Verbum XXXI, 2009, n
o
1-2
KARL BÜHLER’S AND ERNST CASSIRER’S
SEMIOTIC CONCEPTIONS OF MAN
Mark A. HALAWA
Freie Universität Berlin
RÉSUMÉ
Cet article traite trois séries de problématiques : il résume d’abord les principales
thèses de la démarche linguistique de Karl Bühler (1879-1963) et de la démarche
philosophique de Ernst Cassirer (1874-1945), dans leur fondement sémiotique ;
ensuite, il démontre dans quelle mesure ces auteurs ont dégagé des conséquences
d’ordre anthropologique à partir de leurs réflexions sémiotiques ; enfin, il met en
évidence quelques unes des différences les plus importantes entre les conceptions
sémiotiques et anthropologiques de Bühler et de Cassirer.
ABSTRACT
The present essay focuses on three aspects: firstly, it outlines the basic assumptions
of Karl Bühler’s (1879-1963) and Ernst Cassirer’s (1874-1945) semiotically
grounded linguistic or philosophical undertakings; secondly, it demonstrates the
extent to which both scholars drew anthropological conclusions from their
particular semiotic considerations; finally, it brings into view some of the most
substantial differences between Bühler’s and Cassirer’s semiotic and anthropo-
logical conceptions.
1.
INTRODUCTION
1
Karl Bühler (1879-1963) and Ernst Cassirer (1874-1945) were among
the most prominent intellectual figures of the 20
th
century. Bühler, who was
an assistant to the experimental psychologist Oswald Külpe before he
consecutively headed the Institutes of Psychology at the Universities of
Dresden and Vienna (cf. C. Bühler, 1984, 25f.), first drew attention by
1
All quotations which are based on the German original of Bühler’s and Cassirer’s publi-
cations have been translated into English by the author of the present essay.
Mark A. HALAWA
66
critically examining Wilhelm Wundt’s, at that time, widely established
mechanistic conception of psychology (cf. Bühler, 1907, 1908a, 1908b).
Subsequently, Bühler came to be one of Europe’s most recognised scholars
in the fields of cognitive and developmental psychology as well as
psychology of language and theory of language. Even today, works like Die
geistige Entwicklung des Kindes (1918) or Sprachtheorie (1934) can be
regarded as classics in the histories of psychology and the theory of
language.
Cassirer, on the other hand, gained considerable reputation for his
critical appraisement and transformation of Kantianism. Especially his three-
volume Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1923-1929) ranks as one of the most
ambitious and original philosophical enterprises of the preceding century. In
effect, it is practically impossible to deal with epistemological, anthro-
pological, cultural, or semiotic problems without coming across Cassirer’s
theory of symbolic forms.
Bühler and Cassirer, who were acquainted with each other and knew
each other’s works intimately, have several biographical similarities. Both
had to give up their academic positions after the Nazis took control of
Germany and Austria. While Cassirer had to escape from Hamburg – his
place of residence since 1919 – only three months after Hitler seized power
(cf. T. Cassirer, 2003, 194-210), Bühler was forced to leave Vienna shortly
after the fascists marched into Austria in 1938 (cf. C. Bühler, 1984, 27).
Different than Cassirer, who was born into a lettered and wealthy Jewish
family, Bühler was even confined to prison temporarily because he was
accused of promoting the Austro-Catholic movement and being “philo-
semitic” (cf. ibid.).
2
Fortunately, both scholars were able to immigrate to the USA after
they sojourned in Great Britain, Sweden, or Norway. Bühler worked as a
guest professor in Oslo for a short time before he moved overseas. After
lecturing at two rather unknown Colleges in Minnesota (first at the
Scholastic College in Duluth, then at the St. Thomas College in St. Paul), he
went to Los Angeles where he ran a psychological private practice with his
wife and worked as a psychological counsellor in a hospital (cf. C. Bühler,
1984, 27f.).
2
Many of Bühler’s students and assistants – such as Paul Lazarsfeld, Marie Jahoda, Karl R.
Popper, or Rudolf Ekstein, to name but a few – were Jewish and/or supporters of the
Austro-Marxist opposition. Moreover, Charlotte Bühler – Bühler’s wife who was a re-
nowned psychologist herself – was of Jewish ancestry and thus not tolerated by the National
Socialists. For a detailed history of the Vienna Institute of Psychology, cf. Benetka, 1995.