Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T12:05:30.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rhetorical Strategies in the Presentation of Ethology and Comparative Psychology in Magazines after World War II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Donald A. Dewsbury
Donald A. Dewsbury
Affiliation:
Department of PsychologyUniversity of Florida.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

European ethology and North American comparative psychology have been the two most prominent approaches to the study of animal behavior through most of the twentieth century. In this paper I analyze sets of popular articles by ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen and psychologist Frank Beach, in an effort to understand the contrasting rhetorical styles of the two. Among the numerous ways in which Tinbergen and Beach differed were with respect to expressing the joy of research, the kind of scientific approach adopted, their treatment of animals, their sense of history, and the types of illustrations they chose. In general, Tinbergen‘s articles placed him closer to nature and Beach‘s more in the tradition of dispassionate scientific inquiry. These differences in rhetoric may have been one factor in the greater success of ethology after World War II.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , Summer 1997 , pp. 367 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beach, F. A. 1936. “Are You Printing What Your Subscribers Want?” Scholastic Editor 15:4–21.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1942. “Why We Don‘t Behave Like Apes.” Science Digest (October): 77–80.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1944. “The Saga of Oscar, the Musical “gator.” Natural History 53(10):456–59.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1947a. “Of Course Animals Can Think.” Natural History 56(3): 116–19.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1947b. “Brains and the Beast.” Natural History 56(6):272–75.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1947c. “Open the Door Richard: Brains and the Beast II.” Natural History 56(6):326–32.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1947d. “Do They Follow the Leader? Brains and the Beast III.” Natural History 56(8):356–59, 379–82.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1947e. “Payday for Primates.” Natural History 56(10):448–51.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1947f. “Singing Lessons for Birds.” Fauna 9(4): 105–8.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1948a. “Can Animals (Men) Reason? Brains and the Beast IV.” Natural History 57(3): 112–16.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1948b. “Dogs at the Automat.” Fauna 10(8):85–87.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1950a. “Beasts before the Bar.” Natural History 59(8):356–59.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1950b. “The Snark Was a Boojum.” American Psychologist 5:115–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, F. A. 1974. “Frank A. Beach.” In A History of Psychology in Autobiography, vol. 6, edited by Lindzey, G.. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Boyer, P. 1985. By the Bomb‘s Early Light. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Brown, R. H. 1992. “Poetics, politics and professionalism in the rise of American psychology.” History of the Human Sciences 5:47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burckhardt, R. W., Jr. 1981. “On the Emergence of Ethology as a Scientific Discipline.” In Conspectus of History v. 1(7), edited by Hoover, D. W. and Koumoulides, J. T. A.. Muncie, Ind.: Department of History, Ball State University.Google Scholar
Burnham, J. C. 1987. How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, J. B. 1952. Modern Science and Modern Man. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousins, N. 1949a. Modern Man Is Obsolete. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Cousins, N. 1949b. “The Present and Its Roots in the Past.” In 7949 Britannica Book of the Year, edited by Yust, W.. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.Google Scholar
Dewsbury, D. A. 1984. Comparative Psychology in the Twentieth Century. Stroudsburg, P.A.: Hutchinson Ross.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewsbury, D. A. 1989. “A Brief History of the Study of Animal Behavior in North America.” In Perspectives in Ethology, vol. 8, edited by Bateson, P. P. G. and Klopfer, P. H.. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Dewsbury, D. A. 1992a. “Comparative Psychology and Ethology: A Reassessment.” American Psychologist 47:208–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewsbury, D. A. 1992b. “Triumph and Tribulation in the History of American Comparative Psychology.” Journal of Comparative Psychology 106:3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewsbury, D. A. 1995. “Americans in Europe: The Role of Travel in the Spread of European Ethology after World War II.” Animal Behavior 49:1649–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, R. L. 1970. “An Historical Look at Ethology: A Shot in the Arm for Comparative Psychology.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 6:176–87.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, E. 1974. “A Conversation with Nobel Prize Winner Niko Tinbergen.” Psychology Today 8(3):65–80.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women‘s Lives. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hayford, H. M. 1950. “American Literature.” In 1950 Britannica Book of the Year, edited by Yust, W.. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.Google Scholar
Hess, E. H. 1953. “Comparative Psychology.” Annual Review of Psychology 4:239–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hess, E. H. 1956. “Comparative Psychology.” Annual Review of Psychology 7:305–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, E. Fox 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrman, D. S. 1953. “A Critique of Konrad Lorenz‘s Theory of Instinctive behavior,” Quarterly Review of Biology 28:337–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindauer, M. 1962. “Ethology.” A nnual Review of Psychology 20:35–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockard, R. B. 1971. “Reflections on the Fall of Comparative Psychology: Is There a Message for Us All?” American Psychologist 26:168–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, W. A. 1960. “The Effects of Social Restriction on the Behavior of Rhesus Monkeys. I. Free Social Behavior.” Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 53:582–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGill, T. E. 1965. Readings in Animal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. L. 1894. An Introduction to Comparative Psychology. London: Walter Scott.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, L. 1951. The Conduct of Life. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Myers, G. 1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Samelson, F. 1974 “History, Origin Myth and Ideology: ‘Discovery’ of Social Psychology.” Journal for the Theory of social Behavior 4:217–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneirla, T. C. 1952. “A Consideration of Some Conceptual Trends in Comparative Psychology.” Psychological Bulletin 49:559–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherrington, C. 1942. Goethe on Nature and on Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W. H. 1961. “Comparative Psychology.” Annual Review of Psychology 12:27–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorpe, W. H. 1979. The Origins and Rise of Ethology: The Science of the Natural behavior of Animals. London: Praeger.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1938. “Why Do Birds Behave as They Do?” Bird-Lore 40:389–95.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1939. “Why Do Birds Behave as They Do? Part II.: Bird-Lore 41:23–30.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1951a. “Experiments with Digger Wasps.” Country Life 109:1092–94.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1951b. “Problems of Bird Instinct.” Country Life 109:1790–92.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1951c. “The Field Is Our Laboratory.” Country Life 110:970–72.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1951d. “Masters of Camouflage.” Country Life 110:1244–45.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1952a. “When Instinct Fails.” Country Life 111:412–14.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1952b. “Social Life of Herring-Gulls.” Country Life 111:1398–1400.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1953a. “Specialists in Nest-Building.” Country Life 113:270–71.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1953b. Letter to Mrs. Claire Schiller, May 1. Papers of the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Laboratory, Woodruff Library, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1954. “The Formidable Goshawk.” Country Life 115:344–46.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1958. Curious Naturalists. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1963. “The Shell Menace.” Natural History 72(7):28–35.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1968. “On War and Peace in Animals and Man.” Science 160:1411–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1985. “Watching and Wondering.” In Leaders in the Study of Animal Behavior: Autobiographical Perspectives, edited by Dewsbury, D. A.. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar
Whitman, C. O. 1899. “Myths in Animal Psychology.” The Monist 9:524–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, N. 1950. The Human Use of Human Beings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1963. “Comparative Psychology and Ethology.” Annual Review of Psychology 14:175–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed