Throughout the history of psychiatric ethical professionalization, the question of the “extremist” contextualizes and frames the limits of medical practice. Using archival research at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the article explores how professional committees debated medical ethics after evidence of psychiatric participation in national security measures against dissidents. British, American, and global professional associations organized a prominent struggle against Soviet membership of the World Psychiatric Association in the 1970s and 1980s—reconstituting the field of professional expertise through Cold War geopolitics. The Special Committee on the Political Abuse of Psychiatry was formed in 1978 at the British Royal College of Psychiatry to publicize the medical detention of dissidents in the USSR and to pursue the expulsion of the USSR delegation from global professional fora. In doing so, it constituted an identity for Global Mental Health (vis-à-vis Soviet abusive practice) as impartial, objective, and uncompromised. However, this article explores the many ambiguities that complicate the performative constitution of Western psychiatry as good, and Soviet psychiatry as bad—reflecting on the political dynamics, and philosophy of science, which underwrote the struggle for global expertise.

中文翻译：

---

冷战精神病学、极端主义和专业知识：“精神病学政治滥用特别委员会”

纵观精神病学伦理专业化的历史，“极端主义者”的问题将医疗实践的局限置于语境中并形成框架。本文利用皇家精神病学家学院的档案研究，探讨了在有证据表明精神病学参与针对持不同政见者的国家安全措施后，专业委员会如何辩论医学伦理。在 1970 年代和 1980 年代，英国、美国和全球专业协会组织了一场反对苏联加入世界精神病学协会的突出斗争——通过冷战地缘政治重建专业知识领域。1978 年，英国皇家精神病学学院成立了政治滥用精神病学特别委员会，目的是宣传苏联对异见人士的医疗拘留，并将苏联代表团驱逐出全球专业论坛。在这样做的过程中，它构成了全球心理健康（相对于苏联滥用行为）的公正、客观和不妥协的身份。然而，本文探讨了使西方精神病学的表演构成复杂化的许多模糊性，而苏联精神病学则是坏的——反映了为全球专业知识的斗争提供支持的政治动态和科学哲学。并且毫不妥协。然而，本文探讨了使西方精神病学的表演构成复杂化的许多模棱两可的地方，因为它们是好的，而苏联的精神病学是坏的——反映了政治动态和科学哲学，它们为全球专业知识的斗争奠定了基础。并且毫不妥协。然而，本文探讨了使西方精神病学的表演构成复杂化的许多模棱两可的地方，因为它们是好的，而苏联的精神病学是坏的——反映了政治动态和科学哲学，它们为全球专业知识的斗争奠定了基础。