Talk:Madness and Civilization

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Creaturesofthewind.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Stub
This article basically replicates the section in the main Michel Foucault article about Madness and Civilization. I had much trouble reading through Foucault’s opaque prose, but the article should be expanded. —Cesar Tort 17:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC) This is based on the first 40 pages of his work, what about the rest where madness itself is analysed?

No Criticism Section ?
Of all Foucault's books, this one receives the most criticism save for "History of Sexuality". There is no mention made of critiques of the rhetoric(s) he used- as in Derrida's "Cogito and the History of Madness", or of the author's acceptance of literary devices as reflections of historical fact- ie the Ship of Fools, nor the increasing concern about the selectiveness of Foucault's research for this book, which would continue with "Birth of the Clinic".

No-one is claiming that this article is a haigiography, but when a book is so widely mistrusted by experts it ought to be noted, with due sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.212.10 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Foucault never said the "ship of fools" was historical fact, but was using a literary reference (consciously) to make a larger point about representations of madness in medieval society. Most of the criticism given to this book was not exactly extremely great or large, save for the fact that it was widely advertised by the likes of Andrew Scull, and that many of the original critics in English-speaking scholarship, like Roy Porter, changed their minds afterwards. As for "selectiveness", well, that's the entire point! Foucault was not seeking to provide a total "objective account" (and contrary to whatever illusions you have, historical research in general is selective to a degree) but rather a particular specific focus to make a larger philosophic point. Read the actual full book (in English translation) to clear up any misconceptions you have about Foucault's "scholarship". The first English version had many translation mistakes, including a statement that seemed to suggest (in English) that the mad in the medieval era led an "easy carefree existence". This translation mistake alone cost Foucault alot of support among Anglo-American historical academics in the 70's and 80's. Also, The History of Sexuality's criticism is also based on misconstruals (primarily because its taken to be a book, rather than what it is; a mere preamble/introduction for a 6 volume project that was abandoned and never came to frution. The whole "homosexuality was born in 1870" schpeel, is more a reference to the medicalization of same-sex love at this time (1870 is thrown in rather sarcastically rather than seriously, due to the main article coming out then and in mocking of it being categorized as a species "oh we might as well say this was the date it was 'born' ') But that's another matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.64.80 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity, he actually did say that the Ship of Fools, while clearly a literary invention, was also a historical fact: "But among these satirical and novelistic ships, the Narrenschiff had a genuine existence, for they really did exist, these boats that drifted from one town to another with their senseless cargo. [...] The arrival in the great cities of Europe of these ships of fools must have been quite a common sight." . FiachraByrne (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As to "that" sentence suggesting that the mad had an easy carefree existence it was such a point of contention due to its ambivalence (and the 1964 English version is undoubtedly a mistranslation). I collected a number of translations at one time, which follow: "Les fous avaient alors une existence facilement errante" (Folie et déraison, 1961); "Madmen then led an easy wandering existence" (Madness and Civilization, trans. Richard Howard, 1964); "The existence of the mad might easily be a wandering one" (Colin Gordon); "Most often, the mad led a wandering existence" & "The mad, then, had easily a wandering existence" (Allan Megill) "An itinerant existence was often the lot of the mad" (History of Madness, trans Murphy & Khalfa, 2006). Personally, I think that it's clear from the context in which the sentence appears that there was a degree of romanticisation in his treatment of madness in the early modern era. It's probably Foucault's most flawed book - but it's still a brilliant text but you don't have to treat it like the bloody bible or anything.FiachraByrne (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Google translateUser:FiachraByrne "Fools then had easily wandering existence." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  07:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the ip commentator is correct with the reference to Derrida's criticism. It's one of the reasons that Locke and his theory of delusions does not feature in Foucault's text. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The idea that Foucault's book romanticizes madness can only be supported by a one-sided reading of what is a multifaceted book.

The often discussed passage about the mad in medieval Europe leading an "easy wandering existence" (as rendered in Howards translation) is not a miss translation at all, as many have claimed (in fact, Howards translation is in many ways superior to Kalfa's). Only two paragraphs later Foucault goes on to say that "they were not invariably left to wander", and invokes a number of examples, drawn from documentary history, in which the mad were confined. A couple of paragraphs later, he then goes on to talk about madmen being "prisoners of their [forced] departure".

So, we have three distinct but inter-related themes: 1, that of a free, wandering existence (such as a vagabond or pilgrim); 2, exile, banishment and imprisonment; 3, a kind of blend of these two, in which the madmen is a "prisoner of their departure" (or, to use Goethe's term, a 'wandering exile'). So, this one little sentence just sets up a theme, which is then hedged around with qualifications and elaborated. But all that is ignored by his polemicists (such as Scull, and Porter- Porter said somewhere that he had only read the book once, which is hard to believe, given the fact that he practically made a career out of reducing Foucault's book to silence).

The point is, of course, that Kalfa's right in the introduction he wrote to the unabridged translation he made for Routledge: "Foucault's History of Madness has yet to be read"... Michael J Bibby (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've rewritten the introductory section that deals with Foucault's treatment of the evolution of European society's concept of and dealings with madness. I've done this because the existing section was largely unsourced, and I think this exposition is simpler and clearer. It does not directly address the controversy over whether Foucault claimed mental asylums proliferated in the 17th century, but deals with it by making it plain that he was referring to confinement in workhouses and the like in the 17th and early 18th centuries, and asylums and mental hospitals from mid-18th century onwards. I've removed reference to Porter's views on his historiography because that belongs in a yet to be written section on the historiography.

This version is based on Khalfa's introduction to the 2006 English edition (2009 reprint) of History of Madness. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good rewrite. The representation of Porter's views was perhaps not so accurate in the original version anyway. Porter, along with most other English-language historians, castigated Foucault on empirical errors which essentially amounted to the periodisation of the "great confinement" (the numbers confined in the "classical era" in all types of institutions were miniscule compared to the 19th century) but he always expressed an appreciation for Foucault's ideas. Foucault was always "wrong" in interesting ways anyway. Scull's opposition to Foucault, its extraordinary venom and ire, is perhaps a product of the fact that, in adopting the so-called "social control" thesis, he was seen within the field as having borrowed heavily from Foucault's work. Anyway, I can write a section on his reception by historians when I get a chance if no-one else gets to it first. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd very much like to read your summary of its reception by historians, if you decide to go ahead with this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * God - I'd forgotten about this entirely. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Impact
The 'impact' section is drastically understated. Foucault's book has had quite a dramatic impact on the field, and continues to do so. Proof of this is the fact that it is hard to find a 'history of psychiatry' or 'history of asylums' or 'history of madness' that does not feel the need to respond, critically or favorably, to this book. Further evidence of this is the fact that in 1992 Still and Velody felt the need to put together a book with contributions from various authors in the field titled 'Rewriting the History of Madness: Studies in Foucault's `Histoire de la Folie'.

In fact, the 'impact' section of the article, as it stood, seemed to represent an attempt to mitigate this impact (which is the typical reaction to this book in the context of psychology lecture-rooms, which turns the reading of this book into a kind of 'amused indulgence'), so I have deleted it (I will attempt to put something in its place later, but please, anyone thinking about restoring the deleted text, engage in a discussion here)

In the preface he wrote for his unabridged translation titled 'History of Madness' (Routledge, 2006), the first thing that Jean Kalfa wrote is "Foucault's History of Madness has yet to be read", implying that rather than being over and done with, the full impact of this book is yet to be felt.

Here is a couple of quotes from Jame Miller's 'The Passion of Foucault':

Although it is true that Foucault distanced himself from the anti-psychiatry movement, this can be attributed to his general dislike for polemics.

Michael J Bibby (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Michael. I hope you don't mind me making a few formatting changes; if it's a problem, just revert me. I agree the article needs a good "Reception" and/or "Impact" section. Feel free to add one if the mood takes you. Fiachra, above, mentioned addressing this but then forgot. She may be willing to help or offer suggestions - she has an interest in and some understanding of the history of psychiatry and madness.


 * In case you're not familiar with the arcane norms here, good articles basically say what reliable sources say, and don't draw conclusions that are not drawn in cited reliable sources. If you do decide to have a go, be sure to read that policy (Identifying reliable sources) and two other core policies, Neutral point of view and No original research. These policies don't say what most new editors assume they say, so it is important that you're familiar with them if you want your contribution to survive. When you master these, you know all you need to know about Wikipedia content policy.


 * Feel free to ask questions here (I've got this article on my "watchlist", so I'm notified every time someone changes it or its talk page) or ask on my talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and advice Anthonycole. My reason for deleted the section as it stood was simple: a blank space is better than what was there before. If I find the time soon, I will hazard an attempt to supply this deficiency. Michael J Bibby (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the deletion. Thank you for your interest, and I hope to see you back soon. Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section
I've reverted Michael's recent addition of the above quotes to the article because Wikipedia policy doesn't permit that level of quotation. See WP:COPYPASTE. Paraphrasing the source, saying what it says in different language and structure, is needed here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tagged this section as it has multiple issues. For instance: the inline citations are inadequate; it relies heavily on one blockquote (which I have highlighted as before it looked like article text); it relies on only two commentators and with inadequate specific references to either. In general it requires expansion and cleanup.  The large quotation requires trimming to include only what is essential (if anything is seen as being essential in it) and a precis included. Additional commentators/critics views should be included. LookingGlass (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it because a criticism/reception section needs to be a scholarly overview of all significant critics and criticisms, not just one man's view. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry Anthonyhcole but I undid your revision. The section needs improvement not deletion.  Your points are valid but at least the section as is provides a beginning that can be built upon.  It actually contains two commenntators not one.  There is substantial criticism of this work by Foucault and this is widely cited, so Wiki can be a valuable resource in contextualising this. LookingGlass (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Contains a reasonable overview of the book's reception and impact:

122.111.241.146 (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? How would you edit the section? LookingGlass (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox and picture of book
Two editors have removed the picture of the book, along with the infobox. I find this to be absolutely bizarre and without justification. The infobox was removed on the grounds that it "adds nothing", but that is not a sufficient explanation, especially given that most articles about books have infoboxes. The original justification given for the removal of the image was that it "Adds clutter and little or no educational value." "Clutter" is a totally subjective grounds for removing the image. Most articles about books have pictures of them, and it seems that the large majority of editors have no problem with this. If the editor who removed the image is going to be consistent, he would have to remove all pictures of books from all articles about them. He should know very well that he would be reverted if he tried to do anything like that. Images are of value in themselves, and help make the article more interesting. Perhaps "clutter" implies that the image distracts attention away from the rest of the article, but I see no reason to believe that that is true. As for educational value, as I said when I reverted the edit removing the picture, a picture helps readers to identify the book. The editor who reverted me in turn should remember that not everyone knows French. Wikipedia is supposed to be a useful resource for everyone, including those who do not know French. 122.60.173.222 (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the image again. Your argument doesn't convince me. Especially WP:Other stuff exists. Don't edit war. If you can't convince others through argument, move on. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems silly. Infoboxes and pictures of books which are the subject of the article (or their title page) are pretty standard fare. "It adds nothing" is not sufficient explanation for removing. That two editors have removed it doesn't change the fact that it's non-controversial and the WP:MOS way to go. If you want to open a discussion to remove the image, go for it. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 07:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed by the suggestions above and in edit comments: "it would help readers to recognize a copy of the book if they saw it", "you are forgetting readers who don't know French", "a picture helps readers to identify the book. The editor who reverted me in turn should remember that not everyone knows French. Wikipedia is supposed to be a useful resource for everyone, including those who do not know French." Who are these bibliophiles who want to recognise the first edition of the French book but can't read French or memorise the words " Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique" and so must memorise this image in the hope they'll see the book and are capable of doing so, and how many of them might there be? As for opening a discussion - we already have one here. NebY (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to be generally accepted that articles about books should be illustrated with images of the book. No good reason has been given for removing this particular image from this particular article, and repeatedly removing it, in the absence of agreement, is not appropriate. In general it does seem reasonable to say that an image helps people to identify a book, and that's sufficient reason for including one. Arguing about the exact circumstances under which it might or might not be helpful to people is pointless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight. The argument for removing the infobox image for an article about a French book is that the words in the image .... are in French? Who are these bibliophiles who want to recognise the first edition of the French book but can't read French or memorise the words -- It does not take being a "bibliophile" to think that an image of a French version of a French book is an appropriate illustration for an article about said book, and "wanting to recognise the first edition" has nothing to do with anything. On Wikipedia, an appropriately illustrated article is better than one that is not illustrated. This is an appropriate image. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. WP:MOS is a guideline, not policy. How an article looks is always up to the consensus of editors on the talk page. The infobox and the picture of one cover of one edition add literally nothing of value to the article. All those bullet points are in the body of the article. The picture just adds useless clutter. Wikipedia is not a comic book, IMO. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. There are some things that can be determined at the article-level, but that doesn't mean arbitrarily tossing out the MOS because you don't like the image. You can call WP:IAR if you like, if there's some compelling reasons to remove the picture that upholds the spirit of the guidelines if not the letter. That seems like a hard sell to me. I'm not going to say the image is ideal, so if you produce a better one I'd likely support the switch, but not from having an image to having no image. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 01:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The infobox is a convenient way to convey basic information about the book, Anthonyhcole. Saying that it adds "literally nothing of value" only shows that you don't understand the rationale for it. If you think that infoboxes per se are useless and want to get consensus to purge them all from Wikipedia, then the talk page of the Madness and Civilization article is not the place to do that. Calling the image "clutter", as you have repeatedly done, is perfectly meaningless. Something is only "clutter" if it is somewhere where something else should be, which is not the case here. If you can find a better image of the original 1961 French edition of Foucault's book, then by all means, replace the existing image. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

History of Madness
While the popular abridged paperback translation into English was Madness and Civilization, the scholarly text that much of the article is about (including the influence) was History of Madness. It's been nearly 20 years since the translation of the full work. Is it time to re-title and re-write the article to reflect this? Infocidal (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. Madness and Civilization really only refers to the abridged English translation, not the original French version and certainly not the newly translated History of Madness. : 3 F4U (they/it) 22:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)