I Introduction II The Russian Revolution and the American Intellectuals III The New Deal Coalition and the Left-Intellectuals IV The End of Ideology and the American Ideology
In contrast with the question posed by Werner Sombart at the turn of the century in the title of a book, “Why Is there No Socialism in the United States?”, this article examines the ideological adaptability of American Liberalism, as a surrogate for socialism, to the contemporary crisis home and abroad.
The impact of Russian Revolution on American liberals who shared the optimistic expectation of the inevitable spread of democracy throughout the world, had failed to impress them as a challenge on the basic value-system of American regime, because of the misunderstanding about the nature of the Bolshevik regime by the narcissistic projection of American creed. That moralistic idealism, often indicated by the reformist prejudice for the machine politics, had prevented from the. understanding about the nature of “Revolution of rising expectation” in the developing areas.
In addition to the creed, the unique character of New Deal coalition in terms of the ethnic, cultural heterogenity, the nationalization of socialism during the happy day of “popular front”, had contributed to the postponement of radical reapprasement of American creed. After the war, the democratic coalition had become so furiously disintegrated by 1952. The domestic crisis in the tortuous period of political indecision and pluralistic stagnation at a decisive turning point in America and world history, is largely a refection of the fact that the nation no longer has an effective majority and never has an stable organized opposition.
Although the American Liberalism, saved by the twenty-five years' war, hot and cold, survived under the optimistic atomosphere of “The end of Ideology”, we cannot neglect the fact that “The end of Ideology” did not mean “The end of American Ideology”, particulary for the hard-boild, tough-minded realists.
On the other hand, the reaction to “hard-boild” radicalism, with its exaggerated faith in the efficiency of direct political involvement during the day of “popular front”, often took form of the exaggerated skeptism about politics. However, it is no accident that “brilliant realists” of the Kennedy Administration has been so little concerned with the non-European world that the underdeveloped areas home and abroad was the blind spot of the Kennedy foreign policy as well as the negro problems.

抄録全体を表示

This article offers a historical account of "mental hygiene" in England between 1890 and 1930, based on medical journals, newspapers and parliamentary publications, in order to document the process by which medico-political ideas and practice for the prevention of mental disease were established. Mental hygiene has been widely linked with the negative aspect of social exclusion, as seen in the persecution of the mentally disabled under the Nazi regime. However, it is a little known fact that the science of mental hygiene also aimed to increase mental productivity through preventive measures. In England, during the period in question, psychiatrists promoted programs for the "early treatment of mental diseases". "Early treatment" here specifically refers to the establishment of more accessible psychiatric facilities on an outpatient basis and a voluntary admission system, both of which were expected to encourage more people to use psychiatric services. In terms of the published discourse surrounding the subject of "early treatment", the author argues that books and articles were written and disseminated not only to maintain mental health for the sake of national productivity, but also to serve and strengthen the professional interests of psychiatrists, who had been forced to work under competitive market conditions due to the 1890 Lunacy Act. In this latter sense, the subject of mental hygiene became a verbal instrument for protecting the rights of members of the profession to earn a living.

抄録全体を表示