Madness and Civilization (1961) opens with a quote by Dostoyevsky: ‘it is not by confining one’s neighbour that one is convinced of one’s own sanity’. Here, Foucault considers the eternal struggle between the ‘man of madness’ and the ‘man of reason’, outlining society’s need to contain that which is ‘other’, to widen the gap between the so-called normal and the abnormal.
What is madness? For Foucault, madness is not organic and unchanging, it is inseparably embedded in culture and society, a victim of its whims. By returning to its history one can understand how perceptions are moulded by the language, science and beliefs of the time – from the ostracising of lepers, suspicions of demonic habitation and in contemporary thought, as a mental condition. Madness is the enemy of reason, it is déraison. Foucault identifies the dichotomy of socially-constructed madness; is it in fact a body of unique knowledge or a target of difference and intervention by a power?
This blog presents the notion that perhaps society should not attempt to numb madness and silence its’ outbursts with psychiatry and medicine. Society may always require a certain group, one of Girard’s scapegoats, to unite those who have escaped the stigmatism of being labelled insane. The norm is generally dictated by who is in power, and the parameters measured against what they deem acceptable, despite those in power possibly only being a few degrees along on the continuum of madness. The power relations are at work once again.
Whilst not romanticising the idea of tortured geniuses, have the likes of Van Gogh, Nietzsche, Edgar Allan Poe and Beethoven taught us nothing of the links between genius and madness?
Perhaps the asylum in fact presents a sanctuary, an escape from the madness of the outside world?
If ‘madness’ is integral to civilisation, why is it uncivilised to be ‘mad’?
References:
Foucault, M, Madness and Civilization (Oxford: Routledge, 2005).
Emma Luxton
N0221912
Thanks Emma. Really good post and another good example of clear writing. Really pleased with the quality of writing by everyone so far.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you state that the condition of the treatment of madness is based on ‘society’s need to contain that which is ‘other’, to widen the gap between the so-called normal and the abnormal.’ It strikes me that this hits on a very key point of Foucault’s analysis. It is the very process of classifying of normality which generates the distance between the normal and abnormal. The classification of madness presents in some perverse way the illusion of care. By controlling, disciplining and containing madness institutions present themselves as if they are caring for the insane, and therefore they are regulating the unpalatable anomalies in societies. When in fact this amounts to the very stigmatization of the mad, mentally ill and the insane; the mad are kept external by being kept close and monitored within asylums.
To answer you’re the question you pose, that is why is it uncivilized be mad is a good one to ask. It brings in to relief the full force of Foucault’s procedures. What can we say to answer the question other than madness ‘represents’ and presents an anomalous and monstrous challenge to society. Humans in many ways are very basic frail creatures and like to represent ourselves to ourselves as having some modicum of control. Madness presents a direct challenge to this self-possession. There is a kind of humanism I suppose that we could illicit from Foucault’s work, the human being is just not as ultimately sane as we might think. It is never a case of either/or, madness and sanity is a false dichotomy operating a spectrum of degree. I mean a lot of us do things like unconscious things like talking to ourselves, are superstitious and engage in a whole host of oddities. One could even argue on a broader sense that the things we are doing are ultimately mad in the broader sense, we forget to recycle on a Thursday which ultimately is contributing to ecological disaster. Now if that is not delusional self-harm I do not know what is.