Providentia

The Oilman and the Ghost

Pleasantville isn't a particularly big town these days. 

Situated in Venango Country, Pennsylvania, it boasts a population just under 900 according to the 2010 census and is mainly remembered for the brief "oil boom" resulting from a massive oil discovery in 1868.  Not only did this briefly propel the town to unheard-of prosperity, but the population grew by more than 400 percent in just a few short years (though most quickly left when the oil played out).    Still, it was the bizarre story of how the oil was first discovered that set it apart from all of the other major discoveries of the late 19th century.   Especially if you happen to believe in ghosts...

While actual details of Abraham James' early history seem rather muddled, most news stories covering his role in the Pleasantville oil find described him as an old-time geologist who specialized in finding new oil fields.   But it was James fascination with Spiritualism, not to mention his claims to being a spirit medium, that set him apart from the usual oil speculators searching for new strikes across the country.  If it seems incredible that anyone would rely on spirit messages for finding oil, it's important to understand  that Spiritualism was a hot topic in a country still dealing with a devastating Civil War that  claimed over 600,000 lives.   This created a market for "spirit mediums" who communicated with the dead and well-attended seances were conducted across the country (as well as in Europe).  Also, the geology of that era was fairly primitive and geologists largely relied on surface features to identify potential sites, something that was frequently prone to error.   Since exploratory drilling was expensive (half of all wells dug were unproductive), this meant that the prospect of having spirit messages provide a shortcut was certainly enticing.   At least, many of James' investors thought so.

James' first foray into using spirit messages to lead him to oil occurred in Chicago in 1863 when he pointed out a site in the nearby countryside that he assured his fellow investors would lead them to an enormous oil reserve.  While the predicted oil never materialized, the drilling did lead to the discovery of a large artesian well and a profitable water business.    Though James' investors still made money from James' discovery, he was still determined to find oil and decided to try his luck elsewhere.  

Whatever it was that drew him Pennsylvania's Venango County in 1866,  James' celebrity status as the discoverer of Chicago's artesian well  was enough to draw in potential investors when he promised to find oil.   Not that he was the only would-be psychic searching for oil  back then...    Even as these other psychics criss-crossed over likely sites using divining rods and relying on "sympathetic vibrations" looking for oil, James conducted seances instead.   After two fruitless years, it was in the summer of 1868 when James gathered a small group of wealthy investor (who also happened to be fellow Spiritualists) with news of a valuable new oil discovery, apparently conveyed to him by a spirit.

According to James, he had been participating in seances and, as he said afterward, "the conditions were more than usually favorable and the most gratifying manifestations were drawn from the usually reticent spirits."   A few days later, he was reportedly driving in his wagon through the countryside when he experienced a "strange sensation" similar to what happened when he went into trances.  Though he tried to resist, the influence was "more powerful than his will and he was obliged to yield.   At that point, a "spirit or force" suddenly came upon him and made him leave his wagon.  and "conducted him like magic across fields and through forests to a wild spot in the vicinity of Pleasantville, where they rested."   He then said that "the earth opened and an immense cavern yawned before them."  Brought into the cavern by his spirit guide, he was reportedly taken down deep into the earth where they came upon "the margin of a lake of petroleum of unknown extent."   The spirit then returned him to the surface and the cavern closed.

Though the story probably would have been dismissed by more skeptical moneymen, James knew his audience well.   Not only were all of his investors dedicated Spiritualists, but the entire oil industry was going through a financial panic at that time.   The end of the Civil War had triggered a massive depression and the frequent failure to find oil meant that many companies quickly went bankrupt.  Even though James' previous track record for finding oil fields hadn't been particularly good, the  prospect of being on the ground floor of a marvelous new oil find, not to mention reinforcing their own belief in ghosts, proved irresistible to James' investors. and he soon had his startup capital. 

 Sinking a well in the very spot where James claimed the spirit had guided him, the drill  eventually struck oil-bearing sand at the 830-foot mark and was soon yielding 150 barrels of oil each day.  News of the Pleasantville oil strike brought in other oil companies who bought up real estate at unheard-of prices.  The oil syndicate led by James soon had five wells going at once and made fortunes at a time when oil was still selling for just three dollars a barrel.   For the short time it lasted, the Pleasantville oil field was one of the richest in the world.    

Unfortunately, the oil boom that James launched didn't last particularly long.   After years of record oil production, the oil reserves were largely exhausted by 1880 and  most of the town's new residents soon moved on.  As for James himself, he was believed to have pocketed an estimated $500,000 from his investment (accounts differ on how much he actually made) and his fellow investors likely made even more. 

But that was pretty much the highpoint of James' career as a geologist/medium.   Despite the money he had made through his oil company,  he fell on hard times soon afterward and  lost his entire fortune after buying up land on the Pacific coast which failed to yield anything of value (presumably, the spirits were no longer talking to him by this point).  By the time of his death in 1885, he was completely broke and the very few obituaries I have been able to find largely focused on his 1868 oil strike while ignoring his life before and since.   

While the story of Abraham James and the spirits who helped him find oil has become enshrined in Venango County folklore, the reality is likely more down-to-earth.  The modern consensus seems to be that James had used his knowledge of geology to find what he assumed would be a rich field and, by relying on his reputation as a Spiritualist and medium, was able to attract investors who might have ignored him otherwise.   

In the years following his 1868 discovery, James continued to be hailed  as a financial prodigy, and the story of how he discovered the oil field was played up in newspapers and Spiritualist magazines for decades afterward.    Even the story of how the spirits led him to his 1868 discovery had a way of changing.   In one 1915 story by an anonymous source, James had been reportedly led to the oil find by the spirit of a Seneca chief named "Mountain Bear" and, in later stories, to the ghost of a beautiful Indian maiden named "Lalah" (which presumably sounded more enticing to readers).   Also, given that we are living in a more skeptical age,  James and his fellow "oil-witches" have been largely written or marginalized in many modern histories of the 19th-century oil industry.   Presumably, the role they played in the early oil industry is something deemed best forgotten. 

Sic transit gloria mundi.

 

 

In Praise of Pain

Human beings have always had a love/hate relationship with pain.

Not only has pain and suffering always been viewed as something all humans had to endure (including Biblical stories such as  childbirth pain being due to the sin of Eve or Job being afflicted with suffering to test his faith),  religions often championed the notion that bearing pain stoically was a sure sign of virtuous living.  The very word “stoic” stemmed from a philosophical school that viewed pain and suffering as essential to being truly human. In St. Paul's First Letter to the Colossians, he wrote that: "I fill up that which is behind the afflictions of Christ in my flesh".     Still, while virtually every organized religion has regarded pain as a necessary evil, the use of herbal remedies to deal with pain have been a necessary part of medicine for all of recorded history (and likely long before).   While physicians and other healers often viewed pain as being an important sign of disease and that masking it with medication  interfered with treatment, they were also quick to dispense whatever pain-relieving agents that they had at their disposal for patients in agony.   That usually included the familiar standby, papaver somniferum (a.k.a., the opium poppy), which was cultivated for its analgesic properties as far back as neolithic times in most of Eurasia.

Even with the advent of anesthesia in the 19^th century, new  discoveries, including morphine, chloroform, and nitrous oxide, were greeted with mixed feelings, especially among religious leaders who viewed such innovations as somehow being a subversion of God’s plan.  Queen Victoria’s very public decision to use chloroform to ensure a painless delivery of one of her children in 1853 was greeted with alarm at first although it also helped spread the word that anesthesia was safe and effective.  Despite religious qualms, the era of painless dentistry and surgery had begun.

By the dawn of the 20^th century, anesthesia was already widely used in surgery.  While pessimistic philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer stressed the inescapable nature of pain in their own writings,  improvements in medicine, including the wide availability of powerful analgesics,  made pain relief universally available (at least to those who could afford it).   Even familiar remedies such as morphine continued to be superseded by better and stronger alternatives, including heroin which was available in numerous locations without a prescription.

As the dangers associated with opiate addiction became better understood, an inevitable backlash set in.  Many commercially available analgesics were eventually banned under international narcotics laws.  Prohibition became a dominant movement in the United States while, in other countries, medical doctors, theologians,  and social critics viewed the addictive properties of many popular narcotics with increasing alarm. This alarm was spurred by the thousands of wounded veterans of World War I, many of whom were left addicted to the pain medication prescribed for them.   This public alarm led to attempts at reconceptualizing how pain should be treated.  Rather than viewing pain as something to be eliminated by any means possible,  wasn't it possible that resisting pain was actually a virtue and that giving into pain by demanding medical relief was actually a form of cowardice? 

By 1935, French writer and journalist, Julien Teppe, became the leading force in what came to be known as the "dolorism" movement.  Taken from the Latin word for pain, dolorism basically exalted the value of pain, both medically and philosophically.  The two books that Teppe wrote, Apologie pour l'anormal (a.k.a. the "Dolorist manifesto") in 1935 and Dictature de la douleur in 1937 justified dolorism as a reaction against what Teppe called the "tyranny of the fit".  He viewed pain as  a way of learning about oneself (essentially arguing that "I am suffering, therefore I am").  He also wrote that, "Pain, of all the psychological states, is the one which takes over the entire being, both the flesh and the spirit, with the greatest urgency and force.  It is a disposition which sweeps away, blots out, and annihilates all the rest."   Through pain, humans learn about compassion for other human beings and inability to understand suffering was the root cause for hostility and intolerance.  Not only did Teppe argue for a better understanding of pain, he also suggested that students in all programs be required to visit hospitals and sanatoriums as part of their education. 

While not an original concept (existentialist philosophers such  as Karl Jaspers and Martin Heidegger had made  similar arguments years before), Teppe's movement quickly took root.   Along with his influential books, Teppe also launched the Revue Doloriste, an episodic journal that was meant to be the standard for the entire dolorist movement.   On its first publication in 1946, the French conservative paper, Le Figaro, a tongue-in-cheek endorsement to the new journal and to dolorism in general:  "No school ever chose its hour better than this one.  Every French citizen is an unknowing Dolorist.  And [then-premier] Monsieur Gouin, perhaps, is one".   While never the financial success that Teppe had hoped, the first issue sold 5,000 copies and eventually included original essays from such prominent writers as Andre Gide and Colette.

That dolorism became a hotly debated subject before and after World War II is perhaps not surprising given the political and economic struggle to rebuild Europe.   Theologians continued to advocate pain as a necessary evil while neurologists and physiologists weighed in on the medical aspects of pain.  Teppe's chief opponent was prominent surgeon, Rene Leriche.  Having gained his experience in treating pain associated with battlefield injuries in World War I,  Leriche's book La Chirugie de la douler (the Surgery of Pain) quickly became a classic in treating "pain disorders" after its publication in 1937.  As a militant humanist as well as a surgeon, Leriche avidly fought any attempt to glorify pain and argued against the idea that pain could be beneficial or useful in any way.    Ironically, Leriche actively spoke against the use of pain medications such as morphine and argued that surgical approaches were the ideal method for pain relief. 

Another prominent dolorism opponent, prominent neuropsychiatrist Jean L'hermitte, argued that "the first duty of medicine is to heal when it can, to relieve often, and to comfort always.  As a result, a physician's role is not only to relieve moral suffering often but also, insofar as it is possible, to alleviate pain and its repercussions on the different organs."    As an important example of pain's importance, L'hermitte described cases of syringomelia in which patients with interrupted sensory nerve fibres injure themselves due to their inability to feel pain.  He also saw analgesics such as morphine as being effective in preventing suicides among chronic pain sufferers. 

Still, the spectre of addiction to pain medication was ever present.  Even L'hermitte was quick to argue that some physicians gave out morphine "too freely" and that it should only be prescribed by physicians who were certain that their patients were genuinely suffering.  He advocated that morphine only be administered through injection and at the doctor's discretion.   While he denounced dolorism as a dangerous trend, he still advocated an extremely conservative approach to pain treatment which often meant that patients were expected to "suffer in silence" rather than admit that they were unable to bear their chronic pain "maturely".  Many religious hospitals, though recognizing the need to deal with pain, often stressed the virtue of endurance and advised doctors and nurses to train patients to resist pain rather than to plead for better analgesics.   As formal treatment shifted towards specialized hospital wards to deal with chronic pain patients, pain clinics have become an integral part of most tertiary care hospitals.

Although today's physicians are no longer expected to allow patients to "suffer for their own good", the old dolorist arguments have never completely faded away.  The reluctance to prescribe pain medications due to addiction risks, however legitimate, often masks an expectation that patients overcome pain on their own rather than rely on chemical aids.  That there is an obvious economic component to this argument (medication costs money, after all) makes it all the more appealing to rein in rising health care costs.   Many of the moral dilemmas and problems raised by Julien Teppe and his supporters remain unresolved and the stringent regulations that physicians often face in prescribing medication means that pain management remains one of the most contentious issues facing medicine today. 

And that is unlikely to change any time soon. 

Russian Police Investigate Exorcism Death of Nine-Year-Old Child

Acting on a tip from a family member, police in Yekaterinburg, Russia unearthed the body of a nine-year-old boy who had been killed during an exorcism by a religious sect to which his parents belonged.   Identified only as "David K.", the boy and his parents belonged to a religious sect, the Disciples of Jesus Christ and had apparently been subjected to a violent ritual aimed at "driving out the devil" though the reason for this abuse has not been given.   The ritual had been conducted in the apartment where the boy and his family had been living.  

During the course of this ritual, David was held down by his mother while other cult members, including his father, whipped him repeatedly..  He had also been gagged to prevent him from screaming out.   After the child died, sect members then prayed by the body for two days hoping that he would be returned to life.   He was then buried in a wooded area near the city while the parents and other sect members fled the city to avoid arrest.  An autopsy of the body determined that the boy had died of asphyxiation with whip marks being clearly visible.   

Police have since located the boy's father, 40-year-old Ivan Kazantsev, and a sect elder, Zemfira Gainullina in the nearby Republic of Bashkiria and arrested them.   David's mother has since fled to Belarus where she is being held as a material witness and awaiting extradition.   Both of David's parents had recently immigrated to Yekaterinburg from Belarus

Defending the sect's actions in an online post before her arrest, Gainullina wrote that, "Many times we were persecuted for the name of Jesus Christ, but no-one could blame us for anything, because there was no crime in us....No-one could forbid us to live the way the Lord Jesus Christ leads us.”  According to available sources,  arrested sect members are refusing to cooperate with authorities and insisted that they only obeyed "heaven's law".    In describing the behaviour of Kazantsev and  Gainullina while in custody, a police spokesperson said that "both detainees behaved, to put it mildly, strangely. They  produced the impression of being zombified."   

While the sect has an active social media presence, including footage of Gainullina playing guitar while her followers danced and prayed together, little information appears available, including "private practices" such as the use of extreme corporal punishment, including whipping, on children to "drive out demons."  

An investigation is continuing.

 

 

Reading The Bumps

One thing you could say about phrenologist and author, Orson Squire Fowler,  he certainly knew how to grab your attention.

Part of my collection of rare psychology books is an 1875 volume by Fowler.  The title certainly leaves little to the imagination: 

"Creative and Sexual Science: or Manhood, Womanhood, and Their Mutual Interrelations;  Love, Its Law, Power, ETC.;  Selection, or Mutual Adaptation; Courtship, Married Life, and PERFECT CHILDREN;  Their Generation, Endowment, Paternity, Maternity, Bearing, Nursing and Rearing; Together with Puberty,, Boyhood, Girlhood, ETC.;  SEXUAL IMPAIRMENTS RESTORED, Male Vigor ad Female Health and Beauty Perpetuated ad Augmented, ETC.,  as Taught By PHRENOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY " 

(Fowler was showman enough to make sure that the most important words were carefully capitalized). 

But more on that later after I provide a little background on the beginnings of phrenology.

Although the idea that mental abilities were linked to specific locations in the brain dates back to Aristotle, true scientific work into the nature of brain functioning didn't begin until the late 18th century.   While early visionaries such as Emmanuel Swedenborg made some inspired guesses about how the brain worked, it was German neuroanatomist Franz Joseph Gall who can properly be considered the father of phrenology (not that he ever used that term).  

After establishing his reputation as one of Austria's most prominent physicians, Gall turned his research interests to the human brain and developed the first true theory of cerebral localization.  By 1792, he began lecturing on his idea that the human cerebral cortex was actually a mosaic made up of different specialized organs.  Although many of his ideas were actually correct, including his observations on the significance of cerebral hemispheres and the importance of the frontal lobes in complex thinking, the pseudoscience linked to Gall's name has largely overshadowed his reputation as a medical pioneer.    The premises that Gall laid out in his lectures were that:

1. the brain is the organ of the mind,
2.  the mind is made up of separate and discrete faculties,
3. each faculty must have its own "seat" or organ in the brain,
4.   the size of each organ is a direct measure of its relative importance in the mind,
5.   the shape of the brain is determined by how each organ developed,
6. since the skull is formed from the shape of the brain, measuring the skull can provide an accurate assessment of individual aptitudes and tendencies.    

Gall identified nineteen mental faculties which he considered to be essentially animal in nature, these included "reproductive instinct," "love of one's offspring," "affection," "destructiveness or tendency to murder," and "desire to possess things."   In contrast, he also identified a series of exclusively human qualities such as "wisdom", "satire and wit", "sense of metaphysics",  "religious sentiment", and firmness of purpose".  

Public reaction to Gall's lectures were decidedly mixed.   Despite the lectures being popular, conservative Catholic authorities and even some of his medical colleagues accused him of subversion for daring to suggest that the brain was the centre of intellect rather than the soul (the Austrian empire was still officially Catholic at that time). Although Gall defended himself and his theories as much as he could, he was ordered to stop lecturing in 1801.  

Realizing that he would never be allowed to teach freely in Austria, Gall went into exile to teach and continue his brain research.   Along with giving lectures and public demonstrations of dissections in Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, and France, he took a keen interest in the brains of convicted criminals and gathered further material for his writings on brain functioning.    Settling in Paris in 1807, Gall began writing his masterpiece, ,  The Anatomy and Physiology of the Nervous System in General, and of the Brain in Particular, with Observations upon the possibility of ascertaining the several Intellectual and Moral Dispositions of Man and Animal, by the configuration of their Heads,  which was eventually published in 1819. 

It was his chief supporter, Johann Spurzheim, who helped develop many of Gall's theories after they first met in 1800.   Although he wasn't the first to coin the term "phrenology", Spurzheim  quickly adopted it for the brain science that he and Gall developed.  Their relatively productive relationship end in 1813 over disagreements on how the brain should be classified.    While Gall's research on criminal brains led to his arguing that there were "evil" tendencies in those brains that needed to be suppressed (such as regions of the brain controlling "murder" and "theft"), Spurzheim rejected this completely and argued that criminal behaviour was caused by underdeveloped moral faculties.  

He also changed Gall's classification system by adding new organs such as "hope" and "moral sense" to Gall's list.   The total number of organs in Spurzheim's revised list rose to thirty-three from Gall's original twenty-seven.    Spurzheim also rejected Gall's gloomy pessimism over changing human nature and argued that proper upbringing could help overcome criminal tendencies.     After their split, Gall publicly condemned many of Spurzheim's "innovations" in his own books and often denounced him as a plagiarist and a quack. 

And with good reason perhaps.  While Gall tried to link his conclusions to actual brain research, Spurzheim development of "practical phrenology" became extremely popular in England and Scotland (and eventually in the United States as well).   Gall was, well, galled by Spurzheim's success and, despite his refusal to use the term phrenology himself (he preferred to call his own science "organology" or "zoonomy"),  it was Spurzheim's term that won out.  Various critics had no problem linking their names together and one reviewer in 1815 denounced their theories as "a collection of mere absurdities, without truth, connexion, or consistency".   Despite some recognition for his original contributions to brain research, Gall remained bitter over never receiving the eminence he felt he deserved.  He died in 1828 after requesting that his own skull be added to the large collection of skulls that are still on display in the Rollet Museum in Baden bei Wien, Austria.

As fpr Spurzhim and his own chief supporter, George Combe, the practical phrenology that they both advocated had less and less to do with any actual brain science as time went on.   While Spurzheim still had some actual medical credentials and gave public demonstrations of brain dissections, his death in 1832 left George Combe as the chief spokesman for phrenology.  Since Combe had no actual medical training (he was a lawyer),  that also meant that phrenology's tenuous claim to science was weaker than ever.   Still, as phrenology shifted away from brain science towards more"personality-oriented" applications, social reformers, innovators, and criminologists became attracted by its appeal.  Cesare Lombroso incorporated many aspects of Gall and Spurzheim's ideas into his own system of identifying "born criminals".     Educators saw phrenology as a way of classifying students according to their ability to learn while psychiatrists began studying patient skulls to find better ways of dealing with asylum inmates. 

By the time of Johann Spurzheim's death, there were at least twenty-nine different phrenological societies in Great Britain alone (George Combe personally founded the Edinburgh Phrenological Society in 1820).  George Combe's books became international best-sellers and his best-known book, The Constitution of Man, sold more than seventy thousand copies by 1838 alone (and would eventually go on to sell more than three hundred thousand copies).   Even the British royal family consulted Conde since Prince Albert had been worried that one of his sons was a slow learner.   Conde also evaluated Queen Victoria (from a distance) and concluded that her broad and high forehead reflected her "firmness of purpose, great self-control, and awareness of moral principles".   

Despite the controversy over phrenology and increasingly successful attacks by eminent scientists,  phrenology spread across the Atlantic and American phrenological societies sprang up as well.  Still,  phrenology didn't last particularly long as a serious movement in the United States.   Eminent American surgeon John Collins Warren attended many of Spurzheim's lectures and recognized its significance although he never became a member of a phrenological society himself.  He also carried out the autopsy on Johann Spurzheim after his death in Boston during an American tour (leading to Spurzheim's skull being added to the growing Harvard medical collection).    Other eminent medical researchers such as Charles Caldwell and John Bell also attended Spurzheim's lectures and founded Pennsylvania's first phrenological society (Caldwell went to write the first American textbook on phrenology).    Although George Combe visited the United States on lecture tours (and met several American presidents in the process), the movement began fading after 1840 and largely became relegated to a pseudoscience before the decade was out.

Which brings us back to Orson Fowler and his brother...

Born in Steuben Country, New York in 1809, Orson Fowler attended Amherst College in Massachusetts.  While attending school there, he developed a keen interest in phrenology which he shared with his best friend, Henry Ward Beecher.   While Beecher went into ministry work after their graduation in  1834, Fowler had other ideas. 

He and his brother, Lorenzo Fowler opened a phrenology office in New York City and launched a series of public lectures on phrenology, physiology,  psychology, and social reform.   Orson Fowler also became a popular writer and editor of the American Phrenological Journal and placed his own stamp on American phrenology by launching one of the largest mail-order firms in New York City.   At the height of the phrenology craze, Fowler's New York offices attracted as many visitors as the nearby museum run by P.T. Barnum.   

Along with phrenology, the Fowlers also promoted a new "scientific" system of shorthand called phonography (they called it scientific since it was based on a specific set of rules).   Not that the Fowler family believed in limiting themselves in any way.   Orson's wife Lydia and sister, Charlotte, were both active suffragettes and the Fowler offices in New York became a gathering place where people could discuss anything from abolishing slavery (pre-Civil War) to the crusade against alcohol (did I forget to mention that they were also temperance movement supporters?). 

Although the American Phrenological Journal that Fowler edited folded up by 1842,  his company did brisk business with a range of other products.  Along with books and pamphlets (mostly written by Orson Fowler),  the company also sold phrenological charts, measuring tapes, craniometers, and the classic china Phrenology Heads which are still collectors' items today.     The Fowler brothers also took their show across the country as part of a regular lecture circuit although they often faced attacks by skeptics denouncing phrenology as "quackery".   While both Fowlers defended the science behind their work, that claim became harder to defend as mainstream medical researchers withdrew support. 

Still, the Fowler brothers carried on their crusade and insisted that phrenology had just as much right to be labelled a science as mathematics, astronomy, or natural history.   Orson Fowler also stressed the theological importance of phrenology, which revealed "the hand-writing of God" since its principles, like all scientific truths as far as he was concerned,  were "of divine origin".    Lorenzo Fowler even argued that phrenologists were completing the work that Jesus Christ started in reforming human behaviour.

As for the Orson Fowler book in my collection, it seems fairly typical of the phrenological literature that he sold through his company.   The book's introduction begins with:  "Reproduction is Nature's paramount work;  because to all else what foundation is to house- its sine qua non.  It has its SCIENCE, or natural laws, prescribed modus operandi and, and instrumentalities.  GENDER IS ITS MASTER WORKMAN, and Nature's "male and female" arrangement, with its governing law, her chose "ways and means" or originating all life: which growth completes."   Covering nine sections in all, the book includes sections such as "Gender and Sexuality", "Love", "Sexual Selection", "Married Life",  "Generation" (the polite Victorian euphemism for sexual intercourse), "Maternity",  and "Sexual Restoration".   

Despite these being taboo topics during the Victorian era in which Fowler was writing, his tenuous claim to medical expertise enabled him to present his phrenological advice in the form of a marriage manual for concerned adults trying to deal with different aspects of human sexuality.   While Orson Fowler proudly inserted the word "science" into his book as much as he could (usually in capital letters), there was very little, if any, empirical testing of the elaborate claims that he made in his book.  He certainly didn't believe in referencing his "facts" and, despite abundant illustrations, there doesn't seem to be any citations (aside from his own works).   The book also contains surprising little phrenology and mostly deals with Victorian ideals about the proper age for teaching children about sexual matters and the need for a "scientific" approach to sex and love.   The book seems to say more about Fowler's personal biases than any attempt at scientific objectivity.   As well, his insistence that producing children was the ultimate purpose for any sexual act marked him very much as a man of his time. 

Whenever critics  accused him of being more interested in making money than actually promoting phrenology, Orson Fowler simply defended himself by saying that he worked so hard because "I loved the science!".     Still,  the decline had begun setting in after 1860 and Lorenzo Fowler, sensing that the market was drying up, moved to Great Britain in 1863 to continue his phrenology crusade there.  Although Charlotte Fowler took over running the company and a new generation of Fowlers came on board to help with the mail-order business, phrenology's day was definitely past.  By the time Orson Fowler died in 1887, phrenology was just one of many different "sciences" being promoted by travelling hucksters giving lectures across the country.    As the phrenology market dried up, the ex-phrenologists drifted on to more profitable ventures, including spiritualist research and more evolutionary explanations for human behaviourism.  

Beginning in the 1870s,  Social Darwinist theories based (loosely) on Darwin's theory of evolution grew in popularity and social reformers shifted away from phrenology-based social reform towards improving human behaviour through "good breeding".  As phrenology societies faded, eugenics societies formed on both sides of the Atlantic with credible scientists using their research to boost the idea of improving society through genetics  (especially Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton).   But that's another story.

While phrenologists tried every marketing strategy that they could, including the developing of mechanical phrenology devices (which I once tried myself at an American Psychological Association convention),  American phrenology never survived Orson Fowler's death.  Despite phrenology fading in the United States, the movement staggered on in parts of Europe despite most scientists denouncing its validity.   Several early 20th scientists, such as Bernard Hollander in the United Kingdom and Paul Bouts in Belgium, tried repackaging phrenology to make it more acceptable but their efforts are largely forgotten today. 

Although phrenology has long since been relegated to obscurity, the legacy that Gall, Spurzheim, and Fowler left behind still lingers.   Various pseudoscientific schemes for classifying people still enjoy some popularity, whether through classifying people by blood-type,  graphology (handwriting), or astrology, although none of them seem to have ever enjoyed the scientific respectability that phrenology could claim (at first).    

Unfortunately, while pseudoscientific movements can be easily dismissed, more scientifically validated methods of personality classification using psychometric testing are prone to misuse as well (and often are).   Various media psychologists selling unscientific advice to the public through self-help books, radio, and television appearances often rely on the same selling strategies that worked for Orson Fowler,  however briefly.    Failing to acknowledge the very real scientific limits of psychology will almost certainly catch up to them in time however.   Whether the current pundits can learn from Orson Fowler's example remains to be seen.

Unmaking the Disease

Prior to 1960, there were few concepts more widely accepted in psychology and psychiatry than the notion that homosexuality was abnormal.  Not that there was actual evidence to back up the disease model for homosexuality, mind you. 

Despite occasional periods of tolerance throughout history, homosexuality was routinely treated as an abomination for the past two thousand years.  Along with Biblical commands to "be fruitful and multiply", any sexual practices that failed to result in childbirth were dismissed as perverse and unnatural.  Homosexuality in particular, was reviled due to specific passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  Although contraception came to be grudgingly allowed (at least in some societies), "crimes against nature" legislation was rigidly enforced almost everywhere.  The death penalty for "buggery" in England was only abolished in 1861 (the penalty was reduced to a ten-year sentence with hard labour).  Well into the 20th century, homosexuals could be routinely arrested and forced to serve long prison sentences in most countries around the world.  

Given this background of intolerance, you can imagine how it influenced the scientific study of homosexuality which began in the 19th century.  Case studies of male and female homosexuals were published by early pioneers such as Richard von Kraft-Ebing and Jean Martin Charcot (who concluded that homosexuality was congenital after failing to cure it with hypnosis).  Other psychiatrists suggested that homosexuality could be caused by a combination of environmental factors and an inborn predisposition to perversion.  Cesare Lombroso, the 19th century criminologist, argued that homosexuals were at a lower stage of evolutionary development than heterosexuals and, due to their condition being innate, could not be held responsible for their actions.  Although homosexuals continued to be punished, the focus gradually shifted from prisons to insane asylums.

That's not to say that there wasn't opposition to the mainstream view on homosexuality. Beginning in 1862, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs took the courageous step of coming out to his family and friends as an Urning and crusading for reform.   Although his books were later banned across Germany (he was always on the move to avoid arrest), he eventually managed to flee to Italy where he died in 1895.  Largely forgotten today, Ulrichs is chiefly remembered as an early pioneer in sexological research and same-sex relationships.  Later researchers, including Havelock Ellis and Magnus Hirschfeld, were also outspoken in their support of homosexuality as being natural though the conservatives still managed to prevail. 

It was hardly surprising that there was little opposition in 1952 when the American Psychiatric Association included homosexuality in its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Mental Disorders (DSM-I). Designed to replace previous classification systems that were regarded as inadequate, the DSM-I was intended to be a major advance in placing psychiatry among the more scientifically-focused medical disciplines.  Along with other sexual deviations, homosexuality was classified as a "sociopathic personality disturbance" due to the lack of subjective distress or dysfunction involved.  In other words, homosexuals fit the criteria regardless of how well-adjusted they actually were.  Simply engaging in homosexual behaviour was enough to qualify for the diagnosis and the DSM-I explicitly stated that homosexuals were "ill primarily in terms of society and of conformity with the prevailing cultural milieu.:"  This classification would remain unchanged until 1968.

It's perhaps inevitable that "curing" homosexuality would become a prime goal for psychiatrists though many dissenters, including Sigmund Freud, remained skeptical about the various methods used for treating homosexuals.  In a famous "Letter to an American Mother" which Freud wrote in 1935 to a mother asking for help in changing her son's homosexuality, he stated that "In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies which are present in every homosexual, in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of treatment cannot be predicted."

Despite Freud's own pessimism, other psychoanalysts were more hopeful about the value of therapy in correcting homosexuality.  Sandor Rado broke away from Freud in the 1930s and presented an alternate view of sexuality which, among other things, argued that homosexual desires developed due to a phobic response to members of the opposite sex.  Inspired by Rado, the New York Society of Medical Psychoanalysts carried out an extensive study comparing more than 100 homosexuals with an equivalent sample of heterosexuals.  Data was collected on a full range of early childhood, social, family, and therapeutic factors and the results were published in 1962 under the  title of Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study. 

Although the lead author, Irving Bieber, emphasized that the study was not designed to "pathologize" homosexuality, he didn't hesitate to represent heterosexuality as the norm from which homosexuals deviated.  He concluded that "Our findings point to the homosexual adaptation as an outcome of exposure to highly pathologic parent-child relationships and early life situations".   Poor maternal and paternal relationships were blamed for "abnorma" sexual development.   In particular,  Bieber identified a familial "triangular system" that was most likely to cause homosexuality in children.  Albert Ellis, who became known as the father of rational-emotive therapy, was also an outspoken advocate of using counseling techniques to change homosexuality (he viewed exclusive homosexuality as being due to a phobic response to the opposite sex).  Along with Ellis and Charles Socarides (who became increasingly influential in the 1960s and 1970s), Irving Bieber and his rejection of innate homosexuality would influence mental health professionals for a generation.  It would also play a profound role in how the legal system treated convicted homosexuals since court-mandated treatment was often made a condition of release.

Beginning in the 1950s however, the dissenters began to make themselves heard.  In a groundbreaking study published in 1948, Alfred Kinsey presented the results of a stratified nationwide survey of male sexual behaviour.  Among the findings that shocked the American people, Kinsey showed that actual sexual practices varied widely from the rigid cultural standards that were largely taken for granted.  An astonishing thirty-seven percent of males interviewed reported having had at least one sexual encounter with another man with ten percent saying that had been almost exclusively homosexual for at least some part of their lives.  As Kinsey and his associates dealt with the tremendous backlash of criticism (scientific and moralistic) for these findings, homosexuals felt increasingly empowered by the revelation that they were more than just a marginal group. By the time of Alfred Kinsey's death in 1956, he had a warm relationship with many of the Homophile associations of the time who regarded him as their patron saint.

While Kinsey's research helped challenge the popular view of homosexuality as abnormal, it was Evelyn Hooker and her research into the psychology of homosexuals which triggered a radical shift in clinical views on sexual orientation.  Born Evelyn Gentry in 1907, she later earned her doctorate at John Hopkins University in Maryland and trained at the Berlin Institute of Psychotherapy during Hitler's rise to power in Germany.  Returning to the US at the outset of World War II, she was a psychology teacher at UCLA when a student, Sam From, introduced her to what would become her life's work.  As part of the lesbian and gay subculture of the time, From was in a good position to introduce Hooker to many of his friends and show her the routine persecution that homosexuals of the time faced.  After From challenged her to "study people like him",  Evelyn Hooker became increasingly aware that many self-identified homosexuals didn't conform to the standard image of tormented individuals that were reported on in the scientific literature being published by clinicians.  

Since existing research helped reinforce negative attitudes (and the repressive legislation that made homosexuals fearful of being open about their sexuality), Evelyn Hooker began a formal study of her own  in 1954.  She recruited research subjects from several California-based homophile groups (including the Mattachine Society and One Inc.).  Although she acknowledged that there was a selection bias in her subjects, she also pointed out that previous case studies involving homosexuals almost invariably focused on men and women who were either: 1.desperate to change their orientation or  2. forced into treatment by the criminal justice or mental health systems.  She also pointed out that homosexuality was largely hidden due to fear of arrest or persecution so a truly representative sample wasn't possible. 

After recruiting thirty homosexual men, she matched them to a same-sized sample of heterosexual men in terms of IQ scores, age and educational background.  She then administered a battery of projective tests (including the venerable Rorschach).  After collecting her data for a year, she presented the 60 test profiles to a panel of expert clinicians and asked them to determine whether the homosexuals had greater pathology than the heterosexuals (the clinicians were given no information on the sexual orientations of the subjects).  All three judges, despite their lengthy experience with projective tests, were unable to find any meaningful difference between the two groups.  There was also no indication that homosexual males showed any more psychopathology than heterosexuals (despite it being a formal psychiatric diagnosis at the time).

Considering the era in which the study was done, these conclusions were mind-boggling.  Despite Evelyn Hooker's own objections over the preliminary nature of her research, the then-editor of the Journal of Projective Techniques urged her to publish her findings in a 1957 issue.  In writing about her research, Hooker acknowledged that a homosexual orientation might represent a "social" maladjustment (given the cultural and legal problems openly homosexual individuals faced) but that psychological well-being wasn't necessarily affected.  She also investigated family background of her homosexual subjects and failed to find the pathological upbringing that mainstream clinicians insisted lay at the root of homosexuality. 

Hooker's research also looked into same-sex relationships and found that two-thirds of her subjects had formed long-term partnerships.  This was in direct opposition to the mainstream view that homosexuals were incapable of forming stable relationships.  While she did find an increased tendency towards "disturbed" behavioural patterns in homosexuals, she linked this to the very real societal risks that they faced as a stigmatized minority.  In a 1956 paper, Hooker wrote that "It would be strange indeed if all the traits due to victimization in minority groups were in the homosexual produced by inner dynamics of the personality, since he is also a member of an outgroup which is subject to extreme penalties involving, according to Kinsey, cruelties which have not often been matched except in religious and social persecutions".  

Almost inevitably, Evelyn Hooker's research won her enormous support in the growing homophile movement (which also developed an increasing antagonism towards mainstream psychiatry).   Along with Thomas Szasz (whose anti-psychiatry crusade came to include homosexuality as another focus of psychiatric repression) and Judd Marmor, Evelyn Hooker became part of the more accommodating movement that rejected orthodox views of homosexuality as a disease.  It was during this same era that homosexual activists became increasingly militant (although they were largely overshadowed by the more high-profile protest movements of the 1960s).  Gay Liberation became a popular rallying cry and providing treatment to change homosexual behaviour (voluntary or not) was vilified as a tool of social repression. 

Civil rights group, while focusing on racial and sexual discrimination, also began pushing for better legal protections for sexual minorities.  The Stonewall riots of 1969 became a potent symbol for a more aggressive struggle for legal recognition.  Psychiatrists who presented lectures on treating homosexuals could expect hostile picketers and public ridicule.  Leaving aside the question of whether this sort of public confrontation was an appropriate way to express outrage over negative portrayals of homosexuality, it certain provided ample publicity for the Gay Liberation cause.

Naturally,the American Psychiatric Association (APA) became the focus of this protest.  After failing to remove homosexuality as a disease in the second edition of the DSM which came out in 1968 (it was still listed as a "sexual orientation disturbance"), activists routinely protested their annual conventions (especially the 1970 convention in San Francisco).  The presence of Irving Bieber and other prominent advocates of homosexuality's disease status led to a mobilized response by gay and feminist groups.  During one panel presentation, Bieber was verbally abused by one protester who told him, "I've read your book, Dr. Bieber, and if that book talked about black people the way it talks about homosexuals, you'd be drawn and quartered and you'd deserve it."  When Nathaniel McConaghy presented a paper on aversive conditioning in treating homosexuals, demonstrators disrupted the talk and the room fell into chaos.   Although gay activists drew strong criticism for their tactics, the organizers argued that their actions were necessary since the Association had refused to let homosexuals take part in the official program.

As a compromise, a special panel was organized for the 1971 APA convention held in Washington, D.C.  Chaired by psychiatrist, Kent Robinson, the panel featured prominent gay activists who, for the first time ever, presented psychiatrists with a look at their daily lives (without the assumption of psychopathology).  One limited panel wasn't felt to be enough to advance the gay activists' cause however and a series of protests were also held.  On May 3, 1971, gay and antiwar activists stormed into the Convocation of Fellows where their leader denounced the psychiatric profession by saying: "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."  Using forged credentials, activists also entered the exhibit area and demanded the removal of a display advertising aversive conditioning techniques for treating homosexuals.  The APA complied and the arranged panel went on as scheduled.

By the time of the 1972 convention in Dallas, enough progress had been made for activists to avoid the confrontation tactics of previous conventions.  Kent Robinson, who by then had become the unofficial APA liaison with the gay community, arranged for a booth to be displayed in the exhibit area.  The booth was run by several gay activists with the logo of "Gay, Proud, and Healthy" designed to win support for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM.  A panel chaired by Robinson included Judd Marmor, gay activist Frank Kameny, as well as "Dr. H. Anonymous", a gay psychiatrist who chose not to reveal his name openly (he wore a mask for the panel presentation).  "Dr. Anonymous" was the most memorable speaker and he announced that there were over two hundred gay psychiatrists attending the conference. 

He stated that, "As psychiatrists who are homosexual, we must know our place and what we must do to be successful. If our goal is high academic achievement, a level of earning capacity equal to our fellows, or admission to a psychoanalytic institute, we must make sure that we behave ourselves and that no one in a position of power is aware of our sexual preference and/or gender identity."  His presentation, along with the other speakers of the panel, made a powerful appeal for greater tolerance and acceptance among psychiatrists in dealing with their patients and the community at large.  It would be a major turning point in changing orthodox views on homosexuality.

Although critics later argued that the disruptive tactics of the gay lobby had done more harm than good, the formal panel seemed a vindication of its success.  As Barbara Gittings pointed out, the event would likely have taken decades longer to be held "if gay people had politely waited to be asked".   In a provocative article published in 1972 in the International Journal of Psychiatry, Richard Green argued against the disease interpretation of homosexuality and invited six formal responses.  Of the six, only the responses by Charles Socarides and Lawrence Hatterer supported the traditional psychiatric perspective and rejected the reopening of the question of homosexuality's status as a disease. 

Although Socarides continued to fight against any attempt at normalizing homosexuality, other mental health organizations, including the National Association for Mental Health urged that homosexual behaviour be decriminalized.  Meanwhile, the protests continued at the 1972 conference of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy (which the protesters accused of torture over the use of aversion therapy to change sexual orientation).  It was at this conference where Robert Spitzer, a then-member of the APA's Committee on Nomenclature, agreed to allow gay groups to make a presentation before the committee at the 1973 APA conference.  

Despite an internal split among gay groups over  the presentation, Charles Silverstein of the Institute for Human Identity was chosen to organize it.  Along with prepared statements from a number of gay-positive psychiatrists and psychologists, Silverstein called for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in his presentation on February 28, 1973.  The lengthy case statement surveyed research findings and documented how the psychiatric diagnosis of homosexuality reinforced existing social and legal restrictions on homosexual behaviour.  In his final summation, Silverstein pointed out the psychological consequences of maintaining that homosexuality was a disease:  "We are told, from the time that we first recognize our homosexual feelings, that our love for other human beings is sick, childish and subject to "cure." We are told that we are emotional cripples forever condemned to an emotional status below that of the "whole" people who run the world. The result of this in many cases is to contribute to a self-image that often lowers the sights we set for ourselves in life, and many of us asked ourselves, "How could anybody love me?" or "How can I love somebody who must be just as sick as I am?""

Although the committee was impressed by Silverstein's presentation, there was active opposition.  An ad-hoc committee organized by Charles Socarides and Irving Bieber, supported by psychoanalytic societies, urged the APA not to revise the DSM-II.  By the time the APA convention was held later that year, the political forces on both sides of the debate were fully engaged in the battle over changing the DSM.  After a proposal that the matter be settled through a survey of APA's members was rejected, the Council on Research and Development met in October of that year and voted unanimously to delete homosexuality from the DSM-II.  Although there was continuing debate over whether a new diagnosis of "sexual orientation disturbance" should take its place (which could apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike), the final decision on December 15 was carefully worded to make the decision to delist homosexuality as a mental disorder as neutral as possible. In handing down the decision, Allen Freedman, then-president of the APA stated that the resolution would "help to build a more accommodative climate of opinion for the homosexual minority in our country, a climate which will enable homosexuals to render the maximal contribution to society of which they are capable."

Newspapers across the country announced the decision with headlines such as "Doctors Rule Homosexuals not Abnormal" and "Victory for Homosexuals".  Although critics such as Bieber and Socarides remained outspoken in denouncing the decision (and accusing APA of caving in to political pressure), the new perspective on sexual minorities was largely welcomed by the community at large.  There was enough opposition to the change for a petition to be circulated among the APA membership calling for a popular vote on the decision.  When the vote was finally held in 1974, the Board's decision was ratified. 

It wasn't a complete reversal of psychiatric thinking on homosexuality however.  When the third revision of the DSM came out in 1980 (DSM-III), a new psychiatric diagnosis was approved:  ego-dystonic homosexuality.   With diagnostic criteria including: 1.a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal and 2. persistent distress from unwanted homosexual arousal, the new diagnostic label was intended as a compromise to appease those psychiatrists who still felt that changing sexual orientation was a reasonable goal. Gay activists railed against a diagnosis which they felt helped reinforce antigay biases.  Since legal and social barriers to acceptance of homosexuals were still strong, couldn't all homosexuals be considered ego-dystonic to some extent?    Ego-dystonic homosexuality was completely removed in the revised version of the DSM which came out in 1986 (DSM-III-R).  There are still vestiges remaining in the newest version of the DSM under the heading of Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (a catch-all diagnostic label which includes "Persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation" as one of its criteria although the label is rarely used these days). 

Not surprisingly, there was continuing resistance to the changes in how the APA dealt with homosexuality.  In 1992, Charles Socarides, Benjamin Kaufman and Joseph Nicolosi founded the National Association for Research and Therapy in Homosexuality (NARTH).  Described as a "non-profit, educational organization dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality”, NARTH's mission statement "offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality".   Opposing the APA reversal on conversion therapy for changing sexual orientation, NARTH remains affiliated with with religious organizations such as Focus on the Family and PATH (Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality).  Despite concerns raised by the American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists that NARTH "creates an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish), the organization remains active.  Until his death in 2005, Charles Socarides remained a dominant voice in NARTH's policies as well as being a widely sought authority in civil rights cases opposing liberalization of anti-homosexual legislation.

Despite the opposition from conservative psychiatrists, the mainstream view on homosexuality and conversion therapy has undergone a dramatic shift over the past thirty years.  Pioneers such as Evelyn Hooker, Judd Marmor and "Dr. Anonymous" (who since revealed himself as John E. Fryer) lived long enough to see their once-reviled stand on homosexuality as a normal expression of sexuality become accepted.  Not coincidentally, that same era has seen a wider change in social and legal acceptance of sexual minorities.  Although the struggle still continues (with ongoing controversy over DSM definitions of gender disorders), the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have become advocates of gay-affirmative treatment as well as supporting legislative changes. 

Whether this positive voice will continue in an era of increasing resistance to acceptance of sexual minorities is something that only time will tell.

 

 

Although critics later argued that the disruptive tactics of the gay lobby had done more harm than good, the formal panel seemed a vindication of its success.  As Barbara Gittings pointed out, the event would likely have taken decades longer to be held "if gay people had politely waited to be asked".   In a provocative article published in 1972 in the International Journal of Psychiatry, Richard Green argued against the disease interpretation of homosexuality and invited six formal responses.  Of the six, only the responses by Charles Socarides and Lawrence Hatterer supported the traditional psychiatric perspective and rejected the reopening of the question of homosexuality's status as a disease. 

Although Socarides continued to fight against any attempt at normalizing homosexuality, other mental health organizations, including the National Association for Mental Health urged that homosexual behaviour be decriminalized.  Meanwhile, the protests continued at the 1972 conference of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy (which the protesters accused of torture over the use of aversion therapy to change sexual orientation).  It was at this conference where Robert Spitzer, a then-member of the APA's Committee on Nomenclature, agreed to allow gay groups to make a presentation before the committee at the 1973 APA conference.  

Despite an internal split among gay groups over  the presentation, Charles Silverstein of the Institute for Human Identity was chosen to organize it.  Along with prepared statements from a number of gay-positive psychiatrists and psychologists, Silverstein called for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in his presentation on February 28, 1973.  The lengthy case statement surveyed research findings and documented how the psychiatric diagnosis of homosexuality reinforced existing social and legal restrictions on homosexual behaviour.  In his final summation, Silverstein pointed out the psychological consequences of maintaining that homosexuality was a disease:  "We are told, from the time that we first recognize our homosexual feelings, that our love for other human beings is sick, childish and subject to "cure." We are told that we are emotional cripples forever condemned to an emotional status below that of the "whole" people who run the world. The result of this in many cases is to contribute to a self-image that often lowers the sights we set for ourselves in life, and many of us asked ourselves, "How could anybody love me?" or "How can I love somebody who must be just as sick as I am?""

Although the committee was impressed by Silverstein's presentation, there was active opposition.  An ad-hoc committee organized by Charles Socarides and Irving Bieber, supported by psychoanalytic societies, urged the APA not to revise the DSM-II.  By the time the APA convention was held later that year, the political forces on both sides of the debate were fully engaged in the battle over changing the DSM.  After a proposal that the matter be settled through a survey of APA's members was rejected, the Council on Research and Development met in October of that year and voted unanimously to delete homosexuality from the DSM-II.  Although there was continuing debate over whether a new diagnosis of "sexual orientation disturbance" should take its place (which could apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike), the final decision on December 15 was carefully worded to make the decision to delist homosexuality as a mental disorder as neutral as possible. In handing down the decision, Allen Freedman, then-president of the APA stated that the resolution would "help to build a more accommodative climate of opinion for the homosexual minority in our country, a climate which will enable homosexuals to render the maximal contribution to society of which they are capable."

Newspapers across the country announced the decision with headlines such as "Doctors Rule Homosexuals not Abnormal" and "Victory for Homosexuals".  Although critics such as Bieber and Socarides remained outspoken in denouncing the decision (and accusing APA of caving in to political pressure), the new perspective on sexual minorities was largely welcomed by the community at large.  There was enough opposition to the change for a petition to be circulated among the APA membership calling for a popular vote on the decision.  When the vote was finally held in 1974, the Board's decision was ratified. 

It wasn't a complete reversal of psychiatric thinking on homosexuality however.  When the third revision of the DSM came out in 1980 (DSM-III), a new psychiatric diagnosis was approved:  ego-dystonic homosexuality.   With diagnostic criteria including: 1.a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal and 2. persistent distress from unwanted homosexual arousal, the new diagnostic label was intended as a compromise to appease those psychiatrists who still felt that changing sexual orientation was a reasonable goal. Gay activists railed against a diagnosis which they felt helped reinforce antigay biases.  Since legal and social barriers to acceptance of homosexuals were still strong, couldn't all homosexuals be considered ego-dystonic to some extent?    Ego-dystonic homosexuality was completely removed in the revised version of the DSM which came out in 1986 (DSM-III-R).  There are still vestiges remaining in the newest version of the DSM under the heading of Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (a catch-all diagnostic label which includes "Persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation" as one of its criteria although the label is rarely used these days). 

Not surprisingly, there was continuing resistance to the changes in how the APA dealt with homosexuality.  In 1992, Charles Socarides, Benjamin Kaufman and Joseph Nicolosi founded the National Association for Research and Therapy in Homosexuality (NARTH).  Described as a "non-profit, educational organization dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality”, NARTH's mission statement "offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality".   Opposing the APA reversal on conversion therapy for changing sexual orientation, NARTH remains affiliated with with religious organizations such as Focus on the Family and PATH (Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality).  Despite concerns raised by the American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists that NARTH "creates an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish), the organization remains active.  Until his death in 2005, Charles Socarides remained a dominant voice in NARTH's policies as well as being a widely sought authority in civil rights cases opposing liberalization of anti-homosexual legislation.

Despite the opposition from conservative psychiatrists, the mainstream view on homosexuality and conversion therapy has undergone a dramatic shift over the past thirty years.  Pioneers such as Evelyn Hooker, Judd Marmor and "Dr. Anonymous" (who since revealed himself as John E. Fryer) lived long enough to see their once-reviled stand on homosexuality as a normal expression of sexuality become accepted.  Not coincidentally, that same era has seen a wider change in social and legal acceptance of sexual minorities.  Although the struggle still continues (with ongoing controversy over DSM definitions of gender disorders), the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have become advocates of gay-affirmative treatment as well as supporting legislative changes. 

Whether this positive voice will continue in an era of increasing resistance to acceptance of sexual minorities is something that only time will tell.

The Fruit Machine Saga

Dealing with homosexuals in the public service was a familiar problem for Western governments during the 1950s and early 1960s.  

A criminal offense in most countries, homosexuals were often punished with imprisonment and/or mandatory psychiatric treatment, that made closeted homosexuals especially vulnerable to blackmail or recruitment by hostile governments.  At least, that was the argument used to justify the security campaigns rooting out any homosexuals (real or suspected) in sensitive positions.    Although the anti-homosexual crusades in the United States and Great Britain are well-documented,  that the Canadian government did the same was largely shrouded in secrecy for decades.   It was only during the 1990s that the Canadian Press used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain many previously classified documents outlining how thoroughly Canadian security forces managed to destroy the lives of countless gay men and lesbians working in sensitive positions.  They also demonstrated some of the bizarre methods by which gay men and lesbians were identified. 

The Problem of Homosexuality

Beginning in 1959 with a Special Panel on "Security Cases involving Character Weaknesses with Special Reference to the Problem of Homosexuality", the question of what to do with homosexuals and lesbians in the public service became a critical issue for Canada's security forces.   According to one declassified memo:

Sexual abnormalities appear to be the favourite target of hostile intelligence agencies, and of these homosexuality is  most often used.  The nature of homosexuality appears to adapt itself to this kind of exploitation.  By exercising fairly simple precautions, homosexuals are usually able to keep their habits hidden from those who are not specifically seeking them out.  Further, homosexuals often appear to believe that the accepted ethical code which governs normal human relationships does not apply to them.  Their propensity is often accompanied by other specific weaknesses such as excessive drinking with its resultant instabilities, a defiant attitude towards the rest of society, and a concurrent urge to seek out the company of persons with similar characteristics, often in disreputable bars, night clubs, or restaurants....From the small amount of information we have been able to find out about homosexual behaviour generally, certain characteristics appear to stand out - instability, willing self-deceit, defiance towards society, a tendency to surround oneself with persons of similar propensities, regardless of other considerations - none of which inspire the confidence one would hope to have in persons required to fill positions of trust and responsibility.

Weeding out the Homosexuals

Although the anti-homosexual purge was inspired by the Cold War hysteria prevalent in most Western countries during the 1950s (spurred on by Joseph McCarthy's anti-Communist crusade in the United States),  the Canadian security agencies took a special zeal in weeding out homosexual men and women wherever they could be found.   Not only were homosexuals arrested and prosecuted throughout Canada but Canadian immigration laws were passed in 1952 banning known homosexuals from entering the country.   While never as public as the anti-homosexual purges in other countries (and lacking high-profile victims such as Alan Turing in the United Kingdom),  the continuing spy trials and sex scandals from other countries helped fuel the perception that homosexuals were inherently dangerous, both to themselves and to their country.    Lesbians were not initially pursued with the same ruthless intensity although criminal laws were revised in 1953 to make female homosexuality a crime in Canada.  

After 1953, both men and women faced the risk of being labelled a "Criminal Sexual Psychopath" whenever evidence of homosexual activity (consensual or not) found its way into the courts.     For Canada's military, proven homosexual conduct was grounds for dishonourable discharge for both men and women.  While the focus was on male recruits, lesbianism was also seen as a threat to military discipline due to the "unfeminine" activities of lesbians in the service.   For cases of suspected homosexuals, military procedure called for a formal investigation (later enshrined under the 1967 Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 19-20, Sexual Deviation - Investigation, Medical Investigation and Disposal for the "proper" handling and dismissal of serving men and women found guilty of homosexual conduct).  Throughout the 1950s and 1960s,  Canadian and American security agencies freely shared information on all perceived high-risk individuals (including possible homosexual activity of people in "sensitive" positions). 

With consultation of security agencies on both sides of the border, a more formal procedure went into place in 1963 with the drafting of a new Cabinet Directive on "Security in the Public Services of Canada".   While not referring to homosexuals specifically, the new directive referenced "illicit sexual behaviour" and called for an "attitude of much greater frankness whose reliability or loyalty is in doubt".   Any prospective employee who openly admitted to homosexual conduct would either not be hired or else transferred to a less "sensitive" position (usually with less importance).    For employees who were not forthcoming about their sexuality, the security agencies made little actual distinction between hidden homosexuals who were actually disloyal or who simply had the potential of being disloyal.   Since the RCMP was in charge of all security investigations, their agents had the primary responsibility of investigating suspected homosexuals in virtually every branch of the Canadian government (except for the military which had its own intelligence division).  There was no independent review of the RCMP’s operation and accused homosexuals had no chance of defending themselves against accusations. 

Over time, the RCMP investigations eventually affected thousands of men and women, whether they were civil servants or not.   The total number of RCMP reports of suspected homosexuals rose from 1000 in 1960-1961 to 7500 in 1965-66.   Since few statistics were kept, the actual number of men and women whose lives were destroyed by relentless RCMP investigations and accusations of homosexuality can only be estimated.   For every high-profile case such as David Johnson, former Canadian ambassador to Moscow and his predecessor, John Watkins (who died of a heart attack following an RCMP interrogation), countless others were either fired, transferred or blacklisted based on suspected sexual improprieties. 

Despite only one-third of the RCMP investigations actually involving people in the civil service, right-wingers in the Canadian government denounced Canada’s external affairs department and embassies around the world as “a notorious cess-pool of homosexuals and perverts”.   The RCMP investigators in charge of locating homosexuals demanded and eventually got an expanded mandate and the list of suspects grew to include thousands of names.   Although the Canadian government placed some controls on the RCMP to prevent them from publicly exposing homosexuals unless they were considered to be security risks,  the RCMP often acted as judge and jury (since homosexuality was still a criminal offense at the time). 

Whatever the reality, the perception that thousands of hidden homosexuals were undermining Canadian security meant that a better way of identifying them was needed.   Fortunately, Canadian security agencies had their own expert on hand for that.   Dr. F. Robert Wake of Carleton University was already a well-known figure in forensic circles with his work on juvenile delinquency and deviancy.  As the first chair of Carleton's Psychology Department as well as a researcher for the Royal Commission on the Criminal Law Relating to Criminal Sexual Psychopaths during the 1950s, he was well known to security agencies and seemed best suited for developing a better way of finding hidden homosexuals.

And he was definitely up for the challenge...

Bringing in the Scientists

Since prevailing psychological and psychiatric thinking at the time maintained that homosexuals were either mentally ill or psychologically abnormal, depending on mental health professionals to identify closeted homosexuals in the public service made good sense.  With funding from National Health and Welfare,  Dr. Wake traveled to the United States to research methods used there to find a more "scientific" means of identifying homosexuals.  Since RCMP investigations of suspected homosexuals were long and expensive,  a more direct procedure was needed.    In a 1962 "Report on Special Project", Dr. Wake restated his own opinion that homosexuals were intrinsically unsuited for employment in the public service due to their mental instability and general unreliability.  

Although he was already aware of Evelyn Hooker and her research disputing prevailing opinions that homosexuals were maladjusted, Dr. Wake was very much a traditionalist.    In explaining what caused the difference types of homosexuality that he discussed in his report, Dr. Wake argued that homosexual tendencies were produced by “a combination of environmental circumstances during the years of childhood or early youth”.   Since there was no way of curing homosexuals based on prevailing medical science, he argued that their sexual desires needed to be controlled through medication and aversion therapy. 

While he focused on male homosexuality in his report, he also included information on lesbians as well and largely drew on the Kinsey results as an estimate on the actual number of homosexuals likely to exist in the Public Service.   The most far-reaching part of his report was included under the heading of "Methods for Identifying Homosexuals".   Arguing that there was more than one homosexual type, he ruled out the possible of a single test for identifying homosexuals.   Carefully outlining the various methods used in the United States, including psychiatric interviews, medical examinations, and projective tests, he then discussed the different physiological tests or measuring sexual arousal.  

After ruling out the polygraph as having too many problems to be useful, Dr. Wake also considered the finger plethysmograph (measuring blood volume in the finger using a pneumatic tube), palmar sweat index measures (perspiration), and pupillary response tests.    In his comprehensive report, F.R. Wake proposed the development of a formal test of homosexuality (or, as he termed it, “suitability for employment”) using physiological measures of arousal.   And, thus, the “fruit machine project” was launched.

The Rise and Fall of the “Fruit Machine”

According to John Sawatsky, author of Men in the Shadows, the term “fruit machine” was coined by RCMP agents who were leery of being recruited to act as the “normative sample” in testing the proposed device.    Although the “fruit machine” was never actually developed, the project spearheaded by Wake was financed by the National Defense and Health and Welfare departments for four years.    Along with Dr. Wake, the project would eventually bring in a large team of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other researchers, all dedicated to creating a machine for diagnosing homosexuality better than any of the existing methods.  

Although descriptions of the methodology proposed by Wake is fairly limited in the surviving documents related to his project,  the machine was apparently meant to measure changes in pupil dilation in conjunction with a word association test using a list of words with a hidden homosexual meaning.   The proposed word list would include words such as:  queen, circus, gay, bagpipe, bell, whole, blind, bull, camp, coo, cruise, drag, dike (dyke), fish, flute, fruit, mother, punk, queer, tea room, etc.  Since many of the words had a double meaning that men and women immersed in the homosexual subculture would presumably know, measuring their physiological responses would presumably expose their hidden sexual identity.   

The pupillary measure that Dr. Wake recommended in his report had been developed at the University of Chicago by two researchers, Eckhard Hess and James Polt.   A graduate student, Alan Seltzer had  used the Hess-Polt procedure with slides comparing nearly-nude pictures of men taken from bodybuilding magazines with “neutral” slides (paintings) and claimed to be able to tell homosexual from heterosexual subjects based on pupil dilation data alone.  As Dr. Wake argued in his report, pupillary response measures were ideal in catching homosexuals since pupil dilation was completely involuntary and “cannot be controlled by the subject”.     He was especially impressed by the report of one homosexual subject who had admitted to trying to fool the machine only to find that he could not.  

In developing his own homosexuality-detection device, Dr. Wake proposed a new experiment combining the Hess-Polt apparatus “with a suitable visual stimuli; a measure of skin perspiration… with a modification to measure pulse rate.  Subjects:  fifteen normal males, fifteen normal females, fifteen homosexual males, fifteen homosexual females.   As the experiment progresses, additional normal and homosexual subjects in unspecified numbers.  All subjects to be supplied by the RCMP".     The experimental procedure in Wake's proposal was straightforward enough:  "the experimental stimuli will be pictures designed to elicit the subjects' interest in males and females...The first sixty subjects will be processed to determine the reaction patterns of normals and homosexuals.  Then using these patterns as criteria, the experimenter will attempt to distinguish homosexuals presented by the RCMP, where nothing of the subject is known to the research team.  Those methods proving successful will be retained for continuing research."  Ultimately, the focus of Wake's research was to identify homosexual men and women by detecting "involuntary"  sexual responses to the experimental stimuli (whether using pictures, presented words or audiotapes).

Ambitious as Wake's project was, it eventually bogged down over various technical snags.    That included the difficulty in finding a large enough sample of actual homosexuals and “normal” men and women to establish the actual effectiveness of the machine.   For obvious reasons, recruiting known homosexual men was hard enough (and the RCMP had no contacts at all in the female homosexual community as one rueful RCMP memo pointed out).  Even getting heterosexual men and women to participate was also a stumbling block (the reputation of the "fruit machine" project was enough to scare off any would-be volunteers in the RCMP community, none of whom wanted to be branded as "fruits" by their responses to the stimuli).    Since there were no female RCMP agents at the time, recruiting heterosexual women was deemed "inappropriate" (it was the early 1960s, after all).   Even attempting to recruit test subjects from other government departments failed to provide the needed numbers that Wake called for in his proposal.  There was also the operational problem of adapting the technology to adjust for height, eyeball size, and distance between eyeballs (all of which potentially distorted the machine's results).  

Despite some progress, Wake's research project remained stalled for years before being eventually scrapped in 1967.    For all the money spent and the years of effort, the great fruit machine project was a bust.

After the Fruit Machine

Even as early as 1967, changes in Canadian society made the RCMP's crusade against homosexuals harder than ever.   Despite a formal partnership with the morality divisions of city police forces (which allowed them to threaten suspects with arrest for failing to name fellow homosexuals),  the improving legal situation for gay men and lesbians made the paranoia surrounding homosexuals in the  public service harder to justify.  Along with the passage of the 1967 Sexual Offenses Act in the U.K. (which effectively decriminalized homsexuality) and the fight to decriminalize homosexuality in Canada.   Then Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau defended decriminalization with his famous line that "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation".   Canada's Criminal Law Amendment Act was finally passed in 1969 despite a massive anti-gay campaign by conservative and religious groups and allegations that the new law was motivated by "communism, socialism, and atheism".  

While the situation was slowly improving for sexual minorities in Canada, attitudes in the public service were slow to change and many gay men and lesbians were still fired for being "not advantageously employable".  Even as recently as 1992, Michelle Douglas' firing for being a lesbian led to the groundbreaking legal decision removing the ban on homosexuals openly serving in the Canadian military .    Virtually all government documents outlining the anti-gay security campaign, as well as the fruit machine project vanished into government archives until the Associated Press forced their release in the 1990s.  Despite Canada's reputation as being a liberal country,  it's still hard to estimate how many thousands of lives were ruined by the RCMP's security campaign.   As Gary Kinsman and Patrizia Gentile pointed out in their gripping book, The Canadian War on Queers, it was the national security campaign that likely spurred the growth of the gay liberation movement in Canada.  

While F. Robert Wake died in 1993 (with obituaries carefully avoiding any mention of his security work), that was hardly the end of the quest to build a successful "fruit machine".   Ironically, a far better approach to measuring sexual arousal became widely available in Canada when Dr. Kurt Freund arrived in 1968 to begin a new position at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry (now the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health).   Through the penile plethysmograph technique he pioneered in Europe, Dr. Freund created the first practical method for detecting sexual interest in males by measuring blood flow to the penis.  

Although he had initially been commissioned to develop the test by the Czech military to weed out homosexuals in the military, Dr. Freund's early research in aversive conditioning led him to conclude that homosexuals could not be "cured" in this fashion and called for the decriminalization of homosexuality in Czechoslovakia.    After coming to Canada as a refugee in 1968, he successfully resisted any attempt to use his penile plethysmography technique to identify homosexuals in Canada and pushed for decriminalization instead.  While this won him few friends in the largely Freudian psychiatric community of that time, his laboratory became one of the first in the world to use penile plethysmography (now more commonly known as phallometry)  to detect sexual arousal in men accused of pedophilia and related sexual offenses. 

Although Dr. Freund opposed attempts to use his phallometry technique to detect homosexual men during his lifetime, reports have surfaced of phallometric testing of homosexuals have surfaced in other countries (including Dr. Freund's birthplace, the Czech Republic).   As recently as  2011, the European Union Commission issued a statement declaring the Czech Republic's ongoing use of sexual arousal tests on gay asylum seekers to be in direct violation of EU asylum laws.  In citing several recent cases of gay refugees being forced to undergo phallometry as part of their application for asylum in the Czech Republic, the EU's Fndamental Rights Agency has flagged the Czech Republic for being the only country in Europe to demand such testing for refugees.

Despite the Czech Republic coming under the spotlight due to being part of the European Union, the use of phallometry and other tests of sexual arousal in non-European countries is not so well documented.  Given that homosexuality is still a criminal offense in numerous countries around the world, using widely available sexual arousal testing to identify and prosecute homosexual men and women may well be far more prevalent than anyone realizes.

Perhaps the "fruit machine" saga isn't quite over yet.

The Great Comic Book Crusade

It's hard to say for sure when the Golden Age of comics books ended.

Since the comic book format was first introduced in 1934, start-up companies featuring legendary talents such as Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Bob Kane, and Jerry Robinson quickly established themselves. Throughout the  late 1930s and 1940s, comic books sales boomed with the rise of popular characters such as Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. While other countries followed suit with their own comic book industries, U.S. comic book companies dominated the field and their comics grew and adapted with changing world events. As the U.S. entered World War II, comic book characters went to war in increasing numbers and the rise of the Atomic age simply introduced new plot lines for the next generation of comic book characters.

By the beginning of the 1950s however, the industry began to decline and new "grittier" comic books were released which increasingly focused on horror and detective dramas. It also marked the peak of the comics book boom with over 650 different titles being produced monthly by 1952 and millions of issues being sold every year. While conservative factions had long protested against the "evil" influence that comic books had on developing minds, the increasingly violent content to be found in many of the horror- and crime-oriented comics began to worry parents and educators alike.

That same era also marked the rise of juvenile delinquency as a serious concern in American society. Beginning in the years following World War II, increased publicity about crimes being committed by (usually male) youths generated considerable alarm and left child experts scrambling for an explanation. While early criminologists pointed out the probable role of family disruptions resulting from the war in delinquent behaviour, parents and educators were often uncomfortable with the blame falling so close to home. Hard questions began to be asked about the role of mass media in violence, especially given the violent content often found on radio (and later television) as well as comic books. Could violent comic books play a role in delinquency?

The crusade against comic books was nothing new (comic book burnings at conservative high schools had actually begun in the 1940s) but it took Fredric Wertham to give it respectability. A German- born psychiatrist who had moved to the U.S. in the 1920s, Wertham had established himself as a prominent forensic psychiatrist (he had appeared as an expert witness in the Albert Fish trial). He was also a prominent social activist who developed an interest in the role of the media in shaping violent behaviour. Beginning in the 1940s, Wertham wrote a series of books and articles on the influence of violent comic books on youth violence. He specifically targeted comic books over other media portrayals of violence since comics were written specifically for children.  Other forms of media violence managed to escape his wrath since they were intended for audiences of all ages. For that reason, comic books needed to meet a higher standard than other media. It didn't help that the early comic book industry was almost completely unregulated with none of the government agencies overseeing newspaper and radio content.

Some of Wertham's early articles prompted attempts at self-censorship by the comics book industry. Many comic book publishers formed their own advisory boards with child psychiatrists weighing in on the impact of violent content on children but that wasn't enough to appease Fredric Wertham.  He dismissed these advisory board members as "psycho-prima donnas" who were obviously lacking in basic clinical experience with children.As he later wrote, "The fact that some child psychiatrists endorse comic books does not prove the healthy state of the comic books. It only proves the unhealthy state of child psychiatry".

In 1954, Wertham published his most influential book, Seduction of the Innocent.  In his book, Wertham provided graphic descriptions of the violent content that could be found in comic books. He specifically targeted EC Comics with its extensive line of horror/crime comics (including the Tales from the Crypt series). Along with his fairly valid objections to the extreme violence depicted in comic books, Wertham made some bizarre conclusions about the hidden sexual content to be found as well.  Not only did he denounce Wonder Woman for its "lesbian" and bondage themes, but he also suggested that Batman and Robin's relationship had homosexual overtones. Wertham also had harsh words for the advertisements in comic books (offering items such as air rifles, knives, and "x-ray glasses"). In his book, he concluded that, "The time has come to legislate these books off the newsstands and out of candy stores".

Because of Wertham's book and his credentials as an expert witness, he was called to testify before the newly-formed U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency.   Then-chaired by Senator Estes Kefauver, the subcommittee held public hearings that focused on "crime and horror" comic books and their potential impact on juvenile delinquency. Fredric Wertham was hardly the only expert witness called&to testify though. Other prominent researchers, including Lauretta Bender and Frederic Thrasher disputed the link between comic books and juvenile delinquency although Wertham's higher media profile gave his testimony more weight.

There was certainly little actual research on the supposed link between comic book violence and juvenile delinquency. While studies into comic book readership tended to find that most U.S children under the age of ten read comics on a regular basis (with boys being more likely than girls to prefer adventure comics), few studies found evidence that the books were harmful. Some researchers reported that comic book readers  had a lower IQ than non-comic book readers although later researchers failed to replicate this result. This lack of empirical data hardly stopped Wertham's crusading, though.

But rhe comic book industry didn't Wertham's criticism in stride. Not only did publishers hire private detectives to investigate his past, these detectives also harassed Wertham's colleagues at his clinic. According to an unfortunately-worded editorial written in the comic book industry newsletter Quest, "The immediate enemy is Fredric Wertham, not some other publisher.  He cannot be reasoned with. He must be discredited and rendered ineffective. Will he go away?Probably not. He must be knocked out". Wertham was sufficiently alarmed by the editorial to send a copy to New York's police commissioner.

Based on the Senate hearings, the Comic Code Authority was established in 1954 to regulate comic book content. Until it was revised in the 1970s, the Code banned all graphic descriptions of violence, gore, and sexual innuendo in comic books. All negative representation of authority figures were also banned that the new Code stipulated that "in every instance, good should triumph over evil" as well as banning any representation of kidnapping or concealed weapons. EC Comics only survived by focusing on its only non-horror title, Mad Magazine (which savagely parodied Fredric Wertham for years afterward).

Wertham's influence was hardly limited to the United States alone. Child welfare agencies in Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and elsewhere began to call for restrictions on the importing of American comic books (partly out of concern for the violent content and partly to protect their own domestic comic book industries). Articles in British, Canadian, and Australian newspapers routinely denounced American comic books as being equivalent to a "narcotic" administering steadily greater shocks that desensitized children to violence. Women's groups, educators, the Catholic Church, and various other special interest groups formed alliances designed to counter the comic book menace on an international scale. Fredric Wertham's writings were extensively quoted in speeches and radio broadcasts around the world and government panels weighed in on the concerns that anti-comics crusaders raised. By the late 1950s, government regulating bodies for comic books were established across North America as well as various European and Asian countries.

The passing of the Comic Code Authority represented Fredric Wertham's greatest achievement (even if he protested that the regulation didn't go far enough). He would never be as influential again despite his efforts to expand his crusade to include other forms of media violence. In 1959, he attempted to publish a followup to his earlier book to focus on television violence but no publishers were interested. Despite occasional television appearances and articles in popular newspapers, his career as a media pundit was effectively over. Wertham continued writing on juvenile delinquency and the power of media until his death in 1981. Later social scientists tend to dismiss his work as being without scientific merit and comic book fans remember him only as a conservative demagogue and an advocate of censorship (one comic book writer referred to him as the "Josef Mengele of funnybooks"). To this day, comic book writers continue to parody Wertham and his crusade in various forms.

And yet...

Whatever we try to make of Fredric Wertham, he was hardly your typical demagogue. An early supporter of desegregation (and a personal friend of Ralph Ellison), Wertham's writing on race relations were used as testimony in the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education case which overturned school segregation in the United States. In his 1966 book, A Sign for Cain, he linked racism to the genocidal policies of Nazi psychiatrists in the forced euthanasia of mental patients. He ended the book with a powerful message for abolishing the death penalty and his own philosophy of social reform. He even tried to reach out to the comic book subculture with his support of fanzines although fans refused to forgive him for his role in undermining the industry. Throughout his lifetime, Fredric Wertham placed his reputation on the line to support unpopular causes and to defend what he believed to be right.

While he is mainly remembered by the anti-comics crusade, his role as an early pioneer in the role of media in influencing behaviour can't be denied, even if you disagree with his views. It was Fredric Wertham who took comic books seriously enough as a cultural medium to address their impact on the children for which they had been written (something no other social scientist had bothered to do before). Whether his crusade was completely without value is open to argument.

Better Living Through Radium

Pierre and Marie Curie likely never realized the full impact of what they were releasing on the world.

In their joint announcement to the French Academy of Sciences on December 26, 1898,  the Curies described the years of painstaking work that had led to the discovery of a remarkable new element which they later christened radium.   First extracted from pitchblende,  the new element received its name from the Latin word for "ray" (due to the mysterious rays which the new substance emitted).   Although Pierre Curie had already made a name for himself with the discovery of nuclear energy as well as the Curie Dysymmetry Principle, it was through his work with the brilliant Marie Sklodowska hat he is best known.

In the years that followed, Pierre and Marie Curie would continue their work with radium as well as with another element which they discovered together (named "polonium" after Marie's native Poland).    While Pierre was quick to give Marie much of the credit for their work, forcing the scientific community to recognize her contribution was often an uphill battle.   Even after Pierre's untimely death from a street accident in 1906, Marie Curie often faced considerable opposition from the male-dominated scientific and academic community.  Despite this resistance and her grief over her husband's death, she went on to develop the process by which pure radium could be extracted.  Marie Curie also presided over the first medical research using radium in the diagnosis and treatment of disease.  Her fame as a scientist, the growing public fascination with the mysterious properties of radium, and its value in medical research ensured that a strange new industry would soon get underway.

Marie Curie actually helped launch the radium industry with her decision not to patent the radium-isolation process which she had perfected through her research.  Although she had intended this move to permit scientists to work with radium without legal interference, it also meant that companies around the world could pursue industrial applications using radium without having to pay patent fees.  By 1917, the United States Radium Corporation had patented the first glow-in-the-dark radium-based paint (with the brand name of Undark).   

Between 1917 and 1926, the company employed hundreds of female workers to paint luminous watch dials under uncontrolled conditions.  The workers (later known as the Radium girls) had been reassured that radium-based paint was harmless and no industrial safeguards were in place to limit contamination.   Since the factory workers spent hours in pain-staking work painting watch dials, the brushes that they used to apply the paint often lost its shape and, to keep the brushes sharp and clean, the factory managers encouraged the workers to use their lips and tongues to wipe off the paint.  Some of the workers even went to far as to use Undark to paint their fingernails as an odd fashion statement.  By the time the toxic consequences of radium exposure became apparent, it was far too late for them.

The notion that radium was harmless was hardly limited to that one factory.  The use of radium as an ingredient in patent medications had quickly become big business by the early 1920s.  Numerous radium-laced products soon became widely available (including radium-laced beauty creams, toothpaste, chocolate bars, soap, etc).    Given the lack of real consumer protection legislation, the companies selling the products were free to make grandiose claims about the effectiveness of radiation in curing disease.   It was an interesting quirk of the times that the only companies to bw prosecuted were the ones whose products didn't contain the promised radioactive substances (false advertising was a criminal offense). 

The radium industry managed to lurch along through the 1920s despite disturbing revelations concerning the real health risks associated with radium.  By 1922, the first of the Radium Girls, Grace Fryer, went to her doctor complaining of tooth loss and an inflamed jaw.   Though a primitive x-ray machine was soon used to diagnose serious jaw decay, similar cases began appearing throughout her hometown.  All of the victims were women who had been employed at the same radium paint factory where Grace Fryer had worked.    By 1925, Grace Fryer's unusual condition attracted enough attention that United States Radium began a disinformation campaign against her and other former workers at their factory.   A "doctor" who had examined Fryer and declared her to be in excellent health later turned out to be a toxicologist on the company's payroll.  When former workers began dying, the company was quick to blame the deaths on syphilis (thus further stigmatizing the women who had worked at the plant).  

 When U.S. Radium hired Harvard physiologist Cecil Drinker to investigate the plant in the early 1920s, he provided them with a grim analysis of the factory and its working conditions.   Not only did the company ignore the series of far-reaching recommendations that Drinker made, but they falsified the report that they released to the New Jersey Department of Labor.  Although Drinker was still listed as the author, the altered reported stressed that all of the affected workers were in perfect health.  After Drinker discovered the fraud and published his original report in a scientific journal, the company threatened him with legal action.    With all of  the company's influence, it took years before Grace Fryer was finally able to bring a lawsuit against U.S. Radium on the behalf of all the affected workers.  The lawsuit demanded $250,000 in compensation for each of the plaintiffs.

By 1928, when the case finally came to trial,  the affected women were in such poor health that they were unable to raise their hands which the bailiff attempted to administer the oath to testify.   Grace Fryer was unable to walk and required a back brace just to sit up while several of the other plaintiffs were completely bedridden.   The trial of the "Radium Girls" generated international publicity and even Marie Curie took a personal interest in the case.    She publicly stated that she wished to do all that she could to help but could offer no solution for the deadly effects of radium poisoning. 

Throughout the trial, U.S. Radium attempted to put up roadblocks to delay proceedings for as long as possible.  While it was painfully apparent that the plaintiffs had little time left, the company's lawyers still arranged for the case to be adjourned  since several key witnesses were "summering in Europe" and unavailable to testify until September.   Walter Lippmann wrote a series of damning editorials blasting the judge for allowing the adjournment and nationwide outrage led to the hearing being rescheduled to June. 

Just days before the trial was set to begin, U.S. Radium and the plaintiffs' attorney Raymond Berry agreed to allow U.S. District Court Judge William Clark to mediate an out-of-court settlement.  According to the terms of the proposed settlement, each of the plaintiffs would receive $10,000 and payment of all legal and medical bills as well as an annual sum of $600 for as long as each plaintiff lived.  The fact that Judge Clark was a U.S. Radium stockholder gave the Radium Girls pause but they had little real choice but to accept the settlement.    All of the plaintiffs would be dead after another decade passed and the resulting publicity over the case would spur the passing of the first laws protecting U.S. workers from occupational health hazards.   Of the thousands of workers who were exposed to radium in the years before more stringent safeguards were in place, only those five received anything resembling justice.

While the resulting publicity over the U.S. Radium case led to reform for factory workers, it had surprisingly little impact on the sale of the various health products containing radium.   "Dr" William J. Bailey  was a prime example of the entrepreneurs who dominated the radium industry at the time.     A former employee of U.S. Radium, Bailey founded his own company in 1918 and energetically advertised radium as a cure for a wide range of ailments (including coughs, flu, anemia, and constipation).   A Harvard University dropout with no university credentials  (though he was a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science),  Bailey's lack of real academic standing didn't deter him from marketing radium-laced products.   For years, Bailey Radium Laboratories' main product was a patent medicine called Radithor.  Billed as a "cure for the living dead" as well as "perpetual sunshine",  Radithor was basically distilled water with concentrated amounts of radium 226 and 228 as the active ingredients.    Not only was Radithor touted as a cure for a lengthy list of diseases, but it was also billed as a rejuvenating agent that could revitalize inactive glands and force bodies to become young again.

Bailey was hardly the only radium entrepreneur around though.   Numerous newspaper and magazine boasted of the healing powers of radium and how it could combat the effects of old age.  One best-selling hair care product,  Caradium, featured "radioactive water" as its main ingredient and was advertised as a cure for dandruff and gray hair.    Another product, the Radiendocrinator, was a three-inch gold case containing 250 millicuries of Radium.  Patients were urged to wear it nightly over their endocrine glands or, in the case of men, to wear like an athletic supporter directly under the scrotum (the instructions also advised patients to "radiate as directed").    Products such as Radithor were often sold over the counter as well as being prescribed by physicians.   William J. Bailey even offered physicians a hefty rebate for each does of Radithor prescribed and patients soon came to demand it for dealing with assorted ailments.

Patients such as Eben McBurney Byers...

The son of a prominent American industrialist, Eben Byers acquired a well-deserved reputation as an athlete and an international playboy.   After injuring his arm in a 1927 accident, Byers was advised to take Radithor by his physiotherapist, Charles Moyar.   While the pain relief that he received was purely due to the placebo effect, Byers was sufficiently impressed by the benefit of Radithor to begin taking increasingly large doses.    The instructions on each bottle of Radithor suggested that patients consume an entire bottle after each meal but Byers decided that he needed even more.    He began consuming three bottles of Radithor a day and was impressed enough to keep taking it on a regular basis.  

In fact, Byers became a walking testimonial for Radithor.  Not only did he recommend it to all of his friends (including sending them free cases), he also gave it to one of his sick racehorses.  By 1930, he had consumed up to 1400 bottles before the first symptoms began to set in.  These symptoms included severe headaches and jaw pain which an x-ray specialist (who had also treated several of the Radium Girls) diagnosed as radium poisoning. 

Bur it was too late for Eben Byers by then.  The scandal of a prominent socialite and athlete being fatally poisoned by a health drink led to a massive media campaign to ban Radithor.  In a final  interview with a representative from the Federal Trade Commission, Byers  was described as "Young in years and mentally alert, he could hardly speak. His head was swathed in bandages. He had undergone two successive operations in which his whole upper jaw, excepting two front teeth, and most of his lower jaw had been removed. All the remaining bone tissue of his body was slowly disintegrating, and holes were actually forming in his skull."    By the time he died on March 31, 1932, Eben Byers only had six teeth left and both jaws were rotted.  An autopsy turned up 36 micrograms of radium in his body (two micrograms is considered a fatal dose).    He was buried in a Pennsylvania cemetery in a lead-lined coffin. 

Eben Byers wasn't the only Radithor casualty.  A close friend, Mary F. Hill, died of similar causes (remember those cases of Radithor he freely distributed to his friends?)   Despite the adverse publicity and calls for federal regulation, William Bailey was never actually prosecuted for the Radithor deaths.   He defended himself by maintaining that Radithor was only sold by prescription and that Byers had died from natural causes.  He also maintained that he drank as much Radithor as Byers did and never experienced any health problems.   Although the Federal Trade Commission issued an order against his business, that didn't keep Bailey down for long.   He founded a new company, the Radium Institute, and continued marketing radioactive products (including radioactive paper-clips, belt-buckles, and irradiated water).   He also manufactured a line of aphrodisiac tablets which "renewed happiness and youthful thrill into the lives of married peoples whose attractions to each other had weakened"

Although publicity over the Radithor deaths (and Marie Curie's own high-profile death from radium poisoning in 1934) ensured that no more physicians would be prescribing radium-laced products,  the radium industry still managed to lurch along.  William Bailey managed to die a wealthy man in 1949 (of what, I haven't been able to learn) although the same couldn't be said for many of his business competitors.  As consumer protection legislation became stronger (spurred on partially by the Eben Byers case), more stringent protections for consumers helped prevent additional radium deaths.  While radium still plays a role in medical diagnosis and treatment, the history of misuse in the early days following its discovery represents a sobering example of how easily revolutionary inventions can lead to tragedy. 

Especially when gullibility and greed are involved.

-----

The Moron Problem

On March 19, 1916, Dr. Arthur Holmes, then-dean of the general faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, presented a talk titled "What of the Backward Child" at Boston's Ford Hall.   Already well-known as an authority on "mental defectives" , Holmes was outspoken in his views concerning these children and how common they actually were.  While never as famous as some of the other prominent eugenicists of his era, Holmes had worked with Dr. Lightmer Witmer at the University of Pennsylvania's Psychological clinic doing ground-breaking work on measuring intelligence in children.    The seminal research he and Witmer did together ensured that Holmes'  talks were well-attended, not to mention meriting extensive newspaper coverage.   And it also allowed him to make various pronouncements about mental defectives and the terrible danger they posed to society.

Certainly, he had no problem using terms such as "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot" since these were actually accepted medical terms at the time.  A moron, for instance, was anyone with an IQ score between 51 and 70 (about the mental capacity of a child between the ages of six and twelve).   Anyone with an IQ between 26 and 50 was classified as an imbecile while having an IQ less than 26 earned someone the idiot label.   Though intelligence tests were still in their infancy and were often used in ways for which they had never been designed, this didn't dissuade psychologists and social reformers from applying them wholesale to large segments of society, particularly for immigrants, psychiatric patients, prisoners, and the "backward children" that Holmes devoted his life to treating.   

Despite his career in treating children with mental disabilities, Holmes had no hesitation in speaking out against the "problem" that they posed to society.   "Of feeble-minded people, there are said to be between 200,000 and 500,000 in the United States and these include most criminals", he said in his talk.  "One Ohio judge found that from 20 to 40 percent of those applied for divorce are feeble-minded."  While he stressed that the overwhelming majority of these "mental defectives" were due to heredity, hence the need for "exercising more care in marriage for in such cases, the sins of the parents are visited on the children."   

Still, he magnanimously allowed that heredity wasn't to blame for all of these cases.  He also allowed that some problem children were actually too "forward" rather than backwards and that they were simply acting out because of being raised in restrictive environments.   Then, there were those children who were mentally impaired because of problems with the adenoids at the back of their throats.   According to Holmes, the breathing problems caused by adenoids prevented oxygen from reaching their blood, thus causing an "enfeebling and lethargy of the entire body and mind" which could persist well into adulthood.  

He hardly stopped there, though.  As far as Holmes was concerned, mental defectives also included "people who have a mania for showy costumes and uniforms; women who in person and adornment conform to the simpering, conventional ideals of beauty; men and women who spend money foolishly, and men and women who wish to be divorced may be either morons, imbeciles, idiots, or they may have adenoids that need to be attended to."  

But there was only so much Holmes could say in a talk aimed at the general public.   Anyone wanting to see the full range of his views on mental defectives would need to read his book, The Conservation of the Child: a Manual of Clinical Psychology Presenting the Examination and Treatment of Backward Children, which was published in 1912 (and is still available online).  In his book, Holmes presented various statistics to prove his claim that one in every 500 children was mentally defective which, given the population of the United States at the time, meant that there were at least 200,000 feeble-minded Americans, all of whom could pass their condition on to their children.  While he acknowledged that the total number of institutionalized mental defectives was only around 20,000, the remaining ninety percent  were "pursuing their unrestricted way, some at work, some idlers, tramps, loafers or criminals, and some at school, clogging and diverting its energies from their proper channels in a vain attempt to teach the uneducable unteachable things."  Even more appalling, from Holmes' perspective, were the countless other mental defectives who "roam the streets at will"  and, presumably, posing a terrible danger to the rest of society due to the inferior intellect and risk for violence.

Not only did Holmes' book highlight the dangers posed by these defectives, but he also stressed how easy it was to diagnose them using the tests he described in his book, mainly those intelligence tests used in the University of Pennsylvania Psychological Clinic.   While the Clinic provided groundbreaking work in training teachers and health professionals to deal with children with special needs, many of these same teachers were also charged with assigning those familiar "moron", "imbecile", or "idiot" labels to children based on tests they administered themselves.  That these labels often followed children for the rest of their lives hardly seemed important at the time.

To be fair, Holmes did distinguish between those children he viewed as "curably retarded" and the incurable ones who could only live in institutions.    As he said in his book, "To say that  a child is "backward" or retarded should not allege or imply the existence of a physical or mental disease.  It may, or nearly always, imply some defect or some lack. But that is not always regrettable."  Again, he raised the example of children who acted out because of poor upbringing or having to deal with rigid learning methods.   

Unfortunately, this was a distinction that many social reformers, especially those eugenicists looking for a simpler (and cheaper) solution weren't prepared to make.   Which is why many of these same eugenicists began arguing for the use of mandatory sterilization with institutionalized children, prisoners, psychiatric patients, and other people deemed "unfit."  This was eventually extended to various "problem groups", including immigrants, ethnic minorities, and people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

If anything, Holmes fellow eugenicists were even more explicit about the "danger" posed by genetic undesirables.   In 1919,  Dr. William Hickson, director of the psychopathic laboratory of Chicago’s municipal court said, “Mental defectiveness is hereditary and constitutional, and consequently, not amenable to our preachings, asylums, hospitals, reformatories, penitentiaries, etc. We must ever bear in mind that each year a new quota of defectives is born with statistical regularity.  They pass through the hands of parents, then the pedagogues, the theologians, the physicians, the social workers, the employers, the courts, the prisons and back on society, each one in his turn passing them up to the next, and no one to acknowledge their impotency in the face of mental defectiveness.”   

While the first of these forced sterilization programs had already passed in 1907 in Pennsylvania (closely followed by California and Washington), sterilization rates for anyone deemed genetically unfit were relatively low despite the public outrage being generated by Holmes and other eugenicists.   Still, the entire issue of forced sterilization  remained controversial.  That is, until  the 1927  Buck vs Bell decision in the U.S. Supreme Court which declared that forced sterilization of anyone deemed unfit was constitutional.   

The woman at the centre of that decision, 18-year-old Carrie Buck, had been institutionalized largely due to her "incorrigibility" as well as for having an illegitimate child (later determined to have been the product of rape).   Despite appeals by Buck's legal guardian, the court decision, as well as the famous ruling by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr (yes, another Holmes), sealed her fate and she was sterilized, along with her siblings (none of whom were told what had been done to them).

Following the Buck decision, more than 60,000 people were forcibly sterilized (mostly women) though the entire issue remained controversial.   Many potential candidates for sterilization successfully fought back, primarily prison inmates who challenged the idea of their "genetic unfitness".   While the United States was far from the only country practicing forced sterilization (including Canada, Sweden and Denmark, to name a few), few other countries went as far 

It wasn't until after the end of World War II and the revelations over Nazi atrocities that public opinion eventually turned against forced sterilization.  That the Nazis routinely sterilized anyone they deemed genetically unfit (usually through the use of "eugenic courts" Still, the Buck decision was never overturned and forced sterilization continued in many states until well into the 1970s.   While some states have since agreed to compensation for people sterilized against their will,  most victims of forced sterilization have never been compensated and, in many cases, were never even aware they had been sterilized.   Even today, forced sterilization for the institutionalized continue to be advocated on a case-by-case basis (though the arguments are usually couched in terms of protecting a woman's health as opposed to "genetic unfitness").   While the 2011 Istanbul Convention concerning violence against women formally prohibits forced sterilization,  human rights agencies report that it still remains common in many countries practicing human rights abuses.   

But the legacy of the forced sterilization era remains with us even today.  In one sense, this bygone era has changed our very language with terms like "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot" being relegated to the status of insults with none of the medical authority they once had.   But a more crucial legacy involves the numerous  legal claims that have been and continue to be pursued on behalf of involuntarily sterilized former patients.   Despite the sizeable settlements made in many of these cases, it's safe to say that we will never see real justice for thousands of others, many of whom were never even told they were sterilized or who died before they had a chance to make a claim.   

Whether we've truly learned a lesson from all this tragedy is something only time will tell.

 

Making a Prophet (Part 3)

Continued from Part Two

Throughout the 19th and early 20th century, Jamaica was a stunning contrast of natural beauty and stark poverty.  The twin legacies of slavery and colonialism left the island with a population consisting primarily of former slaves, people of mixed race ("coloured"), and white colonists who, despite beinga small minority, owned most of the land and resources.  While formal independence from the U.K. would come in the 20th century, life in 19th century Jamaica was often harsh for the freed slaves and their descendants. 

It hardly seems surprising that religion would be a major influence among the island's inhabitants.  Not only with the various branches of Christianity, but also more exotic religions based on traditions imported from Africa.  Obeah and Myalism were widely practiced despite attempts at suppression by the  authorities.  These traditions were often incorporated into more mainstream religions and helped fuel the Christian revivalist movement.  The 19th century was marked by religious clashes and spiritual missions that quickly attracted believers.

Which brings us to Alexander Bedward.

He was born in southeastern Jamaica in 1848 into extreme poverty.  His mother had a local reputation as a healer though his father was unknown.  Never having learned to write and with only minimal reading, he had little choice but to work on one of the big sugar plantations in Colon, Panama.  Whatever future he may have planned changed after a massive fire swept through Kingston, Jamaica in 1882.  Following the fire, Bedward began to have disturbing dreams and erratic behaviour that so frightened his family that they tried to have him put away for lunacy.  He insisted that the dreams meant that God had chosen him for a divine mission.  By 1889, Bedward was formally installed as one of the 24 elders of August Town's Native Baptist church and his religious crusade began.

And what a crusade it was!  By October 1891, Bedward had resigned from his plantation job to launch his healing mission.  Using water from a spring on his property near Jamaica's Hope River, he conducted healing ceremonies based on a divine vision that told him that "the water of the Hope River would be miraculously converted into medicine for soul and body".  Along with his healing, Bedward delivered sermons on a large rock overlooking the river and thousands of people gathered every Wednesday to hear him. 

The descriptions of Bedward's crusade were closely followed by reporters from Jamaica's Daily Gleaner.  Although the newspaper dismissed Bedward as "an ignorant black man living somewhere in the Long Mountain", his movement certainly made news.  In one less-than-complimentary account, Bedward's crusade was described as "one of the most painful and saddening [phenomena] that could possibly be witnessed by anyone of ordinary intelligence, who has his country's good at heart …. [T]he seething mass of ignorance … congregates in the vicinity without a blush of shame at the credulity and infatuation which is [sic] on every side exhibited". 

Not only did Bedward's followers gather to hear him speak, they also brought bottles, jugs, and anything else capable of holding the precious spring water to bring back to their homes.  There were also the invalids who came hoping for divine healing including "lepers, people with running sores, the crippled and deformed, blind, consumptive, asthmatic and in fact every complaint known in the medical world".

The local authorities and clergy were especially outraged by the healing sessions featuring nude men and women bathing together by the thousands. Medical doctors denounced Bedward for his outlandish claims and the false hope he gave patients.  Stung by his numerous critics, Bedward remained defiant during his Wednesday sessions and people still gathered at the river for healing.  The Daily Gleaner gave regular editorials denouncing the "Bedward craze" and unsavory hints at his family's previous attempts at having him committed began to surface.  Meanwhile, the "Bedwardites" (as they were being called) were making arrangements to build a temple to honour their prophet.  Colonial authorities were increasingly worried by Bedward's sermons directed against the upper-class Jamaicans who "grabbed the substance of the poor". 

On January 16, 1895, Alexander Bedward gave a sermon denouncing the white minority and predicted the end of the world in which the wicked would be punished and the faithful rewarded.  He railed against the government and the Clergy as "vagabonds, thieves, robbers and liars" and called on his followers to drive out the white population.  That was enough for the government to lay a charge of seditious language against him and Bedward was quickly arrested. His subsequent trial in April of that same year (with an all-white jury) returned a verdict of Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity.  Although Bedward was sent to a local asylum, he was released a few weeks later after a successful appeal.  Bedward returned to his mission and the healing sessions went on as before (though he eventually insisted that his followers be fully clothed when they bathed in the river).

Although skeptics claimed that Bedwardism would eventually "run its course", the movement continued into the early years of the 20th century.  By 1910, Bedward and his followers had built an impressive compound in August Town complete with a chapel.  While Alexander Bedward was still seen as a threat by the colonial authorities, he had enough support to prevent any attempt at arresting him again.  It's hard to say how  far the movement might have gone if Bedward hadn't had one final vision...

In 1920, believing that the millennium was at hand, Alexander Bedward announced to this followers that he would ascend into heaven on December 31, 1920. As you might expect, the Gleaner scoffed at this revelation but thousands of his followers gathered at the compound in hope of being "saved".  Many of these followers sold all their possessions and the tailor shop on site provided simple white gowns for them to wear for the big event.  Due to fear of rioting (and a possible black uprising), a military regiment was sent in to maintain order.  Throughout the day, Bedward's followers were repeatedly told that his ascension was postponed (he had originally promised that it would happen at ten in the morning).  By late afternoon, the followers were told that the ascension would be "spiritual" rather than physical and, by evening, most of the followers went home disappointed.

Although this event broke up much of Bedward's support, he was still able to rally six hundred followers for a "manifestation" in Kingston that following year.  Police took no chances and promptly arrested him and many of his followers.  Once again, he was declared Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity but there was no release this time.  Up until his death in 1930, Alexander Bedward was held in Jamaica's Bellevue Asylum. 

Much like Richard Brothers and Joanna Southcott before him, Bedward's supporters slowly drifted away following his imprisonment and death.  Many of these followers later became part of Marcus Garvey's Pan-African movement as well as the growing Rastafarian religion.  In some circles, Bedward is still considered a martyr and an early leader in Jamaican nationalism.  Leaving aside questions about his mental state, his religious crusade inspired tens of thousands of people at the peak of his popularity.  

Although I have focused on three very different prophets in this series, the similarities among their movements and the people who believed in them seem apparent enough.  So why do some religious leaders launch major movements that continue after their death while others sink into obscurity?  Heaven only knows.