History of Psychotherapy

Great efforts to create an ambience wherein trusted cultural values can be incorporated into the practices of western methods of psychotherapy have been raised in Korea as well as in other Asian countries. Despite the increasing body of research by cultural impacts in psychotherapy, however, little is known about the Korean perspective of indigenous psychotherapy.

Initially a qualitative inquiry into the historical meaning and effects of experience, this article attempts to interpret a way to highlight indigenous psychotherapeutic methods derived from the concept of ‘Pungryu’, the Korean ethos deeply immersed in their spirits, and cultures. Pungryu is a philosophy or lifestyle Koreans have sought i.e., living in accordance to the nature ‘as wind (pung) blows and the flow (ryu) goes’, with significant emphasis on artistic practices and spirits of play.

This article debates on its implication in modern Korean psychotherapy and efficiency of culturally relevant psychotherapy in practice, further appealing to realize the importance of invigorating an ethos intrinsic to each culture or society as an essential knowledge to psychotherapeutic methods attuned to its distinct cultural or societal expectation.

Key Words: Cultural, Indigenous, Ethos, Korean, Psychotherapy

ABSTRACT ‒ The article describes the most important events that, in the 1960s and 1970s, contributed to the development of modern clinical psychology and psychotherapy in Italy. In a conference organised in Milan in 1952 by the most authoritative Italian psychologist of the time, the Franciscan friar Agostino Gemelli, the methods and limits of clinical psychology were outlined and defined. In this way the discipline was legitimised, although it was placed under the tutelage of psychiatry. Clinical psychology eventually freed itself from this subordination, evolving in line with international trends to become one of the main fields of applied psychology, thanks to the contribution of at least four events: 1) the affirmation of psychoanalysis by the school of Cesare Musatti and as a result of the endeavours of Gemelli’s students; 2) the acceptance, on the part of the Catholic Church, of psychoanalysis as a therapeutic treatment in the face of distress and mental disturbance; 3) the scientific-cultural and political activity of Adriano Ossicini and Pier Francesco Galli, which opened the door to new psychotherapeutic theories and techniques; and 4) the closure of mental institutions (Basaglia Law, 1978) encouraged by anti-institutional psychiatry, and the new forms of treatment of mental illness practiced in therapeutic communities. This article reconstructs the vicissitudes of regulating the clinical psychologist and psychotherapist professions in relation to the diverse psychotherapeutic practices exercised in Italy since the 1970s.

The authors studied psychotherapeutic practices commonly used in managed care settings and the theories and rhetorical strategies that justify them to speculate about if or how the), are beginning to influence societ),wide understandings about the proper way of being human at the turn of the millennium. The practices--and effects--of managed care regulations on the self are interpreted by studying how the patient, the therapist, and the therapeutic relationship come to light in managed care settings. These categories are then used to speculate about the configuration of the newly emerging, 21st-century self By extending hermeneutic concerns about instrumentalism and technicism, the authors suggest a new way of thinking about psychotherapy modeled less on positivist science and more on moral discourse. Finally, given this more hermeneutic understanding of psychotherapy, the authors speculate about alternative conceptions and arrangements of care.

This article presents a contextualized treatment of the current configuration of self, some of the pathologies that plague it, and the technologies that attempt to heal it. Of particular interest is the historical shift from the Victorian, sexually restricted self to the post-World War H empty self. The empty self is soothed and made cohesive by becoming "filled up" with food, consumer products, and celebrities. Its historical antecedents, economic constituents, and political consequences are the focus of this article. The two professions most responsible for healing the empty self, advertising and psychotheral~, find themselves in a bind: They must treat a psychological symptom without being able to address its historical causes. Both circumvent the bind by employing the lifestyle solution, a strategy that attempts to heal by covertly filling the empty self with the accoutrements, values, and mannerisms of idealized figures. This strategy solves an old problem but creates new ones, including an opportunity for abuse by exploitive therapists, cult leaders, and politicians. Psychology's role in constructing the empty self, and thus reproducing the current hierarchy of power and privilege, is examined.

Dalla cura dell’anima alla psicoanalisi, dall’ipnosi alle terapie cognitivo-comportamentali: in nove capitoli gli autori ricostruiscono la storia delle diverse forme di psicoterapia, fino alle odierne versioni basate sulle evidenze empiriche.
Il libro descrive l’evoluzione delle teorie ma anche il contesto storico nel quale terapeuti e pazienti hanno vissuto: la maggiore o minore fortuna delle diverse psicoterapie è dipesa anche dalla loro capacità di rispondere alle esigenze poste dai cambiamenti epocali che si sono verificati, in particolare tra la fine dello scorso millennio e l’inizio del nuovo.
Gli autori offrono dunque un quadro storico complessivo e illustrano le differenti psicoterapie anche nelle loro reciproche relazioni e non solo come discipline isolate le une dalle altre.
Ne emerge una visione affascinante, che chiarisce le radici più profonde di una disciplina complessa come la psicoterapia.

В книге история психиатрии рассматривается через призму особого жанра медицинской литературы — патографии, или жизнеописания знаменитостей с точки зрения их болезней, мнимых или настоящих. В русской культуре писатель был фигурой особенно заметной — как рупор общества, символ времени или объект, на который читатели проецировали свои желания. Не удивительно, что именно писатели привлекли внимание пси-
хиатров и стали их заочными пациентами» и героями (или анти-героями) патографий. Немало медицинской литературы посвящено классикам — Пушкину, Гоголю, Достоевскому, Толстому, Гаршину и многим другим писателям и поэтам. Автор ищет ответы на вопросы: как и зачем психиатры ставили диагнозы писателям, что это значило для становления психиатрии, как патографии были встречены в обществе? Почему одни врачи на-
ходили у Пушкина, например, различные болезни, а другие, напротив, считали образцом душевного здоровья? И почему с приходом нового поколения медиков эти диагнозы менялись, иногда на диаметрально противоположные? В данном исследовании идеи о душевной болезни и душевном здоровье, о таланте и гениальности помещены в контекст бурной
общественно-политической жизни России конца XIX — начала ХХ веков. Книга Ирины Сироткиной получила приз Ассоциации современных языков (Modern Language Association, США) за лучшую работу в области славянских языков и литературы в 2001—2002 гг. Текст книги переработан и расширен.

This chapter reviews past and present debates about the therapeutic relationship in order to draw out the ethical implications of relational practices in psychotherapy. The thera peutic relationship has been understood differently across psychotherapeutic approach es, with each tradition responding to the attendant ethical challenges in distinctive ways. Aside from practitioners' theoretical and practical commitments, the therapeutic relation ship has also been, and continues to be, shaped by broader societal influences. The chap ter discusses the shifting ethical implications of relational practices, then, as situated in their theoretical and historical contexts. The historical variability of concerns raised by the therapeutic relationship requires continued ethical analysis in order to confront the diversity and complexity of contemporary clinical practice.

This article investigates the changing justifications of one of the hallmarks of orthodox psychoanalytic practice, the neutral and abstinent stance of the psychoanalyst, during the middle decades of the 20th century. To call attention to the shifting rationales behind a supposedly cold, detached style of treatment still today associated with psychoanalysis, explanations of the clinical utility of neutrality and abstinence by ‘classical’ psychoanalysts in the United States are contrasted with how intellectuals and cultural critics understood the significance of psychoanalytic abstinence. As early as the 1930s, members of the Frankfurt School discussed the cultural and social implications of psychoanalytic practices. Only in the 1960s and 1970s, however, did psychoanalytic abstinence become a topic within broader intellectual debates about American social character and the burgeoning ‘therapy culture’ in the USA. The shift from professional and epistemological concerns to cultural and political ones is indicative of the changing appreciation of psychoanalysis as a clinical discipline: for psychoanalysts as well as cultural critics, I argue, changing social mores and the professional decline of psychoanalysis infused the image of the abstinent psychoanalyst with nostalgic longing, making it a symbol of resistance against a culture seen to be in decline.

Daniel respected theory of infant development is critiqued from a social-constructionist perspective in order to demonstrate how decontextualized psychology theories inadvertantly perpetuate the political status quo. Self-invariants in the core-self phase are discussed as reflections of the current configuration of self rather than a discovery of universal elements of human development. The parental attunement response is reinterpreted as a way by which Western interiority and subjectivity are socially constructed. Language as the fundamental cause of alienation and dividedness is disputed. In Stern's theory, universal qualities of the self and the processes of language acquisition are responsible for several psychological ills characteristic of the 20th century. By exonerating political structures as causal factors, decontextualized theories legitimize, justify, and perpetuate current arrangements of power and privilege.

Zusammenfassung. Die Klinische Psychologie ist heute von der Verhaltenstherapie geprägt. Eine Erklärung für diese enge Verbindung liefert die These, dass die Verhaltenstherapie ein genuin psychologisches Verfahren sei: Sie stamme historisch direkt aus der Disziplin Psychologie. Als eigenes Verfahren habe sie der Psychologie die Abgrenzung zur Medizin ermöglicht, die zuvor lange den Bereich der Psychotherapie dominiert habe. Im vorliegenden Artikel soll diese These für den bundesdeutschen Raum untersucht und das Verhältnis zwischen Verhaltenstherapie und Klinischer Psychologie genauer betrachtet werden. Dazu wird eine mikrohistorische Untersuchung vorgenommen, die sich auf den Zeitraum der 1960er und 1970er Jahre des Max-Planck-Instituts für Psychiatrie konzentriert. Dessen psychologische Abteilung unter Johannes Brengelmann gilt in vielen psychologiegeschichtlichen Darstellungen als grundlegend für die Entwicklung der Verhaltenstherapie ebenso wie der Klinischen Psychologie in Deutschland. Anhand von Archivmaterialien sowie Veröffentlichungen der psychologischen Abteilung rekonstruiere ich zwei verschiedene Figuren, mit denen zentrale Protagonist_innen die Beziehung der Verhaltenstherapie zur Psychologie charakterisierten: Zum einen erfolgte teilweise eine Abgrenzung zur Medizin und die Betonung einer eigenen Identität in der Psychologie. Zum anderen kam es immer wieder zu einer Annäherung der Verhaltenstherapie an die Medizin, zu der etwa die Positionierung als methodische Erneuerung der Psychiatrie, die Orientierung an medizinischen Modellen psychischer Erkrankungen und die Zusammenarbeit in der klinischen Praxis zählten. Insgesamt kann die untersuchte These für die deutsche Entwicklung in dieser Phase also nicht bestätigt werden. Vielmehr ist in Bezug auf Verhaltenstherapie von einem komplexen Verhältnis zwischen Psychologie und Medizin auszugehen, das zwischen Kooperation und Konkurrenz changierte.
---
Abstract. Clinical psychology today is characterized largely by behavioral therapy. One explanation for this close connection is the thesis
that behavior therapy was historically the first therapeutic approach that came genuinely from the discipline of psychology. In this way,
according to the thesis, psychology was able to draw boundaries between it and medicine, which had long dominated the field of
psychotherapy. This article will examine this thesis for the Federal Republic of Germany and take a closer look at the relationship between
behavior therapy and psychology. To this end, a microhistorical investigation was conducted, focusing on the period of the 1960 s and 1970 s
at the Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry. In many psychological-historical accounts, the psychology department of the institute, which was
headed by Johannes Brengelmann, is considered to be fundamental to the development of behavioral therapy as well as clinical psychology
in Germany. Using archive material and publications from the psychology department, two different factors were found to be involved in
reconstructed with which central protagonists characterized the relationship of behavioral therapy to psychology and medicine. On the one
hand, there was a partial demarcation from medicine and an emphasis on psychology’s identity on its own terms. On the other hand,
behavioral therapy in that period was getting close to medicine in various ways. These included self-representation as a methodological
renewal of psychiatry, an orientation toward medical models of mental illness, and cooperation in practice. Therefore, the thesis as
examined could not be confirmed for German developments in this phase. Rather, a complex relationship between psychology and medicine
must be assumed, which oscillated between cooperation and competition.

The history of psychoanalysis has paid much attention to Melanie Klein’s personal trajectory —from Vienna to Budapest, Berlin and London— and to her “controversial discussions” with Anna Freud, in the 1940s (Grosskurth 1986; King and Steiner 1991; Kristeva 2001). In
contrast, relatively little attention has been paid to the circulation and the uneven reception of her ideas in other regions—although some works have studied what happened in countries such as Switzerland (Quinodoz 2013), France (Grosskurth 1986; Roudinesco, 1997), and Argentina (Etchegoyen and Zysman 2005; Dagfal 2009b).
The 12 letters written by Melanie Klein that are reproduced in this issue are a resource that can be very helpful to expanding the historiography of her reception in both the French-speaking world and in South America. These historical processes were interconnected:
the striking reception of Klein in Argentina boosted her expansion not only in Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, and Mexico, but also, in turn, in France (Dagfal 2009b, in press). The developments which occurred in Buenos Aires in the mid-1940s constitute a unique case, as most of the founding members of the Argentine Psychoanalytic Association (APA) —and some of their spouses— very rapidly became Kleinian. Significantly,
some of these analysts were the first to publish texts from a Kleinian orientation in the French language (e.g. Ángel Garma, Enrique Pichon-Rivière, Arminda Aberastury, and Marie Langer) in the early 1950s. However, Klein herself would still wait until 1959 (a year before her death) to see the translation of her first book The Psycho-Analysis of Children (1932) in print. Even then, it is remarkable that the translation of Klein’s first two books into French (Klein 1959a; Klein et al. 1966) was partly made by European analysts who had trained in Buenos Aires: Marcelle Spira and Willy Baranger. In short, Klein’s reception in France was as late and difficult as her implantation in Argentina had been unexpectedly easy and fruitful. Notwithstanding this, the latter facilitated the former. Most of those mentioned above are among the recipients of the first set of six letters featured here, which address Klein’s reception in South America, particularly in Argentina and Uruguay. The second group of letters—another set of six—discuss the “odyssey” of the French translation of Klein’s “fundamental book.” They were sent to Jacques Lacan, who was given the translations rights in 1948, to Françoise Girard and Jean-Baptiste Boulanger —a young couple of analysts who obtained those rights in 1952—and to Daniel Lagache, the renowned psychoanalyst who was in charge of the series in which the book finally
appeared. To my knowledge, none of these letters have been published in their original form, even though some have been previously quoted or translated. The letters were generally dictated by Klein and typewritten by her secretary, and then manually corrected by Klein before sending them by air mail. Only in a few special cases were her letters entirely
handwritten, but that did not happen with any of the 12 that are featured.
The period of this correspondence stretches from 1951 to 1960, which encompassed the last decade of Klein’s life. On the one hand, she was at the height of her celebrity, attending all the IPA international congresses as a main speaker, along with Anna Freud (Amsterdam, 1951, London, 1953, Geneva, 1955, Paris, 1957, Copenhagen, 1959). Her communications at these events were carefully prepared and generally published in the IJP.
These papers were frequently referenced, as well as the books she wrote during those years —Envy and Gratitude (1957), Narrative of a Child Analysis (1961)— and the collections in which she participated —Developments in Psychoanalysis (1952), New Directions in Psychoanalysis (1955). On the other hand, as active as she was, Klein was growing old and, as she describes in her unfinished Autobiography and theorizes in some of her posthumously published papers, feeling lonely (Klein 1959b, 1963). Her concerns about her health are present in most letters. There is a visible contrast between her intellectual strength and her physical exhaustion, which she tended to attribute to overwork.

Using some form of relationship between healer and suffer to relieve physical and/or mental distress is as old as human history. This paper looks at the prehistory of the “psychotherapeutic” relationship and some of the different individuals and groups that practiced relationship-based treatment. The Emmanuel Movement in Boston (1906-1929) represents an important synthesis of various religious movements and scientific practices at the time as well as a transition into modern psychotherapy. The aim of this paper is twofold: Firstly, this paper examines the historical setting in which the Emmanuel Movement was conceived and practiced, as well as various individuals and movements, beginning in the eighteenth century, that began using the relationship between the healer and the sufferer to bring about relief from various types of distress. Secondly, this paper shows that by placing psychotherapy in a historical context one can gain a greater understanding of the development of psychotherapy and the contributions that “alternative” healing groups have made.

ix INTRODUCTION 1 Escaping the Straightjacket of Confinement: The History of TwentiethCentury Psychiatry 10 Histories of the Asylum 10 Deinstitutionalization 12 Between Shell Shock and “Euthanasia” 14 The Fluid Boundaries of Disciplines 19 Perspectives on Psychiatry, Society, and Politics 23 Non-Political Politics, Science, and Society 23 Psycho-Politics 27 CHAPTER I – DIAGNOSING THE REVOLUTION 35 Introduction 35 The Revolutionary Psychopaths 41 A National Nervous Breakdown 50 Psychiatric Expertise in the Interwar Period 64 CHAPTER II – APPLYING PSYCHIATRY IN INTERWAR VIENNA 7

Psychotherapists loyal to Single Orientation (SO) movements (such as cognitive–behavioral therapy [CBT], psycho-dynamics, Gestalt, etc.) are usually described in negative terms as having attitudes of superiority, contempt, and aversion toward other adjoining therapeutic “cultures.” In contrast to such a viewpoint, this article using post-positivists philosophy emphasizes the importance of theoretical fundamentalism associated with SO to the evolution of theory in psychotherapy. Through an analogy between the evolution of psychotherapy and the assimilation of the discoveries of the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, the article illustrates the extent to which loyalty to a single approach enables and encourages the enterprise of inventors, developers, and implementers belonging to various psychotherapeutic movements. The article calls upon integrationist theoreticians to embrace a dialogic and dialectic perspective and to adopt a tolerant view in relation to theoretical fundamentalism. Finally, the implications of this approach to training, practice, and the integration movement are discussed.

This work aims to start exploring a field of healthcare not properly inquired in Italian context: the experience of mental suffering and its healing for Chinese patients immigrants in Italy. Thus it will analyze the connections between Chinese culture and psychotherapy, meant as an intervention through the psyche, that is, through psychological, intangible tools. First of all, it will deepen the history of psychotherapy and, briefly, of psychiatry and mental health system in China. Finally, it will see what psychotherapeutic adaptations and methods have occurred. Secondly, it will analyze the language of suffering and healing in Chinese medicine (zhongyi). In particular, it will address the concepts of Yin and Yang, the Five Elements and the qi; the psycho-emotional aspects of Shen, Hun, Po, Yi and Zhi; the emotions in Chinese medicine. The third chapter will focus on the experience of (mental) suffering in Chinese culture, analyzing the notion of ¿body-person¿ (shenti), the issues of somatization and neurasthenia and the stigma attached to mental illness in China. In the end, we will introduce an initial debate to understand not only access to local psychological and mental health services by the Chinese population, but also the complexity of taking care and the therapeutic efficacy of treatment. It will be done via an initial exposure of the history of Chinese migration in Italy, some considerations about difficulties of taking care of foreign patients and a following analysis of results of a multi-situated ethnography, which has used the qualitative method of semi-structured interview and participant observation, where possible. The interviews were carried out mainly with the health practitioners in public and private health facilities in the area of Prato and Turin.

In 1960s France, behavior therapy attracted the attention of a group of isolated pioneers largely composed of psychiatrists and some experimental psychologists. At the beginning of the 1970s, after a discreet introduction, the development of this movement provoked an adverse reaction related to the French intellectual context, which was characterized by a taste for psychoanalysis. At the height of the Cold War, this new form of therapy was, moreover, seen as a typical product of American culture, and viewed as a technique for mind control that would be incompatible with French humanist values. In this respect, the French rejection of behavioral therapies can also be placed in a broader context, one of anti-Americanism and assertion of the French "cultural exception." Thus, until the late 1980s, the development of the French behavior therapy movement was weak compared with what happened in the United Kingdom or the United States. Conversely, psychoanalysis reigned unchallenged in the French market for psychotherapy. In the early 1990s, the arrival of cognitive-behavioral therapy made a crucial difference. Hybridized with cognitive techniques, cognitive-behavioral therapy was seen as a "synthetic product" better suited to the French culture in psychotherapy than the initial model of "pure" behavior therapy. (PsycINFO Database Record

En 1955 le psychiatre Henri Ey (1900-1977) publie sous sa
direction un Traité de Psychiatrie dans la collection de
l'Encyclopédie Médico-Chirurgicale (EMC, Editions
Techniques), rassemblant autour de lui plus d'une centaine de
collaborateurs. Parmi eux, une grande partie des
psychanalystes français, avec qui les psychiatres du cadre des
hôpitaux psychiatriques publics se répartissent les matières à
exposer, tandis que les principaux représentants de la
neuropsychiatrie universitaire sont exclus. Lors d'un banquet
offert pour fêter la parution de l'ouvrage collectif, Henri Ey
fait la lecture à ses hôtes d'une parodie (ou pastiche, voire
satire ?) de Bouvard et Pécuchet de FLAUBERT. Je propose
d'appréhender ce document méconnu des historiens par le
biais de l'ironie : écrit sur le ton de la dérision par un
psychiatre évoquant les pratiques et les doctrines qui prêtent le
flan à la moquerie dans sa discipline (du mesmérisme au
freudisme), le texte peut aussi se lire comme un roman à clef
des rapports de force et des défenses de monopole, dans une
profession médicale où les dissensions sont nourries par des
titres professionnels, par des itinéraires intellectuels et par des
réseaux savants différents. Dans un premier temps, je
montrerai qu'à travers l'emprunt des « deux bonshommes »,
Henri Ey avait certainement pour but de désamorcer toute
critique vis-à-vis de son ambition d'encyclopédiste. On peut
comparer à cette occasion la posture d'Henri Ey à celle de
l'écrivain Raymond Queneau (1903-1976), directeur de l'Encyclopédie de la Pléiade à la même époque : lui aussi fut
hanté par les figures du savant fou et du scientifique amateur
et il rédigea deux préfaces pour des rééditions de Bouvard et
Pécuchet. Cependant, le Bouvard et Pécuchet d'Henri EY évoque
moins l'exercice de style de Queneau que la pugnacité des
textes corporatistes de défense de la psychiatrie. Dans un
second temps, il s'agira donc d'analyser le statut de l'imitation
burlesque d'une œuvre déjà burlesque : ce texte cache une
véritable satire sous le travestissement du comique. L'auteur
vise une série de personnes bien réelles, parfois nommées
dans le texte et présentées de manière grotesque. La parodie
apparaît ici comme mise au service du persiflage.
http://flaubert.univ-rouen.fr/article.php?id=24

Texte d'Henri Ey :
http://flaubert.univ-rouen.fr/article.php?id=25

This article presents the origins of Polish psychotherapy with a special focus on psychotherapy development in Krakow and at the Jagiellonian University. The history of Krakow psychotherapy starts with the foundation of the Psychiatry and Neuropathology Clinic of the Jagiellonian University in 1905. Doctors working in the Department of psychotherapy developed their skills through contacts with the Zurich University Psychiatric Clinic Burgholzli. At the same time psychotherapy, and psychoanalysis in particular, were raising more and more interest in Poland. The most dynamic development of psychoanalysis reflected in the number of scientific publications, occurs in the years leading to the outbreak of War World I. This article presents brief portraits of the first Polish psychoanalysts ( Ludwik Jekels, Herman Nunberg, Ludwika Karpińska, Stefan Borowiecki, Jan Nelken, Kraol de Beaurain). Many of them worked in Psychiatry and Neuropathology Clinic of the Jagiellonian University. Their
scientific achievements and contribution to the development of the international psychoanalytic movement are described, as well as relationships with leading psychoanalysts of this period (Freud, Jung). With the outbreak of World War I the research on and treatment of war neurosis was initiated in the Psychiatry and Neuropathology Clinic. Professor Piltz, the director of the clinic, together with his assistants (Borowiecki, de Beuarain, Artwiński) devised a unique in European psychiatry and highly efficient method of post-traumatic disorders treatment, in which psychotherapy was of key importance.

Today, drug dependence is often understood as a “brain disease” and
as an indication for behavioral therapy. In this article, I trace the
historical development of the notions of drug dependence as
a neuronal and behavioral problem in the local research context of
the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany. Focusing on
the period from the 1950s to the 1980s, I argue that the neuroscientific
and behaviorist understanding of “dependence” had two different
trajectories that were yoked together under the same institution of
self-proclaimed basic research: (a) the neuroscientific notion derived
from an older toxicological approach to drug effects that was then
accompanied by biochemical methods from the 1950s onwards, and
neurochemical approaches from the 1960s and 1970s; and (b) the
behaviorist notion had predecessors in psychotherapeutic approaches
to addiction that emerged in the 1950s and took a psychodynamic
orientation at the Institute. When the Institute positioned itself as
a basic research establishment and developed a unified structure
during the 1960s, these psychodynamic approaches were excluded
for being “too applied.” Soon afterward, behaviorist psychotherapeutic
approaches to drug dependence emerged in the 1970s, emphasizing
their foundation in basic research. Even though neuroscientific and
behaviorist notions had some overlaps through the use of animal
experimentation and by referring to basic research, researchers using
the two approaches remained separate in their respective units during
the time period under analysis. When conceptualizing the local scientific
occupation with “drug dependence,” I apply here the history of
science concept of a “split object.” Like the “boundary object,” the split
object is plastic enough to adapt to local conditions and robust
enough to maintain its genuine identity. Compared with the boundary
object, however, the split object does not invite scientific collaboration.
It does, nonetheless, enable epistemic coexistence under
a common institutional goal.

The lessons learned from treating schizophrenics have induced therapists to employ their own personalities and subjective feelings as therapeutic tools. In the case of existential psychotherapy and family therapy, the treatment of schizophrenia has played a principal role in the original formulation of both approaches. Client-centered therapy had already established itself and was later signijicantly changed to accommodate the valuable lessons gained from treating schizophrenics. Finally, as interpersonal theory made its impact on classical psychoanalysis, analysts increasingly recognized how they could effectively utilize their own "co~ntertransference" as a guide to treatment.

Two different but related developments played an important role in the history of psychologists in the fields of mental health care in Germany during the 20th century. The first development took place in the field of applied psychology, which saw psychological professionals perform mental testing, engage in counseling and increasingly, in psychotherapy in practical contexts. This process slowly began in the first decades of the 20th century and included approaches from different schools of psychotherapy. The second relevant development was the emergence of clinical psychology as an academic sub-discipline of psychology. Having become institutionalized in psychology departments at German universities during the 1960s and 1970s, clinical psychology often defines itself as a natural science and almost exclusively focuses on cognitive-behavioral approaches. There are four phases of the growing relationship between psychology and psychotherapy in Germany in which the two developments were increasingly linked: first, the entry of psychology into psychiatric and psychotherapeutic fields from approximately 1900 until 1945; second, the rise of psychological psychotherapy and the emergence of clinical psychology after World War II until 1972, when the diploma-regulations in West Germany were revised; third, a phase of consolidation and diversification from 1973 until the pivotal psychotherapy law of 1999; and fourth, the shifting equilibrium as established profession and discipline up to the reform of the psychotherapy law in 2019. Overall, the emergence of psychological psychotherapy has not one single trajectory but rather multiple origins in the different and competing academic and professional fields of mental health care.

The "Spanish Society of History of Psychology" (SEHP, http://sehp.org/wordpress/) organizes its

XXIX Annual Symposium at Portucalense University (Porto, Portugal, http://www-en.upt.pt/) from 4 to 6 May 2016.

The Organizing Committee and the Scientific Committee of the Symposium invite all researchers with an interest in the History of Psychology to submit their work and to disseminate the present "Call for papers".

The overall theme of the Symposium, proposed to participants, focuses on the "History of Psychopathology and Psychotherapy", including their various theories, models and practices with special emphasis on the Iberoamerican world. Thus, the Symposium will provide a unique opportunity to disseminate, discuss and deepen historical and epistemological issues related to the scientific personalities and institutions which have contributed to theoretical and practical innovation in the realm of psychopathological understanding/ explanation and psychotherapeutic intervention. It is intended, therefore, to stimulate and foster research on a scientific-cultural and geo-political field that has been systematically neglected.

However, to assign special attention to this general theme does not mean to exclude other significant topics of history of psychology, among which one should highlight the following:

- Philosophical foundations of Psychology,
- Psychology in the Iberoamerican world,
- History of psychological schools,
- History of Neuroscience and Neuropsychology,
- Critical biographies of psychologists,
- History of psychiatric institutions and regulations,
- Psychology, colonialism, racism and multi /inter-culturalism,
- Psychology of sexuality and gender,
- Women and feminism in psychology,
- Psychology of Spirituality and Religion,
- Anniversaries celebrated in 2016, including the following ones: Foundation of the Zurich Club by Carl Gustav Jung (1916), E. Mach (1838-1916), Th. Ribot (1839-1916), O. Külpe (1862-1916), H. Münsterberg (1863-1916), Leta Hollingworth (1886-1939, PhD 1916), H. Eysenck (1916-1997), Julian B. Rotter (1916-2014), Virginia Satir (1916-1988).

Every participant may submit three different types of proposals: 1. Papers: oral presentations with max. 20 minutes; 2. Panels: joint presentations of max. 4 papers (90m) with thematic coherence; 3. Posters: recommended dimension (A1).
Every submission may be written in English, Spanish or Portuguese, and will be subject to a peer-review process.
It should include:
- Title,
- Abstract (550-750 words for papers and 150-250 words for posters),
- Main references (5-10),
- Keywords (max. 5),
- A separate sheet including the authors’ affiliation and a short bio (max. 100 words) with main topics of interest and publications in the area.
Accepted papers will be published as part of an e-book with ISBN.
For any queries and for the submission of your proposal please contact Paulo Jesus: [email protected]
Important dates for this event:  Submission of papers, panels and posters until December 31, 2015  Notification of acceptance and opening of Registration by January 31, 2016  Congress program by March 31, 2016

Further information on the congress venue, keynote speakers, accommodation and travel recommendations, and more, will be available soon on our blog http://sehp.org/wordpress/ and website http://symposiumsehp2016.upt.pt/

Scientific Committee:
Arthur Leal Ferreira (UFRJ)
Javier Bandrés (UCM)
Jorge Castro Tejerina (UNED)
Mònica Balltondre (UAB)
Paulo Jesus (UPT)
Organizing Committee:
Chair: Paulo Renato Jesus
Alexandra Araújo
Ana Albertina Conde
Ana Catarina Canário
Ana Teresa Ferreira
Enrique Vázquez-Justo
Isabel Cerca Miguel
Manuela Barreto Nunes
Manuela d’Oliveira
Maria Cristina Costa Lobo
Maria Daniela Nascimento
Maria Formosinho
Maria Xavier Araújo
Miguel Ricou
Olívia Carvalho
Sara Fernandes
Secretariate:
Maria Cristina Costa Lobo (Coord.)
UPT Psychology Students Club

Recently, a friend and I were talking about our undergraduate years. Although we both hold the Ph.D. in psychology, and are long-time therapists (and he a psychoanalyst), in this conversation we discovered that we both graduated from our BA programs as English Literature majors. ''It was obvious at the time,'' he said, that ''the only way to learn about the psychology of people was through literature. If you wanted to study rats and pigeons, you went into psychology'' (L. Gerber, personal communication, June 6, 2011).

This article documents the lecture of the recipient of the DGGN’s bi-annual dissertation prize for the doctoral thesis ‘Curing the Soul of the Nation: Psychiatry, Society, and Psycho-Politics in the German-speaking Countries, 1918–1939’ (Department of History and Civilization, European University Institute, Florence 2015). In a first section, I give a summary of the dissertation’s topic, scope, and perspective: the increasing presence of psychiatric experts in the social and political debates of the inter-war period, whose claims to diagnose and to shape society I describe as ‘psycho-politics’. The following section discusses the three interconnected case studies of the thesis: psycho-political diagnoses of the social and political situation at the end of the First World War and the 1918/19 German revolution; the Viennese psychiatrist Erwin Stransky’s project of ‘applied psychiatry’ and the networks that his manifesto for a ‘medical imperialism’ helped to create both in Austria and abroad, and finally, the culmination of various approaches to psychiatric prevention and reform in the international movement for mental hygiene, which emerged in the United States and reached the German-speaking countries in the mid-1920s. I conclude by restating the main findings of my research about the complex relations between psychiatry, society, and politics in the inter-war period.

This article will briefly explore some of the ways in which the past has been used as a means to talk about psychotherapy as a practice and as a profession, its impact on individuals and society, and the ethical debates at stake. It will show how, despite the multiple and competing claims about psychotherapy’s history and its meanings, historians themselves have, to a large degree, not attended to the intellectual and cultural development of many therapeutic approaches. This absence has the potential consequence of implying that therapies have emerged as value-free techniques, outside of a social, economic and political context. The relative neglect of psychotherapy, by contrast with the attention historians have paid to other professions, particularly psychiatry, has also underplayed its societal impact. This article will foreground some of the instances where psychotherapy has become an object of emerging historical interest, including the new research that forms the substance of this special issue of History of the Human Sciences.

While almost forgotten today, Fischl Schneersohn (1887-1958) may be one of the most interesting figures in the history of the psy-disciplines in the twentieth century.  What makes Schneersohn’s works unique is his combination of contemporary psychological and psychiatric research with Jewish theology. Many pioneers in the field were of Jewish origin, but unlike for his secular colleagues, religious Judaism played a major role for Schneersohn, who had grown up in the Hasidic Chabad movement and had become a rabbi at the age of 15. After studying medicine in Berlin and Petrograd, he headed a department for child psychology in Kiev, where he examined and treated traumatized Jewish in the aftermath of the First World War and the Kiev pogroms. It was in this context that he first developed ideas for a ‘socio-psychological popular hygiene’ to overcome the collective mental effects of the war. After moving to Berlin in the early 1920s, Schneersohn published extensively on individual and collective dimensions of mental illness. He proposed a new psycho-sociological ‘science of man’ (mentsh-visnshaft), which would examine human life in its totality, and find new ways to prevent mental illness and to create a truly human society based on the insights of psychology and psychiatry.

In my talk, I will sketch out Schneersohn’s biography before focusing on his main work, Der veg tsum mentsh (‘the way to man’), which was published in Yiddish in 1927, and appeared as Studies in Psycho-Expedition in the U.S. in 1929.  Although Schneersohn’s connection of psychological concepts with elements of Hasidic mysticism was singular, three more general arguments about mental prophylaxis in the twentieth century can be made: First, his work provides a particularly clear example for how the notion that mental illness might be prevented pushed psychiatric and psychological ideas into the social and political sphere. Second, it is also an outstanding example for a more widespread contemporary tendency to perceive mental hygiene as a kind of secular religion. Third, it shows how psychiatric prophylaxis was often perceived as more that just a way to maintain health as an absence of illness, but as a way to achieve a utopian state of ‘true’ mental health.