Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States

by James W. Trent

James W. Trent uses public documents, private letters, investigative reports, and rare photographs to explore our changing perceptions of mental retardation over the past 150 years. He contends that the economic vulnerability of mentally retarded people (and their families), more than the claims made for their intellectual or social limitations, has determined their institutional treatment.

Genres: History, Disability, Nonfiction, Psychology, Disability Studies, Research, Medical

356 pages, Paperback

First published November 30, 1990

About the author

James W. Trent, Jr. was born in Durham, North Carolina. He received his undergraduate degree at Wake Forest University. He has masters degrees from Duke University and the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. He completed his Ph.D. degree at Brandeis University. His first book, Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States (1994) won the Hervey B. Wilbur Award of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. His second book, Mental Retardation in American: An Historical Reader (2004) was co-edited with Steven Noll. A third book, The Manliest Man: Samuel G. Howe and the Contours of Nineteenth-Century American Reform (2012) is a biography of a controversial and fascinating figure in the context of rapid social and political change. In 2016, Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Intellectual Disability in the United States appeared, representing an updated and expanded edition of the 1994 book. Trent is Visiting Scholar at the Heller School, Brandeis University.

Reviews

[Kate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely well-written and well-researched, Trent's book explores the American social history of those with mental retardation (now generally known as developmental/intellectual disability--its latest invented term) and how economic, medical, educational and political forces have shaped the definition of mental retardation. Trent thoroughly demonstrates the power of labels created by these forces in influencing the means of treatment and care those with DD/ID receive.

While reading Trent, I was struck by the cycles of thought in the field. The facility where I work was considered cutting edge and innovative back in the 1950's when it opened. It is designed to look like any typical suburban street, with small homes housing residents. Trent describes something very similar in Europe of the 1800's, with small numbers of residents housed in cottages. The arguments about medical treatments vs. education (and education to what end?) are still very much a part of the field of DD/ID. The power of the economy to determine the degree of independence for those with DD/ID also remains a huge factor in their fate. The sometimes-contentious relationships between boards of directors and executive directors of facilities over the years have not changed an iota. Governmental angst and indifference toward those with DD/ID continue to ebb and flow in various funding cycles throughout the years. That said, it cannot be denied that there is a growing awareness of the civil rights of those with DD/ID, as well as an increasing acceptance of the wide variation in abilities of those with DD/ID. Society can no longer write those with DD/ID off as mere "idiots". For this, and for the many gifts that those with DD/ID bring to the world, all of us can be extremely grateful.

I could go on and on about the many facets of DD/ID in society that Trent raises--the sign of a really, really great book.

This is not a book for the casual reader. It is an in-depth scholarly work. And it is an awesome contribution to the field. Somebody needs to update it to cover shifts in more recent years.

[Blair Hodges · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book could more accurately be called a history of institutionalization and mental retardation, as its focus steadily remains on local, state, private, and federal institutions, and especially the role of "superintendents" in the definition, education, treatment, and care of the mentally disabled. The overall thesis of the book is that the definitions of mentally disabled persons have fluctuated according to economic, social, and institutional norms and expectations.

In dry narrative with obtrusive social science-style citations, the author traces how early optimism regarding education turned into a more care-oriented model as disabled persons struggled to find employment and other opportunities away from the institutions. Professionalization and politics have played a part in the way disabled persons were treated up to the present. Institutionalization has somewhat faded in favor of more local, community-based care. This happened as a result of various scandals, as well as general concerns about cost. Group facilities as of the mid-1990s still formed a large part of how mentally disabled persons were cared for.

It's a solid though plodding overview, perhaps slightly over-focused on institutional questions. I wonder how he might describe the past 15 or so years.

[James Trent · Rating 5 out of 5]

This edition of Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Intellectual Disability in the United States is the definitive history of intellectual disability in the United States. It is thoroughly researched and elegantly written. A must for anyone interested in the topic.

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title is misleading. This is not about how we came to, historically, 'invent' 'feeble-mindedness' as a condition, nor is it about how we came, as a society, to deal with people diagnosed as such. In fact, it's an history of how institutions in the USA have been evolving over the past two centuries; showing, not only how various pressures and societal changes have impacted the role of the staff running them, but, also, how such ever evolving role has impacted our own understanding too -in the population at large. Having said that, then, it's an absolutely brilliant history, exposing how our approach to whole demographics (the mentally disabled, the poor, the criminals, the sexually promiscuous etc.) has been tied up to historical events as much as political ideologies.

There is a common prejudice that, when people deemed 'feeble-minded', or at least 'unfit', were institutionalised 'en masse' it was because they were looked down upon, feared, despised, and so locked up for control purposes. The result, then, was a deliberate culture of abuse across such institutions, and that only recent philosophical approaches (e.g. normalisation in the 1960s-1970s) helped to end. This is grossly caricatural and misguided.

As the author shows, American institutions, even in the middle of the 19th century, had been deeply inspired by then French approaches to care (as opposed to British ones, where abuses were running rampant indeed), especially that of Jean-Etienne Esquirol, who had put a strong emphasis on compassion to, most importantly, Edouard Séguin, who insisted on education (an ethos, strikingly enough, which remains highly relevant nowadays). What will happen, though, is that as institutions will multiply and grow exponentially, such educational and vocational model will have to be set aside to make room instead for other priorities, namely, that of managing such huge places efficiently in the first place. Asylums, then, will replace what you could have called special needs schools.

This, here, is not about being naïve. There will be, indeed, a growing culture of abuse (the culture that will ultimately come to the fore and be denounced following WWII -by some staff, investigative reporters, and, not least, some parents supporting institutionalisation but nevertheless concerned about their functioning) but such abuse was more the product of neglect resulting from shortage of untrained and underpaid staff, inadequate settings, and (it's true) a totalist functioning than it was of deliberate attempt to brutalise people. Does it mean that superintendents had no responsibility in the overall abuse and neglect suffered by those demographics, though?

Retracing the history of eugenics, James W. Trent brilliantly shows how superintendents will find themselves both at odd yet complicit with certain views; views that had been challenged even then, although they would finally conquered the mainstream. How so?

There was a mindset, at the turning of the 20th century, whereas the 'feeble-minded' were perceived as being merely inoffensive 'morons' to be kindly cared for (albeit no alien to suffering cruelty too), like some societal ills -such as alcoholism and crimes- were being accepted as "hereditary" only insofar as they were the results of some families living in appalling environments (I was surprised, for instance, to see the work of Richard Dugdale being re-assessed, as it seemed to have been grossly misinterpreted indeed...). This mindset, though, will be replaced over the next decades by a completely new approach, that of the 'feeble-minded' as being, on the contrary, a biological threat, a menace to civilisation, and a moral danger to society.

Now, of course, those readers familiar with the history of eugenics won't learn anything new here. It's about how quacks and racists such as Charles Davenport and Harry Loughlin, thanks to their very influent and powerful supporters (e.g. Andrew Carnegie, Mary Harriman, David Starr Jordan etc.) will ultimately hijack a narrative to push for their agenda... with the consequences that we all know (in the USA as in -although not the topic of this book here- Nazi Germany). What the author does, is to show how such views were both rejected by superintendents yet embraced for practical reasons.

Strikingly indeed, staff had no care for such fearmongering moral panic of the 'feeble-minded'. Eugenics, in fact, wasn't they go-to idea when addressing the issue. On the contrary, still naively believing that theirs was about compassionate care (despite, again, working practices that had become, by then, effectively totalist) most of them subscribed to yet another model: the so-called mental hygiene movement. How come, then, did they come to support forced sterilizations that is, some of the most abusive and pernicious policies coming from eugenics pseudo-science? The answer will no be less shocking as it should be a warning: because of the running and expectations of their own institutions in the first place.

'Inventing the Feeble-Mind' is an absolutely brilliant book, clear in its argumentation, and very well-researched, showing the complex interconnections between various prejudices, social policies, ideologies, and (on the ground and as was the care sector then) practicalities, all factors that can be impacted by various societal trends and historical events -for the better; for the worse; and for a baffling mix of both. Very engaging, I was quite taken aback by the deliberate approach of the author to, when dealing with a specific era, use the terminology then 'en vogue' at that time (e.g. he openly writes about 'feeble-minded', 'idiots', 'morons' etc.). This may seem uncomfortable at first, yet it clearly drives his points across by making the various shifts in understanding clearer indeed. In the wake of the normalisation approach and the de-institutionalisation that came with it, have we become a better society in our dealing with the mentally impaired and mentally disabled? The last chapters offers some very good reflections, and, given that this was first published in 1994 (30 years ago already!) it striking how his perspective remains highly relevant.

[Marian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Meticulously researched, illuminating, and compassionate. I would have welcomed a greater interweaving of direct argument/more of the author's voice, but I appreciate the academic nature of the text.

Extremely valuable for anyone interested in why and how many thousands of (not necessarily) intellectually and/or developmentally disabled people were segregated in custodial institutions, many essentially abandoned, as well as considering the forces still at work in the post-institutional era (the last is not extensively explored, but it is set up and characterized very well). Sterilization is also extensively discussed.

I am so grateful this book exists.

[Chris Nagel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The butler did it.

[Sean Gibson · Rating 3 out of 5]

A useful if plodding read, unfortunately blinkered by the shortcomings of disability studies.

[Kendra Morgan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reads like a text book. But lots of good informaion.

[MS Glennon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Social constructionist history of mental retardation in the United States. Does satisfactory job of contextualizing the social, economic, and cultural contingencies in which well-intentioned people sought to save either the retarded from society or society from the retarded. Though published in 1994 the book ends at the dawn of the 1980s--as did most US history classes I took in high school. There is, however, a good and relatively critical sub-chapter on Wolf Wolfensberger and the principle of normalization. Unless you are intensively studying the topic of mental retardation I recommend reading only the introductory sections, the last chapter, and the epilogue.

[Joanie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this for a Racism and Oppression class in grad school when I had to do a paper on an oppressed group. I loved this book, it documents the way the definition of mental retardation has changed throughout the years to fit the needs of institutions. When the instiututions needed patients, they would talk about how dangerous people with MR can be, when the institutions were full, suddenly people with MR could be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. It's truly insane to see how things were shifted and manipulated throughout the years.

[Heather Bixler]

My social work professor from Gordon wrote this book. He sent it to me when he found out I was living in a l'Arche community.

[Tena · Rating 3 out of 5]

I won this in a GOODREADS giveaway.