{"word_count": 1800, "character_count": 13613}
Journ&#233;es d&#8217;&#233;tude de la Soci&#233;t&#233; d&#8217;Histoire des Savoirs sur le Psychisme (SHSP)(English speakers: see translation at the end)L&#8217;animal tient une place ambigu&#235; dans l&#8217;histoire des sciences du psychisme &#8211; (l&#8217;expression &#171; sciences du psychisme &#187; est ici entendue au sens large : la triade psychiatrie, psychologie, psychanalyse, mais aussi tous les savoirs qui ont pr&#233;tendu faire science sur le psychisme, les limites disciplinaires n&#8217;&#233;tant pas toujours pertinentes en ce domaine). L&#8217;animal est souvent ce qui permet de penser le propre du psychisme humain. &#192; l&#8217;animalit&#233; suppos&#233;e de l&#8217;animal, r&#233;pond l&#8217;humanit&#233; de l&#8217;homme, une construction en n&#233;gatif qui permet aux sciences &#171; humaines &#187;, et &#224; la psychologie en particulier, de se d&#233;finir et de restreindre leur objet aux productions inscrites dans le cadre de la culture et du langage. A priori l&#8217;animal se voit donc chass&#233; de savoirs qui se veulent centr&#233;s sur l&#8217;&#233;tude voire le soin de l&#8217;esprit humain et renvoy&#233; vers les sciences naturelles, la zoologie, l&#8217;&#233;thologie.Pourtant, quoi qu&#8217;elles aient pu dire, les sciences du psychisme n&#8217;ont en r&#233;alit&#233; jamais exclu l&#8217;animal de leur champ de recherche. D&#8217;abord parce que la question de l&#8217;existence d&#8217;un psychisme animal, certes distinct de celui de l&#8217;homme mais n&#233;anmoins pr&#233;sent, n&#8217;a jamais compl&#232;tement &#233;t&#233; &#233;vacu&#233;e, ce qui ouvrait, d&#232;s lors, la possibilit&#233; d&#8217;une &#171; psychologie animale &#187;. Une psychologie animale dont la place a pu &#234;tre d&#8217;autant plus grande qu&#8217;&#224; la question : &#171; le fou, l&#8217;enfant, le primitif ont-ils plus d&#8217;esprit que le singe ? &#187;, les psychologues n&#8217;ont pas toujours r&#233;pondu oui. Interroger les capacit&#233;s psychiques des animaux, chercher &#224; &#233;valuer leur intelligence, leurs capacit&#233;s &#233;motionnelles, affectives, ou autres, ou bien encore comparer les op&#233;rations r&#233;alis&#233;es par les grands singes et les enfants humains en bas &#226;ge etc., a ainsi pu &#234;tre vu comme un moyen de parvenir &#224; situer les limites du psychisme humain. En outre, il est possible de faire des exp&#233;riences sur les animaux qu&#8217;on ne saurait tenter sur les hommes, ce qui explique aussi pourquoi l&#8217;animal n&#8217;a jamais quitt&#233; les laboratoires.&#192; c&#244;t&#233; de l&#8217;animal objet de r&#233;flexion ou cobaye, les savoirs &#171; psy &#187; ont encore produit d&#8217;autres figures originales de l&#8217;animalit&#233;. On peut penser &#224; l&#8217;animal-fou, contamin&#233; par la maladie de son ma&#238;tre, animal-patient donc, ou, au contraire, &#224; l&#8217;animal-m&#233;decin, qu&#8217;il soit cheval, dauphin ou autre, dont les m&#233;rites ont pu &#234;tre vant&#233;s par divers sp&#233;cialistes des maux de l&#8217;&#226;me. Inversement, du d&#233;lire de lycanthropie, &#224; la &#171; folie des antivivisectionnistes &#187; de Valentin Magnan, en passant par la zoophilie de Krafft-Ebing, les disciplines &#171; psy &#187; ont aussi admis que les animaux, s&#8217;ils n&#8217;&#233;taient pas &#224; l&#8217;origine des troubles psychiques, pouvaient n&#233;anmoins contribuer &#224; fixer certaines formes de d&#233;lires. Pour finir, on &#233;voquera encore l&#8217;animal-source d&#8217;inspiration, divers sp&#233;cialistes ayant insist&#233; sur la capacit&#233; de la pr&#233;sence animale &#224; susciter le processus de pens&#233;e. On se souviendra, par exemple, du fameux chien de Marie Bonaparte, qui parvint &#224; convaincre Sigmund Freud de l&#8217;int&#233;r&#234;t d&#8217;une pr&#233;sence canine &#224; ses c&#244;t&#233;s.&#160;Comme on le voit, &#224; travers l&#8217;ambivalence et la fluctuation des positions des savoirs &#171; psy &#187; sur l&#8217;animalit&#233;, son inclusion, son exclusion hors des fronti&#232;res disciplinaires, c&#8217;est finalement la question m&#234;me de l&#8217;identit&#233; des sciences du psychisme qui est ici pos&#233;e. C&#8217;est pourquoi, dans le cadre de ce colloque, nous proposons de r&#233;fl&#233;chir &#224; la fa&#231;on dont les diverses sciences &#171; psy &#187; se sont int&#233;ress&#233;es &#224; l&#8217;animal et de voir ce que ceci r&#233;v&#232;le de leur histoire, en France et ailleurs. Au-del&#224; de l&#8217;anecdote, on pourra se demander &#224; quelles visions du psychisme humain renvoient les diverses figures de l&#8217;animal pr&#233;c&#233;demment &#233;voqu&#233;es (l&#8217;animal-cobaye, l&#8217;animal-fou, l&#8217;animal-soignant&#8230;), comme il serait int&#233;ressant de rep&#233;rer si ces changements dans la forme de l&#8217;int&#233;r&#234;t port&#233; aux animaux correspondent &#224; des &#233;volutions plus g&#233;n&#233;rales dans les discours &#171; psy &#187;. Une autre piste de r&#233;flexion pourra &#234;tre celle des fronti&#232;res disciplinaires et de leur variation, selon les &#233;poques et les pays. Il faudrait, par exemple, s&#8217;interroger sur le statut de la &#171; psychologie animale &#187; : Quels types de pratiques et de discours cette discipline a-t-elle v&#233;hicul&#233;s ? &#192; quoi correspondent ses divers changements d&#8217;appellation ? (de &#171; psychologie animale &#187;/&#171; animal psychology &#187; &#224; &#171; psychologie compar&#233;e &#187;/&#171; comparative psychology &#187;, en passant par &#171; psychologie zoologique &#187;/&#171; zoological psychology &#187;, etc.) ? Et o&#249;, aujourd&#8217;hui, les terrains de cette d&#233;funte ( ?) discipline ont-ils migr&#233; ?...&#160;Il va sans dire que ces quelques pistes de r&#233;flexion ne pr&#233;tendent pas &#224; l&#8217;exhaustivit&#233; et n&#8217;ont aucun caract&#232;re obligatoire. Par ailleurs, si la p&#233;riode d&#8217;&#233;tude privil&#233;gi&#233;e sera celle des XIXe-XXe si&#232;cles, temps du triomphe des disciplines &#171; psy &#187;, nous n&#8217;excluons pas l&#8217;analyse d&#8217;autres &#233;poques, o&#249; la question des relations entre psychisme humain et animal a aussi pu se poser en termes &#171; scientifiques &#187;.Date limite d&#8217;envoi des propositions : 13 avril 2009.Les propositions de communication (abstracts), de 250 mots maximum, devront &#234;tre envoy&#233;es &#224; Aude Fauvel aude-fauvel@hotmail.fr et/ou &#224; R&#233;my Amouroux amouroux.remy@gmail.com.Le colloque aura lieu les 11 et 12 juin 2008 &#224; Paris (l&#8217;emplacement pr&#233;cis sera divulgu&#233; ult&#233;rieurement).Les communications pourront &#234;tre accept&#233;es aussi bien en langue fran&#231;aise qu&#8217;anglaise. &#160;Colloque organis&#233; par la Soci&#233;t&#233; d&#8217;Histoire des Savoirs sur le Psychisme, avec le soutien du Centre Alexandre Koyr&#233; et de la Soci&#233;t&#233; Fran&#231;aise d&#8217;Histoire des Sciences de l&#8217;Homme/ Of Men and Mice is organised by the Society for the History of the Mind Sciences, and is sponsored by the Centre Alexandre Koyr&#233; for the History of Sciences (Paris) and the French Society for the History of Human Sciences.&#160;Comit&#233; scientifique/Scientific committee : R&#233;my Amouroux (EHESS), St&#233;phanie Dupouy (ENS Ulm), Aude Fauvel (University of Cambridge), Marion Thomas (Universit&#233; de Strasbourg)Comit&#233; d&#8217;organisation/Organisation committee : R&#233;my Amouroux (EHESS), Aude Fauvel (University of Cambridge), Elisabeth Chapuis (Universit&#233; Paris VII).&#160;English version&#160;&#171; Of Men and Mice &#187;Animals, Animality and the &#8216;Psy Sciences&#8217;&#160;&#160;Animals hold an ambiguous place in the history of &#8216;psy sciences&#8217; (broadly understood here as including not merely the &#8216;psychiatry/psychology/psychoanalysis&#8217; triad but any discipline purporting to produce a scientific discourse on the mind, since disciplinary boundaries have only limited relevance in this particular field). What seems to define animals as such is commonly seen as a clue to differentiating what makes humans &#8216;human&#8217;. On a basic level, we assume that humanity is what transcends animality &#8211; a posit that marks out &#8216;human&#8217; sciences and more particularly psychology, which is only supposed to deal with what occurs within the realms of language and culture. Thus animals seem to fall outside the purview of those disciplines that focus on the study and/or the healing of the human mind, and, accordingly, they are confined to natural sciences such as zoology or ethology.However, despite their claims to the contrary, mental sciences have never really managed to cast animals aside. The notion that there might be such a thing as an animal psyche, albeit distinct from that of humans, has, for a start, never been entirely ruled out, hence leaving potential room for the study of the &#8216;animal psychology&#8217;. Furthermore, as there were times when it was considered that the brains of children, lunatics or &#8216;primitive&#8217; humans were possibly not any more developed than those of apes, it then seemed quite logical to include the study of animals in the sphere of the human sciences. Probing faculties of animals, trying to gauge their intelligence as well as their aptitude for emotional and affective responses, or assessing the capacities demonstrated by young apes against those of human infants etc., all are means that have appeared in order to delineate the limits of the human psyche. Lastly, a simpler element also explains the reason for which animals have never left laboratories: without them, certain experiments simply could not be performed for obvious ethical reasons, so that psychologists and psychiatrists had to get used to extrapolating from animals to humans.Mental sciences have thus contributed to the shaping of &#8216;laboratory animals&#8217;, but they have also given birth to other ways of perceiving animals. Some researchers have, for example, developed the idea of &#8216;mad animals&#8217; contaminated by their insane owners, considering that these animals could be patients of &#8216;psy&#8217; practitioners. Others, on the contrary, have reckoned that animals could be &#8216;physicians&#8217;, praising the healing talents of horses, dolphins or other creatures on various ailments of the mind. Conversely, through such cases as &#8216;lycanthropic delirium&#8217; (&#8216;lycomania&#8217;), &#8216;antivivisectionists&#8217; mania&#8217; (Valentin Magnan&#8217;s &#8216;folie des antivivisectionnistes&#8217;), or zoophilia, as described by Krafft-Ebing, various authors have also admitted that even if animals could not directly cause psychic disorders, they could nevertheless contribute to creating certain specific forms of delirium. One can finally think of animals as sources of inspiration, since their role in triggering thought processes has often been emphasised by mental specialists. This is famously exemplified by Marie Bonaparte&#8217;s dog, which had Sigmund Freud convinced of how beneficial some form of canine presence by his side would be.&#160;As it can be seen, the question of whether or not animality belongs to the field of mental sciences is a crucial issue that has strongly affected the identity of the various sciences of the mind throughout history. This workshop thus aims at exploring the ways in which the various &#8216;psy sciences&#8217; have dealt with animals in different countries. Indeed, it seems that the question of whether there is such thing as an animal psyche and of what it might consist of has formed a special locus for debate and scientific &#8216;transfers&#8217;, especially after the spreading of Charles Darwin&#8217;s theories.Contributors may, for example, wish to study how animals have been variously described by mental specialists (as patients, sources of inspiration, of mental disorders&#8230;), and see what these changes in the way of perceiving animality reveal on the identity of &#8216;psy sciences&#8217;.This workshop also seeks to examine the question of disciplinary boundaries and the ways in which they are gradually set up. This would involve investigating the history of &#8216;animal psychology&#8217;, comprehending why this discipline has been given so many names (&#8216;animal psychology&#8217;/&#8216;psychologie animale&#8217;, &#8216;comparative psychology&#8217;/&#8216;psychologie compar&#233;e&#8217;, &#8216;zoological psychology&#8217;/&#8216;psychologie zoologique&#8217;, and so on), as well as assessing what is left today of its fields of research.&#160;These, of course, are simply suggestions of topics; they are by no means exhaustive and do not by far cover the range of possible questions. We would also like to add that if the workshop will obviously focus on modern times (19th and 20th centuries), as it is then that the sciences of the mind gained recognition in the academic field, papers may also analyse other periods, provided that they fit in the general framework of questioning.&#160;&#160;Deadline for abstracts: 13 April 2009Abstracts should not exceed 250 words and can be either written in French or English.They are to be sent to Aude Fauvel aude-fauvel@hotmail.fr and/or R&#233;my Amouroux amouroux.remy@gmail.com.The workshop is scheduled for June 11th/12th, 2009 in Paris (the precise location will be disclosed afterwards).The conference will be held both in French and English.