Paradox of Revolution: A Communist Patient’s Management of Neurasthenia on a Spiritual Journey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the complex, sometimes conflicting, influences of China’s Communist movement on psychotherapy and mental illness. The study is centered around the diary of a Chinese woman who simultaneously received therapeutic treatment of neurasthenia while remolding her consciousness as part of the “thought reform” campaign at the Shanghai Police School. Additionally, the study situates this diary within the broader history of psychotherapy in Communist China with highlight on the eventful life of Jiayin Huang, China’s leading psychotherapist who helped the neurasthenic patient before being forced out of the therapeutic profession. This contextualized case study produces several findings. It is found that psychotherapy and thought reform converged in several aspects, including their diagnostic and interventional functions. Meanwhile, psychotherapy and thought reform also faced irreconcilable theoretical and normative discrepancies that eventually led to the decline of psychotherapy. Finally, it is argued that China’s Communist movement exerted seemingly paradoxical impact on the neurasthenic patient. On the one hand, it pathologized the patient’s psychology on an ideological ground; on the other, it promised the possibility of spiritual salvation through dedication to the revolutionary cause.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".