What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of Psychiatry: An Evaluation of Psychiatric Thought & Practice from Prehistoric Times to the Present
This work provides an account of the people, movements and events that have influenced the direction and character of psychiatry. The authors trace the various ways of dealing with mental illness that have emerged and developed, from prehistoric times to the modern day.
490 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1966
8 people are currently reading
65 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 25, 2020
Being interested in studying psychology, but having been an ethical vegetarian since high school, I'd qualms about taking Grinnell College's regular introductory class in the subject, the course requiring what amounted to the torture and killing of rodents. Fortunately, a member of the department, Dr. Morris, was willing to cover the curriculum with me as an independent study. It was in this context that I read Alexander and Selesnick.
The orientation of 'The History of Psychiatry' is medical and psychoanalytic, Franz Alexander being a practitioner, but the historical overview was adequate for my purposes. Indeed, at this time I really didn't know much about the history of psychiatry and psychotherapeutics.
The orientation of 'The History of Psychiatry' is medical and psychoanalytic, Franz Alexander being a practitioner, but the historical overview was adequate for my purposes. Indeed, at this time I really didn't know much about the history of psychiatry and psychotherapeutics.
July 23, 2020
The last third seems a bit outdated. Apart from that, it's a detailed narrative of western contributions to understanding the human mind from the ancients to psychoanalysis.
August 31, 2024
A BROAD AND COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY, COWRITTEN BY AN IMPORTANT PSYCHOANALYST
Franz Gabriel Alexander (1891-1964) was a Hungarian-American psychoanalyst and physician, who died before this book was published in 1966. The Introduction by Jules Wasserman states, "this is not merely a history of psychiatry---it is a history of man's eternal fears, his perennial hopes, and the physical, social, and philosophic devices that in various guises evolved into 'modern' psychiatry... American psychiatry is especially in need of the broad perspectives that [the authors] have invited us to survey in this book... Some readers may not be quite as certain as some psychiatric historians seem to be that man's understanding of himself has necessarily reached its peak in our post-Freudian era." (Pg. xi-xii)
They observe, "It is difficult to understand the incredible inhumanity with which mentally sick citizens were treated well into the era of the Enlightenment unless three major factors are taken into consideration: the almost complete ignorance of the nature of mental illness, the deeply felt dread of the insane, and finally, the belief then current that mental disease is incurable... The fear of mentally ill persons ... is fear of those elementary emotional forces that everybody harbors in his unconscious mind... it is the fear of ourselves." (Pg. 115)
They say, "The libido theory revised conventional views about the sexual instinct, which was considered an instinct of propagation. Freud concluded that there are many aspects of childhood behavior that are a source of sexually (sensually) pleasurable sensations... Freud's libido theory replaced this previous narrow definition of sexuality with a comprehensive theory of personality development in which biological ... and psychological growth are correlated." (Pg. 196-197)
They suggest, "Freud completely identified himself with his work. Its fate was his own... Lacking the support of a university or other academic institution, he had to create his own small scientific universe, his own journals, his own press. That doing this increased the isolation of psychoanalysis and perpetuated an aura of exclusiveness and intolerance was not easy for those on the inside of the movement to see... Bleuler, on the other hand... visualized the development of psychoanalysis in academic terms... but conceived of it as a forum for discussion and research, not as a carrier of a 'movement' whose 'truth' had to be guarded and proselytized." (Pg. 213)
They record, "a number of conflicts occurred among the original followers of Freud. Adler was the first to secede; he was followed by Jung... Freud and Adler held conflicting theoretical views... [but Adler's] stress on his own originality, was... an important factor prompting Adler to build a system radically different than Freud's... The reasons for Jung's secession... were more complex... There was an antagonism between the Viennese analysts on the one hand and Jung and the Zurich group on the other... After Bleuler left the [International Psychoanalytic] Association, it was still Freud's hope that Jung would share the leadership of the psychoanalytic movement with him." (Pg. 215) They add, "by 1929, Rank was able to separate himself from Freud's influence: he ceased making apologies and no longer wrote in the Freudian idiom." (Pg. 251)
They argue, "The theoretical framework of Jung's psychology cannot be verified by any clinical means at our disposal... Labelling individuals by attitudinal type does not promote understanding of the causes responsible for such differences in personality structure... The concept of the collective unconscious is just as speculative... Jung adopted the same terms that Freud used in psychoanalysis but gave them different meanings. This only confused things unnecessarily... A useful term coined by Jung that has survived and is still employed by both schools is 'complex.'" (Pg. 246)
They also include an Appendix, "Jung and the National Socialists," which concludes, "What, then, motivated Jung to declare that Freud's psychology was unsuited for non-Jews... And what motivated him to play a prominent role in a new racially oriented psychology movement? Since it was obviously neither racial prejudice nor Nazi conviction... It is difficult to evade the answer that it was sheer opportunism.' (Pg. 409)
This is an excellent history of psychiatry/psychology up through the 1950s.
Franz Gabriel Alexander (1891-1964) was a Hungarian-American psychoanalyst and physician, who died before this book was published in 1966. The Introduction by Jules Wasserman states, "this is not merely a history of psychiatry---it is a history of man's eternal fears, his perennial hopes, and the physical, social, and philosophic devices that in various guises evolved into 'modern' psychiatry... American psychiatry is especially in need of the broad perspectives that [the authors] have invited us to survey in this book... Some readers may not be quite as certain as some psychiatric historians seem to be that man's understanding of himself has necessarily reached its peak in our post-Freudian era." (Pg. xi-xii)
They observe, "It is difficult to understand the incredible inhumanity with which mentally sick citizens were treated well into the era of the Enlightenment unless three major factors are taken into consideration: the almost complete ignorance of the nature of mental illness, the deeply felt dread of the insane, and finally, the belief then current that mental disease is incurable... The fear of mentally ill persons ... is fear of those elementary emotional forces that everybody harbors in his unconscious mind... it is the fear of ourselves." (Pg. 115)
They say, "The libido theory revised conventional views about the sexual instinct, which was considered an instinct of propagation. Freud concluded that there are many aspects of childhood behavior that are a source of sexually (sensually) pleasurable sensations... Freud's libido theory replaced this previous narrow definition of sexuality with a comprehensive theory of personality development in which biological ... and psychological growth are correlated." (Pg. 196-197)
They suggest, "Freud completely identified himself with his work. Its fate was his own... Lacking the support of a university or other academic institution, he had to create his own small scientific universe, his own journals, his own press. That doing this increased the isolation of psychoanalysis and perpetuated an aura of exclusiveness and intolerance was not easy for those on the inside of the movement to see... Bleuler, on the other hand... visualized the development of psychoanalysis in academic terms... but conceived of it as a forum for discussion and research, not as a carrier of a 'movement' whose 'truth' had to be guarded and proselytized." (Pg. 213)
They record, "a number of conflicts occurred among the original followers of Freud. Adler was the first to secede; he was followed by Jung... Freud and Adler held conflicting theoretical views... [but Adler's] stress on his own originality, was... an important factor prompting Adler to build a system radically different than Freud's... The reasons for Jung's secession... were more complex... There was an antagonism between the Viennese analysts on the one hand and Jung and the Zurich group on the other... After Bleuler left the [International Psychoanalytic] Association, it was still Freud's hope that Jung would share the leadership of the psychoanalytic movement with him." (Pg. 215) They add, "by 1929, Rank was able to separate himself from Freud's influence: he ceased making apologies and no longer wrote in the Freudian idiom." (Pg. 251)
They argue, "The theoretical framework of Jung's psychology cannot be verified by any clinical means at our disposal... Labelling individuals by attitudinal type does not promote understanding of the causes responsible for such differences in personality structure... The concept of the collective unconscious is just as speculative... Jung adopted the same terms that Freud used in psychoanalysis but gave them different meanings. This only confused things unnecessarily... A useful term coined by Jung that has survived and is still employed by both schools is 'complex.'" (Pg. 246)
They also include an Appendix, "Jung and the National Socialists," which concludes, "What, then, motivated Jung to declare that Freud's psychology was unsuited for non-Jews... And what motivated him to play a prominent role in a new racially oriented psychology movement? Since it was obviously neither racial prejudice nor Nazi conviction... It is difficult to evade the answer that it was sheer opportunism.' (Pg. 409)
This is an excellent history of psychiatry/psychology up through the 1950s.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews