Preface

Preface The authors who joined the discussions from which this volume resulted were invited on the basis of their earlier work, which had shown an awareness of the consequences of modern pl$ychiatry for the character, values, and future form of our society. ., 12~plid~ in a free society is the idea of personal resE(:msibi!ity1 1on the part of its members. Exceptions, of course, have to be J made for chIldren, for the physically handicapped, the mentally. ~eficient, and the insane. In--K~n~o~~ve~e ~~!!~ctuaIJ ¢li!nate should. encourage a maximum. of self.reliance. ~nd indi, vi(i"~"ir-re~P?~~-FOiili7>se who -seem' t;~p~~f~~;~;'''''';ociety in w IC " ;. "'~ily' every act that is not compulsory is fo~n, ol:iFprobiem understandably does not_~,!st. -In recent decades the values supporting individual respotlsi- \ bilIty~"have become somewhat su~merged. Several authors have ) ootena drIft toward an ethICof overdepenaenc_~, .and certanl aspects of cont~~p~~~rIME~y~hiatr.1 have apparently provided a rationale--if not 'an"'i'~petus~for the drift. -- '\' ·-t· ~OTtliea~~~~!yj~..our r~ 2%~i~~:' \ ....~,~p,::.!<~.~~!.r".~,~~,,~~g:.,~.!b:~,w.~.~,~g.~E:.,,12~ul'). tiQn~.oup. For instance, ."

. it certaIn type of psychIatrIC thInkIng has challenged the concept of authority. It has attacked the father in his role as head of a family. At a professional meeting in Syracuse in November, 1959, Dr. Earl A. Loomis, a child psychiatrist, said: "In contemporary SQa~:~~",,!~,!.h,~!.~!S too often regardeCfaSthe'hully, tlie'='s~ip:'="'or the absenteelancl,l~rd. This stereotyping coiifuse(f1)offi-Father and "-]ii's"''"lam1Iy:"'''F~r today's psychiatrist and social worker there seems to be no concept of the father that could be taken as right." -"w"'Each chapter in this book was written in response to an invitation asking the contributor to consider from his particular area of competence the problem stated in the preceding para· ~ aPhs, The editors and all the contributors except two met for . one week to discuss preliminary versions of the manuscripts. ~Every contributor had an opportunity to read the essays of every xi xii Preface """other. Following the conference, considerable correspondence between the contributors and the editors took place in an effort to, rewrite and edit the manuscripts for publication. Nearly every author received, and took into consideration to a varying extent, ~riticisms and suggestions from other participants. On some points of perspective, however, several authors exercised their privilege 'of interpreting connections and phenomena as they saw fit, re gardless of differing points of view within the group. In the final analysis, therefore, each author is solely responsible for his interpretations and facts. '-,.~~_~ , Some readers, relatively unfamiliar with the literature, may feel that the positions examined in the following chapters are "straw men." Unfo!tqJl~.t~1~J,,~.itj,~_~1!!!9~.Lj!!lEossible to cre...~!~.

,j, th~~'''''~'~Mw~:~~~,.,~~,;:,~~"~_!~_~_2:~~,!!:-~Y~_~!L2.~!$~~.,,~~y fiction. The m~n I If,/'''' f wIiose propos Itlons are examined and crl tICI~~~",,!?Y ..,,!!!,~,,~~,~!~2E~M"~~ J ~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~~~). certainly not representing all of their colleagu~~t..",..QQ.",~.!!2"~.,,,,,,,~Yen rel?r~§~J1.t,~..lh~,w!!!.2~M~,,,~~,;XtrS!!!£._RQ.~iti.<;P,!, which c<>'uld be found i~. the Iiter .n-this.Jield. --' Quite possibly much of the controversy is due to a tactical: {:7t~o:::~~:~t~Iti~o~:;~~;a;: Xt:C~::~li' ~e~;'~~;;~~~~ ) "scieiiHfiE'~'}""'''As"'''aMconseqUe'irce''''soffie~"'psycIiiatilsts·Stake""'tiieciaims·'~<.. ~, of their field on criteria chosen by others. For psychiatry the '\ (submission to the validity of the canons of strict science was,J ~f course, unnecessary. However, the alternative, declaring psychi- " atry to be an art, would have its hazards too, because then the results of the work of practitioners in this field ",vould have to be judged according to canons of craftsmanship or aesthetics.

f At the present time, paradoxically, som~"'"~:~'~~?"~~"<0~~,_~~..Jc.,."...~i'!~ \ deel!}_,!-~!!!!~~lves qualified to judge and interpret ~~~.~!l,tn.ing In.) ;''''&.Qciety-fromart to religion, from sociaT....iIiSITflitlons to inter.<' muional politics, from the treatment of babjes to the treatmen~ .cl criminals-while at the same time ~!!!.~<.?!!sly protesti~rty\ 1l~!.~ look at psychiatry itself except by the anojnted insider wh~,j) can scarcely be considered unbiased,. May, 1962 HELMUT SCHOECK JAMES W. WIGGINS Contents PAGE Contributors Preface by HELMUT SCHOECK CHAPTER v xi PSYCHIATRY AS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION 1 by THOMAS S. SZAsZ 2 CONTEMPORARY PSYCHIATRY AND THE CONCEPT OF RESPONSIBILITY 19 by D. ELTON TRUEBLOOD 3 GUILT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 38 by O. HOBART MOWRER 4 THE INDIVIDUAL AND HIS SOCIETY: DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOANALYSIS 68 by RICHARD T. LAPIERE 5 PSYCHIATRY: SCIENCE, ART, AND SCIENTISM 83 by HERVEY M. CLECKLEY 6 CONCEPTIONS OF HEALTH 117 by GEORGE P. GRANT 7 SOCIETY AS CRUCIBLE 135 by HENRY S. KARIEL 8 PSYCHOANALYTIC THINKING AND THE RELIEF OF THE POOR 157 by ALAN KEITH-LuCAS 9 PSYCHIATRY AND ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION 176 by DAVID MCCORD WRIGHT xiii xiv CHAPTER Contents PAGE 10 PSYCHOANALYSIS AND THE WRITING OF HISTORY by DAVID SPRING 11 CRIMINOLOGY AND THE SICK SOCIETY . by JAMES W. WIGGINS INDEX OF AUTHORS INDEX OF SUBJECTS 194 211 231 235 1 Psychiatry as a Social Institution THOMAS S. SZASZ The effects of psychiatric theories on modern society may be inferred in several ways. One is to observe the impact that psychiatry has had on specific social or scientific endeavors~for example, on the writing of history, on social work, or on the concepts of health and responsibility. Another approach is to describe and analyze what could be regarded as the effect of psychiatry upon itself--.that is, the development of psychiatry as a social institution.