Berrios G E, Hauser R
Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge.
Psychol Med. 1988 Nov;18(4):813-21. doi: 10.1017/s0033291700009740.
Psychiatry still lives in a Kraepelinian world and scholarship on the work of Kraepelin has consequently been unhistorical. Selective exegesis of the various editions of his textbook has led to a rigid view of his contribution. However, Kraepelin lived and wrote during an important period of European intellectual history and his work can only be understood against this background. This paper analyses the development of his views in terms of the 'Research Programme' he planned early in his life and whose objective was the creation of a stable description and classification of the psychoses. This Kraepelin eventually achieved by longitudinally studying patient cohorts in terms of methodological criteria such as illness course and incurability. In the event, this methodology allowed him to identify by correlation 'clinical pictures' that both represented the 'essence' of the disease and provided a taxonomic criterion. Although avowedly atheoretical, Kraepelin thus managed to construct (influenced by Kahlbaum and Wundt) an empirical support for his Kantian categorization of the psychoses. A discussion of the cultural variables that moulded these ideas is included.
精神病学仍处于克雷佩林式的世界中，因此关于克雷佩林著作的学术研究缺乏历史视角。对他教科书各版本的选择性注释导致了对其贡献的僵化看法。然而，克雷佩林生活和写作于欧洲知识史的一个重要时期，只有在这一背景下才能理解他的作品。本文根据他早年规划的“研究计划”来分析他观点的发展，该计划的目标是创建一个稳定的精神病描述和分类体系。最终，克雷佩林通过按照疾病进程和不可治愈性等方法学标准对患者队列进行纵向研究实现了这一目标。结果，这种方法使他能够通过相关性识别出既代表疾病“本质”又提供分类标准的“临床症状”。尽管克雷佩林公开宣称自己没有理论，但他（受卡尔鲍姆和冯特影响）成功地为其对精神病的康德式分类构建了实证支持。本文还讨论了塑造这些观点的文化变量。
