[Hysteria 100 years later].

Is it true that hysteria we see today is no longer that described at the end of the last century? Is it true that Charcot's work on hysteria ended in failure? Contrary to currently accepted opinion, it can be demonstrated not only that Charcot truly laid the foundation for the psychological theory of hysteria but that his explanation of the mechanism of conversion forms the basis for one of the most effective therapies. Furthermore the major streams of thought in psychopathology have come to complete Charcot's point of view and in no way contradict it. A general view of neurosis can thus be distinguished, while not forgetting that these complementary points of view are based on logics of action irreducibles to each other. The interest shown by Charcot in cultural phenomena, such as ecstasy or demoniacal possession, even introduces to an anthropological point of view which situates the hysterical symptom within the more general framework of a universal modality of action.