Consciousness Externalized? American Realism, Behaviorism, and Neobehaviorism at the Intersection of Perception and Environment

• Applicant: Privatdozent Dr. Matthias Neuber
• Subject Area: History of Philosophy
• Term: since 2025
• Project identifier: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Project number 552255185

Both American neorealism and American critical realism of the early twentieth century are examined and critically reviewed with regard to their relation to the simultaneously developing behaviorism and neo-behaviorism in psychology. The focus of consideration is the concept of consciousness and the question of the background, merits, and limitations of an externalist interpretation of it. The applied method is inspired by the program of Integrated History and Philosophy of Science. On the content side, it will be shown that the advocates of neorealism argued in terms of a direct, non-representational approach to perceptible reality, while the proponents of critical realism strove for a more indirect, representationalist conception. In connection with the psychology-related part of the project, it will have to be considered that behaviorism developed as the first genuinely American variety of experimental psychology at the beginning of the 1910s. According to the classical behaviorist approach, introspective methods are to be discarded since mentalist notions such as 'mind' or 'consciousness' are without any explanatory value. The behaviorist experimenter defines behavior through a direct stimulus-response relationship and therefore needs nothing behind behavior to explain it. This radically anti-mentalist view was challenged by neo-behaviorism, which began to develop in the 1920s. From the neo-behaviorist perspective, mentalist notions should at least be allowed as useful tools in psycho-behavioral research. In view of these interdisciplinary constellations in the history of ideas, the project will address the following questions: (1) What exactly was the relationship of American neorealism to classical behaviorism? (2) To what extent did American neorealism prepare the ground for neo-behaviorism? (3) What exactly were the reasons for the rejection of classical behaviorism by American critical realism? (4) Was there any substantial connection between American critical realism and neo-behaviorism? (5) How did the contemporary currents of pragmatism, operationalism, and logical empiricism relate to the programs of critical realism and neo-behaviorism, which developed in parallel? In addressing these questions, it is generally assumed that the examination of the complex relationships between American neorealism, critical realism, behaviorism, and neo-behaviorism is likely to reveal insights and approaches that are instructive for the systematic evaluation of current debates, especially in the field of philosophy of mind. Externalism regarding consciousness has an interdisciplinary history worth exploring on a larger scale.

• DFG Programme: Research Grants
• International Connection: Austria, Netherlands, USA
• Cooperation Partners: Privatdozent Dr. Christian Damböck; Professor Gary Hatfield; Professor Dr. Sander Verhaegh