English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The 1970s witnessed an intense, often acrimonious debate between revisionist and Whig/neo-Whig historians over the origins and nature of the ninteenth-century asylum experience. By the early 1980s, however, there had emerged no “new synthesis” (as one might have expected given the dialectical nature of the historical enterprise) but rather a new counter-revisionist paradigm grounded in the precepts of the “new social history.” This counterrevisionist paradigm has become, in turn, the “new orthodoxy” in asylum studies in the 1990s. This article argues that the counter-revisionist account is itself highly problematic, offering no convincing synthetic overview of the nineteenth-century asylum experience.

Dance of the Dialectic? Some Reflections (Polemic and Otherwise) on the Present State of Nineteenth-Century Asylum Studies