The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the application of psychoanalysis to
historical reconstructions; to explore the similarities between psychoanalysis and
history; to illustrate how these similarities make plausible the claim the
psychoanalytic theory could a valuable tool for historians; and to present and
analyze certain methodological problems which arise in the use of psychoanalysis
in history and to suggest ways in which these problems may be resolved.
History and psychoanalysis are analogous in some important and interesting
respects. Both disciplines attempt to understand and explain human affairs by an
investigation into the reasons and underlying motivations of human conduct. Both
depend upon the reconstruction the human past as part of their method and
theory. Thus, the history-taking of the psychoanalyst is relevant to the history-taking
of the biographer; that is to say, the historian-as-biographer is to his subject
as the psychoanalyst-as-history-taler is to his patient. It is therefore plausible to
claim that since psychoanalytic theory is concerned with the emotional life of the
individual, it could be a valuable tool for historical biography.
Beyond reconstruction, both historian and psychoanalyst, in various degrees,
attempt to cure men of the domination of the past.
The psychoanalyst tries to cure his patient of the present domination of
unconscious memories. The historian, at least in one of his functions, tries to cure
his reader of similar kinds of tyranny the past seems to hod over human societies.
In this respect, the therapeutic aims of psychoanalysis are related to what may be
characterized as social therapist is to his reader as psychoanalyst-as-individual -
therapist is to his patient.
Since psychoanalysis is characterized as biographical in nature, biography can
serve as the paradigm case for the use psychoanalysis in history. Biography,
however, is not the strongest case for psychoanalytic history. Most historian do
not write biographies, and the argument for psychoanalytic biography becomes a
weak argument for psychoanalytic history. Nevertheless, historian often is
biographical even if they do not write biographies. Psychoanalysis is thus
applicable to history which is at the intersection between biography and the
reconstruction of historical events; namely, events in which individuals, about
whom we do not need or want a biography, play roles; but individuals about
whose motivations we do need of want an explanation.
The use of psychoanalysis in history does present certain methodological
problems: (1) To what extent is the data needed to make psychoanalytic
interpretations available in history?; (2) How can a theory and technique meant to
be used in live confrontation be used to help reconstruct and understand the past of an historical person?; (3) How is validation of psychoanalytic hypotheses
possible if the immediateness of the clinical encounter is missing?; (4) To what
extent is the proffered psychoanalytic explanation more useful than ordinary
historical explanation?
The historian can derive hypotheses of a psychoanalytic sort from the kind and
amount of data which is available: diaries, memoirs of his own and others,
recordings, photographs, movies, etc. He may learn to develop ways of reading his
data so that he can indicate and interpret psychoanalytically relevant statements
and validate these interpretations in terms of the recurrence of similar patterns of
behavior, as the therapist does in his observation of transference patterns. There
is good reason to suspect that just as the therapist ‘reads ’between the lines of his
patient’s utterances and behavior to construct his diagnoses and interpretations,
the historian with psychoanalytic knowledge can also ‘read’ between the lines of
his evidence to construct an appraisal about his subject. The concepts used in the
appraisal of live patients are applicable in the appraisal of historical figures as
indices of sets of tendencies which should be looked for in the historical evidence.
The historian must be careful about claims made concerning the internal
experiences of a subject because he is unable to ask questions of the subject
directly. He must make guesses. However, these guesses are suggested by the
evidence. The plausibility of conclusions or explanatory hypotheses arrived at
must be weighed in terms of the configuration of evidence which can be amassed
their favor. To validate interpretations suggested by the evidence in one context,
the historian can appeal to new historical materials from another context. Just as
the therapist gets independent check as the analysis proceeds, the historian gets
independent checks as the analysis proceeds, the historian gets independent
checks as his historical research broadens and intensifies.
A study of Sir Henry Clinton by Frederick Wyatt and William Willcox serves to
show how these methodological problems can be handled and how
psychoanalytic theory can be helpful. They indicate that the psychoanalytic
assumption of the existence of unconscious processes provides a more
illuminating explanation of Clinton’s behavior than the usual assumption of
historians which says that people behave on the basis their intentions with self-consciousness.
As Charles Pierce said, “it is the beliefs men betray and not what
they parade which has to be studied.”
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bu.edu/oai:open.bu.edu:2144/46830 |
| Date | January 1968 |
| Creators | Ringelheim, Joan |
| Publisher | Boston University |
| Source Sets | Boston University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis/Dissertation |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds