What do you think?
Rate this book
Hystories
This provocative and illuminating book charts the persistence of a cultural phenomenon. Tales of alien abduction, chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War syndrome, and the resurgence of repressed memories in psychotherapy are just a few of the signs that we live in an age of hysterical epidemics.
As Elaine Showalter demonstrates, the triumphs of the therapeutic society have not been able to prevent the appearance of hysterical disorders, imaginary illnesses, rumor panics, and pseudomemories that mark the end of the millenium.
Like the witch-hunts of the 1690s and the hypnotic cures of the 1980s, the hysterical syndromes of the 1990s reflect the fears and anxieties of a culture on the edge of change. Showalter highlights the full range of contemporary syndromes and draws connections to earlier times and settings, showing that hysterias mutate and are renamed; under the right circumstances, everyone is susceptible.
Today, hysterical epidemics are not spread by viruses or vapors but by stories, narratives Showalter calls hystories that are created "in the interaction of troubled patients and sympathetic therapists... circulated through self-help books, articles in newspapers and magazines, TV talk shows, popular films, the Internet, even literary criticism." Though popular stereotypes of hysteria are still stigmatizing, largely because of their associations with women, many of the most recent manifestations receive respectful and widespread coverage. In an age skeptical of Freud and the power of unconscious desires and conflicts, personal troubles are blamed on everything from devil-worshipping sadists to conspiring governments. The result is the potential for paranoia and ignorance on a massive scale.
Skillfully surveying the condition of hysteria―its causes, cures, famous patients, and doctors―in the twentieth century, Showalter also looks at literature, drama, and feminist representations of the hysterical. Hysterias, she shows, are always with us, a kind of collective coping mechanism for changing times; all that differs are names and labels, and at times of crisis, individual hysterias can become contagious.
Insightful and sensitive, filled with fascinating new perspectives on a culture saturated with syndromes of every sort, Hystories is a gift of good sense from one of our best critics.
As Elaine Showalter demonstrates, the triumphs of the therapeutic society have not been able to prevent the appearance of hysterical disorders, imaginary illnesses, rumor panics, and pseudomemories that mark the end of the millenium.
Like the witch-hunts of the 1690s and the hypnotic cures of the 1980s, the hysterical syndromes of the 1990s reflect the fears and anxieties of a culture on the edge of change. Showalter highlights the full range of contemporary syndromes and draws connections to earlier times and settings, showing that hysterias mutate and are renamed; under the right circumstances, everyone is susceptible.
Today, hysterical epidemics are not spread by viruses or vapors but by stories, narratives Showalter calls hystories that are created "in the interaction of troubled patients and sympathetic therapists... circulated through self-help books, articles in newspapers and magazines, TV talk shows, popular films, the Internet, even literary criticism." Though popular stereotypes of hysteria are still stigmatizing, largely because of their associations with women, many of the most recent manifestations receive respectful and widespread coverage. In an age skeptical of Freud and the power of unconscious desires and conflicts, personal troubles are blamed on everything from devil-worshipping sadists to conspiring governments. The result is the potential for paranoia and ignorance on a massive scale.
Skillfully surveying the condition of hysteria―its causes, cures, famous patients, and doctors―in the twentieth century, Showalter also looks at literature, drama, and feminist representations of the hysterical. Hysterias, she shows, are always with us, a kind of collective coping mechanism for changing times; all that differs are names and labels, and at times of crisis, individual hysterias can become contagious.
Insightful and sensitive, filled with fascinating new perspectives on a culture saturated with syndromes of every sort, Hystories is a gift of good sense from one of our best critics.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
About the author
Elaine Showalter
75 books146 followersElaine Showalter is an American literary critic, feminist, and writer on cultural and social issues. She is one of the founders of feminist literary criticism in United States academia, developing the concept and practice of gynocritics.
She is well known and respected in both academic and popular cultural fields. She has written and edited numerous books and articles focussed on a variety of subjects, from feminist literary criticism to fashion, sometimes sparking widespread controversy, especially with her work on illnesses. Showalter has been a television critic for People magazine and a commentator on BBC radio and television.
(source: Wikipedia)
She is well known and respected in both academic and popular cultural fields. She has written and edited numerous books and articles focussed on a variety of subjects, from feminist literary criticism to fashion, sometimes sparking widespread controversy, especially with her work on illnesses. Showalter has been a television critic for People magazine and a commentator on BBC radio and television.
(source: Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
January 1, 2018
Arrogant and sweeping generalisations about multiple cultural phenomena that should not belong together in one volume. Most particularly, her analysis of chronic fatigue syndrome is appalling and invidious, and harmful to the million US sufferers and many millions more worldwide. Shows all the dangers of taking your brilliance and status for granted and failing to do the proper research. This book should never have been published, or at least, that section should not have been included.
April 13, 2022
Showalter was wrong about 'Chronic Fatigue Syndrome' (ME/CFS) and Gulf War Syndrome in 1997 and she's wrong today (2022). But this book (best described as Tabloid Trash for intelligent people) is still misinforming readers today, framing a serious disabling disease (ME) as hysteria, mocking and gaslighting the sufferers who are 75-80% female. Ableism at it's worst.
The WHO, CDC, NIH, US National Academy of Medicine, the Agency for Health Research Quality and UK NICE all proved Showalter was wrong in cattily calling ME/CFS a Hysterical condition. All of those institutions classify ME/CFS as a physical disabling multisystem disease, based on thousands of medical research studies. International medical researchers are returning to using the original 1956 name Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)
The WHO had classified ME as a physical Neurological Disease in it's International Classification of Diseases as far back as 1969, based on medical research studies.
Showalter could have referenced medical research studies on ME going back to the '60's, but she didn't. That would have undermined her craftily constructed narrative. After all, according to Showalter, stories are more important than science, especially when the science blows her pseudo theories out of the water.
Well, Showalter got a LOT of publicity and her first international book signing tour out of it. Pretty quickly the press interviews were 'All about Elaine'.
In the meantime millions of ME/CFS sufferers worldwide have been sneered, at jeered at, scoffed at and shouted at ("You're not really ill"), medically and society abandoned, disbelieved by their own families, and medically mistreated, prescribed damaging graded exercise 'treatments' which sent a great many from mildly or moderately ill to severely/very severely ill, needing wheelchairs, or bedbound and needing tube feeding long term.
The persecution of sick children with ME has been the worst. As UK MP Carol Monaghan stated in Parliament, 1 in 5 families of children with ME are investigated by Social Services for child abuse, referred by doctors or teachers (who along with the social workers may have read and believed Hystories, it's in every university library, or been influenced by the copious press articles about the book.). Of the hundreds of cases of these investigations in which the families were supported by the Tymes Trust children's charity - not one case was proved against the parents, who were just trying to get medical support for their very sick children.
As British MPs confirm, this is a shocking scandal of abuse of ME sufferers, of very sick children with ME and their families.
See MP Carol Monaghan speaking at a Parliamentary Debate on ME of the heartbreaking scandal of medical abuse of sick children, described by her as "really quite harrowing".
YouTube 'Carol Monaghan MP - Children with ME - House of Commons ME debate'
Showalter is on record back in the 1990's stating that if in 20 years she is proved wrong people can say that (Hystories) is a stupid book. Not good enough. It's a book which shamefully abandoned academic standards in favour of sneering jibes. And it is still misinforming readers today.
In 2020 Showalter contributed to an essay collection called 'Hystories Revisited' in which she said not one word about what she preferred to call 'Chronic Fatigue Syndrome' (in Hystories she asserted that the original disease name Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, the name preferred by the WHO in 1969, merely 'sounded medical'). I don't think she dared pull the same tricks about ME/CFS in 2020, with all those international medical institutions making her 'Hysteria' assertions about a serious disabling medical disease sound preposterous, to put it kindly.
The WHO, CDC, NIH, US National Academy of Medicine, the Agency for Health Research Quality and UK NICE all proved Showalter was wrong in cattily calling ME/CFS a Hysterical condition. All of those institutions classify ME/CFS as a physical disabling multisystem disease, based on thousands of medical research studies. International medical researchers are returning to using the original 1956 name Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)
The WHO had classified ME as a physical Neurological Disease in it's International Classification of Diseases as far back as 1969, based on medical research studies.
Showalter could have referenced medical research studies on ME going back to the '60's, but she didn't. That would have undermined her craftily constructed narrative. After all, according to Showalter, stories are more important than science, especially when the science blows her pseudo theories out of the water.
Well, Showalter got a LOT of publicity and her first international book signing tour out of it. Pretty quickly the press interviews were 'All about Elaine'.
In the meantime millions of ME/CFS sufferers worldwide have been sneered, at jeered at, scoffed at and shouted at ("You're not really ill"), medically and society abandoned, disbelieved by their own families, and medically mistreated, prescribed damaging graded exercise 'treatments' which sent a great many from mildly or moderately ill to severely/very severely ill, needing wheelchairs, or bedbound and needing tube feeding long term.
The persecution of sick children with ME has been the worst. As UK MP Carol Monaghan stated in Parliament, 1 in 5 families of children with ME are investigated by Social Services for child abuse, referred by doctors or teachers (who along with the social workers may have read and believed Hystories, it's in every university library, or been influenced by the copious press articles about the book.). Of the hundreds of cases of these investigations in which the families were supported by the Tymes Trust children's charity - not one case was proved against the parents, who were just trying to get medical support for their very sick children.
As British MPs confirm, this is a shocking scandal of abuse of ME sufferers, of very sick children with ME and their families.
See MP Carol Monaghan speaking at a Parliamentary Debate on ME of the heartbreaking scandal of medical abuse of sick children, described by her as "really quite harrowing".
YouTube 'Carol Monaghan MP - Children with ME - House of Commons ME debate'
Showalter is on record back in the 1990's stating that if in 20 years she is proved wrong people can say that (Hystories) is a stupid book. Not good enough. It's a book which shamefully abandoned academic standards in favour of sneering jibes. And it is still misinforming readers today.
In 2020 Showalter contributed to an essay collection called 'Hystories Revisited' in which she said not one word about what she preferred to call 'Chronic Fatigue Syndrome' (in Hystories she asserted that the original disease name Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, the name preferred by the WHO in 1969, merely 'sounded medical'). I don't think she dared pull the same tricks about ME/CFS in 2020, with all those international medical institutions making her 'Hysteria' assertions about a serious disabling medical disease sound preposterous, to put it kindly.
February 16, 2015
I vaguely remember skimming through this book back when it first came out in the 90s and I was researching for a presentation on the relationship of Sunday night viewing habits of Americans who alternatively watched X-Files and Touched By an Angel (basically, my premise was around the t.v. as an alter for finding meaning to propel us into the week, be it extraterrestrial or otherworldly.) I picked the book up again this time because I was thinking about contemporary anti-vaxxers and how their paranoid behavior presents a larger public health threat -- asking myself, 'are these people hysterical?' The book stands up to the test of time and rereading it made me appreciate Showalter's intelligent analysis of hysterical epidemics that much more the second time around. Showalter is one smart cookie who knows when to be compassionate to people who have real problems that are transferred into unreal diagnosis, and she can also be really funny when the "evidence" just cries out for it. For example, she notes how alien abductions start to become more international into the late 20th century, but that the details take on local color; so while aliens appear to American abductees as smarmy "men in black" invaders, Showalter writes that in contrast:
Hear, hear! (And, alas.)
If I have one reservation about the book it is that all the sections are not of the consistently same high-quality as Showalter's very well researched and well argued first section (unsurprising, given her previous books on hysteria and women in literature). The second section is slight and I really feel needs to have a chapter on popular media depictions of what Showalter has developed in terms of "mass hystories" (both as a bridge to the third section but also to support the subtitle of the book, "hysterical epidemics and modern media" -- where is the modern media in this book?). The third section is well organized and as developed as the first section, but I felt like the conclusion needed to put the history of hysteria that Showalter so expertly develops in the first section into focus with the examples of mass hystories she examines in the third section; as it is, the final concluding chapter feels like a mad rush to get the book into print. But overall, this is a very thought-provoking book that I am sure will rankle various believers but otherwise get people thinking critically.
"...British abductees tend to see a 'Robert Redford/Scandinavian type' buffs call a Tall Blond, Nordic, or Guardian Angel alien. Always male, he is 'six to seven feet tall, handsome, with blond shoulder-length hair. His blue ayes [sic] are kind and loving. He is paternal, watchful, smiling, affectionate, youthful, all-knowing, and wears a form-fitting uniform.' He smells like cinnamon. This is the kind of alien I want to be abducted by, but as an American, my chances are pretty slim." (p. 200)
Hear, hear! (And, alas.)
If I have one reservation about the book it is that all the sections are not of the consistently same high-quality as Showalter's very well researched and well argued first section (unsurprising, given her previous books on hysteria and women in literature). The second section is slight and I really feel needs to have a chapter on popular media depictions of what Showalter has developed in terms of "mass hystories" (both as a bridge to the third section but also to support the subtitle of the book, "hysterical epidemics and modern media" -- where is the modern media in this book?). The third section is well organized and as developed as the first section, but I felt like the conclusion needed to put the history of hysteria that Showalter so expertly develops in the first section into focus with the examples of mass hystories she examines in the third section; as it is, the final concluding chapter feels like a mad rush to get the book into print. But overall, this is a very thought-provoking book that I am sure will rankle various believers but otherwise get people thinking critically.
April 25, 2010
The concept of "hysteria" was historically applied only to women. The idea that whatever symptoms they are afflicted by tells where the woman's uterus has moved - for example, if a woman is complaining of headaches, her uterus has moved to her head; if she is complaining of leg weakness, her uterus has moved to her legs and feet. Modern medicine has taught that the uterus does in fact not move around the body, and is definitely found in one place only. Additionally, women aren't the only people who suffer from what are considered "hysterical" symptoms; though when a man suffers from similar symptoms, the cause and treatment are defined differently.
Elaine Showalter here discusses a lot of the fads of 90s hysteria, covering a wide variety of familiar topics and pinning them all under the controversial title of "hysteria": Chronic fatigue syndrome, recovered memory, Gulf War syndrome, Multiple personality syndrome, alien abduction, and satanic ritual abuse. Showalter's take on these syndromes or experiences are founded more in the power of suggestion through their prevalence in the media or in discussions with medical professionals. Clearly any person suffering from any of the above would likely find some offense to Showalter's beliefs, and would possibly feel she's just like the thousands of other people who believe that these things are just in the sufferer's mind.
The 80s and 90s brought into the media a different sort of woman - the ambitious, the hardworking, the Supermom. Suddenly there are women going to their health professionals across the world with similar symptoms with no clear explanation. Similarly men returning from the Gulf War begin showing symptoms of their own, and then their families begin also showing symptoms. The media slaps a title on it - Gulf War syndrome. Showalter questions what came first - the symptoms or the syndrome.
Interesting all around, though often dated in some of the references. Multiple personality syndrome has become Dissociative identity disorder, and not many people really question the legitimacy of the person suffering or even consider mentioning it in the same breath as alien abduction - though Showalter is not shy. She feels that as times change, the popular hysteria of the times will change along with it. Freud was the fad-setter of his time, followed by Jacques Lacan, and the trend will continue. It's just a matter of time before a new form of hysteria hits the airwaves and the doctor's offices.
Elaine Showalter here discusses a lot of the fads of 90s hysteria, covering a wide variety of familiar topics and pinning them all under the controversial title of "hysteria": Chronic fatigue syndrome, recovered memory, Gulf War syndrome, Multiple personality syndrome, alien abduction, and satanic ritual abuse. Showalter's take on these syndromes or experiences are founded more in the power of suggestion through their prevalence in the media or in discussions with medical professionals. Clearly any person suffering from any of the above would likely find some offense to Showalter's beliefs, and would possibly feel she's just like the thousands of other people who believe that these things are just in the sufferer's mind.
The 80s and 90s brought into the media a different sort of woman - the ambitious, the hardworking, the Supermom. Suddenly there are women going to their health professionals across the world with similar symptoms with no clear explanation. Similarly men returning from the Gulf War begin showing symptoms of their own, and then their families begin also showing symptoms. The media slaps a title on it - Gulf War syndrome. Showalter questions what came first - the symptoms or the syndrome.
Interesting all around, though often dated in some of the references. Multiple personality syndrome has become Dissociative identity disorder, and not many people really question the legitimacy of the person suffering or even consider mentioning it in the same breath as alien abduction - though Showalter is not shy. She feels that as times change, the popular hysteria of the times will change along with it. Freud was the fad-setter of his time, followed by Jacques Lacan, and the trend will continue. It's just a matter of time before a new form of hysteria hits the airwaves and the doctor's offices.
September 25, 2020
Appallingly written polemic lambasting sufferers of legitimate diseases and conditions, and ridiculing plenty others from the vantage of her ivory tower. The author calls herself a 'literary critic' and I was surprised to find that she did have a PhD. Her arguments are unclear and jump around from one of her pet-hates to the next, and it reads like a self-indulgent Rush Limbaugh rant. Initially, I thought perhaps I didn't agree with the premise, but then Showalter misused a well-known social historian's (Joan Jacob Brumberg) work to make it sound like they also agreed anorexia was simply a social craze and this book lost all credibility. (I know the Brumberg book well as I used it ad nauseam for a journal article that I wrote - it's fascinating - 'Fasting Girls'. Read that book - not this one!!!).
The most disgusting about this book is the author's assault on trauma survivors. I rarely throw books in the (recycling) bin to remove them from circulation, but I did this one, as I did when I found a copy of 'Mein Kamf' at a book fair. This book is quite simply, disgusting. How the author implicitly presses the Victoriana sexism of hyst-eria into these legitimate diseases and conditions and other events, and her arrogant and callous treatment of people's suffering, sickens me.
Research on the author reveals how oddly outdated her work is - she coined the term 'gynocriticism' in the 1970s to describe female academic writing. Yes, the 1970s, not the 1800s. The author seems like one of those right-wing types who calls everything that occurs outside her narrow field of experience 'hysteria' and in the introduction, she unfeelingly says she doesn't mean to offend those who think they have the 'syndromes' she denigrates. I don't believe her. She also spends 3-4 pages whining about how poorly received her views were (I think my copy was a second-edition), as this type of individual often does. They often lack empathy and imagination and assume there will be a street parade for their 'truth telling' about those 'pesky' malingerers claiming to be ill, or having an alien encounter or claiming to be affected by trauma. Well, there simply isn't. Just the bin for you, Dr. Showalter - history will not remember your work as you'd hoped.
The most disgusting about this book is the author's assault on trauma survivors. I rarely throw books in the (recycling) bin to remove them from circulation, but I did this one, as I did when I found a copy of 'Mein Kamf' at a book fair. This book is quite simply, disgusting. How the author implicitly presses the Victoriana sexism of hyst-eria into these legitimate diseases and conditions and other events, and her arrogant and callous treatment of people's suffering, sickens me.
Research on the author reveals how oddly outdated her work is - she coined the term 'gynocriticism' in the 1970s to describe female academic writing. Yes, the 1970s, not the 1800s. The author seems like one of those right-wing types who calls everything that occurs outside her narrow field of experience 'hysteria' and in the introduction, she unfeelingly says she doesn't mean to offend those who think they have the 'syndromes' she denigrates. I don't believe her. She also spends 3-4 pages whining about how poorly received her views were (I think my copy was a second-edition), as this type of individual often does. They often lack empathy and imagination and assume there will be a street parade for their 'truth telling' about those 'pesky' malingerers claiming to be ill, or having an alien encounter or claiming to be affected by trauma. Well, there simply isn't. Just the bin for you, Dr. Showalter - history will not remember your work as you'd hoped.
April 19, 2026
In academia, researchers tend to make fun of literary critics because these researchers tend to smugly think themselves experts in fields they know not of, attempting to warp real phenomenon into Freudian esoteric nonsense that makes other fields roll their eyes. Usually, I think this claim is false; however, Hystories by Elaine Showalter unfortunately gives credence to this negative stereotype. This study is one of the most negligent, harmful, and categorically untrue studies ever put to print, and for this reason, I’m giving it a rare one star. In some ways, I have no idea how it got published at all, considering how academically messy and unethical it is from a variety of standpoints. I guess you can consider it aspirational because if something like this can get published, anything you write can too.
I have to say before I begin – I used to really admire Elaine Showalter. I read many of her studies, which are foundational in the field of gender studies/fin-de-siecle studies I work in currently. When I started this, I was excited because I’ve always enjoyed her work. My respect for her as a researcher and a thinker has plummeted drastically, and I don’t think I’ll ever read anything by her in good faith again.
I knew when Hystories came out, it was controversial. However, I was willing to give Showalter a chance because she is (was?) a respected literary theorist. After this, I will never read any one of her studies again due to having lost all faith in her research methodology and lack of ethical consideration in complicated nuanced topical issues. She is – simply – just not capable of fairly handling any of these ideas with care and vigorous research.
Showalter obviously holds a lot of disdain for people who do not have clear diagnoses, preferring to believe they’re lying for attention rather than suffer from a cluster of symptoms that don’t lead to an immediate discernable or ‘clean’ answer. She ironically tends to buy into conservative mindsets that people lie about trauma for attention and because it’s trendy. With regard to her ridiculous views on medicine, I often wondered how she would address autoimmune disorders, considering they often don’t present in a clear, consistent pattern; however, nevertheless, they do exist and the majority are women (around 80% of sufferers).
In fact, Showalter’s treatment of women is so regressive that it’s very difficult to believe the theorist has made a very successful career from discussing women’s issues. If anything, I feel comfortable describing many of her claims as misogynistic, considering she is discrediting a lot of medical and social issues that are predominantly suffered by women (partially because they are autoimmune-related). If you claim repeatedly that women are nervous and lie for attention, then I do not feel comfortable labelling you as a feminist, no matter what you might say. It is simply unacceptable to make such broad, sweeping claims with this little evidence. It makes me embarrassed for literary critics, who (as already stated) already have a bad rap for overextending their reach.
It has been proven that women are intensely discriminated against in judicial, media, and social medical settings. As a result, you have to address their treatments and their claims in these settings with fair consideration, even as you are obliged to remain skeptical. There was a recent study that showed women’s pain is significantly underestimated among doctors. Both a woman and her husband went to get their wisdom teeth removed the same day and by the same doctor. The husband was given a stronger painkiller than the woman who was given something akin to an Advil. This was because the doctor believed women’s pain tolerance was ‘biologically’ better. Additionally, no pain medication is offered for IUD insertion, one of the most painful outpatient processes I myself can attest to. It takes around 8 years for a patient with PCOS to be diagnosed correctly because a) lack of research of women’s illnesess; b) the symptoms are not always consistent and recognizable. For endometriosis, it takes 4-11 years (another study say 7-9 years) to be properly diagnosed for the same reasons, and then some (P De Corte 2024). When studies like this, casting doubt on chronically ill, often female patients, are published, it makes this issue WORSE, not better.
Based on her statements here, I can imagine Showalter writing that endometriosis or PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome) are just ‘hysterical social panic disorders’ too. She is extremely dismissive, and painfully smug, when discussing how all these illnesses are ‘faked’ to a certain degree. Also, it is academically disingenuous to put Gulf Syndrome and Fibromyalgia alongside social panics like Satanic Ritual Abuse. Similarly, she claims adult victims coming forward about sexual assault/incest should not be believed, as she thinks they’re always coerced by their doctors to make claims. I know many victims of childhood sexual assault, and to say this with such negligent certainty is extremely dangerous. Showalter says she believes children when they claim abuse, but implies not adults. And because, what? They’re lying for attention?
I have literally so many issues, I have to use bullet-points:
1) Showalter’s main claim is extremely vague, messy, and unclear – what exactly is she arguing? In my opinion she’s claiming: a) there are mentally malleable people whose psychological capacity to be manipulated, and feel unfulfilled, is construed as disease and then the media creates a panic therefrom; b) people who suffer from these diseases shouldn’t be believed because they are most likely just pretending because it’s trendy and they’re "self-absorbed." This last word I took directly from Showalter’s treatment of fibromyalgia, which was objectively extremely cruel and academically dishonest.
2) She goes against this foggy claim-adjacent thesis many, many times, often putting proof that disproves her statement. Throughout the entire study, she vacillates and is vague. Nothing was convincingly argued because what the hell is she arguing exactly? Case in point, she claims that hysteria patients were ‘putting on a show’ because the doctors told them to. The next sentence, she acknowledges many of these patients were victims of systemic oppression, poverty, and, often, sexual and psychological abuse that was never addressed by their doctors. She conveniently ignores the fact that Jane Avril came from an abusive home she once likens to a paradise versus the Salpêtrière. She conveniently believes the doctor’s without investigating the patients thoroughly. If hysteria shows us anything, it’s that ethically-deprived male doctors who view female-related issues as deviancy, use the ‘abnormal’ female body to become famous.
3) Showalter is NOT a medical doctor and does not use any scientific study from the period (1997) that would disprove her claims. In fact, scientific studies from any medical association are suspiciously absent and she often mocks doctors for trying to find a real biological/neurological basis for these illnesses she claims (not as a medical doctor) are merely psychological. She believes in the ye old 'Are you just making it up?' approach. She states these disorders are psychological and not biological, yet that is, again, categorically untrue given what real medical doctors who specialize in these fields say. She does not have the expertise to be talking about these issues and, therefore, cannot be believed.
4) Fibromyalgia is a real neurological disorder, not a psychological panic from issues ‘everyone suffers from,’. She claims these sufferers are attention-seekers who want to believe they’re special, when everyone struggles with fatigue to varying degrees. This is an inherently ableist assumption – and this is not an accusation I throw around lightly. One of the main medical theories is that people with fibromyalgia have developed changes in the way the central nervous system processes the pain messages. In a 2013 study from actual medical doctors, they found patients with fibromyalgia have relentless hyperactivity of the sympathetic nervous system. This abnormality was also evident during sleeping hours. In a different study, they subjected patients with fibromyalgia to a simple stress test (to stand up), observing a paradoxical derangement of the sympathetic nervous system response to the upright posture. Such findings have been confirmed by other groups of investigators.
5) It was confirmed in a Nov 2025 study published in Scientific Reports, that Gulf War Syndrome a) is in fact real and biological (not merely psychological, and only a form of PTSD, as Showalter claims) and 2) is caused by mitochondrial damage/energy imbalance (https://www.nature.com/articles/s4159...). So, Showalter’s smug theory that this is merely an epidemic of ‘hysteria’ has been categorically proven false. I think it would be honorable of the theorist to print a retraction, but that hardly seems likely considering she had the opportunity to roll back some of her outlandish and unproven statements in Hystories Revisited in 2020, but chose not to. Instead, she doubled down on claims that, again, have been proven untrue.
6) I think Showalter should focus more explicitly on how the media treats these illnesses, and not the illnesses themselves. I’d argue the media did treat this as an outbreak, and subsequently panicked. However, that does not mean that those suffering from these disorders are lying/exaggerating/suffering merely from a social panic. Again, she seems more interested in the media, even as she also makes unfounded claims about the patients. This approach is extremely dangerous, and only feeds into the negligent kind of research that she claims she stands against.
7) Speaking of this, she seems more interested in critiquing the victims/desperate patients rather than the medical system/media. Also, she implies patients are merely little puppets mindlessly moved to and fro by their doctors – this is reductive. Her approach, even if she is skeptical (which she has the full right to be as a researcher), is decidedly unempathetic, verging often on mocking. To this I say: wtf?
8) The chapter on Recovered Memories (which also has nothing to do with the biological illnesses she explores earlier? Messy.) ….yikes. Oh my god, big yikes. This is one of the worst, most vindictive and mocking studies I’ve ever read that I couldn’t believe this was the feminist scion many researchers studying gender look up to. It’s so ethically-challenged in a myriad of ways, I have to break this nonsense into subsections:
a. Her claim is adult victims of incest are most likely lying because they’re manipulated by feminist thinkers and therapists that ‘want to make everyone into a victim.’ She thereby says women enjoy claiming the ‘victim’ mindset instead of the ‘empowerment’ of the past. The…audacity? What in the right-wing nonsense is this statement? If women ever discuss their vulnerability in any capacity that doesn’t end in the faux-optimistic #girlboss narrative, it is a ‘victim’ mindset. How reductive of the complexity of the human experience.
b. She implies female survivors of abuse are met with social approval by everyone (lolololololol if you’ve ever been the survivor of sexual abuse) and therefore are more likely to lie about being victims for attention and validation.
c. She makes fun of the Menendez brothers for claiming their father José Menendez molested them throughout their childhood. As of 2026, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that both brothers were extensively sexually, psychologically, and physically abused by both parents. This is also confirmed by other members of the family. The father also raped Roy Rosselló, a former member of the singing group Menudo. This is also proven. For this mockery, Showalter should be ashamed.
d. When some students protested against Showalter that this chapter was inconsiderate towards real victims and it would encourage survivors to stay silent out of fear for being called liars, she smugly states that she won’t remove the chapter, and will only “expand on it.” Ok? This ghoulish childish reaction is very JK Rowling-adjacent.
9) Satanic abuse chapter was ok? Not very well-researched and with a significant lack of direction, but comparatively to the rest of this cluster, it was bearable. However, she neglected to grapple with the confused and complicated nature of real hysterical media outbreaks and their causes (daytime tv, generational panic, racism, etc.) I know the Outreau case (1997-2000) occurred after the study was published, but it shows the confused and uncomfortable cracks of media frenzies. For example, some of the parents/guardians accused were in fact abusing their children, while others were categorically innocent. It was the police and the media responsible for mishandling the case, not the victims. One man was recently released after the French court admitted he’d been falsely accused, only for him to be taken back to jail for possessing child pornography a short while later. This is why these claims have to be seriously investigated.
10) I have a theory Showalter would have called the Epstein victims liars if they came out in 1997, considering that their claims would be viewed by the researcher as ‘outlandish,’ even though they’re true.
11) Alien abduction chapter was dreary and badly-researched. I didn’t give a single care anymore by this point, to be fair. I’d seen enough of this nonsense.
12) She half-heartedly tries to say sexual abuse and incest is real, but in the next line implies we shouldn’t believe survivors implicitly because they could be lying for attention. Data suggests that while false allegations of rape exist, they represent a small percentage of total reported cases, often cited around 2%. This means that around 98% of claims are true allegations. You are more likely to be hit by lightening then falsely be accused of rape, yet Showalter seems to have more sympathy for those being accused than the accusers, which is quite odd, in my opinion.
Conclusion: Women are already discriminated against in judicial, social, and medical settings. Survivors don’t lie for attention and to have your trauma publicly known is not as flattering as this bad faith theorist presents it. Illnesses associated with the reproductive body are already understudied and many doctors ignore women’s pain because they think it’s histrionic. In a recent survey, 93% of women recently reported feeling dismissed when seeking medical help. Many women suffering from chronic illness were false diagnosed as hysterical. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/bl... ) Since this study, Showalter hasn’t really produced that much meaningful work outside of biographies of certain authors and her last study on Julia Ward Howe came out in 2016. Frankly, good. After this, I sure won’t be reading anything that she could produce in the future. Let’s just remember 1990 Showalter when she wrote the bomb Sexual Anarchy: Gender and Culture at the Fin de Siècle, and not this conservative-adjacent former feminist who shakes her fist at clouds.
Real medical studies by real medical doctors because I don’t think Showalter would be able to read any, not even with a figurative gun pointed towards her head:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...
https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/t...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/immune-sys...
I have to say before I begin – I used to really admire Elaine Showalter. I read many of her studies, which are foundational in the field of gender studies/fin-de-siecle studies I work in currently. When I started this, I was excited because I’ve always enjoyed her work. My respect for her as a researcher and a thinker has plummeted drastically, and I don’t think I’ll ever read anything by her in good faith again.
I knew when Hystories came out, it was controversial. However, I was willing to give Showalter a chance because she is (was?) a respected literary theorist. After this, I will never read any one of her studies again due to having lost all faith in her research methodology and lack of ethical consideration in complicated nuanced topical issues. She is – simply – just not capable of fairly handling any of these ideas with care and vigorous research.
Showalter obviously holds a lot of disdain for people who do not have clear diagnoses, preferring to believe they’re lying for attention rather than suffer from a cluster of symptoms that don’t lead to an immediate discernable or ‘clean’ answer. She ironically tends to buy into conservative mindsets that people lie about trauma for attention and because it’s trendy. With regard to her ridiculous views on medicine, I often wondered how she would address autoimmune disorders, considering they often don’t present in a clear, consistent pattern; however, nevertheless, they do exist and the majority are women (around 80% of sufferers).
In fact, Showalter’s treatment of women is so regressive that it’s very difficult to believe the theorist has made a very successful career from discussing women’s issues. If anything, I feel comfortable describing many of her claims as misogynistic, considering she is discrediting a lot of medical and social issues that are predominantly suffered by women (partially because they are autoimmune-related). If you claim repeatedly that women are nervous and lie for attention, then I do not feel comfortable labelling you as a feminist, no matter what you might say. It is simply unacceptable to make such broad, sweeping claims with this little evidence. It makes me embarrassed for literary critics, who (as already stated) already have a bad rap for overextending their reach.
It has been proven that women are intensely discriminated against in judicial, media, and social medical settings. As a result, you have to address their treatments and their claims in these settings with fair consideration, even as you are obliged to remain skeptical. There was a recent study that showed women’s pain is significantly underestimated among doctors. Both a woman and her husband went to get their wisdom teeth removed the same day and by the same doctor. The husband was given a stronger painkiller than the woman who was given something akin to an Advil. This was because the doctor believed women’s pain tolerance was ‘biologically’ better. Additionally, no pain medication is offered for IUD insertion, one of the most painful outpatient processes I myself can attest to. It takes around 8 years for a patient with PCOS to be diagnosed correctly because a) lack of research of women’s illnesess; b) the symptoms are not always consistent and recognizable. For endometriosis, it takes 4-11 years (another study say 7-9 years) to be properly diagnosed for the same reasons, and then some (P De Corte 2024). When studies like this, casting doubt on chronically ill, often female patients, are published, it makes this issue WORSE, not better.
Based on her statements here, I can imagine Showalter writing that endometriosis or PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome) are just ‘hysterical social panic disorders’ too. She is extremely dismissive, and painfully smug, when discussing how all these illnesses are ‘faked’ to a certain degree. Also, it is academically disingenuous to put Gulf Syndrome and Fibromyalgia alongside social panics like Satanic Ritual Abuse. Similarly, she claims adult victims coming forward about sexual assault/incest should not be believed, as she thinks they’re always coerced by their doctors to make claims. I know many victims of childhood sexual assault, and to say this with such negligent certainty is extremely dangerous. Showalter says she believes children when they claim abuse, but implies not adults. And because, what? They’re lying for attention?
I have literally so many issues, I have to use bullet-points:
1) Showalter’s main claim is extremely vague, messy, and unclear – what exactly is she arguing? In my opinion she’s claiming: a) there are mentally malleable people whose psychological capacity to be manipulated, and feel unfulfilled, is construed as disease and then the media creates a panic therefrom; b) people who suffer from these diseases shouldn’t be believed because they are most likely just pretending because it’s trendy and they’re "self-absorbed." This last word I took directly from Showalter’s treatment of fibromyalgia, which was objectively extremely cruel and academically dishonest.
2) She goes against this foggy claim-adjacent thesis many, many times, often putting proof that disproves her statement. Throughout the entire study, she vacillates and is vague. Nothing was convincingly argued because what the hell is she arguing exactly? Case in point, she claims that hysteria patients were ‘putting on a show’ because the doctors told them to. The next sentence, she acknowledges many of these patients were victims of systemic oppression, poverty, and, often, sexual and psychological abuse that was never addressed by their doctors. She conveniently ignores the fact that Jane Avril came from an abusive home she once likens to a paradise versus the Salpêtrière. She conveniently believes the doctor’s without investigating the patients thoroughly. If hysteria shows us anything, it’s that ethically-deprived male doctors who view female-related issues as deviancy, use the ‘abnormal’ female body to become famous.
3) Showalter is NOT a medical doctor and does not use any scientific study from the period (1997) that would disprove her claims. In fact, scientific studies from any medical association are suspiciously absent and she often mocks doctors for trying to find a real biological/neurological basis for these illnesses she claims (not as a medical doctor) are merely psychological. She believes in the ye old 'Are you just making it up?' approach. She states these disorders are psychological and not biological, yet that is, again, categorically untrue given what real medical doctors who specialize in these fields say. She does not have the expertise to be talking about these issues and, therefore, cannot be believed.
4) Fibromyalgia is a real neurological disorder, not a psychological panic from issues ‘everyone suffers from,’. She claims these sufferers are attention-seekers who want to believe they’re special, when everyone struggles with fatigue to varying degrees. This is an inherently ableist assumption – and this is not an accusation I throw around lightly. One of the main medical theories is that people with fibromyalgia have developed changes in the way the central nervous system processes the pain messages. In a 2013 study from actual medical doctors, they found patients with fibromyalgia have relentless hyperactivity of the sympathetic nervous system. This abnormality was also evident during sleeping hours. In a different study, they subjected patients with fibromyalgia to a simple stress test (to stand up), observing a paradoxical derangement of the sympathetic nervous system response to the upright posture. Such findings have been confirmed by other groups of investigators.
5) It was confirmed in a Nov 2025 study published in Scientific Reports, that Gulf War Syndrome a) is in fact real and biological (not merely psychological, and only a form of PTSD, as Showalter claims) and 2) is caused by mitochondrial damage/energy imbalance (https://www.nature.com/articles/s4159...). So, Showalter’s smug theory that this is merely an epidemic of ‘hysteria’ has been categorically proven false. I think it would be honorable of the theorist to print a retraction, but that hardly seems likely considering she had the opportunity to roll back some of her outlandish and unproven statements in Hystories Revisited in 2020, but chose not to. Instead, she doubled down on claims that, again, have been proven untrue.
6) I think Showalter should focus more explicitly on how the media treats these illnesses, and not the illnesses themselves. I’d argue the media did treat this as an outbreak, and subsequently panicked. However, that does not mean that those suffering from these disorders are lying/exaggerating/suffering merely from a social panic. Again, she seems more interested in the media, even as she also makes unfounded claims about the patients. This approach is extremely dangerous, and only feeds into the negligent kind of research that she claims she stands against.
7) Speaking of this, she seems more interested in critiquing the victims/desperate patients rather than the medical system/media. Also, she implies patients are merely little puppets mindlessly moved to and fro by their doctors – this is reductive. Her approach, even if she is skeptical (which she has the full right to be as a researcher), is decidedly unempathetic, verging often on mocking. To this I say: wtf?
8) The chapter on Recovered Memories (which also has nothing to do with the biological illnesses she explores earlier? Messy.) ….yikes. Oh my god, big yikes. This is one of the worst, most vindictive and mocking studies I’ve ever read that I couldn’t believe this was the feminist scion many researchers studying gender look up to. It’s so ethically-challenged in a myriad of ways, I have to break this nonsense into subsections:
a. Her claim is adult victims of incest are most likely lying because they’re manipulated by feminist thinkers and therapists that ‘want to make everyone into a victim.’ She thereby says women enjoy claiming the ‘victim’ mindset instead of the ‘empowerment’ of the past. The…audacity? What in the right-wing nonsense is this statement? If women ever discuss their vulnerability in any capacity that doesn’t end in the faux-optimistic #girlboss narrative, it is a ‘victim’ mindset. How reductive of the complexity of the human experience.
b. She implies female survivors of abuse are met with social approval by everyone (lolololololol if you’ve ever been the survivor of sexual abuse) and therefore are more likely to lie about being victims for attention and validation.
c. She makes fun of the Menendez brothers for claiming their father José Menendez molested them throughout their childhood. As of 2026, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that both brothers were extensively sexually, psychologically, and physically abused by both parents. This is also confirmed by other members of the family. The father also raped Roy Rosselló, a former member of the singing group Menudo. This is also proven. For this mockery, Showalter should be ashamed.
d. When some students protested against Showalter that this chapter was inconsiderate towards real victims and it would encourage survivors to stay silent out of fear for being called liars, she smugly states that she won’t remove the chapter, and will only “expand on it.” Ok? This ghoulish childish reaction is very JK Rowling-adjacent.
9) Satanic abuse chapter was ok? Not very well-researched and with a significant lack of direction, but comparatively to the rest of this cluster, it was bearable. However, she neglected to grapple with the confused and complicated nature of real hysterical media outbreaks and their causes (daytime tv, generational panic, racism, etc.) I know the Outreau case (1997-2000) occurred after the study was published, but it shows the confused and uncomfortable cracks of media frenzies. For example, some of the parents/guardians accused were in fact abusing their children, while others were categorically innocent. It was the police and the media responsible for mishandling the case, not the victims. One man was recently released after the French court admitted he’d been falsely accused, only for him to be taken back to jail for possessing child pornography a short while later. This is why these claims have to be seriously investigated.
10) I have a theory Showalter would have called the Epstein victims liars if they came out in 1997, considering that their claims would be viewed by the researcher as ‘outlandish,’ even though they’re true.
11) Alien abduction chapter was dreary and badly-researched. I didn’t give a single care anymore by this point, to be fair. I’d seen enough of this nonsense.
12) She half-heartedly tries to say sexual abuse and incest is real, but in the next line implies we shouldn’t believe survivors implicitly because they could be lying for attention. Data suggests that while false allegations of rape exist, they represent a small percentage of total reported cases, often cited around 2%. This means that around 98% of claims are true allegations. You are more likely to be hit by lightening then falsely be accused of rape, yet Showalter seems to have more sympathy for those being accused than the accusers, which is quite odd, in my opinion.
Conclusion: Women are already discriminated against in judicial, social, and medical settings. Survivors don’t lie for attention and to have your trauma publicly known is not as flattering as this bad faith theorist presents it. Illnesses associated with the reproductive body are already understudied and many doctors ignore women’s pain because they think it’s histrionic. In a recent survey, 93% of women recently reported feeling dismissed when seeking medical help. Many women suffering from chronic illness were false diagnosed as hysterical. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/bl... ) Since this study, Showalter hasn’t really produced that much meaningful work outside of biographies of certain authors and her last study on Julia Ward Howe came out in 2016. Frankly, good. After this, I sure won’t be reading anything that she could produce in the future. Let’s just remember 1990 Showalter when she wrote the bomb Sexual Anarchy: Gender and Culture at the Fin de Siècle, and not this conservative-adjacent former feminist who shakes her fist at clouds.
Real medical studies by real medical doctors because I don’t think Showalter would be able to read any, not even with a figurative gun pointed towards her head:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...
https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/t...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/immune-sys...
February 18, 2019
One interesting thing about this book is that learning about Jean-Martin Charcot puts Emilie Autumn's video for "Fight Like A Girl" in a whole new light, and it is not a light that favors psychology.
Otherwise, the book was very disappointing. I read the book because I was curious about what she had to say about Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and was skeptical about it being treated with Satanic Ritual Abuse and alien abductions. I remain skeptical about that.
There are some interesting ideas here and there, but severely underdeveloped. The shallow treatment may have been intentional but is really unhelpful. I think it could reflect the author's unwillingness to deal with her own devotion to Freud and his leading of his patients in light of the obvious harms that has come from other doctors doing the very same thing. On one level she is admitting to his problems, but it doesn't feel committed, and in light of some of the obvious comparisons that just seems negligent.
Otherwise, the book was very disappointing. I read the book because I was curious about what she had to say about Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and was skeptical about it being treated with Satanic Ritual Abuse and alien abductions. I remain skeptical about that.
There are some interesting ideas here and there, but severely underdeveloped. The shallow treatment may have been intentional but is really unhelpful. I think it could reflect the author's unwillingness to deal with her own devotion to Freud and his leading of his patients in light of the obvious harms that has come from other doctors doing the very same thing. On one level she is admitting to his problems, but it doesn't feel committed, and in light of some of the obvious comparisons that just seems negligent.
January 15, 2018
I read this book because Kevin Young referred to it in Bunk (one of the problems with reading interesting nonfiction is that it can lead to a rabbit hole of research). Given that it's twenty years old, Elaine Showalter's book seems outdated now--things like Gulf War Syndrome and alien abductions don't seem to get as much play in the media as they used to, but now we have rumors such as vaccines causing autism (a far more dangerous 'hystory,' in my opinion, and one which I'm not sure Showalter's Freudian psychoanalytical approach could explain). This book has some value as a way to look at society's panics and disorders, but it probably should be a way station rather than an endpoint.
June 15, 2023
Readable and insightful examination of several modern epidemics.
Although I believe that the causes of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome have now been identified, Elaine Showalter gives some interesting analysis of how rigid gender roles, trauma and the responses of charismatic doctors can affect people to such an extent that they experience hysterical episodes all of which are dealt with differently. I admire Showalter's exposure of difficult subjects and unflinching look at how these subjects are interpreted. I think it would be brilliant if she updated it with some of the current 'hysteries' of the post-Covid, anti-vaxxer, post-lockdown world where the medicalising of every inconvenient feeling is rife.
Although I believe that the causes of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome have now been identified, Elaine Showalter gives some interesting analysis of how rigid gender roles, trauma and the responses of charismatic doctors can affect people to such an extent that they experience hysterical episodes all of which are dealt with differently. I admire Showalter's exposure of difficult subjects and unflinching look at how these subjects are interpreted. I think it would be brilliant if she updated it with some of the current 'hysteries' of the post-Covid, anti-vaxxer, post-lockdown world where the medicalising of every inconvenient feeling is rife.
Read
September 25, 2024Had to read this for a history class - so interesting
March 30, 2024
AN ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE OF MANY POPULAR PSYCHOLOGICAL ‘SYNDROMES’
Author Elaine Showalter wrote in the Preface to the Paperback Edition of this 1997 book, “I anticipated that [this book] would upset some special-interest groups, and it did… But I didn’t predict that I would become the subject of conspiracy theories myself, that I would be accused of writing the book with secret ‘major corporate funding’ and… trying to ‘bolster a flagging career in academia.’ … On the other hand, I’ve had the opportunity to meet and correspond with many doctors, scientists, journalists, scholars, and government officials who have extended … my understanding of these syndromes… With regard to chronic fatigue syndrome, little has changed… As for Gulf War Syndrome, the real gulf is still the one between alleged cases and proven effects… With regard to recovered memories, ritual abuse charges and multiple personalities, however, the tide seems to have turned. Courts have continuing to reverse decisions… we have a long way still to go before credulity, superstition, and hysterical epidemics are on the wane.”
She explains in the first chapter, “hysteria has not died. It has simply been relabeled for a new era… When well-meaning crusaders see hysterical syndromes in the context of social crises and then publicize their views through modern communications networks, these misconceptions can give rise to epidemics and witch-hunts… As the panic reaches epidemic proportions, hysteria seeks out scapegoats and enemies—from unsympathetic doctors, abusive fathers, and working mothers to devil-worshipping sadists, curious extraterrestrials, and evil governments… I am a literary critic and a historian of medicine, rather than a psychiatrist. Above all, hysteria tells a story, and specialists in understanding and interpreting stories know ways to read it.” (Pg. 4-7) She adds, “Can we interrupt or halt these epidemics? I believe that we already have the power to control epidemic hysteria, though it will take dedication and persistence to counter sensational news reports, rumors, and fear. We must accept the interdependence between mind and body, and recognize hysterical syndromes as a universal psychopathology of everyday life before we can dismantle their stigmatizing mythologies.” (Pg. 12)
She clarifies, “I don’t regard hysteria as weakness, badness, feminine deceitfulness, or irresponsibility, but rather as a cultural symptom of anxiety and stress. The conflicts that produce hysterical symptoms are genuine and universal; hysterics are not liars and therapists and not villains… While I criticize some forms of therapy… I also see a vital place for psychotherapy, psychopharmacology, and psychological guidebooks in everyday life.” (Pg. 9) Later, she adds, “Redefining hysteria as a universal human response to emotional conflict is a better course than evading, denying, or projecting its realities.” (Pg. 17)
She states, “the feminist embrace of all abuse narratives and the treatment of all women as survivors have troubling implications. Claiming hysteria and admiring its victims may have had inspirational functions in the 1970s… Today’s feminists need models rather than martyrs; we need the courage to think as well as the courage to heal.” (Pg. 61)
She says, “I do not disparage the suffering of patients with CFS [Chronic Fatigue Syndrome]. Ther symptoms are genuine, whether psychologically or organically caused, or both… The syndrome is a reality that undoubtedly has a devasting effect on their lives, marriages, and families.” (Pg. 116-117) She continues, “Many well-informed, thoughtful, educated people in the U.S. and Europe are convinced they’ve read that an organic basis for CFS has been firmly established… Journalistic and medical refusal to investigate the most extreme claims … [have] fueled the epidemic… With this sort of special pleading and suspension of critical attention, how can readers assess claims or differentiate between contradictory narratives of the CFS epidemic?” (Pg. 126) Later, she adds, “Doctors may protect the self-esteem of their patients in the short run by prescribing placebos… But in the long run, such acquiescence only creates more hystories.” (Pg. 131)
Of Gulf War Syndrome [GWS], she comments, “Journalists could be more helpful by reminding readers of the atmosphere leading up to the Gulf War and the many forces that contributed to stress and disorientation for participants… Seventeen percent of Gulf War forces came from National Guard reserve units who had never expected to be on active duty, especially under such ominous conditions... Soldiers also had to deal with frightening gossip about the preventive medications offered to them.” (Pg. 140-141) She adds, “The suffering of Gulf War Syndrome IS real by any measure, and the symptoms caused by war neurosis are just as painful and incapacitating as those caused by chemicals, parasites, and smoke. But until we can acknowledge that … As charges of sinister conspiracy and high-level government cover-up move in to displace and supplant the medical debate, Guyf War Syndrome becomes an epidemic of suspicion, a plague of paranoia that threatens a greater malaise than even Vietnam.” (Pg. 142-143)
Of ‘Recovered Memory,’ she states, “I have come to doubt the validity or therapeutically recovered memories of sexual abuse, but I do not wish to belittle those who believe in their memories, People do not generate these confabulations out of an intention to deceive. They may need to define an identity, to work out anger toward the accused, or to respond to cultural pressures.” (Pg. 147) She points out, “If 5000 people---or 5 people, or one---are unjustly accused, that is important. It cannot be factored in as an allowable margin of error… In a situation where the alleged abuse is well in the past, there is all the more reason for caution and consideration. Surely confronting outraged parents cannot be easy or helpful for patients either.” (Pg. 156)
Of Multiple Personality Disorder, she asks, “What will happen next to multiple personalities?... the movement might split into a professional clinical group dominated by psychiatrists and a ‘populist alliance’ of parents and therapists… These groups will be competing for clients and health insurance funding… multiple personality had become a lifestyle with its own activities…” (Pg. 169-170)
Turning to Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA), she observes, “It should come as no surprise that most adults recovering memories of SRA are women… Women also dominate the SRA subculture---that is, the people who have been most upset by allegations of satanic ritual abuse… Ironically, the SRA panic derives in large part from religious fundamentalists and political conservatives who are antagonistic to feminist goals... Why do so many intelligent, educated, concerned people believe these bizarre stories? The term ‘satanic ritual abuse’ is a large and messy one… its vagueness and inclusiveness make it seem plausible to many reasonable people who recall having read or heard something that may relate to it… Marginalized teenagers playing heavy metal music and tattooing themselves with skull s may alarm adults, but they are not the transgenerational secret satanists of rumor.” (Pg. 177-179) Later, she adds, “In the courts, satanic ritual abuse accusations are now facing more skeptical juries… Yet many others who have been accused remain imprisoned. Rather than accept the lack of evidence for their claims, many patients, therapists, and believers have expanded their definition of abuse… fascination with conspiracy bodes ill for the prospect that we will soon emerge from this darkness.” (Pg. 187-188)
Of Alien Abductions, she states, “From a narrative point of view, we might first notice how conveniently these plot elements avoid questions of evidence, objective confirmation, and proof. Abductions do not occur in front of witnesses, ufologists argue, because aliens want secrecy. They take place at night because the abductee’s absence is likely to go undetected and they can be disguised as dreams. Apart from the medical equipment, abductees recall little about the spaceships—which do not, for example, seem to have bathrooms or kitchens.” (Pg. 195) Later, she adds, ,”we can be sure that alien abduction myths will not be wiped out by the accumulation of negative evidence.” (Pg. 199)
She concludes, “We must exercise caution as a society when hystories take on that political, judicial form, when they stop being therapeutic and cross the line into accusation and prosecution. The problems and realities behind modern hystories are all too real… The conflicts women try to resolve with hystories are equally complex… But feminism can help us accept the struggle and resist regression into victimization… the hysterical epidemics of the 1990s have already gone on too long, and they continue to do damage: in distracting us from the real problems and cries of modern society, in undermining a respect for evidence and truth, and in helping support an atmosphere of conspiracy the suspicion… Men and women, therapists and patients, will need courage to face the hidden fantasies, myths, and anxieties that make up the current hysterical crucible; we must look into our own psyches rather to invisible enemies, devils, and alien invaders for the answers… I believe our human dignity demands that we face the truth.” (Pg. 205-207)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying these various topics.
Author Elaine Showalter wrote in the Preface to the Paperback Edition of this 1997 book, “I anticipated that [this book] would upset some special-interest groups, and it did… But I didn’t predict that I would become the subject of conspiracy theories myself, that I would be accused of writing the book with secret ‘major corporate funding’ and… trying to ‘bolster a flagging career in academia.’ … On the other hand, I’ve had the opportunity to meet and correspond with many doctors, scientists, journalists, scholars, and government officials who have extended … my understanding of these syndromes… With regard to chronic fatigue syndrome, little has changed… As for Gulf War Syndrome, the real gulf is still the one between alleged cases and proven effects… With regard to recovered memories, ritual abuse charges and multiple personalities, however, the tide seems to have turned. Courts have continuing to reverse decisions… we have a long way still to go before credulity, superstition, and hysterical epidemics are on the wane.”
She explains in the first chapter, “hysteria has not died. It has simply been relabeled for a new era… When well-meaning crusaders see hysterical syndromes in the context of social crises and then publicize their views through modern communications networks, these misconceptions can give rise to epidemics and witch-hunts… As the panic reaches epidemic proportions, hysteria seeks out scapegoats and enemies—from unsympathetic doctors, abusive fathers, and working mothers to devil-worshipping sadists, curious extraterrestrials, and evil governments… I am a literary critic and a historian of medicine, rather than a psychiatrist. Above all, hysteria tells a story, and specialists in understanding and interpreting stories know ways to read it.” (Pg. 4-7) She adds, “Can we interrupt or halt these epidemics? I believe that we already have the power to control epidemic hysteria, though it will take dedication and persistence to counter sensational news reports, rumors, and fear. We must accept the interdependence between mind and body, and recognize hysterical syndromes as a universal psychopathology of everyday life before we can dismantle their stigmatizing mythologies.” (Pg. 12)
She clarifies, “I don’t regard hysteria as weakness, badness, feminine deceitfulness, or irresponsibility, but rather as a cultural symptom of anxiety and stress. The conflicts that produce hysterical symptoms are genuine and universal; hysterics are not liars and therapists and not villains… While I criticize some forms of therapy… I also see a vital place for psychotherapy, psychopharmacology, and psychological guidebooks in everyday life.” (Pg. 9) Later, she adds, “Redefining hysteria as a universal human response to emotional conflict is a better course than evading, denying, or projecting its realities.” (Pg. 17)
She states, “the feminist embrace of all abuse narratives and the treatment of all women as survivors have troubling implications. Claiming hysteria and admiring its victims may have had inspirational functions in the 1970s… Today’s feminists need models rather than martyrs; we need the courage to think as well as the courage to heal.” (Pg. 61)
She says, “I do not disparage the suffering of patients with CFS [Chronic Fatigue Syndrome]. Ther symptoms are genuine, whether psychologically or organically caused, or both… The syndrome is a reality that undoubtedly has a devasting effect on their lives, marriages, and families.” (Pg. 116-117) She continues, “Many well-informed, thoughtful, educated people in the U.S. and Europe are convinced they’ve read that an organic basis for CFS has been firmly established… Journalistic and medical refusal to investigate the most extreme claims … [have] fueled the epidemic… With this sort of special pleading and suspension of critical attention, how can readers assess claims or differentiate between contradictory narratives of the CFS epidemic?” (Pg. 126) Later, she adds, “Doctors may protect the self-esteem of their patients in the short run by prescribing placebos… But in the long run, such acquiescence only creates more hystories.” (Pg. 131)
Of Gulf War Syndrome [GWS], she comments, “Journalists could be more helpful by reminding readers of the atmosphere leading up to the Gulf War and the many forces that contributed to stress and disorientation for participants… Seventeen percent of Gulf War forces came from National Guard reserve units who had never expected to be on active duty, especially under such ominous conditions... Soldiers also had to deal with frightening gossip about the preventive medications offered to them.” (Pg. 140-141) She adds, “The suffering of Gulf War Syndrome IS real by any measure, and the symptoms caused by war neurosis are just as painful and incapacitating as those caused by chemicals, parasites, and smoke. But until we can acknowledge that … As charges of sinister conspiracy and high-level government cover-up move in to displace and supplant the medical debate, Guyf War Syndrome becomes an epidemic of suspicion, a plague of paranoia that threatens a greater malaise than even Vietnam.” (Pg. 142-143)
Of ‘Recovered Memory,’ she states, “I have come to doubt the validity or therapeutically recovered memories of sexual abuse, but I do not wish to belittle those who believe in their memories, People do not generate these confabulations out of an intention to deceive. They may need to define an identity, to work out anger toward the accused, or to respond to cultural pressures.” (Pg. 147) She points out, “If 5000 people---or 5 people, or one---are unjustly accused, that is important. It cannot be factored in as an allowable margin of error… In a situation where the alleged abuse is well in the past, there is all the more reason for caution and consideration. Surely confronting outraged parents cannot be easy or helpful for patients either.” (Pg. 156)
Of Multiple Personality Disorder, she asks, “What will happen next to multiple personalities?... the movement might split into a professional clinical group dominated by psychiatrists and a ‘populist alliance’ of parents and therapists… These groups will be competing for clients and health insurance funding… multiple personality had become a lifestyle with its own activities…” (Pg. 169-170)
Turning to Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA), she observes, “It should come as no surprise that most adults recovering memories of SRA are women… Women also dominate the SRA subculture---that is, the people who have been most upset by allegations of satanic ritual abuse… Ironically, the SRA panic derives in large part from religious fundamentalists and political conservatives who are antagonistic to feminist goals... Why do so many intelligent, educated, concerned people believe these bizarre stories? The term ‘satanic ritual abuse’ is a large and messy one… its vagueness and inclusiveness make it seem plausible to many reasonable people who recall having read or heard something that may relate to it… Marginalized teenagers playing heavy metal music and tattooing themselves with skull s may alarm adults, but they are not the transgenerational secret satanists of rumor.” (Pg. 177-179) Later, she adds, “In the courts, satanic ritual abuse accusations are now facing more skeptical juries… Yet many others who have been accused remain imprisoned. Rather than accept the lack of evidence for their claims, many patients, therapists, and believers have expanded their definition of abuse… fascination with conspiracy bodes ill for the prospect that we will soon emerge from this darkness.” (Pg. 187-188)
Of Alien Abductions, she states, “From a narrative point of view, we might first notice how conveniently these plot elements avoid questions of evidence, objective confirmation, and proof. Abductions do not occur in front of witnesses, ufologists argue, because aliens want secrecy. They take place at night because the abductee’s absence is likely to go undetected and they can be disguised as dreams. Apart from the medical equipment, abductees recall little about the spaceships—which do not, for example, seem to have bathrooms or kitchens.” (Pg. 195) Later, she adds, ,”we can be sure that alien abduction myths will not be wiped out by the accumulation of negative evidence.” (Pg. 199)
She concludes, “We must exercise caution as a society when hystories take on that political, judicial form, when they stop being therapeutic and cross the line into accusation and prosecution. The problems and realities behind modern hystories are all too real… The conflicts women try to resolve with hystories are equally complex… But feminism can help us accept the struggle and resist regression into victimization… the hysterical epidemics of the 1990s have already gone on too long, and they continue to do damage: in distracting us from the real problems and cries of modern society, in undermining a respect for evidence and truth, and in helping support an atmosphere of conspiracy the suspicion… Men and women, therapists and patients, will need courage to face the hidden fantasies, myths, and anxieties that make up the current hysterical crucible; we must look into our own psyches rather to invisible enemies, devils, and alien invaders for the answers… I believe our human dignity demands that we face the truth.” (Pg. 205-207)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying these various topics.
April 23, 2023
“Hysterical epidemics require at least three ingredients: physician enthusiasts and theorists; unhappy, vulnerable patients; and supportive cultural environments. A doctor or other authority figure must first define, name, and publicize the disorder and then attract patients into its community.”
Showalter is certainly a lively and engaging force. Apparently the roots of modern hysteria can be traced back to Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893) and his clinic in La Saltpetriere hospital in Paris. From the 1870s people would flock from around the world to see him. This is quite good in explaining how the likes of feminism and hysteria have become interchangeable.
“The hysterical narratives of fiction can tell us a lot more about the causes and cures of hysteria than most of the self-help books on the market.”
She is pretty strong on the backlash against Freud and how he's, rightly, being held partly responsible for the explosion in cases of so called recovered memory, buried childhood trauma which inevitably led to all sorts of dark and horrendous consequences including many false accusations and convictions, which led to many overturned verdicts later on.
I thought this started off really strongly, but it did seem to run out of steam towards the end and there were times when this didn’t quite hold up, but I did really enjoy this. Clearly a lot of these ideas don’t play so well 25 years later, particularly some of her comments relating to Gulf War Syndrome and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which seem a tad harsh, dismissive and ignorant, but of course you don’t have to agree with someone and everything they say to enjoy what they say or write.
Elsewhere we get good coverage of Lacan, Multiple Personality Disorders, satanic ritual abuse and alien abduction. There is no question that many of these subjects and conditions covered exist in some way, but the more difficult question is to what extent they can be found and where? Obviously there is some madness at play, and in many cases artistic license and outright invention and lies, but then remember billions of people around the world still believe in some kind of “god” or religion…
Showalter is certainly a lively and engaging force. Apparently the roots of modern hysteria can be traced back to Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893) and his clinic in La Saltpetriere hospital in Paris. From the 1870s people would flock from around the world to see him. This is quite good in explaining how the likes of feminism and hysteria have become interchangeable.
“The hysterical narratives of fiction can tell us a lot more about the causes and cures of hysteria than most of the self-help books on the market.”
She is pretty strong on the backlash against Freud and how he's, rightly, being held partly responsible for the explosion in cases of so called recovered memory, buried childhood trauma which inevitably led to all sorts of dark and horrendous consequences including many false accusations and convictions, which led to many overturned verdicts later on.
I thought this started off really strongly, but it did seem to run out of steam towards the end and there were times when this didn’t quite hold up, but I did really enjoy this. Clearly a lot of these ideas don’t play so well 25 years later, particularly some of her comments relating to Gulf War Syndrome and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which seem a tad harsh, dismissive and ignorant, but of course you don’t have to agree with someone and everything they say to enjoy what they say or write.
Elsewhere we get good coverage of Lacan, Multiple Personality Disorders, satanic ritual abuse and alien abduction. There is no question that many of these subjects and conditions covered exist in some way, but the more difficult question is to what extent they can be found and where? Obviously there is some madness at play, and in many cases artistic license and outright invention and lies, but then remember billions of people around the world still believe in some kind of “god” or religion…
March 5, 2010
I'm not, as a rule, a sympathetic reader of feminist literature nor of contemporary criticism. However, I thought this an extremely good book by an extremely knowledgeable, perceptive and sceptical author. The subject is mass hysteria, or rather the different narratives of social phenomena of hysterical origin, such as Gulf War syndrome, fatigue syndrome, Satanic-ritual-abuse and alien-abduction subcultures and the rest of the sorry farrago of conspiracy-theorist nonsense that passes for culture in America nowadays. True, Showalter explicitly adheres to the social-scientist's erroneous perception that culture shapes people, rather than the other way round; however, the case-histories and narrative developments she recounts are clearly instances of people shaping culture (which then in turn shape people--but nobody ever denied that, surely?)
To her credit, Showalter is most critical of feminists and liberal academics who help confabulate and promote the spread of these 'hystories'. Her book is, in the end, a critique of the contemporary social-science establishment from the inside. As a liberal myself, though one with a strongly scientific, naturalist/physicalist outlook, I found it entirely to my taste: insightful, questioning and wise.
To her credit, Showalter is most critical of feminists and liberal academics who help confabulate and promote the spread of these 'hystories'. Her book is, in the end, a critique of the contemporary social-science establishment from the inside. As a liberal myself, though one with a strongly scientific, naturalist/physicalist outlook, I found it entirely to my taste: insightful, questioning and wise.
May 26, 2016
The work in this book tracing hysteria as a cultural mode, model and concept across two centuries is very astute. The structure of the book that links by theme, rather than era, helps to make these links concrete in the readers' minds. Showalter is a literary and historical scholar, and this is where she is strongest.
However, not enough references for a scholar trying to trace the same path - some very wide assertions made, and no obvious sources on multiple occasions for the random statistics that litter the text.
Also, her seeming 'diagnosis' of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is deeply unhelpfully framed, and poorly referenced by the medical sources looking into this condition. Perhaps, yes, it is a form of stress disorder, but the way Showalter frames her 'scepticism' however is very unhelpful. Just as there is a difference between a soldier with PTSD or 'shell shock' and someone who claims their dog has the same condition, this book seems to elide the CFS sufferers into the 'and my dog' category. She's an historian not a practitioner of psychiatry or any form of medicine, and this must be borne in mind by readers.
However, not enough references for a scholar trying to trace the same path - some very wide assertions made, and no obvious sources on multiple occasions for the random statistics that litter the text.
Also, her seeming 'diagnosis' of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is deeply unhelpfully framed, and poorly referenced by the medical sources looking into this condition. Perhaps, yes, it is a form of stress disorder, but the way Showalter frames her 'scepticism' however is very unhelpful. Just as there is a difference between a soldier with PTSD or 'shell shock' and someone who claims their dog has the same condition, this book seems to elide the CFS sufferers into the 'and my dog' category. She's an historian not a practitioner of psychiatry or any form of medicine, and this must be borne in mind by readers.
May 17, 2021
Fabrication for $s, her invalidation of really ill women (who progress & die via this real disease process = "CFS/ME") is a disgrace, especially as it went to feed her nasty ego & $s. Need to BOYCOT this disgusting drivel. Plus MEN have it too, via "GWS" & "PTSD" - so she's also invalidating heroic soldiers (who suicide at ~22/day). Shame on her disgracefully nasty soul!
February 10, 2019
lol nope
December 22, 2021
Great read on both psychosomatic epidemics and how they spread, as well as on the precursors to QAnon, tulpas, vax microchip theorizing etc
March 14, 2019
Cultural and historical read on hysteria
Read
March 21, 2025For research (👎🏻)
January 18, 2026
Exceptionally well written and insightful. the level of research is incredible.
December 5, 2015
I had forgotten how much I enjoyed Showalter's work until I picked up this book recently. I knew her work on hysteria from my undergrad years when I wrote a paper on hysteria at the London Hospital for the Insane many years ago. This book looks at hysterical epidemics in the 1980s and 1990s in North America, including alien abduction, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Satanic ritual abuse, recovered memory, Gulf War syndrome and multiple personality syndrome. Showalter connects these hysterical events to the larger study of hysteria in a manner that is at once readable and intelligent. A must read for anyone interested in how moral panics operate.
"Hysteria not only survives in the 1990s, it is more contagious than in the past. Infectious diseases spread by ecological change, modern technology, urbanization, jet travel, and human interaction. Infectious epidemics of hysteria spread by stories circulated through self-help book, articles in newspapers and magazines, TV talk shows and series, films, the Internet, and even literary criticism." 3
"I am a literary critic and a historian of medicine, rather than a psychiatrist. Above all, hysteria tells a story, and specialists in understanding and interpreting stories know ways to read it." 6
"Americans also tend to feel defensive about hysterical disorders after the recent spate of accusations that this country is becoming a hysterical victim society. It's a standing joke that Americans no longer view themselves as sinners struggling with the guilt of lust, avarice or greed but rather as sick people addicted to sex, shopping, or sweets." 8
"Hysterical epidemics require at least three ingredients: physician-enthusiast and theorists; unhappy, vulnerable patients; and supportive cultural environments. A doctor of other authority figure must first define, name, and publicize the disorder and then attract patients into its community." 17
"The third side of the hysterical triangle is environmental and cultural. Epidemics of hysteria seem to peak at the ends of centuries, when people are already alarmed about social change." 19
"Hysterical narrative, however, has a literary history that predates Freud. Nineteenth-century French doctors organized their case studies of hysterical women according to the conventions of the French novel, especially in its seduction scenes, and writers based their portraits of seductive or unhappy women on medical textbooks." 81
"The end of the nineteenth-century, as Foucault argues, produced the widespread medical hysterization of women's bodies, with the rise of literary theory, the end of the twentieth-century has produced a widespread critical hysterization of women's stories." 91
"Mulhern calls the satanism scare "a rumour in search of an inquisition." 187
"The writing cure, the acting cure, the dancing cure, all forms of creativity and art, are effective, meaningful forms of self-help. What psychologist Roy Schafer calls "retelling a life" is an important part of psychological growth, responsibility, and self-acceptance. Whether the details of these narratives are demostrably true may not be important as their imaginative and spiritual resonance for the individual." 205
"Hysteria not only survives in the 1990s, it is more contagious than in the past. Infectious diseases spread by ecological change, modern technology, urbanization, jet travel, and human interaction. Infectious epidemics of hysteria spread by stories circulated through self-help book, articles in newspapers and magazines, TV talk shows and series, films, the Internet, and even literary criticism." 3
"I am a literary critic and a historian of medicine, rather than a psychiatrist. Above all, hysteria tells a story, and specialists in understanding and interpreting stories know ways to read it." 6
"Americans also tend to feel defensive about hysterical disorders after the recent spate of accusations that this country is becoming a hysterical victim society. It's a standing joke that Americans no longer view themselves as sinners struggling with the guilt of lust, avarice or greed but rather as sick people addicted to sex, shopping, or sweets." 8
"Hysterical epidemics require at least three ingredients: physician-enthusiast and theorists; unhappy, vulnerable patients; and supportive cultural environments. A doctor of other authority figure must first define, name, and publicize the disorder and then attract patients into its community." 17
"The third side of the hysterical triangle is environmental and cultural. Epidemics of hysteria seem to peak at the ends of centuries, when people are already alarmed about social change." 19
"Hysterical narrative, however, has a literary history that predates Freud. Nineteenth-century French doctors organized their case studies of hysterical women according to the conventions of the French novel, especially in its seduction scenes, and writers based their portraits of seductive or unhappy women on medical textbooks." 81
"The end of the nineteenth-century, as Foucault argues, produced the widespread medical hysterization of women's bodies, with the rise of literary theory, the end of the twentieth-century has produced a widespread critical hysterization of women's stories." 91
"Mulhern calls the satanism scare "a rumour in search of an inquisition." 187
"The writing cure, the acting cure, the dancing cure, all forms of creativity and art, are effective, meaningful forms of self-help. What psychologist Roy Schafer calls "retelling a life" is an important part of psychological growth, responsibility, and self-acceptance. Whether the details of these narratives are demostrably true may not be important as their imaginative and spiritual resonance for the individual." 205
March 2, 2024
After reviewing the history of hysteria, the author brings together six modern phenomena which she calls hysterical epidemics: chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War syndrome, recovered memory, multiple personality syndrome, satanic ritual abuse, and alien abduction.
Some of those who have experienced these phenomena would dispute their characterization as hysterical, but there isn't an all-or-nothing dichotomy between psychogenic and organic diseases. Having previously read about some of these individual phenomena, I didn’t find the treatment here to be particularly original, but I did appreciate the more general perspective. The author’s new angle is supposed to that of literary and cultural criticism but, as she points out, theatre and storytelling have been part of these phenomena from Charcot to Freud and on to daytime TV.
Although the book is now more than 25 years old, it stands up well. An exception is the dust jacket, which has a pixellated close-up video image, as if from the VHS case of a 90s body horror film.
Some of those who have experienced these phenomena would dispute their characterization as hysterical, but there isn't an all-or-nothing dichotomy between psychogenic and organic diseases. Having previously read about some of these individual phenomena, I didn’t find the treatment here to be particularly original, but I did appreciate the more general perspective. The author’s new angle is supposed to that of literary and cultural criticism but, as she points out, theatre and storytelling have been part of these phenomena from Charcot to Freud and on to daytime TV.
Although the book is now more than 25 years old, it stands up well. An exception is the dust jacket, which has a pixellated close-up video image, as if from the VHS case of a 90s body horror film.
December 26, 2014
The book explores why panics and conspiracy theories emerge and proliferate in the US.
Interestingly, it shows how academics and policy makers are not immune to believing exaggerated claims and accepting downright false ideas.
Interestingly, it shows how academics and policy makers are not immune to believing exaggerated claims and accepting downright false ideas.
March 18, 2026
Author takes on a politically correct topic and gives the impression that she is unafraid of truth. She seems truly interested in the truth about fake illnesses but then went all in on Covid because it was political.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 18, 2022
Miracles of the (Gadarene) Swine, induced not by messiahs but by the enchantress we call "The media"?
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews