Author Archive

Freud Museum Annual Lecture 2013: How Well Does Freud’s Work Stand the Test of Time? (Allen Frances, MD)

Freud Museum Annual Lecture 2013

The Freud Museum and King’s College London
present
The Freud Memorial Lecture 2013
Dr. Allen Frances:
How Well Does Freud’s Work Stand the Test of Time?

5 June 2013 7.30pm (doors open at 7.15pm)
Edmond J Safra Theatre, King’s College London, The Strand, WC2R 2LS
Allen Frances, MD, was the Chair of the Task Force that prepared the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), often called the bible of the American psychiatric profession. However, he has been a vocal critic of the new DSM V, condemning what he calls its diagnostic hyperinflation. His new book, Saving Normal, is part mea culpa, part j‘accuse, and part cri de coeur. It explores why psychiatry has always been subject to so many fads, while deploring the medicalization of everyday human experience and the excessive use of psychiatric medicine.
In the prestigious Freud Memorial Lecture, Dr Frances argues that the current under-estimation of Freud is in part the price for his having been overestimated during his lifetime. ‘It is unwise to worship Freud or the DSM as bibles – but equally unwise not to know them,’ he says. His lecture will draw attention to which of Freud’s contributions he thinks still relevant, which quaint historical artefacts.
A graduate of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Center, where he taught the Freud course for ten years, Allen Francie is now Professor Emeritus in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University, where previously he was Chair.
Convenor: Lisa Appignanesi, Chair of the Freud Museum and visiting Professor in Literature and the Medical Humanities, Kings College London.
The Freud Memorial Lecture is a leading event in the Freud Museum London Events Calendar. In past years it has been delivered by such luminaries as Edward Said, Slavoj Zizek, Adam Phillips and Michael Brearley.

Advance booking recommended. Tickets are free for King’s staff and students.
Contact eventsandmedia@freud.org.uk or +44 (0)20 7435 2002

How I Became a Historian of Psychiatry: George Makari

We are delighted to present an interview with George Makari, M.D., as part of our “How I Became a Historian of Psychiatry” series. Dr. Makari is a historian, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, serves as Director of The DeWitt Wallace Institute of Psychiatry and the Oskar Diethelm Library at Weill Cornell Medical College, where he is also a Professor, and is the author of Revolution in Mind: The Creation of Psychoanalysis (NY: Harper Collins, 2008). He has kindly agreed to share with us his intellectual trajectory.  

.
How did your interest in the history of psychiatry develop?

I would say fortuitously. The origins of something like that, for me at least, started out in a much more general kind of interest. I came from a family of doctors and it was always assumed that I would become a doctor too; I actually got into medical school out of high school, so there was a road paved in front of me. However, when I was doing my undergraduate studies I became very interested in history, literary studies and writing. Part of the challenge then was to integrate these two interests. After my undergraduate education, I spent a year as a newspaper book reviewer and did some volunteer work in a child psychiatry department. I was trying to discover how I might  combine these things that I felt very committed to, which were writing and helping others, trying to be someone who had that kind of direct impact on people. It was also a time when Foucault was extremely influential, and Janet Malcolm wrote In the Freud Archives. It became increasingly exciting for me to imagine that I could integrate my interests by writing and being a psychiatrist. That writing eventually took the form of history.

The second thing I should mention was the importance of my intellectual community. You can have all these ideas about what you might be or do, but it’s very important to have a community that in some ways supports those inklings and helps them develop. As a medical student, I came to Payne Whitney (Cornell), where there was this extraordinary division that studied the history of psychiatry and was interdisciplinary – there were a lot of doctors and there were a lot of historians and these people were doing very exciting work. So that made it all seem very natural that I could do those things too.

At which point did you think, “I’m going to write a book”?

Well, that I’m afraid is a long story too! I started a project that was much narrower and much more defined, which was a history of transference theory and its relationship to German philosophy and medicine. I saw the potential for something really interesting about how this theory came from interesting currents in European philosophy and culture. And the pre-existing literature claimed the theory was de novo, came from Freud’s originality alone. So I took that project one step at a time and first researched the earliest use of transference as a notion in Freud. And then I moved on to the next one: I wrote a series of papers. Eventually, I thought, at the end of the day I’ll string all these papers together and I’ll have a monograph on the history of transference theory.

But a funny thing happened on the way. I had gotten a grant from the International Psychoanalytical Association and that really helped me do a lot more archival work in Europe. I ended up coming home with tons of new information from archives —all sorts of things that seemed important. So I tried stick these newer discoveries into that smaller project. I stuffed all of this good material into a book proposal that I prepared on transference. If anyone reading this interview is in the process of writing a book proposal, I suggest that you get the smartest person you can find to rake you over the coals before you write the book. That’s what I did, and again this has to do with having a generative community here at the Institute.

This discussion about my book proposal went badly, and it ended up being about how there were really two books in my proposal: one about transference and another about much broader issues in the history of the field. Feeling defensive, I argued that if someone else had written a book on the origins and development of psychoanalysis as a field in Europe, I wouldn’t have to put all that stuff in there, I could just refer to that work. But, I blurted out, in fact no one had written such a book. When I said that—when I heard myself say that—I was a bit taken aback. It seemed like that couldn’t possibly be true. But the more I thought about it, I was dismayed to recognize that it was true. No serious book had been written about the creation, consolidation, crisis and reworking of psychoanalysis before the collapse of Europe. And at that moment—actually it wasn’t a moment, it was a couple of very uncomfortable weeks, I transformed the book I had long planned into the one I now would write.

It was an organic process that involved knowing exactly where one wants to go, getting lost in archives and research, and then rediscovering a way that is more dictated by the materials and the opportunities they offered.

Once the book came out, did you find that its reception differed amongst the two communities (physicians and historians)?

They definitely have different approaches to it. I’m a bit spoiled because the reception has been extremely positive on both sides. But different people were interested in different aspects of the book. I think historians of medicine and historians of modern European culture responded to the way that intellectual history was integrated into social and political history; to the way I employed notions of discursive communities to link those two things and not have theories and concepts kind of floating out in space. Since much of historical discipline tends toward social history, they appreciated that integration.

I think the physicians, the psychiatrists, and especially the psychoanalysts who care so deeply about their history, appreciated how rich this restored tapestry was; in a way, they knew a very threadbare version of their own past. And I think they responded to the book in relationship to the contemporary struggles within psychoanalysis. Some at least felt that this account held important lessons about how truth claims are made, how they’re verified, how they’re not verified in psychoanalysis; they saw this – as opposed to standard great man biographies – as an attempt to understand the psychoanalytic community—what led to schisms, what’s led to the orthodoxy, the kinds of struggles and turbulence that community has had and still has.

On your side, how has this awareness of the history of psychiatry influenced the way in which you treat patients, and vice versa, how does being a psychiatrist affect the way in which you practice history?

It’s complicated because on the one hand, the obvious answer would be that studying history relativizes your view of any particular truth claim from the present. And that’s in fact partially so.  Historical mindedness does make me think differently about diagnostic categories, about claims for different novel advances. Right now, for example, it makes you turn a cold eye toward a lot of the claims that are coming from neuroscience and the psychopharmaceutical industry. It allows you to at times adopt an Olympian view, which can be very helpful. But the problem with that is that patients are coming to me for help. So I have to be committed to something; I have to be engaged in a way that will be helpful. You can’t sit there and philosophize about what this category error means about our culture. So in a way it forces you to take a stand, even in a situation where you have only a limited level of certainty, about how to benefit and console patients of different sorts. In that sense I think it’s been a really interesting process, but not an obvious one at all.

In terms of how being a psychiatrist affects my being an historian, that’s a touchy question, because what I’m very much not is a psycho-historian. Given the excesses of psychoanalyzing the history of psychoanalysis, I took great pains to not speculate about the inner states and inner motivations of the players in the book [Revolution in Mind]. At the same time, I would be a liar if I didn’t say that my experience studying character and human behaviour aren’t all over that book. When anyone tries to deeply understand a historical character, reading letters or diaries, going through their choices, you need to somehow pull together a sense of who they were. For example, sometimes there’ll be these telling moments, ones that literature uses to great affect. Flaubert was a genius at this. I think about those kinds of things every day, for seven or eight hours a day. So I am sure that process does not stop when I think about historical characters and how they negotiate their internal and external worlds.

Many thanks to Dr. Makari for this fascinating interview!

New issue: History of Psychiatry

The June 2013 issue issue of History of Psychiatry is now available online:


Articles


Ergotism in Norway. Part 2: The symptoms and their interpretation from the eighteenth century onwards (Torbjørn Alm and Brita Elvevåg)

Ergotism, the disease caused by consuming Claviceps purpurea, a highly poisonous, grain-infecting fungus, occurred at various places scattered throughout Norway during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. By focusing on these cases we chart the changing interpretations of the peculiar disease, frequently understood within a religious context or considered as a supernatural (e.g. ghostly) experience. However, there was a growing awareness of the disease ergotism, and from the late eighteenth century onwards it was often correctly interpreted as being due to a fungus consumed via bread or porridge. Also, nineteenth-century fairy-tales and regional legends reveal that people were increasingly aware and fearful of the effects of consuming infected grain.

From psychiatric symptom to diagnostic category: self-harm from the Victorians to DSM-5 (Sander L Gilman)

It is rare that a symptom becomes a disease entity. ‘Self-harm’ is now a full-fledged diagnostic category for DSM-5. The existing literature of the topic posits that it is a trans-historical psychiatric category and that examples of self-harm can be found from the earliest written records, which is part of the underlying argument for its inclusion in DSM-5. But how old is self-harm and indeed what defines ‘self-harm’ historically and culturally?

Neopositivism and the DSM psychiatric classification. An epistemological history. Part 1: Theoretical comparison (Massimiliano Aragona) 

Recent research suggests that the DSM psychiatric classification is in a paradigmatic crisis and that the DSM-5 will be unable to overcome it. One possible reason is that the DSM is based on a neopositivist epistemology which is inadequate for the present-day needs of psychopathology. However, in which sense is the DSM a neopositivist system? This paper will explore the theoretical similarities between the DSM structure and the neopositivist basic assumptions. It is shown that the DSM has the following neopositivist features: (a) a sharp distinction between scientific and non-scientific diagnoses; (b) the exclusion of the latter as nonsensical; (c) the faith on the existence of a purely observable basis (the description of reliable symptoms); (d) the introduction of the operative diagnostic criteria as rules of correspondence linking the observational level to the diagnostic concept.

A ‘German world’ shared among doctors: a history of the relationship between Japanese and German psychiatry before World War II (Akira Hashimoto)

This article deals with the critical history of German and Japanese psychiatrists who dreamed of a ‘German world’ that would cross borders. It analyses their discourse, not only by looking at their biographical backgrounds, but also by examining them in a wider context linked to German academic predominance and cultural propaganda before World War II. By focusing on Wilhelm Stieda, Wilhelm Weygandt and Kure Shuzo, the article shows that the positive evaluation of Japanese psychiatry by the two Germans encouraged Kure, who was eager to modernize the treatment of and institutions for the mentally ill in Japan. Their statements on Japanese psychiatry reflect their ideological and historical framework, with reference to national/ethnic identity, academic position, and the relationship between Germany and Japan.

The bones of the insane (Jennifer Wallis)

This article examines alienist explanations for fracture among British asylum patients in the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries. A series of deaths in asylums came to light in the 1870s which, in placing the blame for such incidents on asylum staff, called for a response from the psychiatric profession. This response drew upon other medical fields and employed novel pathological techniques to explain why fractures occurred among the insane, in many cases aligning bone fragility with particular forms of insanity (namely, General Paralysis of the Insane). Although such research aimed to provide a medical explanation for the ‘fracture death’, it also called into question the value of pathological research and the utility of quantitative measurement in understanding mental disease.

The theoretical root of Karl Jaspers’ General Psychopathology. Part 1: Reconsidering the influence of phenomenology and hermeneutics (Tsutomu Kumazaki) 

The present paper investigates the methodology involved in Jaspers’ psychopathology and compares it with Husserl’s phenomenology and with Dilthey’s cultural science.Allgemeine Psychopathologie and other methodological works by Jaspers, the works of Husserl and Dilthey that Jaspers cited, and previous research papers on Jaspers are reviewed. Jaspers had conflicting views on understanding, which were comprised of both empathic understanding and rational, ideal-typical understanding. Such a standpoint on understanding is considerably different from Dilthey’s. Additionally, the present paper reconfirms that Jaspers’ ‘phenomenology’ as a form of descriptive psychology for the understanding of empirical psychic states is different from Husserl’s phenomenology. Thus, this paper casts doubt on the common opinion that Jaspers was under the profound influence of Husserl or Dilthey.


Classic Text No. 94


‘Struensée’s memoir on the situation of the King’ (1772): Christian VII of Denmark (Johan Schioldann)


Book Reviews


Book Review: E James Lieberman and Robert Kramer (eds), The Letters of Sigmund Freud and Otto Rank: Inside Psychoanalysis (Christopher Harding) 

Book Review: Howard Padwa, Social Poison: The Culture and Politics of Opiate Control in Britain and France, 1821–1926 (Dan Malleck) 

Book Review: Angela McCarthy and Catharine Coleborne (eds), Migration, Ethnicity, and Mental Health. International Perspectives, 1840–2010 (Sarah York) 

Book Review: Luis Montiel, El Rizoma Oculto de la Psicología Profunda. Gustav Meyrink y Carl Gustav Jung (Olga Villasante)

Book Review: L Stephen Jacyna and Stephen T Casper (eds), The Neurological Patient in History (Rebecca Wynter) 

For more information, click here.

British Psychological Society History of the Psychological Disciplines Seminar Series

British Psychological Society History of the Psychological Disciplines Seminar Series

Friday 17th May

Dr. Fabio De Sio (Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf) and Dr. Chantal Marazia (Europa-Universität Viadrina)

“The Psychic Hans Effect. Experimental Animal psi from Karl Krall to the present.”

This paper explores the issue of animal psi experimentation in the twentieth century (ca. 1920s-1970s). The passage from what has been called the “anecdotal phase” of animal psychology to the experimental phase had a rather precise parallel in psi research. From sources of marvel and anecdotal evidence of paranormal phenomena, in the course of the twentieth century animals progressively became elements of a specific experimental setting. More specifically, rigorous animal experimentation was seen as a way of overcoming a number of problems and strictures deriving from the very nature of psi experiences.

Animals were seen as a source of “genuine” instances of psychic phenomena, unaltered by human culture and communication, as well as standardizable research material, allowing to overcome the scarcity and ephemerality of human cases. Nevertheless, the need to develop animal-specific paradigms raised as many problems as it was supposed to resolve. Making the animal (either in the wild or in the lab) the centre of experimental psychic research entailed the definition of a number of issues that were common to psychic research, animal psychology, physiology and zoology: the issue of animal subjectivity and individuality; that of the evolutionary stand of psychic powers (at what level of the evolutionary ladder were they supposed to belong, their correlation with the evolution of the nervous system, etc.); finally, that of the human-animal relation in the experimental setting (whether the process of bonding between animals and humans was to be considered part of the procedure or a source of confusion). By considering different examples of psi research on animals (both observational and experimental), we explore the ambiguous roles and meanings given to animals in experimental research.

Sponsored by the British Psychological Society. Open to the public.

Organiser: Professor Sonu Shamdasani (UCL)

Time: 6pm to 7.30 pm.

Location:

UCL Institute of the Americas, Room 105
51 Gordon Square
London WC1H

Case Studies of Medical Portraiture concluding workshop (King’s College London, July 2013)

Case Studies of Medical Portraiture concluding workshop

July 12th 2013
King’s College London Strand Building, room S8.08


Programme
9:00 – Registration

9:30 – Panel 1

Keynote Address: Lucia Dacome (University of Toronto) – ‘The anatomy of the embroiderer: celebrity, domesticity and self-portraiture in eighteenth-century Italy’
Julia Rüdiger (University of Vienna) – ‘Surgeons’ Portraiture in historical context: monuments to Theodor Billroth

11:00 – Coffee

11:30 – Panel 2

John Harley Warner (Yale University) – ‘Posing with the Cadaver: Violence, Identity and Photographic Group Portraiture in American Medicine, 1880-1930’
Mary Hunter (McGill University) – ‘Hysterical Reality: Portraits, Performance and Procedures at the Salpêtrière Hospital’

13:00 – Lunch

13:45 – Panel 3

Michael Flexer (University of Leeds) – ‘Portraiture, Paralysis and Parallaxes in Charcot’s nosological mission’ Harriet Palfreyman (University of Warwick) – ‘Patient Portraits at the London Lock Hospital, 1849-1851’ Mienke te Hennepe (Boerhaave Museum) – ‘Medical Photography on Display: Patients, portraits and the dilemma of privacy – a curator’s perspective’

15:45 – Tea
16:15 – Round Table, Summing Up and Discussion

Keren Hammerschlag (KCL), Ludmilla Jordanova (KCL), Douglas James (KCL) and Anna Maerker (KCL)

To be followed by a drinks reception. Since places are limited, please contact douglas.james@kcl.ac.uk to register. We are grateful to the Wellcome Trust for its generous support. Organisers: Keren Hammerschlag, Ludmilla Jordanova, Douglas James and Anna Maerker.

A Symposium on Restraint in Mental Health Care, Past and Present (London)

A Symposium on Strong Clothing and Restraint in Mental Healthcare

Wednesday 31 July, 5 – 8pm

Book online: http://heldsymposium.eventbrite.co.uk

Jane Fradgley’s evocative photographs of historical restraining garments from the Bethlem Royal Hospital Archives & Museum evidence her interest in fabric and utilitarian clothing, an intrinsic remnant of her past career as a fashion designer. Through held this artist offers her unique perspective; a poetic documentation for contemplation with the added intention of contributing to a dialogue and debate around protection, restraint and chemical intervention in mental health care today.

Accompanying the exhibition in the MRC SGDP Centre at the Institute of Psychiatry, this symposium offers a variety of perspectives on restraint in mental healthcare, past and present. Building on a focus group, held at the Bethlem Gallery in 2012, this symposium invites clinicians, historians, artists and service users to debate the topic of what exactly is restraint, and how (and if) we can ever draw a line between care, cure and control. We welcome audience discussion following short presentations.

Participants include:

*  Chair: Niall Boyce (Senior Editor at The Lancet)
*  Jane Fradgley (artist and fashion designer)
* Laura Allison (Psychotherapist and historian, researching rapid tranquilisation)
* Sarah Chaney (Historian specialising in late nineteenth-century asylum psychiatry)

Doors will open at 5pm, with a reception and chance to view the exhibition.
The symposium will begin at 6pm, ending by 8pm.

Location: MRC SGDP Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, SE5 8AF (within the Maudsley Hospital complex). Nearest station: Denmark Hill

All are welcome, and entry is free. Space is limited and tickets must be booked in advance at http://heldsymposium.eventbrite.co.uk.

Part of the ‘Damaging the Body’ event series (http://damagingthebody.org<http://damagingthebody.org/held>)

Maudsley Debates: Enabling or Labelling? (King’s College London)

This House believes that psychiatric diagnosis has advanced the care of people with mental health problems.

Wednesday 5th June, 6pm (refreshments served from 5.30pm)

To coincide with the publication of the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), sometimes described as the “Bible” of American psychiatry, the Institute of Psychiatry is hosting a debate on the issue of psychiatric diagnosis.  Some argue that a rigorously  standardised system of classification of mental disorders forms an essential role in conceptualising a patient’s problem, in predicting what treatments are likely to be effective, and in conducting valid scientific research.  Others consider psychiatric diagnoses to be no more than labels, which lack scientific and predictive validity and serve only to stigmatise and objectify those who suffer from mental disorders.  These issues will be debated in the 48th Maudsley Debate on Wednesday 5 June at 6pm at the Wolfson Lecture Theatre, Institute of Psychiatry, Denmark Hill.  The motion is “This House believes that psychiatric diagnosis has advanced the care of people with mental health problems.”

Speaking for the motion

Prof Norman Sartorius, former president of the World Psychiatric Association

Prof Anthony David, Professor of Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry

Speaking against the motion

Dr Felicity Callard, Senior Lecturer in Social Science for Medical Humanities, Durham University

Dr Pat Bracken, Clinical Director of Mental Health in West Cork and author of “Post- Psychiatry: Mental Health in a Post-Modern World”.

Chair:  Sir Simon Wessely, Professor of Psychological Medicine and Vice Dean for Academic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry

 
Wolfson Lecture Theatre, Institute of Psychiatry Main Building, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
Contact: Hannah Baker
For more information, click here.
%d bloggers like this: