James G. Hollandsworth Jr. – författare

Explanations of abnormal behavior that emphasize the importance of physiological determinants of disorder are relatively unpopular among psychologists, especially among those who work as clinicians in an ap~ plied setting. The reasons for this are theoretical and historical, as well as practical. Physiology and its associated biological disciplines of bio~ chemistry, pharmacology, and genetics are traditionally more associated with medicine; their use to underpin explanations and treatments of behavioral abnormality has consequently demanded knowledge to which most psychologists are not exposed and skills that are unavailable to them. The dichotomy thus created between medical and psychologi~ cal approaches has caused many psychologists to disregard physiologi~ cal factors. Even when the latter are recognized as important, many psychologists have been unwilling to admit to the fact, in the belief that by doing so they will commit themselves to an overly medical model of psychological disorder, undermining what they see as preferred views of abnormality. As I have become increasingly aware in following the progress of this book, in the United States the theoretical issues in this debate have been further sharpened by professional rivalries (present but less explicit on the European scene from which I write) between medical and nonmedical health care workers, regarding facilities for and approaches to the treatment of the mentally disturbed. Faced with these divisions of interest, psychologists have available two courses of action.

Early in the Civil War, Louisiana's Confederate government sanctioned a militia unit of black troops, the Louisiana Native Guards. Intended as a response to demands from members of New Orleans' substantial free black population that they be permitted to participate in the defense of their state, the unit was used by Confederate authorities for public display and propaganda purposes but was not allowed to fight. After the fall of New Orleans, General Benjamin F. Butler brought the Native Guards into Federal military service and increased their numbers with runaway slaves. He intended to use the troops for guard duty and heavy labor. His successor, Nathaniel P. Banks, did not trust the black Native Guard officers, and as he replaced them with white commanders, the mistreatment and misuse of the black troops steadily increased. The first large-scale deployment of the Native Guards occurred in May, 1863, during the Union siege of Port Hudson, Louisiana, when two of their regiments were ordered to storm an impregnable hilltop position. Although the soldiers fought valiantly, the charge was driven back with extensive losses. The white officers and the northern press praised the tenacity and fighting ability of the black troops, but they were still not accepted on the same terms as their white counterparts. After the war, Native Guard veterans took up the struggle for civil rights - in particular, voting rights - for Louisiana's black population. The Louisiana Native Guards is the first account to consider that struggle. By documenting their endeavors through Reconstruction, James G. Hollandsworth places the Native Guards' military service in the broader context of a civil rights movement thatpredates more recent efforts by a hundred years. This remarkable work presents a vivid picture of men eager to prove their courage and ability to a world determined to exploit and demean them.

In the summer of 1866, racial tensions ran high in Louisiana as a constitutional convention considered disenfranchising former Confederates and enfranchising blacks. On July 30, a procession of black suffrage supporters pushed through an angry throng of hostile whites. Words were exchanged, shots rang out, and within minutes a riot erupted with unrestrained fury. When it was over, at least forty-eight men- an overwhelming majority of them black- lay dead and more than two hundred had been wounded. In An Absolute Massacre, James G. Hollandsworth, Jr., examines the events surrounding the confrontation and offers a compelling look at the racial tinderbox that was the post-Civil War South.

Despite the widespread use of psychophysiological concepts and meth­ ods in behavior therapy, there is no text devoted specifically to the subject. The publication of this book is necessary and timely, and should promote a better appreciation of the physiological roots of behavior therapy. The important connections between physiology and behavior thera­ py receive insufficient recognition nowadays, despite the fact that his­ torically one of the two main streams of behavior therapy grew out of a physiological basis. Wolpe''s early work was closely connected to phys­ iology, and in contemporary behavior therapy, Lang''s critical contribu­ tion is firmly based in psychophysiology. The physiological component is prominent in Lang''s highly productive three-systems analysis of emo­ tion and in its application to psychological disorders. In addition, there are philosophical reasons for maintaining the close connection between behavior therapy and physiology. The existence of these connections, and their justification, can raise few objections, and it is therefore curious that a book on this significant subject has not appeared earlier. The importance of physiology for behavior therapy can be illus­ trated by considering the nature of a behavior therapy deprived of its physiological connections. It would survive, certainly, but as a rather scrawny, uninteresting orphan among many clamorous competitors.

Despite the widespread use of psychophysiological concepts and meth­ ods in behavior therapy, there is no text devoted specifically to the subject. The publication of this book is necessary and timely, and should promote a better appreciation of the physiological roots of behavior therapy. The important connections between physiology and behavior thera­ py receive insufficient recognition nowadays, despite the fact that his­ torically one of the two main streams of behavior therapy grew out of a physiological basis. Wolpe's early work was closely connected to phys­ iology, and in contemporary behavior therapy, Lang's critical contribu­ tion is firmly based in psychophysiology. The physiological component is prominent in Lang's highly productive three-systems analysis of emo­ tion and in its application to psychological disorders. In addition, there are philosophical reasons for maintaining the close connection between behavior therapy and physiology. The existence of these connections, and their justification, can raise few objections, and it is therefore curious that a book on this significant subject has not appeared earlier. The importance of physiology for behavior therapy can be illus­ trated by considering the nature of a behavior therapy deprived of its physiological connections. It would survive, certainly, but as a rather scrawny, uninteresting orphan among many clamorous competitors.

Explanations of abnormal behavior that emphasize the importance of physiological determinants of disorder are relatively unpopular among psychologists, especially among those who work as clinicians in an ap~ plied setting. The reasons for this are theoretical and historical, as well as practical. Physiology and its associated biological disciplines of bio~ chemistry, pharmacology, and genetics are traditionally more associated with medicine; their use to underpin explanations and treatments of behavioral abnormality has consequently demanded knowledge to which most psychologists are not exposed and skills that are unavailable to them. The dichotomy thus created between medical and psychologi~ cal approaches has caused many psychologists to disregard physiologi~ cal factors. Even when the latter are recognized as important, many psychologists have been unwilling to admit to the fact, in the belief that by doing so they will commit themselves to an overly medical model of psychological disorder, undermining what they see as preferred views of abnormality. As I have become increasingly aware in following the progress of this book, in the United States the theoretical issues in this debate have been further sharpened by professional rivalries (present but less explicit on the European scene from which I write) between medical and nonmedical health care workers, regarding facilities for and approaches to the treatment of the mentally disturbed. Faced with these divisions of interest, psychologists have available two courses of action.