Bandy Lee writes about shared psychosis, which she calls "folie a millions" or "madness for millions."

What occurs at the national level ("induced delusions"), she says, refers to the "infectiousness of severe symptoms" that go beyond ordinary group psychology.

Lee observes that when a "highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position," this person's symptoms can spread through the population "through emotional bonds."

This heightening  of existing pathologies induces
"delusions, paranoia and the propensity for violence"--even in previous healthy individuals."

This is an excellent description of what is occurring on the American political scene today.  

But please re-read the passages above: Don't Bandy Lee's words describe other individuals that were in influential positions during the 20th Century--leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein?

May we not say--then--that it is appropriate tocharacterized many episodes of 20th century political history as manifestation of a shared psychosis?

I'm curious about the reflections of the great historians and social scientists who have been reading the Library of Social Science Newsletter for so many years.

Men and women like:

Is it appropriate to characterize many episodes of 20th Century History as manifestations of a shared psychosis?

Richard Koenigsberg