IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socpsy/v63y2017i2p169-174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The political use of psychiatry: A comparison between totalitarian regimes

Author

Listed:
  • Massimiliano Buoli
  • Aldo Sabino Giannuli

Abstract

Background: After the end of Second World War, the recent experience of the Nazi horrors stimulated a debate about the political use of psychiatry. Over the years, the focus shifted on major dictatorships of the time and especially on Soviet Union. Aims: This article aims to provide a critical review of the ways in which psychiatry was used by totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Methods: We summarized relevant literature about political use of psychiatry in totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, with particular focus on Fascism, Nazism, Argentina dictatorship, Soviet Union and China. Results: One of the features that are common to most of the dictatorships is that the use of psychiatry has become more prominent when the regimes have had the need to make more acceptable the imprisonment of enemies in the eyes of the world. This for example happened in the Nazi regime when sterilization and killing of psychiatric patients was explained as a kind of euthanasia, or in the Soviet Union after the formal closure of the corrective labor camps and the slow resumption of relations with the capitalistic world, or in China to justify persecution of religious minorities and preserve economic relations with Western countries. Conclusion: Psychiatry has been variously used by totalitarian regimes as a means of political persecution and especially when it was necessary to make acceptable to public opinion the imprisonment of political opponents.

Suggested Citation

  • Massimiliano Buoli & Aldo Sabino Giannuli, 2017. "The political use of psychiatry: A comparison between totalitarian regimes," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 63(2), pages 169-174, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:63:y:2017:i:2:p:169-174
    DOI: 10.1177/0020764016688714
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020764016688714
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0020764016688714?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:63:y:2017:i:2:p:169-174. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.