The early views of Breuer and Freud (1893/5) on hysteria and hysterical psychosis (HP) were strongly influenced by Janet, as Breuer (1895) testified. They emphasized, among other things, the traumatic origins of these disorders. Breuer (1895) also pointed to the dream-like nature of HP and to the often rapid alternation of such dreams with the normal waking state. He believed that patients dreaming these waking dreams were in a state of self-hypnosis that the French termed “somnambulism.” Unlike Freud, Breuer believed that such “psychotic states” could persist for a long time, as exemplified by his famous case of Anna O.
THE DECLINE OF HYSTERIA
At the beginning of the 20th century, interest in HP, hysteria and hypnosis vanished. That psychological trauma could be a major factor in the development of these disorders was also forgotten. The few attempts to establish the clinical validity of HP were not accepted (cf. Regis, 1906; Mairet and Salager, 1911). Two factors prompted this rejection: (1) The successful campaign against hysteria as a respectable mental disorder because it lacked an organic base (Villechenoux, 1968; Maleval, 1981). Babinski (1901, 1909) strongly advocated this position. This success led to regarding patients suffering from HP as malingerers or as following suggestions. (2) Bleuler’s introduction of the term “schizophrenia” (Bleuler, 1911/50) as a diagnostic entity encompassing widely divergent mental disorders, and the broad acceptance it gained (Rosenbaum, 1980; Maleval, 1981). Bleuler’s influence was so great, that after 1911 the majority of psychiatrists, including Freud, no longer used the diagnosis of HP (Maleval, 1981). Only very few authors continued to stress the importance of distinguishing between HP and other psychoses. The German psychiatrist Raecke (1915) emphasized the influence of extreme situational stress in the development of HP. The Dutch psychiatrist Breukink (1923) harked back to the work of Janet, other French masters, Breuer and Freud. According to Breukink, HP was characterized by the patient’s high hypnotizability. Therefore it was readily accessible and treatable by hypnosis. However, the all-encompassing label of “schizophrenia” prevailed, and many authors struggle with the clinical problem of hysteria and of diagnosing psychoses which did not completely fit the diagnostic criteria of schizophrenia (e.g., Carrot et al., 1945; Claude, 1937; Courbon, 1937; Mallett and Gold, 1964).
THE RETURN OF THE DIAGNOSIS OF HYSTERICAL PSYCHOSIS.
After World War II, several attempts were made to revive the concept of HP. In line with Janet’s dissociation model, the Dutch psychiatrist Hugenholz (1946) stated that HP can develop in individuals with hysterical characteristics who are exposed to traumatic events. These events evoke and reactivate earlier painful experiences and their associated affect such as resentment and hate.
~~~
THE DECLINE OF HYSTERIA
At the beginning of the 20th century, interest in HP, hysteria and hypnosis vanished. That psychological trauma could be a major factor in the development of these disorders was also forgotten. The few attempts to establish the clinical validity of HP were not accepted (cf. Regis, 1906; Mairet and Salager, 1911). Two factors prompted this rejection: (1) The successful campaign against hysteria as a respectable mental disorder because it lacked an organic base (Villechenoux, 1968; Maleval, 1981). Babinski (1901, 1909) strongly advocated this position. This success led to regarding patients suffering from HP as malingerers or as following suggestions. (2) Bleuler’s introduction of the term “schizophrenia” (Bleuler, 1911/50) as a diagnostic entity encompassing widely divergent mental disorders, and the broad acceptance it gained (Rosenbaum, 1980; Maleval, 1981). Bleuler’s influence was so great, that after 1911 the majority of psychiatrists, including Freud, no longer used the diagnosis of HP (Maleval, 1981). Only very few authors continued to stress the importance of distinguishing between HP and other psychoses. The German psychiatrist Raecke (1915) emphasized the influence of extreme situational stress in the development of HP. The Dutch psychiatrist Breukink (1923) harked back to the work of Janet, other French masters, Breuer and Freud. According to Breukink, HP was characterized by the patient’s high hypnotizability. Therefore it was readily accessible and treatable by hypnosis. However, the all-encompassing label of “schizophrenia” prevailed, and many authors struggle with the clinical problem of hysteria and of diagnosing psychoses which did not completely fit the diagnostic criteria of schizophrenia (e.g., Carrot et al., 1945; Claude, 1937; Courbon, 1937; Mallett and Gold, 1964).
THE RETURN OF THE DIAGNOSIS OF HYSTERICAL PSYCHOSIS.
After World War II, several attempts were made to revive the concept of HP. In line with Janet’s dissociation model, the Dutch psychiatrist Hugenholz (1946) stated that HP can develop in individuals with hysterical characteristics who are exposed to traumatic events. These events evoke and reactivate earlier painful experiences and their associated affect such as resentment and hate.
~~~
Originally posted by Pilgrim
Comment