The Making and Makers of Psychohistory and Psychological Society

This article discusses the Makers and Making of Psychohistory research project and the book on the subject and aims to encourage practitioners to join in the process of providing data on the history of psychohistory. It is important to document and analyze the history of this exciting field. The major result of the project will be the book Pioneers of Insight: The Making and Makers of a Psychological Society. In the spring of 2004, I have a sabbatical semester to make considerable progress

Page 33

on the project and the book. This article discusses the Makers and Making of Psychohistory research project and the book on the subject, and aims to encourage practitioners to join in the process of providing data on the history of psychohistory. It is important to document and analyze the history of this exciting field. The major result of the project will be the book, Pioneers of Insight: The Making and Makers of a Psychological Society. In the spring of 2004 I have a sabbatical semester to make considerable progress on the project and the book.

This paper also aims at providing historical information to those new to the field. It surveys the development of the fields of psychohistory, psychobiography, and psychopolitics, usually not differentiating among them. It should be noted that the concept of psychohistory predates Erik Erikson who popularized it with his work on childhood and society (1950) and identity (1959), and his psychobiographies of Luther (1958) and Gandhi (1969).

American society in the last half-century has ambivalently come to accept a psychological approach to personal issues and society. Psychology has become a part of American consciousness to the point where the language of psychology permeates our society. For example, ego, id, identity, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), superego, and survivor’s syndrome are everyday terms. In 2003, American troops sent to fight in Iraq are provided with psychological counseling and group therapy to help avert PTSD.

The psychosocial approach is a powerful instrument of understanding our society. It concentrates on the “why” of history and current events, especially the difference between stated intention and actual behavior. Childhood, creativity, dreams, group dynamics (and fantasies), mechanisms of psychic defense, psychobiography, and psychopolitics are some primary areas of research. Since applied psychoanalysis’ nascent beginnings early in the last century, scholars, psychotherapists, and authors have used the instruments of psychological insight applied to societal and institutional issues to provide a depth of knowledge not otherwise attainable.

The early practitioners were European psychiatrists and psychoanalysts who were steeped in

Page 55

a profound historical sense leading them to regularly use historical examples. Freud and his circle did rudimentary psychobiographical and psychohistorical studies. His work on da Vinci, Moses, and Wilson is thought-provoking but flawed. Early advocates of the psychosocial paradigm sometimes chose historical subjects to avoid speaking or writing directly about patients who were known within the tight Viennese community. Their initial studies tended to be couched in technical psychoanalytic language and were based on theory rather than in-depth historical research. Hitler’s domination of continental Europe led to the dispersal of many of these talented individuals to England and the Americas.

Not long after Freud’s ideas became known to Americans, there were some U.S.-born advocates of applied psychoanalysis, three of whom I will mention here. The distinguished Luther scholar, Preserved Smith (1880-1941), published Luther’s Table Talk: A Critical Study (1907) and “Luther’s Early Development in the Light of Psycho-analysis” in the American Journal of Psychology (1913). L. Pierce Clark (1870-1933) and Harold Lasswell (1902-1978) are two other good examples of this phenomenon. Late in his life, Clark commonly used the term psychohistory and wrote on Alexander the Great, Lincoln, and Napoleon, while Lasswell wrote Psychopathology and Politics (1930) and much else of value.

In the two decades after World War II, depth psychology and a profound concern for psychosocial issues became well-established in the United States, leading to the important work of Eric Erikson, Robert Jay Lifton, Richard Hofstadter, and a variety of other scholars. In this period, studies tended to focus on Hitler, the Nazis, and Richard Nixon. Practitioners such as Bruce Mazlish and Robert Waite inclined to identify themselves as historians rather than as psychohistorians while Erik Erikson was never comfortable using the term psychohistory, which many wrongly believe he originated. The Harvard historian William Langer, whose psychiatrist brother Walter had done a pioneering, classified intelligence study of Adolph Hitler during World War II, in his 1957 presidential address to the American Historical Association referred to psychohistory as the “Next Assignment.” The response was mixed, with both positive responses and the rolling of eyes and mutterings of disagreement. Also, the American Historical Review published some explicitly psychoanalytic, psychohistorical studies, such as one by Otto Pflanze, entitled “Toward a Psychoanalytic Interpretation of Bismarck” (Vol. 77 No. 2, 1972: pp. 419-444). In 1964-1965, the Wellfleet Group was established on Cape Cod, and, to the best of my knowledge, it continues to meet under the direction of Robert Jay Lifton as a select, by-invitation-only group.

In the middle of October 1976, the first national conference of psychohistorians was held at Stockton State College in New Jersey. It was organized by the late Professor William J. Gilmore (1945-1999), psychohistory’s bibliographer (see Psychohistorical Inquiry: A Comprehensive Research Bibliography, 1984). There were heated debates over the relationship of psychohistory to history, political science, psychology, psychoanalysis, psychiatry, sociology, and other disciplines.

The organized fields of psychohistory and political psychology came into existence with the establishment of a variety of groups in the United States. These included the Group for the Use of Psychology in History (GUPH; 1972-meets intermittently), the International Psychohistorical Association (IPA; 1977-), and the International Society for Political Psychology (ISPP; 1977-). Today the ISPP, IPA, and GUPH have been joined by a variety of other organizations including the Bay Area Psychobiography Working Group (early 1990s-); the Center for the Study of Mind and Human Interaction (CSMHI; 1987-); the Psychohistory Forum (1983-); the Group for the Psychohistorical Study of Film (1989-); the University of California Interdisciplinary Psychoanalytic Consortium (1991-); and the Association for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society (APCS; 1995-). Some of these organizations are large, while others are small. Most meet annually or more often. Around the world there are other active psychohistorical organizations, especially in Germany and France.

In addition to groups there are numerous publications including the Journal of Psychohistory, Political Psychology (published by the ISPP), Psychoanalysis and History, Mind and Human Interaction (published by the CSMHI), Psychohistory: The Newsletter of the International Psychohistorical Association, Mentalities/Mentalités, Clio’s Psyche (published by the Psychohistory Forum; 1994-), and the Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society (JPCS) (published by APCS), which in 2004 is changing its name to Psychoanalysis, Culture, & Society (PCS). As with all things humans create, psychohistorical in-

Page 56

stitutions do not last forever. The GUPH Newsletter (1972-1976) was transformed into the larger, much more impressive, The Psychohistory Review which continued the Newsletter’s numbering. Regrettably, The Psychohistory Review (1976-1999), an academically very successful publication, decided to cease publication despite a solid subscriber base of libraries and individuals. Also, the Center for the Study of Violence and Human Survival (1985-2002) closed a year after its founder, Robert Jay Lifton, left, and it has been replaced at John Jay by the Center on Terrorism and Public Safety, led by Charles Strozier.

Psychohistory has found its way into the classroom at the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate levels. Most commonly, classes are offered at major universities such as Harvard, though not necessarily under the title of “Psychohistory.” For example, future U.S. Vice Pres. Al Gore took Erikson’s life cycle course, where he wrote a paper on his father, U.S. Sen. Albert Gore. However, unlike with other historical paradigms such as economic and social history, there has not been the systematic training of a new generation of psychohistorians in the graduate schools. Peter Loewenberg’s excellent though small program at UCLA is an exception to this generalization, but, regrettably, a number of its graduates have had trouble finding university positions. At the undergraduate level, a variety of universities and colleges offer courses. For example, at Ramapo College there have been psychohistorical courses on the history of childhood, the life cycle, death and dying, psychobiography, presidents, assassination, the Holocaust, and terrorism.

It has been my good fortune to spend over three-and-a-half decades as a participant-observer in psychohistory, even though my initial introduction to the field as a graduate student in the Rutgers History Department was jarring. In 1963 a bright fellow student in a “Renaissance and Reformation” class was denounced in the strongest terms for wanting to do psychohistory and contemptuously told that if he persisted in this folly he should go to Harvard to do it. Five years later, I was thrilled when I read my first psychohistorical book, by Frank Manual (1911-2003) on Sir Isaac Newton. This occurred when I was a young professor at Temple University from 1965-1971, where a colleague with some psychoanalytic training introduced me to psychoanalysis and the major psychohistorical/psychopolitical works. Two years after coming to Ramapo College in 1971 as a founding faculty member, I entered psychoanalytic training and soon connected with those doing psychosocial work in the New York area.

I also have been a participant-observer in the development of psychohistory, psychobiography, and political psychology as organized fields from the first workshop of the Institute for Psychohistory in 1975, to the Stockton conference in 1976, to the IPA and ISPP conferences in Manhattan in 1977, right down to the present. My organizational leadership has been much more in the field of psychohistory rather than in political psychology, though I founded and have co-lead since 1988, with Herbert Barry of the University of Pittsburgh, the Childhood, Personality, and Psychology of Presidents and Presidential Candidates Research Group. My leadership positions have included president of the IPA (1988-1990) and founder (1983) and director of the Psychohistory Forum. As a historian of the movement, I have sought to consistently maintain good relations with all people associated with it regardless of their particular views. As Editor of Clio’s Psyche I have invited articles from scholars of the most varying viewpoints, challenging them to write in jargon-free English.

Psychohistory, psychobiography, and political psychology are but some of a series of mostly interrelated movements, including social history and women’s history, that blossomed in the 1960s and 1970s, adding to our collective knowledge. At the minimum, each represents a lens to be added to the microscopes and telescopes of knowledge and, at the maximum, a major paradigm of the 20th century. At Ramapo College, while teaching some psychohistory and political psychology courses, I have also been able to apply the insights of my field to more traditional historical fields.

Over nine years ago, Clio’s Psyche began the process of doing in-depth interviews with some of the pioneers of the psychosocial paradigm. As of this date, we have published 44 interviews with distinguished scholars. Those featured include such accomplished individuals as Rudolph Binion (Brandeis), Lloyd deMause (Institute for Psychohistory and Journal of Psychohistory), John Demos (Yale), Peter Gay (Yale), Betty Glad (South Carolina), Lynn Hunt (Stanford), Norman Itzkowitz (Princeton), Sudhir Kakar (author and psychoanalyst), Robert Jay Lifton (Harvard), Peter Loewenberg (UCLA), Bruce Mazlish (MIT), Stanley Renshon (CUNY Graduate Center), William McKinley Runyan (UC-Berkeley), Howard Stein

Page 57

(Oklahoma), Charles Strozier (CUNY Graduate Center), and Vamik Volkan (Virginia). More interviews must be conducted, for example, with scholars such as Robert Coles, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Fred Greenstein, and John E. Mack, and especially in the field of political psychology. We welcome interviews by colleagues.

In looking over our full list of interviewees and their affiliations, several things should be kept in mind. Some have achieved great distinction, for example, Lynn Hunt, Eugen Weber Professor of Modern European History at Stanford, was the 2002 president of the American Historical Association, while Sudhir Kakar was awarded a Goethe Medal and visiting professorships at a number of the world’s most distinguished universities. A few have died and many have retired or will be retiring shortly. Further, although psychohistory, psychobiography, and political psychology are alive, well, and growing, many of the pioneers, finest practitioners, and nurturers are aging, retiring, struggling with diseases, and ultimately dying. In Clio’s Psyche we have already published 17 obituaries of scholars lost to the field.

Though it is early for conclusions, there are a few things that are already clear. Unlike prodigies in math and physics, psychohistorians do not make their great discoveries in their 20s, but later in life as they accumulate more knowledge. In most cases, scholars have come to psychohistory not because of contact with Erik Erikson, Lloyd deMause, Peter Gay, Alexander George, Betty Glad, Harold Lasswell, Robert Jay Lifton, Peter Loewenberg, Elizabeth Marvick, Vamik Volkan, and other well-known contributors to the field, but on their own as they tackle historical problems which benefit from psychological insight. Women are not quantitatively well-represented in the psychohistorical community with the exception of the International Society of Political Psychology which was founded by a woman and which has had a number of different women presidents.

The Project is a psychosocial study working to answer questions about the background, common characteristics, education, psychology, and beliefs of those who have made significant contributions to psychohistory. It delves into questions about their social classes, parents, parental identification, siblings, birth order, education, and much more. It wants to know what brought people to psychohistory, what books they read, who mentored them, and what special training enabled them to do psychohistory well. Their images of psychohistory and definitions of it are two important issues, as is the relationship of psychohistory to the university and the psychoanalytic institute. Fundamentalism, violence, and war are some common issues discussed with leading psychohistorians. They are also asked for ideas as to how to do better psychohistorical work and how to recruit and educate the next generation of psychohistorians.

This is a history of the creators of psychohistory and of the field itself, which, when published, will greatly add to our record of the movement. It is an analysis of the work and thoughts of some enormously creative and innovative individuals, including their current views of the movement they created and its future. Further, it is an opportunity to show the relationship between the personalities of the innovators and some of their ideas and decisions. Consequently, this research project is far more than a collection of interviews of distinguished individuals! It is a psychosocial study of ideas and movements, examining them in detail, as well as their acceptance. In it I probe the backgrounds, educations, personalities, and writings of these innovators. Finally, I examine the challenges confronting advocates of the psychosocial paradigm. Most especially in this regard, is the tendency to kill the messenger, while taking the message and accepting the language, but not the real insights, of psychoanalysis, psychohistory, and political psychology. In publishing this preliminary study, my hope is that readers will join in this endeavor by sharing their recollections, interviewing major contributors, and bringing manuscripts documenting the movement to our attention. Finally, the major result of the project will be the book, Pioneers of Insight: The Making and Makers of a Psychological Society.

Page 58