-\

a ___--.--->

i 2 s 2000
APR
DEPARTMENJOFHISTORY
OF VICTORIA
TJT.SVERSITY

Lloyd deMause:a GiantamongstDwaryes.

By PatrickHalston

For PeterBaskerville- anotherGiant (Ogre?)

 WARNING!

This documentis for PeterBaskerville'seyesonly! If you be a nosyhistorianfrom the future

who thinks I am for somereasonnot talkingto you, please,think again- it is your cursedkind I
havespecificallynmind with this warning(honestly,I hadhopedyour professionhadbeen
reducedto a subdiscipline anthropology).I don't careif this paperdoesn'thave
of psychological
legalprotections,or if so manyyearshavepassedthat you chooseto view everythingI saidas
beingculturallyconstructed- asif d am somekind of it! And pleasedon't try andexcusefirther
probinginto this documentbecauseI am unawareof your probings.First off, do you go through
your childrens'diariesif youknowyour snoopingwouldgo undetected? Oh, you wouldthough,
wouldn't you. Secondly,evenif a thousandyearshavepassedsinceI wrote (typed)this, I may
yet be witnessto your snooping.If I am in heaven,I'll crosstown andpersuadethe devil to
createa new tenthlevel to his tenementhousing- createdespeciallyfor you. You may get me
now, but she'll getyou in the end(readdeMauseto understand why the devil is a female).
Consider yourselfwarned,heathens!

/
4.44)t':;
PatrickHalston
Right then,foreveryonebut Peter,its eternaldamnationfor you.
 1

'othestudyof pastevents,
Accordingto the Oxford Dictionaryof CurrentEnglish,historyis
especiallyhumanaffairs." Lloyd deMausebelievesthat sincehistoryinvolvesthe studyof
the pastshouldfirst undertakea studyof human
humansthat anyoneseekingto understand
nature. To deMause,withoutthis study,the disciplineof historyshouldaim to do little more
thanto presenta casethat certainthingsdid happen,or that certainpeopledid exist - including
whenandwhere. Explainingwhythe pastwasasit was,accordingto deMause,shouldnot be
attempteduntil historianseitherprovethat humanbeingsplay no activepart in shapingthe
world they inhabit, or thatthey do, but that the extensivestudyof humanpsychologyis not
necessary to understandhumanmotivations,or, finally, to agreethat humanpsychologycannot
be intuitedbut provethat it is so unpredictablymalleablethat extrapolationsfrom a studyof a
certaingroupof peopleliving in a certaintime towardconclusionsaboutall peoplethroughout
time areactsof intellectual imperialoverreach.Attemptshavebeenmadeby historiansfrom
variousschoolsto proveeachof thesepossibilities- especiallythe latter- but to deMause,the
psychology,of neuroscience,
disciplineof developmental of clinicalpsychology prove thathomo

sapiensarepredictable,activeagentswho construct"societies"(groups)which vary primarily

accordingto the absenceor presenceof "love" givenby primarycaregivers(usuallymothers)to
their children. Specifickinds of childhoodsproducespecifickindsof adultswho construct
-
specifickinds of humanenvironments.Thehistorian- andcritic of deMause David Stannard,
hasagreedthat if this ideais correct,the implicationsarevery great: the pastressof human
affairswould deservelessattentionthanthe fact thatthesewerehumanaffairs:the pastwould in
a meaningfulway ceaseto be a "foreigncountry."
The ideaof history asa "foreign country"meansthat the pastis so differentfrom the present
asto its naturemustbe modestonesi.e.,not dogmatic.It is a conceptionof the
that conclusions
pastthat one is naturallyleadto if oneacceptsPeterNovick's complaintthat, contraryto the
-
Oxford dictionarypreviouslycited,history is not the studyof pastevents,but of artifacts
'opastness" into a
sources- existingin the present.The studyof the pastdefinedthis way makes
barrierof formidableproportions.Neverallowingthe historianto makeconclusions,or create
narrativesbeyondwhat the sourcesallow, this sortof historymakesa tecteationof the pasta
 2

historian's fantasy;ultimately, the past becomesunknowable.

But one can only reach this conclusion if one acceptsa conception of human affairs as
variable, and unpredictable,so that the recreationof a contexl for human affairs becomes
paramount to properly understandinghuman activity. If human beings are predictable, and if the

context - "society" - is apredictable outcomeof human nature,then a completereplication of the

past, "making the past come to life", may not be as necessaryan undertaking in order to

understandit. Rather the emphasiswould be on an understandingon universal laws for human

behavior - an undertaking akin to astronomer'smapping of the galaxybasedon the reception of

light after millions of yearsof travel. Time, and/orphysical distanceis a problem. Evidencemay

be distorted or unavailable; but theseare problems which becomesurmountablebecauseof the

predictability of both physical and human nature.
But the comparison with astronomy or physics works better with models of the past that
posit an essentiallyunchanginghuman nature through time. Norbert Elias, for example, accepts

the premise that since human sapiensare predictable, so long as one unlocks the puzzle as to
why an unchangingbiological specieshas createdsuch enoflnousvarieties of cultural forms, one

may not need to know everything about the past in order to understandit. Given a few key

clues, one could intuit the rest, with specific details less important than general forms i.e, this
culture has kings is far more vital a discovery than knowing the namesof thesekings. Elias's

humansare like carbon atoms: essentiallyunchanging,but can be combined into various

formations of varying complexity to produce a structurewhich emphasizescertain specific

potential qualities of the individual carbon atoms over others.

DeMause's conceptionof history is more akin to evolutionarybiology. He believesthat

-
homo sapienshave remained the sameonly genetically, but phenotypically the expressionof

the genesinto their adult form - homo sapienshave enonnouspotential for variance, and for
evolution. Thus deMausereswrectsthe ghostsof evolutionarytheoriesof people like Hegel or
Hempel. Societies vary becausepeople changethrough time, in a direction which is fairly
consideredprogressive: it involves the developmentof a human capacityfor empathy,
sympathy - love.
 3

The individualjourney from genotypeto phenotypeis what deMauseunderstands

childhood
andsocietal
to be, andthusit is childhoodwhich ultimatelydeterminesadultcharacteristics,
forms. The mannerin which a child is raised,if sharedby the majorityof membersof a group,
will determinethesesocietalforms. DeMausebelievesthatthis conceptionof socialformationis
differentfrom that typically offeredin sociologyandanthropologyby beingbaseduponthe
anti-holisticphilosophyof methodologicalindividualism.No groupis allowedan entity over and
areentirelyexplainedby
beyondits individualconstituents.Insteadall groupprocesses
psychologicallawsgoverningmotivationandbehaviorof individualsandthedescriptionsof their
currentphysicalhistoricalsituation,which itself is only the outcomeof prior motivationsacting
on physicalreality.
The seed,then,of all history,accordingto deMause,is childhood. DeMauseclearlybelieves
that modernsciencemakesthis claim inefutable. Thepsychologiststhat deMausecites,by and
large, agreewith him on the importanceof childhood- especiallythatthe absenceor presenceor
degreeof empathytowardsthe child by its caregiversdo determineadultcharacteristics.But to
is a claim deMausemakes
saythat specificchildhoodsresultin specificadultcharacteristics
which seemsto go beyondwhatthesepsychologistssay. Instead,in the averagedevelopmental
like "without empathy,childrenoften grow up to
psychologytextbookyou will find statements
be withdrawnadults". An exampleof what deMausepresentsus with is:
Childrenwhosemothersswaddledthemandwere"not there"emotionallycouldnot as
adultsmaintainobjectconsistency andgrewup paranoid,imagining"enemies"everywhere.
Childrenwhosemothersregularlydid not feedthemin a timely fashionexperienced the
world asmalevolentlywittrholding. Childrenwhosemothersrejectedthemwith depressive
silenceexperienced peacefulinternationalperiodsasthreatening.Childrenwhosemothers
dominatedthemandwho wereengulfingoftenchoosetotalitarianpolitical leaders.Children
whosemothersweresoneedythey describetheir childrenas"born selfishanddemanding"
andor who sawthemas"angry sincebirth" experienced othernationsasdemandingtoo
muchor asangry"bad babies." Childrenwhosemotherusedthemasantidepressants chose
manic,oftenviolent leadersto countertheir own depression.And motherswho ridiculed
andhumiliatedtheir childrenwhenevertheir activitiesdidn't coincidewith her own were
experiencedin the internationalsphereaspoisoncontainersof intolerableridiculeand
shame-asin "the shameof Versailles."
 4

with the sort

To date,to the bestof my knowledge,deMausehasnot backedup thesestatements
he hasprovidedfor certaineffectsof traumaon children
of detailedexploration,andreferences,
like "growth panic" and"identificationwith the persecutor."He will probablydo so,perhapsin
the remainingchaptersof his new book ChildhoodandHistory yet to be completed,but without
$
his claimthathis theoriesarebackedby psychologicaldiscoverieswe might
them,accompanying
add- yes,to someextent. But fornow, perhapshistoriansaxejustified if they viewoanddismiss,
deMause'stheoriesasan exampleof intellectualoverreach.
the ambitiousnatureof his work,
Or perhapsnot. Twentyyears&go,deMauseacknowledged
quotingNovalis:.otheorieSarenets:onlyhewhocastswil1catch''(deMause,@
Psychohistory)But twenty yearsagoit was still possiblefor critics like David Stannardto claim
that thereis no provenlink betweenchildhoodandadultcharacteristics.Today,it is still
psychologytextbooks,but more likely than
possibleto find this point of view in developmental
not presentedasa lonely,conftoversial,dissentingvoicedf.whichall evidencepresented
throughoutthe textbookdisagrees with. Justlike somescientistsstill believethat smokingis not
linked to cancer,it is now a barelyrespectable - perhapsevenfantastical- point of view; a

portion,of deMause's"fairy taleworld" (Stannard,xvii) hasbecomemundaneacceptable

intellectualtruth. Stannardclaimedto be "not at all opposedto open(andadmitted)speculation
in the writing of history" (xiv) purportedlybelievingthat" [a]fter all, someof the most
in moderntimeshavederivedfrom the examinationand
importanthistoricaladvances
(xiv). If he meantwhathe said,andif other
of whatbeganasbold speculations"
reexamination
historianswho readhis analysisof psychohistoryagreedwith him here,currentpsychological
discoverieswarant their reexaminationandexplorationof deMause'stheories- which began,
but which arefinding moreandmoresupport,andechoes,
andstill remain,bold speculations,
from a varietyof disciplines,someof themquiteunexpected.
For example,evenfrom sociology,a disciplinewhich deMausebelieveshashada historyof
ignoringhumanpsychology,we arenow finding statementslike this: "the kind of humanbeing

we becomedependsgreatlyon the particularsocietyandsocialgroupthat surroundus at birth

added). Thetextbook's
andduringearlychildhood'(Sociologyin Our Times,102,emphasis
 5

emphasison society and social group are well within sociological tradition, but the dogmatic

assertionof the importanceof early childhood is not. This sametextbook goeson to say

somethingwhich soundsstrikingly like deMausein emphasizingspecific qualities resulting from

specific childhoods:"children whoseneedsare met in settingscharacterizedby affection,

warmth, and closenessseethe world as a safe and comfortable place and other people as
trustworthy and helpful. By contrast, infants and children who receive less-than-adequatecare
or who are emotionally rejected or abusedoften view the world as hostile and have feelings of

suspicionand fear"(I 04).

What is still missing from disciplineslike psychologyand sociology is the claim that

childhood determinessocietalforms, but it seemsincreasinglylikely, notably for psychology,

that the reason for this is that the discipline "does not go there" - rather than the idea itself being

a fantasticalone. Indeed,in the reasonablynew discipline of psychologicalanthropologythere

are explorationsof this idea. It is also suggestivethat in the two pagesdevotedto history in a
psychology textbook we get this statement:"In the early days of recordedhistory, children had

few if any rights, and their lives were not always valued by their elders. Archeological research,

for example,has shown that the ancient Carthaginiansoften killed children as religious sacrifices
'strengthen'thesestructures"(Shaffer,T). What
and embeddedthem in the walls of buildings to
is missing here is a statementthat thesepracticeswere necessarilyrational ones,i.e., harsh,but
-
somehownecessarypractices,conductedby adults for the purposeof group survival possibly
becausethe discipline of psychologyimaginesother possiblemotivations for adult behavior. The

result is a presentationof a social practicewith pathologicalovertones,presentedin such a way

that it is not much of stretch to intuit a direct link betweennot being valued as children, and
particularreligious and socialpractices.

So if historians decide to ignore the importanceof childhood - a discovery Stannardbelieved

oogreat"
- is it fair to assumethat this is becausehistory is anotherdiscipline which
would be
,.doesnot go there"? As mentioned,there are ways in which deMausegoesbeyond what current

psychological opinion allows, and thesecouldp otentially be made into imposing ba:riers for the

investigationof deMause'stheoriesinto history. The wide spreadagreementconcerningthe

,t\
 6

importance of love in childhood is not (yet) matchedby a similar agreementthat certain forms of

child rearing are related to varying degreesof love towards the child. So historians could make the
remotenessof the past into a barrier which would make qualitative judgements as to the value of

children at any given time seemingly impossibleto make. Discovering that children were

swaddledmay be a reasonablyeasyhistorical discovery;but that they were or were not loved?

To which deMausewould reply that argumentsthat say, for example,that swaddling in one

culture may be a sign of abuse,but in others merely a way to keep babies warrn, are merely signs

of academicdenial. When you have psychologicallytrained ethnographersvisit these"happy"

babiesthey seeconsistentsigns of neglect. Do historiansface the sameproblem that deMause
believesfaces academicopinion today?: if swaddling,killing, or the sexualuse of children is

always a sign of neglect,then, suddenly,the "west" ceasesto be the world's great evil. DeMause
would say that until enough academicsoutgrow their need to attack anything which resembles

anything a Christian republican, or conservativemight approve of some psychologists will

continue to advocatethe pleasuresof pedophilia (for example) as an imagined way of humiliating
those who once humiliated them or others they care about. Will historians begin to explore

deMause's theories at the sametime that we finally decide that: no, htxfiing whales is not simply

a cultural practice; it is cruel in the sameway that the cultural practice of slavery is cruel, or that

the confinement of women within the patriarchical family is cruel? Maybe not: it requires even

more couragethan this: deMause'stheoriesneuterthe "potency" of historical knowledge, and

historians' prestige.

If deMause'stheoriesare coffect, the claim that the human past needsto be studiedas a

sourceof wisdom needsto be qualified somewhat. We could still learn from our past, but rather

this being the qualities neededto createa civilized society lest we return to barbarism, we would

J,.
learn to be wise to the fact that our past is a nightmare we arejust waking up from. Far more
important to creating a"good society" would be to apply our efforts to assistfamilies in need.
History would still be an intellectual adventureof praiseworthyproportions, but not necessarily
-
more importantthan explorationsof virtual worlds onthe computer especiallyif thesevirtual
worlds were specifically designedto encourageintellectual growth.
 7

Yes, history is our past, but if "happy people don't start wars", if the future of our species

has everything to do with our temperament,then the discipline whose truths are most essential is

of coursepsychology,and not history. What ought to concernall thosewith genuineconcerns

for our futtne is not that our kids doni,t know history and require higher standards,but that kids

now go to schoolsthat seemlike prisons, and are told that becausewe live in a competitive global
environment with winners and losersthat there is little room for fun in childhood anymore. With
environmentslike these,apocalypsesseemto promise arelease from suffering - lecfureson the

evils of world wars not withstanding. The fact that movies like Titanic or Saving Private Ryan
were so popular is not a sign that the popular appetite for history is very large, but that too

many people are drawn to movies containing an astonishingamount of suffering and death. Lei ,'

us pleaseremember that Newt Gingrich, the man who would strip a cotrntry of its social
programs, is a historian. Not much praiseworthy in a life spent in conversation with so many

greatdead minds, while working to destroy the creation of new ones.

In lieu of a standardconclusion I would like to end with an apology, and a cartoon (which

doeshave conclusive-like overtones). First the apology: Sorry Peter,this isn't my best work.
pleasedon't take it as any kind of a statementregardingyour course- it isn't. I would like to

able to put together good papers at the end of the year, but it rarely happens. My attitude
towards the course is best measuredby my overall class participation, my first three papers, and
o'cosmic"sense,they probably
my final two presentations.This is not a plea for marks; in the

don't matter much (also part of a regressivepedagogicalmind set - marks ate not linked to

improved learning (pleaseseethe work by the interesting and decentprogressivethinker Alfie

Kohn: The SchoolsOur Kids Deserve, 1999);not your mind set,of course,and, by the w&/, I
just another silly
appreciatethe commentsyou provide (althoughpossibly not for this one); it's

pedagogictool, often as humiliating and agitating as it is motivating, that exists becausemany of

us still feel that educationshould not (note: not cannot)be fun. The sadresult: some of your
-
studentshave admitted to me that they ignore the comments,and focus on the mark the vital
question to be answered:"am I an A student?" and not :"I wonder what my professor, having

written and read far more papersthan I, will be able to tell me about my successin arguing a
 I

thesis?about what could be improved? etc., so that I will be able to improve my uniting and

thinking in future). And now, a few final word of wisdom from Calvin of Calvin and Hobber, (no| p"C)
t;

q{
r5
-., S)
J-(T
{ug
nrH
-) vl

6s
no
s)\''
d*
.\\3
o
())
r)
r\

=2
^J
n c*'
F-F
gn
t1 0
t
7v,
FO
'
v',
rfr
em

ry/ l
ts
rTl l
rn 4
2 tD
99
n
l 1 l
t
5rn a
Vr
F fil
6
d
7? fr
> B l*

Ffi
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lloyd deMause, . www.psychohistory.com.

Lloyd deMause,Foundationsof Ps)'chohistory.www.psychohistory.com.

DianeKendalled.,Sociolog,v Nelson/ThomsonLearning,2000.
in Orn Times.Scarborough:

- 5tr ed.PacificGrove:
Ps)'cholog]':ChildhoodandAdolescence
David Shaffer,Developmental
Brooks/ColePublishingCompany,1999.

Oxford:
David Stannard,Shrinkingof History: On Freudandthe Failtre of Ps)'chohistory.
OxfordUniversityPress,1980.

Della Thompsoned.,The OxfordDictionar,vof CunentEnglish.New York: Oxford

UniversityPress,1992.