In recent years the question of madness and how to define it has become the centre of a great deal of discussion. This is the question the distinguished French psychologist and philosopher Michel Foucault seeks to answer by studying madness from 1500 to 1800 – from the Middle Ages when insanity was considered part of everyday life and fools and madmen walked the streets, to the point when these people began to be considered a threat, asylums were built for the firs… More >>
Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason
The book became the leading voice of the anti-bourgeoisie hegemony in the times of Foucault. It was almost a bible for some those who styled their lives with regard to the story of Pierre Riviera who murdered his mother, brother and sister. It became the voice of the underground socialist intellectuals. It was a tool of the left-wing. The psychiatric establishment of the time attacked Foucault with most harsh diatribe.
Trueman Myaka Tel:(031) 3036466
Rating: 1 / 5
Granted, Foucault makes important assertions that show ways in which being sane is defined by institutions and cultural assumptions. The problem is that this book is used as a defense of irrationality and as a cornerstone for critiques of reasoned argumentation and postmodernist discourse that challenges the validity of scientific thinking and rational argument. The modes of discourse associated with this author-function open the door for a dangerous and romanticized view of the reality of mental illness. For this, I must critique the author-function Foucault — AND Foucault, himself does assert the independent author is merely a “function” or mode of discourse. This book is dangerous when fed to impressionable minds struggling with the necessity to learn to think accurately and clearly. Foucault wanted to subvert and transgress the bounds of the established social order — I don’t think he realized how dangerous some of these trangressions can be. If, however, he did realize it, then Foucault was not merely a playful “author-function” but a truly evil human being: an assertion that seems plausible when one reads about his personal life.
Rating: 1 / 5
I read this book for a philosophy of history class as a student at college. If you do not like philosophy and are easily distracted when reading mind-numbing abstractions then do not pick up this book. The thesis, or point, of the chapters are convoluted and seem to meander everywhere. I could read a chapter twice and still not have a clue what the author was saying. I can’t comment on how persuasive his arguements are because I’m still not sure what he is saying. If you like philosophy then this book is for you becuase the author launches off into a universe of abstractions and shades that make one go insane, thus the title of his book.
Rating: 3 / 5
Immensely popular and influential among left-wing American cultural critics, this book has been critiqued ravishly by French psychologists. The gist of their critique is that the book represents more of the values and concerns of Foucault rather than an accurate and responsible history of mental illness. Foucault’s central argument that society defines sane and insane behavior is an old cliche in cultural anthropology. Furthermore, recent advances in cognitive science and psychiatry challenge Foucault’s position by affirming that mental illness is exactly that, namely, “an illness.” Simply stated, there is so much cross-cultural evidence that certain psychiatric disorders are univeral and not, therefore, specific to cultures but biologically grounded. Various mental illnesses have been verified biologically as illnesses in the same way that biologically illnesses are also recognizable as physical illnesses. Foucault is sometimes touted as a “cutting-edge” thinker, but his ideas were dated before he wrote them down. Erving Goffman’s book “Asylums” is an earlier and far better treatment of the cultural dynamics of mental institutions, and Ruth Benedict argued (in 1930) that insanity is often a cultural construct rather than a physical malady. The basics of Foucault’s ideas can also be seen in the writing of Shakespeare, Cervantes, Montaigne, and other Renaissance writers–about 400 years ago. The moral dimensions of Foucault’s fraud are only now being explored, and this writer’s currently trendy reputation is not likely to stand the test of time. This book is a good example of ways in which trendy writing and intellectual fads can quickly be discovered to be mere cliches. Intellectual dubiousness aside, the major problems with this tome deal with Foucault’s romanticization of mental illness.
Rating: 2 / 5
One of Foucault’s major works, this was the first book which began the corpus of works for which Foucault is remembered. Beyond a simple history, it provides insight into how we objectify a subject, constructing an “other” than ourselves.
Rating: 5 / 5