Psychohistory’s Failure to Attract Enough Women Leaders

Throughout my long career as a psychohistorian, I have worked especially hard in my mostly failed efforts to bring women into our field as leaders. In this endeavor, I have not been alone. For example, David Beisel also worked assiduously in this effort. We’ve had very little success in attracting women to be presidents of the International Psychohistorical Association (formerly the IPA, now the IPhA), having only one in our almost half-century-long existence. Regrettably, this talented psychoanalyst seemed much more concerned with the IPhA as a vehicle for political change rather than for developing psychohistory. While there have been women leaders in various non-presidential positions, they have shied away from taking the presidency, even when vice president. This has been most frustrating to both of us. Naturally, there are a variety of reasons for this, including Lloyd deMause’s propensity for working with men and sometimes driving women away. (This in no way should distract from the credit deMause rightfully deserves for having done outstanding work on the history of childhood and bringing psychohistorians together.)

Here is a prime example of this that still bothers me. Together with Alice Eichholtz in 1976, I started the Saturday Workshops for the express purpose of nurturing psychohistorical research for people coming from many fields. However, deMause preferred colleagues who would work to expand his theories or at least applaud them. When two female Medieval historians traveled all the way from a Pittsburgh university to New York to present at the Saturday Workshop of the Institute for Psychohistory, Lloyd harshly criticized them because their work did not fit his theoretical approach. They were already quite nervous about making this presentation trip to an unknown group, and deMause’s unempathetic reception certainly put them off. Lloyd deMause’s preference was for colleagues who would work to develop his theories or at least applaud them. Mostly, he did not attend meetings unless he was presenting. Unfortunately, he participated in this one, effectively pushing these two women away rather than providing the

Page 165

warm, nurturing reception that Alice and I saw as our mandate. Regrettably, within two years, Alice moved to Vermont with her focus on marriage, parenting, and professional opportunities there, and in those pre-virtual days, she dropped out of the field. Her dropping out of the field, like the unempathetic treatment of the two Medieval historians, left me frustrated and disappointed.

Other organizations open to psychohistorical scholarship, such as the International Society for Political Psychology (ISPP), which started the same year as the IPhA, have been more successful in bringing women into their leadership, with almost half of its over 40 presidents being women. Despite being started by a woman, the first and the majority of presidents were men. Fortunately, in the 21^st century, the Association for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society (APCS) has mostly been led by women like Marilyn Charles. Notably, this is a less hierarchically organized scholarly group, perhaps reflecting women’s sensibilities.

In addition to having watched these organizations over the years, as a historian, I have seen a clear pattern in most cases of women being forced and preconditioned through the centuries to nurture the children and men in their lives rather than take leadership positions. Working and helping without recognition comes much more readily to the female than the male of our species. Indeed, I would argue that they are inclined to be more sensitive to criticism than their brothers, husbands, and sons—criticism that leaders inevitably face. On occasions too numerous for me to number, when I have encouraged talented women to become more involved in psychohistorical leadership, they have quite clearly backed away. Now that there are some more women role models breaking through glass ceilings, I have some hope that this will change. However, I’m not holding my breath based on so many decades of disappointment.

This is a shame because women bring special life experiences and abilities in a way that men simply don’t and can’t. Very few scholarly men are geared to child-rearing, and those who pick it up are more likely to do it abstractly as a theory, not as the real-life situation of bearing and caring for children. Bearing a baby, enjoying the smell and touch of newborns’ and toddlers’ bodies while being absorbed with what is involved in bringing another life into our world, and then nurturing it, is such a unique, overwhelmingly female experience. All the work, pain, and sleepless nights of having another human being completely dependent on you is a

Page 166

peak human experience. Fathers are extremely important, but they seldom have that incredible connection that comes from pregnancy, giving birth, and nurturing a baby. Men mostly focus on supporting the mother and the child economically. I am much more open to women leaders than most men because of women’s willingness to cooperate and nurture others, multitasking abilities, and inclination to listen and talk out problems rather than making it a power struggle.

Despite the major obstacles and limited role models, fortunately, some women have found their way to do both good work in psychoanalysis and (a much smaller number) in psychohistory, often while raising children and caring for the home. They are typically underappreciated and so often do not give themselves sufficient credit. Those who come to mind are Marie Bonaparte, Elizabeth Ann Danto, Phyllis Greenacre, Linda Hopkins, Elizabeth W. Marvick, Michelle Moreau-Ricaud, Élisabeth Roudinesco, and Elisabeth Young-Bruehl. Elizabeth Marvick was a talented historian and the wife of a political psychologist. She raised two sons who followed their parents into university teaching. When Elizabeth found herself in France, where her husband was doing research, she discovered some wonderful source materials by Dr. Jean Héroard, who was tasked with the medical care of the young Louis XIII (1601–1643). When she carefully examined the doctor’s accounts of the care of the highly valued heir to the throne, what she found was shocking. There was so little sense of how to properly care for a child who would have control of the nation. As a mother, Marvick, who had been focused on caring for her own baby boys, could give value to what her male colleagues had ignored.

A shining light is the woman behind this special issue, Inna Rozentsvit, who has been a gift to psychohistory. She came to my attention when she entered the field eight years ago with an incredible willingness to serve it. She learned that I was a founder of the IPhA, the editor of a journal, and the organizer of a psychohistory group focused on nurturing the field. Inna called me to express her enthusiasm, so I invited her to my home, which was the beginning of a working relationship to strengthen our field. Since then, she has been an incredible workhorse as Associate Director/Convener of the Psychohistory Forum, Associate Editor of Clio’s Psyche, a key proponent of Clio, a member of the Forum’s and IPhA’s leadership teams, the de facto editor of the IPhA’s Newsletter, and an invaluable scholar. Given the amount of work she does for our in-

Page 167

ternational group, you would think she would have run for the presidency in recent elections or at least accepted the title of Newsletter Editor because she has done an outstanding job with this publication. While I think it is rare for a man to be such a major contributor without accepting a leadership position, I find that this fits the pattern for several women I’ve known. However, none have been as giving without a need for recognition as Dr. Rozentsvit. Inna has made enormous contributions to psychohistory and hopefully will accept positions of president, director, or primary leader whenever they are named. We in psychohistory need the special insights that come more readily to women than men.

Ultimately, organized psychohistory has failed to nurture women into its ranks as major leaders! There are a fair number of women psychohistorians but very few in top leadership positions. This has been a considerable loss in our field because of the special experiences, insights, and sensibilities that come more readily to women than men. The greater presence of women leaders would greatly enhance the field of psychohistory, and I hope the future allows that change to happen.

Page 168