Response to Stephen Frosh and Belinda Mandelbaum’s article, “Psychosocial histories of psychoanalysis”

Palabras clave

Response; Stephen Frosh; Belinda Mandelbaum; Histories of psychoanalysis


The history of psychoanalysis elicits the combina- tion of multiple approaches and methodologies. Over the last decades, the historians of psychoanalysis’ multiple lives have carried out close readings of crucial texts, biographical reconstructions, global approaches to the psychoanalytic movement, and histories of the origins and implantation of psychoanalysis in one country, to mention just a few. In addition, many scho- lars have also framed their research as a contribution to understanding other issues, such as the history of cultural modernization, the transnational circulation of knowledge, the intellectual history of the twentieth century, gender and sexuality, Jewish history, and the history of professions. Because of all these reasons, the historiography of psychoanalysis is a vital and rich body of work, with a highly interdisciplinary profile. A list of recent or classic influential names writing on the history of psychoanalysis can tell us quite vividly about their diverse backgrounds, including psychoanalyti- cally-oriented psychiatrists or psychologists (George Makari, Elizabeth Roudinesco, Stephen Frosh); socio- logists (Eli Zaretsky, Edith Kurzweil); scholars from language departments (Veronika Fuechtner, Rubén Gallo); social workers (Elizabeth Danto); and, of course, historians (Mariano Plotkin, Dagmar Herzog, Nathan Hale, Jane Russo, John Forrester).