Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Birth of the Asylum
So ignoring the question of religion and religious madness for a moment, I'd like to focus on the reformation of the Asylum, which reminded me a lot of the transformation of the penal system. Under the guise of more humane treatment for the prisoners, in this case the treatment of the madmen, the sovereign's ability to control and regulate was extended in a broader, more efficient manner. Specifically in the context of the asylum, Foucault addresses fear in the relationship between the madmen and the 'normal' people outside of the asylum. Here, Foucault says that the conception of fear has changed from one of fearing the insane, to the insane fearing their own insanity. At first this seems a little out-there and far to understand, but after reading farther it makes quite a bit of sense. The madman was given the liberation from chains, loathing, etc. on the condition that he obide by certain rules and regulations of the asylum. As Foucault says "he promised to restrain himself," as the necessity for external control became unnecessary - all that was needed to calm the madman was a simple reminder that failure to adhere to the rules would force those around him to inflict punishment. In this way, fear became the primary motivator for self-regulationa and adherence to standardized norms of begavior, as "any manifestation of madness will be linked to punshiment." In turn, this also releives the enactor of the punshiment from guilt and/or responsbility (much like justice was releived of the guilt of having to punish transgressors), as the madman himself becomes entirely responsible for any punishment brought upon him. In this way, the liberation and humaneness of the asylum became, as Foucault labels them, "justifications" for the extension of the means and methods of control and regulation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Often when reading Foucault I think about Freud's account of the development of the super-ego in the child.
On the one hand this is to do with a reaction to a physical threat: the threat of castration. On the other it is about seeking the approval of an authority figure: the father.
The ultimate goal in any case is that, with a super-ego, external and physical threats will no longer be necessary: they will be replaced by a voluntary, indeed willing, self-discipline that internalises prohibitions.
There's a mix of positive and negative power operations here (ie carrots and sticks), as well as an ambiguity in the "autonomy" that is achieved - Freud himself recognised that the super-ego could be as cruel and indifferent to the well-being of an individual as any "id monster".
Post a Comment