Paul Elovitz Turned Psychohistory into a Discipline

Without Paul Elovitz’ efforts, psychohistory would certainly be a field of study. Peter Gay, Robert J. Lifton, and Vamık Volkan, among many others, would have seen to that. However, it would not be such an organized field of study. Paul is the field’s founder and inspiration. Clio’s Psyche (1994-Present) and the Psychohistory Forum would not exist without his efforts. His The Making of Psychohistory (2018) defined the field further. Perhaps most im-

Page 248

portantly, Paul has involved people from different disciplines in a common project, including academics, psychoanalysts, therapists, and laypersons.

Clio’s Psyche might have evolved in several directions. Paul’s vision, which focused on short, extensively refereed, and edited essays, has stood the test of time. Particularly fruitful, in my opinion, was its inclusive vision of the field, ensuring psychohistory would not become the project of one man or theory.

Paul was quoted by Rayma Prince in The New York Times article “Holocaust Center Helps in Fighting Racism” (January 22, 1995), implicitly recognizing him as the field’s spokesman. Others will speak about his substantive contributions to the field. Here, I want to recognize Paul as the man who, more than any other, made psychohistory an organized field to begin with. It is also worth noting that, in many respects, Paul worked alone during the early years. He was not without the support of many colleagues, but he lacked the institutional support he deserved. To work in such an environment requires not just perseverance but courage.

Page 249

NB: Fred Alford is a distinguished and highly accomplished political psychologist whose enthusiasm over-credits my contributions to psychohistory. I am simply one of many colleagues who have built and sustained the organized field.