What do you think?
Rate this book
Cours au Collège de France/Lectures at the Collège de France #4
El poder psiquiátrico
Rare book
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
46 people are currently reading
1335 people want to read
About the author
Michel Foucault
765 books6,513 followersPaul-Michel Foucault was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, writer, political activist, and literary critic. Foucault's theories primarily address the relationships between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. Though often cited as a structuralist and postmodernist, Foucault rejected these labels. His thought has influenced academics, especially those working in communication studies, anthropology, psychology, sociology, criminology, cultural studies, literary theory, feminism, Marxism and critical theory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lycée Henri-IV, at the École Normale Supérieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Collège de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lycée Henri-IV, at the École Normale Supérieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Collège de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
October 6, 2007
Hooray for humble philosophy.
September 26, 2015
This course really sets the stage for Foucault's later works and ideas. We find the panopticon, power/knowledge, Truth, a medicine of sexuality, and the early formations of the dispositif.
One of the topics in particular I found interesting is the relationships Foucault points out between the Family and psychiatry and the transition from sovereign power to disciplinary power.
One of the topics in particular I found interesting is the relationships Foucault points out between the Family and psychiatry and the transition from sovereign power to disciplinary power.
May 7, 2025
No gaudia tant a Foucault des del primer volum de la història de la sexualitat!!!
Aquest llibre és imprescindible per a qui vulgui estudiar críticament la història de la psiquiatria i de la medicina. Algunes cites i un comentari.
Cites:
"Mostrar que la demostración científica sólo es, en sustancia, un ritual, mostrar que el presunto sujeto universal del conocimiento no es, en realidad, más que un individuo históricamente calificado según una serie de modalidades, mostrar que el descubrimiento de la verdad es de hecho cierta modalidad de proucción de la verdad. [...] eso es lo que llamaré arqueología del saber."
"Creo que ésa es la verdadera división de la práctica y el saber médicos en los dos primeros tercios del siglo XIX: entre enfermedades que se integraban a un diagnóstico diferencial y enfermedades que solo suponían un diagnóstico absoluto."
"El histérico tiene magníficos síntomas, pero, al mismo tiempo, elude la realidad de su enfermedad; está a contrapelo del juego asilar y, en esa medida, debemos saludar a las histéricas como las verdaderas militantes de la antipsiquiatría."
Comentari de coses que no tenen molt a veure amb el llibre i seran rares i inconnexes així que ull:
Fa temps que intento pensar com la dialèctica marxista pot solucionar la pregunta de si les malalties es descobreixen o s'inventen. De moment em sembla que la millor direcció és la de pensar el procés de definició de malalties com un acte d'abstracció de les diferències d'un conjunt de pacients per tal d'establir allò que tenen en comú. Aquest acte és un procés tan creatiu (un procés pràctic d'aplicar tecnologies del coneixement, arquitectures determinades...) com un procés de descobriment (de mostrar quelcom essencial més enllà de les aparences simptomatològiques). En ser un acte creatiu la malaltia sempre cau en la trampa de la identitat (en ser una definició, és abstracte i, per tant, mai pot aprehendre la no-identitat de cada cas particular, vet-ho aquí Adorno), però no per això deixa de ser un discurs verdader. El problema, per tant, no seria si les malalties són veritat o no, sinó la manera invertida de presentar-se a si mateixes com la veritat oculta sota la pell. M'explico, si amaguem el procés pràctic (i històric) pel qual es despleguen els dispositius de poder-saber que permeten definir un conjunt de símptomes i signes com una malaltia (un procés ontopraxeològic!) sembla que la malaltia baixi del món de les idees per encarnar-se en cada pacient. La visió invertida de la malaltia subsumeix la multiplicitat de cada pacient convertint-lo en un cas particular de si mateixa. És una visió idealista que, per una banda, autonomitza a la malaltia dels diferents casos on es presenta i que, per altra banda, amaga el procés disciplinari (aquí entra Foucault) de poder-saber que permet que la disciplina mèdica pugui produir un discurs verdader (per això als llibres de text de Medicina no hi ha història). En resum, el procés ontopraxeològic necessari per definir malalties és ni més ni menys que el conjunt de rituals, tecnologies, arquitectures... que Foucault exposa en el seu estudi del poder disciplinari.
Petonetss histèricssssssss muac
Aquest llibre és imprescindible per a qui vulgui estudiar críticament la història de la psiquiatria i de la medicina. Algunes cites i un comentari.
Cites:
"Mostrar que la demostración científica sólo es, en sustancia, un ritual, mostrar que el presunto sujeto universal del conocimiento no es, en realidad, más que un individuo históricamente calificado según una serie de modalidades, mostrar que el descubrimiento de la verdad es de hecho cierta modalidad de proucción de la verdad. [...] eso es lo que llamaré arqueología del saber."
"Creo que ésa es la verdadera división de la práctica y el saber médicos en los dos primeros tercios del siglo XIX: entre enfermedades que se integraban a un diagnóstico diferencial y enfermedades que solo suponían un diagnóstico absoluto."
"El histérico tiene magníficos síntomas, pero, al mismo tiempo, elude la realidad de su enfermedad; está a contrapelo del juego asilar y, en esa medida, debemos saludar a las histéricas como las verdaderas militantes de la antipsiquiatría."
Comentari de coses que no tenen molt a veure amb el llibre i seran rares i inconnexes així que ull:
Fa temps que intento pensar com la dialèctica marxista pot solucionar la pregunta de si les malalties es descobreixen o s'inventen. De moment em sembla que la millor direcció és la de pensar el procés de definició de malalties com un acte d'abstracció de les diferències d'un conjunt de pacients per tal d'establir allò que tenen en comú. Aquest acte és un procés tan creatiu (un procés pràctic d'aplicar tecnologies del coneixement, arquitectures determinades...) com un procés de descobriment (de mostrar quelcom essencial més enllà de les aparences simptomatològiques). En ser un acte creatiu la malaltia sempre cau en la trampa de la identitat (en ser una definició, és abstracte i, per tant, mai pot aprehendre la no-identitat de cada cas particular, vet-ho aquí Adorno), però no per això deixa de ser un discurs verdader. El problema, per tant, no seria si les malalties són veritat o no, sinó la manera invertida de presentar-se a si mateixes com la veritat oculta sota la pell. M'explico, si amaguem el procés pràctic (i històric) pel qual es despleguen els dispositius de poder-saber que permeten definir un conjunt de símptomes i signes com una malaltia (un procés ontopraxeològic!) sembla que la malaltia baixi del món de les idees per encarnar-se en cada pacient. La visió invertida de la malaltia subsumeix la multiplicitat de cada pacient convertint-lo en un cas particular de si mateixa. És una visió idealista que, per una banda, autonomitza a la malaltia dels diferents casos on es presenta i que, per altra banda, amaga el procés disciplinari (aquí entra Foucault) de poder-saber que permet que la disciplina mèdica pugui produir un discurs verdader (per això als llibres de text de Medicina no hi ha història). En resum, el procés ontopraxeològic necessari per definir malalties és ni més ni menys que el conjunt de rituals, tecnologies, arquitectures... que Foucault exposa en el seu estudi del poder disciplinari.
Petonetss histèricssssssss muac
October 29, 2020
Un análisis pormenorizado de las prácticas psiquiátricas, lo cual ayuda a entender el panorama actual, muy necesario para comprender la epidemia actual de las enfermedades mentales y el movimiento de la antipsiquiatría
April 23, 2009
I like Foucault's lectures better than his writings. This is the fourth of his lectures that I have read. I was waiting for it to come out in paper back. I think this work is better than Madness and Civilization. Foucault explains the role of psychiatry in the 18th century transition from sovereign power to disciplinary power of the 19th century.
January 16, 2020
So I managed to finish my twenty-page summary exactly five minutes before midnight. Here's the paper's conclusion as a review.
Le pouvoir psychiatrique de Michel Foucault se distingue par son analyse de la psychiatrie qui franchit les frontières de l’institution. Le cours retrace l’évolution du pouvoir psychiatrique sous sa forme diffuse et intrusive, né de rituels religieux, mûri dans le capitalisme, parasitant le noyau familial, pour s’abriter finalement entre les murs de l’asile. L’éloquence de Foucault est inexorable : le pouvoir psychiatrique a, en son temps, rongé des corps et détruit des vies. Les répercussions à travers les âges ont été si atroces qu’elles se font toujours ressentir aujourd’hui, que ce soit dans les milieux scientifiques et cliniques (où l’embarras est palpable dans la confusion générale et l’incertitude des connaissances), ou dans les milieux profanes (où la méfiance domine). Suite à la lecture du livre, une question sinistre s’accroche à mes pensées, que Foucault pose d’ailleurs sous une forme modifiée : « est-il possible que la production de la vérité de la folie puisse s’effectuer dans des formes qui ne sont pas celles du rapport de connaissance ? » (p. 351). Est-il possible de découvrir ne serait-ce qu’un fragment de vérité sur la folie qui ne soit pas souillé par l’infinie lutte entre pouvoir et savoir ? Y a-t-il ici des formes de savoirs qui n’engagent pas de rapports de force ? Même si ces questions ne trouvent pas de réponses définitives, elles doivent être posées par tout neuroscientifique, tout psychiatre, et même tout patient. Pour qu’elles soient posées, Le pouvoir psychiatrique doit être lu, par tout neuroscientifique, tout psychiatre, tout patient. Mes pensées m’ont mises à bout de souffle et à bout de mots. J’essaie simplement de dire que le livre est beau, et fait réfléchir.
Le pouvoir psychiatrique de Michel Foucault se distingue par son analyse de la psychiatrie qui franchit les frontières de l’institution. Le cours retrace l’évolution du pouvoir psychiatrique sous sa forme diffuse et intrusive, né de rituels religieux, mûri dans le capitalisme, parasitant le noyau familial, pour s’abriter finalement entre les murs de l’asile. L’éloquence de Foucault est inexorable : le pouvoir psychiatrique a, en son temps, rongé des corps et détruit des vies. Les répercussions à travers les âges ont été si atroces qu’elles se font toujours ressentir aujourd’hui, que ce soit dans les milieux scientifiques et cliniques (où l’embarras est palpable dans la confusion générale et l’incertitude des connaissances), ou dans les milieux profanes (où la méfiance domine). Suite à la lecture du livre, une question sinistre s’accroche à mes pensées, que Foucault pose d’ailleurs sous une forme modifiée : « est-il possible que la production de la vérité de la folie puisse s’effectuer dans des formes qui ne sont pas celles du rapport de connaissance ? » (p. 351). Est-il possible de découvrir ne serait-ce qu’un fragment de vérité sur la folie qui ne soit pas souillé par l’infinie lutte entre pouvoir et savoir ? Y a-t-il ici des formes de savoirs qui n’engagent pas de rapports de force ? Même si ces questions ne trouvent pas de réponses définitives, elles doivent être posées par tout neuroscientifique, tout psychiatre, et même tout patient. Pour qu’elles soient posées, Le pouvoir psychiatrique doit être lu, par tout neuroscientifique, tout psychiatre, tout patient. Mes pensées m’ont mises à bout de souffle et à bout de mots. J’essaie simplement de dire que le livre est beau, et fait réfléchir.
December 26, 2022
"Abnormal" was a very systematic course, the notions and concepts almost flew from one chapter to the other. The present course was very convoluted. I am sure it is a very difficult subject to deal with, and I had problems concentrating, especially in the second part. For example, the hysteria - I would have liked to see a chapter dedicated only to this subject. Probably because the subject is so abstract and the intersection of psychiatry with neurology was a very complicated one.
Foucault did as usual a great job trying to figure out the genealogy of the psychiatric power which is such a strange part of medicine, as he also says. Still, I had the feeling, that he had to fill up the course so he repeated stuff all over again.
It is fascinating for me as a doctor, to see that the medicine that I studied and now apply has such a short history.
Foucault did as usual a great job trying to figure out the genealogy of the psychiatric power which is such a strange part of medicine, as he also says. Still, I had the feeling, that he had to fill up the course so he repeated stuff all over again.
It is fascinating for me as a doctor, to see that the medicine that I studied and now apply has such a short history.
December 6, 2024
¿Qué es el poder? ¿Cuáles son sus maneras, manifestaciones? Este libro propone una mirada crítica del poder en la vida cotidiana, y en lo que bordea la llamada salud mental (aunque sin decir que el autor trata este concepto de manera literal).
July 13, 2008
There is a power to Focault's lectures which is not there (at least not as much) in his normal publications. Although at first "Psychiatric Power" might seem as a revisitation of "History Of Madness", it is far from. The actual idea of psychiatry is second to games of power and as such many of the ideas in these lectures are much closer to "discipline and punish".
The main thesis is that first appearance of psychiatry was not as much a science of the mind and of curing the mentally ill, much rather it was an economic intervention through which a whole new shemata of power games came in to play.
It is only with neurology that a genuine medical inquiry into the mind comes to be which (at least attempts) to stay free from perceived power games.
The main thesis is that first appearance of psychiatry was not as much a science of the mind and of curing the mentally ill, much rather it was an economic intervention through which a whole new shemata of power games came in to play.
It is only with neurology that a genuine medical inquiry into the mind comes to be which (at least attempts) to stay free from perceived power games.
April 20, 2014
It is a best book of 1st half of 2013 year in my rating!
It is very hard to read, as if you must try to go through jungle and you must cut the wreathed lianas with your machete to move further in one else step. But as you let yourself take the height of this great philosopher's mind you are almost swept over with the freshness and humanism of the book on such a hard topic. What is normality and HOW doctors of medicine turned into people who is powerable to label it? That is the point.
It is very hard to read, as if you must try to go through jungle and you must cut the wreathed lianas with your machete to move further in one else step. But as you let yourself take the height of this great philosopher's mind you are almost swept over with the freshness and humanism of the book on such a hard topic. What is normality and HOW doctors of medicine turned into people who is powerable to label it? That is the point.
July 8, 2008
Great discussion of sovereign and disciplinary powers here. Also some good stuff on the historial discourses of truth. There are some gems you won't find in Madness and Civilization.
Read
April 1, 2009Reviewed here.
July 15, 2010
But it's not like people abuse it, right? Man, I hope that psychologist who assisted the Army in torturing the detainees burns in fucking hell.
June 18, 2020
When this book came out, I remember it created quite a stir among some circles, which is quite something considering the words printed in this volume are from almost 50 years ago. My psychiatric colleagues grumbled and mumbled about it being "more anti-psychiatry nonsense like those scientology people," so I had to run out to the nearest Borders and buy it for 18 bucks.
Actually, I would not consider the thoughts in this book to be really "anti" anything, as Foucault was a careful and devoted historian and academic. His theories are always well researched and he couches his thoughts in a very detached manner, allowing the reader to come up with their own conclusions. That being said, this book is a translation of actual lectures at the College de France, so it takes on a more conversational tone than his usual books, and as such, he cannot help but throw in some almost subliminal witticisms against the field of psychiatry that poke the kind of gentle but acerbic fun that the French do so well.
The book can be considered a companion piece to his classic "Madness and Civilization," expounding on his analysis of the sources of "power" throughout the history of psychiatric medicine, and here he takes that analysis to the point of the dawn of modern psychotropic meds, during which Foucault was still living when he was giving these lectures in the early 1970s. It would have been fascinating to have been able to read his thoughts on the evolution of psychiatric power during the heyday of Big Pharma and the Prozac-age, but alas, his unfortunate death in the 80s deprived us of a full development of such analysis.
Psychiatric power, for Foucault, was and still is a formidable force, one that has been able to dethrone kings. He gives a fascinating account of how the doctor and his aides handled the mad King George, supplanting sovereign power for disciplinary power. Further on, Foucault reads off many jaw-dropping texts and first-hand accounts from the annals of psychiatry literature and the notes from patient files, shedding light through these documents on the inner workings behind the walls of the old asylums. As a psychiatrist, it makes me appreciate how far we've come from the punitive days of strapping patients to basement floors and dousing their scalps with scalding water, but also how little has changed in some ways. Foucault traces how, though the straps may have come off, power was maintained in the psychiatric world through the simple authority of the Doctors' knowledge of which their certificates, white coats, and commanding manner of speech were testimonials. Power was further maintained as times changed via statutory revisions, judiciary commitments, the isolation of patients from family and visitors, the design of psychiatric hospitals, hypnosis and mesmerism, and finally to the development of neurologic differential diagnosis. These all were adaptations to maintain an unequal balance of power. And he further explores the resistances and attempts by patients to regain power, including the odd but interesting assertion that the epidemic of hysteria in the late 1800s was such an attempt.
Extensive footnotes and citations gave me a plethora of new books to add to my queue, as the quotations of so many works by the greats of early psychiatric practice like Charcot are all so mind-blowing that I simply had to read the source material. I think you'll find this book an absorbing historical exercise if anything else.
My main complaint about this book is that the translators seemed to struggle at times with how to properly convey the French, and we end up with some incomprehensible and sometimes inconsistent phrasing, as well as odd choices of words like "obnubilation." But overall, the final product is a remarkable result of painstaking efforts of scholarship.
Whether or not you agree with Foucault, one cannot help but become engrossed in his work and to never think about power relationships, including those of our own government system, in the same way again.
Actually, I would not consider the thoughts in this book to be really "anti" anything, as Foucault was a careful and devoted historian and academic. His theories are always well researched and he couches his thoughts in a very detached manner, allowing the reader to come up with their own conclusions. That being said, this book is a translation of actual lectures at the College de France, so it takes on a more conversational tone than his usual books, and as such, he cannot help but throw in some almost subliminal witticisms against the field of psychiatry that poke the kind of gentle but acerbic fun that the French do so well.
The book can be considered a companion piece to his classic "Madness and Civilization," expounding on his analysis of the sources of "power" throughout the history of psychiatric medicine, and here he takes that analysis to the point of the dawn of modern psychotropic meds, during which Foucault was still living when he was giving these lectures in the early 1970s. It would have been fascinating to have been able to read his thoughts on the evolution of psychiatric power during the heyday of Big Pharma and the Prozac-age, but alas, his unfortunate death in the 80s deprived us of a full development of such analysis.
Psychiatric power, for Foucault, was and still is a formidable force, one that has been able to dethrone kings. He gives a fascinating account of how the doctor and his aides handled the mad King George, supplanting sovereign power for disciplinary power. Further on, Foucault reads off many jaw-dropping texts and first-hand accounts from the annals of psychiatry literature and the notes from patient files, shedding light through these documents on the inner workings behind the walls of the old asylums. As a psychiatrist, it makes me appreciate how far we've come from the punitive days of strapping patients to basement floors and dousing their scalps with scalding water, but also how little has changed in some ways. Foucault traces how, though the straps may have come off, power was maintained in the psychiatric world through the simple authority of the Doctors' knowledge of which their certificates, white coats, and commanding manner of speech were testimonials. Power was further maintained as times changed via statutory revisions, judiciary commitments, the isolation of patients from family and visitors, the design of psychiatric hospitals, hypnosis and mesmerism, and finally to the development of neurologic differential diagnosis. These all were adaptations to maintain an unequal balance of power. And he further explores the resistances and attempts by patients to regain power, including the odd but interesting assertion that the epidemic of hysteria in the late 1800s was such an attempt.
Extensive footnotes and citations gave me a plethora of new books to add to my queue, as the quotations of so many works by the greats of early psychiatric practice like Charcot are all so mind-blowing that I simply had to read the source material. I think you'll find this book an absorbing historical exercise if anything else.
My main complaint about this book is that the translators seemed to struggle at times with how to properly convey the French, and we end up with some incomprehensible and sometimes inconsistent phrasing, as well as odd choices of words like "obnubilation." But overall, the final product is a remarkable result of painstaking efforts of scholarship.
Whether or not you agree with Foucault, one cannot help but become engrossed in his work and to never think about power relationships, including those of our own government system, in the same way again.
January 12, 2025
Een lessenreeks met als heel interessante hoofdthema's (disciplinaire) macht, normalisering en waarheid binnen de context van de 'klassieke' psychiatrie (id est, de 19e-eeuwse psychiatrie).
Het plan vanaf morgen: de studie naar de abnormaliteit verderzetten, niet binnen de psychiatrische, maar binnen de juridische context, aan de hand van de lessenreeks La société punitive. Ik kijk ernaar uit. Wordt leuk. Foucault is gewoon heel leuk om te lezen (tenminste, zijn lessen zijn heel leuk om te lezen, we gaan het niet hebben over mijn introductie tot Foucault, het boek De woorden en de dingen, dat was een ander verhaal, een andere schrijfstijl...).
Het plan vanaf morgen: de studie naar de abnormaliteit verderzetten, niet binnen de psychiatrische, maar binnen de juridische context, aan de hand van de lessenreeks La société punitive. Ik kijk ernaar uit. Wordt leuk. Foucault is gewoon heel leuk om te lezen (tenminste, zijn lessen zijn heel leuk om te lezen, we gaan het niet hebben over mijn introductie tot Foucault, het boek De woorden en de dingen, dat was een ander verhaal, een andere schrijfstijl...).
April 18, 2025
people *really* butcher his discussion of the panopticon in undergrad, huh
really great discussion about the relationship between the family and the psy-disciplines as well as the development of the asylum as a space from proto-psychiatry to the emergence of psychoanalysis
really great discussion about the relationship between the family and the psy-disciplines as well as the development of the asylum as a space from proto-psychiatry to the emergence of psychoanalysis
December 16, 2017
Too bad no one reads this excellent book on psychiatric power. Love it so much.
October 21, 2018
Interesting ideas about the origins of psychiatry and the "disciplinary" society of the modern world's prisons, schools, asylums, and factories/workplaces. Difficult to read, hard to understand.
April 14, 2020
Foucault at his finest.
November 10, 2023
Matt, Matt, you don't even -- you're glib. You don't even know what Ritalin is
June 29, 2024
Che bombaaaa
December 26, 2013
A remarkably insightful and provocative course which should be more widely dispersed across those disciplines it involves so intimately.
That said, it is without a doubt foundational to and anticipatory of the following:
"In the 1990s, anthropologists and philosophers of science unravelled the intricate history of traumatic memory and post-traumatic stress syndrome... In the process they have taught us that mental illness, like many other complex scientific facts, are invented and real at the same time because the ontological bases of such illnesses can never be separated from the epistemological apparatus that are used to define and treat them. On the one hand, a disorder such as PTSD is 'glued together by the practices, technologies, and narratives with which it is diagnosed, studied, treated and represented'. On the other hand, 'the reality of PTSD is confirmed empirically by its place in people's lives, by their experiences and convictions, and by the personal and collective investments that have been made in it'..."
Kansteiner, Wulf; "Genealogy of a Category Mistake: A Critical Intellectual History of the Cultural Trauma Metaphor;" Rethinking History 8 (2004); 212
This does not just apply to PTSD, the Hysterics of the Victorian era, and our Borderlines of today... it is equally disheartening that it takes decades to disseminate as complex a fact pattern so relevant to our age.
That said, it is without a doubt foundational to and anticipatory of the following:
"In the 1990s, anthropologists and philosophers of science unravelled the intricate history of traumatic memory and post-traumatic stress syndrome... In the process they have taught us that mental illness, like many other complex scientific facts, are invented and real at the same time because the ontological bases of such illnesses can never be separated from the epistemological apparatus that are used to define and treat them. On the one hand, a disorder such as PTSD is 'glued together by the practices, technologies, and narratives with which it is diagnosed, studied, treated and represented'. On the other hand, 'the reality of PTSD is confirmed empirically by its place in people's lives, by their experiences and convictions, and by the personal and collective investments that have been made in it'..."
Kansteiner, Wulf; "Genealogy of a Category Mistake: A Critical Intellectual History of the Cultural Trauma Metaphor;" Rethinking History 8 (2004); 212
This does not just apply to PTSD, the Hysterics of the Victorian era, and our Borderlines of today... it is equally disheartening that it takes decades to disseminate as complex a fact pattern so relevant to our age.
September 13, 2014
This book expands of the practice of psychiatry as it is discussed in Birth of the Clinic, Madness and Civilization, and History of Madness. Like all of his lectures, the language is pretty accessible, sometimes in contrast to his aforementioned monographs. He draws some interesting conclusions about the relationship between sexuality and the patient/analyst dynamic that I haven't quite decided what to think of.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews