BOOKS
137
Stannard's haughty tone that he inquisitorially uses such evidence to
dismiss Alexander and Juliette George's impressive case that
Wilson's childhood conditioned his character. I am reminded of
Elizabeth Wirth Marvick, who, when she was told that psycho–
analysis is fine as personal therapy but has no proper application to
historical personality, replied, "No, it is exactly the contrary-the
theory explains so much so well, it is the therapy that leaves unre–
solved problems."
Stannard's alternative to psychoanalysis as a paradigm for
historians is experimental psychology, which has many acknowl–
edged virtues and limitations. More exists in the human spirit,
mind, and heart than can be quantified, including wide and complex
ranges and nuances of feeling, emotion and sensation. Has anyone
yet determined objective measures for the intensity of such basics of
human life as boredom, longing, grief, abandonment, forlornness,
mourning, passion, love, envy, jealousy, rage, anger, or hatred?
These are the province of the psychoanalyst which Freud and his
followers have explored and attempted to understand more deeply,
systematically, and precisely than ever before. Therefore, the
psychoanalytical mode has been the model of choice for many
historians who would deal with the stuff of human feelings in the
past . Stannard's argument that psychoanalytic logic is circular is un–
convincing because if new evidence comes to light or can be mar–
shalled by repeated moves from data to theory and back , or old data
is now viewed in a new configuration, then an advance in
understanding has taken place and the task of historical analysis has
moved forward.
Stannard presumes to tell us that psychoanalysis ignores histor–
ical and cultural context. He obscures the fact that psychoanalysis is
profoundly
contextual-
that the clinical enterprise of analyst and
analysand together exploring the latter's emotional, historical,
social, and cultural ambiance and its multiple meanings is the heart
of the psychoanalytic process, just as the processes of empathy and
identification with the context of the historical person, movement, or
event is the heart of the historian's work. For this alone the historian
should be open to what the clinical arts can contribute to the com–
prehension of human affairs.
If
he has an open mind he will learn
many things that Stannard is closed to.
PETER LOEWENBERG
