During the 17th and 18th centuries, humanity began to discover and explore the connections and differences between mind and body, body and soul, body and the surrounding world. It was during this period that “psychology was more neurological than it ever was” and the mind and body separated; a psychological problem of the mind was not always directly linked to a physiological aspect of the body (Rousseau 112). One of these explorations was that of madness and insanity. Originally thought to be the result of an imbalance of the body's four humors, advances in science have led to the discovery of a disconnect between an insane person's mind and their body. What is it in the brain that causes an individual to lose their sense of reality? This essay aims to explore various primary medical texts exploring illness in comparison to Michel Foucault's Madness and Civilization: A History of Madness in the Age of Reason, and to determine whether the era's fascination with madness was indeed scientific or, as Foucault suggests, cultural. no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Writers, whether medical, creative, or philosophical, were looking for a way to understand madness and where it came from, what it caused, how to cure it, and everything they could discover. Curiosity was not new to them, but advanced studies of the body and brain were. There was enough previous discovery to make them aware of a separation, but not enough to establish what that separation was. It was this realization that provided the impetus for their studies and explorations. There was an unprecedented blend of literature and science. Medical discoveries influenced the works of literary authors and the direction in which they took their stories, while literary writings influenced the direction that scientists took their discoveries. Some saw the disease as a mysterious and almost romantic illness, a source of creativity and the result of intense passions, feelings and anger. Others saw it as a debilitating, disapproving condition and the result of inactivity, laziness and a weak, diseased mind. Foucault begins with the idea that madness was merely replacing a societal divide created with the disappearance of leprosy, the previously excluded group. Society maintains a need for exclusivity, which is achieved by eliminating unwanted members, thus leading to the introduction of workshops and asylums as new means of expulsion. He suggests that “from the middle of the 17th century, madness was linked to this country of confinement, and to the act which designated confinement as its natural residence” (Foucault 39). The madness was just beginning to be understood. Misunderstandings breed fear, as they always have and always will within a society. With the new knowledge that madness was linked only to the mind, without knowing what that link was, people needed to know its causes and cures, before allowing it to spread dangerously. The desire for knowledge extends far beyond simple curiosity, into the realm of self-understanding and protection. If people can understand the causes that lead a person to go crazy, they try to defend themselves to avoid falling into such an illness. However, it was not only the crazy who were sent away, but also the criminals and the poor. The confinement of all these groups together, under the impression of individuals who needed to be cured, suggests a cultural and not a scientific aim.At the same time, insanity, criminality, and homelessness were all conditions seen as the result of the individual; people have let themselves fall into these categories. Categories which attributed to them “a particular modulation which concerned madness proper and was addressed to those who were called, without precision, semantic distinction, mad, insane, disturbed, demented, extravagant” (Foucault 66). Some conditions were preventable depending on how one lived their life. If you remain sensible and level-headed, avoiding eccentricities and refraining from too strong a desire for wealth and other efforts to induce calm, you can help prevent most conditions. If it is avoidable, the individual can be held responsible. The blame lies with a person, not their circumstances or other lifestyle factors. In his “Observations on the Nature, Types, Causes, and Prevention of Insanity, Insanity, or Insanity,” Thomas Arnold, physician, traces aspects of the disease based on his own observations of the ground. This piece, chosen for the interesting comparisons to be made with the work of Foucault, strives to define illness, distinguish its different types and explore treatments. In his preface, he makes it known that his work is neither perfect nor complete, but simply the result of his own observations on the subject. He recognizes that “whatever their faults, they at least have the merit of being based on observation and experience...it is not fantasy; but a real copy, however little the hand of a master may discover, drawn with some care and exactness immediately from nature” (Arnold II). His language suggests both a level of confidence about his own skills and intelligence on the subject, as well as some uncertainty about the reception of his work in the scientific world. He further demonstrates an almost hesitant nature in disclosing his observations, suggesting doubt about his abilities or the expectation that his work will be challenged. His preface and introductory passages, long in themselves, reveal that Arnold feels the need to explain himself and the aims of his study. He acknowledges where he got information from studies done before him and why he incorporated it. Like many others, Arnold follows his own curiosities and explorations. The ideas belong to him, they are based on his own knowledge and his search for understanding. His own medical expertise as a doctor and interest in the profession fueled his desire to expand his knowledge. This attitude is the same as that of many scholars of the Age of Reason. Arnold, like others, looks for reason in an unreasonable illness. Arnold also includes an interesting article exploring the popular question of whether madness is more widespread "in England than in any other country", although he mainly discusses the comparison between England and France. (Arnold 15). He admits the possibility, but that “it is certain that it is not rare among the French, as their medical writings abundantly testify. I am inclined, however, to admit that they have less” (Arnold 16). It is interesting that he recognizes this, while Foucault recognizes that “we know less that more than one inhabitant of the city of Paris in a hundred found themselves confined there, in a few months” (Foucault 38). Arnold's knowledge is clearly limited by the lack of information, in an age where technology cannot spread as quickly as it does today. Foucault's book, like Arnold's, seems to focus more on the madness within French and English societies. Although this is clearly not exhaustive, it raisesthe question of whether fascination was stronger within these two societies, or perhaps whether their interests in science were more extensive, or even whether their cultures were more determined to purge society of the abnormal. John Johnstone, in his medical jurisprudence. On madness, his work begins by recognizing that "the trial of Hadfield has, however, so deeply interested the public mind, that it cannot be inopportune, nor useless, to publish it at the present time, when all are anxious, and which many doubt, and some doubtless are entirely ignorant of the subject” (Johnstone I). This follows Foucault's idea that interest in madness is cultural at the time. By stating that he publishes his works as such and intends for them to be read by the public, it indicates that this is a more social issue. It is not the medical world which is alone interested in the subject since it has diversified towards the interest of the general public. It is clear that the subject is becoming a social issue, with curiosity extending beyond the scientific world. In fear of scandal and desire for exclusivity, interest spread. Given the high number of people who have been confined at one time or another, it is easily conceivable that most members of society have been directly affected by the madness, whether through a member of their family or an acquaintance. The web of madness had spread far and wide, infecting every corner of the world. Its deep existence meant that everyone was aware and affected, which is why it was such a problem. Johnston attempts a humanitarian approach, disagreeing with the view "that madmen who commit great crimes should not simply be excluded from society, but like all other rabid animals should be driven out of their lives" and that "the society can obtain adequate protection by locking up the maniacs, without blood” (Johnstone vi). He claims that society simply needs to imprison the insane, criminals and others, as a means of protection. He defends confinement as a means of protection, and not a means of studying or observing. It is a culture that demands confinement of those who do not fit in perfectly, but at the same time, the interest shows that it is not a desire to hide. Society would like to hide the criminals, hide those who shame and do harm, but with the crazy, it wants to separate them while exploring them. There are those that society wishes to banish and never see, and those that it wishes to suppress, but the fascination is so strong that they must be removed from view, where they can be observed, studied and contemplated. Foucault likens this to "a very old medieval custom of exposing madmen...which allowed those on the outside to observe the madmen chained inside." They thus constituted a spectacle at the gates of the city” (Foucault 68). The intention to publicly exploit madmen removes it from the realm of science and medicine, because the definition of spectacle implies the aim to amuse. Equating medieval custom with 18th-century public interest, it is difficult to argue that the interest is anything other than cultural. It is a custom that existed until 1815, and “if we are to believe a report presented to the House of Commons, the Bethlehem hospital exposed lunatics for a penny, every Sunday” (Foucault 68). There is no scientific objective behind such displays of so-called entertainment. The idea that madness turned into a form of entertainment, to the detriment of the dignity of its victims, shows that there was little or no respect or pity from society. The interest of a society for the less fortunate, the different, themisunderstood, in fact a purely cultural phenomenon, through which, although interest began with science, it has evolved well beyond. Johnston may be referring to awareness of cultural fascination in a negative way. stating: “I am not disposed to enlarge my treatise with those dark but important researches which so often give scope to the fictions and fancies of sensible men” (Johnstone VII). His expression "products and fancies of men" suggests that he knows that interest has extended beyond the scientific world and become a source of spectacle and amusement. He seems to want to avoid playing on this type of interest. He states that his interest is to "familiarize the scientific doctrines of madness" and although this is aimed at the public, his intention remains scientific. The public should be aware of scientific discoveries, but these discoveries are intended for understanding and not for whims or amusing curiosity. Understanding its origins was essential to the exploration of madness. Arnold identifies "some of the most powerful causes of this kind of madness are religion, love, commerce, and the various passions which accompany the desire, pursuit, and acquisition of wealth, all kinds of luxuries, and all violence. and permanent attachments whatever they may be" and the most powerful, "invincible love, which has made more fools in all ages and in all nations than any other passion, - perhaps more than all together” (Arnold 17, 19). Passion is what gives rise to madness in a man; strong emotions arouse feelings so intense that a person loses all sense of reason. Here we see the romantic affiliations with illness. His strong affiliation with love was his attraction to artists and writers. Writers often had characters, primary or secondary, suffering from madness or melancholy to advance their story. There was a purpose behind the illness, it didn't just exist for the sake of existing; we gave it meaning. Johnstone also cites strong emotions and passions as sources, according to which “in all states of civilization, thinking beings have been subject to a disorder of the intellectual faculties; Love, the most ardent of our instincts, ambition, the most agitated inciter to action and the disturber of our rest, jealousy, fear, vengeance and all malignant passions, must always, in a partial degree, to have produced this disease” (Johnstone 3). In a society that demands composure, discipline, and strict adherence to social protocol, anyone too overwhelmed by their emotions was considered at risk. Controlling one's emotions demonstrated self-control and a healthy mind. Emotions led to instability, instability led to unreason, unreason led to madness. The two doctors agree with Foucault's reasoning according to which “the savage danger of madness is linked to the danger of the passions and their fatal chain” (Foucault 85). Passions are often associated with desire, the human need for certain things in life. Passion is what inspires an individual's actions. Given the religious influences of the times, if a person is expected to live a humble life, worshiping God above all the riches of the world, loving Him above all others and having ambitions meant not to exceed those of God himself, the associations between religion and madness become a little clearer. Having too high feelings for anything other than God seems to be the main cause of insanity. Anger, strong and powerful anger, also leads to madness and goes against the religious notion of “loving your neighbor.” The vices and sins of onehuman influence his mind towards madness, so a correct lifestyle keeps him sane. Even before the separation of mind and body, when passion was considered “the meeting place of body and soul; “the point where the activity of the second comes into contact with the passivity of the first”, passion was considered the source of madness in man (Foucault 86). This “would necessarily cause certain movements in the moods; anger agitates the bile, sadness excites melancholy (black bile), and the movements of the humors are sometimes so violent that they disrupt the entire economy of the body” (Foucault 86). In previous centuries, religion openly played a role in a person's mental health; the blame for the imbalance of humors causing such a state was placed on a poor relationship with God. If an individual was not close to God, it caused a lack of harmony between his or her humors, resulting in an abnormal state of the mind or body. Religious influence, however, is still evident in the age of reason, even after the differentiation between mind and body. Science developed, but only as much as it could, while still being influenced by God. Perhaps a person's direct relationship with God does not cause their madness, but moving away from a lifestyle encouraged by the Church does. Again, we see that the blame can be placed on the sufferer; they are responsible for their condition. If passionate tempers are the cause of madness and the best way to stay sane is to adhere to strict codes of conduct, this seems to lean toward a cultural and less scientific explanation. Science has led to understanding, but the level of understanding remains within cultural boundaries. 18th century society limits itself and its understanding by limiting its understanding to religious norms. Is it a coincidence that ambition can lead to madness, while greed and pride are sins? Is it a coincidence that passionate love can lead to madness, while lust is a sin and “thou shalt not lust”? Is it a coincidence that anger can lead to madness, yet anger is a sin and a person is supposed to “love your neighbor”? God, religion and a “faithful servant” are reason and losing sight of them leads to a disillusioned sense of reality. God is what keeps us grounded in reality. The question also arose as to where to draw the line between madness and eccentricity? Artists, literary and visual, often struggled with periods of madness and melancholy, having seemed to lose their ability to reason. In a civilization where imagination can so easily be mistaken for madness, the two tended to overlap. Known as the Age of Reason, “it is an ironic contrast that [it] produced so many cases of madness among its writers” (Rousseau 117). The distinction was that there were “two kinds of imagination; healthy and sick, normal and sick, and the distinction was increasingly discussed” (Rousseau 117). Imagination requires the ability to see outside the ordinary realm of reality; create from images contained in one's own mind. It functions as a reflection of the inner workings of a person's mind, a way of seeing into their thoughts. This fueled fears and hysteria over madness in the 17th and 18th centuries. This is what caused so many of their stories to take a direction towards madness. Does imagination drive towards madness, or is imagination born from madness? Where is the real link? They considered imagination to be "an irrational 'super passion', as important to the body asgravity was for the earth, and like the totality of an infinite number of sensations associated and combined according to still unexplained patterns. Rousseau 122). The difference essentially lies in the ability to reunite with reality and reason; an individual suffering from the disease is unable to disconnect from the imaginary world and separate themselves from unreason. Foucault distinguishes the difference; “Imagination is not madness. Even if in the arbitrariness of hallucination alienation finds the first access to its vain freedom, madness only begins beyond this point, when the mind attaches itself to this arbitrariness and becomes prisoner of this apparent freedom” (Foucault 93). Imagination can be a sign, even a gateway to madness, but it is not madness until an individual no longer sees the difference between their imagination and reality. Awareness, rationality, reasoning; if an individual can present a clarification between these and his imagination, then he is safe. The two are linked and even if “madness thus surpasses imagination, and yet it is deeply rooted there; because it simply consists of granting the image a spontaneous value, a total and absolute truth” (Foucault 94). If an image is created in the mind, it is not necessarily and undeniably unreal; imagination exceeds reality. It basically comes down to reasoning. Reality can be created, destroyed, manipulated. An individual's reality exists only in his or her own mind. If everyone sees the world through different eyes, how can every reality be exactly the same? How can humanity distinctly define reality? Reasoning is the real breaking point. Realities may be different, but reasoning and awareness of the world around us is the final thread of reason. Our interpretations of the world may vary, but not its existence. If one can still reason that "this world exists in the realm of humanity, and this world exists in my imagination", one's reason can still be considered intact. Losing the ability to reason between these different worlds results in madness. The obsession with observing and studying mental illness also included attempts to treat or cure insanity. Taking into consideration what was understood about the origin of insanity: what conditions caused insanity, the variety of symptoms and types of insanity, how different symptoms manifested, et cetera, medical professionals explored many treatment and healing methods. Each individual symptom must be treated and the body and soul must be treated separately. As for the discovery of a cure as knowledge evolves, “it is no longer determined by the significant unity of the disease, organized around its major qualities; but, segment by segment, it must address the various elements that make up the disease; healing will consist of a series of partial destructions, in which psychological attack and physical intervention are juxtaposed, complement each other, but never interpenetrate” (Foucault 178). There are different elements in the disease; Healing a patient's hallucinations while they are still suffering from melancholy is not enough, a healing must occur in its entirety, a complete healing of body and mind. In his selected cases in the various species of insanity, insanity, or insanity, William Perfect, also a physician, discusses some of his patients suffering from the above-mentioned conditions. Unlike the work of Arnold and Johnstone, he focuses less on definitions and terms and more on specific patients, their conditions, and the treatments he offers them. Heasserts that its cases are “collected with care, chosen with a view to real usefulness and reported with fidelity. It will be easy to see that the author has no intention of imposing a panacea or any precision on the public, but simply of exposing the result. of his own practice and observations, in a disease of the greatest importance” (Perfect v). He simply intends to observe and document his own experience in the field, in the hopes of providing a better understanding of the subject. Unlike Johnstone and Arnold, he does not intend to discover new information, form new theories or methods, or challenge previous knowledge in the study. His work, he hopes, will only provide a basis and material for future work. Are its intentions cultural or scientific? The first subject of Perfect is "a gentleman, aged fifty-eight years, was, early in January, 1770, committed to my custody" for insanity following "a sudden transition in his situation, which, from easy and comfortable, had become doubtful and precarious” (Perfect 2). This gentleman's illness was the result of the loss of his lifestyle; he saw himself “ruined, lost and defeated!” which was his incessant exclamation night and day” (Perfect 2). Perfect portrays this man objectively, trying to be as factual as possible, thus leaving an impression of credibility while refraining from making the writing too personal. It really seems like one just wants to document, as accurately as one can allow. He provides an in-depth description, from the origin of his patient's condition, what happened for the illness to manifest, to very specific aspects of his symptoms, both physical and mental. As previously cited, Foucault mentioned the importance of separating symptoms, treating them individually, to heal the body and mind as a whole. Due to the patient's impatient, confrontational, and easily upset nature during social situations, Perfect prohibited any interaction with the patient's friends and family. However, beyond this, he fails to provide further reasoning behind his treatment methods, such as "making a seton between his shoulders, and locking the patient in a quiet, quiet, almost completely dark room: I did not never allowed anyone to speak to him, neither by questioning, nor by answer, nor allowed anyone to visit him” (Parfait 4). He confirms the results he hopes to achieve and those that occur, but fails to justify the purpose of the chosen treatments. His methods suggest imprisonment rather than treatment. Were his methods actually designed to heal or simply to support, so that observations could be made? Was his best interest in the patient or in his own studies? Psychology was such a new and still foreign subject that doctors had great freedom in what they could or could not do. In an enlightened age that claimed to have abandoned the cruel and tortuous methods of medieval times, these methods had in fact not entirely disappeared. Is it a humanitarian approach to parade crazy people in exhibitions that the general public can observe and mock? Is it humane to silence and hide them? Certainly, this was done under the impression that it would cure the sick, but who regulated the methods used? In such a foreign field of study, there were few if any rules to protect the insane. Doctors were free to use whatever methods seemed effective or interesting depending on their real intentions. Was the patient's good really put first, or had it become 2012.