Rating: 
Summary: The sociology of madness
Review: "Madness and Civilisation", which was first published in 1959, was the first major work of the cultural critic and maverick structuralist Foucault, and it eloquently and stylishly establishes the main themes, (namely, power, knowledge, confinement) of his later works. Foucault, in his brilliant and forceful exposition, traces the codes or "epistemes" responsible for the shaping of madness from the Reneissance and up to the late nineteenth century. He charts the history of insanity from it being considered as a virtually harmless "wisdom of folly", to it being considered as a disease in the age of confinement and the psychiatric clinic. Drawing on several imprtant representations of madness in culture, which include the Ship of Fools of Jerome Bosch, and "The Disparates" of Goya, as well as the fates of Van Gogh, Nietzsche, Nerval and Artuad in the modern era, he "deconstructs" the concept of "reason" itself, by placing it in an inverse relation to supposedly "mad" experience. He asks the fundamental, and highly philosophical, question of "what does it mean to be mad, and what is the qualitative distinction between 'sanity' and 'insanity'?" This leads him to make the extraordinary claim that the "pathologisation" of madness, its treatment as a disease, is something approximating a disease of the modern era itself. Madness represents a moment of rupture, whose suppression is an attempt to avoid something mysterious, unseizable and dangerous within our own selves. In his examination of the history of confinement, and the supposed devastation that it has caused, Foucault is not trying (as his critics have alleged) to promote insanity in a bid to transgress social modes and conventional wisdom. Rather, he is attempting nothing else than a sociology of madness, by seeing how it arose in the context of modernity, with its work ethic, industrialisation, and its expansion of business enterprise, imperatives which entailed the exclusion of marginal and supposedly "deviant" behaviour. Written with considerable flair and panache, the book is highly opaque, relying much on paradox, wordplay, discontinuity and the need to undermine the rigour and consistency of "reasoned" discourse, which Foucault charges of embedding dangerous authoritarian implications. The obscurity and complexity of his style also illustrates the very pressing difficulty of trying to express any certain or objective truth about reality. The translation of Richard Howard, however, is the superior version, as it retains much of the impact of Foucault's style.
Rating:
Summary: Commentary on the previous reviews
Review: (1) "If you are not philosophical, DO NOT READ..." It's true that it's a difficult work, and futhermore, the English translation published by Vintage Books is only excerpts - a condensation of the original work which was about 900 pages in French. Not a light read. (2) "To write the "History of Madness" is to be mad itself" This reviewer's comments are inaccurate in that Foucault himself stated that the work was not "anti-psychiatric" in the sense that he wished to deny the validity of psychiatric medicine. The book was one of two theses that Foucault had to defend at the College de France. At the time (circa 1959) Foucault was almost completely unknown among the general public. It is true that in the late 1960's, after Foucault had become famous, some people tried to use this work for left-wing political ends, and it is true that "The psychiatric establishment of the time attacked Foucault with most harsh diatribe". Regarding the title of this reviewer's blurb, Foucault said that writing the history of madness was his method to AVOID going mad himself. In Foucault's personality there was something bordering on madness and he was specifically interested in normative standards of behavior, their definitions, and the transgression thereof. (3) "A poetic historical tour de force redefining reason." This review was a very good summary of what the book is actually about. It's obvious that this reviewer is the only one of the three below who has actually read the book.
Rating:
Summary: Commentary on the previous reviews
Review: (1) "If you are not philosophical, DO NOT READ..." It's true that it's a difficult work, and futhermore, the English translation published by Vintage Books is only excerpts - a condensation of the original work which was about 900 pages in French. Not a light read. (2) "To write the "History of Madness" is to be mad itself" This reviewer's comments are inaccurate in that Foucault himself stated that the work was not "anti-psychiatric" in the sense that he wished to deny the validity of psychiatric medicine. The book was one of two theses that Foucault had to defend at the College de France. At the time (circa 1959) Foucault was almost completely unknown among the general public. It is true that in the late 1960's, after Foucault had become famous, some people tried to use this work for left-wing political ends, and it is true that "The psychiatric establishment of the time attacked Foucault with most harsh diatribe". Regarding the title of this reviewer's blurb, Foucault said that writing the history of madness was his method to AVOID going mad himself. In Foucault's personality there was something bordering on madness and he was specifically interested in normative standards of behavior, their definitions, and the transgression thereof. (3) "A poetic historical tour de force redefining reason." This review was a very good summary of what the book is actually about. It's obvious that this reviewer is the only one of the three below who has actually read the book.
Rating:
Summary: Commentary on the previous reviews
Review: (1) "If you are not philosophical, DO NOT READ..." It's true that it's a difficult work, and futhermore, the English translation published by Vintage Books is only excerpts - a condensation of the original work which was about 900 pages in French. Not a light read. (2) "To write the "History of Madness" is to be mad itself" This reviewer's comments are inaccurate in that Foucault himself stated that the work was not "anti-psychiatric" in the sense that he wished to deny the validity of psychiatric medicine. The book was one of two theses that Foucault had to defend at the College de France. At the time (circa 1959) Foucault was almost completely unknown among the general public. It is true that in the late 1960's, after Foucault had become famous, some people tried to use this work for left-wing political ends, and it is true that "The psychiatric establishment of the time attacked Foucault with most harsh diatribe". Regarding the title of this reviewer's blurb, Foucault said that writing the history of madness was his method to AVOID going mad himself. In Foucault's personality there was something bordering on madness and he was specifically interested in normative standards of behavior, their definitions, and the transgression thereof. (3) "A poetic historical tour de force redefining reason." This review was a very good summary of what the book is actually about. It's obvious that this reviewer is the only one of the three below who has actually read the book.
Rating:
Summary: category mistakes
Review: Certain reviewers of this book seem to confuse the categories of operation Focualt addresses in this book and others. He is not making the simplistic argument that "madness" is socially constructed but rather that certain concepts, including the medicalized model of insanity, only become possible under cetain conditions and operate within a specific, historical and culutral formation of knowledge. Understanding what these conditions are, and how these change is important both to become critical concerning the limitations of current organizations of these concepts, but also so that one does not anachronistically project present concepts into the past, ie, seeing 18th century discourses as premature versions of today's ideas. The problem of madness as an object of knowledge is his task within the history of ideas, not discerning its reality. Those that fail to recognize this, both the cultural relativists and the reactionaries, reveal their own lack of critical thought and say little about the text's strengths or weaknesses.
Rating:
Summary: category mistakes
Review: Certain reviewers of this book seem to confuse the categories of operation Focualt addresses in this book and others. He is not making the simplistic argument that "madness" is socially constructed but rather that certain concepts, including the medicalized model of insanity, only become possible under cetain conditions and operate within a specific, historical and culutral formation of knowledge. Understanding what these conditions are, and how these change is important both to become critical concerning the limitations of current organizations of these concepts, but also so that one does not anachronistically project present concepts into the past, ie, seeing 18th century discourses as premature versions of today's ideas. The problem of madness as an object of knowledge is his task within the history of ideas, not discerning its reality. Those that fail to recognize this, both the cultural relativists and the reactionaries, reveal their own lack of critical thought and say little about the text's strengths or weaknesses.
Rating: 
Summary: Dangerous Minds
Review: Foucault examines madness as it changes from a relatively harmless and accepted state to one of abject terror in the 18th century. The change of heart resulted in the confinement of the deranged under conditions of extreme brutality. The madmen came at this time to replace the leper as the pariah of society, in essence the madman has become in this case, the "Other" or the "Abnormal." The mad were lumped with the poor, the destitute in a word: marginalized. The mad served no purpose in the mercantile era of production and was a threat to basic social values. They were confined, brutalized, but were also put up for public ridicule. As such, they were beyond morality. There was issued a carte blanche to do with these "madmen" as their keepers pleased. This effect came about only after they had identified them as such. It was the manifestation of a power matrix that allowed man to brutalize man. In the 19th century, society began to take a moral attitude towards the insane, not one of compassionate but one of abject dejection.
The changes that took effect during the industrial revolution changed the status of the downtrodden making them the bedrock from which all wealth was cemented. As long as the poor knew their place and remained there, they eventually were established as a class to be identified and utilized. It was from within demoralizing situation that madness evolved its persona. The mad were considered unnatural and disorderly and were now viewed as moral defects.
It was with this preparation that the modern definition of madness saw it genesis. Mental illness took on a medical personage. Suddenly, with this classification came the authorization for not only new contact between doctors and patients but an altogether new paradigm between insanity and medical thought. When before the physician played no role in the life of confinement, he is suddenly the main player in this new game with a new set of rules. According to Foucault, the entry of the doctor onto the scene is not out of some inherent skill but is a result of the power he possesses. The physician is now validated by a body of "objective knowledge." The medical profession does not stop there. The ultimate sanction of this authorized body of knowledge is the eventual entry into the lives of healthy individuals who were deemed healthy enough to function on their own yet not trusted to make any autonomous judgments.
As the medical establishment has become more extensive so has the distinction between medical and moral eventually become confused. In effect, Foucault challenges us to examine why we have evolved this cherished tenet. Why we have placed the power in the hands of establishments such as the medical profession. Although the book is wordy and sometimes convoluted, the challenge cannot be ignored. Any new examination of the vanguard is certainly welcome.
Miguel Llora
Rating:
Summary: Any new examination of the vanguard is certainly welcome.
Review: Foucault examines madness as it changes from a relatively harmless and accepted state to one of abject terror in the 18th century. The change of heart resulted in the confinement of the deranged under conditions of extreme brutality. The madmen came at this time to replace the leper as the pariah of society, in essence the madman has become in this case, the other or the abnormal. The mad were lumped with the poor, the destitute in a word marginalized. The mad served no purpose in the mercantile era of production and was a threat to basic social values. They were confined, brutalized, but were also put up for public ridicule. As such, they were beyond morality. There was issued a carte blanche to do with these madmen as their keepers pleased. This effect came about only after they had identified them as such. It was the manifestation of a power matrix that allowed man to brutalize man. In the 19th century, society began to take a moral attitude towards the insane, not one of compassionate but one of abject dejection. The changes that took effect during the industrial revolution changed the status of the downtrodden making them the bedrock from which all wealth was cemented. As long as the poor knew their place and remained there, they eventually were established as a class to be identified and utilized. It was from within demoralizing situation that madness evolved its persona. The mad were considered unnatural and disorderly and were now viewed as moral defects. It was with this preparation that the modern definition of madness saw it genesis. Mental illness took on a medical personage. Suddenly, with this classification came the authorization for not only new contact between doctors and patients but altogether new paradigm between insanity and medical thought. When before the physician played not role in the life of confinement, he is suddenly the main player in this new game with a new set of rules. According to Foucault, the entry of the doctor onto the scene is not out of an inherent skill but is a result of the power he possesses. The physician is now validated by a body of "objective knowledge." The medical profession does not stop there. The ultimate sanction of this authorized body of knowledge is the eventual entry into the lives of healthy individuals who were deemed healthy enough to function on their own yet not trusted to make any autonomous judgments. As the medical establishment has become more extensive so that the distinction between medical and moral has eventually become confused. In effect, he challenges us to examine why we have evolved this cherished tenet. Why we have placed the power in the hands of establishments such as the medical profession. Much like Zola before him, Pierre Riviere has become Foucault's Dreyfus and through their icons of the damned, they have both moved us to examine. Although the book is wordy and sometimes convoluted, the challenge cannot be ignored. Any new examination of the vanguard is certainly welcome. Miguel Llora
Rating: 
Summary: It's (almost) all about Foucault...
Review: Foucault's book is ostensibly about, well, madness and civilization. He examines "madness" in society from the Middle Ages up to the present time, and proposes, I think, that "madness" is an arbitrary social construct created by powerful people and institutions in a given society to define themselves in opposition to and in contrast with "the other". In this case, people who are "mad". There are a wide variety of mental and neurological illnesses, such as depression or "meloncholia", substance abuse, mania, epilepsy, post traumatic brain injury, dementia, schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorders, etc. etc. that have been described in literature for centuries. They are usually considered unique illnesses with different causes and treatments, and authors and thinkers typically did not put them together in one category. Except Foucault. He seems to have created his own construct of "madness", where he lumped all sorts of behaviour together. He writes that every society creates an arbitrary construct of madness, but if that is true, then isn't his own construct of "madness" just as arbitrary and bounded and limited by his own particular time and place in history? It is instructive to look at one manifestation of "madness"; schizophrenia. We do not know the incidence of this disease in various cultures in the past. However, we do know that the incidence of this disease is about 0.5% in all cultures at the present time. This suggests that the disease is not an arbitrary construct of a particular society, but rather a scientific fact of life that various cultures react to in different ways (some postmoderns may scoff at the idea of a "scientific fact", but this seems a little hypocritical, since these postmodern scoffers rely on the these facts every time they get on a plane, use a computer, go to the dentist, make coffee, etc etc). Foucault discusses madness in the past, but does not address it in contemporary world civilizations. Foucault seems to define "civilization" as basically being something French. Their are some references to English and European writers, but they are infrequent. I am surprised at the paucity of references to neurologists and their ilk (OK, he mentions Charcot and Willis). I suspect that Foucault picked and chose his sources to support his construct of "civilization". Foucault created his own constructs of "madness" and "civilization" to write a book that is interesting and instructive. These constructs were probably influenced by the fact that he was a French intellectual with a controversial personal and professional life who lived in twentieth century Europe. The book is partly about madness, civilization, and partly about Foucault. It should be read because of the content and because of the influence that it has in our society. It should also be taken with a grain of salt.
Rating:
Summary: It's (almost) all about Foucault...
Review: Foucault's book is ostensibly about, well, madness and civilization. He examines "madness" in society from the Middle Ages up to the present time, and proposes, I think, that "madness" is an arbitrary social construct created by powerful people and institutions in a given society to define themselves in opposition to and in contrast with "the other". In this case, people who are "mad". There are a wide variety of mental and neurological illnesses, such as depression or "meloncholia", substance abuse, mania, epilepsy, post traumatic brain injury, dementia, schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorders, etc. etc. that have been described in literature for centuries. They are usually considered unique illnesses with different causes and treatments, and authors and thinkers typically did not put them together in one category. Except Foucault. He seems to have created his own construct of "madness", where he lumped all sorts of behaviour together. He writes that every society creates an arbitrary construct of madness, but if that is true, then isn't his own construct of "madness" just as arbitrary and bounded and limited by his own particular time and place in history? It is instructive to look at one manifestation of "madness"; schizophrenia. We do not know the incidence of this disease in various cultures in the past. However, we do know that the incidence of this disease is about 0.5% in all cultures at the present time. This suggests that the disease is not an arbitrary construct of a particular society, but rather a scientific fact of life that various cultures react to in different ways (some postmoderns may scoff at the idea of a "scientific fact", but this seems a little hypocritical, since these postmodern scoffers rely on the these facts every time they get on a plane, use a computer, go to the dentist, make coffee, etc etc). Foucault discusses madness in the past, but does not address it in contemporary world civilizations. Foucault seems to define "civilization" as basically being something French. Their are some references to English and European writers, but they are infrequent. I am surprised at the paucity of references to neurologists and their ilk (OK, he mentions Charcot and Willis). I suspect that Foucault picked and chose his sources to support his construct of "civilization". Foucault created his own constructs of "madness" and "civilization" to write a book that is interesting and instructive. These constructs were probably influenced by the fact that he was a French intellectual with a controversial personal and professional life who lived in twentieth century Europe. The book is partly about madness, civilization, and partly about Foucault. It should be read because of the content and because of the influence that it has in our society. It should also be taken with a grain of salt.
|
