History and the Unconscious

Front matter

GESCHICHTE - ERINNERUNG - POLITIK 38

Tomasz Pawelec

History and the Unconscious

Introduction To The English-language

Psychohistory and Academic History 00... 30

Psychohistory and Philosophy of History «0.00... cece 32

Other Psychological Concepts: ersero sinini 37

Psychohistory’s Research Fields... aaa 39

Beginnings wood wwa

Psychohistory Becomes History

Debate Surrounding Psychohistory «0.0... 90

6 Table of Contents

PARTII METHODOLOGICAL THOUGHT IN PSY CHOMISTORY oO AO 111

Psychohistory’s Methodological Discourse and its

FUNCIONS, ZA aa a OR ei oda O ŻEM 111

Between Tradition and Modernism in Historical SChOlaTrshipi wa oi e da 125 The Alleviation of Communal Ills oo. eee eeseeeneeetenee 136 Psychohistorical “Therapy” within the Sphere of Scholarly Investigation a W I A A A ARE A WALA 144 Criticise n A Aa 146

The Debate Surrounding Theory |... anawa 152 The “Hermeneutics of Suspicion” - Psychohistorical Explanation in Psychohistory 0.0... cece anawa anawa 180 Psychohistorical Ahistoricism |... zaawan 187

Methodological Issues in Psychohistory's Basic

Research Fields zyski i W A AG AWA 189 PSYCHODIOSTAPAY won A e AAA 189 History of Childhood wywo A AAA 197 Group:PsychoNRistóry ata dd Gaia dka 206

Teaching Psychohistory cscssssscssssssssovsassessvsocusesconssciessusossessaseasanaoences 212

PART III THE APPLIED METHODOLOGY OF PSYCHORISTORY oo R Oka 221 Table of Contents 7

Difficulties with Choosing the “Canon” 0... eects 222 guy „adasia aa RO R AE 227 Conceptualization and Interpretation wees 233 The Procedure of Explanation in Psychobiography and PsychohistOry: gia Gavin niin avidin dest. R 236 The Procedure of Retrodiction in Psychohistorical Research’ Practice znak oda da Ao OWA 239

The Psychological Portrait as an Explanatory Prerequisite . 255

Approaching Sources: Empirical References in PsychoKiStOrY wada o U OG oda i 264 History Of Childhood sss siana owa wia BW AA 271 The “Psychogenic Theory of History” and the History of Childhood waski ao GE a a 279 Group Psychology «ae O A RP 282 The Idea of Group Biography 2... eee 282 Model Analysis in Group Psychohistory 0... 290 ReCapitul ation ak zad Ad EARL A Oza 297 IntrFÓdUCtIÓW did EO A i BA 299

8 Table of Contents

A Beloved Symbol ofthe Nation: Wilhelm II and his

Psychohistory: Monographs and Articles... zeznania 357 OTHER WORKS CITED wia cca aiw io ia a A A Wa 382

Introduction To The English- Language Edition

This book was originally a monograph addressed to readers in Poland, written in response to the practical absence heretofore of psychohistory in my country. It is not only the case that this field has not been cultivated in Poland; it is also true that, until the original publication of this book, few Polish scholars were aware of psychohistory's achievements, research strategies and methodological assumptions, which grew in significance in the second half of the twentieth century, which were once prominent (even if in a transient way) in American historical scholarship, and which attracted the attention of scholars broadly beyond the borders of the United States.

This undertaking is also part of a process that started after the collapse of the communist system in Central and Eastern Europe (1989-1991) by which Polish academic history (and, more broadly, the entire humanities and social sciences) integrated the achievements of various Western schools of research and thought which, for a number of reasons (above all political and ideological), had not been integrated before, and of which scholars in the former communist bloc had at best partial and indirect knowledge. Numerous studies have been published on these achievements, and even more translations of original texts have appeared, which together have helped make up for ground lost through years of neglect in providing Polish-language versions of works written by many outstanding authors.

In writing this monograph, I did not intend to act as a “supplier” of yet another Western discourse. I wanted those who read this study to be able to realistically grasp the research model under consideration here and to appreciate its concrete historical achievements (1) as one of the significant and comprehensive (i.e. intellectually and methodologically autonomous) “options” available to historians in the second half of the twentieth century; but (2) not as a panacea for the difficulties, dilemmas, and blind alleys associated with historical knowledge; and (3) certainly not as a list of “prepared” recipes for Polish (or any other) historians who are perhaps seeking new and alternative ways to talk about the past. Beyond describing the history of this field of study (that is — its trajectory and its dynamics over time), I also wanted to reconstruct the mental universe that characterizes representatives of psychohistory, to show how this specialization is viewed both through the eyes of the devoted advocate and through the eyes of “external” observers — those who are friendly, critical, and

10 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH-LANGUAGE EDITION even radically hostile. Moreover, it was important for me to show how psychohistorical research works, in particular, how various antinomies within this model for investigating the past and its problems and limitations "break through” into this actual practice (successfully or not), both those recognized by psychohistorians themselves and those revealed in the course of fierce debates with hostile external critics.

All of these aspects have defined the character of my monograph. I did not write it, quite obviously, as an apologia for psychohistory. And I did not write it as a mere presentation - that is, asa historiographical introduction to the theory and practice of psychohistorical research.’ Rather, I constructed this work with the intention of developing the fullest possible critical treatment of the subject, one which is written from an “external” perspective but which is not “programmatically” hostile toward psychohistory, one that makes systematic use of the analytical apparatus of modern methodology and philosophy of history, and one that takes into consideration historical context - that is, previous historiographic developments and historiography's modern condition. My goal was to capture, in a balanced manner, the theoretical-methodological properties of psychohistory; to estimate its cognitive possibilities and limitations; to identify psychohistorians’ actual achievements and to distinguish them from apparent achievements. A picture painted in this way would - such was my assumption, at least — will enrich the conceptual tools available to historians/readers of this monograph. It is intended to build an appreciation for psychohistory and its legacy, viewed critically, and for the ways in which scholars can creatively employ psychohistory (or some of its elements) without feeling forced either to absolutely “surrender” to it or to thoroughly reject it.

When the original edition of this book was first published (2004), no other work treating psychohistory in such a holistic and exhaustive way was available. This is still the case, which is precisely what prompted me to prepare an English edition of this book. Although the original version was directed at the Polish market, I expect (at least I certainly hope) that this book will prove useful to a broader readership. Psychohistory’s heyday has already passed, but devoted (albeit relatively few) practitioners of psychohistory have continued their work. Even more importantly, the cognitive achievements of psychohistorians and their intellectual legacy remain an immanent and significant component of

1 Only a few such works have appeared over the course of recent decades in various non-English-speaking countries. Most notably O. Shutova, Psichoistorija. Skola i metody (Minsk: Vedy, 1997).

INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH-LANGUAGE EDITION 11 historiographic traditions in the United States and beyond. In fact, scholars invoke these achievements, and make practical use of them, much more frequently than the recent generation of historians would be willing to admit. Psychohistory has not changed significantly since the turn of the millennium in terms of its theoretical and methodological approaches and its organizational structures. New and valuable historical studies have appeared, but the older works and models? in psychohistory have maintained their position within the intellectual world of its practitioners. So far at least, my research conclusions remain valid. Thus, there has been no need for any far-reaching revision of the structure and contents of this book. Therefore, differences between the English-language edition and the Polish edition are small. I have modified the introduction a bit; for the needs of the Western reader, I have provided a deeper explanation for the above-mentioned absence of psychohistory in Poland (and, more broadly, in East-Central Europe); and I have rewritten certain passages that were particularly focused on the needs of Polish readers. Furthermore, I have removed or re-worked a few paragraphs from Part I that were unnecessary for non-Polish readers. The greatest change comes in Part II, where I have added — with reference to research I have completed since the publication of the Polish version — a section in which I deepen my methodological characterization of the psychohistorical approach to sources. Some of the footnotes have also undergone minor modifications; I rewrote or expanded some of the comments, taking into account more recent literature (although the amount of this new literature is not great) and a few papers to which I had not previously had access. The bibliography has been updated accordingly. Moreover, I have added a few new comments to the conclusion, which is the result of expanding my research perspective over recent years.’

2 Oras Thomas S. Kuhn put it, the exemplary works and exemplary scholars. See Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, intro. lan Hacking (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press: Fourth edition, 2012), 186-191.

3 After the text for the English-language edition was prepared and the translation process had already began, a work appeared by one of today’s leading psychohistorians, Paul Elovitz’s The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributions (New York: Routledge, 2018). This rather short work fits within the tradition - discussed in the Introduction below - of psychohistorians reflecting on their own cognitive endeavors, although it was undoubtedly written with greater historiographic and methodological self-awareness than other works of this kind. A significant number of the findings contained in The Making of Psychohistory (in particular those concerning the genesis of psychohistory and contributions made by the field’s eminent representatives) were contained in several articles published by Elovitz after 2000, cited below. Elovitz wrote his book programmatically from the

12 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH-LANGUAGE EDITION

This edition is dedicated to the memory of the late Rudolph Binion, Leff Professor of History at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, a true humanist, a good and wise man. I owe a great deal to him not only as a scholar of psychohistory. It saddens me deeply that he departed this world before it was possible to publish in English the basic results of my scholarship related to the field to which he devoted his entire professional life.

Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Alex Shannon, who took on the difficult task of translating this monograph into English. With great effort, care and skill, he made certain that English-language readers would have access to both the letter and the spirit of its content.

very personal perspective of a participant in (and an important co-creator of) the history of psychohistory, as one who reflects on his experiences as a researcher-practitioner in psychohistory, as a college professor in this field, as an editor ofa psychohistorical journal, and as the initiator and leader of a number of organizational actions designed to integrate and support the efforts of other representatives of psychohistory. Therefore, the work bears the hallmarks of a record of “participant observation” regarding psychohistory’s development and functioning. From my point of view, it seems important that his theses and observations do not undermine my own work’s findings. What is more, in many cases, they turn out to be an unconscious (because Elovitz, who tries to monitor psychohistory’s development in the world, clearly did not discover the Polish edition of my work), but in particular a deepened (because it was carried out from the “inside perspective” of a prominent participant in the psychohistorical movement) confirmation of my findings.