International conference: Leuven (Belgium), 24-27 March 2015
Call for papers Psychology and the Classics: A Dialogue of Disciplines
Key-note speakers: Rachel Bowlby, Christopher Gill, and Jennifer Radden.
This conference aims to bring together scholars from the fields of classics and psychology in order to determine what they have to offer to each other in terms of hermeneutic approaches, research questions, and methodological legitimation. Both the field of classics and that of psychology are here to be conceived in the widest sense possible, comprising, in case of the former, ancient philosophy, history, rhetoric, and literature, and, in case of the latter, psychoanalysis, social psychology, theories of emotion, and neuroscience. A more extensive overview of the research questions that all of these fields can raise in relation to each other is provided in the text below.
We welcome innovative contributions from a wide array of scholars. Preference will be given to papers which have the potential to provoke fruitful interdisciplinary discussions in an open and convivial atmosphere. Abstracts for individual contributions (500 words), panels (1000 words), or alternative formats, along with a short CV of 3 or 4 lines, should reach us before 31 March 2014 on psychologyandtheclassics@arts.kuleuven.be. All proposals and contributions are expected to be in English. Early career researchers are especially encouraged to send in an abstract.
Organizing committee: Pieter Adriaens (KU Leuven), Koen De Temmerman (University of Ghent), Jeroen Lauwers (KU Leuven), Anneleen Masschelein (KU Leuven), Jan Opsomer (KU Leuven), Hedwig Schwall (KU Leuven), Toon Van Houdt (KU Leuven), Demmy Verbeke (KU Leuven).
Psychology and the Classics: A Dialogue of Disciplines
Throughout its history, the field of psychology has entertained a vivid interaction with ancient texts and concepts. Sigmund Freud introduced his theory about the Oedipus complex using ancient myth and tragedy, Albert Ellis’ conception of cognitive and emotional therapy was inspired by the Stoic Epictetus, and a 2012 article by William Hirstein in Psychology Today makes a connection between Socrates’ daimonion and modern discoveries in the field of neuroscience.
The field of classics has been less eager to adopt psychological theories into its hermeneutic apparatus. Admittedly, the last century has witnessed some effort, mostly by individual scholars, but the attempts to read ancient literature and philosophy psychologically are rather scarce and have raised a good deal of skepticism among other classicists.
This conference aims to bring the fields of classics and psychology closer together. On the one hand, it intends to explore what psychology can mean for the classical studies. On the other, it also wants to demonstrate how classics can still matter for psychologists. In what follows, we would like to suggest some possible approaches and research questions emerging from the confrontation of these two fields. However, this overview is by no means exhaustive, and can of course be complemented by other insights, studies, and methods.
1. Psychology for classicists
a) While psychology is likely to be associated by many classicists with psychoanalysis, the field proves to be much wider than just Freud and his followers. Psychology has developed into a more exact discipline, making use of measurable data in the brain to explore the workings of the human mind in relation to body, behavior, and emotions. Is it possible to transpose the findings of these fields to ancient times on the basis of attitudes and behaviors that can be observed by a modern interpreter, or do we get stuck at an insurmountable cultural barrier? Apart from that, it is worth asking oneself whether cognitive approaches in the field of psychology can teach us anything about, for instance, the validity of ancient philosophical thought about the human mind, with its desires and emotions.
b) Within the tradition of psychoanalysis, there are many different paradigms which may be less known to classicists, such as ego psychology, self psychology, analytical psychology, relational psychology, Lacanian psychology, object relations theory, and interpersonal psychology, all of which offer a particular perspective on the human psyche. Furthermore, in their work Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari have made a strong plea against the reduction of human psychic history to the Oedipal triangle subject-father-mother, which influenced a great number of cultural analysts. Can these alternative views on psychoanalysis offer additional insights into the ancient world?
c) Over the past few decades, there has been a fruitful application of psychological theories concerning trauma in the field of literary studies. Recent discoveries about the effects of trauma on the psyche of the individual have shown how trauma may interact and interfere with narrations of the self and narrations in general. While concepts such as repression, memory, dissociation, and witnessing have shaped a framework to articulate these issues, the question remains what this theory can offer to the field of classics. The universal application of trauma theory in modern literary studies makes us suspect that there is some potential to read trauma in certain Graeco-Roman narrations as well (think also of Jonathan Shay’s Achilles in Vietnam).
d) Psychology can also play a prominent role within the modern paradigm of ‘Classical Reception Studies’. To what extent can adaptations and psychological modifications serve as a heuristic tool for the reconstruction of shifting mentalities? And, on a more theoretical level, since a scholar inevitably brings her own assumptions to the interpretation of classical culture, what can the field of psychology offer with regard to her own self-understanding?
2. Classics for psychologists
a) To what extent can classical ideas about the interrelation between body and soul be seen as the precondition (or an intertext) for the existence of a discipline such as psychology? Is there truly something about the mind-body problem that goes beyond the mere boundaries of discourse, or are we still trying to shrug off the burden of ancient theories concerning our own self-conception? Or can these theories pave the way for a more direct, non-Cartesian conception of the mind-body problem? Revisiting the classical heritage may teach us much about the nature of the modern discipline of psychology.
b) To what extent can ideas from the ancient world be seen as psychotherapy? Is the esthetic experience of katharsis solely to be seen as a modern construct, or is there a ground for it in the ancient practice of performance and literature? Can ancient philosophies be seen as a sort of psychotherapy, as Michel Foucault, Pierre Hadot, Martha Nussbaum, and Julia Annas claim? What are the necessary conditions for psychotherapy (past and present), and can these conditions be fulfilled?
c) From a more historicist point of view, a confrontation between ancient history and concepts of modern social psychology (such as ‘group think’ or ‘the by-stander effect’) may reveal or undermine the universal nature of social group processes that influence(d) historical events. Through such psychologizing interpretations of ancient history, events themselves may become more transparant, and the cumulative effect of such efforts may offer a deeper explanation for the occurrence of specific sorts of group-related behavior.
d) Classical Antiquity has witnessed the emergence of rhetorical theory, the apparatus of which has also found its way into modern psychological theories. Moreover, rhetorical approaches to psychology, such as Daniel Gross’s The Secret History of Emotion, may offer alternative views on the relation between the brain, the emotions, and society. Can readings of Aristotle and other ancient rhetoricians inform further psychological research into social interaction and the dynamics of persuasion?
These issues can be dealt with in a theoretical way, but also through concrete studies of modern cases or ancient literature. Participation is not restricted to psychologists or classicists, but is also open to philosophers, historians, literary critics, and other representatives of the human sciences. Preference will be given to innovative contributions which can provoke fruitful interdisciplinary discussions in an open and convivial atmosphere. We welcome individual contributions, panel proposals, and alternative formats (videos, group readings, (etcetera).