• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Scientific psychiatry in Stalin's Soviet Union: The politics of modern medicine and the struggle to define 'Pavlovian' psychiatry, 1939--1953.
【24h】

Scientific psychiatry in Stalin's Soviet Union: The politics of modern medicine and the struggle to define 'Pavlovian' psychiatry, 1939--1953.

机译：斯大林苏联的科学精神病学：现代医学政治与界定“巴甫洛夫式”精神病学的斗争，1939--1953年。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Pavlov's "theory of higher nervous activity" provided a language that both Soviet psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists could use to discuss the nature of the mind. Even after his death in 1936, Ivan Pavlov's theory was revered by the Bolshevik regime as a profoundly materialist theory that could be used to explain the mind. Soviet psychiatrists, however, could not agree on just what "Pavlovian" should mean or, indeed, how psychiatry should be practiced.;The period that lasted from late 1930s to the early 1950s was a time of particularly intense debate because new technologies coming from Europe were incorporated into Soviet psychiatric practice. Between 1933 and 1938, psychiatrists in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Portugal reported on experimental new methods including sleep therapy, insulin coma therapy, "psychosurgery" (lobotomy), and artificially induced epilepsy-like seizures, the so-called "shock therapies" (including Metrozol, insulin shock, and electroshock). These methods were brought to the Soviet Union between 1935 and 1938, and by 1939 Soviet psychiatric hospitals were beginning to adopt them as primary methods of treatment. Many Soviet psychiatrists hoped these methods would improve psychiatry's reputation by proving to the public that psychiatric hospitals were places of healing, not incarceration.;Soviet psychiatrists found that methods like shock therapy were quite difficult to use. These treatments required equipment and drugs that were in short supply. More disturbingly, the new methods of treatment were poorly understood and often dangerous to use; some Soviet psychiatrists questioned whether they should be used at all. This challenge pushed psychiatrists to articulate their scientific and ethical assumptions about how and why treatments should be used in psychiatric practice.;Some used Pavlov's theories to argue for more fundamental study of the brain. Using Pavlov's methods to understand the physical laws of thought, they argued, was the key to a truly scientific psychiatry. They were encouraged particularly by new technologies that enabled them to study brain structures and by new discoveries about the role of chemical neurotransmitters in the brain. In the near future, they believed, psychiatric practice would be governed by knowledge generated in the physiological laboratory.;Other psychiatrists argued that the proper object of psychiatry was society, not the brain. To understand mental illness, psychiatrists should study how individuals adjusted to the world around them. They pointed to the psychological trauma they saw in soldiers during World War Two as evidence that mental illness was a normal response to a pathological environment. According to these advocates of a bio-social approach, psychiatric experts should be working to make everyday Soviet institutions into places that promoted mental health. Government officials in the post-WWII period were enthusiastic about this idea, and it briefly looked as if "mental hygiene" might flourish. This failed to happen, I argue, at least in part because Communist Party officials were uncomfortable about psychiatrists' claims to scientific expertise. The Communist Party itself claimed to have special knowledge about how to create a better society, and its members did not want their authority challenged, especially by experts claiming to speak with the authority science.;The most high profile conflict between psychiatrists during the post-WWII period was over the use of lobotomy. In 1950, psychiatrists who opposed lobotomy successfully convinced Soviet officials that lobotomy was "un-Pavlovian." It was banned in December 1950. Advocates of the ban were motivated in part by scientific and ethical concerns, but they were also using lobotomy as a way to discredit their rivals within the profession. To do so they had to convince non-psychiatrists in the government and the Communist Party to support them, and they therefore reframed their arguments using the charged rhetoric of patriotism, dialectical-materialism, and thinly veiled anti-Semitism.;The opponents of lobotomy were rather too successful in convincing Communist Party officials that anti-Pavlovian ideas needed to be rooted out of Soviet psychiatry. Between 1950 and 1953, psychiatrists in the USSR found themselves caught up in a campaign to remake their discipline on the basis of Pavlov's theory. Old methods of classifying psychiatric illnesses were to be abandoned, psychiatric hospitals were to be redesigned, and university research in psychiatry was to be relocated to the physiology laboratory.;The campaign for Pavlovian psychiatry made it possible for psychiatrists to finally push through long-desired plans to rationalize of psychiatric hospitals. Furthermore, these changes dramatically increased the amount of clinical information being generated. Ironically, then, a campaign that had sought to subordinate psychiatrists to the Pavlovian laboratory actually ended up strengthening traditional clinical methods of psychiatric research. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
机译：帕夫洛夫的“高级神经活动理论”提供了一种语言，苏联精神病医生和非精神病医生都可以使用这种语言来讨论心灵的本质。甚至在伊万·帕夫洛夫（Ivan Pavlov）于1936年去世后，布尔什维克政权仍将其理论视为可以用来解释思想的深刻唯物主义理论。但是，苏联精神病医生无法就“巴甫洛夫式”的含义或实际上应该如何进行精神病学达成共识。从1930年代末到1950年代初这段时期是一个特别激烈的辩论时期，因为新技术的来临欧洲被纳入苏联的精神病学实践。在1933年至1938年之间，德国，奥地利，瑞士和葡萄牙的精神科医生报告了实验性新方法，包括睡眠疗法，胰岛素昏迷疗法，“心理手术”（放血）和人为诱发的癫痫样癫痫发作，即所谓的“休克疗法”。 （包括Metrozol，胰岛素休克和电击）。这些方法在1935年至1938年之间带入苏联，到1939年，苏联精神病医院开始将它们用作主要治疗方法。许多苏联精神科医生希望这些方法通过向公众证明精神病医院是康复的场所而不是监禁场所来改善精神病学的声誉。苏联精神科医生发现像电击疗法这样的方法很难使用。这些治疗需要设备和药品短缺。更令人不安的是，人们对新的治疗方法了解甚少，使用起来常常很危险。一些苏联精神病医生质疑是否应该使用它们。这一挑战促使精神病医生阐明他们关于在精神病学实践中应如何以及为何使用治疗的科学和道德假设。一些人利用帕夫洛夫的理论主张对大脑进行更基础的研究。他们认为，使用巴甫洛夫的方法来理解物理思想定律是真正进行科学精神病学研究的关键。使他们能够研究大脑结构的新技术和关于化学神经递质在大脑中的作用的新发现尤其使他们受到鼓舞。他们认为，在不久的将来，精神病学实践将受到生理实验室中产生的知识的支配。其他精神病学家认为，精神病学的适当对象是社会，而不是大脑。为了了解精神疾病，精神科医生应研究个人如何适应周围的世界。他们指出，他们在第二次世界大战期间对士兵的心理创伤是精神疾病是对病理环境的正常反应的证据。这些生物社会方法的倡导者认为，精神病专家应该努力使苏联的日常机构成为促进精神健康的地方。第二次世界大战后的政府官员对这个想法充满热情，并且看起来似乎“精神卫生”可能会蓬勃发展。我认为这没有发生，至少部分原因是共产党官员对精神科医生对科学专门知识的要求感到不满。共产党本身声称对如何建立更美好的社会有特殊的了解，共产党员不希望自己的权威受到挑战，特别是声称自称与权威科学对话的专家。；后精神病学家之间最引人注目的冲突是第二次世界大战时期超过了使用肺叶切除术。 1950年，反对放气的精神科医生成功地说服苏联官员放气是“非巴甫洛夫式的”。 1950年12月，该禁令被禁止。该禁令的倡导者在一定程度上是出于科学和道德方面的考虑，但他们也使用放线菌疗法来抹黑其行业内的竞争对手。为此，他们不得不说服政府和共产党的非精神病医生支持他们，因此，他们使用爱国主义，辩证唯物主义和面纱薄弱的反犹太主义的言论来重新整理自己的论点。在说服共产党官员必须将反巴甫洛夫思想扎根于苏联精神病学方面，是非常成功的。在1950年至1953年之间，苏联的精神病医生发现自己陷入了一场根据巴甫洛夫理论重塑学科的运动中。放弃了对精神疾病进行分类的旧方法，重新设计了精神病医院，将精神病学方面的大学研究搬到了生理实验室。；巴甫洛夫精神病学运动使精神科医生最终有可能推动长期渴望的工作计划使精神病医院合理化。此外，这些变化极大地增加了所产生的临床信息的数量。具有讽刺意味的是这项旨在使精神病医生服从巴甫洛夫实验室的运动实际上最终加强了传统的精神病学研究的临床方法。 （摘要由UMI缩短。）

著录项

  • 作者

    Zajicek, Benjamin.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of Chicago.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Chicago.;
  • 学科 History of Science.;Psychology General.;History Russian and Soviet.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2009
  • 页码 507 p.
  • 总页数 507
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 自然科学史;心理学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号