psychohistory as history (thomas kohut 1986)

•“Too often when employing the psychohistorical method, the historian comes to the past with an understanding and explanation already in hand; the understanding and explanation do not emerge from the past itself but are the products of a theoretical model.” (thomas kohut 1986)

now, how does the understanding and explanation "emerge" from the past itself? 
you've got to be there, feel yourself into it, feel deeply enough, long enough, then you may 
understand, a little bit, the agony of what it's like being there

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1858137?loggedin=true&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (shall be removed in 14 days, starting from 2017-11-6)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A3L8qHE7F1fY-x-Uf9MO1cKTZ570lpob/view?usp=sharing (thomas kohut 2003)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EXIYRC5_2DHhp-8m5MhzxC7Ftwqsamee/view?usp=sharing (roger frie 2017)



Kohut, T.A. (1986) Psychohistory as history. The American Historical Review, 1986, 91(2):336-354  ---  his "methodology article" as a historian

Kohut, T.A. (2003). Psychoanalysis as Psychohistory or Why Psychotherapists Cannot Afford to Ignore Culture. Annu. Psychoanal., 31:225-236  ---  his "statement article" as a psychoanalyst

see also

      Kohut, T. A. (2013). Reflections on empathy as a mode of observation in history. In C. Frey, T. Kubetzky, K. Latzel, H. Mehrkens, & C. F. Weber (eds.), Sinngeschichten: Kulturhistorische Beiträge für Ute Daniel (pp. 190–197). Vienna, Austria: Böhlau.   

      Elovitz, P., & Cocks, G. (2005). Thomas A. Kohut: Historian with a psychoanalytic world view. Clio’s Psyche, 12(1), 49–56.