Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Intellectual Disability in the United States is a revised and updated second-edition work. In its original format, James W. Trent produced the first in-depth scholarly analysis of the care of the intellectually disabled in America. The book is updated by contemplating Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) medical nomenclature and the concept of ‘intellectual disability’, its replacement of ‘mental retardation’ and how these shifts have impacted on the treatment and perceptions of those involved. Indeed, due to the change in the disability discourse since its original release, even the title of the book, entitled initially Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States, has changed to reflect contemporary sensitivities. As noted in the Acknowledgements, this updated edition was further induced by a wealth of new resources accessed since the publication of the first edition in 1995. In addition to fresh institutional records such as the Perkins School for the Blind, Trent writes that hitherto overlooked sources came to the fore, including correspondence and personal interviews with former staff members and residents of public facilities who recalled personal memories of institutional life. In the Epilogue, Trent also recounts a moving anecdote during the tour of the first edition two decades previously, providing a rare and timely glimpse into the impact historical works can have on the people most involved in the subject matter. This additional material is a great benefit to what was an already stellar piece of scholarship, highlighting the benefits of allowing an author to return to their work.
The book is split into eight chronological chapters, starting with discourse surrounding ‘idiocy’ in the colonial and early republican periods and finishing with the post-1990 period after the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus, Inventing the Feeble Mind provides an analysis of intellectual disability, including its cognate classifications, during the past 200 years. The book draws on a host of primary archival materials including institutional records, investigative reports, correspondence, photographs and personal testimonies. A driving narrative throughout the book is to portray the rise of institutionalisation in the USA, an explanation of this increase and why, despite such treatment often appearing inhumane and regressive in contemporary understanding, its merits were promoted by the self-interest of professionals and care providers alike. Thus, the institution remains a keen focus of attention, and the treatment and experience of intellectually disabled people living in civil society and the domestic sphere are comparatively understudied. This lop-sidedness is no fault of the author, with similar imbalances evident in many disability histories due to the lack of archival records relating to those who resided outside of an institutional setting.
Trent provides a balanced account of intellectual disability, providing quantitative and qualitative data, insight into the officials, practitioners, inmates and their families and how external socio-economic and political forces often shaped policy and rehabilitation. Collaborating a range of institutional and personal resources, Trent succeeds in bringing the institutions under discussion to life. The use of photographs of inmates and staff, and the buildings in which they lived and worked, bring an immediacy to Trent’s writing and become an indispensable part of the narrative. Trent also benefits from an amazing array of personal correspondence. On numerous occasions, Trent employs lengthy quotes written by officials, practitioners, inmates and their families. Their extensiveness allows the historical actors to speak much more authentically and successfully than if Trent had paraphrased the letters or if he had just included snippets of the material. The breadth and depth of the footnotes also deserve mention. While the inclusion of lengthy references can often be jarring or unnecessary, this work benefits from Trent using the footnotes to provide helpful references to additional reading or to provide additional personal stories which, presumably, the author felt compelled to include.
Ultimately, due to the development of language and nomenclature, legislation, educational prerogatives and the continuing seclusion of disabled communities, our understanding of intellectual disability benefits from revisiting this classic work for a twenty-first-century audience. Both the author and the publisher deserve praise for undertaking this update which will hopefully promote similar undertakings by disability and medical historians in the future. Inventing the Feeble Mind will be of immense value to all disability historians irrespective of whether their focus is on intellectual disability. Indeed, the merits of the monograph extends beyond just disability historians and will help to inform the audience targeted by Trent, namely practitioners, campaigners, politicians and theorists involved in Disability Studies and Disability Rights.
History Department, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
[email protected]
© 2018 Michael Robinson
https://doi.org//10.1080/09687599.2018.1443590