Read the essay here: Historical discourse as the denial of psychopathology
HISTORY AS PSYCHOSIS: On November 18, 1978 in Guyana, 900 men, women and children perished after drinking grape Kool-Aid mixed with poison. Papers analyzing the last days of Jim Jones and Jonestown write of a “psychotic fantasy of masochistic group death,” “revolutionary suicide,” and “mass madness.”
In the last year of the Second World War (1945), 900 Germans died every two hours, every day, for four consecutive months. Yet (apart from my own analyses), I’ve never heard terms like “psychotic fantasy,” “masochistic group death,” “revolutionary suicide,” or “mass madness” applied to the Nazi case. Clearly these terms are appropriate.
Why does the discourse of “history” refuse to use these terms? Why do historians shy away from conceiving historical events as massive forms of psychopathology? Historical discourse functions to create a space of reality in which nothing is conceived as abnormal.
Within the domain of “history,” shooting and bombing, murdering and mutilating human beings—is considered normative.
Why have human beings created such a space—where bizarre and massively destructive forms of behavior—are deemed normal and normative?
READ THE ESSAY: Why have human beings created a space—where bizarre and massively destructive forms of behavior—are deemed normal and normative?
Read the essay here: Historical discourse as the denial of psychopathology