Madness and Civilization
explores the changing relationship between madness and unreason. The
true nature of both terms is rarely expressed or allowed to speak, and
frequently one forms part of the other. Unreason is defined as "reason
dazzled" or confused in the period of confinement. In the modern
period, however, unreason is pushed further beneath the surface of
society, and is understandable only through certain artists; madness on
the other hand, becomes mental illness, and is treated and controlled
by medical and psychiatric practices. Unreason is somehow lost after
the eighteenth century, a situation which Foucault laments.
The construction of madness
This is Foucault's central idea. Throughout Madness and Civilization,
Foucaulut insists that madness is not a natural, unchanging thing, but
rather depends on the society in which it exists. Various cultural,
intellectual and economic structures determine how madness is known and
experienced within a given society. In this way, society constructs its
experience of madness. The history of madness cannot be an account of
changing attitudes to a particular disease or state of being that
remains constant. Madness in the Renaissance was an experience that was
integrated into the rest of the world, whereas by the nineteenth
century it had become known as a moral and mental disease. In a sense,
they are two very different types of madness. Ultimately, Foucault sees
madness as being located in a certain cultural "space" within society;
the shape of this space, and its effects on the madman, depend on
society itself.
Structure
The
idea of structure is implicit in all of Foucault's work. In writing a
history of madness, he wants to penetrate beneath the surface of
society to find the cultural, intellectual and economic structures that
dictate how madness is constructed. He is concerned with changing
patterns of knowledge, sets of relations, and broad themes. In this
account, the actions of individuals are less important; people such as
Samuel Tuke and Philippe Pinel represent certain tendencies and a
certain discourse about madness. Madness and Civilization
is ultimately a book about madness, not individual madmen. This
tendency to consider deep structures instead of individual
personalities is extended in Foucault's later work, where his concept
of the discourse is seen to control and define the lives of individuals
in subtle and powerful ways.
Madness and art
The convoluted relationship between madness and art is explored, but never fully explained in Madness and Civilization.
The work as a whole shows Foucault's interest in literature, and his
belief in the importance of using literary works as sources in a
historical or sociological work. His discussion of madness in the
Renaissance, for example, draws heavily on the works of Shakespeare and
Cervantes; for Foucault, the fictional character of King Lear reveals
much about the role of madness in society.
His
central argument, however, rests on the idea that modern medicine and
psychiatry fail to listen to the voice of the mad, or to unreason.
According to Foucault, neither medicine nor psychoanalysis offers a
chance of understanding unreason. To do this, we need to look to the
work of "mad" authors such as Nietzsche, Nerval and Artaud. Unreason
exists below the surface of modern society, only occasionally breaking
through in such works. But within works of art inspired by madness,
complex processes operate. Madness is linked to creativity, but yet
destroys the work of art. The work of art can reveal the presence of
unreason, but yet unreason is the end of the work of art. This idea
partly derives from Foucault's love of contradiction, but he feels that
it reveals much about modern creativity.
Paradox and contradiction
Foucault
relies heavily on contrast and contradiction. From the contrasting
images of leprosy and the Ship of Fools at the beginning of the work
onwards, Madness and Civilization
is structured around a series of conceits and paradoxes. The experience
of madness and unreason is complex, Foucault suggests, and this
complexity is echoed in his work. Academics have criticized Foucault
for what they see as his chronic obscurity, but at least part of the
problem comes from his attitude to language and discourse. Those who
are labeled as mad can become "trapped" within their own delirious
discourse and within the structures designed to confine them: perhaps
the experience of being trapped inside some of Foucault's more
difficult sentences is meant to echo this. Or perhaps he was just
incapable of writing clearly…