PSYCHIATRIC OBSERVATIONS ON FACIAL DERMATOSES. *

I. Macalpine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.1953.tb13194.x

IF: 11.113

1953-05-01

British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract:PSYCHOSOMATIC research is a border territory and the more the psychiatrist understands the dermatologist and vice versa the better. The no-man's-land of psychosomatic illness is, however, in danger of becoming everyman's land. Psychiatry is peculiarly and unfortunately often considered .to be nothing more than applying common sense to psychological data. A few critical remarks on the general trend are therefore called for. This paper is intended to show the value of the psychotherapoutic approach in psychosomatic research, namely the detailed study of the individual patient by a well trained psychiatrist. Response to, and observation during, psychotherapeutic sessions is indispensable for accurate understanding of symptoms and their significance, and is a safeguard against unwarranted generalizations. Where the dermatologist looks with a trained eye, the ps;v chiatrist's task is to listen with a trained ear. For both, response to therapy is a tool of diagnostic value. At the present day there is a tendency to replace minute clinical study of single patients during psychotherapy by attempts at finding common, arbitrarily selected traits of personality in large numbers. But statistics and large numbers are not the royal road to psychiatric insight into a patient's conscious and unconscious mental processes. Barber (1952a) only recently stressed that one carefully investigated case may be more fruitful than collections of statistics. It is thereby not meant to dispute the role of statistics in confirming known or suspected facts. The usual approach to psychosomatic problems by establishing personality patterns and types has lately been rightly criticized from various quarters (Cobb, 1952 ; Macalpine, 1952 ; Obermayer, 1952). Without enumerating the many valid objections to this approach, and the unconvincing supporting evidence, it may be stated briefly that its main fault lies in the fact that it suflFers both from over-simplification and over-complication. The history of Medicine from time immemorial shows that the approach by types and temperaments has proved unrewarding and inconclusive. Similarly, projective techniques cannot replace direct insight gained during psychotherapy, and only have their place as aids to the psychiatrist as laboratory tests help the dermatologist. By themselves tests can never replace the clinical approach, and used alone are as dangerous and misleading as any scientific short cut.