To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Edited by
Anne M. Lovell, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale, Paris,Gerald M. Oppenheimer, City University of New York and Columbia University, New York
In 1917, as World War I was at its height, the gothic novelist Arthur Machen attempted to describe the growing sense of fear and unease that haunted the United Kingdom. He depicted a rootless and invisible emotion, a nameless terror, that moved silently across the land leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. Frightened horses, suicidal farmers, and paralyzed children mapped out the emotion's itinerary across the kingdom. Machen's tale of a transformative horror was rooted in a tradition of gothic literature that had been reinvigorated in the late nineteenth century. However, its central device of an epidemic of fear and its disease-like transmission across the population drew upon different sources: the scientific literature on the pathology of collective emotions that served as a precursor for psychiatric epidemiology in Victorian and Edwardian Britain. Even without its supernatural overtones, this tale seems curiously remote from contemporary psychiatric epidemiology. The distance between the epidemics of feeling described in those early writings and the organization of contemporary practice is striking. Although there was a large literature on the relationship between mental disease and poverty, there is little attempt to map the movements of affect or read transformations of emotion as an index of social or historical change. Instead such epidemics of feeling were read through the psychological concept of suggestion— as a form of primitive and unconscious communication—anchored in the evolutionary frameworks of crowd psychology and the herd instinct.
By the end of World War II this epidemiological understanding of fear had been transformed. Insecurity, terror, and anxiety were no longer seen as capricious forces but instead understood as environmental conditions that could be defeated through political interventions and social planning. Fear was tamed. It moved from being a fickle and fantastic force to become instead an object of political calculation. Indeed in the wake of the war, it would provide the grounds for a new program of social and material reconstruction. As this chapter will partly show, the architects of the welfare state in the 1940s and 1950s saw their task as the engineering of a society in which individuals would be freed from the pathological anxieties of financial insecurity, unemployment, and homelessness. Aneurin Bevan, widely seen as the architect of Britain's National Health Service, complained that modern lives were wrecked by anxiety.
Writing the recent history of mental health services requires a conscious departure from the historiographical tropes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which have emphasised the experience of those identified (and legally defined) as lunatics and the social, cultural, political, medical and institutional context of their treatment. A historical narrative structured around rights (to health and liberty) is now complicated by the rise of new organising categories such as ‘costs’, ‘risks’, ‘needs’ and ‘values’. This paper, drawing on insights from a series of witness seminars attended by historians, clinicians and policymakers, proposes a programme of research to place modern mental health services in England and Wales in a richer historical context. Historians should recognise the fragmentation of the concepts of mental illness and mental health need, acknowledge the relationship between critiques of psychiatry and developments in other intellectual spheres, place the experience of the service user in the context of wider socio-economic and political change, understand the impacts of the social perception of ‘risk’ and of moral panic on mental health policy, relate the politics of mental health policy and resources to the general determinants of institutional change in British central and local government, and explore the sociological and institutional complexity of the evolving mental health professions and their relationships with each other and with their clients. While this is no small challenge, it is perhaps the only way to avoid the perpetuation of ‘single-issue mythologies’ in describing and accounting for change.
The modern concept of stress is commonly traced to the physiologist, Hans Selye. Selye viewed stress as a physiological response to a significant or unexpected change, describing a series of stages: alarm, resistance, and exhaustion, when an organism's adaptive mechanisms finally failed. While Selye originally focused on nonspecific physiological responses to harmful agents, the stress concept has since been used to examine the relationship between a variety of environmental stressors and mental disorders and chronic organic diseases such as hypertension, gastric ulcers, arthritis, allergies, and cancer. This edited volume brings together leading scholars to explore the emergence and development of the stress concept and its ever-changing definitions. It examines how the concept has been used to connect disciplines such as ecology, physiology, psychology, psychiatry, public health, urban planning, architecture, and a range of social sciences; its application in a variety of sites such as the battlefield, workplace, clinic, hospital, and home; and the emergence of techniques of stress management in a variety of different socio-cultural and scientific locations. Contributors: Theodore M. Brown, David Cantor, Otniel E. Dror, Rhodri Hayward, Mark Jackson, Robert G. W. Kirk, Junko Kitanaka, Tulley Long, Joseph Melling, Edmund Ramsden, Elizabeth Siegel Watkins, Allan Young. David Cantor is Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health. Edmund Ramsden is Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester.
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Introduction: Stress and the Problem of Temporality
Implicit within every model of stress is a particular understanding of time. Stress disorders, in their myriad forms, are variously attributed to the fears and terrors of an anticipated future, the pressure of present circumstances, or traumas arising from events buried deep in the individual's past. They are also associated with temporal experience being connected to the increased velocity of life or its slowing down through long episodes of boredom or sensory deprivation. Psychosomatic medicine, in its various forms and iterations over the past two hundred years, has sustained these different temporalities through reference to a rich armamentarium of psychological and physiological objects—ranging from the practices of “expectant attention” described by nineteenth-century mental physiologists through to the hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis that plays a central role in twenty-first-century understandings of the stress response.
The sheer number of concepts deployed in descriptions of the stress response and the broad variety of narratives that these make possible have attracted widespread critical comment from anthropologists, historians, cultural critics, and practicing stress researchers. Stress is derided as a sort of “conceptual glue” that can connect forms of physiological and psychological disturbance to any number of experiences and events. While these criticisms are rich and often provocative it is not my intention to rehearse them again here. Rather, I want to concentrate on how stress disorders have been connected to specific life events and ways in which those connections have been stabilized.
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester