The history of neurasthenia is discussed in the light of current interest in chronic fatigue, and in particular the illness called myalgic encephalomyelitis (‘ ME ’). A comparison is made of the symptoms, presumed aetiologies and treatment of both illnesses, as well as their social setting. It is shown that neurasthenia remained popular as long as it was viewed as a non-psychiatric, neurological illness caused by environmental factors which affected successful people and for which the cure was rest. The decline in neurasthenia was related to the changes which occurred in each of these views. It is argued that similar factors are associated with the current interest in myalgic encephalomyelitis. It is further argued that neither neurasthenia nor ‘ ME ’ can be fully understood within a single medical or psychiatric model. Instead both have arisen in the context of contemporary explanations and attitudes involving mental illness. Future understanding, treatment and prevention of these and related illnesses will depend upon both psychosocial and neurobiological explanations of physical and mental fatigability.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0033291700013210

The Right To Be Sick: American Physicians and Nervous Patients, 1885–1910

Old wine in new bottles: neurasthenia and 'ME'.

The classification system for the annual Critical Bibliography is based on that developed by George Sarton in 1913 and revised by committee in 1953. In the first two sections will be found references to histories of science in general and to historiographical, philosophical, sociological, and humanistic aspects of science. Section C indexes general books and articles relating to specific sciences. Section D contains all references that relate to the sciences in specific historical periods. Preference is given to the latter, so that historians interested in a particular science, biology, for example, must look in both the general section on the biological sciences (24) as well as the biological section under each of the historical periods.

One Hundred Twelfth Critical Bibliography of the History of Science and Its Cultural Influences

In writing a history of any illness there is always a dilemma whether to attempt the story of the condition 'itself, the medical attempts to define its nature, or to glimpse it via our changing reactions. The easiest is a straightforward account of the attempts of scientists to solve a problem— the classic medical detective story. However, this is often more fiction than fact. Medicine rarely moves smoothly from ignorance to knowledge, but often in a more circular fashion. A historical approach is thus not solely a record of who did what, but also contributes to our understanding of the problems under scrutiny in this issue. Terminology is never easy in this subject, but the following conventions will be used: The terms neurasthenia and ME will be used in their actual context (as authors themselves used them), without defining either. Post-infectious fatigue syndrome (PIFS) will cover similar conditions when related to infective episodes. All will be used in a neutral fashion, to refer to changing realities as understood by doctors and historians. This chapter attempts both chronological description and social analysis. The justification for this approach is clear in the case of neurasthenia, since 'as so little was known of its pathological basis physicians' statements regarding the disease were composed more of social and cultural elements than of scientific knowledge'.1 Although much has changed, a contemporary account still reveals as much about cultural attitudes as the advance of science.2

History of postviral fatigue syndrome.

The symptoms that make up the construct of neuras thenia, including fatigue and exhaustion, are dimension ally distributed in the community. The decision to create a category called neurasthenia is...

background

Neurasthenia and Chronic Fatigue: Theory and Practice in Britain and America

This paper follows the discourse of "nervous diseases" in America as it was articulated and contested by various lay, religious, and medical healers from the late nineteenth-century through the First World War. Specifically, it inquires into how their various diagnoses, treatments, and regimens either shaped or reinforced the structure of the social order and the individual's designated role within it. On the one hand, while dissenting interpretations and healing modalities challenged this discourse, their underlying ideological agreement with it, in crucial respects, accounts for why they failed to alter or decenter it. On the other hand, a majority of neurologists, psychiatrists, psychopathologists, psychotherapists, and social workers, along with a number of lay healers, theorists, and journalists, attenuated, and ultimately suppressed, the subversive implications of alternative theories and healing proposals. In both these ways, a dominant set of interpretations and treatments cohered which, by the second decade of the twentieth century, stabilized the prevailing order and translated into new structures of control. ii

http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=hst_theses

The Right To Be Sick: American Physicians and Nervous Patients, 1885–1910

Citations

Old wine in new bottles: neurasthenia and 'ME'.

One Hundred Twelfth Critical Bibliography of the History of Science and Its Cultural Influences

History of postviral fatigue syndrome.

Neurasthenia and Chronic Fatigue: Theory and Practice in Britain and America

"Nervous Diseases" and the Politics of Healing in America, 1869-1919

Related Papers (1)

Neurasthenia, or Nervous Exhaustion