Anu Peltoniemi:About the research of psychoanalysis, psychiatry and recent historyDuring the last decade in Scandinavian historical research of psychoanalysis and psychiatry, a so-called critical study or an antipsychiatric orientation towards the researched phenomena has been a prevailing trend. While doing a research on the history of Finnish psychoanalysis, I have been pondering over the concept of criticism. I have questioned the feasibility of antipsychiatric orientation. If a historian has an antipsychiatric or so called critical point of view to start with, it will affect the way he interprets and deals with the research materials. I don’t see these kinds of researches as kind of research of history that produces real information, and in fact they are the opposite to the kind of research that strives for objectivity. But then again, what would objective research be like? In my presentation I shall ponder over the concept of criticism from the point of historical research. What is criticism for the historians, who are studying of history of psychoanalysis and psychiatry? What has been wanted to accomplish and what has been accomplished by criticism? Does a historian have enough competence based on his education and work experience to evaluate psychological and psychiatric methods of treatment in his historical research? I have studied the history of psychoanalysis and psychiatry concern years 1950 - 1979. The study of recent history creates its own problems into the manner the materials of research is handled and interpreted. In psychological and psychiatric methods of treatment it is not just question about delicate issues, but also about matters that involve the whole lives of certain groups of patients. What is the historian’s researcher’s responsibility about the study results and views he presents? Does historian necessarily need to care if he’s supporting negative views about psychiatry by his study or about the consequences they might cause in the lives and minds of those needing psychological or psychiatric care? The questions about the researcher’s responsibility and ethics lead to the question to whom the researcher aims his work at. The target group defines the critique used and it’s contents. The historian’s awareness about to whom he’s targeting the research at will become very important. What would the historical research of psychoanalysis and psychiatry be like if it made an effort to create understanding towards the phenomena that are studied and would not contain any attitudes based on systems of values? In my presentation I will not offer answers to what criticism and researcher’s responsibility are about, but I will polemically raise a discussion on them. FL Anu Peltoniemi
|