William James was a trespasser of boundaries. I agree with Francesca Bordogna, the author of this book, on this point. She also makes a case that James’s intellectual and social project was founded on this basis. Here I have more difficulties with her argument.

The book starts from the 1906 presidential speech, “The energies of man”, that William James delivered before the American Philosophical Association. The address may seem “out of place” and an oddity, as it is not clear what it has to do with philosophy. However, Bordogna suggests that it was characteristic, even emblematic of James’s approach to philosophy and science. By insisting on transgressing boundaries separating fields of knowledge, types of discourse and groups of inquirers, she says that James aimed to create a new configuration of knowledge and a new vision for American society.

The edition of Energies of Man, published by Moffat, Yard and company in 1914, which I looked at, had an introductory page inserted by James. In this, he complained about how the essay had been misconstrued in newspaper comment and stated that the book was nothing more than a statement that “second wind” is a reality in the mental as well as physical realm and that it can be found and used when needed. I’m inclined to see its theme in that mundane way.

“Second wind” is the experience of tapping a level of new energy when pressing onward despite fatigue. Marathon and roadrunners describe the experience, which may well have a psychological explanation through creating confidence and a belief in one’s ability by overcoming the limitations of fatigue. James thought the mental equivalent was a particularly striking version of “warming up” to a task, the experience of which everyone knows. Modern physiological theories of the physical effect have included the release of endorphins and finding the right balance of oxygen to counteract the build-up of lactic acid. James said he had “mused, … trying to find a physiological theory” of the phenomenon of ‘second wind’ in general. The implication for him was that few people live at their maximum of energy. Excitements, ideas and efforts are what carry us over the damming up of our abilities.

James was non-authoritarian and valued tolerance and open-mindedness. His pragmatic science of human nature was non-deterministic. No doubt James was challenging the professional discipline of philosophy in his address to the association.  However, I’m not convinced that James had the grand intentions that Bordogna attributes to him.

James was clear about the boundary of the mental and physiological. For example, he critiqued Henry Maudsley’s position that “the only sound psychological science was … founded on physiology”. As James pointed out, conversely, introspective philosophy, which Maudsley attacked, provides the foundation of brain physiology.

Similarly, although James may have tried to separate psychology from philosophy in Principles of Psychology, he came to recognize that metaphysical questions could not be separated from psychology. His boundary work between philosophy and psychiatry came to be expressed in his radical empiricism.

Furthermore, James was prepared to investigate psychical phenomena empirically. Maybe he should have been more skeptical. Bordogna, on the other hand, sees this as another example of James’ boundary work. James had a good understanding of the “will to believe”. He was aware of the dangers of dogmatism about objective evidence.

James was also aware of the danger of relativism in his pragmatist account of truth, meaning “whatever works is true”. The satisfactoriness of an idea is not only theoretical, but also emotional, practical and aesthetic. James recognized that pragmatism could be criticised for confusing truth with what is thought to be true. He distinguished truth, which is a property of ideas, from reality, which is a property of facts.

James’ pragmatic philosophy followed from his psychology because, as far as he is concerned, it is the proper inquiry into human nature. In this sense he trespasses boundaries. He also recognized that decisions on metaphysical questions are affected by temperament, particularly the clash between being tender-minded and tough-minded.

As noted by Bordogna, there’s a sense in which James’s philosophy was amateurish. He was not regulated by the regimes of academic philosophy. She thinks this was his plan for reordering knowledge. I agree that James valued professional disciplines, but also recognized their potential restrictions. He could be deliberately popular trying to reach out to a broad public. Bordogna is right that James was not a precursor of “post‑disciplinarity” or “anti‑disciplinarity”, as he did not aim to eliminate the disciplines. I’m inclined to leave it at that.

© 2010 Duncan Double

Duncan Double, Consultant Psychiatrist and Honorary Senior Lecturer, Norfolk Mental Health Care Trust and University of East Anglia, UK; Website Editor, Critical Psychiatry Network.