Colloque “Des livres qui rendent fou ? Interroger le canon psychiatrique de Pinel au DSM-5″ (Paris, Oct 2014)

Programme_Final_F-page1

Des livres qui rendent fou ? 

Interroger le canon psychiatrique de Pinel au DSM-5

 

Colloque à l’EHESS (Paris)

Les 1er et 2 octobre 2014

105, boulevard Raspail

Salles 07 et 08

Organisation 

Andreas Mayer et Yvonne Wübben

Participants 

Vincent Barras

Rachel Cooper

John Forrester

Katja Günther

Andreas Mayer

Sabine Ohlenbusch

Juan Rigoli

Patricia Rosselet

Yvonne Wübben

HTTP://WWW.RUB.DE/MRG/KNOWLEDGE

HTTP://KOYRE.EHESS.FR

Call for Papers – Psy Cultures

Screenshot from 2014-09-18 06:29:05

CulturasPsi/Psy Cultures is a peer reviewed, on-line only, free-access journal devoted to the discussion and debate of the transnational circulation of “psy knowledge” and the practices associated with it.

We welcome papers for the update of Vol 2  (to be published in March 2015) and for Vol 3 (to be published in September 2015) on topics related to the transnational diffusion of “psy knowledge”, understood in a broad sense, including psychoanalysis, psychiatry, psychology, neuro science, etc. By “psy culture” we do not only mean the development of the scientific disciplines related to the study of subjectivity and the mind, but also the emergence and development of all the associated discourses and practices, including  different forms of reception, diffusion and circulation, whether they take place within the bounds of the scientific realm or not.

We particularly encourage the submission of manuscripts that take an interdisciplinary approach and accept them in Spanish, Portuguese, English and French, which will be published in their original language with abstracts in English in all cases. We also accept proposals for dossiers and for book reviews.

The deadline for the submission of papers for the update of number 2 is December 20th 2014. For number 3 the deadline is May 15, 2015. Please consult our page: http://ppct.caicyt.gov.ar/index.php/culturaspsi for style. Papers should not be longer than 25 pages, including bibliography. We encourage authors to take full advantage of the electronic format and include videos, images, figures, tables.

Manuscripts and proposals for dossiers should be sent to: editor@culturaspsi.org

Proposals for book reviews should be sent to: review@culturaspsi.org

Book Review – Anne Roekens (dir.), Des murs et des femmes. Cent ans de psychiatrie et d’espoir au Beau-Vallon (Presses Universitaires de Namur 2014)

FMProBy Valérie Leclercq

The psychiatric institution le Beau-Vallon was founded at the eve of the first World War by the catholic order of les Soeurs de la Charité de Jésus et de Marie. Located on one of the hills surrounding the Belgian city of Namur and dedicated to the exclusive care of women, Beau-Vallon was designed as the first pavilion asylum of Wallonia and rapidly developed into an imposing near-autonomous structure isolated from what was seen at the time as the poisonous influence of the city. On the day of its official inauguration in 1924, it was already comprised of eleven pavilions housing a total of 740 patients.
Today, the institution celebrates a century of existence with the release of a book entitled Des murs et des femmes: Cent ans de psychiatrie et d’espoir au Beau-Vallon. Edited by Anne Roekens, a professor of contemporary history at the University of Namur and also the (co-)author of five out of the book’s seven chapters, Des murs et des femmes showcases the penmanship of seven additional contributors, among whom three psychiatrists (Xavier de Longueville, Benoît Delatte and Jean-Paul Rousseaux, responsible for the seventh chapter), three young historians graduated from the Catholic University of Louvain (Nathalie Collignon, Lisa Lacroix and Mélanie De Brouwer) as well as historian Benoît Majerus who has published extensively on the history of psychiatry in Europe these last few years. The book also incorporated elements from the work of students from the UNamur history department who in 2012 and 2013 were given the opportunity to delve into the records of the institution.
Thematically structured, Des murs et des femmes explores different aspects of the history of the institution, from the context of its foundation to its present state, from its evolving spatial infrastructures and treatment procedures, to the specificities of its personnel and patient population. The book does a great job at revealing the slow processes behind some of the important changes that radically affected 20th-century psychiatry, such as the apparition of psychopharmacology, the professionalization and secularization of the medical personnel, deinstitutionalization, etc. Surprisingly, the history of Beau-Vallon (which would have been considered a second-class country asylum – ou “asile de province” – by the medical authorities of the capital) parallels that of western psychiatry more closely that one might think. In one instance it even seems to have anticipated change when the institution opened several residential facilities outside the hospital a decade before the launch of the 1991national plan to encourage the development of ‘MSP’ (Psychiatric Care Houses) and ‘IHP’ (Protected Homes Initiatives). This last fact the authors are of course eager to point out. But Des murs et des femmes is far from being the simple celebratory narrative that one might expect. Although never overtly critical of this particular institution, the authors do not shy away from sensible topics such as forced confinement, physical coercion, unresponsive physicians, suicide or social segregation inside the asylum, etc. The tone of the book is globally that adopted by most medical historians today who cautiously navigate between the radical anti-institutional acidity of the 60s/70s and the blind optimism of Whiggish medical-historical writing. This middle way is apparent when the authors expose the mutability of the totalitarian psychiatric space, recontextualize the use of mental therapeutics or brush aside the rigid physician-patient antagonism to highlight what Benoit Majerus in his book Parmi les fous (2013) already deemed the central relationship of the everyday institutional psychiatric experience: that of nurses and patients.
Des murs et des femmes, however, will probably prove a frustrating read for historians of psychiatry due to a somehow limited depth of analysis. It propounds no really innovative thesis. The book might be in this regard illustrative of a certain Belgian francophone approach to history: close to its rich source material but lacking in theoretical background and perspective. The two first chapters (Le temps des fondations & Espaces psychiatriques, espaces religieux) appear the strongest and tightest while the four following chapters, dealing respectively with the two world wars, the patient population, treatment and the asylum personnel, seem a bit more factual and loosely problematized. The last chapter, which is concerned with deinstitutionalization and was penned by the three medical authors, confidently recounts the progressive opening of Beau-Vallon and the evolving Belgian legal context in many interesting and necessary details but without never really questioning the process of deinstitutionalization itself. To be fair, the very nature of the project must have imposed some limitations to the contributors’ creativity. When medical historians decide to work on the records of a single medical institution, it is usually to study some or other aspects of medicine or psychiatry, and they are then usually free to narrow their focus as they think best for the relevance of their subject. In The Psychiatric Persuasion, for instance, Elizabeth Lunbeck used the records of the Boston Psychopathic Hospital to write about the psychiatrization of everyday life, just as a few years earlier Nancy Tomes in The Art of Asylum-Keeping dug through the archives of The Pennsylvania Hospital for the Insane only to reflect about the social significance of mid-19th century asylums [1]. But Des murs et des femmes is ultimately the history of the Beau-Vallon asylum itself, an object uneasily unified around a cardinal analytical argument. The study, as a result, covers the major aspects of the institution’s evolution in a thematic overview that still seems to have a lot of unexplored potential.
It is great, however, to see a medical institution collaborate with historians and work such as this being commissioned. And despite its limitations, Des murs et des femmes seems to achieve its purpose successfully. It is a carefully researched and well written effort that is also accessible for the layperson. This accessibility would seem essential for a centennial anniversary publication. The source material used by the different authors is incredibly rich and varied; it includes congregational and hospital archives, legislative texts, medical literature, private archives, oral history (most interviews have been conducted by Anne Roekens), photographs, etc. Moreover, long excerpts from archival documents are showcased in dark grey sidebars, giving the reader direct access to the words of various actors from the period – whether it be catholic nurses or nursing students, psychologists, a priest or a judge. This makes for an engaging read that will similarly please the general, medical and historian public. It is also worth noting that the history of sciences and medicine in Belgium is still in its infancy. In this regard, any contribution to this field is highly valuable, especially when it points out, as is the case here, the specificities of the Belgian situation (for instance the predominantly religious and hospital-centered character of 20th century Belgian psychiatry), possible archive material and new territories to explore while contributing to building the picture of a larger national historical context that no reference work has yet come to illuminate.
1. Elizabeth Lunbeck, The Psychiatric Persuasion : Knowledge, Gender, and Power in Modern America, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994; Nancy Tomes, The Art of Asylum Keeping: Thomas Story Kirkbride and the Origins of American Psychiatry, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994 (origin. ed. 1984)

 

Valerie Leclercq is a FNRS doctoral Research Fellow at the Free University of Brussels. Her areas of interest include 19th and 20th-century medicine, the history of patients, psychiatry and medical ethics. She is currently writing her dissertation on the therapeutic encounter at the turn of the 20th century.

New deadline for Call for Paper – Psychopathological fringes. Historical and social science perspectives on category work in psychiatry

unnamed

Date: 13./14.2.2015
Venue: Berlin, Institute for the History of Medicine, Dahlem
Organization: Nicolas Henckes, Volker Hess, Emmanuel Delille, Marie Reinholdt, Stefan Reinsch, Lara Rzesnitzek,
Contact: stefanie.voth@charite.de

 

 

Over the last few years, the revision process of both the DSM and the chapter V on mental disorders of the ICD has stimulated within psychiatry a series of attempts at challenging established diagnostic categories. These challenges reflect both dissatisfaction with categories as they are defined in existing diagnostic classifications, and a will to adjust them to the demands of clinical and research activities. They are expressed in ways that sometimes strongly resembles the discourse of critical social science. For instance, the conveners of the conference “Deconstructing psychosis” – organized by the American Psychiatric Association along with the WHO and the US National Institutes of Health in 2005 – developed a stringent critique of the proliferation of diagnostic categories in the field of psychosis: “Although these categories are meant to refer to broadly defined psychopathological syndromes rather than biologically defined diseases that exist in nature, inevitably they undergo a process of reification and come to be perceived by many as natural disease entities, the diagnosis of which has absolute meaning in terms of causes, treatment, and outcome as well as required sampling frame for scientific research.”
Controversies over diagnostic categorization in fact have a long history in psychiatry. Rejection of diagnosis has long been prominent among certain segments of psychiatry, from Adolf Meyer’s synthesis in interwar US psychiatry through parts of phenomenological psychiatry in Germany to antipsychiatry and Lacanian psychoanalysis in 1970s France. However, the deconstruction of diagnosis has also been a core feature of what might be termed category work in psychiatry, at least since the fall of the unitary psychosis concept in the last quarter of the 19th century. By the notion of category work we understand the multifaceted practices developed by clinicians, epidemiologists, biologists, administrators and patients to negotiate and objectify the boundaries of diagnostic categories. While such practices have mostly been devoted to securing the internal coherence of major categories, the requirements of both research and clinical work have prompted the development of liminal categories meant to target conditions situated between illness and health, or between broader established diagnostic classes. Examples of such categories include prodromal schizophrenia, latent depression as well as “borderline” disorder and a range of personality disorders. Closely related to these constructs are notions of comorbidity and dimensional concepts of diagnostic spectra or continua. In many of these cases, the challenge for psychiatrists has been to devise entities that include in their very definition the possibility of their transitory status. These diagnostic constructs thus convey a paradox: while they question categorical thinking, they are usually framed within the language of categories.
The aim of this workshop is to offer a historical and social science perspective on the history and current status of category work at the fringes of psychopathology. Unlike constructionist perspectives on psychiatric diagnosis that have aimed to demonstrate the less than solid nature of core categories such as depression, schizophrenia and neurosis, we are interested in the already internally contested and marginal categories devised to target conditions situated at the borders of psychopathology. Thus, rather than elaborating on the longstanding debates between “lumpers” and “splitters”, we would like to examine the ways in which psychiatry has developed knowledge and practices to target these conditions.
This workshop has its origins in the German-French research program “Psychiatric Fringes. A historical and sociological investigation of early psychosis in post-war French and German societies” funded by the ANR and the DFG for the period 2012-2014, and it will be an opportunity to discuss results from this research project. We welcome papers on other aspects of the history, the sociology and the anthropology of psychiatry at the fringes of psychopathology that complement our research and might lead to a wider understanding of this work. Papers may explore for instance one or more of the following issues:
– The construction of knowledge at the fringes of psychopathology. What knowledge practices have been involved in the creation of categories targeting liminal conditions? What have been the respective roles of epidemiology, biological science, brain imaging, biometrics, and the clinic in the development and objectification of these categories? What have been the practical and ethical implications of such work?
– Diagnostic practices. Liminal categories have been developed to address specific clinical uncertainties, but they also have raised new ones. What are these, and how are they practically managed by clinicians and patients? What are the specific diagnostic instruments developed by clinicians, and how are these used? What has been the role of psychopathological scales, psychological tests or biological treatments in diagnostic processes?
– The specific role of patients´ experience in category worky. To what extent have patients, as individuals or as organized groups, contributed to shaping categories at the borders of psychopathology?
– The trajectories of categories. Like the psychiatrists quoted above, we might be tempted to think that categories always end up in some ways reified. Is this always the case? What has been the use of liminal categories in different historical and social contexts? What has been the influence of these contexts on the very definition of such categories?

Interested prospective participants should send a title and a 350-word paper description to Ms. Stefanie Voth: stefanie.voth@charite.de by September 30th. Travel expenses and accommodation in Berlin will be covered by the conference organizers.

Call for Paper – Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference – Psychiatry Student Interest Group Network

insert_2bNovember 8th 2014

Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia
We invite scholars, clinicians, and students in the medical, social, and human sciences to participate in a conference organized around the following themes:
Many researchers presently hope to find the cause of mental illness in the biology of the brain. Yet a vocal contingent is discontented with what they see as an overly narrow view: they eschew models that privilege neuroscience, and argue for models that recognize the profound role society and culture have in shaping the development of minds and personalities. Clinicians of course, acknowledge the psychosocial dimension already in the so-called culture-bound syndromes (e.g. koro, and ataque de nervios). And new research in medical anthropology has begun to demonstrate that even the florid symptoms of psychosis, such as the content of delusions or hallucinations, appear to express the wider culture.
Can psychiatry explain—much less treat—the ‘biopsychosocial’ illnesses by reducing them to underlying diseases of the brain? Or must psychiatry make room for perspectives in psychology, sociology, and anthropology, and progress as a humanist branch of medicine? Some topics of interest include

  • The relation of individual illness to a wider culture and society; Can society itself be ‘’sick?’
  • What does psychiatry tell us about our own culture, historically and today; Is the practice of psychiatry itself shaped by the forces in our society?
  • Is there any life to the idea, articulated by Harry Stack Sullivan, that psychiatry is a science of interpersonal relations?
  • What is the relation of aesthetics (e.g. literature, film) to psychology? Can the phenomenology of mental illness be better understood with respect to these cultural resources?
  • How can psychoanalytic theory and practice contribute to transforming psychiatry to become more sensitive to the wider culture and society?
  • Can the categories of psychopathology be used to understand social trends? The idea of a ‘culture of narcissism’ (Christopher Lasch) comes to mind
  • What can a renewed focus on culture and society teach us about specific mental illnesses, such as eating disorders, depression, or anxiety?
  • Emerging developments in the field—e.g. psychosomatic medicine, narrative medicine—and how they may inform other branches of medicine, such as primary care or pediatrics?

Please send 250-word abstracts and 75-word bio to psychsignr3@gmail.com by October 3rd, 2014 to be considered for a panel or paper presentation.

Psychiatry and Culture in Historical Perspective 2014-15 (Yale)

Psychiatry and Culture in Historical Perspective 2014-15

Department of Psychiatry and Section of the History of Medicine

Yale School of Medicine

 

*All meetings at 630 pm at at the Fulton Room, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT. Please contact mical.raz@yale.edu or matthew.gambino@yale.edu for details* 

 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Michael Staub, PhD (Department of English, Baruch College)

Dichotomania: Split-Brain Research and the Rise of the Neuroscience Revolution

 

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Ben Harris, PhD (Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire)

“Practicing Mind-Body Medicine Before Freud:  John G. Gehring, the ‘Wizard of the Androscoggin’”

 

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Eli Zaretsky, PhD, (Department of History, The New School for Liberal Arts)

Topic TBA

 

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Helena Hansen, MD, PhD (Departments of Psychiatry and Anthropology, New York University)

“Managing the Fix: How Do You Treat Addiction in the Age of Pills?” (documentary film and discussion)

 

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Claire Edington, PhD (Mahindra Humanities Center, Harvard University)

“Getting Out of the Asylum: Writing the Social History of Psychiatry in French Indochina”

 

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Jonathan Metzl, MD, PhD (Center for Health, Medicine, and Society, Vanderbilt University)

Topic TBA

 

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Erika Dyck, PhD (Department of History, University of Saskatchewan)

Topic TBA

 

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Alexandra Bacopoulos-Viau, PhD (Department of History, New York University)

“The Patient’s Turn: Re-Assessing Roy Porter’s Legacy, Thirty Years On”

A humorous take on DSM-V

DSM-5 video performed to Stayin’ Alive by Professor Stephen Stahl and produced by the Neuroscience Education Institute

%d bloggers like this: