In 1906, English neurophysiologist Sir Charles Sherrington published 'The Integrative Action of the Nervous System' describing how animal movement was built up from the interaction of reflex arcs, which were unit mechanisms of the nervous system. This is widely regarded as a seminal work heralding modern neuroscience and its current reductionist approach. Geroulanos and Meyers (2016) interpret Sherrington as a reductionist whose views were in direct conflict with those of holistic psychologists such as Kurt Goldstein. Goldstein was a German neurologist and contemporary of Sherrington's who, in his book 'The Organism' (1934) developed a holistic approach that challenged the view that investigating isolated parts could inform you about the whole organism.
In this paper, I examine Goldstein's criticism of Sherrington's reflex-theory in 'The Organism' to suggest that the contrast between their views is more nuanced. First, through close analysis of 'The Integrative Action', I question the interpretation of Sherrington as a reductionist. Then, in light of this, I show that there are in fact similarities between Sherrington and Goldstein's views. The main disagreement between them was ultimately a methodological one. I argue that this can be better understood with reference to their different social contexts and their views on the relation between mind and body. To this end, I outline the differences between the German and British neurophysiological traditions in the nineteenth century. I conclude that the differences between Sherrington and Goldstein reflect the diverging attitudes towards the mind-body relation in Germany and Britain in this period.
