Given the positive reviews on both Amazon and Goodreads, and that one of my favorite reading topics is historical and wide-ranging perspectives on mental health, I REALLY wanted to enjoy this. I'm fascinated about trying to untangle the origins and root causes of mental health problems, whether sociocultural or biological, and as such thought I'd take tons of useful information away from this regardless of some expected disagreement with the author.
To my dismay, even the historical information (notably chapter 3, though the use of "Dark Ages" in opening chapter 2 was already a red flag) feels presented in a way that only glosses over anything that doesn't fit the authors narrative. Only a few introductory paragraphs are given to the origins of institutions, and rather dishonestly, while the rest of the chapter is largely devoted to the stores of histories "heroes" of the "mad" (Phillipe Pinel, Benjamin Franklin, Dorothea Dix). There's no discussion or elaboration on how prisons and asylums originally came from the same origins, that being "houses of corrections" meant to rehabilitate criminal or problematic and unproductive behavior and that a distinct sense of "madness" or "insanity" was yet to exist. Separate facilities exclusive to criminal confinement were non-existent in the west until the mid-1700s. Even in the 20th century, tuberculosis sanatoriums were eventually converted to mental institutions. These things are critical to understanding how mental health was seen and shaped by its physical, social, and cultural proximity to criminal and other stigmatized behavior. As Foucault said: "It was the depths of confinement itself that generated the phenomenon".
Further is the author's way of contending against the "anti-psychiatry" movement, of which Foucault is of course a huge name. The author writes with an extremely binary and self-aggrandizing view that seems to ignore any nuance or complexity. Again, I wanted to approach this without ideology, as I believe the answer to understanding mental health is not binary and lies in between grasping both sociocultural and biological/genetic causes. Unfortunately, chapter 8 on the "Anti-Psychiatrists" reads as if it was a hit piece written in self-defense, attacking opposition with straw-picking and almost personal attacks, rather than actually trying to elucidate the details or the author's arguments, understanding, or good intentions. He tears at Szasz for working with L. Ron Hubbard/the Church of Scientology to found the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, ignoring that this was an early on pragmatic move where Szasz agreed with their critiques on psychiatry and later distanced himself from them. He also goes on about RD Laing, referencing hyperbolic quotes about obviously outdated theories (which were about all that existed in psychiatry in the 70s...).
The author further mentions how 2 patients of Laings treatment later committed suicide, seemingly as some example as to how terrible his ideas were... this being despite the fact that the author himself has a record of unethical experiments, including administering intravenous methylphenidate to first-episode schizophrenic patients knowing that it was more likely to give them pronounced effects to study, including reports that one participant later themself committed suicide. This is on-top of his known ties with pharmaceutical companies, controversy over hypocritical statements over the ethics of diagnosing public figures, and their extremely questionable, off-base tweet last year resulting in widespread disciplinary actions.
Lastly, the chapters seem almost designed to just kinda... trail off at the ends leaving some peculiar idea or argument lofted high up with no further explanation (the author's "spiritual(?)" experience in Chapter 2, chapter 3's ending with optimistic musing about anti-psychotics being introduced down-the-line, or chapter 7 ending with a reference to a weird satirical story about Laing and other "anti-psychiatrists"). It just feels like a lot of bombast without much substance.
I will say, I liked the content in the Appendices. Nice diagrams!
Once more: really did give this a chance and wanted to take something from it, only to find it written with a goal of proving a point rather than contributing to the overall knowledge and discussion of mental health. Although not entirely focused on schizophrenia, as an alternative read I highly recommend Roy Richard Grinker's "Nobody's Normal: How Culture Created the Stigma of Mental Illness". Its a much wider-perspectived look at mental health and extremely thought provoking (rather than idea feeding).
Edit for clarity: I don't mean to entirely be bashing this book and believe what it DOES contain is largely accurately presented, it just leaves out so much as well and as such isn't actually a great book for giving a broad perspective on the subject.