In this reply, I focus on the question of whether Cannon’s theory was (only) a “centralized” version of James’s. Due to space limitations, I briefly present six observations that problematize this assertion. One of my guiding principles is that theories acquire their meaning within a particular context. From this historical perspective, and in their historical contexts, the theories were quite distinct.
BardP. (1928). A diencephalic mechanism for the expression of rage with special reference to the sympathetic nervous system. American Journal of Physiology, 84, 490–513.
2.
CannonW. B. (1927). The James–Lange theory of emotions: A critical examination and an alternative theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 39, 106–124.
3.
CannonW. B. (1928). The mechanism of emotional disturbance of bodily functions. The New England Journal of Medicine, 198, 877–884.
4.
DrorO. E. (in press). From primitive fear to civilized stress: Sudden unexpected death. In CantorD.RamsdenE. (Eds.), Stress, shock and adaptation in the twentieth century. Rochester, NY: Rochester University Press.
5.
HowardD. T. (1928). A functional theory of the emotions. In ReymertM. L. (Ed.), Feelings and emotions: The Wittenberg Symposium (pp. 140–149). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
6.
JamesW. (1884). What is an emotion?Mind, 9, 188–205.
7.
ReisenzeinR.StephanA. (2014). More on James and the physical basis of emotion. Emotion Review, 6, 35–46.
