Call for paper – Material culture in closed spaces

Plan for a bed in a Belgium asylum (1930s)

Interest for closed spaces played an important part in the critical renewal of the humanities from the 1960s on, as demonstrated in particular the work of Erving Goffman and Michel Foucault. For the past ten years, the spatial turn has provided new impetus for a greater consideration of space as a place of socialisation. These approaches, devoted to the empirical study of institutions such as the mental hospital and prison, have put the actors and social dynamics at the center of their interest. In keeping with this line of research, we propose to shift the gaze to the material cultures of these spaces.
Be it the prison, the convent, the boarding school, the nursing home, the (psychiatric) hospital or the camp, the material culture of these institutions has gained little consideration till now. Objects, however, configure the experience of closed spaces as well for those who can leave them as for those who are locked up. They allow for a detailed classification of the different populations who constitute these places. How does the staff working in confined spaces appropriate these workplaces? How do the inmates arrange this enclosing physical framework, a framework which among other things, prevents any intimacy of the daily rituals, which are open to the gaze of others. How do these two groups of actors interpret, confirm, deny and/or transform this reality?
These spaces are commonly perceived as hermetically closed. On closer inspection, it appears that they constantly open themselves up to the outside: in particular, the maintenance of buildings and of the infrastructure requires the intervention of people (artisans, gardeners, surveyors, architects…), which are commonly not associated with these spaces. But there are also objects (letters, cigarettes, combs …) that make these enclosed spaces porous. People use objects to occupy the space and to manage the time in those places. These material items provide the framework of the social construction of space. They shape the possibilities for acting of the multiple actors.
The biography of an object – the imagined object, the produced object and the acting object – allows us to rethink spatiality. Its materiality opens but also limits the actors’ scope for manoeuvre. Professional items (medical devices, weapons, handcuffs …) as well as the infrastructure (toilets, tables, beds …) must be examined in relation with the people who use them. We would like to direct the attention at the techniques applied by the actors in order to use this arsenal of objects. The unspectacular objects and the daily rituals in using them are our main interest. The interaction between actor and the materiality of the objects produces focal moments where power relations become visible and that allow us to examine the material and bodily aspects of experiences and human practices.
This workshop is aimed at social scientists and hopes to bring together two methodological trends: on one hand the interest for the analysis of social practices at the micro level and of the different meanings that actors give to their experiences and on the other hand the attention given to objects by assigning them a certain agency, an approach advocated currently by the science studies.
The workshop will be held from 11 to 12 October 2012 at the University of Luxembourg. Proposals for papers (1 page) and a brief CV should be sent by 1 March 2012 to the following address: culturematerielle@yahoo.com. The working language will be English.

Elissa Mailänder (Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales / CIERA Paris)
Benoît Majerus (University of Luxembourg)

British Psychological Society History of the Psychological Disciplines Seminar Series

British Psychological Society History of the Psychological Disciplines Seminar Series
Organiser: Professor Sonu Shamdasani (UCL)

Monday 30 January 2012, 6pm

Psychoanalysis between Modern Brazil and the “Pindorama Matriarchy”

Professor Cristiana Facchinetti (History of Science and Health, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil    .

Psychoanalysis has been widely used in Brazil for diagnosing the country’s reality. Indeed, this analysis has often involved interpretations marked by value judgements about the material repressed in local traditional customs and unconscious and folklore fantasies. Generally speaking, the intellectuals in the period between the two world wars deemed it feasible to transfer the theory of the unconscious, heterogeneous, singular subject directly from the plane of the individual, with his/her subjective relationships and history, to the plane of the collective, resulting in unprecedented interpretations of the nation’s developing identity.

It is our assumption that different intellectual and academic traditions in Brazil paved the way for these quite peculiar and occasionally contradictory methods of appropriating the new systems of thought circulating in different domestic and international circles in the 1920s-40s. In the specific case of this work, we aim to demonstrate some of the specific agendas that linked the reception of psychoanalysis in Brazil to the construction of the nation’s identity and its modernisation, which is very unlikely if one starts off from the theoretical proposals made by Sigmund Freud.


Location: UCL Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Room 544, 5th Floor, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HJDirections: From the main reception, go through the double doors at the back and turn left, walk the length of this corridor and at the very end turn left again – you will find yourself in front of the ‘West’ Lifts. Take these to 5th Floor. On exiting the lift, turn right through double doors and then left through single door, walk the length of this corridor pass through another door and then turn right – you will see a marble table ahead. Room 544 is straight ahead.

Happy Birthday h-madness

Two years ago, we published our first post on historypsychiatry.wordpress.com. Soon, an editorial board was set up and h-madness found its place in the blogosphere. In the last year, we have published 139 posts, this one included (the first year we had been more prolific: 207 posts). We had 61 000 page views (the first year 53 000). This year we welcomed a new member on the editorial board - Alexandra Bacopoulos-Viau – and changed our url to historypsychiatry.com. We plan on forging ahead and encourage our readers to initiate discussions about our posts through comments. We would also like to thank all the authors of the last year. Here are some statistics (for the geeks out there).

All these posts have been written in the first year of h-madness.

  • Top referrers
    • Google
    • Facebook
    • mail.live.com
    • mail.yahoo.com
    • mindhacks
  • Top five countries
    • United States (45%)
    • Unknown (16%)
    • France (8%)
    • Canada (8%)
    • United Kingdom (7%)

385 readers follow the blog through e-mail notification and 187 through a feed-reader.

Call for Papers – The Two Cultures: Visual Art and Science c.1800-2011

“It is bizarre how little of twentieth-century science has been assimilated into twentieth century art”. – C.P. Snow, 1959

In his 1959 lecture “The Two Cultures” C.P. Snow asserted that the intellectual life of western society was increasingly being split into two polar groups: the sciences, and the humanities. The notion that visual artists and scientists are two entirely isolated strata of human activity and experience has proliferated since the nineteenth century, and continues to plague academic institutions and political policy today. The term “scientist” was coined in 1834 as a means of designating those who worked professionally in the various sciences. The “scientist” was described by direct analogy to the artist; suggesting that these now seemingly dichotomous areas of scholarship were in fact intended to exist in direct relationship to one another.

This conference seeks to challenge Snow’s separatist assertion, and explore the ways in which visual artists have acknowledged, appropriated and assimilated the ideas and theories of the ever-expanding field of “science” in their work since c.1800, the moment at which the professionalization of the sciences engendered a seemingly irrevocable split in the academy. As a result, we hope to recoup a sense of interdisciplinary fluidity amongst the international fields of visual arts and sciences, in order to build as complex and nuanced a picture as possible of the exchanges and interconnections between the “two cultures” over the past two centuries.

We invite abstracts for papers of 20 minutes by postgraduates that address the theme of relationships between the visual arts and the sciences 1800-2011. We welcome submissions from students working across the humanities, fine arts, social sciences, and applied sciences, but ask that the papers specifically address such relationships from the perspective of visual or material culture. Possible themes for discussion might include, but are by no means limited to:

 Collaborations and communications between artists and scientists.
 Representation and/or use of scientific concepts, vocabularies or technologies by an artist in the creation of works.
 Modern medicine and representations of the body.
 Representations of warfare, machinery and technological development – their physical and psychological effects/treatments.
 The influence of post-Darwinian structures/theories on the visual realm.
 The effect of/responses to new media such as photography, film, and internet.
 The advent of cybernetics and computers, from early experimental use to contemporary digital media.
 The ways in which the relationship between art and science intersects with issues of class, gender, sexuality and ethnicity.
 The attitude of art education to science and vice versa.
 How established genres such as landscape and still-life have responded to scientific developments.

Abstracts should be no longer than 300 words. We ask that applicants also submit a brief biography in addition to their abstract. The deadline for submission is February 24th 2012. All submissions should be sent to Kirstin Donaldson and Robert Sutton at TwoCultures2012@gmail.com along with any questions regarding the conference or abstracts.

Kirstin Donaldson
History of Art Department
Vanburgh College
University of York
York
UK
Email: twocultures2012@gmail.ac.uk

New Issue – Temple Law Review

A new issue of Temple Law Review is out and contains the following article which might interest the readers of h-madness.

Deirdre M. Smith, “Diagnosing Liability: The Legal History of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder”, in Temple Law Review, 2011, 84 (1), p. 1-70.

This Article examines the origins of the unique relationship between the psychiatric diagnosis Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the law and considers the implications of that relationship for contemporary uses of the diagnosis in legal settings. PTSD stands apart from all other diagnoses in psychiatry’s standard classification system, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and is the focus of significant controversy within psychiatry, because its diagnostic criteria require a determination of causation. By diagnosing a person with PTSD, a clinician necessarily assigns responsibility to a specific event or agent for causing the person’s symptoms, a practice more commonly associated with law. In short, the diagnosis uniquely medicalizes liability. The law has turned to PTSD, on the erroneous assumption that its location in the DSM signifies that it is well-settled science, to serve as a mechanism to resolve difficult problems in assessing legal responsibility. These uses include determining whether a criminal complainant is credible and when emotional distress from another’s negligence is sufficient in itself to serve as a basis for liability. However, by adopting PTSD’s conceptualization of causation of psychological injury, courts unknowingly delegate normative determinations of liability to psychiatry broadly and to the individual psychiatrists who present PTSD evidence at trial. This Article argues that the legal system should consider PTSD’s origins and its persistent controversies as part of a broader reexamination of the role of the diagnosis in the law.

To read the entire article, click here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 390 other followers