3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting book, May 14, 2006
I read this book while living at the orthogenic school. To tell you the truth, I found it intriguing but I didn't really enjoy the style of writing.
For people who the the Orthogenic School was abusive- most place at the time would lock disturbed children in rooms and tie them to beds for weeks on end. Race theory was prevalent, as was insulin shock therapy. Autistic children were likely to be institutionalized for their lives in dark, cruel places. In this respect, the Orthogenic School was revolutionary- it attempted to do neither of these things and tried to treat children like human beings. Were there a lot of therories that are majorly messed up? Yes. Was Bettelhiem abusive? Probably. But I have trouble believing that the school wasn't better than the other alternatives of the time.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Stephen Eliot "Has something important to say.", February 13, 2004
This review is from: Not the Thing I Was: Thirteen Years at Bruno Bettelheim's Orthogenic School (Hardcover)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
It Could Have Been So Much Better......, May 9, 2003
By A Customer
This review is from: Not the Thing I Was: Thirteen Years at Bruno Bettelheim's Orthogenic School (Hardcover)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
