Damian Sendler History of Psychiatry Involving Eugen Bleuler
Damian Sendler: An Alienist pantheon was conceived in the 1850s and by the early 20th century, there were numerous proceres in existence around the world, just like the guild members of the past realized that a pantheon would be beneficial to their trade and social standing. Because of this requirement, the anniversaries of the pantheonized must be posted (For example, see, for example, the note by Fusar-Poli and Polite1 posted in the American Journal of Psychiatry). Despite this, the rules for pantheonization are still hazy and the people who enforce them are unknown. In order to do justice to Eugen Bleuler's psychiatric hall of fame, it is necessary to shed some light on this mystery.
Damian Jacob Sendler: Psychiatrists today are known to focus on only a small subset of the many different theories about madness that have been put forth over the course of history. This selection, though it has never been fully explained, has become the accepted view among scholars and practitioners alike that the accounts in question select themselves on the basis of their scientificity and truth-making power. As a result, those who write such accounts are seen as forerunners or pioneers of a new reality. In other words, their place in the psychiatric pantheon is not based on their current values, but rather on those that have been in place for a long period of time.
Dr. Sendler: Acceptance into the psychiatric pantheon will be made or broken by how well and consistently the selection criteria are applied. Pantheon membership is safe as long as it is founded on scientific truth, as has been declared; however, if it is founded on socioeconomic or political convenience, then membership in the pantheon becomes precarious and psychiatry should be required to establish rules for depantheonization..
What is Eugen Bleuler entitled to in this context? We can only assume, given its 2011 date, that this editorial is meant to honor Bleuler in light of the current understanding of "schizophrenia." Is there enough of a foundation here for someone to claim they are entitled to something? Bleuler is an echt discoverer, and that is all there is to it. As an example of this interesting debate, see Brockington and Nalpas3 and Morgan.4, then what happens to Bleuler's place in the pantheon if by some twisted fate schizophrenia turns out to be a historical construct to be discarded when useless?
If this is indeed what Bleuler should be entitled to, his life and work must be reexamined in order to achieve this. In Zollikon (Switzerland), where he was born on April 30, 1857, Medard Boss and Martin Heidegger held their Zollikon seminars in the 1950s, Bleuler was a farmer at the time of his birth. 6 Peasants' rights movement culminated in the founding of Zurich University in 1833 for Bleuler's family (for bare biographical details see Berrios,5 Klaesi7 Müller8 Ellenberger9 and Graf-Nold10) Bleuler is said to have been inspired to become a psychiatrist by seeing German professors of psychiatry (such as Griesinger) unable to communicate in the local dialect. Bleuler was trained by Burckhardt and Schaerer at Waldau, Charcot, and Magnan in Paris, the von Gudden Institute in Munich, and Forel at the Burghölzli. He became director of the Burghölzli in 1898 after training under Forel. He retired in 1927 and died on July 15th, 1939. Students of his include Abraham, Binswanger, Jung, Brill, and Minkowski. An honorary Festchrift published in 1923 included articles by Kurt Schneider, Hermann Rorschach, Ernst Kretschmer and Hans Grühle (it was first published as an issue of the Zeitschrift für der gesamte Neurologie und Psychiatrie for the year 1923.), among others.
Damian Sendler
Scholarship on Bleuler can be divided into two categories: research on his contributions to the concept of schizophrenia, and research on the rest of his writings. Until recently, there were far more publications on the former than the latter. An integrated Bleuleriana is beginning to emerge as this discrepancy has recently been rectified. Early work on the history of schizophrenia was of mediocre quality and was primarily conducted by clinicians eager for schizophrenia to have a long history. 11 Physicians may be reluctant to ask non-medical historians questions about schizophrenia's ontology because they are afraid of offending them.
Damian Jacob Markiewicz Sendler: Bleuler's position in relation to schizophrenia was set in motion by two dissonant historical works. Another article, by Minkowski13, places Bleuler as the protagonist of the psychological approach to schizophrenia and portrays him as an advocate. Grühle's famous chapter for Bumke's Handbuch (On the historical relevance of this volume and on German views on schizophrenia during the 1920s, see Midenet.15) lists the usual past "sightings" of schizophrenia, deals extensively with Kraepelin, and barely mentions Bleuler's. For the "linear" history of schizophrenia, Grühle's chapter set the standard. There are "cases" of it in Europe's pre-19th century medical history, as stated by the latter (On the risks of making this assumption, see Heinrichs16) It was Kraepelin, not Bleuler, who attempted to reinterpret "dementia praecox" into a more adaptable psychological label.11
"The linear view of schizophrenia invites 'presentism', which is, selecting past views as 'valuable' and 'anticipatory' because they coincide with the current definition of 'true' and'scientific. " There is no room in this editorial to follow-up on this approach to the present day. See Stotz-Ingenlath17 and Ritsner and Gottesman.18) for examples of this fallacious reasoning. Just know that a historian's work becomes more interesting and useful when he or she moves away from the linear model of schizophrenia (For an excellent example if this approach, see Gilman.12). For example, Guiraud and Ey19, Lanteri-Laura and Gros20, and most notably Garrabé21 who contextualized the Minkowskian view in his subtle book on the history of schizophrenia illustrate the nonlinear historical approach. On the other hand, Stierlin22, writing within the linear Grühlian tradition, concluded that the Bleulerian notion of schizophrenia was doomed to fail because of its syncretic nature. Similarly, Bleuler received scant mention in articles by Janzarik23 and Peters24 on the history of schizophrenia and its introduction to the United States, respectively. Howells's book, despite its usefulness, falls into the same category as other recent historical works. 25 There is only a brief mention of Bleuler in this passage.
Fortunately, Bleuler's fellow countrymen have not forgotten about him. Since Wyrsch's26 useful pamphlet on his work, there have been a series of important publications, including the excellent set of articles dealing with Bleuler's concept of schizophrenia and other contributions by the Zurich school27; a book dedicated to Bleuler's thinking28; an article on Bleuler concept of schizophrenia29; and more recently, a first-class book by Scharfetter30 where a serious analysis is undertaken of the various strands of Bleuler's thinking.
Damian Jacob Sendler
There is a strange mix of simplicity and complexity in Bleuler's ideas, which can be seen in these writings. Bleuler was drawn to members of the psychodynamic movement not only because of his fascination with schizophrenia, but also because of it. To him, mental illness is a matter of emotions and psychogenesis (Bleuler's distinction between physiogenic and psychogenic is interesting in this regard). His complicated relationship with Jung32 and Freud is laid out in detail in paragraph 31 of this article. 33,34 It was not until he published an article in the short-lived Journal that Bleuler and Freud co-edited with Freud that Bleuler realized how much he disagreed with the Viennese writer. His views on mental illness in general, and schizophrenia in particular, changed as a result of this experience. Early in his career, Bleuler showed an interest in the psychopathology of emotions (see Kuhn.37). His best book is about how affectivity, suggestibility, and paranoia might all work together. 38 Other books, such as his monographs on negativism39 and autistic thinking, appear to have developed out of his work on schizophrenia. 40 Many of his later works, such as Naturgeschichte der Seele41 and Mechanismus-Vitalismus-Mnemismus42 have yet to be evaluated for their significance and originality.
Damien Sendler: While Bleuler has a well-deserved place in the annals of psychiatry, this is not necessarily due to his role in the development of schizophrenia. Bleuler was a man for all seasons, as evidenced by the work of his fellow German citizens. However, there is still a long way to go in Bleulerian scholarship. It is necessary to conduct more research into: (a) the religious, philosophical, and political context that influenced his writings; and (b) the question of whether he managed to develop, sotto voce (or perhaps without realizing it), a view of madness (schizophrenia) that, in its bold newness, challenged the very concept of disease that psychiatry had inherited from the nineteenth century and that Wernicke and Kraepelin were still sponsoring (This may be As a way to bridge the conceptual divide between Kraepelin and Bleuler, Hoenig46 proposed a hypothetical "Schneiderian space" in which objective and subjective elements might coexist. If this is the case, it is not surprising that his ideas were ignored by a Psychiatry that happily and uncritically adopted positivist epistemology of the interbellum period in its efforts to become a hard science. As the psychiatry of his time refused to acknowledge the grave consequences of Bleuler's views on "mental illness," it reduced him to the role of a mere renamer and continuator. This blunder must never be made again.