Vanessa R. Corry '01

With the turn of the nineteenth century came an increased scientific interest in the human brain. Before this time, Thomas Willis was the first scientist to publish an accurate description of the brain, which he titled Anatomy of the Brain. Willis correctly hypothesized that different parts of the brain controlled of various bodily functions. Around a hundred years later, in the 1770’s, a disputably scientific technique known as physiognomy arose. This technique was the determination of an individual’s disposition by ‘reading’ their physical characteristics, predominantly those of the face. Lavater, the founder of this technique, believed that people’s different psychological characteristics were, "related to such things as the shape of the forehead, the size of mouth and whether the cheeks puff out of not" (Miller, 1996, p. 246). This idea of determining people’s character from physical features inspired Franz Gall to further develop the principles that Lavater identified by linking character to an organ he found particularly interesting, the brain.

Gall’s initial studies focused on confirming Willis’ findings that the brain contained both white and gray matter. In this exploration, Gall increased our knowledge of the brain by discovering that the brain’s two halves were connected with white fibers, now known as commissures. His first research was conducted on animals, children and the elderly, as he identified a small correlation between brain size and higher mental functioning. Not content with this knowledge, Gall extended his ideas to postulate that specific psychological functions were housed in specific areas of the brain. He also believed, "the bumps and indentations on the surface of an individual skull reflected the size of the underlying parts, and hence different [psychological] faculties" (Fancher, 1990, p. 75). Gall referred to this idea as ‘organology’; however, this term was later changed to phrenology by his followers.

Gall’s ‘organology’ made generalizations that the features of the skull reflected the characteristics of the underlying brain. The skull could therefore be used to detect differences in the brain among individuals. Since Gall believed that characteristics of the brain reflected personality traits, he concluded that variations in the skull would indicate varying character. For example, Gall assumed that thick necks resulted from a large underlying cerebellum. He noticed that individuals who had thick necks also generally had unusually strong sexual drives. This led him to believe that a thick neck would predict strong sexual urges. He also noted that people with bulging, or protruding eyes, had particularly good memories. He attributed these exceptional memories to an enlarged brain that pushed forward onto the eye sockets, causing them to bulge.

Gall hypothesized that these skull variations would also predict behavior. He decided to study lower-class teenage boys who frequently participated in delinquent behavior. As he compared the skulls of these boys, he came across "prominences just above and behind the ears" (Fancher, 1990, p. 77). Gall realized that, in comparison, the ‘honest’ boy’s skull remained flat in these places. He attributed these prominences to the result of an ‘organ of curiosity’ underneath. With further observation and much hypothesizing, Gall was able to map an extensive number of characteristics on the brain. His map of phrenological organs included precise traits and behavioral tendencies, including hope, destructiveness, ideality and benevolence.

In order for phrenology to be used to identify a connection between the physiology of the brain and the psychological state of an individual, it had to explain both abnormal behavior and the effect of brain injury on behavior. Phrenology explained insanity by saying that the cerebral organs had become imbalanced, as had the faculties that were attributed to them, causing a disordered mental state. This imbalance could be caused by underdevelopment or over-stimulation of one or more organs in the brain. It was also questioned that if there was injury to one area of the brain, why then would the faculty that was identified with that area not be lost? In response to this query, Spurzheim, in 1833, described a "duplicity of the nervous system" in which the other hemisphere would be able to take on a specific faculty if the primary area attributed to this faculty was lost. Spurzheim also believed that the cerebral organs could be exercised and strengthened with use. Damaged organs could, therefore, be reconditioned to restore use of that faculty (Miller, 1996).

In 1824, Andrew Combe set forth to specify what he believed to be the four basic principles behind Gall’s phrenology. These principles were published in the Phrenological Journal and Miscellany and stated:

(1) That the mind in endowed with a plurality of innate faculties. (2) That each of these faculties manifests itself through the medium of the appropriate organ. (3) That the power of manifesting each faculty bears a constant and uniform relation to the size of the organ or part of the brain with which it is more intimately connected. (4) That it is possible to ascertain the relative size of these organs during life, by observing the different forms of the skull to which the brain gives its shape (as cited in Miller, 1996).

Combe’s attempt to provide a structured description of phrenology and the basic ideas behind the theory demonstrates the extent to which scientists initially prescribed to Gall’s theory. However, this interest only lasted through the first half of the nineteenth century before scientists began to doubt phrenology’s validity.

Phrenology quickly lost support in the professional community; however, the public held a slightly longer interest in the ideas that this ‘science’ presented. Phrenologists traveled around America "examining people’s heads in much the same way that fortune tellers would examine palms" (Miller, 1996, p. 248). These efforts to capitalize on Gall’s theory persisted through the nineteenth century; however, the disbelief and outrage that resulted within the medical community led to its final discredit. Although cerebral localization has since been proven, many doctors held Gall and his followers at fault for over-attributing behaviors and character traits to exact regions of the cortex. Criticism of Gall’s ideas is easily identified. Beyerstein states that phrenology is, "the most egregious overextension of valid research"(1990, p. 29). Roback also degrades Gall’s research by saying,

Gall’s anatomical investigations did not succeed in proving the truth of phrenology, and his localization of the faculties, which he called propensities, did not help the scholastic cause. If anything it was detrimental to it (1964, p. 433).

According to Fancher (1990) there are three main criticisms for Gall’s theory. The first of these discusses the fact that the skull or shape of the head is not necessarily representative of the underlying brain. This fact discredits Gall’s theory by showing that the features and individual differences of the skull cannot indicate enlarged cerebral organs and, therefore, could not predict or indicate behavioral difference. Gall and later phrenologists are also criticized for the "faculties" that they stated were fundamental to human character. These faculties were extremely specific as they included qualities such as "secretiveness" and "parental love." However, what Gall did not take into account was the interaction that these traits had with one another. Many of the faculties were not distinguishable and therefore could not be looked at as being controlled by one exact area of the brain. The faculties themselves were also highly questioned, as it cannot be proven that any of the traits were necessarily fundamental to human character. For example, it is not necessarily true that "mirthfulness" and "secretiveness" are essential components in a person’s character. Finally, the validity of phrenology is not easily tested. Gall provided an enormous number of simple explanations of discrepancies that he observed. If a person experienced cerebral damage to a particular area but did not lose the trait that was associated with that area, Gall would explain that another over-enlarged organ was working in place of that organ. He could explain that the enlarged organ’s over-effectiveness had gone unnoticed and was only visible with the brain insult and loss of the primary area of that faculty. Gall gave himself the ability to explain essentially any discrepancy that was observed.

While phrenology was and still is criticized, Gall’s theory behind the ‘science’ was not entirely invalid. Gall did note the specialized control that areas of the brain have over certain abilities. Phrenology was the first step toward explaining this specialization with which we now wholeheartedly agree. Current science has shown that specific areas of the brain do control some abilities and behaviors. For example, Broca’s area is now known as the speech center of the brain. However, the manner in which Gall and other phrenologists attributed character traits to the shape and form of the skull was a drastic generalization. Although the previously mentioned quote by Roback claims that phrenology was "detrimental" to our acquisition of knowledge about the brain and its specializations, it is important to remember that all claims made in science are capable of being erroneous. Furthermore, the only way for our knowledge to expand in any science is with speculation, hypothesis and experimental testing. Although in hindsight it is easy to find fault with phrenology, at the time it was an intuitive estimation of the brain’s function that should not so easily be criticized.

References

Beyerstein, B. L. (1990). Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the new age. International Journal of Mental Health, 19, 27-36.

Carmichael, L. (1957). Basic psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.

Fancher, R. E. (1990). Pioneers of psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.

Miller, E. (1996). Phrenology, neuropsychology and rehabilitation. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 6, 245-255.

Morse, M. (1997). Facing a bumpy history. Smithsonian, 28, 24-29.

Roback, A. A. (1964). History of American psychology. New York: Collier.