Not the Thing I Was: Thirteen Years at Bruno Bettelheim's Orthogenic School

Rating:
Summary: Stephen Eliot "Has something important to say."
Review: I am responding not only to Eliot's book, but the reviewer who describes the Orthogenic School as an abusive and bogus institution. In the interst of full disclosure, my impressions of Elliot's work were influenced by my own experiences as an attorney representing disabled children and having a mother who worked at the Orthogenic School under Jacqui Sanders (Bettelheim's successor). In addition, I am friends with Dr. Sanders and several other people mentioned in Eliot's book.

My mother took great pains to keep our family separate from her work at the Orthogenic School. In fact, I never set foot in the School until I was an adult in my 30s and I was representing children placed there. My mother had me attend another Chicago- area private high school instead of U High, in part to avoid having contact with children from the O-School. However, it would have been impossible for my mother's parenting not to have been influenced by her work.
Like Eliot, I have my own issues with some of the use of psychoanalytic interpretations in the context of every day life as a means of helping children develop insight into ordinary actions or self-control. In the wrong hands or when motivated by a need to assert control, it is more a tool to demean than to provide insight. As Eliot described, Bettelheim was not immune from indulging his own foibles and prejudices. In addition, as Eliot's angry descriptions show, when attempted by less adept therapists/counselors/teachers the resulting psychic wounds are deep.
Despite these shortcomings, the institution Elliot describes was a far better place than what currently passes as treatment facilities for most children. Despite budgets of billions of dollars for state departments of children services, education, or mental health services, most institutions "treating" emotional disturbed/mentally ill children are nothing more than modern equivalents of Dickensian era Yorkshire boarding schools. Instead of treacle to control appetites and behaviors, children are dosed with medications often without regard to side effects or proper monitoring. Behavior modification programs are often designed and implemented without regard for children's actual developmental levels or dignity. Eliot's description of the power and importance of humane and psychologically minded treatment serve as an essential reminder that an alternative to mind-numbing punititive warehousing is possible.

No discussion of Bettelheim's legacy is complete without mention of two issues, physical punishment and the influence of those he trained. Jacqui Sanders in her book "A Greenhouse for the Mind" and a 12/03 letter to the editor of the "New York Review of Books" concerning a review of Eliot's book and Theron Raines' book on Bettelheim, does a far better job than I could of addressing these issues. I would suggest that anyone interested in a rational, insightful, and balanced assessment of this aspect of Bettelheim's work and the Orthogenic School's treatment of children, consult these two publications.

Despite my support for Eliot's work, I do take issue with his criticism of Jacqui Sanders and others for failing to expand on Bettelheim's work. Eliot is critical that many of those Bettelheim trained have focused their professional lives on clinical work instead of research and writing. Moreover, Eliot is critical of Jacqui Sanders' leadership for failing to expand the Orthogenic School's role as a research center.
Eliot's criticisms fail to consider the difficult political realites created by the Orthogenic School's identity within the University of Chicago and the professional limitations created by the gender discrimination the largely female staff Bettelheim trained undoubtedly faced. In addition, many of these women not only worked but raised children at the same time. Bettelheim, like many men of his generation, focused almost exclusively on his professional life. Furthermore, it most be remembered that the hard work, and largely uncredited clinical reports made by these women produced the raw material Bettelheim relied on in his books. Most importantly, Eliot's criticism is unfair when considered in light of the fact that Bettelheim's willingness to demand sacrifice from others enabled him to achieve what other more selfless individuals cannot. Although Bettelheim worked tremendous hours, the sacrifice of time and energy above-and-beyond any "normal" job made by counselors, cooks, therapists, teachers enabled Bettelheim to achieve what he did.

Most importantly, Sanders and others have trained and mentored hundreds of individuals. Many of these individuals, including Dr. Sanders and the wonderful Leslie described by Eliot, continue to mentor young professionals or to work with children and families. They do so in a professional climate far more hostile to psychoanalytic models of treatment than the one Bettelheim experienced. That legacy should not be diminished by unfair comparisons to Bettelheim.

Rating:
Summary: Stephen Eliot "Has something important to say."
Review: I am responding not only to Eliot's book, but the reviewer who describes the Orthogenic School as an abusive and bogus institution. In the interst of full disclosure, my impressions of Elliot's work were influenced by my own experiences as an attorney representing disabled children and having a mother who worked at the Orthogenic School under Jacqui Sanders (Bettelheim's successor). In addition, I am friends with Dr. Sanders and several other people mentioned in Eliot's book.

My mother took great pains to keep our family separate from her work at the Orthogenic School. In fact, I never set foot in the School until I was an adult in my 30s and I was representing children placed there. My mother had me attend another Chicago- area private high school instead of U High, in part to avoid having contact with children from the O-School. However, it would have been impossible for my mother's parenting not to have been influenced by her work.
Like Eliot, I have my own issues with some of the use of psychoanalytic interpretations in the context of every day life as a means of helping children develop insight into ordinary actions or self-control. In the wrong hands or when motivated by a need to assert control, it is more a tool to demean than to provide insight. As Eliot described, Bettelheim was not immune from indulging his own foibles and prejudices. In addition, as Eliot's angry descriptions show, when attempted by less adept therapists/counselors/teachers the resulting psychic wounds are deep.
Despite these shortcomings, the institution Elliot describes was a far better place than what currently passes as treatment facilities for most children. Despite budgets of billions of dollars for state departments of children services, education, or mental health services, most institutions "treating" emotional disturbed/mentally ill children are nothing more than modern equivalents of Dickensian era Yorkshire boarding schools. Instead of treacle to control appetites and behaviors, children are dosed with medications often without regard to side effects or proper monitoring. Behavior modification programs are often designed and implemented without regard for children's actual developmental levels or dignity. Eliot's description of the power and importance of humane and psychologically minded treatment serve as an essential reminder that an alternative to mind-numbing punititive warehousing is possible.

No discussion of Bettelheim's legacy is complete without mention of two issues, physical punishment and the influence of those he trained. Jacqui Sanders in her book "A Greenhouse for the Mind" and a 12/03 letter to the editor of the "New York Review of Books" concerning a review of Eliot's book and Theron Raines' book on Bettelheim, does a far better job than I could of addressing these issues. I would suggest that anyone interested in a rational, insightful, and balanced assessment of this aspect of Bettelheim's work and the Orthogenic School's treatment of children, consult these two publications.

Despite my support for Eliot's work, I do take issue with his criticism of Jacqui Sanders and others for failing to expand on Bettelheim's work. Eliot is critical that many of those Bettelheim trained have focused their professional lives on clinical work instead of research and writing. Moreover, Eliot is critical of Jacqui Sanders' leadership for failing to expand the Orthogenic School's role as a research center.
Eliot's criticisms fail to consider the difficult political realites created by the Orthogenic School's identity within the University of Chicago and the professional limitations created by the gender discrimination the largely female staff Bettelheim trained undoubtedly faced. In addition, many of these women not only worked but raised children at the same time. Bettelheim, like many men of his generation, focused almost exclusively on his professional life. Furthermore, it most be remembered that the hard work, and largely uncredited clinical reports made by these women produced the raw material Bettelheim relied on in his books. Most importantly, Eliot's criticism is unfair when considered in light of the fact that Bettelheim's willingness to demand sacrifice from others enabled him to achieve what other more selfless individuals cannot. Although Bettelheim worked tremendous hours, the sacrifice of time and energy above-and-beyond any "normal" job made by counselors, cooks, therapists, teachers enabled Bettelheim to achieve what he did.

Most importantly, Sanders and others have trained and mentored hundreds of individuals. Many of these individuals, including Dr. Sanders and the wonderful Leslie described by Eliot, continue to mentor young professionals or to work with children and families. They do so in a professional climate far more hostile to psychoanalytic models of treatment than the one Bettelheim experienced. That legacy should not be diminished by unfair comparisons to Bettelheim.

Rating:
Summary: Brainwashed
Review: I think this book is an interesting and sad account of a child who, during his long stay at the Orthogenic School, is brainwashed into accepting that abuse is an acceptable and even a laudable form of treatment. Eliot accepts this belief because he is repeatedly abused and shamed by the person he loves so deeply, Bruno Bettelheim. Eliot seems convinced that because Bettelheim is so brilliant and gifted with children that he can somehow abuse children in an effective, therapeutic way. This way of thinking strikes me as a rationalization of the worst kind. Perhaps this rationalization is understandable in Eliot who was raised by Bettelheim for most of his early life. In fact, Eliot so deeply internalizes that hitting an emotionally troubled child is the best way to address the child's chaotic behavior that he feels justified in hitting children himself late in his stay at the Orthogenic School.

As I read the book, I wondered where were instances of Bettelheim showing remorse for hitting a child or of Bettelheim trying to search for a gentler approach. I found no such instances. I find only repeated instances of a man using his power to inflict abuse on children and generally in situations where a person with some common sense could think of another way.

I suppose, with Eliot, I see the brilliance of Bettelheim. After all, Bettelheim chose the perfect situation to act out his sadistic tendencies on a population who would be the least able to defend themselves...troubled children taken from their homes, usually at a fairly early age, and kept at the O. School for several years. Also, Bettelheim seems to have had the power to surround himself with whatever staff he pleased. And, from Eliot's account, he usually chose impressionable, young people who I guess out of loyalty never ratted on him or who accepted that his claims were rational. I guess the staff had reason to accept Bettelheim's ideas since he was supported by the University of Chicago for so many years. Indirectly, the book is an indictment against the U of C for allowing Bettelheim to inflict his sadistic approach to curing troubled children for 30 years.

I think it is extremely simplistic to think that Bettelheim who is deeply loved by the children in his care can help them by beat and shaming them. And Eliot makes it clear, Bettelheim's cruelty was not an infrequent aberration but an integral and consistant part of this "therapeutic milieu". It's just another indication of the cult mentality displayed at the O. School to suggest that this institution was superior to all others at this time in history.

Eliot questions how else to help a chaotic child except by hitting him. Even Jacqui Sanders, Bettelheim's successor, finally stopped hitting children at some point in her directorship, so I guess she was finally able to find other ways. It seems a horrid twist of logic to suggest that beating children who love you is superior to using restraints and drugs. Besides being psychologically harmful, from the research I have done on this subject, it was never legal in the U.S. for caretakers to beat their mental patients.

By the way, here's a suggestion for helping troubled children...find him or her a compassionate therapist. Not a person who is trained to tell children that getting beaten is okay, but a person who can actually help the child understand their behavior and feelings.

But, then again, this book is about the power of a child's love for his guardian (and in this case guard, not guardian angel). And if Bettelheim abuses Eliot, then the abuse becomes intricately connected to love. And this is the legacy of Bettelheim's Orthogenic School: it was a place where over and over again children were forced to accept abuse as an accepted part of love. I personally think that's sick.

In an aside, I do think another reviewer goes a little easy on Jacqui Sanders. 1)Jacqui, as well as many others, witnessed Bettelheim's repeated brutality against children and never reported it, and 2)Jacqui herself hit and beat children for many years before coming to her senses. She allowed others at the School to do the same. Jacqui documents this in her own book published by the U of C.

Rating:
Summary: It Could Have Been So Much Better......
Review: This book could have been so much better.....It is a fascinating story of psychiatry/psychology/psychoanalysis in the middle 1900s, but this book involves one person, and one person only: the author, Stephen Eliot. Why is there nothing about his family members? One photo is characterized as being a picture of his late brother....What? How did he die? Was it integral to the story? It is as though Eliot existed (exists?) in a vacuum, and things just happened to him for no particular reason. Why was he sent to the School in the first place? Why? What did he do, or what happened to him to cause his parents to spend so much money and send their son off to strangers to raise him? It is an interesting tale of Bruno Bettelheim and his practices, but he is a shadow figure in this book. I hope another student, or teacher, from the School writes a book someday that will include more than just one simple focus. Yes, I know this is an autobiography, but the author's self-centerdness, world-revolves-around-me-only got old after the first couple of hundred pages.

Rating:
Summary: Bogus and Dangerous
Review: This book is a bogus attempt on the part of the author to excuse one of the worst, most excessive examples of institutionalized child abuse in the history of the United States of America. The Sonia Shankman Orthogenic School under the leadership of Bruno Bettelheim and his immediate followers was nothing more than a brain-washing institution which carried out a nasty, cynical psychological experiment on many legal minors. The results of this experiment were entirely predictable, had no relevance for our democratic society whatsoever and had ruinous consequences for the lives of the children who were forced by society or their parents to submit to it. If child abuse laws had been in place during the 1960s and 1970s, Bettelheim and many of his followers would have stood before criminal courts and done jail time. But it was precisely the America which sent 18 year olds off to Viet Nam without giving them the right to vote for the guy who sent them there which gave unlimited authority to a man like Bettelheim with no solid credentials in the field of psychology or psychiatry.
"Stephen Eliot's" (not his real name) book is nothing more than attempt to make money out of a boring, uneventful life of self-absorption by tying his name to Bettelheim. "Eliot" offers no explanation other than his own personal cowardice as to why he was so willing to accept his Orthogenic School "diagnosis" as schizophrenic, when there is not a shred of MEDICAL evidence listed. The day when some half-baked quack with a Ph.d. in psychology can be allowed to make such a diagnosis, particularly of an individual in their minority, is the day that the legal profession should begin to focus on the psychiatric profession as a target for damage claims.
And if "Eliot" is so successful now, why does he not use the real name he had at the Orthogenic School?