Jay’s Reviews > Psychiatry and Its Discontents > Status Update

This is easily the most uneven group of writings of Scull's I've read. That chapter was brutal, short, and powerful, but others are just winding and wordy and weakly argued.

Durakov wrote: "This is easily the most uneven group of writings of Scull's I've read. That chapter was brutal, short, and powerful, but others are just winding and wordy and weakly argued."

I've only read a couple of articles by Scull before this. With a title like Psychiatry and Its Discontents, I was expecting substantially more on the critical/anti-psychiatry movements and various patient, survivor and consumer movements. I was quite disappointed.

Uneven is a great word to sum up this collection of essays. Lots of food for thought and hints at future readings. So, I appreciate that. Is there a particular book of his that you would recommend on my next foray into Scull's work?

He's not very good on the history of critical or anti-psychiatry. In part, I think he struggles with the philosophical aspects. He's a solid historian but not super adept in his reasoning all the time. He can also be quite brash and insensitive.

I got a ton out of his early work like Decarceration and his work on private asylums. He was much more interested in the political economy of psychiatry in the 70s/80s and his analysis was really solid and generally better than even more contemporary works on the economy of psychiatry. Over time, he started to write more about the science and the culture of madness, with mixed results. Madness in Civilization is a marvel: he covers a ridiculous amount of ground and made what is probably the most comprehensive and readable text of the entire history of madness. That's my favorite of his contemporary productions. These newer works seem to lack a deeper purpose at times, and at worst feel like rehashing familiar territory just to put more stuff out.

Durakov wrote: "He's not very good on the history of critical or anti-psychiatry. In part, I think he struggles with the philosophical aspects. He's a solid historian but not super adept in his reasoning all the t..."

I enjoy his brash tone. It's entertaining, even if it's misguided at times. But more often than not, I tend to agree. I agree, this book seemed like a lazy collection of previous published essays. None the less, I still got a lot out of it.

I'm sure I'll be reading a lot in this field. My list of too reads is growing at an unsustainable pace. Thanks for the recommendations. I need all the help deciding on what to read next...