Max Wertheimer and Gestalt Theory

Michael Wertheimer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351506465
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology

The ideas of Max Wertheimer (1880-1943), a founder of Gestalt theory, are discussed in almost all general books on the history of psychology and in most introductory textbooks on psychology. This intellectual biography of Wertheimer is the first book-length treatment of a scholar whose ideas are recognized as of central importance to fields as varied as social psychology, cognitive neuroscience, problem solving, art, and visual neuroscience.

King and Wertheimer trace the origins of Gestalt thought, demonstrating its continuing importance in fifteen chapters and several supplements to these chapters. They begin by reviewing Wertheimer's ancestry, family, childhood in central Europe, and his formal education. They elaborate on his activities during the period in which he developed the ideas that were later to become central to Gestalt psychology, documenting the formal emergence of this school of thought and tracing its development during World War I. The maturation of the Gestalt school at the University of Berlin during 1922-1929 is discussed in detail.

Wertheimer's everyday life in America during his last decade is well documented, based in part on his son's recollections. The early reception of Gestalt theory in the United States is examined, with extensive references to articles in professional journals and periodicals. Wertheimer's relationships and interaction with three prominent psychologists of the time, Edwin Boring, Clark Hull, and Alexander Luria, are discussed based on previously unpublished correspondence. The final chapters discuss Wertheimer's essays on democracy, freedom, ethics, and truth, and detail personal challenges Wertheimer faced during his last years. His major work, published after his death, is Productive Thinking. Its reception is examined, and a concluding chapter considers recent responses to Max Wertheimer and Gestalt theory.

This intellectual biography will be of interest to psychologists and readers inte

1

Introduction

Most impressive of all was [Wertheimer’s] personal example, the combination of passionate concern and of a passionate demand for strictness in thinking. The orientation he sketched remains as fresh and challenging today as in the past, as capable of stirring the imagination. We will not find in him answers to all our questions; what one is likely to find is more valuable—an appreciation of what matters in the human sphere, and an art of thinking about human nature.

—Solomon E. Asch (1980)

Abraham H. Maslow during the 1940s identified a few people as “fully functioning,” “living up to their full potential,” and “self-actualized.”¹ These rare individuals are “radiantly alive,” consumed by their creative projects, keenly but realistically aware of the beauty of their world, and they display a genuine acceptance of themselves as well as others, exuding a refreshing sense of spontaneity and simplicity. They have a remarkable capacity to transcend petty bodily, egoistic, and status needs, and are able to devote themselves totally to worthwhile endeavors that use their capacities effectively. Maslow’s list of such people included historical figures such as the U.S. Civil War president Abraham Lincoln, but also several of Maslow’s contemporaries, such as cultural anthropologist Ruth Benedict, physicist Albert Einstein, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt—and Gestalt psychologist Max Wertheimer.

Who was this Max Wertheimer? He lived from 1880 to 1943. People who knew this short, slight man described him as a visionary, passionately dedicated to the quest for truth, for dispassionate objectivity, and for beauty—and all of these concepts were for him fundamentally the same. Wertheimer’s lifestyle was that of the competent intellectual, the responsible scholar, the human being genuinely living life to its fullest, striving incessantly to do justice to the situations, problems, and issues encountered throughout life whatever the nature of these challenges: scientific, political, ethical, interpersonal. Artificial boundaries between different phases of a human life, rigid barriers between work and play or between one intellectual field or discipline and another, he believed, serve only to interfere with the human striving to meet each situation, each problem, directly—and to do it justice. A broad, open-minded overview of any problem “from above,” as it were, is more likely than piecemeal analysis “from below” to reveal the core features of the problem as it is embedded in its total context, to help strip away superficial considerations and to generate an understanding of the problem that is true to its actual nature, and thus to deal with it adequately, fully, and without excessive attention to inappropriate, irrelevant features.

Wertheimer’s charge when he was a member of the faculty at the University of Frankfurt from 1929 to 1933 was to fill a professorial chair dedicated to “philosophy, with specialization in psychology.” Psychology was for Wertheimer a part of philosophy; there is an intimate affinity between the two disciplines—and neither psychology nor philosophy should be artificially severed from other great fields of intellectual endeavor, be they “scientific” such as physics or economics or physiology, or “humanistic” such as linguistics or music or fine arts. Everything must be viewed in terms of its place, role, and function within the whole of which it is a part—and this principle applies with equal force in natural science, social science and humanistic endeavors as well as in everyday life. Do justice to every situation, every problem, every human being; be unswerving in your devotion to truth, justice, beauty, and parsimonious elegance; get to the heart of every issue and don’t let yourself be fooled by artificial, superficial features.

Wertheimer’s intellectual integrity; his unswerving devotion to honesty, justice, and truth; his impassioned quest for the best solution to every problem; and his impatience with stupidity, with pomposity, with piecemeal and unthinking “thinking,” and with blindness or prejudice in human affairs were displayed in all aspects of his life and lifestyle. These themes colored everything he did, whether it was a formal lecture on a problem in logic, his correspondence with a colleague, playing with his children, or engaging in a heated political discussion. He did his utmost to determine what would be best to do in every situation, and then, without compromise, to devote himself to doing what he had decided was humanly, ethically, and esthetically right. Work, science, politics, ethics, play, music, art are all inextricably interrelated, and typically blend into one another in specific situations.

Understand the structure of a problem situation completely, and you can deal fully and adequately with the problem. Approach a new problem blindly or in a mechanical, habitual way that does not do justice to the problem’s inherent and crucial component parts, or does not place the problem adequately into its current relevant context, and you won’t be able to deal with the problem creatively and constructively. Insight, wisdom, and careful attention to the structure of a problem situation and to its essential features and internal dynamics are far more likely to lead to productive, constructive problem resolution than is a blind, automatic, and habitual approach.

This philosophy or world-view, while fundamentally optimistic about human nature and the human capacity to solve problems and to engage in constructive and productive conduct, was also fiercely dedicated to realism: if a situation remains problematic, that fact itself must be recognized and dealt with. Seeing the world through rose-colored glasses does not change the actual color of the world. Human conflict, wars, misery, meanness, ugliness, and destitution must be recognized for what they are; tragedies are not averted or resolved or overcome by wishing them away or ignoring them. The admonition inherent in Wertheimer’s philosophy of everyday life was to do justice unflinchingly to every aspect of the essential features of a problem or situation.

Wertheimer has often been credited as the first to propose a Gestalt theory in psychology.² How does the Gestalt orientation fit with his world view? It ties in intimately. Gestalt theory, evolving further in the hands of Wertheimer’s colleagues Wolfgang Köhler and Kurt Koffka, successfully combined two major themes that were salient among the European intelligentsia during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries— holistic thought, and total allegiance to scientific rigor and objectivity. Gestalt theory soon received recognition worldwide and became an influential school of psychology during the first half of the twentieth century. What made it, rather than other holisms that were more vague and elusive, successful at the time was its consistent use of scientific methods of research for generating convincing evidence in support of its principles and laws. Gestalt theory was scientifically rigorous without being atomistic or reductionistic, and was thoroughly holistic without being mystical or vague. Hence it developed a strong worldwide appeal, particularly suited to a time when both natural science and responsible holism were major ideals among many members of the intelligentsia.

Wertheimer and his colleagues were, of course, deeply immersed in the intellectual climate that revered the two themes of holism and rigorous scientific precision. All three, Wertheimer, Köhler, and Koffka, studied at various times with Carl Stumpf, a versatile general psychologist at the University of Berlin who championed objectivity and experimental rigor in psychological research, and who in his holistic perspective severely criticized the then-prevailing elementistic, piecemeal character of both psychological theory and psychological research. Stumpf also advocated the “phenomenological method” in psychology: the unbiased description of experience as it comes, without preconception and without predetermined categories. This method, which the Gestalt theorists later used extensively, became a viable alternative to the atomistic effort to analyze the content of the human mind into its constituent elemental components, which characterized much of experimental psychology at the beginning of the twentieth century. The three Gestalt psychologists-to-be absorbed Stumpf‘s ideal of rigorous objective scientific research, his view of the promise of the phenomenological approach, and his endorsement of a theory of mind that goes beyond inert associations among discrete mental elements—a perspective that permits holism as long as that holism does not spill over into vague, unscientific mysticism. Out of these leitmotifs, all clearly discernible in the spirit of German academia in the first decade of the twentieth century, Stumpf’s three students constructed the influential new school of Gestalt psychology.³

Gestalt theory and Max Wertheimer’s Weltanschauung are not identical, but they are closely related to each other. While Köhler brought a strict natural-science perspective to the development of the new theory and Koffka contributed a large number of experiments, prodigious energy, and a mammoth integrative effort in the form of his 1935 book, Principles of Gestalt psychology,⁴ Wertheimer provided the initial formulations and a broad humanistically—and logically—oriented perspective. His version of Gestalt theory matched his philosophy and his personal style, and his scholarly contributions to the Gestalt literature were also consistent with them. His publications were few, sparse, revised many times, tightly written, and typically published years after they were first conceived. But almost all of them turned out to be articles to which the Gestalt theorists and their students—and critics—referred repeatedly for decades.

Max Wertheimer has on various occasions been characterized as a charismatic individual, an inspiring teacher, a warm parent, an original philosopher, and a fiercely passionate seeker after truth. Quite aside from his profound personal effect on many people during his lifetime, Gestalt theory and other aspects of Max Wertheimer’s thought and work were once again being recognized late in the twentieth century as potentially relevant to a wide array of contemporary research endeavors, in such fields as visual neuroscience, cognitive psychology, social psychology, perception, and personality. A number of recent scholars interested in these fields have found in the thought of Max Wertheimer inspiration for a constructive, fruitful perspective, a new twist on their own thinking that could lead to productive new directions in their own research.

Several of Max Wertheimer’s colleagues have expressed their esteem for him in print. Among them were Rudolf Arnheim, whose distinguished career included the world’s first professorship in the psychology of art, at Harvard University, and the late Solomon E. Asch, who brought the Gestalt perspective to his influential writings on social psychology. Their homages differ from the usual descriptions of Max Wertheimer and his work found in most textbooks on the history of psychology, which generally emphasize Wertheimer’s contributions in perception and the psychology of thinking. But they provide vivid images of Wertheimer the man, his intellectual strategies, and his lifestyle.

Consider first Arnheim’s tribute, which he presented orally on November 10, 1943 at a memorial meeting for Wertheimer at the New School for Social Research in New York, where Wertheimer taught during the last ten years of his life. Arnheim’s remarks were published in 1989 in Psychological Research, in a special issue of that journal dedicated to Wertheimer.⁵ They are reproduced here with minor editorial changes and several omissions.

Max Wertheimer’s work and life were one and the same thing. His insight into the functioning of the human mind inspired the games he played with his children, and the thoughts and fancies of the children often illustrated his lectures and writings. This unity of life and scientific reasoning exercised the strongest influence on those who studied with him. Whoever saw only his theory, a new scientific method of describing and explaining the things of nature, probably did not even grasp his theory because those who grasped it could not help finding their entire outlook changing. It meant becoming a different person, centering on what is natural, harmonious, good, and young in this world.

Take his optimism, his belligerent and sometimes almost reckless optimism! Was it an accidental personal trait—an emotional attitude apt to disturb the objectivity of his scientific judgment? Those of us who have worked and lived with him—and nobody ever worked with him without living with him to some extent—know that this optimism sprang from the very basis of his scientific conception; namely from his belief that order, harmony, and lawfulness are the fundamental facts of nature and that all deviations from them are secondary. To be good meant for Max Wertheimer: to live in conformity with natural law. That is why he objected so passionately whenever what is wrong, evil, or deformed was presented as the rule, as the main object of the scientist’s attention. His use of the word ‘ugly’ had the same metallic precision and objectivity that a low correlation has for the statistician.

Such teaching was a tonic for his pupils and directly affected their attitude towards life. Perhaps it tended to make us into dreamers with regard to the imperfections of reality. But the world in which he asked us to live with him was certainly not cloudy. Work with Max Wertheimer was hard. He never proposed or accepted a subject for a thesis unless he felt that it led into the very frontline of scientific attack, and then he would go about it with the implacable rigor of his logic. It happened to all of us: we would send him a paper that we thought was sound, and he would return it, the margins of our pages covered with his neat, microscopic shorthand notes that were so beautiful to look at, but meant so many blows against what we had considered a shockproof piece of argumentation. One never felt that one was doing academic homework for the purpose of getting a degree, nor did he feel that way. Rather it was like going in search of exciting adventures with an experienced fellow-explorer. Once on the trail, he would spare neither himself nor his followers. With some distress we watched him heading straight towards the more inhospitable spots of the jungle, which we had hoped to bypass with a few non-committal sentences. Work was hard, but invariably he did most of it. Often, after a week of ardent labor, the student would appear at the next meeting, only to find that Wertheimer had himself covered dozens of sheets with tabulations, drafts for new experiments, and theoretical formulations which pushed the project ahead beyond expectations and opened disquieting new perspectives.

At such a conference in his study at his home in New Rochelle, closely surrounded by piles of dusty papers, he frantically continued the discussion for hours until his children insisted that supper was getting cold. After the meal he started again, finally interrupted himself, and said: ‘Now let’s have a good fire.’ And the children made a fire in the living-room fireplace. Sometimes their father opened the piano and played some of the little pieces by Bach that we knew so well from his demonstrations in class, or old German folk tunes in the minor key. Or, in his armchair, he looked into the fire and, with a smile in his voice, told the curiously meaningful fables that life staged for him wherever he went. After the day’s work, his attentive eyes seemed more deeply embedded in his tired, soft face, and with the little knitted cap he used to wear he would look like one of the old rabbis in the mysterious city of Prague, where he was born.

Max Wertheimer created through personal contact. In discussion, he produced a startling wealth of ideas, suggestions, theories, plans for experiments to be made, results of experiments he had performed 20 years before, but had never published. All over this war-torn world, there are people who have carried away a spark of this wealth and who are trying to materialize in extensive studies what he may have suggested to them in a few discussions a long time ago. They had come to him from South America; they are now in the United States and in Europe; they are busy in Japan.

Now that he is gone, we wish we had written down the many things he told us and which now will have to wait until somebody rediscovers them while traveling on one of the many roads indicated by Max Wertheimer. Too much is lost, but there is one thing that we hope to save: his way of looking at the world with open eyes, in a friendly, understanding way; his manner of catching the things of nature alive with concepts clean and clear, yet not apt to destroy what they were meant to describe. This we hope to keep.

Solomon Asch prepared a contribution for a symposium at the 1980 convention of the American Psychological Association celebrating the centenary of Wertheimer’s birth. Entitled “Max Wertheimer: Memories and Reflections,”⁶ his paper has never been published. While the essay concentrates on Wertheimer’s contributions to social psychology, which are not as widely known as his other work, Asch could not avoid going far beyond the borders of that major subfield of psychology. Just as Arnheim’s comments above have been slightly modified, so too the paragraphs which follow are a slightly edited and abbreviated version of the remarks that Asch delivered at that symposium in August, 1980.

The ideas and discoveries of Max Wertheimer have transformed the situation of psychology in this century, yet he is only incompletely understood. Most psychologists are familiar mainly with his contributions in perception and thinking. The fuller scope of his views—in particular those concerning humans’ social nature, including their ethical and esthetic powers—are less widely known, although they are at least as significant and challenging as those with which his name is now most connected. The task here is to say something about Wertheimer’s treatment of humans as social beings.

A number of circumstances—the historical convulsions in Germany before World War II, as well as others—prevented t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Ancestry, Family, and Childhood
• 3. Formal Education, 1898-1904
• 4. Years of Incubation, 1905-1910
• 5. Emergence of Gestalt Theory, 1910-1913
• 6. The World War One Period, 1914-1921
• 7. The Gestalt Movement Matures, 1922-1929
• 8. Wertheimer at Frankfurt, 1929-1933
• 9. Wertheimer’s Everyday Life in the United States, 1933-1943
• 10. Early Reception of Gestalt Psychology in the United States
• 11. Wertheimer’s Correspondence with Three Psychologists: Boring, Hull, and Luria
• 12. The Social Conscience of a Humble Empiric
• 13. Personal Challenges; Productive Students
• 14. The Dynamics and Logic of Productive Thinking: The Crystallization of a Life Study
• 15. The Legacy of Max Wertheimer and Gestalt Psychology
• Index
• Illustrations follow page