Explore the vast range of titles available.

When the later famous psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin (1856–1926) was called to the University of Dorpat/Tartu at the age of 30, he probably did not busy himself much with the multicultural situation that he found there. Like many of his academic con­temporaries, he regarded this Baltic university, then still German-speaking and one of the most important in the Russian Empire, as a kind of exile or at least only a way station for his career, which he hoped to pursue within the German Empire. He brought his research programme for the upcoming discipline of psychiatry with him, as the author of the compendium which, in the course of several editions, became a multi-volume, influential textbook. But at his new venue he found not only a complicated situation of (university) politics caught between negotiation processes among the various cultural groups, but also students from many regions and with different mother tongues, who had to adapt to the official language of instruction. In addition, he took over a recently founded university psychiatric clinic, where all parts of the population were represented, but with whom he could communicate only in a rudimentary manner, as far as the non-German-speaking population groups were concerned. But how did the patients from such different language families manage to make themselves heard in the world of university clinics headed by mostly German-speaking physicians, especially in psychiatry, a discipline particularly dependent upon language? What translation processes were performed by whom over the working therapeutic day, and what were the effects of this partial loss of speech on clinical research? What opportunities resulted from precisely this multi-lingual situation in a contact zone between Western Europe and Russia for psychiatric science and practice? This paper attempts to provide some preliminary answers to these questions, using already known and newly discovered sources.

When the later famous psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926) was called to the University of Dorpat/Tartu at the age of 30, he probably did not busy himself much with the multicultural situation that he found there. Like many of his academic contemporaries, he regarded this Baltic university, then still German-speaking and one of the most important in the Russian Empire, as a kind of exile or at least only a way station for his career, which he hoped to pursue within the German Empire. He brought his research programme for the upcoming discipline of psychiatry with him, as the author of the compendium which, in the course of several editions, became a multi-volume, influential textbook. But at his new venue he found not only a complicated situation of (university) politics caught between negotiation processes among the various cultural groups, but also students from many regions and with different mother tongues, who had to adapt to the official language of instruction. In addition, he took over a recently founded university psychiatric clinic, where all parts of the population were represented, but with whom he could communicate only in a rudimentary manner, as far as the non-German-speaking population groups were concerned. But how did the patients from such different language families manage to make themselves heard in the world of university clinics headed by mostly German-speaking physicians, especially in psychiatry, a discipline particularly dependent upon language? What translation processes were performed by whom over the working therapeutic day, and what were the effects of this partial loss of speech on clinical research? What opportunities resulted from precisely this multi-lingual situation in a contact zone between Western Europe and Russia for psychiatric science and practice? This paper attempts to provide some preliminary answers to these questions, using already known and newly discovered sources.

Die insbesondere von dem britischen Historiker Roy Porter ab 1985 eingeführte Medizingeschichte „von unten“ ist international und auch im deutschsprachigen Raum vielfältig aufgegriffen worden. Wir resümieren die Rezeption und Umsetzung des Ansatzes in der deutschsprachigen Psychiatriegeschichtsschreibung, analysieren die disziplinäre Genese des Arbeitsfelds, präsentieren ein beschreibendes Review zum Stand der Forschung und zeigen anhand von drei Beispielen die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Arbeit mit Selbstzeugnissen, Krankenakten und Bildquellen. Abschließend skizzieren wir eine neue Option zur Weiterentwicklung des Ansatzes als „Psychiatrie-Erfahrungsgeschichte“ im Anschluss an die Prinzipien der Inklusion und Partizipation. The concept of writing medical history “from below” - especially introduced by the British historian Roy Porter in 1985 - has since been adopted by scholars and researchers around the world, including the German-speaking countries. Our article reviews both the reception and implementation of this approach in the German-speaking historiography of psychiatry. We analyze the disciplinary genesis of this field of work, present the major research themes and give three examples to illustrate the use of personal narratives, patient files and visual arts. We will then outline a new option to further develop the approach in the sense of a “social history of user experience” drawing on the principles of inclusion and participation.

Triggered by reports of drug trials on minors in homes and medical facilities, the Directory Board of the von Bodelschwingh Foundation Bethel commissioned an investigation into whether Bethel carried out drug trials on minors and whether the legal framework was observed. Between 1949 and 1975, 2741 minors were cared for in the long-term care at Bethel for longer than six months. From this, a representative random sample of 256 patients was drawn for the study and their records were analyzed in detail. In 44 patients (16.6%), antiepileptic drugs were tested a total of 55 times. 28 psychopharmacological drugs were tested on 23 patients (8.7%). Overall, drug tests were carried out on 23.8% of the patients, particularly frequently in the years 1955 to 1966. During this period, approximately one-third of long-term care patients were treated with investigational drugs. Although there was extensive correspondence with the caregivers on many other medical and pedagogical issues in the records, in no case a written informed consent or written information regarding the drug tests was found. It can be assumed, and in some cases can traced back to the records, that the families were informed about the use of investigational drugs over the course. However, it can be assumed that most parents were neither informed about the treatment in advance nor that their written consent was obtained, although this would have been required under the legal and ethical rules in force at the time. The use of investigational drugs on minors was thus handled in Bethel in the same way as in other facilities. In Bethel, as an increasingly recognized epilepsy research centre, the focus on the testing of antiepileptic drugs was to an unprecedented extent.

Die Forschung zur Psychiatrie im Nationalsozialismus hat sich zu einem großen Teil auf die Medizinverbrechen der Zwangssterilisation und der Patient*innenmorde konzentriert. Deutlich weniger Aufmerksamkeit erhielten die im psychiatrischen Alltag durchgeführten Therapien und die Beurteilungen ihrer Erfolge. Letztere führten im psychiatrischen „Normalbetrieb“ auch unter den Bedingungen des Nationalsozialismus zu Entlassungen oder zu Verlegungen innerhalb der oder zwischen den Institutionen der Versorgung. Sie konnten aber im negativen Fall auch tödliche Konsequenzen für die Patient*innen haben. Insofern ist es relevant, was Psychiater in dieser Zeit unter „Heilung“ und „Remission“ verstanden, wie und in welchen Abstufungen sie die Beurteilung der Erfolge ihrer Behandlungen auch hinsichtlich der neueren, intensiven somatischen Therapiemaßnahmen und der Arbeitstherapie vornahmen. Diesen Fragen geht der Beitrag im Sinne einer Fallstudie am Beispiel der Universitätspsychiater Gottfried Ewald und Carl Schneider nach, die Lehrbücher verfassten und für ihre unterschiedliche Haltung zu den Patient*innenmorden bekannt sind. Research on psychiatry under National Socialism has largely focused on the medical crimes of compulsory sterilisation and patient killings. The therapies carried out in everyday psychiatric work and the assessments of their success received significantly less attention. Even under the conditions of National Socialism, the assessments of therapeutic success led to dismissals or transfers within or between institutions as a part of the “normal” psychiatric practice. In the negative case, however, these assessments could also have fatal consequences for the patients. In this respect, it is relevant what psychiatrists understood by “healing” and “remission” during this period, how and in what gradations they assessed the success of their treatments - also with regard to the more recent, intensive somatic therapy measures and occupational therapy. The article explores these questions as a case study using the examples of the university psychiatrists Gottfried Ewald and Carl Schneider, who wrote both textbooks and are known for their different attitudes towards patient killings.

Die Forschung zur Psychiatrie im Nationalsozialismus hat sich zu einem großen Teil auf die Medizinverbrechen der Zwangssterilisation und der Patient*innenmorde konzentriert. Deutlich weniger Aufmerksamkeit erhielten die im psychiatrischen Alltag durchgeführten Therapien und die Beurteilungen ihrer Erfolge. Letztere führten im psychiatrischen „Normalbetrieb“ auch unter den Bedingungen des Nationalsozialismus zu Entlassungen oder zu Verlegungen innerhalb der oder zwischen den Institutionen der Versorgung. Sie konnten aber im negativen Fall auch tödliche Konsequenzen für die Patient*innen haben. Insofern ist es relevant, was Psychiater in dieser Zeit unter „Heilung“ und „Remission“ verstanden, wie und in welchen Abstufungen sie die Beurteilung der Erfolge ihrer Behandlungen auch hinsichtlich der neueren, intensiven somatischen Therapiemaßnahmen und der Arbeitstherapie vornahmen. Diesen Fragen geht der Beitrag im Sinne einer Fallstudie am Beispiel der Universitätspsychiater Gottfried Ewald und Carl Schneider nach, die Lehrbücher verfassten und für ihre unterschiedliche Haltung zu den Patient*innenmorden bekannt sind. Research on psychiatry under National Socialism has largely focused on the medical crimes of compulsory sterilisation and patient killings. The therapies carried out in everyday psychiatric work and the assessments of their success received significantly less attention. Even under the conditions of National Socialism, the assessments of therapeutic success led to dismissals or transfers within or between institutions as a part of the “normal” psychiatric practice. In the negative case, however, these assessments could also have fatal consequences for the patients. In this respect, it is relevant what psychiatrists understood by “healing” and “remission” during this period, how and in what gradations they assessed the success of their treatments - also with regard to the more recent, intensive somatic therapy measures and occupational therapy. The article explores these questions as a case study using the examples of the university psychiatrists Gottfried Ewald and Carl Schneider, who wrote both textbooks and are known for their different attitudes towards patient killings.

Die NS-Zeit und ihre Auswirkungen auf Politik und Gesellschaft in den folgenden Jahrzehnten sind als Thema in der historischen Forschung nach wie vor außerordentlich präsent. Seit einiger Zeit reflektieren verstärkt auch autobiographische Texte aus unterschiedlichen Generationen die private und die politische Dimension familiärer Verbindungen zu NS-Tätern, Mitläufern, Zuschauern und Opfern. Das Öffentlich-Machen NS-spezifischer familiärer Verstrickungen ist dabei nicht selten von emotionalen Verwerfungen in den Familien oder kontrovers geführten (fach-) öffentlichen Debatten begleitet. Im Fach Medizingeschichte ist kürzlich die autobiografische Reflexion eines Wissenschaftlers erschienen, die unter anderem direkte Auswirkungen NS-spezifischer familiärer Konstellationen auf die historische Forschung selbst aufzeigt. Eine weitere Publikation - Reaktion auf den autobiographischen Text -, wird kritisch diskutiert und in den Kontext fortdauernder Debatten um die „unerledigte“ NS-Vergangenheit in der deutschen Gesellschaft gestellt. The period of National Socialism and its impact on post-war politics and society are a topic of sustained and intensive debates in historical research. For some time now, also autobiographical texts from several generations reflect on the private and political dimensions of family relations to Nazi perpetrators, followers, bystanders, and victims. Not infrequently, the public outspeaking on Nazi relations in families is accompanied by intra-family emotional upheavals or fierce public discussions. Recently, an autobiographical essay was published by a medical historian who - amongst other issues - reflected on the impact of Nazi-related familial configurations on historical research. A further publication, reacting to this autobiographical essay, is critically discussed and contextualized within debates on the continuing significance and impact of the Nazi past on German society.

Die NS-Zeit und ihre Auswirkungen auf Politik und Gesellschaft in den folgenden Jahrzehnten sind als Thema in der historischen Forschung nach wie vor außerordentlich präsent. Seit einiger Zeit reflektieren verstärkt auch autobiographische Texte aus unterschiedlichen Generationen die private und die politische Dimension familiärer Verbindungen zu NS-Tätern, Mitläufern, Zuschauern und Opfern. Das Öffentlich-Machen NS-spezifischer familiärer Verstrickungen ist dabei nicht selten von emotionalen Verwerfungen in den Familien oder kontrovers geführten (fach-) öffentlichen Debatten begleitet. Im Fach Medizingeschichte ist kürzlich die autobiografische Reflexion eines Wissenschaftlers erschienen, die unter anderem direkte Auswirkungen NS-spezifischer familiärer Konstellationen auf die historische Forschung selbst aufzeigt. Eine weitere Publikation - Reaktion auf den autobiographischen Text -, wird kritisch diskutiert und in den Kontext fortdauernder Debatten um die „unerledigte“ NS-Vergangenheit in der deutschen Gesellschaft gestellt. The period of National Socialism and its impact on post-war politics and society are a topic of sustained and intensive debates in historical research. For some time now, also autobiographical texts from several generations reflect on the private and political dimensions of family relations to Nazi perpetrators, followers, bystanders, and victims. Not infrequently, the public outspeaking on Nazi relations in families is accompanied by intra-family emotional upheavals or fierce public discussions. Recently, an autobiographical essay was published by a medical historian who - amongst other issues - reflected on the impact of Nazi-related familial configurations on historical research. A further publication, reacting to this autobiographical essay, is critically discussed and contextualized within debates on the continuing significance and impact of the Nazi past on German society.