Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason

At the core, the thesis of this book is dead-simple. It retraces how the mads have been perceived and so treated in Europe, starting from the Middle Ages and up to modern times. Foucault, here, exposes indeed how theirs was a demographic which has always (supposedly...) been excluded, but whose alienation will really pick momentum during the Classical period before fully getting out-of-control by the 19th century. What happened?

Foucault was (despite having rejected the label) a postmodernist. As such, he was staunchly critical of the Enlightenment ideals and ethos; the ethos of elevating Reason above all to try and outline universal truths. Now, here's not the place to debate whether such stances were intellectually valid nor whether show more they were morally acceptable or not. Suffice to say that such view of Rational thinking, as preached by classical thinkers, will deeply impact his understanding of history. For instance, focusing here on madness he, then, denounces how it's this Enlightenment robust reliance on rationalism which will lead to the negating or, at least, overlooking of the humanity of the mads to, instead, focus on their 'sicknesses'; 'sicknesses' which were to be observed, classified, controlled, even, punished. Add to that the fact that such philosophical approach culminated at the time of the Industrial Revolution that is, a time where being productive as an individual was paramount (and, as a collateral, being unproductive a sign of social hence moral failure) and one can fully see how such negating, overlooking, controlling, even, punishing would be easy to implement and practice! So far, so good. But then so what?

The problem with Foucault's view is not so much with his so-so history. For example, it certainly is not true, as he otherwise claims, that the mads were the object of sharp exclusion (including of banishment) in the medieval era. Ships of Fools, for instance, have never been a thing. It's quite true, however, that our understanding of diagnosis would have never come about without the scientific method and that, as a result (and since the scientific method is rooted in Rationalism) our understanding of madness remains rooted in a rational, scientific need to classify and catalogue, at the risk of dehumanising. It's true, too, that the triumphing capitalism and industrialism of the 19th century, coupled with an increasing, pressuring urbanisation have widely contributed to the alienating of whose not able to conform; hence elites pushing then to further their exclusion. Had it outlined just that, this book would have been remarkable. And indeed, his explaining of how our perception of madness will morph from being something accepted as being inadvertent for the mad to that of being a social failure, hence a moral failure dangerous to society as a whole and requiring thus to be locked away to be better controlled, remains a fascinating attack against a system of thought. So what's wrong?

The problem with Foucault however is that he caricatures, in order to simplify to the extreme. How so?

First, there is his writing style. Foucault's prose is an obscure, pompous verbiage and tiring lining of word salads drowned into circumvoluted phrases, making for lengthy, wordy gibberish that one is at pain (more than once!) to even try to decipher. Does it matter? When it comes to philosophy or (like here) social history I am, personally, a great believer in pressing the pause button when faced with such jumble. Is the author a genius offering a brilliant insight that my limited intellect struggles to grasp yet (option 1)? Or is such jumble of words nothing but a reflect of the confusion of thoughts in someone who doesn't really know what he or she is talking about; the bamboozle of an "intellectual" relying on made-up ca-cademia to mystify naïve readers (option 2)? I decided, here, to go for option 2. Why?

Well, then because there are his unforgettable short cuts; and they take two forms.

On the one hand, I appreciate the criticisms levied against the institutionalisation of the mads, and I appreciate the exposing of how such institutionalisation has led to a culture of abuse. What gets on my nerves, thought, is the view defended here (even if implicitly) and according to which individuals working within such institutions were (are?) abusers by nature, hence the reason why perhaps they went on to do such jobs. It's easy, from our vantage point, to denounce the wide incarceration of the unfit in centuries gone by as having been nothing but systemic abuse (it was). Nevertheless, within such abusive system there were remarkable doctors whose deep sense of empathy and compassion and, above all, understanding of others' vulnerabilities were undeniable. Foucault fails to see this; he who prefers to vilify and castigate even whose whose work and ideas would have a profound, positive impact upon how the mads will be treated by the system (e.g. he can't stand Philippe Pinel, that's on him...).

On the other hand, for a book supposedly dedicated to denounce the alienation of the mads by society at large there is, here (and ironically enough!) nothing whatsoever to counter-act such alienation. On the contrary! It's all about how certain doctors and philosophers perceived them; and so how Foucault perceives such doctors and philosophers... with no voice given to the mads themselves! Now, for a book first published in 1961 (in its original French at least) such oversight is obviously quite forgivable. We're all the product of our zeitgeist, and Foucault was no different. What is not forgivable, thought, is the idealising of madness that such ignoring leads to. For instance, Foucault babbles about how the mad is supposedly the voice of un-Reason; how theirs is a worldview as valid as any other even if inadequate; how, even, madness can translate into sparks of genius (e.g. he quotes the works and lives of Holderlin, Artaud, Nietzsche, Nerval). That is all very well, but certainly not the reality of the mad. Being mad also includes being hypomanic or manic; neurotic; psychotic. Being mad can be very distressful. It can be a terrible state to be. As such, being mad certainly doesn't require lengthy pseudo-intellectual babbling about ca-cademic philosophy and other salads about anti-Enlightenment thoughts. It requires medication. It requires therapy. It requires (yes, get over it!) sometimes to be sectioned from society. Is it a good thing? Absolutely not. But then again, madness itself is not a good thing. So where does that leaves us?

All in all and despite its historical inaccuracies (again: there never was such a thing as Ships of Fools banishing the mads from communities!) here's a good outline of how our perception of madness has evolved over the past three centuries; and how the view that it reflected a social and moral failure dangerous to society came to triumph. I will, however, strongly advise against reading it if you're not one to overlook pretentious prose to make a point, since Foucault (as every French philosopher of his generation) was quite the expert in bamboozling the public with obscure verbiage used to make even the simplest argument. His naïve understanding of what constitutes madness, let alone complete overlooking of how it impacts the very people concerned, renders it even more annoying especially if, like me, you either have a mental "illness" yourself and/ or work in the care sector dealing with people with very serious mental health conditions. Having said that if, on the contrary, you're one to be able to overlook such display of pretentious gibberish and/ or are interested in such exposé of how our perceptions of madness has contributed to an oppressive system over time, then here's a read not to miss. I for one, for all my annoyance at it, will definitely get back to Foucault's work at some point... show less

I'm reading Foucault without any other guidance than his bibliographic chronology so of course this means I'm completely missing out on a lot of his subtle points and inferences. I still found this book interesting and articulate. The larger idea of madness being increasingly put under the microscope of rationality only to reveal, chillingly, that it was rational man's obsessive search for his own image being sought in the madness is a mind blower. Although abstruse, Foucault has such a knack for grounding complicated, subtle arguments into examples that even though I'm sure I missed a great deal that this work has to offer I came away with enough to encourage me to keep reading his books... so I will.

I'm reading Foucault without any other guidance than his bibliographic chronology so of course this means I'm completely missing out on a lot of his subtle points and inferences. I still found this book interesting and articulate. The larger idea of madness being increasingly put under the microscope of rationality only to reveal, chillingly, that it was rational man's obsessive search for his own image being sought in the madness is a mind blower. Although abstruse, Foucault has such a knack for grounding complicated, subtle arguments into examples that even though I'm sure I missed a great deal that this work has to offer I came away with enough to encourage me to keep reading his books... so I will.

Madness and Civilization explores two major canonical events in the transition from medieval to modern social structures. The first is the differentiation of criminals, paupers, and the insane. The second is the relationship between the insane and the agency responsible for treating them. However, in typical Foucaultian style the book elliptically skips around these main topics, instead focusing on 18th century nosgraphies between hysteria and mania and melancholia, and the various humoral theories that underlay those now entirely discredited theories. The closing thoughts, the idea that the psychiatrist is essentially a moral shaman, and that madness serves as the dark mirror to enlightment rationality, lack the scholarly hitting power show more of the Panopticon or Biopower. So far, the least essential Foucault I've read. show less

This is a critical look at how society handles and comprehends the insane among us, offering a distinctive perspective on the role of reason in civilization. The author's point of view offers an intriguing interpretation of the history of insanity, regardless of whether the characters are criminals or insane individuals.

While this book certainly has its moments it must be said that one gets the impression Foucault read too much primary literature and simply had to stuff in as much of it as possible. Far too localised to France and far too boring in certain parts. Wish it had more stuff on Freud as well, because the idea that Freud circumvents the historically determined silencing of the mad by introducing language back into the cure is fascinating.

Ugh...this book was thick! Luckily, though, there are some prize nuggets of psychological and philosophical history buried in there. Foucault does an excellent job of going through all the relevant source material, but his writing could use some loosening up...

http://lifelongdewey.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/362-madness-and-civilization-by-mi...