Foucault
ascertains that madness is not a natural, concrete notion, but is something determined
predominantly within the context of its society. He explores the extent to
which society marginalises those who defy their preconceived notions of normality,
challenging the idea that a person’s thoughts must be limited to the confines
of society’s norms for them to be considered rational.
Ideas are often strengthened if they are contrasted with a concept deemed to be
their opposite; by undermining one, the other seems more tangible. Foucault
argues that madness can only exist through reason, and are therefore fundamentally
tied to one another. Contrastingly, knowledge and power are two that can
function independent of each other. It could be argued that it is the ‘madmen’
who think outside the box who possess a more knowledgeable, coherent
understanding of the world, whilst it is society who possess the power to marginalise
them. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was
considered insane by Creationists, and yet the work of a genius by others. If
it is possible for people to coexist in a society when their fundamental
beliefs are so different, it is logical to expect the ‘normal’ and the ‘madmen’
to live with the understanding that for one person’s opinion to be considered
rational, the other person’s does not have to be irrational.
The rejection of difference in society is inherent in Said’s notion of
‘Orientalism’, in which Western society’s preconceived notions of the Orient
has resulted in many people considering their way of living as abnormal. It is a system of thought and
representations cultivated not from fact, but through imagined constructs
present in literary and historical texts which portray the East as “Other”. If
Western society was informed about the realities of the Orient, rather than its
stereotypes, it could theoretically reduce cultural marginalisation. The same
can be applied to the notion of ‘madness’. Marginalising people simply for thinking in a
different way is illogical, as norms and values themselves are something
that are socially constructed rather than natural. It is necessary that we challenge
the division of reason and madness in order to achieve a more comprehensive
understanding of it.
Emily Nelson, N0217820
Thanks Emily. Through the utilisation of Said I think you have brought out an ethical component of Foucault's work (even if Said based much of his conception of Orientalism on Foucault i.e. that a more nuanced appreciation of ethics is relevant to giving a voice to madness (a paradoxical thing in itself). You have also I think rendered well the point we were discussing in the lecture. 'Madness' and 'reason'are to be explained on a continuum rather than as utterly dichotomous. I suppose Foucault does a bit of the old poststructural trick here of collapsing binary oppositions. The more important point is that reason cannot control madness per se, instead madness is an effect of reason. (You can after all say very 'mad' things in a rational way 'The square is circle' etc.) For Foucault, madness is one of the tragedies of modernity. What I like about your analysis is the way in which you grasped a more rounded understanding of madness by discerning its social and political genesis. I suppose the question that you have to think about is to what extent we can just accept that values and norms are 'socially constructed'. This is a field that Foucault takes much criticism as he is accused of ethical relativism.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested in following this up you could look at Derrida's challenging piece 'Cogito and the History of Madness' which is a critique of Foucault. It is in the collection Writing and Difference.