Abstract

Free Will and the Human Sciences in Britain, 1870–1910, and Between Mind and Nature, both published in 2013, illustrate a claim dear to Roger Smith: namely, that history—including history of the human sciences—is central to the human sciences. Free Will charts a wide range of conceptions of the will, power, agency, activity, the self, and character, as well as causality, necessity, determinism, and materialism. Victorian physicians, physiologists, scientific and philosophical psychologists, and philosophers, as well as (though that is not the distinctive focus of the book) novelists, politicians, and ordinary men and women combined those ideas in complex ways, at times merging together questions and concepts that we, instead, tend to separate (e.g., the question of the freedom of the will and the question of its efficacy). As Smith reminds us, the will attained unprecedented salience in a culture that made it into the “base of character” and, largely unable to theorize social agency, made character into “the pivot of personal relations and politics” (Free Will, pp. 8, 10). After analyzing arguments about automatism and free will (Ch. 2), Smith turns to intellectual debates on the nature of volition, mental activity, and causality. He highlights the links between those debates, arguments concerning “the form of knowledge found in the natural sciences,” and debates concerning the identity of psychology and history as sciences. The central chapters are largely organized on the basis of the actors’ distinction between “empiricists” (e.g., J. S. Mill, Herbert Spencer, and Shadworth Hodgson) and “idealists” (e.g., Francis Bradley, James Ward, and, for his theory of knowledge, G. F. Stout). In general, empiricists tended to deny the commonsense perception of the will as an actual agent (a power), endowed with substantive reality and freedom. They also tended to allow only Humean causes and to deny the existence of “efficient causes” (that is, in Thomas Reid’s terminology, causes understood as real agents; ibid., p. 83). Idealists, instead, usually rejected Hume’s constant conjunction account of causality and inclined to view the “individual will” as “the agent of spirit in the world” (ibid., p. 66). However, Smith persuasively shows that the divides between the two camps were far more fluid than is usually thought, allowing for many exceptions and surprising convergences between self-avowed idealists and empiricists.