Abstract
Historian Barzun turns his critical artillery on "psychohistory," that attempt to use modern psychiatric insights as a major tool in historical research. I must confess my own personal delight with Professor Barzun's utterly devastating barrage, for the studies perpetrated by psychohistorians—some of them quite respectable scholars, other far-from-scholarly—I have found for the most part repulsive rather than attractive. And I am happy to find myself in such good company as Dr. Barzun. His analogous attack on "quantitative" history—the reliance on quantification as the major evidence for historical subjects—does not have quite the same devastation but serves as a potent and welcome corrective to a contemporary trend that is going to excesses. In between his strictures and his criticisms, Barzun provides many fine comments and obiter dicta on the nature of history and historical writing, its purposes, methods, and limitations. These ideas may stir considerable controversy among professional historians. The book
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
