******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Best regards, Andrew Stewart Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-rev...@lists.h-net.org> > Date: January 30, 2019 at 11:20:02 PM EST > To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > Cc: H-Net Staff <revh...@mail.h-net.org> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Russia]: Williams on Reich, 'State of Madness: > Psychiatry, Literature, and Dissent after Stalin' > Reply-To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > > Rebecca Reich. State of Madness: Psychiatry, Literature, and Dissent > after Stalin. DeKalb Northern Illinois University Press, 2018. x + > 283 pp. $60.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-87580-775-1; $60.00 (e-book), > ISBN 978-1-60909-233-7. > > Reviewed by Amanda Williams (University of Leeds) > Published on H-Russia (January, 2019) > Commissioned by Oleksa Drachewych > > In _State of Madness: Psychiatry, Literature, and Dissent after > Stalin_, Rebecca Reich examines how dissident writers used various > forms of literary discourse to resist the Soviet state's attempts to > declare them insane. Soviet psychiatry was different from its Western > counterparts as it was willing to act as a political tool on behalf > of the government. Reich chooses writers who had varying degrees of > political engagement, but all disagreed with the state by "sitting > apart" (p. 4). These writers came into conflict with the > state-sanctioned psychiatric system by engaging with _inakomyslie_, > the idea of thinking differently, which Soviet psychiatrists used as > evidence of insanity or madness to have dissidents committed to > psychiatric hospitals. Dissenters scrutinized the diagnosis process > and treatment of psychiatric patients through a variety of literary > genres, helping to expose many of the abuses of Soviet psychiatry. > Their literary works did not attack just psychiatry but also the > state as a whole; they demonstrated how the USSR was still far from > the reform-minded, modernized, and law-abiding society it portrayed > itself to be, following Joseph Stalin's death. Reich aptly > illustrates how portrayals of madness were contested in the late > Soviet Union. > > Chapter 1 of _State of Madness _delivers a brilliant framework and > provides crucial background that Reich refers to throughout the rest > of the text. By dissecting the art of diagnosis, she breaks down how > psychiatrists used their own ambiguous terminology to turn subjective > judgments into seemingly scientific objective facts. Dissenters > criticized punitive psychiatry specifically due to the biased nature > of the diagnosis. For many of these dissenting writers, the art > behind the Soviet psychiatrist's conclusion lay in revealing or > fabricating hidden mental disorders. Psychiatrists examined the > dissenter's files over long periods of time; they could then begin to > point out the symptoms of the disease the dissenter supposedly > suffered from. This ability to make retrospective diagnoses was > critical for psychiatrists who had to determine the subject's > responsibility for his or her criminal acts. Reich emphasizes that in > order to form this diagnosis, the dialogue between the psychiatrist > and patient had to become a monologue where the psychiatrist's > authority determined the patient's past, present, and future story. > To present their diagnosis as objective, their comments and > observations regarding the patient had to be situated within the > scientific language of a disease. Many dissidents were diagnosed with > schizophrenia or paranoaic disorders as these psychiatric categories > were particularly flexible to manipulation by state psychiatrists. > For dissidents, these two diagnoses were particularly problematic as > it was easy for dissidents to fall into, what Reich titles, "the > discursive trap": the very questioning of the validity of the > psychiatrists' conclusions could be enough to confirm being labeled > mad or insane. Recovery involved acknowledging one's illness and > accepting the state's treatment of it; this affirmed not just the > psychiatrist's authority but also the state's. > > In conceiving of their diagnosis, it was critical for psychiatrists > to analyze dissidents' creative work. Reich reiterates throughout the > text that it was only through illegal printed literary works that > dissidents were able to pathologize the Soviet state and society. > Literature provided an outlet for action in order to describe the > horrors and abuses of psychiatrists and their institutions. Yet each > dissident author conceived of different ways to pursue their > literature. As shown in chapter 2, Aleksandr Vol'pin refused to > engage with psychiatric discourse and used logic to showcase the > irrationality of state-sponsored psychiatry. However, in this > process, he personified the ambiguity of _inakomyslie_. Yet Vladimir > Bukovskii and Semen Gluzman argued that those who dared to think > differently needed to be pragmatic. In their view, the only way to > avoid a diagnosis was to engage with the very same psychiatric > discourse. Dissidents needed to exploit the ambiguity of psychiatric > terms. Reich frames Joseph Brodsky's case study around his invention > of the "art of estrangement" that he developed in contrast to the > Marxist dictum of "existence determines consciousness" (p. 102). He > reinvented the categories of consciousness and existence to > reposition the equation of creative dissent with madness. It was > Brodsky's own diagnoses and hospitalizations that allowed him to use > psychiatric discourse in his own writing and also exposed him to the > potential threat of psychiatric hospitals being an incubator of > silence. Reich examines two of his works, but his poem "Gorbunov and > Gorchakov" truly illuminates his ideas and extremes of consciousness > and existence. > > In chapter 4, Reich portrays what may be her best case study by > examining the trial and selected works of Andrei Siniavskii. > Siniavskii was a literary critic who produced provocative literary > works under the pseudonym Abram Terts. At his trial, Siniavskii > contended that he could not be held responsible for the works of > fiction written by Terts, including the plots, characters, and > extreme fantastic realism of the settings. He insisted that the state > was blending his life and his art together as psychiatric, literary, > and legal discourses were used to confirm his responsibility for the > actions and language of his fictional characters. > > The final case study examines Venedikt Erofeev, a man who seems > fundamentally different from many of the other dissident authors > previously examined due to him presenting his literary career as an > exercise in pretending to be insane. Erofeev's authorial personality > straddled the line between lived and literary expression. His > fictional heroes were social deviants who were typically named after > him. Erofeev also mirrored his own heroes' lifestyles by dropping out > of university, changing jobs, and excessively drinking until > requiring treatments in psychiatric hospitals for alcoholism. Erofeev > was the living embodiment of simulation and dissimulation. > > The criticisms of _State of Madness _are rather minor. First, while > these case studies eloquently prove Reich's argument, there is no > justification on why she picks these particular dissidents to focus > on. For those less familiar with dissident literature in the late > Soviet period, they may want an explanation, particularly as half of > the dissident writers chosen did not actively participate in > political activity. Second, while understanding that Reich's > framework involves examining literary works by the dissident authors, > readers may feel lost in the extremely detailed literary analysis > that Reich conducts in certain areas. This would include the several > pages per case study of poems, stories, and plays, as well as the > deconstruction of grammar. Last, in terms of the dissidents who were > not particularly politically active, it seems Reich works twice as > hard to prove her point. For example, Reich seems to struggle to make > her final case study, Erofeev, fit into her original argument, > leaving me uncertain if the additional example was necessary for her > study. > > Reich has a refreshing angle on Soviet psychiatry in the post-Stalin > period that examines the ideology and thorough processes behind > psychiatrists' and dissidents' attempts to work this system to their > advantage. She is able to tap into the new and emerging trends in the > history of medicine by exploring the gray areas of morality, > subjectivity, and power within Soviet medical and psychiatric > practices. Reich's interdisciplinary methodology was created by > examining how dissenters turned their supposed madness into an outlet > for preserving and demonstrating their sanity and overall mental > health. Both psychiatrists and dissenters used the preoccupation of > literature in Russia and the Soviet Union to examine their medical > reports and literary works. Within this literary and psychiatric > discourse, dissenters and psychiatrists each asserted their authority > to determine what it meant to be mad in post-Stalinist Soviet Union. > > Citation: Amanda Williams. Review of Reich, Rebecca, _State of > Madness: Psychiatry, Literature, and Dissent after Stalin_. H-Russia, > H-Net Reviews. January, 2019. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=53391 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
