Paul H. Elovitz: A Pioneer of Psychohistory and Psychobiography (festschrift article)

When you are new to the field of psychobiography and start exploring the literature of the past decades, you find out very quickly that you cannot bypass one of the pioneers and leading scholars in psychohistory and psychobiography in the U.S. and internationally: Paul H. Elovitz.

When Paul contacted me during COVID-19 in 2020, I was already very familiar with his name and work. I knew him primarily from the psychohistorical journal Clio’s Psyche and also through his book, The Making of Psychohistory (Routledge, 2018), and many of his other publications, which must reach over 400 by now. During the lockdown, we often talked on Zoom, and I soon learned about Paul`s personal preference to research psychohistory, especially the impact of childhood on adult behavior, presidential psychobiography, psychohistorical methodology, and psychohisto-

Page 257

ry.

What fascinated me so much about Paul was not only his seemingly endless knowledge of psychobiography and psychohistory but also his extremely well-established network with researchers in the field throughout the U.S. and internationally. I was surprised by how much detail he knew about their work and life. In 2021, Paul invited me to become part of the monthly Leadership Team meeting of Clio`s Psyche and the Psychohistory Forum. Since then, I have enjoyed participating in this group of erudite researchers and humanistic-orientated individuals driving psychobiographical and psychohistorical research forward. Together with Paul and Inna Rozentsvit, we then started the Psychobiography Group of the Psychohistory Forum (https://psychobiographyforum.com/) to bring researchers from all over the world together and drive research and practice in the field forward.

During our virtual conversations, Paul talked openly about his childhood, his entire life course, the people who influenced his life the most, and what shaped his identity. He also shared how he got to do research on leadership, American presidents/presidential candidates, and what was most important to him when doing research.

I always enjoyed Paul’s approach to psychohistory and psychobiography through the lens of psychoanalysis—especially since I have a lot to learn in this regard—and, at the same time, the idea that the researcher needs to be self-reflective and write in a personal style while writing psychobiography. I believe that, particularly in times in which research seems to have become more a business than a scientific endeavor, voices like Paul’s are rare and strongly needed in the sciences to self-reflect and gain deeper analytical knowledge and understanding.

Paul repeatedly emphasizes that, as researchers, we need to “listen” to the historical figure we are exploring “in-depth.” Through psychobiography, we need to explore what is underneath the surface and dig deep into the underlying themes and patterns of a person`s life. Through this deep exploration, we as psychobiographers deepen our knowledge not only of the lives of individuals but also of ourselves. To do this correctly, I learned from Paul that we should use tools of psychoanalytic and psychohistorical research methodology. These tools are not necessarily easily understood or available for somebody who is neither a psy-

Page 258

choanalyst nor a psychohistorian. However, Paul has the patience to explain these tools to newcomers and explore them deeply through in-depth discourses with colleagues, psychobiographers, and psychohistorians. His passion and fascination with exploring the life course of self and others has left a mark on many of us and the development of psychobiographical sciences.

Thank you for all of your contributions, Paul, which led not only to our personal and professional growth but also to the development of the international community of psychobiographers and psychohistorians.

Page 259