Cold War Psychiatry, Extremism, and Expertise: The “Special Committee on the Political Abuse of Psychiatry”

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Political Sociology Pub Date : 2021-12-11 DOI:10.1093/ips/olab034
Charlotte Heath-Kelly
{"title":"Cold War Psychiatry, Extremism, and Expertise: The “Special Committee on the Political Abuse of Psychiatry”","authors":"Charlotte Heath-Kelly","doi":"10.1093/ips/olab034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Throughout the history of psychiatric ethical professionalization, the question of the “extremist” contextualizes and frames the limits of medical practice. Using archival research at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the article explores how professional committees debated medical ethics after evidence of psychiatric participation in national security measures against dissidents. British, American, and global professional associations organized a prominent struggle against Soviet membership of the World Psychiatric Association in the 1970s and 1980s—reconstituting the field of professional expertise through Cold War geopolitics. The Special Committee on the Political Abuse of Psychiatry was formed in 1978 at the British Royal College of Psychiatry to publicize the medical detention of dissidents in the USSR and to pursue the expulsion of the USSR delegation from global professional fora. In doing so, it constituted an identity for Global Mental Health (vis-à-vis Soviet abusive practice) as impartial, objective, and uncompromised. However, this article explores the many ambiguities that complicate the performative constitution of Western psychiatry as good, and Soviet psychiatry as bad—reflecting on the political dynamics, and philosophy of science, which underwrote the struggle for global expertise.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olab034","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Throughout the history of psychiatric ethical professionalization, the question of the “extremist” contextualizes and frames the limits of medical practice. Using archival research at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the article explores how professional committees debated medical ethics after evidence of psychiatric participation in national security measures against dissidents. British, American, and global professional associations organized a prominent struggle against Soviet membership of the World Psychiatric Association in the 1970s and 1980s—reconstituting the field of professional expertise through Cold War geopolitics. The Special Committee on the Political Abuse of Psychiatry was formed in 1978 at the British Royal College of Psychiatry to publicize the medical detention of dissidents in the USSR and to pursue the expulsion of the USSR delegation from global professional fora. In doing so, it constituted an identity for Global Mental Health (vis-à-vis Soviet abusive practice) as impartial, objective, and uncompromised. However, this article explores the many ambiguities that complicate the performative constitution of Western psychiatry as good, and Soviet psychiatry as bad—reflecting on the political dynamics, and philosophy of science, which underwrote the struggle for global expertise.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
冷战时期的精神病学、极端主义和专门知识:“精神病学政治滥用问题特别委员会”
纵观精神病伦理专业化的历史,“极端主义者”的问题将医疗实践的局限性置于背景之中并加以界定。这篇文章利用英国皇家精神病学院的档案研究,探讨了在有证据表明精神病患者参与了针对异见人士的国家安全措施后,专业委员会如何就医学伦理进行辩论。20世纪70年代和80年代,英国、美国和全球专业协会组织了一场反对苏联加入世界精神病学协会的著名斗争,通过冷战地缘政治重建了专业知识领域。1978年,英国皇家精神病学学院成立了政治滥用精神病学特别委员会,以宣传在苏联对异见人士的医疗拘留,并寻求将苏联代表团驱逐出全球专业论坛。在这样做的过程中,它构成了全球心理健康(相对于苏联的虐待行为)的一种身份,即公正、客观和不妥协。然而,这篇文章探讨了许多模糊性,这些模糊性使西方精神病学和苏联精神病学的表演构成复杂化——反思了政治动态和科学哲学,它们支撑着全球专业知识的斗争。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: International Political Sociology (IPS), responds to the need for more productive collaboration among political sociologists, international relations specialists and sociopolitical theorists. It is especially concerned with challenges arising from contemporary transformations of social, political, and global orders given the statist forms of traditional sociologies and the marginalization of social processes in many approaches to international relations. IPS is committed to theoretical innovation, new modes of empirical research and the geographical and cultural diversification of research beyond the usual circuits of European and North-American scholarship.
期刊最新文献
Secession or Sense of Belonging? Marginalization in the Context of Transnationality Bio/Necropolitical Capture and Evasion on Africa–Europe Migrant Journeys Justice “to Come”? Decolonial Deconstruction, from Postmodern Policymaking to the Black Horizon “I Flip, Therefore I Am”: Smartphone Detoxing as a Practice of Sovereignty Nomads’ Land: Exploring the Social and Political Life of the Nomad Category
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1