Psychohistory

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Psychohistory is a transdisciplinary field of knowledge that represents an amalgam of psychology, history, psychoanalysis, political psychology, anthropology, ethnology, and related social sciences, art, and humanities.[1] Psychohistorians examine the "why's" of history, utilizing the bottom-up approach rather than starting with psychological theories. They combine the insights of psychodynamic psychology, especially psychoanalysis, with the research methodology of the social sciences and humanities, to understand the emotional origin of the behavior of individuals, groups and nations, past and present.

Psychohistorians are interested in examining one's childhood, personality, family dynamics, as well as dreams, overcoming adversity, creativity, group and political affiliations. No single consensus definition exists within the field. Jacques Szaluta describes it as "the application of psychology, in its broadest sense, or psychoanalysis in a specific sense, to the study of the past."[2] Henry Lawton[3] characterizes it as "the interdisciplinary study of why man has acted as he has in history, prominently utilizing psychoanalytic principles," and notes that the field "is essentially interpretive" rather than narrative. Peter Loewenberg[4] describes it as combining "historical analysis with social science models, humanistic sensibility, and psychodynamic theory and clinical insights to create a fuller, more rounded view of life in the past." Bruce Mazlish[5] defines it as "the application of psychoanalytic concepts and theories to historical data and the re-examination of the psychoanalytic concepts and data in the light of historical methods." Scholars differ on whether psychohistory constitutes a distinct academic discipline or an interpretive method within conventional historical research.

In his seminal book, "The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors," Paul Elovitz,[6] a "big tent" psychohistorian and "an Eriksonian participant-observer and scholar of this valuable movement" provided his assessment of the field of psychohistory through the lense of his experiences since the late 1960's. He stated that "Thoughtful people do psychohistory whether or not they realize it. Psychological assumptions underly any assessment - or even comment about - history, human interaction, and society. We humans want to know why things happen. These psychological assumptions underlying these speculations are seldom well thought out or developed. Thus, all historians do a type of psychohistory without realizing it."

History of the Field of Psychohistory

Rembrandt's painting of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen.22). Psychohistory holds that ritual child sacrifice once occurred in most cultures.

Precursors (1910s–1950s)

The application of psychoanalysis to historical figures began with Sigmund Freud and his circle. Freud's Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood (1910) was the first extended psychoanalytic study of a historical personality, and members of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society produced dozens of short studies of figures such as Napoleon, Shakespeare, Wagner, and Dante during the 1910s, many published in the journal Imago.[7] In 1913, the American Reformation historian Preserved Smith published "Luther's Early Development in the Light of Psycho-Analysis", an early example of a professional historian applying psychoanalytic concepts to a historical subject.[8][7] The New York neurologist and psychoanalyst L. Pierce Clark, who wrote psychoanalytic studies of figures including Lincoln[9] and Napoleon[10], was using the terms "psychohistory" and "psychobiography" by the 1920s.[11]

During the Second World War, the Office of Strategic Services commissioned the psychoanalyst Walter C. Langer to prepare a psychological study of Adolf Hitler, which predicted Hitler's suicide; it was later published as The Mind of Adolf Hitler (1972). After the war, the Central Intelligence Agency employed analysts to assess the psychology of foreign leaders.[12][13][14]

Emergence as a field (1957–1969)

In his 1957 presidential address to the American Historical Association, the Harvard diplomatic historian William L. Langer called the application of "dynamic psychology" to history the profession's "next assignment", arguing that the common-sense psychological interpretations of past historians were inadequate compared with psychodynamic knowledge.[15][16] The following year, the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson published Young Man Luther (1958), a study of Martin Luther that drew the attention of much of the academic community to the possibility of psychoanalytically informed history.[17][18] Later, in 1969, Erik Erikson published Gandhi's Truth: On The Origins of Militant Nonviolence. This book includes a substantial section on Gandhi's childhood, up to the time when he went to London to study law, which helps to understand Gandhi's character and the roots of his life's philosophy.

Academic historians and social scientists produced a wave of psychologically informed studies in the 1960s, most of them psychobiographies, including Bruce Mazlish's edited Psychoanalysis and History [19](1963), Rudolph Binion's Frau Lou: Nietzsche's Wayward Disciple (1968), Frank Manuel's A Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton (1968), and Arthur Mitzman's The Iron Cage (1969), a study of Max Weber.[16] The psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton published Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima (1968), which won the National Book Award; and in 1966, he and Erik H. Erikson founded the Group for the Study of Psychohistorical Process, an annual multi-day seminar held at his home in Wellfleet, Massachusetts. This group was sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and met until 2015, becoming the longest-running psychohistorical group.[20]

Institutionalization (1970s)

Psychohistory became an organized field in the United States during the 1970s. The Group for the Use of Psychology in History (GUPH), an affiliate of historians, was established in 1972 by historian Richard L. Schoenwald[21] who pioneered the formal application of psychology, specifically psychoanalysis, to historical research and biography. The Group met at the annual American Historical Association conferences until 1999; its newsletter developed into The Psychohistory Review (1972–1999).[22] In 1973, Lloyd deMause founded The History of Childhood Quarterly: The Journal of Psychohistory, renamed The Journal of Psychohistory in 1978; he also edited the anthology The History of Childhood (1974), established the Institute for Psychohistory (1975), and operated the Psychohistory Press.[22] The growth of the literature was rapid: one count found 12 psychohistorical dissertations, 65 books, and 150 articles produced in 1965–1969, rising to 65 dissertations, 122 books, and 428 articles in 1975–1979.[23]

The International Psychohistorical Association (IPhA; founded in 1977 and formerly abbreviated IPA) held its first annual conference in 1978.[24][25] The International Society for Political Psychology (ISPP), founded in the same period, launched the peer-reviewed journal Political Psychology in 1979 and became the largest and most international of the organizations applying psychology to public affairs.[22]

The organized field divided early. Within the first years of The Journal of Psychohistory, academics including John Demos, Peter Loewenberg, Elizabeth Marvick, Bruce Mazlish, and Edward Shorter withdrew from its editorial board, and most academic historians committed to the field distanced themselves from deMause's theoretical claims, which they regarded as too radical.[26] In 1982, Paul H. Elovitz and Henry Lawton founded the Psychohistory Forum, which began publishing the journal Clio's Psyche in 1994.[27]

Academic resistance and later developments

Despite the expansion of the 1970s, psychohistory did not become established in university history departments. The field organized during the academic jobs crisis of the 1970s, when history departments were contracting rather than hiring; Charles Strozier has reported that he was the only person hired in the United States specifically as a psychohistorian.[26] Erikson and Lifton, the two most prominent psychohistorians of the late 1960s, both opposed creating a separate academic discipline of psychohistory.[26] The Psychohistory Review ceased publication in 1999, the same period in which GUPH stopped meeting.[26] As academic history departments closed ranks against the field, its practitioners came increasingly from anthropology, literature, political science, social work, sociology, and especially clinical settings.[28]

Organized psychohistorical activity has continued through the IPhA, which holds annual conferences; the Psychohistory Forum and Clio's Psyche; The Journal of Psychohistory; and groups outside the United States, including the German Gesellschaft für Psychohistorie und Politische Psychologie (founded 1993).[29]

Areas of study

Psychohistorical research has concentrated in three related areas: psychobiography, the history of childhood, and the study of groups.[30]

Psychobiography

Psychobiography, the psychologically informed study of an individual life, has been the field's principal genre since Freud's study of Leonardo, and most of the works that drew academic attention to psychohistory in the 1950s and 1960s—including Erikson's studies of Luther and Gandhi—were psychobiographies.[16][18] Since the early 2000s, psychobiography has undergone a revival within academic psychology, marked by the publication of the Handbook of Psychobiography (2005) and a growing methodological literature.[31][32]

History of childhood

The history of childhood and child-rearing practices became a central psychohistorical concern in the 1970s, reflected in the original title of The Journal of Psychohistory and in deMause's anthology The History of Childhood (1974), which followed Philippe Ariès's Centuries of Childhood (1962) in treating childhood as a subject of historical change.[22][33] Researchers in this area study how family structure, parenting practices, and the treatment of children have varied across historical periods, and how childhood experience may shape adult behavior and social life.[30]

Group psychohistory

A third line of research applies psychological concepts to groups, including the relationship between leaders and followers, the psychology of war and ethnic conflict, and the transmission of trauma across generations. Representative work includes Lifton's studies of Hiroshima survivors and war veterans and Vamık Volkan's research on large-group identity and international conflict, such as The Need to Have Enemies and Allies (1988).[17] This area overlaps substantially with the academic field of political psychology.[22]

Status as a separate discipline

Practitioners have disagreed over whether psychohistory constitutes a separate discipline or a method available to existing ones. Erikson disliked the term "psychohistorian" and opposed creating a separate field; Lifton has described psychohistory as a method of inquiry rather than a discipline; and Peter Gay characterized his own work as history informed by psychoanalysis, rejecting what he called the historical reductionism of psychohistorians.[17][34] By contrast, deMause devoted his career to building psychohistory as an independent discipline with its own organizations, journal, and theoretical framework, a position Binion also favored.[17][34]

Reception among historians has ranged widely. Loewenberg called psychoanalysis the most powerful of interpretive approaches to history, while Jacques Barzun objected that in psychohistorical writing events and agents lose their individuality and become illustrations of psychological mechanisms.[35] Critics have questioned whether psychoanalytic interpretation of deceased subjects, who cannot be examined or respond, can be verified, and whether such interpretations are unavoidably subjective; defenders such as Loewenberg respond that the researcher's emotional reaction to the subject (countertransference) is itself part of a disciplined psychohistorical method, and that no two historians of any school produce identical interpretations of the same evidence.[36] Practitioners have also acknowledged weaknesses within the field: Elovitz writes that highly speculative and poorly researched psychobiographies have damaged its reputation, and that applying a psychiatric diagnosis to a historical figure is sometimes passed off as psychohistory rather than treated as a starting point for research.[30]

Organizations

The Association for Psychohistory[37] was founded by Lloyd deMause over 50 years ago. It had 19 branches around the globe and has published the Journal of Psychohistory since 1973.

The International Psychohistorical Association was also founded by Lloyd deMause, Paul Elovitz, and others in 1977 as a professional organization for the field of psychohistory. The association hosts an annual convention.[38] It also offers theme-based conferences[39] and publishes Psychohistory News[40].

The Psychohistory Forum, the interdisciplinary scholarly and professional non-profit organization, was founded in 1982 by historian and psychoanalyst Paul H. Elovitz, with Henry Lawton as a co-director. [41] The Psychohistory Forum focuses on the application of psychoanalytic and psychological concepts to the study of historical events, cultural phenomena, and individual lives. It operates at the intersection of psychoanalysis, history, and related fields including psychobiography, sociology, political science, pedagogy and developmental neuroscience. This organization of academics, therapists, and laypeople holds regular scholarly meetings in New York City and at international conventions. It also sponsors Psychobiography Reading Groups and the online discussion group. The Psychohistory Forum publishes the peer-reviewed quarterly journal Clio's Psyche since 1994.

The Gesellschaft fur Psychohistorie und Politische Psychologie e.V. (GPPP), the German organization for psychohistory, was founded in 1992 by Dr. Ludwig Janus and others to explore the intersection of psychology, perinatal psychology and medicine, history, and political science. The GPPP holds yearly conferences (in German) and publishes the Jahrbuch für Psychohistorische Forschung.[42]

Boston University offered the psychohistory courses at the undergraduate level from 2003 to 2006 by professor Anna Geifman, and has published course details.[43] As per Anna Geifman, psychohistorians should not only look for political and economic factors that lead to historical events; they should examine the unconscious motivations of individuals and groups.

Notable Psychohistorians

Lloyd deMause's Contributions to Psychohistory

Lloyd deMause, the field's most prominent organizer and the founder of the Institute for Psychohistory, developed a theory of "psychogenic modes" that is the framework most closely associated with psychohistory, although academic practitioners have regarded it as unrepresentative of the field as a whole.[44][45] deMause held that child-rearing has evolved through a succession of modes—which he termed infanticidal, abandoning, ambivalent, intrusive, socializing, and helping—each producing a distinct "psychoclass", or shared adult mentality that in turn shapes the child-rearing of the next generation.[46] On this account, historical change is driven chiefly by improvement in the treatment of children, so that societies advance only as new psychoclasses emerge from less abusive child-rearing.[46] He set out the scheme most fully in Foundations of Psychohistory (1982), and in The Emotional Life of Nations (2002) introduced the related concept of "group fantasy" as a mediating link between a psychoclass's collective childhood experience and its behaviour in politics, religion, and other areas of social life.[46][47]

deMause's psychogenic theory has been contested within psychohistory and among historians outside it. Academic historians associated with the field withdrew from the editorial board of The Journal of Psychohistory in its early years and distanced themselves from his theoretical claims, which they regarded as too radical.[45] Fellow psychohistorians have described his broader theories as too speculative and reductionist to gain acceptance among most academics and clinicians, and his "helping mode" as a utopian ideal rather than a practical model of parenting.[48] The six psychogenic modes, the childrearing timeline deMause associated with them, and the group-fantasy concept are described in detail in the article on Lloyd deMause.

Criticisms

There are no departments dedicated to "psychohistory" in any institution of higher learning, although some history departments have run courses in it. Psychohistory remains a controversial field of study, facing criticism in the academic community,[49][50][51][52] with critics referring to it as a pseudoscience.[53] Psychohistory uses a plurality of methodologies, and it is difficult to determine which is appropriate to use in each circumstance. Yet this "plurality" is quite circumscribed.

In 1973, historian Hugh A. Trevor-Roper dismissed the field of psychohistory entirely in response to the publication of Walter Langer's The Mind of Adolf Hitler. He contended that psychohistory's methodology rested "on a defective philosophy" and was "vitiated by a defective method."[54][55] Instead of using historical evidence to derive historical interpretations, Trevor-Roper contended that "psycho-historians move in the opposite direction. They deduce their facts from their theories; and this means, in effect, that facts are at the mercy of theory, selected and valued according to their consistence with theory, even invented to support theory."[54][55]

DeMause has received criticism on several levels. His formulations have been criticized for being insufficiently supported by credible research.[56] He has also received criticism for being a strong proponent of the "black legend" view of childhood history (i.e. that the history of childhood was above all a history of progress, with children being far more often badly mistreated in the past).[57] Similarly, his work has been called a history of child abuse, not childhood.[58] The grim perspective of childhood history is known from other sources, e.g. Edward Shorter's The Making of the Modern Family and Lawrence Stone's The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800. However, deMause received criticism for his repeated, detailed descriptions on childhood atrocities:[59]

The reader is doubtless already familiar with examples of these psychohistorical "abuses." There is a significant difference, however, between the well-meaning and serious, if perhaps simplistic and reductionistic, attempt to understand the psychological in history and the psychohistorical expose that can at times verge on historical pornography. For examples of the more frivolous and distasteful sort of psychohistory, see Journal of Psychohistory. For more serious and scholarly attempts to understand the psychological dimension of the past, see The Psychohistory Review.

Recent psychohistory has also been criticized for being overly-entangled with DeMause, whose theories are not representative of the entire field.[60]

See also

References

  1. Elovitz, Paul H. (2013). Psychohistory for the Twenty-First Century. pp. 1–3.. Note that there are varying definitions by accomplished and often distinguished psychohistorians such as Peter Loewenberg (UCLA), Charles B. Strozier (CUNY Graduate School), George Kren (Kansas State University), Bruce Mazlish (MIT), Paul Roazen (York University--Canada), J. Donald Hughes (University of Denver), Vamik Volkan (University of Virginia Medical School), Henry Lawton (Author of The Psychohistorians Handbook, 1988), Jacques Szaluta (US Merchant Marine Academy) and others.
  2. Szaluta, Jacques, Psychohistory: Theory and Practice, Publisher Peter Lang, ISBN 0-8204-1741-6 (1999)
  3. Lawton, Henry W., The Psychohistorian's Handbook, New York: Psychohistory Press, ISBN 0-914434-27-6 (1989)
  4. Loewenberg, Peter, Decoding the Past: The Psychohistorical Approach, Transaction Pub, ISBN 1-56000-846-6 (2002)
  5. Mazlish, Bruce (1990). The leader, the led, and the psyche: essays in psychohistory. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press [u.a.] ISBN 978-0-8195-5220-4.
  6. Elovitz, Paul H. The making of psychohistory: origins, controversies, and pioneering contributors. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-58748-9.
  7. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. pp. 14–15. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  8. Smith, Preserved (1913). "Luther's Early Development in the Light of Psycho-Analysis". The American Journal of Psychology. 24 (3): 360–377.
  9. Clark, L. Pierce, ""I accept.."", Lincoln: A psycho-biography., New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 233–253, retrieved 2026-06-15
  10. "Napoleon: Self-Destroyed by CLARK, Pierce: Very Good Hardcover (1929) | Between the Covers-Rare Books, Inc. ABAA". www.abebooks.com. Retrieved 2026-06-15.
  11. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. pp. 15–16. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  12. Dyson, Stephen Benedict; Duelfer, Charles A. (2020-10-01). "Assessing How the U.S. Intelligence Community Analyzes Foreign Leaders". International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence. 33 (4): 768–796. doi:10.1080/08850607.2020.1733544. ISSN 0885-0607.
  13. Dekleva, Kenneth B. (2018-10-27). "Leadership Analysis and Political Psychology in the 21st Century". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 46 (3): 359–363. doi:10.29158/JAAPL.003771-18. ISSN 1093-6793.
  14. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. pp. 18–19. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  15. Langer, William L. (1958). "The Next Assignment". The American Historical Review. 63 (2): 283–304. doi:10.2307/1849504.
  16. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  17. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  18. Green, Anna; Troup, Kathleen, eds. (1999). The Houses of History: A Critical Reader in Twentieth-Century History and Theory. Manchester University Press. pp. 59–69. ISBN 978-0-7190-5255-6. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
  19. Mazlish, Bruce, ed. (1971). Psychoanalysis and history. Grosset's universal library (Revised ed.). New York: Universal Library. ISBN 978-0-448-00250-7.
  20. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. pp. 12, 45–46. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  21. "Elovitz, P. H. (1995). In memoriam: Richard L. Schoenwald (1927-1995) [Memorial]. Clio's Psyche, 2(3), 72". Clio's Psyche. doi:10.70763/5648d7fb4f1ea9a69fd10fccacd7d007. Retrieved 2026-06-15.
  22. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. pp. 11–13. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  23. Runyan, William McKinley (2003). "From the Study of Lives and Psychohistory to Historicizing Psychology: A Conceptual Journey". The Annual of Psychoanalysis. 31: 126.
  24. Tileagă, Cristian; Byford, Jovan, eds. (2014). Psychology and History: Interdisciplinary Explorations. Cambridge University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-1-107-03431-4. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
  25. Elovitz, Paul H. (2024). "My Psychohistorical Passion and Involvement in the IPhA". Psychohistory News. 43 (3): 4.
  26. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. p. 25. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  27. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. pp. 24–25. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  28. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. pp. 24–26. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  29. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  30. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  31. Schultz, William Todd, ed. (2005). Handbook of Psychobiography. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516827-3.
  32. Kőváry, Zoltán (2011). "Psychobiography as a Method: The Revival of Studying Lives". Europe's Journal of Psychology. 7 (4): 739–777. doi:10.5964/ejop.v7i4.162.
  33. Elovitz, Paul H., ed. (2021). The Many Roads of the Builders of Psychohistory. ORI Academic Press. pp. 62–63. ISBN 978-1-7344058-9-9. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
  34. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. p. 62. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  35. Green, Anna; Troup, Kathleen, eds. (1999). The Houses of History: A Critical Reader in Twentieth-Century History and Theory. Manchester University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-7190-5255-6. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
  36. Green, Anna; Troup, Kathleen, eds. (1999). The Houses of History: A Critical Reader in Twentieth-Century History and Theory. Manchester University Press. pp. 66–67. ISBN 978-0-7190-5255-6. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
  37. "The Association for Psychohistory".
  38. "Conference and Membership".
  39. "Events - INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOHISTORICAL ASSOCIATION". Retrieved 2026-05-11.
  40. "NEWSLETTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOHISTORICAL ASSOCIATION - INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOHISTORICAL ASSOCIATION". Retrieved 2026-05-11.
  41. "Home - Psychohistory Forum". Retrieved 2026-05-11.
  42. "Gesellschaft für Psychohistorie und Politische Psychologie |" (in German). Retrieved 2026-05-11.
  43. Boston University has a Psychohistory Course. See and CAS HI 503 at Archived 2008-04-09 at the Wayback Machine
  44. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. pp. 47, 51. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  45. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. p. 25. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  46. deMause, Lloyd (1982). Foundations of Psychohistory. New York: Creative Roots. pp. 132–146. ISBN 0-940508-01-X.
  47. deMause, Lloyd (2002). The Emotional Life of Nations. New York: Other Press. pp. 104–109. ISBN 1-892746-98-0.
  48. Elovitz, Paul H. (2018). The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors. Routledge. pp. 51, 94–95. ISBN 978-1-138-58749-6.
  49. deMause, Lloyd (1988). "On Writing Childhood History". Journal of Psychohistory. 16 (2 Fall).
  50. Stannard, David E. (1982). Shrinking History: On Freud and the Failure of Psychohistory. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-503044-3.
  51. Pomper, Philip (1973). "Problems of a Naturalistic Psychohistory". History and Theory. 12 (4): 367–388. doi:10.2307/2504699. JSTOR 2504699.
  52. Paul, Robert A. (1982). "Review of Lloyd deMause's Foundations of Psychohistory". Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology. 5: 469.
  53. Hunt, Lynn (2002). "Psychology, Pschoanalysis and Historical Thought -The Misfortunes of Psychohistory". In Kramer Lloyd S. and Maza, Sarah C. (ed.). A Companion to Western Historical Thought. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 337–357. ISBN 0-631-21714-2.
  54. Trevor-Roper, Hugh (February 18, 1973). "Re-inventing Hitler". The Arts. The Sunday Times. p. 35.
  55. Shepherd, Michael (1978). "Clio and Psyche: the lessons of psychohistory". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 71 (6): 406–412. doi:10.1177/014107687807100604. PMC 1436484. PMID 359805.
  56. Demos, John (1986). "Child Abuse in Context: An Historian's Perspective". Past, Present and Personal: The Family and The Life Course in American History. NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 68–91.
  57. Aries, Philippe (1975). "De l'enfant roi a l'enfant martyr". Revue Psychologie. 68: 6.
  58. Heywood, Colin (2001). A History of Childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 41.
  59. Kohut, Thomas A. (1986). "Psychohistory as History". The American Historical Review. 91 (2): 336–354. doi:10.2307/1858137. JSTOR 1858137. PMID 11611943.
  60. Comtois, Marc. "Historical Sources On Line - A weblography of Historical Sources on the Internet". Archived from the original on March 12, 2008.

Sources