Contradictions and constructions, psychiatric perceptions in apartheid South Africa, 1948-1979
Bibliographic record
Abstract
South African psychiatrists perpetuated apartheid notions of racial difference between 1948 and 1977. However, support of apartheid ideology by South African psychiatrists was not necessarily uniform. Rather, some psychiatrists supported apartheid ideology, some opposed it, while others did both. Yet most of the assertions by South African psychiatrists who challenged apartheid ideology inadvertently ended up perpetuating apartheid policies and increasing the gap between services for 'White' and 'non-White' patients. In the early years of apartheid, psychiatric innovations of community psychiatry, which promoted more 'open-door' and community-orientated practices, opposed apartheid notions of racial segregation through its focus on prevention. Yet, community psychiatry also neglected the needs of long-term patients--the majority of whom were 'non-White'. The assassination of the state President, H. F. Verwoerd in 1966, by a 'criminally insane' individual, highlighted the psychiatric profession's inability to deal with the criminally insane and long-term patients. In opposition to those psychiatrists promoting community psychiatry, some psychiatrists called for stricter policies concerning mental patients, the majority of whom were 'non-White'. In the 1970s, assertions of cross-cultural psychiatry rejected the biological and racial basis for 'mental illness' and challenged apartheid racism. However, cross-cultural psychiatry also supported apartheid notions of segregation through its stereotypical view of African culture. Thus, much of the psychiatric perceptions during the height of apartheid were ambiguous and contradictory, and ended up supporting the apartheid state. This was because the apartheid state itself was not completely uniform or free of contradictions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".