The Rise of the Laboratory

In Lashley's neuropsychology, the laboratory, as opposed to the clinic or the field, was not simply the privileged site of knowledge production; it was the only source of reliable psychological fact. Lashley and his students cared little for the applied aspects of their discipline, not because they lacked interest in social control, but because for them the laboratory served as a substitute for society. Within its walls, they created a place where any social situation that was of concern could be simulated. By subsuming of all other aspects of life, the laboratory achieved preeminence in Lashley's neuropsychology.

The preeminence of the laboratory in Lashley's science had three main consequences for the production of psychological knowledge. First, anything that could not be investigated in a laboratory was effectively stricken from the scientific record. What couldn't be studied within the laboratory walls wasn't science. Much of human psychology, consequently, was either excluded or redefined to fit inside a laboratory. Second, because experimentation with humans was strictly limited, the analogy between human beings and animals – particularly rats – took on a heightened significance and validity. Humans and the “lower” organisms were entirely comparable; any suggestion of a qualitative leap, of progress in evolution, was denied.