by Luca Critelli
Far from being only a matter of literary interest, the stories and novels of the Sherlock Holmes series have been studied and commented by scholars from the most varied scientific disciplines: criminology, logic, epistemology, economics, psychology, and sociology.
The area of logic and epistemology has without doubt been focused on the most. Holmes’ investigative method – a fine example of Late Nineteenth Century positivism – has been analysed and debated by illustrious scholars and academics. The prevailing conclusion, which contradicts the use of deductive logic on several occasions declared by Holmes himself within the stories and most completely formulated in the article The Book of Life, is that his way of proceeding corresponds with a hybrid methodology. The investigative path sees a continuous interaction and overlapping of induction and deduction, of theoretical hypotheses and empirical evidence. In strictly epistemological terms, "abduction" is perhaps the word which best describes Holmes’ proceeding. The term was originally formulated by Aristotle, while its revival in modern logic is largely owed to Charles Peirce. Abduction can be defined as a syllogism in which the second premise has only the character of probability. Even if for other aspects similar to the deductive process, the differences are considerable, starting with the less certain character of the conclusion which can be reached, that can never be superior to that of the second premise. In the literary field we come across at least one other character – not an investigator this time – who often resorts to this kind of reasoning: Voltaire’s Zadig. The scholars’ opinions on the exact classification of Holmes’ method vary considerably, but abduction seems to receive the largest support. The only commonly accepted point seems to be the fact that it is definitely not a deductive process. The concept of induction, the process which from the gathering of empirical information comes to the formulation of a theoretical conclusion (law, empirical generalisation), describes the followed path much better. The deductive process is actually contradicted and condemned, with various formulations, by Holmes himself in several stories: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment (STUD)"; "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts (SCAN)"; "Data! data! data! I can't make bricks without clay (COPP)"; "It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts (SECO)"; "The temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession (VALL)".
The epistemological expressions so frequent in Holmes' stories – theory, hypothesis, deduction, verification, inference – are therefore often used somewhat loosely. However, the occasional improper use of the term "deduction" by someone who is not an expert in logic or social sciences, even for someone as precise and methodical as Holmes, can easily be justified. In everyday language the term is often used in a rather approximate sense, describing any analytical process based on logical concatenations. However, the fact remains that Holmes does actually not adopt the sociological perspective of grounded theory – the construction of a theory on the sole basis of the empirical facts available, without a precise starting hypothesis – which on several occasions he declares to apply. Holmes’ actions are almost always inspired by a precise working hypothesis, based on the few facts which are initially available to him and on his previous experiences with similar cases and perfected as the analysis of the available empirical elements proceeds. The initial hypothesis has been proved wrong on several occasions: even if the investigator professes many times to have identified the solution to a mystery or the right trail as soon as the person who submitted the case entered the Baker Street room or finished his account of the situation, Holmes’ investigations are anything but free of false trails and blunders. The myth of the infallible detective is just that – a myth. Irene Adler docet. Even if he is considered to be the paradigmatic example of rational and scientific investigation, Holmes is further not at all dogmatic in his positivism, such as when he states that "imagination is often the mother of truth (VALL)" or that "the impression of a woman may be more valuable than the conclusion of an analytical reasoner (TWIS)". In actual fact, in the solving of various cases elements such as imagination or intuition proved much more important and useful to Holmes than the detective would like to admit. It is for this reason, and because the end result of the process is considered more important than the method used to reach it, that various scholars consider him to be a forerunner of Paul Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism.
Holmes’ investigations are largely regarded and of absolute interest also as examples of the recourse to the technique of observation, frequently used in disciplines such as anthropology, sociology and social psychology, as well as in clinical diagnosis. In most cases it is a naturalistic, non invasive kind of observation, even if the person being observed is usually aware of the profession of the observer. In other occasions it is a participant kind of observation, where the observer interacts actively and in a position of anonymity with the other components of a particular group. Holmes’ skill in disguise and the knowledge of usages and customs of a wide range of social classes explains his extreme ease in entering and passing unobserved in most various contexts. He could, for example, wander around the worst areas of London or mix up with the domestic staff of people involved in his investigations without arousing the slightest suspicion. If Holmes’ ability to follow trails and examine material objects is extraordinary, his most stimulating and surprising deductions are without doubt those regarding people. On the basis of the observation of their physical characteristics and dressing Holmes could deduce, with nearly absolute precision, an amazing number of attributes: social class, profession, civil status, present and previous illnesses, sight problems and much more. He could also understand and predict their behaviour in the different social situations fairly accurately. Reading Holmes’ stories could therefore prove excellent practice for those intending to use these research techniques, which are currently popular especially in researches which focuses on the participants of particular social events (concerts, exhibitions, meetings, museum visitors). The usefulness of these techniques has been much discussed and diversely appraised over the course of history of the social sciences. If the behavioural movement – at its height between 1930 and 1960 – considered the observed information the fundamental empirical element and starting point for every further scientific analysis, many scholars subsequently pointed out the incongruities between manifest behaviour and the intentions and convictions of the subject, attributing greater value to his direct declarations, to be gathered through techniques such as the structured questionnaire or the personal interview. Behaviourism tended moreover to deny or consider the will of the subject irrelevant, focusing on the contingent elements – conditions and means – of the concrete social situation in which the action takes place. This usually ends with the human action appearing a simple and inevitable reflex of given environmental conditions. In fact, the observable behaviour of the individual and his subjective interpretation continue to play, even today, an important role in social sciences, mainly as a starting point for other kinds of analyses. In practice, it is the spark that may push a scholar to deal with a particular social issue which appears to be significant in his eyes. And it stands to reason that those who are more capable of observing the contemporary world are also better equipped to understand and explain it. Another just as significant and modern aspect of Holmes’ method is the fact that the entire analytical process is public, and therefore verifiable (falsifiable) and hypothetically replicable by all interested persons. Holmes often points out that his methods are accessible to everyone, as long as they are equipped with spirit of observation and capacity of logical analysis. His "challenges" with Watson make it though quite clear just how differently these abilities can be developed in different people.
Overturning the perspective of analysis, and moving on to a sector of study which is decidedly less developed than the logical-epistemological one, various – direct and indirect – references to social sciences are made by Holmes throughout the stories. In his list of Sherlock Holmes’ intellectual strengths and limits, social science is a field that Watson could have classified as "average". In this classification, occurring in the initial stage of their friendship, the doctor appears however concentrated mainly on the possession of notions of a purely formal kind. Only in this way can he consider his comrade’s knowledge in philosophy to be insignificant, when we know that Holmes’ opinions on nearly every aspect of social reality are very clearly defined and his observations on the human condition always acute. In the field of social sciences Holmes relies on notions which are certainly not those of an expert, but which are nevertheless superior to those of a man of average education. So, for example, he incidentally states one of the basic principles of sociological science and statistics: "While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but percentages remain constant (SIGN)". Even if some of his judgements seem to be influenced and conditioned by the beliefs of the period, such as certain attitudes towards women and the lower social classes, Holmes appears to be fairly distant from that biological determinism so popular at the time. However, in some passages there are unquestionably considerations which appear us today outdated and scientifically unsustainable, such as when he establishes a relationship between intellectual capacity and cranial dimensions (BLUE) or mentions the inheritability of certain behavioural characteristics (BOSC, FINA, EMPT). At the same time Holmes appears to be decidedly oriented towards the sociology of action (methodological individualism), historically in opposition to sociological theories which focuses on the functional needs of the social system. Holmes sees the man as a being who is intrinsically free to make his own choices, right or wrong, but not imposed in a coercive way by an external force existing independently of the individuals and which evolves based on its own dynamics. The main consequence is that he never loses sight of individual responsibility, and judges people by their concrete actions and not on the basis of their environmental or biological background. On the other hand there does not seem to be any particular proximity to the dominant sociological trends in Late Nineteenth Century England, the Organicism/Evolutionism of Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism, even if the political and cultural climate of a period inevitably influences the person who lives immersed in it.
Given Holmes’ line of business, the sociological subject which is dealt with the most is obviously social deviance. Even in confronting this topic the basic approach mentioned above is largely confirmed. A typically sociological consideration made by Holmes is for example that on the relationship between deviance and social control, even if apparently contradictory with regards to the assumption of a positive correlation between housing density and crime rate: "You look at these scattered houses, and you are impressed by their beauty. I look at them, and the only thought which comes to me is a feeling of their isolation and of the impunity with which crime may be committed there […] They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside […] But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard's blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours […] But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser (COPP)". Holmes’ conception of social deviance is, on the whole, fairly balanced and "modern": there is certainly a strong attention for the social context in which the criminal act takes place, but this still comes back in the end to a conscious and deliberate individual action. Nevertheless, some evident anomalies and contradictions, at least from the point of view of the contemporary observer, such as the occasional references to the inheritability of psychic and behavioural traits, remain. These however never fully explain the criminal phenomenon, as demonstrated by the total absence of investigative methods which refer to such theories. Even when Holmes expresses concise and debatable opinions these appear to be dictated more by his extensive personal experience than by a dogmatic adhesion to the socially dominating opinions of the period. In spite of the emphasis on the scientific and logical nature of his investigations, the fundamental importance of common sense remains a point which Holmes often refers to, finally defining his profession "a simple art, which is but systematized common sense (BLAN)".
As opposed to the typically technical skills, it is rather difficult to credit the social sciences with the solving of any of Holmes’ cases. However, this does not mean that when confronting his investigations Holmes was not influenced and aided by his conception of man and society. His vision of human and social reality is effectively one of the most defined in all detective literature, uniting strictly scientific convictions with other of an eminently philosophical nature. But even Holmes has no definitive answers, as he himself recalls us in The Adventure of the Cardboard Box: "What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable. But what end? There is the great standing perennial problem to which human reason is as far from an answer as ever". And a veil of sadness and disenchantment is not extraneous to Holmes’ philosophy of life, which shines through every time his intellectual energies are not transitorily absorbed by a case which must be solved: "Is not all life pathetic and futile? We reach. We grasp. And what is left in our hands at the end? A shadow. Or worse than a shadow – misery (RETI)".
Bibliographic references:
The scientific interpretations of Sherlock Holmes’ adventures are countless. The few titles listed below have been selected because the critical-methodological side prevails in them over the subjective interest in the adventures. Therefore they are works which have appeared in publications not explicitly destined for fans. More exhaustive bibliographical indications on the single themes can be found on the website The Universal Sherlock Holmes, http://special.lib.umn.edu/rare/ush/ush.html. In Italian a good starting point is Stefano Guerra and Enrico Solito’s work I diciassette scalini.
- Baldini Massimo, "Introduction" to Gli aforismi di Sherlock Holmes, Newton Compton, 1995, 7-29
- Baldini Massimo, Karl Popper e Sherlock Holmes, Armando, 1998
- Berg Stanton O., "Sherlock Holmes: Father of Scientific Crime Detection", Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 61/1970, 446- 452
- Copi Irving M., Introduction to logic, MacMillan, 19612
- Eco Umberto & Sebeok Thomas A. (eds.), The Sign of Three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce, Indiana University Press, 1983
- Menes Bonnie, "Sherlock Holmes and Sociology", The American Scholar 50/1980, 101-105
- Musto, David F. "Sherlock Holmes and Heredity", Journal of the American Medical Association 196/1966, 45-49
- Rehder Wulf, "Sherlock Holmes – Philosopher Detective", Inquiry 22/1979, 441-457
- Sanders William B. (ed.) The Sociologist as Detective: An Introduction to Research Methods, Praeger, 1976
- Truzzi Marcello – Morris Scot, "Sherlock Holmes as a social scientist", Psychology Today 5/1971, 62-86