The Journey of History to Psychohistory

Leopold von Ranke, the well-known 19^th century historian,
refined history as a field.
He said it must be written as it was –
accurate and based on sources;
he meant the great leaders of Prussia and the emergence
of their state.
He remained unaware that these men were reflections of his own,
male success.

Soon enough other writers studied other nations, like England, France, Germany, and Russia and
endeavored to unlock secrets of their success.
Left the myths about their rise –
instead of tackling them,
spread them further with abandon.

The field picked up the ancients –
Caesar, Augustus, and Constantine shone again
and causes of the later fall of the splendid edifice called Rome.
Mostly based on external forces,
these analyses overlooked the “inner workings” of men and state.

Beyond the narrow confines of Europe –
some others discovered the brilliant rulers and dynasties
in India, China, and Japan –
Ashoka became known again as did the Tang and Ming,
so did Kyoto.
Now textbooks included these “others” –
glad to offer a glimpse here and there.

Other ways to analyze the past emerged soon as well,
economic history jumped to the fore –
authors not realizing that decisions could best be understood
with a sprinkling of psychology.

Then, not so long ago,
historians found ordinary people in their habitat and
later still women’s roles in these very worlds:
Hatshepsut, Nefertiti, and Catherine the Great
come to mind.
By now, women had entered the field.

Page 120

And a few of them highlighted women in literature, art, and music.

The most comprehensive approach emerged
mere decades ago:
Children came out of the shadows and the misery they endured –
with a nod to the recency of their better treatment.

More recently still, pioneers combined history and psychology to
discern motives of leaders and ordinary men, women, and children.
Male and female heroes plowed this field:
Aries, Rutschke, deMause, and many more.

Conferences enlightened and spread the word,
yet the adherents to this articulation of the craft did not find
acceptance beyond their flock,
too deeply anchored in their field,
traditional historians found the new approach too distant
from their concerns.

Even in the minuscule world of these experts,
the usefulness of combining childhood with politics and economics remained unexplored till a few decades ago.

Most recently, some men and women launched fully
into psychology and pushed history to the side.
Historians sat with analysts forever –
should psychoanalysts now sit with historians
and learn more about the field?
The two words of psychohistory are, after all,
and remain:
History and Psychology.

Page 121