Brown T E
Department of Humanities, Mount Royal College, Calgary, Alberta.
Can Bull Med Hist. 1994;11(2):267-95. doi: 10.3138/cbmh.11.2.267.
The 1970s witnessed an intense, often acrimonious debate between revisionist and Whig/neo-Whig historians over the origins and nature of the nineteenth-century asylum experience. By the early 1980s, however, there had emerged no ""new synthesis" (as one might have expected given the dialectical nature of the historical enterprise) but rather a new counter-revisionist paradigm grounded in the precepts of the "new social history." This counter-revisionist paradigm has become, in turn, the "new orthodoxy" in asylum studies in the 1990s. This article argues that the counter-revisionist account is itself highly problematic, offering no convincing synthetic overview of the nineteenth-century asylum experience.
20世纪70年代,修正主义历史学家与辉格党/新辉格党历史学家就19世纪精神病院经历的起源和性质展开了激烈且时常充满敌意的辩论。然而,到了20世纪80年代初,并没有出现“新的综合观点”(鉴于历史研究事业的辩证性质,人们可能会有此预期),而是出现了一种基于“新社会史”理念的新的反修正主义范式。反过来,这种反修正主义范式在20世纪90年代成为了精神病院研究领域的“新正统观点”。本文认为,反修正主义的叙述本身就存在很大问题,它未能对19世纪的精神病院经历给出令人信服的综合性概述。