Madness is instantly an attractive subject to investigate because of the alien nature of ‘mad’ behaviour to the ‘sane’ majority. In investigating something so mysterious the line of enquiry I am following is not political or ethical, as I am not intending to investigate the ethical considerations when it comes to confinement or treatment of the mentally ill. Although ethics surrounding the treatment of the mentally ill would no doubt be fascinating, it has been talked about throughout history and well documented. It is easy to question what is right and wrong in the treatment of the mentally ill however what I think is more important and interesting is the nature of madness, what it is and where it comes from. Although it has been long discussed there has been no definite conclusions as to what defines madness, whether it be nature, nurture or something else. It is therefore my task to investigate madness in this manner as it interests me most, and it will, in my opinion, offer a more worthwhile conclusion.
As I previously stated I am going to discuss madness in reference to Michel Foucault and Sigmund Freud. Foucault’s Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason will be my main focus but I will also use his work The Order of Things: An Archaeology of The Human Sciences and The Archaeology of Knowledge. In discussing Freud I will primarily reference The Ego and the Id and Civilization and Its Discontents. Throughout Madness and Civilization Foucault describes what society perceived to be ‘mad’ at certain points in history and how the ‘mad’ have been treated. He works from the Middle Ages up to the his present day (Madness and Civilization was published in 1961.) Foucault sees psychoanalysis to be the most modern method of treatment and the new medical approach that deals with attempting to find a cure for madness. Psychoanalysis is a Freudian method of psychological treatment and Foucault deals with Freud’s teachings to a certain extent. In analysing Foucault I will discuss what he claims modern society’s perception of the essence of madness to be. I will contrast these claims with those of Freud. Freud’s claims are of a scientific nature whereas Foucault’s point to a changing social discourse and therefore changing opinions of madness. I will argue that Freud’s argument is currently relevant and grounded in relatively logical thought that makes sense in our current method of thinking in the western world. Foucault’s arguments undermine the whole nature of the way the human sciences operate and that because of certain assumptions made upon apparent scientific truths, social discourse is affected. Considering this I will argue that Freud’s argument is the most useful as far as a timely and useful definition is concerned but Foucault’s argument attempts to invalidate human sciences and brings Freud’s ideas into question but does not supply a useful definition of madness and is largely a bitter critique of psychiatry.