Methods and Challenges in Teaching Psychohistory (response article)

Professor David Beisel tackles the critical subject of how to teach psychohistory, a most consequential field of inquiry, because teaching it in college can be particularly challenging. The field is controversial, and it poses unique difficulties for the instructor. Despite its enormous growth and many successes, psychohistory remains controversial—opposed even by many professional historians. Due to its challenging nature, student resistance to the subject can become an obstacle. However, the compensation for the instructor is that the field can be exciting and rewarding. Beisel’s paper is impressive because it comprehensively covers a wide range of issues.

The professor of psychohistory introduces students to the irrational, unconscious motivation, self-destructive behavior, trauma, aggression, rage, and so forth. He may incorporate the use of film to illustrate these psychological manifestations and analytical concepts. In comparison to the traditional approach to history, such topics are de rigueur, the stock in trade of the psychohistorian. Because of the explicit nature of such feelings, some students may not respond positively. However, this is hardly an issue strictly for younger students. Most conventional historians who are assumed to be open-minded respond with a less than receptive attitude, just as their students do. For example, William Langer’s 1957 American Historical Association presidential inaugural address, “The Next Assignment,” which called for a psychoanalytic approach to the study of history, was met with much consternation from many audience members.

The teaching of psychohistory must also be considered in a wider intellectual and political con-

Page 221

text, as it transcends the classroom. Not only does Professor Beisel deal with pedagogy, but he also notes that the Regents of the State University of New York (SUNY) mandate that for all general education courses it is his “obligation to improve critical thinking among [his] students.” Furthermore, “In all history courses we’re supposed to help them look critically at their ingrained assumptions about how the world works—that is, the traditional political, social, and economic categories—and examine their deeply held beliefs about human nature.” Coming from such an authoritative figure, this is indeed commendable. However, should such a directive be necessary for college instructors? This raises related issues of academic teaching standards and the training of instructors. To what extent do professors maintain the explicit directive of the Regents of SUNY to raise the intellectual level of students? Throughout the United States there is concern over the issue of standards, which have been related to the role of instructors. The widespread concerns deal with the instructor’s commitment to his students and with feeling comfortable with his authority.

To foster critical thinking, I use the “directed discussion method” in all the courses I teach. This approach, which has its basis in Progressive Education, is popularly known as the Socratic Method. The aim is to motivate students to realize for themselves the relevance of what they are learning. This methodology grew out of the Enlightenment and was pioneered by such great educational reformers as the Swiss Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Johann Pestalozzi and pursued in the twentieth century by the American educator John Dewey. It revolutionized teaching and learning, advocating a radical approach at variance with the former authoritarian methods of the Middle Ages. Instead of teaching through lecture only, the great reformers made learning a student-centered experience.

The above approach is advocated by the Dean of the United States Merchant Marine Academy who argues for “engaging” the students (midshipmen). This means that students are expected to be active participants in the learning process held “accountable” by their instructors. The Superintendent (college president) of the Academy has taken a direct interest in teaching by speaking to the faculty, visiting classes, and expecting instructors to maintain that midshipmen be attentive. I have invited the Dean, Superintendent, and several colleagues to observe my classes many times. Correspondingly, with the approval of the administration, I have been observing instructors in their classes. I also offer seminars in teaching to all members of the faculty outside of my field, although it is a maritime college. For three years now I have been engaged in peer mentoring in all departments at Kings Point, in both academic and professional departments, supported in these endeavors by the leaders mentioned above.

Initially, I taught one psychohistory elective approximately once a year. Recently, this course was expanded to become a required course in the Department of Humanities. As an elective, resistance to it was negligible; there was at least an intellectual acceptance of the subject. Once required, the course became more challenging, and complaints from students increased. The issues we deal with in psychohistory are complex and can be threatening, for it is not just a matter of being intellectually curious. In my introductory remarks, I point out that the study of psychohistory will engage students personally as no other course will; that it will cause them to relate to themselves what they learn, about individuals, groups, and childhood. I advise them that the course is not a psychology course, but that it is primarily history enhanced by the psychohistorical approach, which is more comprehensive than a traditional history course. At the beginning of the semester, I inform students of my office hours and encourage them to see me if anything in the material that I cover gives them cause for concern. In some cases, I reach out to a student after class to have a private conversation. Students always welcome this gesture, and as I attend many school functions, they note that I am readily available to speak to.

By and large, I have found the midshipmen at the United States Merchant Marine Academy very responsive to psychohistory and, more characteristically, many are fascinated by this innovative approach. The successful teaching of sophisticated psychohistorical concepts is also dependent on the academic quality of students. In the case of Kings Point, the student body is of a high academic caliber, comparable to those in the most selective

Page 222

colleges in the country. Because Kings Point is a federal academy, every midshipman is, in effect, on a four-year scholarship. There are sources available to the instructor that can aid even the most skeptical student in understanding the theoretical framework of psychoanalysis and its relationship to history. An excellent aid and supplement is the medium of film, as Professor Beisel notes. Many good feature films that have instructive psychological themes are viewed by mass audiences and well received. One such example, a commercial movie, which I have shown for many years and highly recommend as it is visually dramatic and emotionally appealing, is the 1962 commercial film entitled Freud, which remains relevant. It serves as an excellent introduction to the study of psychohistory because many of the main tenets of psychoanalysis are presented in a dramatic and convincing form. Some of the key concepts demonstrated and developed that may be discerned in this film are infantile sexuality, the Oedipus complex, free association, making the unconscious conscious, the importance of dreams and their interpretation, psychosomatic illness, symptoms of neurosis, psychosis, repression, psychical determinism, guilt and undoing, the oral stage, the transference, slips of the tongue, resistance, and irrationality. Clearly, this film is rich in psychoanalytic content and is both emotionally and intellectually absorbing for the viewer.

Students are profoundly impressed by Freud and are motivated to pursue psychohistorical subjects. Indeed, it is the rare student who summarily dismisses the substance of this superbly acted film. Therefore, the merits of this biographical cinema are several: it shows how Freud arrived at his revolutionary theories; it presents the main theories of psychoanalysis; and it deals with the social and intellectual reactions to Freud’s ideas at the end of the nineteenth century.

For the study of psychohistory in general and psychobiography in particular, the use of film can be a valuable supplement to classroom instruction and the reading assignments. Freud has the effect of integrating psychological motifs in human behavior. It enables students to recognize a connection between psychology and history. As the course progresses, there is not only an acceptance by the vast majority of students of this new conceptual framework and scientific method in the study of historical events, but for many, an enthusiasm develops for the subject, as they can now identify with the possibilities for better understanding themselves and others. The film makes students more introspective and conscious of history. They recognize that the psychohistorical approach is more insightful, more empathic, more encompassing, and more humanist than other approaches to the study of history, of mankind, and of society.

Page 223