| Title |
Biologizing social facts: An early 20th century debate on Kraepelin‘s concepts of culture, neurasthenia, and degeneration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, December 1997
|
| DOI | 10.1023/a:1005393121931 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Volker Roelcke |
| Abstract |
This paper uses an historical approach to elucidate two alternative modes of conceptualizing the relation between social factors and psychological phenomena perceived as pathological. The core features of Neo-Kraepelinian psychiatric nosology associated with the introduction of DSM-III in 1980 were also at the center of a debate in early 20th century Germany. The protagonists were Emil Kraepelin and Oswald Bumke. Kraepelin's empirical research selectively focused on somatic factors as independent variables, such as alcohol, syphilitic infection, and heredity. The ensuing nosology marginalised social factors which might contribute to the etiology and symptom formation of psychiatric conditions. For Bumke, the disorders in question (including the category of neurasthenia) did not represent qualitative deviations from normal psychological states, but quantitative variations of ubiquitous psychological functions caused by a multitude of somatic, psychological, and social factors. The main arguments of the historical debate are reconstructed, with special regard to the professional and political context. The paper illustrates the importance of context-bound pre-'scientific' decisions for the process of formulating theoretical concepts in psychiatry and related disciplines. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Unknown | 1 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 15% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2023.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#422
of 642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,620
of 94,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 642 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 94,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them