The intention of this blog entry is to consider the importance that Foucault’s philosophy has had upon modern interpretations of madness. Of course the main literature to be considered is Foucault’s Madness and Civilisation.
For Foucault the separation of madness and reason is not an obvious truth but a variable construct, built through historical context. To truly understand madness we must study its history, and through doing so Foucault claims that madness is intimately linked to the society of the age.
Madness thus appears to be a tool of separation for those deemed not to be normal, in respect to the beliefs and practices of the day. As the rules and beliefs change, so too does the idea of madness. It separates that which is considered to be ‘other’; however it can be agreed that society creates structures where outsiders, or ‘other’, are created by those inside.
In Madness and Civilization Foucault explores this shift in how madness is perceived and also how it is to be dealt with. We can see the shift from expulsion to containment and indeed the criminalization of madness. However Foucault argues that as we have progressed, so has our understanding of what we can claim madness to be. It is claimed that the passions can be deemed irrational and therefore mad, even that love can be claimed as a ‘divine madness’.
It is my opinion that Foucault greatly shaped the way in which we understand madness and its variation and evolution throughout the history of society. I also strongly agree with his thoughts that madness and reason cannot be clearly separated as madness can be viewed as a form of unreasonable genius. It certainly appears as though there is a fine line between madness and genius. Therefore we should not mistreat those perceived as mad and contain them within inhumane asylums.
References:
Foucault, M. Madness and Civilisation (New York: Vintage Books, 2006)
Harry Kidby N0225838
Thank you Harry, good work, pretty good account of Foucault: To my mind, what was important was the fact that you laid out the relationship between historical circumstance and the construction of madness, and also the way in which various historical systems generate their own specific forms of madness. One thing I think you could think further is your assertion at the end that it is wrong for people to be put in an asylum. Foucault it would seem is a much more descriptive philosopher. This is not to say of course that he is for the inhumane treatment of prisoners, he campaigned for prisoner rights etc., but his political interventions I think come from the state of the prisons rather than from his analysis. In a sense, it is rare for Foucault in his text to say the inhumane treatment of prisoners is wrong we should not do it, but I presume his analysis of asylums and prisons drew his attention to their conditions. I suppose my question that would be worth thinking about for you, is how he gets from his work to the political interventions and campaigns which he pursued.
ReplyDelete