The year 1856 is extremely significant for modern psychology in general and particularly the practice of psychiatry. It was in this year in Europe that Emil Kraepelin and Sigmund Freud were born. Apart from their year of birth, however, both men would take exponentially different paths in their approach to the practice of psychology (Allik & Tammiksaar, 2016) . Freud was to take the psychoanalysis path while Kraepelin would tend towards clinical research. These are the two major paths and schools of thought that inform modern psychology. Kraepelin is considered as the father of modern scientific psychology, which focuses more on the biological and physiological aspects of mental issues. As an ardent researcher, Kraepelin harnessed human physiological studies to create a better understanding of the advent, progress, and control of mental illnesses (Bar & Ebert, 2010) . This not only gave birth to biological concepts about psychological issues but also chemical and biological interventions to them through psychopharmacology. Finally, Kraepelin has also been considered as the founder of psychiatric genetics, which seeks to establish genetic causation for psychological issues (Becker et al, 2016) . It is, however, in the field of genetics where the great professor gets most of his criticism based on his seemingly discriminatory and perhaps racist hypothesis. The suspension of a clinician’s license can be considered as a major catastrophe for any practitioner. However, the suspension of Kraepelin’s license may be considered as the best thing that happened to modern psychology as it left him free to focus on the aforementioned research (Bar & Ebert, 2010) . This research paper looks at the lives and works of Professor Kraepelin, including his positive and negative contributions to the field of psychology and psychiatry.
Biography
Perhaps Kraepelin would have gone into the arts instead of science, based on his background. His father, Karl Wilhelm was an opera singer, a music teacher as well as a gifted narrator. However, Kraepelin’s interest was drawn to his brother, Karl, who was his senior by about ten years. Karl had an ardent interest in biology and this clearly rubbed onto Kraepelin. Indeed, even after leaving the field of medicine to focus on psychology, Kraepelin would never lose his interest in biology. Therefore, from an early childhood, Kraepelin developed a great interest in biology, a fact that also revealed his great and almost natural gifting in the subject. His place of birth was Neustrelitz, Northern Germany but most of his early days were spent in Munich and Leipzig and Würzburg, mainly as a student (Alic, 2017). At Leipzig, he attended the University of Leipzig for medical studies between 1877 and 1878. Among his areas of focus at this university were neuropathology and experimental psychology. It was at Würzburg that he competed for his formal studies and examinations for the award of a clinician’s license to practice psychiatry in July 1878. He then moved to Munich where he both practiced as well as continued with research under the superintendence of University of Munich’s Bernhard von Gudden. The year 1882 saw his return to Leipzig where he had two professional engagements that would have a major impact on his future research.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The first is employment at Wilhelm Heinrich Erb's neurology clinic which would give him a practical experience dealing with mental patients. The patient analysis would form a major part of his future work. The second engagement was at Wundt's psychopharmacology laboratory. This would fuel the passion that informed the second aspect of his major works, to wit the use of pharmacological products to intervene in different mental disorders (Bar & Ebert, 2010) . In 1883, he was awarded the Umhabilitierung which would license him to practice habilitation. His heart was, however, at Wundt’s laboratory where he spent so much time that he was professionally considered to have abandoned the clinical practice. Due to the inability to fulfill the minimum working requirement and continuous training to retain his clinician’s license, it was taken away from him, thus leaving him as a full-time researcher. This caused Kraepelin to shift focus from practice to research, academia as well as administration.
As an administrator in the medical field , Kraepelin acted as the senior physician at Leubus and advanced to be a director at Dresden’s Treatment and Nursing Institute. One of his greatest feats can, however, be considered as being appointed Professor of Psychiatry at what is now dubbed the University of Tartu in modern Estonia at only 30 years. Again at the tender age of 34, he was appointed a department head at the University of Heidelberg. During all this time, his research on the relationship between biology and psychology continued. 1903 saw him move to becomes University of Munich’s Professor of Clinical Psychiatry (Bar & Ebert, 2010) . In 1908, he was elected as a Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences member. Finally, he began working on what was to be his legacy, the German Institute for Psychiatric Research in 1912. Some wealthy individual who had benefited from his psychiatric works including James Loeb, a wealthy Jewish Banker made major donations towards this cause. The program gained momentum and at a time when the world was not as connected as it is today, managed to get major donations from as far away as the USA. The institute was finally opened in 1918, albeit using facilities borrowed from hospitals. It was not until 1928, two years after the passing of the great professor in 1926 at the age of 70 years that the institute was to acquire its own building. This building was built according to the specifications given by Kraepelin himself. With regard to family, Kraepelin was married to Ina Maria Wilhelmine Kraepelin (nee, Schwabe), of Neustrelitz, Neubrandenburg. Their wedding took place in 1884 when Kraepelin was twenty-eight years. Their union was blessed with two sons and six daughters (Bar & Ebert, 2010) . At the age of 66, Kraepelin had retired from academia so as to focus on the said institution. He is also said to have taken a great interest in Buddhism at this stage. His family members indicate that upon completion of the institute, Kraepelin was to undertake a pilgrim to Buddhist holy sites. This was not to be due to his untimely death as what can yet be considered a relatively young age of 70. The life of Kraepelin showcases a man who had a deep interest in biology yet took up a career in psychology (Bar & Ebert, 2010) . He, therefore, brought his interest in biology to his career in psychology. This resulted in several major contributions to psychology in general and particularly psychiatry, based on the practical application of biological understanding into it.
The Works of Kraepelin
Pathogenesis and Manifestation of Psychiatric Disorders
One of the most famous works by Kraepelin is the Compendium of Psychiatry: For the Use of Students and Physicians , which he first published in 1883. The initial book was a work in progress and was expanded and renamed A Textbook: Foundations of Psychiatry and Neuroscienc e (Alic, 2017). A year after his death in 1926, the ninth edition of the said book was produced in four volumes and approximately ten times the original 1883 version. Among the primary arguments in this book relates to the relationship between physiological and biological factors and mental illnesses. It is important to state that as at the end of the 19 th century and the advent of the 20 th century when Kraepelin and Freud were working, a lot of progress had already been made in psychology and psychiatry (Allik & Tammiksaar, 2016) . Traditionally in Europe, mental patients were considered to be possessed by demons and also to be somehow victims of their own undoing. They would, therefore, be placed in asylums under poor and inhuman conditions. Albeit researcher had from the 17 th century come to dispute this notion, it was still popular in some places. Customs such as being cruel to the insane, more so those who had undertaken acts of violence were quite common, including executions. Psychiatrists, however, pursued a hypothesis for mental health issues that would absolutely eliminate the concept that mental patients are to blame for their own illness (Burstow, 2015) . It would also eliminate the contention that there was any spiritual connection to mental illness. This was achieved by connecting mental illness to biological factors. However, before the advent of Kraepelin’s research, psychiatrists would attach a specific major symptom to a specific mental illness (Burstow, 2015) . This resulted in many mental conditions which were distinct in nature and, therefore, required distinct treatment to be lumped together into one.
Kraepelin, however, came up with a hypothesis that a mental illness cannot be diagnosed based on a singular symptom, but rather a combination of different symptoms prevalent within the same individual. Akin to a modern scientific researcher, Kraepelin in the research that informs the instant textbook did not focus on one symptom, subject or patient (Alic, 2017). Instead, he collected a mountain of data about different symptoms, found in different patients and in different places. He then used the same to study and understand the trends to be found within them. Through this, he formulated a means to arrive at more refined and accurate diagnosis through symptomatic trends and combinations as opposed to looking for a specific symptom to arrive at a certain mental disorder. He was able to show that a certain major symptom can be prevalent in several mental disorders. Therefore, using that major symptom would be misleading (Alic, 2017). However, if the same symptom is considered contemporaneously with other symptoms that it is manifesting together with, a clinician can tell which of the diseases that manifest that major symptom the patient is suffering from.
Classification of Psychosis
Psychosis is a severe mental disorder whose manifestation is the loss of reality in both thought and emotions for the patient. In his book Clinical Psychiatry; A Text-book for Students and Physicians Kraepelin outlines his research on the subject of psychosis and it varies biologically and psychologically in spite of seemingly similar symptoms (Kraepelin & Diefendorf, 2012) . Before the works by Kraepelin as aforesaid , a similar major symptom was considered as the sign of a certain disease. With mental conditions such as psychosis, this general method of diagnosis would be so flawed as to almost guarantee a wrongful diagnosis. Indeed, the current diagnosis would be based on luck and not the accuracy of the diagnostic method. Based on his research on trends of manifestations together with biological factors, Kraepelin classified psychosis into two major categories (Kraepelin & Diefendorf, 2012) . These are manic depression and dementia praecox. The later, dementia praecox was depicted as a mainly biological problem based on a problem with the brain itself and later manifested in the character of the patient. This hypothesis by Kraepelin has been upheld with dementia praecox now called schizophrenia. Manic depression, on the other part, was a mood disorder, caused by several psychological factors (Kraepelin, 1921) .
What is now considered as the most important contribution by Kraepelin in relation to psychiatry in general and psychosis, in particular, was how to tell the difference between the two. Despite the fact that manic depression and dementia praecox are exponentially different, all the symptoms present in one are also present in the other. It, therefore, seemed that looking at the symptoms alone could not lead to a diagnosis between the two. Further, manic depression is but a general term for several forms of psychosis that have their basis in a mood disorder (Kraepelin, 1921) . Being able to tell between the different types of psychosis is, therefore, a critical issue. Kraepelin developed a means to tell the difference between the different types of psychosis through symptom trends. Clinicians could seek to understand the patterns, prevalence, and extent of different symptoms as appearing in a patient. Through these patterns and trends, the clinician can be able to tell whether the patient is suffering from dementia praecox or manic disorder and also which particular form of manic depression the patient is suffering from (Kraepelin & Diefendorf, 2012) . The understanding of the nature of the ailment would result in the understanding of the proper intervention approach.
Eugenics, Social Darwinism, and Racial Hygiene
After becoming a Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the University of Munich, Kraepelin developed quasi-political interest and began applying his Biopsychology theories to social issues. It is at this juncture that he produced the controversial paper, Crime as a Social Disease . Whereas the aforementioned two aspects of the great professor’s works have been both positive and accurate, the instant works were both negative and extremely inaccurate . As indicated earlier, Kraepelin believed that genetics had a lot to do with mental disorders generally (Engstrom, 1991) . Therefore, every mental disorder, even those not caused by biological factors per se have a genetic attribute. By looking at the genetics of patients and studying trends, it would be possible to tell what genetics affiliations cause different mental disorders. To this extent, Kraepelin was accurate and also right. However, he moved ahead and adopted Social Darwinism, a concept that associates social conduct with genetics. He believed that individuals living a life full of vices such as substance abusers were passing on poor genes to their offspring and polluting the future world (Becker et al, 2016) . This contention is surprising, seeing that historians believe Kraepelin was an absolute teetotaler because his father was a terrible alcoholic, a fact that severely affected their relationship. That he turned out to be a great scientist , world class psychiatrist and successful administrator at a very young age would make him the least susceptible person to believe in such a concept, yet he did.
A more lopsided aspect of the concept of Social Darwinism was the belief in racial superiority. Kraepelin was a German, and therefore part of Volk, the German race. Unfortunately, he was also a believer in the superiority of this race over and above any other race in the world, including fellow Caucasians (Kösters et al, 2015) . Under Social Darwinism, the German people were the most suited to excel exponentially in the world based on their genetic superiority. However, Kraepelin felt that interaction with lesser communities such as Jews would contaminate Volk, something that he spoke vehemently against. Indeed, Kraepelin believed that being Jewish in itself was a psychological issue and created a high propensity for psychological disorders, as opposed to being German. Whereas the basic scientific theory on which Crime as a Social Disease was based is accurate since genetics has an effect on the mind through the brain, the application thereof by Kraepelin has been disputed by modern science, according to contemporary research (Kösters et al, 2015) .
What has been said about Kraepelin and His Works?
Kraepelin and Freud
It is now over 150 years since the two great men were born and about a century since each of them left their marks in the field of psychology. Further, both of them focused on the very same topic kindred to clinical diagnosis and intervention for psychological disorders. Unfortunately, the two great men took two very different paths and came to two exponentially different conclusions about the subject. Indeed, through the 20 th century, psychiatrists seemed to have to choose between whether to adhere to Kraepelin or Freud (Allik & Tammiksaar, 2016) . Those who adhered to Freud would take more of a rehabilitative approach to mental disorders, mainly through therapy and would be extremely critical of Kraepelin. The inverse would also be true about those who adhered to Kraepelin and they would seek to understand the biological factors of mental health and tend more towards pharmacological interventions. However, towards the end of the 20 th century, it became increasingly clear that adhering to one school of thought and shunning the other is counterproductive. Even when pharmacological interventions are used effectively, the need for therapy still arises. And in many extreme instances, pharmacological intentions are necessary, in spite of ideal therapy being undertaken (Bar & Ebert, 2010) . Today, psychologists are still struggling with how to integrate the Kraepelin approach with that of Freud. Many have as well wondered how easily things would have turned out had these two great contemporaries worked together.
Commendation
Many scholars have saluted Kraepelin as one of the best psychiatrist researchers of all times and one of the greatest contributors to the field in the 20 th century. Among the achievements mentioned include his aforementioned contribution towards the classification of psychosis. Having all forms of psychosis lumped together was a major limitation to psychiatry and stood in the way of proper intervention for many patients. The concept of understanding, not only the symptoms but also their patterns and trends has also been lauded by kindred researchers globally. Kraepelin has also been lauded as having made major inroads in the field of psychopharmacology. This area of psychiatry has risen exponentially within the course of the 20 th century, even as the burden of mental health increased in the world. Through advancements in psychopharmacology, many mental health patients who would otherwise be disabled or incapacitated are living productive lives. The fact that part if not all of the chain of causation of mental illness has a root in biology also helped change the way mental health issues are considered in the world. With mental health being considered as a disease and not a disorder, the stigma relating to it, albeit not eliminated is exponentially reduced, and this has been attributed inter alia to the research undertaken by Kraepelin. Further, relating parts of the brain and its systems to different disorders have led researchers to discover more efficient interventions, some of which even include surgery as a treatment for mental disorders. Kraepelin has been associated with pointing 20 th -century biopsychology researchers in the right direction towards finding this intervention (Ebert & Bar, 2010) . Finally, the connection between biological factors in general and particularly genetics to different mental disorders has also been lauded as a major achievement for Kraepelin. Albeit a part of his research and publications on this subject were wrong, the fact that the underlying scientific principle thereto was correct has not been lost on commentators. Research in this area has exponentially helped in diagnosis, intervention, and control of many common psychological problems across the globe (Becker et al, 2016) .
Condemnation
In spite of his great works, Kraepelin cannot escape some scathing and in some instances justified condemnation and indictments. About a decade after his passing on, the concept of Social Darwinism exploded in Germany with devastating ramifications (Hoff, 2015; Wessely, 2014) . Part of these include a purge on Jews and people with disabilities in Germany and her satellite states. Millions of people lost their lives because of this. Some extreme critics of Kraepelin have reflected him as the creator of Hitler and Nazism due to his works as Professor at the University of Munich. Indeed, the philosophy that informed the Holocaust was the very same that Kraepelin had erstwhile propagated (Hoff, 2015) . This entails the superiority of the German people based on their genetics and the inferiority of other people’s such as the Jews. To protect the superior race from being contaminated by lesser races thus eliminating their ability to succeed through the concept of survival for the greatest informed the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies and others who were considered as undesirables. Whereas it has not been said that Kraepelin advocated for mass murder, his reputation as a researcher clearly gave impetus to the thought patterns that eventually led to the very unfortunate happenings in and around Germany, resulting in the Second World War (Wessely, 2014) .
Conclusion
Kraepelin may have been wrong about a few things but has been proven right about almost all things that he researched on and published. Indeed, the fact that scientific theories developed over a century ago, in a discipline and dynamic as psychology still hold today is a major tribute to the success of Kraepelin. The great professor joined the field of psychology while already having a deep passion for biology. He, therefore, applied this passion into his professional field, therefore coming up with what can be termed as the novel field of scientific psychiatry. This entails the shunning of generalities and assumptions and taking a scientific research approach to the field of psychiatry. Through this pursuit, Kraepelin was able to perfect diagnostic procedures for many psychological disorders including psychosis. He also made exponential contributions to psychopharmacology and psychiatric genetics. His errors in relation to Social Darwinism, racial hygiene, and eugenics can be understood as he was only human, A careful analysis of the foregoing, however, will reflect that Kraepelin’s contribution to psychiatry was exponentially positive.
References
Alic, M. (2017). Emil Kraepelin - Publishes first edition of his psychiatry compendium, Studies pathologies of mental disorders . Retrieved June 09, 2017, from http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/365/Emil-Kraepelin.html
Allik, J., & Tammiksaar, E. (2016). Who was Emil Kraepelin and why do we remember him 160 years later?. Trames , 20 (4), 317-335
Bar, K., & Ebert, A. (2010). Emil Kraepelin: A pioneer of scientific understanding of psychiatry and psychopharmacology. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 52 (2), 191. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.64591
Becker, K., Steinberg, H., & Kluge, M. (2016). Emil Kraepelin's concepts of the phenomenology and physiology of sleep: the first systematic description of chronotypes. Sleep Medicine Reviews , 27 , 9-19
Burstow, B. (2015). The Evolution of “Madness”: A Journey “through Time,” Part One. In Psychiatry and the Business of Madness (pp. 25-44). Palgrave Macmillan US
Ebert, A., & Bar, K. (2010). Emil Kraepelin : A pioneer of scientific understanding of psychiatry and psychopharmacology. Indian Journal of Psychiatry , 52(2), 191-192. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.64591
Engstrom, E. J. (1991). Emil Kraepelin: psychiatry and public affairs in Wilhelmine Germany. History of Psychiatry , 2 (6), 111-132
Hoff, P. (2015). The Kraepelinian tradition. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience , 17 (1), 31
Kösters, G., Steinberg, H., Kirkby, K. C., & Himmerich, H. (2015). Ernst Rüdin’s unpublished 1922-1925 study “Inheritance of Manic-Depressive Insanity”: Genetic research findings subordinated to eugenic ideology. PLoS Genet , 11 (11), e1005524
Kraepelin, E. (1921). Manic depressive insanity and paranoia. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 53 (4), 350
Kraepelin, E., & Diefendorf, A. R. (2012). Clinical psychiatry: a text-book for students and physicians . Memphis: General Books LLC.
Wessely, S. (2014). When scientists wanted to know everything. The Lancet , 384 (9944), 654-655
