Young William James Thinking Page 5

come of age. His young adulthood was a time of both personal crises and intellectual

  and cultural explorations.

  16  Young William James Thinking

  assumes a dualist question: Did he favor science or religion? In 1878 he

  addressed that very concern when seeking a Lowell Institute public lec-

  tureship by assuring the or ga nizer, “I can safely say that I am neither a ma-

  terialistic partisan nor a spiritualistic bigot.” 14 Indeed. And he never did

  choose a side or even just try to balance their contrasts. He recognized that

  science and religion, which respectively contribute discovery of facts and

  sustaining of hope, manifest in divergent ways, energize many diff er ent fields,

  and have been used to support diverse values; and yet he detected that these

  distinct enterprises make common attempts to identify the elusive qualities

  of nature and offer guidance through lived experience.

  As James noticed in his own experience and in theory, science and reli-

  gion ask similar types of questions about the identity and character of the

  world and humanity, even as they generally provide diff er ent answers—

  answers that, at diff er ent times, for diff er ent people, and with se lection of

  diff er ent parts of the complexities, gravitate toward or away from each

  other. William James grew up with an early form of spirituality from his

  father, but he would come to doubt the elder James’s absolutist confidence

  and instead rely more deeply on science, absorbing its naturalism but also

  questioning its own claims to certainty. This comfort with uncertainty ap-

  pears biographically by the end of his young adulthood when he fi nally felt

  ready to accept life “without any guarantee,” and it would become a central

  feature of later theories in his commitment to genuine novelty. This orienta-

  tion shows the importance of mystery for James, with kinship both to ancient

  apophatic traditions, in their emphasis on silence and committed action

  without waiting for certainty because so many topics remain steadily beyond

  human understanding, and to Charles Peirce’s argument for the operation

  of chance that he called the tychistic character of the world. James general-

  ized on his commitment to uncertainty and mystery by maintaining that

  “novelty . . . leaks in[to] experience, . . . with continuous infiltration of other-

  ness.” This orientation shaped his approach to affirming “the validity of

  possibility” in the many fields he experienced and studied. 15 And this open-

  ness to otherness spilled beyond his philosophizing into his social thought.

  James’s intellectual openness to uncertainties and his inquisitiveness

  also drove him to support those out of power. This included an impulse to

  “succor the underdog” that drew him to value people most others dismissed

  as eccentrics, and it would also make him a resource for promotion of gen-

  der and racial inclusion, even beyond the social steps he himself took. In his

  own time, James pushed publicly for positions more progressive on race

  Almost a Phi los o pher  17

  than he was witnessing around him, with his agitation against lynching,

  against anti- Semitism in the Dreyfus affair, and against American domination

  of the Philippines. Yet he harbored many mainstream racial assumptions, in-

  cluding patronizing views of nonwhites and ste reo typed perceptions of

  Jews; on initial encounter, he could speak with a bluntness typical of the time,

  especially when his “organ of perception- of- national- differences” was in a

  “super- excited state.” These comments, crude by twenty- first- century stan-

  dards, were not instead of his re spect and curiosity but a step in expressing

  them. In the language of later years, his multiculturalism endorsed differ-

  ence; or, to use his term from the end of his life, he urged embrace of “plu-

  ralism.” His curiosity would draw him in, with pluralism as his theory for

  “perception- of-[intellectual]- differences,” and then he invariably found im-

  pressive qualities in the heart of otherness— and then he referred to those

  qualities with casual directness. More simply, he firmly believed what

  he blurted out in 1867, “Men differ, thank Heaven.” Witness his comfortable

  and even enthusiastic relations with his African American student W. E. B.

  Du Bois, who remembered, “I was repeatedly a guest in the home of William

  James; he was my friend and guide to clear thinking.” For all his progres-

  sive impulses, James maintained views of race soaked in the culture— and

  the language—of his time. In one of his first essays, James relays a story of

  a missionary in Africa eager to “dissuade the savage from his fetichistic [ sic]”

  healing practices; to this, James pres ents the “savage” responding coyly, “[I]t

  is just the same with [Western] doctors; you give your remedies, and some-

  times the patient gets well and sometimes he dies.” James did not balk at

  the patronizing language; and yet, even after earning his mainstream medi-

  cal degree, he welcomed the African’s approach to healing in support of his

  own medical pluralism. In addition, he supported the African’s “proverbial

  philosophy” as “no . . . perverse act of thought”; such thoughts may be incom-

  plete, but so too are even the most sophisticated and scientific propositions.16

  Even though James blurted out his enthusiasm that “[m]en differ,” he

  acted with ambivalence about whether such pluralistic recognition could

  include women. He was torn between his ac cep tance of separate spheres

  from his upbringing through his own marriage and his avid impulses for

  pluralism and reform. So, while he felt a “presumption from use against”

  women’s equality, he welcomed women’s achievements and even antici-

  pated ele ments of difference feminism in his observations that women

  “seize on particulars,” which coincided with his commitment to concrete

  facts for puncturing the pretentions of abstract absolutes. James’s mixed

  18  Young William James Thinking

  rec ord on the cultural diversity of his time has inspired a similarly mixed

  reading of his legacy for support of identity politics in own our time. Some

  evaluations of James critique his limited actions against social and institu-

  tional barriers to racial and gender equality in his own time, including in

  his own everyday life; but others praise him for his recognition of the way

  social contexts shape knowledge, a first step in challenging social hierar-

  chies, and for his own contributions with progressive defiance of intellectu-

  ally conventional and absolutist norms. James at once lived the prejudices

  of his time and announced theories that promote equity. And more: he did

  not just tolerate difference but lauded its potential to shake up convention

  with innovative insight; he even named his alternative interests “feminine-

  mystical” in contrast with his own “scientific- academic” training. His sup-

  porters provide, in effect, a James upgraded for con temporary culture, a

  cultural theory James, a James 2.0. The use of his thought and life as re-

  sources for healing assumptions of racial and gender hierarchy carries

 
forward his own ambivalence from tension between his contexts and his ea-

  gerness for change. James’s readiness to see both sides and his ambivalence

  show that his relational thinking, when applied to social issues, prompted

  him not only to pay attention to contrasting views but also to see the short-

  comings of each— and so, ultimately, their need for each other. This shows

  the depths of his readiness to live without guarantee, and it also indicates

  that his uncertainties, enlisted as resources for working toward future im-

  provements, could include a wide swath of perspectives, even while steer-

  ing him away from quick fixes. Instead, this posture, which he would call

  “meliorism,” would promote gradual efforts toward improvement. What his

  perspective lacks for action on immediate change, it gains in inclusiveness

  of diff er ent points of view. 17

  James first embraced novelties when he encountered deep dimensions of

  human consciousness during his educational development. Most religious

  believers, especially those hewing to traditions about divine depths, avoided

  psychological depths, and pioneers in the science of mind maintained a nat-

  uralistic focus with little attention to religion; however, in subconscious

  realms of mind, in these profound human experiences, which he under-

  stood as win dows to nature, James found both spiritual and empirical sig-

  nificance. From these perspectives, he took the task of mediation in science

  and religion beyond compromise and tolerance, although he supported

  such enterprises for their encouragement of communication and openness

  to divergent commitments. Such moderate steps, however, did not touch on

  Almost a Phi los o pher  19

  the depths of potential connection he perceived to lurk within scientific and

  religious enterprises and related fields. In our own time, despite more than

  a generation of studies repudiating the supposed warfare of science and re-

  ligion, widespread assumptions persist that these fields are irreconcilably

  in conflict, or that they require thorough reconciliation— positions that do

  not challenge the assumption of their fundamental differences. 18 James’s

  biography and theories suggest another way.

  James did not set immaterial (or apparently immaterial) ele ments in

  psy chol ogy, philosophy, and spirituality against empiricism or scientific in-

  quiry and their profound social impacts, in subordination to them, or even

  alongside them. Instead, he thought of them operating through these worldly

  paths, ideas that in his maturity would be called panpsychic theories of

  mind in body, suggesting panentheist theories of spirituality within nature,

  and ideas that in later years would establish him as a precursor to nondualist

  theories of embodied mind and somaesthetics. In his own scientific re-

  search and with his spiritual sensibilities developed in relation to his father

  and his own avocational interests, James detected the significance of imma-

  terial ele ments of life embedded within the material world, before he developed

  formal theoretical labels for these ideas. Human hopes, volitions, motiva-

  tions, ideals, thoughts, assumptions, faith, beliefs, convictions, feelings, per-

  sonal energy, and the spark of life itself seem unempirical and may very well

  connect to abstract dimensions or even another world, but in our experi-

  ence of them, he maintained, these are fully part of nature. With this orien-

  tation, James adapts his father’s view of “inward being,” which gives the

  “spiritual lift” to humans in their “spiritual existence” within their “natu-

  ral existence.” This view of spiritual or psychological dynamism circulating

  in natu ral matter both follows in the wake of Baruch Spinoza’s and Sweden-

  borg’s references to “conatus,” the living “endeavor” from the “interiors of

  the mind” striving for power and meaning, and anticipates what a con-

  temporary neuroscientist has called the “life pro cess.” Antonio Damasio

  defines conatus in scientific terms as “the aggregate of dispositions laid

  down by brain circuitry that, once engaged by internal and environmental

  conditions, seeks both survival and well- being”; he treats conatus as an old

  term for modern research proj ects on the “mystery” of “conscious minds

  working” within “aggregates called tissues.” From his youth, William James

  likewise maintained that the sciences are essential tools for understanding

  the character and natu ral operations of these vivid but often intangible parts

  of human life— even if scientific investigations are not themselves capable of

  20  Young William James Thinking

  final answers. His commitment to the intertwining of material and imma-

  terial factors would appear throughout his work in his insistence on the

  simultaneous physiology and feelings of emotion, his study of humanity’s

  embodied will, his scrutiny of human nature within evaluation of religion,

  his analy sis of simultaneous objectivity and subjectivity in “pure experience”

  so often separated for vari ous “temporary purposes,” and his pragmatic

  recognition of the human “hankering for the good things” of both empirical

  and rational thinking.19 The disarming frankness of his reports from expe-

  rience has been a key to his ability to gain ac cep tance, and even popularity,

  despite his unorthodox mingling of science and religion, and other realms

  that conventionally remain far apart.

  Much attention to James has grown from the sheer variety of his work,

  which has prompted investigators from diff er ent fields to evaluate him us-

  ing the tools of many disciplines. He is a significant figure in many branches

  of philosophy, intellectual and cultural history, history of science, psy chol-

  ogy, neuroscience, depth psy chol ogy intersecting with spirituality, religious

  studies, rhe toric, and even cultural studies and lit er a ture. He was a protean

  figure working before many of these disciplines had formed, often pointing

  in the directions that they would take— and even toward paths not yet

  taken. Commentaries on James from the disciplines of his contributions

  have been abundant and rich, but they generally have had little contact with

  each other. Aspects of James covered by diff er ent disciplines have led to

  puzzlement or selective disregard— just as his psy chol ogy of attention for-

  mation would predict—as if his integration of diverse interests was simply a

  marvel largely beyond explanation. There has been much smiling admira-

  tion for James, less as a founding father of par tic u lar schools of thought

  than as an avuncular figure admired by many. 20 This place of honor has

  ironically undercut the ability to learn from some of his most impor tant and

  helpful insights; it effectively lets each field adopt its piece of James without

  attention to the rest.

  The interdisciplinary work of Miles Orvell provides a helpful meta phor

  for steering through diff er ent approaches: perspectives focusing on parts,

  each impor tant, can remain vertical views, “in isolation,” until attending to

  their connections horizontally, as “parts of a larger whole.” Interpretations


  reflect their times; today, interpretation includes the power of specialized

  discourse. Many of these deep yet selective treatments arrive at James from

  the lens of their own disciplines and even echo the perceived warfare of sci-

  ence and religion. For example, some commentators examine his philosoph-

  Almost a Phi los o pher  21

  ical naturalism or his anticipation of other par tic u lar topics in philosophy or

  psy chol ogy but find his religious interests, much less his psychical research

  or study of sectarian medicine and depth consciousness, peculiar or eccen-

  tric distractions. By contrast, religious studies commentators discern his

  readiness to support belief and diverse religious experiences but pay little

  attention to his scientific training and commitments. The disciplinary affili-

  ations of the interpreters add weight to the differences, and their academic

  separation keeps each domain distinct, because of the tendency within pro-

  fessions, as James himself predicted, for “institutionalizing on a large scale

  to run into technicality.” 21 Modern scholarship encourages each point of

  view, emerging from its respective discipline, to be presented as the crucial

  ele ment for understanding James, even though he himself did not think in

  these terms. Despite these limitations, the specialized work of the past few de-

  cades has also produced more understanding than we have ever known before.

  The more “horizontal” approach of this book, connecting phases of James’s

  life and his diff er ent fields of study, especially as his commitments were coming

  into formation, can show the relations of previous interpretations—and the re-

  lations among his intellectual proj ects— with potential to complement and

  build on them.

  This work of developmental biography pursues James’s experiences

  through youthful texts and contexts to illuminate his intentions and directions

  on paths toward his mature theories. This method displays a surface resem-

  blance to the work of Erik Erikson; rather than focus on mature work, the

  end points of a subject’s career, he proposed “originology, . . . which reduces

  every human to an analogy with an earlier one, and most of all to that earliest,

  simplest, and most infantile precursor which is assumed to be its ‘origin.’ ”