The stellar Remedia blog has featured a piece by De Montfort University Photographic History Research Center fellow Beatriz Pichel called The Backstage of Hysteria: Medicine in the Photographic Studio. In it, the introduction and development of medically oriented photography at Salpêtrière is surveyed, inverting the focus of from analyses of the produced images to the production thereof. Through emphasis on how “medical priorities, as well as the materiality and technical requirements of the photographic equipment, determined the kind of images taken, and the places in which they were taken,” Pichel the processes of mediation by which supporting evidence for medical theory were created. See here to read the article.Share on Facebook
Call for Papers: 49th Annual Meeting of Cheiron: The International Society for the History of Behavioral and Social Sciences
Conference Date: June 22-25, 2017
Conference Location: Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS
Submission Due Date: January 29, 2017, 5pm EST
Papers, posters, symposia/panels, or workshops are invited for the 49th annual meeting of Cheiron: The International Society for the History of Behavioral and Social Sciences. The conference will be held at Mississippi State University, Starkville (two hours/160 miles from Memphis, TN), with Courtney Thompson as local co-host, assisted by Alexandra Hui and Alan Marcus. Starkville’s local Golden Triangle Regional Airport, with service from Atlanta, provides free shuttle service to Starkville, including the MSU campus. The meeting will take place Thursday, June 22, to Sunday, June 25, 2017.
Submissions may deal with any aspect of the history of the human, behavioral, and social sciences or related historiographical and methodological issues. For this year’s meeting in Mississippi we particularly encourage submissions of all formats (papers, posters, symposia/panels, and workshops) which explore issues related to LGBTQ+, as well as gender, race/ethnicity, disability, and other marginalized communities. All submissions should conform to the guidelines listed below.
All submissions must be received by 5pm EST, January 15, 2017. Please email your proposals to the 2017 Program Chair, Jacy Young at email@example.com
All papers, posters, and proposed symposia/panels should focus on new and original work, i.e. the main part of the work should not have been published or presented previously at other conferences.
To facilitate the peer review and planning process, please provide a separate page that includes: a) title; b) author’s name and affiliation; c) author’s mail and email address and phone number; d) audio/visual needs. In all types of proposals below, names of authors/presenters should not be indicated anywhere but on the separate cover page for the submission.
Papers: Submit a 700-800 word abstract plus references that contains the major sources that inform your work. Presentations should be 20-25 minutes in length.
Posters: Submit a 300-400 word abstract plus references that contains the major sources that inform your work.
Symposia/Panels: Organizer should submit a 250-300 word abstract describing the symposium as a whole and a list of the names and affiliations of the participants. Each participant should submit a 300-600 word abstract plus references that contains the major sources that inform your work.
Workshops: Organizer should submit a 250-300 word abstract describing the workshop and, if applicable, a list of the names and affiliations of those participating.
Travel Stipends & Young Scholar Award
Travel Stipends: Cheiron will make funds available to help defray travel expenses for students, as well as other scholars facing financial hardship, who present at the conference. We encourage everyone to apply for support from their home institutions. The Travel Stipend is limited to $100 to $300 per accepted submission; co-authored presentations must be divided among the presenters. If you wish to be considered for the Stipend, please apply by sending the Program Chair a separate email message, explaining your status, at the same time that you submit your proposal.
Young Scholar Award: Since 2008, Cheiron has awarded a prize for the best paper or symposium presentation by a young scholar. To be eligible for consideration, the young scholar must be the sole or first author on the paper and must be responsible for the bulk of the work of the paper. The young scholar must be a student currently or must have completed doctoral work (or other final degree) not more than 5 years prior to the meeting. Past winners of this award are no longer eligible.
About three weeks after the meeting, applicants for this award will submit a copy of the presented paper (rather than the abstract); it may include further, minor changes and bibliography. Submissions go to the Cheiron Executive Officer, who sets the exact deadline and determines eligibility, and the entries will be judged by select members of the Program Committee and the Review Committee. The winner will be announced by early autumn following the Cheiron meeting, will receive a certificate, and will be asked to submit the paper to the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences within a reasonable period of time. The Award winner may ask Cheiron for assistance in preparing the paper for submission to JHBS. If the paper is accepted by JHBS for publication, the winner will receive a $500 honorarium from the publisher, Wiley-Blackwell, in recognition of the Cheiron Young Scholar Award. Please note that the award committee may choose not to grant an award in any given year and that the honorarium depends on publication in JHBS, in addition to winning the Award.
Concerning meeting program, contact 2017 Program Chair:
Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Surrey UK
For questions about the Young Scholar Award or general organizational issues, contact
David K. Robinson, Cheiron Executive OfficerShare on Facebook
The British Society for the Social History of Medicine is now welcoming submissions from students for their annual Roy Porter Prize essay competition. The deadline is February 1st 2017, and the decision will be announced in July.
Essays must be between 5-9k words, and unpublished. The winner will be awarded £500.00. The winning entry may also be published in the society’s journal, Social History of Medicine. Click here for SSHM’s prizes page, where you can download competition entry instructions.
Share on Facebook
With the new year comes the season for conference submissions, and your friendly editors over at the H-Sci-Med-Tech division of HNet have provided a range CfPs on topics that may be relevant to the work of scholars in our readership (click for link to more info on each):
- Conflict, Healing, and the Arts in the Long Nineteenth Century (Submission Deadline Jan 30, conference held @ Durham University, UK, May 27)
- At the Fringes of Humanity: the Cyborg and the Undead (Submission Deadline Feb 1, conference held @ Ohio State University, USA, March 24-25)
- The role of health and social welfare policies in European inclusion and exclusion processes (Submission Deadline Jan 31, conference held @ University of Evora, Portugal, April 6-7)
- Southern History of Science and Technology (Submission Deadline Feb 15, conference held @ Vanderbilt University, USA, April 7-8)
A new article has been published online first by the journal of the Social History of Medicine that will be of interest to our readership. Katariina Parhi and Petteri Pietikainen write on “Socialising the Anti-Social: Psychopathy, Psychiatry and Social Engineering in Finland, 1945–1968.” The abstract reads as follows:
Share on Facebook
This article argues that in Finland during the two decades after the Second World War, the diagnosis of psychopathy represented a failed attempt to adjust ‘difficult’ individuals to the social order. Discussing the social and medical character of the diagnosis, we examine psychopathy using the analytic and historical framework of social engineering in post-war Finland. We utilise patient records, official documents and psychiatric publications and analyse the diagnostic uses of psychopathy and its associations with social maladjustment. We also address the question of how mental health care in the less-developed northern part of Finland grappled with behavioural deviance, and especially with behaviour deemed ‘anti-social’. Contextualising psychopathy as a marker of individual disorganisation within the development of social organisation, this article contributes to historical scholarship that maps mental disorders onto the historical development of the nation.
We are all familiar with the idea that some persons are disabled. But what is disability? What makes it such that a condition–physical, cognitive, psychological–is a disability, rather than, say, a disease or illness? Is disability always and intrinsically bad? Are disabilities things to be cured? Might disabilities be merely ways of being different? And what role should the testimony and experiences of disabled persons play in addressing these questions?
Barnes argues that, at least for a range of physical conditions characterized as disabilities, disabilities are merely ways in which bodies can be different, not ways of their being intrinsically badly off. She argues that this view of disability as mere difference has important implications for broader moral and social issues concerning disabled persons; she also argues that her view is better able to respect the experiences and testimony of disabled persons.
The full interview between Robert Talisse and the author can be heard here.
Share on Facebook
The first issue of the Journal of The History of the Behavioral Sciences is now available (Vol. 53, 1). It features four articles, the topics of which span the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries: early social surveying in Denmark; the replacement of Richard Avenarius’ work in the established history of the theoretical disagreement between Wundt and Külpe; the hybrid investigative research by Bowlby et al. at the Tavistock Clinic 1948-1956; and not least, the work by Gordon Gallop Jr. in the 1960s and 1970s on animal self-recognition as a lens to consider the often precluded compatibility between behaviorism and cognitive science. The abstracts for each follow after the jump.Share on Facebook
Now in press at Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences is “Putting the Present in the History of Autism” by Sam Fellowes. In this essay review, Fellowes evaluates the history of autism as presented in two recent books, Steve Silberman’s Neurotribes and John Donvan & Karen Zucker’s In A Different Key. As Fellowes writes in his introduction,
Recent media reviews of these books have been generally positive and although I highlight the positive elements, my primary focus is on some of the significant problems in these books. Both books have made some historical errors but they seem more problematic in Silberman’s case. Donvan & Zucker largely stick to describing a series of events whereas Silberman weaves specific events into a wider narrative, one which treats the modern classification of autism as correct scientific fact. The only evidence present in Neurotribes for this approach is implicit in Silberman’s history: the classification of autism employed historically used to be deeply flawed so therefore our modern notion is good. I will highlight problematic historical assertions both books make but largely focus upon showing how those errors undermine Silberman’s narrative. This critique gives more credibility to the alternative conceptions of autism he largely dismisses.
The full essay review can be found (behind a paywall) here.Share on Facebook
The January 2017 issue of Medical History includes an article that may be of interest to AHP readers: “‘Electroshock Therapy’ in the Third Reich,” by Lara Rzesnitzek and Sascha Lang. The abstract reads,
Share on Facebook
The history of ‘electroshock therapy’ (now known as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)) in Europe in the Third Reich is still a neglected chapter in medical history. Since Thomas Szasz’s ‘From the Slaughterhouse to the Madhouse’, prejudices have hindered a thorough historical analysis of the introduction and early application of electroshock therapy during the period of National Socialism and the Second World War. Contrary to the assumption of a ‘dialectics of healing and killing’, the introduction of electroshock therapy in the German Reich and occupied territories was neither especially swift nor radical. Electroshock therapy, much like the preceding ‘shock therapies’, insulin coma therapy and cardiazol convulsive therapy, contradicted the genetic dogma of schizophrenia, in which only one ‘treatment’ was permissible: primary prevention by sterilisation. However, industrial companies such as Siemens–Reiniger–Werke AG (SRW) embraced the new development in medical technology. Moreover, they knew how to use existing patents on the electrical anaesthesia used for slaughtering to maintain a leading position in the new electroshock therapy market. Only after the end of the official ‘euthanasia’ murder operation in August 1941, entitled T4, did the psychiatric elite begin to promote electroshock therapy as a modern ‘unspecific’ treatment in order to reframe psychiatry as an ‘honorable’ medical discipline. War-related shortages hindered even the then politically supported production of electroshock devices. Research into electroshock therapy remained minimal and was mainly concerned with internationally shared safety concerns regarding its clinical application. However, within the Third Reich, electroshock therapy was not only introduced in psychiatric hospitals, asylums, and in the Auschwitz concentration camp in order to get patients back to work, it was also modified for ‘euthanasia’ murder.
New from the New Books Network of podcasts is an interview with Scott Selisker on his recent book Human Programming: Brainwashing, Automatons, and American Unfreedom. As New Books Network describes, Selicker’s book
offers readers a fascinating new history of American anxieties along the borderland between the machine and the human mind. Demonstrating the way that a variety of fields influence and coproduce one another, Human Programming follows the metaphor of the automaton through news media, fiction, psychology, cybernetics, film, law and back again. Along the way, Selisker engages academic work on labor automation, posthumanism, affect and emotion, and techno-Orientalism.
Through careful interpretation of books on American soldiers returning from the Korean War, the trial of Patty Hearst, the narrative logic of Snow Crash and Blade Runner, the central conflicts of Homeland and the Manchurian Candidate, and the baffled news reports on John Walker Lindh, Human Programming “offers a new literary and cultural context for understanding the human automaton figure” as it has appeared and reappeared over the half century, and explores how the metaphor of the automaton has “shaped American conversations about the self and other, the free and unfree, and democracy and its enemies, since World War II” (7, 8). Beginning with a prehistory in WWII propaganda, this timely study comes up to a present in which we replace our employees with touchscreens, rely on machine learning to translate our conversations, use proprietary software to plot our routes, and deny the human freedom of our fellow citizens.
The full interview can be heard online here.Share on Facebook