Social psychiatry

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 174–179 | Cite as

Psychiatry and anthropology: Three models for a working relationship

  • E. Mansell Pattison


Working relationships between psychiatry and anthropology date back to the pioneers in both disciplines. Yet as each professional group has developed its own system of theories and techniques the opportunity for actual mutual influence has dwindled. The mere juxtaposition of professionals will not result in actual interdisciplinary contributions. Three models for collaboration are presented. In each model there is a different “interdisciplinary contract”, which needs to be specified for various joint projects. In addition to the traditional areas of psychiatry-anthropology interests there is a broad area of social action planning for mental health which is increasingly a joint concern of social and community psychiatry on the one hand and of applied anthropology on the other.


Mental Health Social Action Action Planning Professional Group Broad Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Les relations de travail entre la psychiatrie et l'anthropologie remontent aux pionniers de ces deux disciplines. Cependant, chacun de ces deux groupes de profession ayant développé son propre système de théories et de techniques, les occasions d'une véritable influence réciproque se sont faites plus rares. La simple juxtaposition de professions ne peut aboutir à des échanges interdisciplinaires positifs. Trois modes de collaboration sont présentés. Chacun d'eux comporte un “contrat interdisciplinaire” différent qui doit être spécifié pour les divers projets communs. En plus des champs d'intérêts traditionnels de la psychiatrie et de l'anthropologie, il faut tenir compte du vaste domaine de l'action sociale tendant à planifier la santé mentale et qui, de plus en plus, concerne à la fois la psychiatrie sociale et communautaire d'une part et l'anthropologie appliquée d'autre part.


Die Arbeitsbeziehungen zwischen der Psychiatrie und Anthropologie reichen zurück bis zu den Pionieren beider Disziplinen. Da jedoch jede Berufsgruppe ihr eigenes System von Theorien und Methoden entwickelt hat, hat die Möglichkeit für eine wirkliche gegenseitige Beeinflussung abgenommen. Aus dem bloßen Nebeneinanderstellen von Berufen folgen noch keine wirklichen interdisziplinären Beiträge. Es werden drei Modelle für die Zusammenarbeit vorgeschlagen: In jedem Modell gibt es einen unterschiedlichen „interdisziplinären Vertrag“, der für verschiedene gemeinsame Projekte spezifiziert werden muß. Außer den traditionellen Gebieten psychiatrisch-anthropologischer Interessen gibt es einen breiten Bereich sozialer Aktionsplanung für seelische Gesundheit, die auf der einen Seite zunehmend ein gemeinsames Anliegen der Sozial- und Gemeindepsychiatrie und auf der anderen Seite eines der angewandten Anthropologie ist.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, R., andC. H. H. Branch: Clinical and research collaboration in psychiatry and anthropology. Int. J. soc. Psychiat.6, 247–251 (1960). — Application of psychiatric insights to cross-cultural communication. New York: Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, Symposium No. 7, 1961.Google Scholar
  2. Arieti, S.: Some basic problems common to anthropology and modern psychiatry. Amer. Anthrop.58, 26–39 (1956).Google Scholar
  3. Becker, E.: The relevance to psychiatry of recent research in anthropology. Amer. J. Psychother.16, 600–617 (1962).Google Scholar
  4. Bell, N. W., andJ. P. Spiegel: Social psychiatry. Vagaries of a term. Arch. gen. Psychiat.14, 337–345 (1966).Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, L., andB. C. Burris (eds.): The contribution of the social sciences to psychotherapy. Springfield, Ill.: C. C. Thomas 1967.Google Scholar
  6. Bourguignon, E., and A.Haas: Transcultural research and culture-bound psychiatry. Presented to the meetings of the Western Division of the American Psychiatric Association, Hawaii, Sept. 1965.Google Scholar
  7. Brameld, T.: Anthropotherapy — toward theory and practice. Hum. Org.24, 288–295 (1965).Google Scholar
  8. Branch, C. H., andR. Anderson: Clinical and research collaboration in psychiatry and anthropology. Int. J. soc. Psychiat.6, 247–251 (1960).Google Scholar
  9. Bronfenbrenner, U., andE. C. Devereaux: Interdisciplinary planing for team research on constructive community behavior. Hum. Relat.5, 187–203 (1952).Google Scholar
  10. Deane, W. N.: The culture of the patient: an underestimated dimension in psychotherapy. Inter. J. soc. Psychiat.7, 181 to 185 (1961).Google Scholar
  11. DeReuck, A. V. S., andR. Porter (eds.): Transcultural psychiatry. Boston: Little & Brown 1965.Google Scholar
  12. Devereaux, G.: Normal and abnormal: the key problem of psychiatric anthropology, inCasagrande, J. B., andT. Gladwin (eds.): Some uses of anthropology: theoretical and applied. Washington, D. C.: Anthropological Society of Washington 1956.Google Scholar
  13. Fleck, A. C., Jr., andF. A. J. Ianni: Epidemiology and anthropology: some suggested affinities in theory and method. Hum. Org.16, 38–41 (1958).Google Scholar
  14. Goodenough, W.: Cooperation in change: an anthropological approach to community development. New York: Russell Sage Fdn. 1963.Google Scholar
  15. Hartmann, H., E. Kris, andR. M. Loewenstein: Some psychoanalytic comments on “Culture and personality”, inWilbur, G. B., andW. Muensterberger (eds.): Psychoanalysis and culture. New York: Internat. Univ. Press 1951.Google Scholar
  16. Hsu, F. L. K.: Anthropology or psychiatry: a definition of objectives and their implications. Southwest J. Anthrop.8, 227–250 (1952).Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan, B. (ed.): Studying personality cross-culturally. Evanston: Row & Peterson 1961.Google Scholar
  18. Kiev, A.: Magic, faith, and healing: studies in primitive psychiatry today. New York: The Free Press 1964.Google Scholar
  19. Kluckhohn, C.: The influence of psychiatry on anthropology in America during the past one hundred years, inHall, J. K., G. Zilboorg, andH. A. Bunker (eds.): One hundred years of American psychiatry. New York: Columbia Univ. Press 1944.Google Scholar
  20. La Barre, W.: The influence of Freud on anthropology. Amer. Imago15, 275–328 (1958).Google Scholar
  21. Leighton, A. H., J. A. Clausen, andR. N. Wilson (eds.): Explorations in social psychiatry. New York: Basic Books 1957.Google Scholar
  22. Lerner, D. (ed.): The human meaning of the social sciences. Cleveland: Meridian 1959.Google Scholar
  23. Lindzey, G.: Projective techniques and cross-cultural research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts 1961.Google Scholar
  24. Lundstedt. S. (ed.): Human factors in cross-cultural adjustment. J. soc. Issues19, No. 3, 1963.Google Scholar
  25. Mead, M.: Some relationships between social anthropology and psychiatry, inAlexander, F., andH. Ross (eds.): Dynamic psychiatry. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press 1952.Google Scholar
  26. Murphy, J. M., andA. H. Leighton (eds.): Approaches to cross-cultural psychiatry. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press 1965.Google Scholar
  27. Opler, M. K.: Cultural anthropology and social psychiatry. Amer. J. Psychiat.113, 302–311 (1956).Google Scholar
  28. —: Culture and mental health. New York: Macmillan 1959.Google Scholar
  29. —: Culture and social psychiatry. New York: Atherton 1967.Google Scholar
  30. —: Culture, psychiatry, and human values. Springfield, Ill.: C. C. Thomas 1956.Google Scholar
  31. Ornstein, P.: Opinion, in: Univ. Cincinnati, Dept. Psychiatry, New and Reports 1, No. 3, April 1966.Google Scholar
  32. Parsons, T.: Social structure and the development of personality: Freud's contribution to the integration of psychology and sociology. Psychiatry21, 321–340 (1958).Google Scholar
  33. Pattison, E. M.: A curriculum in social and community psychiatry. Univ. Washington, Dept. Psychiatry, Mimeo 1966.Google Scholar
  34. –, and N. N.Wagner: The relevance of psychiatry to anthropological training and research: an interdisciplinary program. Read at Western Divisional Meeting, Amer. Psychiat. Assoc. Los Angeles, Oct. 1967.Google Scholar
  35. Paul, B.: Anthropological perspectives in medicine and public health. Ann. Amer. Acad. pol. soc. Sci.34, 6–34 (1963).Google Scholar
  36. Perry, S. E.: Observations on social process in psychiatric research, inBergen, B. J., andC. S. Thomas (eds.): Issues and Problems in Social Psychiatry. Springfield, Ill.: C. C. Thomas 1966.Google Scholar
  37. Redlich, F. C., andE. Brody: Emotional problems in interdisciplinary research. Psychiatry18, 233–239 (1955).Google Scholar
  38. Rosenstock, I. M.: Cultural anthropology, social psychology, and sociology in public health. Amer. J. publ. Hlth51, 1820–1827 (1961).Google Scholar
  39. Ruesch, J.: Creation of a multidisciplinary team: introducing the social scientist to psychiatric research. Psychosom. Med.18, 105–112 (1956).Google Scholar
  40. Sapir, E.: Why cultural anthropology needs the psychiatrist. Psychiatry1, 7–12 (1938).Google Scholar
  41. Seward, G. H. (ed.): Clinical studies and cultural conflict. New York: Ronald 1958.Google Scholar
  42. Simmons, O.: Social research in health and medicine: a bibliography. InFreeman, H. E., S. Levine, andL. R. Reeder (eds.): Handbook of medical sociology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall 1963.Google Scholar
  43. Spiro, M. E.: Culture and personality, the natural history of a false dichotomy. Psychiatry14, 19–40 (1951).Google Scholar
  44. Spradley, J. P.: Psychiatric anthropology: research methodology, theoretical problems, bibliographic resources. Univ. Washington, Dept. Psychiatry, Mimeo 1967.Google Scholar
  45. Thompson, L.: Is applied anthropology helping to develop a science of man? Hum. Org.24, 278–287 (1967).Google Scholar
  46. Wallace, A. F. C.: Culture and personality. New York: Random House 1961.Google Scholar
  47. Wittkower, E. D., andH. Rin: Transcultural psychiatry. Arch. gen. Psychiat.13, 387–394 (1965).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Mansell Pattison
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Washington School of Medicine SeattleWashington

Personalised recommendations