Professor Boring as chairman. The lack of separate status had not meant inactivity. The work of the Psychological Laboratory begun under James and Muensterberg continued under the direction of Langfeld (until 1924) and later under Professor Boring. The range of work included that of Yerkes on animal psychology, Troland on physiological optics, and McDougall (after 1920) on social psychology. In 1926 a special bequest for work in abnormal and dynamic psychology led to the establishment of the Psychological Clinic, first under Dr. Morton Prince, and later under Professor Henry A. Murray. The appointment of Professor K. S. Lashley in 1936 brought new work in physiological psychology which was later transferred to the Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology, Orange Park, Florida. During the second World War, Harvard’s psychologists became heavily involved in work which led to the present Psycho-Acoustic Laboratory under the direction of Professor S. S. Stevens. Substantial uncertainty as to the ideal arrangements for psychology in the University persisted. A special commission was appointed in 1945, under the chairmanship of Dr. Alan Gregg to examine this question,10 but the work was overtaken by action from another quarter which issued in the founding of the Department of Social Relations in 1946. The consequences of this change will be evidenced at many places in this report; suffice to say here that work in clinical and social psychology was moved to the new department, experimental and physiological psychology remaining in the Department of Psychology.11
Sociology at Harvard continued under the departmental label of Social Ethics until 1929. In the early years of this department (after 1905) the ethical and practical concerns of its founder marked both instruction and research.12 Courses were taught in criminology and penology, radical social movements, juvenile delinquency, housing, immigration, and the typical range of “social problems” found in sociology [p. 25] curricula of this era. After World War I, when Dr. Richard C. Cabot was made Professor of Social Ethics and Chairman of the Department (1920), sociology extended its concerns into philosophical questions and some applied fields, while preserving the ethical orientation. As Professor Cabot’s retirement approached, the status of sociology was subject to a general re-examination. A new Department of Sociology was established under the direction of a committee drawn from various existing departments and including a new appointee, Pitirim A. Sorokin, as Chairman and Professor of Sociology. The new department continued through the Thirties, establishing a strong tradition in theoretical sociology and producing a small but distinguished group of Ph.D.’s. A need for further organizational change was felt by the beginning of the Forties,13 and when the Department of Social Relations emerged in 1946, it had absorbed the old Department of Sociology. Since that time, sociology has been without separate departmental status at Harvard, but it has been strongly represented in the new organization.
This rapid survey could include little more than the most conspicuous and central developments in the behavioral sciences within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. It has neglected many interdisciplinary committees and degree programs, research organizations, area programs, and the growth of such indispensable facilities as the College Library. A great many of the most important special developments have appeared since World War II and are still in existence. As elsewhere throughout the country, much of the history of behavioral sciences at Harvard crowds onto the contemporary scene.
The history we have presented has been largely a history of departments, but we think this not improper. The departments have long been and remain the fundamental units in the organization of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The historical record of the growth of the behavioral sciences at Harvard seems to show a common pattern. Harvard has not been unresponsive to new needs and the development of new fields, but it has moved cautiously, making its first ventures under the shelter of established departments. Government, psychology, and sociology at Harvard thus began under older departments, only slowly winning autonomous status. Ultimately, fields like these have taken their place in an extended roster of the same type of organization which fostered them, namely, as departments on the established model. The record is doubtless a conservative one, substantively and organizationally, but it is perhaps in keeping with President Eliot’s aim of building “securely and slowly, a university in the largest sense.”
Thus far the growth of the behavioral sciences in the professional [p. 26] schools has gone largely unmentioned. Their development will be sketched briefly near the end of Section B, but, to avoid too much repetition, the more detailed historical developments are reserved for Part VI of this report, where each professional school receives a unified and comprehensive analysis. Unless the reader familiarizes himself with the trends in the utilization of the behavioral sciences in the graduate schools of Business, Education, Law, Medicine and Public Health, and Public Administration he will have only a partial image of Harvard’s activities in this field.
[NOTES]
1 Emerton and Morison, in Morison, ed.. Development of Harvard University, 1869-1929 (1930) p. 153, n. 1.
2 Emerton and Morison, op. cit., pp. 159-160.
3 Tabulation in Emerton and Morison, op. cit., p. 164.
4 In Morison, op. cit., p. 190.
5 A graph in Morison (between pp. 194-195) traces the rise in enrollment in these courses. They followed roughly the over-all increase in college enrollment.
6 A delay in the approval of Putnam’s appointment by the Board of Overseers deprived Harvard of the distinction of having the first professorship of American archaeology. (Daniel S. Brinton was appointed Professor of American Archaeology and Linguistics at Pennsylvania in 1886.) Dixon in Morison, p. 211, n. 1.
7 Ford in Morison, op. at., p. 225.
8 Cf. tabulation in Morison, op. cit., p. 164, and data below in Section B.
9 Morison, op. cit., p. 216.
10 Cf. The Place of Psychology in an Ideal University (1947).
11 A contemporary report on the nature and rationale of the split may be found in a joint article by Professors Allport and Boring, American Psychologist, v. 1, 1946, pp. 119-122.
12 Cf. the chapter by James M. Ford in Morison, op. cit., pp. 223-230.
13 The Report of the Visiting Committee to the Department for 1944-1945 remarks, “Obviously, the Department should not be allowed to continue as at present constituted.” Report No. 32, p. 219.
Source: The behavioral sciences at Harvard; report by a faculty committee. June, 1954.
Image Source: Faculty portraits of Professors Taussig, Ripley, Gay and Day from Harvard Album, 1916.
