What are your thoughts on this work and the controversies surrounding it?
People thru out history have tried to define madness, some we accept today and others we donāt. This is why we have the DSM for diagnosis.
1 Like
The DSM itself is not free from controversy, and sz remains as hard to conceptualise now as it did for early pioneers like Kraepelin. Not only has sz become a āspectrumā, but an increasing number of researchers point out that sz might not be an illness but a loosely connected cluster of illnesses. At any rate, Foucaultās beef wasnāt with definitions but with issues of power and repression.
1 Like
Yeah itās a good argument but it amazes me how most folk have similar experiences.
Around Kraeplin there was this documented study in England of a tradesperson who developed paranoia and got committed to the wards. Horrible back then for sure. Anyways it was a really good study of a person and it even had pictures the patient drew of the machine that sent thoughts to his head from France which was what weād consider now a primary delusion.
Iām not sure isolated clusters work for me. Thereās way too much stuff that just saysā¦schizophrenia and itās 1% and itās over cultures and the world give or take.
That is just an opinion but the internet is full of those and thereās so many people trying to politicize this debate and push their agenda. Whether itās diagnosis or itās medication or itās supplements or itās this or that. We need solutions and not more rhetoric about diagnostic criteria!
1 Like
By clusters I didnāt mean isolated culturally specific clusters, just a variety of genetic and/or environmental configurations leading to sz onset. Prima face, catatonia and paranoia have little to do with each other, but little we knowā¦ Yes, better medicines and less grand narrative. Still, itās astonishing what you can get away with in the name of psychiatry. I mean in the old days, not in our enlightened age. (Much needed and largely sincere disclaimer to avoid getting once again my topic removed. But would they be willing to face the embarrassment of censoring a topic for discussing Foucault??)
Most philosophy is beyond me so itās not bad discussing it but unsure any such context would be helpful. It is what it is. Prima Facae etc.
As we are moving more away from labels itās not such an issue and itās a broader brush painting the scene but a lot of that is what others are putting on it. Yes. Diagnostics change over continents Iāve found but that brush is still hitting the mark more times than not.
So what was Foucault on about? Your words are fine as philosophy isnāt my cup of tea these days!
A nice summary from Wikipedia: " Foucaultās theories primarily address the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions."
1 Like
Iād presume this was early in the scheme of things and before the 1950ās and Thorazine?
Foucault sees it as on-going process linked to modernity, that common thread that connects liberal democracies, social-democracy, fascism and stalinism.
All bets off. It was in the days of institutions and before deinstitualionalising and meds. How accurate a theory could it be?
Seriously. I know someone who could go toe to toe with you but itās beyond me to say either way.
Iād suspect madness has been there a while. At least since the industrial revolution where itās reported and even before that for sure but more isolated and probably dealt with better.
My reply was that politics doesnāt belong in the conversation. That is putting an artificial construct upon something that is biochemical and indeed in some forms genetic. Just that.
I was referring to modernity and the psychiatric matrix it imposes in apparently different political cultures. The biochemical element is definitely there, but social context counts also for a lot. The correlation between poverty (pre-onset this is) and sz is well-established. Or look at now defunct psychiatric diagnoses such as āhysteriaā (basically, a way of controlling assertive women). Or even homosexuality, What changed the docs; minds about gayness being an illness, a deeper understanding of sexuality or simply changing social mores?
But are people more likely to be poor because of the effects of sz, or does being poor make it more likely a person will develop sz?
That could apply to all severe mental illness also.
2 Likes
Definitely both are true when we speak of causation, but also the numbers seem stacked in favour of the social causation thesis. Poverty and what goes with it: malnutrition, abuse, the deleterious effects of labelling.
Thereās an interesting aberration after WW2 in the Netherlands where there was a spike in cases of schizophrenia where the starvation was attributed. How does that hold up though in the world of sz?
Yeah poor had no food. But was, as Tim is saying, that the causation of the sz or was it something else? It really is something that becomes redundant. We have sz. It is real and itās affecting the populace. What role does philosophy play in that?
Isnāt that chasing your intellectual tail because you can?
Precisely because itās real we need to understand sz fully, and that in my view, but also the view of docs themselves, includes the rol of social factors such as poverty or diet.
My psydoc says itās a skill like a lot of things in medicine. He tries to impart that on his students. Itās something that isnāt so much fact based. Itās based on experience. I can relate to that a lot and it forms most of my theories of sz. Itās an art for some that diagnostic process!
1 Like
In my case the social drift theory applies. I come from a solidly middle class family. My father was a diplomat. He got high enough in his job to warrant an entry in Whoās who.
Iāve drifted down the scale. Iāve never worked due to illness. Iāve retained a socially liberal middle class outlook though.
My brother has also drifted down due to various problems he has had . My sister on the other hand though she has had a depressive spell is a director at the interior design company she works for . She lives at a higher economic and social level than my brother and I.
1 Like
I see what you mean, but as you say, being British (and we know what Britain is like when it comes to class), youāve been able to retain your culturally middle-class outlook.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.