Reddit reviews History of Madness

I think Foucault's History of Madness would resonate strongly with your horizon and project. In it, he undertakes an almost historical analysis of the ideational genealogy (a term borrowed from Nietzsche) of 'madness', where he finds that the mad person has had ascribed an almost schizophrenic, if you will, range of attributes to them throughout history.

In ancient Greece, for instance, madness was linked to a notion of this particular individual being able to mediate attitudes of the gods through them; in Romantic art and thinking, there's a certain "Sturm und Drang" dignity and exaltedness surrounding the mad individual (as with for instance the somewhat sanguine character of Beethoven, and the role epilepsy played in the work and life of Dostojevskij); Freud and early psychoanalysis apprehended madness as somewhat more complex, in that it largely dissolved the traditional dichotomy of madness and 'normality' (claiming, for instance, that all of us are slightly neurotic), which in turn points outwards on the society that fosters and cultures us;

and today, primarily in European psychology, there's a growing focus on social psychology and an opposition to formal systems of diagnosis - after all, as you seem to grasp, or at least feel, very intimately yourself, isn't the very act of dubbing someone as a schizophrenic itself just a mode of conceptualizing what is, in fact, much more complex than what can be reduced to an instance of this or that particular mode of orientation on the part of the psychologist? And what effect does this have on the individual being diagnosed, being told that the entirety of what they are, the mental framework that constitutes them, and in turn the content of that constitution, is a certain anomaly by definition? All of a sudden, you're now a schizophrenic - this also has social implications, and as such in turn also pregnant implications to your idea of self, or identity.

This is where the 'power' aspect of Foucault starts to shine through - this particular individual above has had power exerted over them, they have been forcefully constituted in a certain way by the systemic surroundings they're present in; and these systemic surroundings, and the way they function in relation to people, are products of the historically mediated development of ideas, what we mean and understand by them.

I should mention that I'm aware my post so far presents itself as rather heavy-handedly critical. I'm merely trying to introduce some basics of Foucault, and 'walk through the motions' of what an initial result of a power relations analysis might look like. It's focal to mention in the above example, that yes, power was exerted, but no matter what, power will be exerted - Foucault is explicit about this himself. In the 80's and 90's, critical/continental academica seemed to jump all aboard the "analyze and decimate the repressive modes of power in society!", to varying degrees of success, while contemporary academica working with Foucault seems much more focused on applying his theoretical horizon and derived tools with regards to analysis - working out from the idea that complex problems require equally complex investigations, and that a Foucaultian approach possibly can grasp a fuller picture of a given status quo, than, say, a more formal systems analysis (e.g. Luhmann).

In this way, one can look at how power is distributed in a given situation or social sphere and how this in turn constitutes the people in it - as such, this would be a way of conceptualizing an analytical framework for looking into, for instance, how people's ethical beliefs and convictions come about. Obviously, also, one can look at how, for instance, their neurotic behaviours or ideas of self can come about - but my point is, such an analysis needn't be inherently critical in perspective.

With regards to your intentions of linking Western and Eastern perspectives on matters such as these, I'm in the dark, as I'm no expert on Eastern ideas of madness. I know that in Islamic philosophy, we find the sufi tradition which emphasizes mystical wisdom (often relating itself to religious, Islamic doctrines) mediated through trance, dance, meditation, "holy self-annihilation" and the like, but that's about the extent of my horizon there. You might want to check this and this out, if you're interested in this sort of thing.

That said, my personal opinion is that if you suspect that you're a clinical schizophrenic, you should definitely go and get that checked out. This happens to be one of the diagnoses that can be alleviated with medicine that has effects which are well documented. I happen to agree with you that once we're talking about these matters of mental health, normality, the medicated life, social apprehensions and stigma of disease, etc., a hard-liner approach based purely on biological/neuropsychology, behaviouristic models of human well-being and an itchy finger on the medicine trigger is a self-defeating institution, in that one very quickly, as you do, feel thoroughly alienated from this mode of conceptualizing the problems and feelings one can sit with. I've tried it once, and it drove me, paradoxically, to try and off myself two times.

However, as with anything there are no black and white arguments, and schizophrenia can be managed, among other things, by way of medicine - and taking this medicine will be beneficial, because it helps you, not because it'll keep you in line.

EDIT: grammar, wording.

I'll try to link to primary texts at the end. I would definitely search for the best translations to any texts you dive into since that could hamper you unnecessarily with texts that are all ready fairly difficult.

Structuralist linguistics was started up by Ferdinand De Saussure and expounded on in his "Course in General Linguistics". Structuralist linguistics talks about signs, which are basically a union of two parts: the signified and the signifier. The signified is the concept that is referred to by our written marks, sounds, etc. (/c/ /a/ /t/ refers to the concept "cat") and signifiers are written marks, sounds, etc. that are supposed to represent signifieds. What binds the signifier and signified together is a process called "signification", which is the process by which signs acquire meaning in a given linguistic system.

Something that you should take note of is the arbitraryness of signification (God does not will that /c/ /a/ /t/ refer to cat). The reason that this arbitrariness exists is because in Structuralist linguistics the sign doesn't gain meaning because of some relationship between the signified and signifier, but by being different ( cat and bat are different because cat has a /c/ rather than /b/ for example). Signifiers and Signifieds differ negatively (/c/ is not /b/) in the same way. Structuralist linguistics is also a type of of metalanguage that attempts to get outside of language to analyze the way in which signs operate in linguistic systems.

Post-structuralism is best understood as "after structuralism", or the working out of the conclusions of Structuralism to their logical conclusion. Let's move back to signification. We can make a diagram of the signified "cat" under the signifier /c/ /a/ /t/. These two are bound together to produce meaning (in so far as the signification is proper for the linguistic system). We can also say that cats represent a particular goddess. What has now happened is that our sign "cat" is now a signifier for a goddess. We can also say that goddess symbolizes royalty, which means that cat and goddess are signifiers for another sign. Post-structuralists say that this chain of signification is indefinite, or that signifiers only point to other signifiers. The consequence of this is that meaning is never fixed, but rather it is deferred endlessly down the chain. Post-structuralists will also criticize other attempts at metalanguages as being unable to escape language.

That is a very basic exposition of Post-structuralism. You are bound to get additions to what little bit I said when you read the various Post-structuralists and I'm sure someone who knows more about it than I do can give you a more in-depth answer.

Note: I have not touched on the Structural Anthropology of Levi-Strauss because I am not familiar with it, but I recommend you check it out.

---

Primary Sources

Note: Post-structuralists can be horribly difficult to understand. I recommend you check out secondary literature and ask questions on places like /r/askphilosophy, /r/askliterarystudies, and /r/continentaltheory.

Derrida

• Writing and Difference (particularly the essays Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences; Cogito and the History of Madness; "Genesis and Structure" and Phenomenology)
  
• Specters of Marx
  
• Of Grammatology
  
• Signature Event Context
  
  Foucault (Foucault is unjustifiably classified as either a Structuralist or a Post-structuralist. He has periods in which his writings may reflect one or the other movements, but he is not someone that lends himself to easy classification)
  
  
• History of Madness (I recommend http://www.amazon.com/History-Madness-Michel-Foucault/dp/0415477263 . It also includes Foucault's reply to Derrida's analysis of his work [and a few other papers]. Madness and Civilization is an abridged version of History of Madness, which leads me to prefer the former over the latter)
  
• The Archaeology of Knowledge (Vintage should include "The Discourse on Language" in the appendix)
  
• Discipline and Punish
  
• History of Sexuality Volumes 1,2, and 3
  
  Deleuze
  
  
• Difference and Repetition
  
• The Logic of Sense
  
• Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus (Deleuze collaborated with the psychoanalyst Felix Guattari in writing these books)
  
  Roland Barthes
  
  
• Death of the Author
  
• Mythologies
  
• Writing Degree Zero
  
  I also recommend exploring some of the books from the "A Very Short Introduction" series and the "Introducing" series. They have books on Post-structuralism, Derrida, Post-Modernism, Psychoanalysis, etc. I love them and recommend them if other secondary literature is too obtuse. The SEP and IEP are also excellent sources of information.
  
  There are so many more individuals that I did not include in that list (influences on Post-structuralism and Post-structuralists alike): Althusser, Lacan, Kristeva, De Man, Levi-Strauss, Judith Butler, Heidegger (although not a Post-structuralist himself, he was a huge influence on Derrida), Nietzsche, and so on. Post-structuralism is a huge movement and I hope you enjoy exploring it!
  
  Edit: I also wanted to add that Post-structuralism has been an influence on Neo-Pragmatism and certain Death of God theologies. For example, Richard Rorty, a Neo-Pragmatist, and John Caputo, a philosopher and theologian, were noticeably influenced by the work of Derrida.
  
  Edit 2: Fixed the title of one of the essays in "Writing and Difference" and some wording in my explanation of why I like "History of Madness" more so than "Madness and Civilization".

Is psychiatry itself not highly politicized? One could argue that psychiatry is a political tool just as much as it is a legitimate medical practice. At the very least, psychiatry has been utilized for highly political purposes.

This is not a crackpot position -- lots of people have been skeptical/critical of psychiatry more or less since psychiatry began.
https://www.amazon.com/History-Madness-Michel-Foucault/dp/0415477263

Honestly, once you read up enough on anti-psychiatry/pro-psychiatry you start to realise that they're not really ideological positions and more pro/anti establishment movements that borrow each others ideas.

Given you're heavy on the biology side of things, you might find some value reading up on the biopsychsocial model.

Your anarchist/communist leanings will help you on the sociological side of things, although getting to grips with Foucault won't hurt. Don't know enough to make specific recommendations on him, but History of Madness, The Order of Things and The Birth of the Clinic might be relevant.

On the psychology side of things, try reading up on the Power Threat Vulnerability Framework. It argues powerfully against reductionism, although unfortunately that means you really need to read it in detail to fully get it.

I'm not "defending" anything, but I see what you're saying. We don't have medical journals trying to explain the how a black cat crossing your path will put you on a path to demise. We don't have "black cat crossing" as a legitimate official cause of death. So it's not quite a good comparison.

We all have had a lot of medical and scientific myths come and go. Science weeds out the junk eventually, but new ideas will find their way in (many of which will turn out to not be objectively true), and old understandings and assumptions are stubborn. Not just in science, but every other area of life, people are just not good at reality. So if you want to understand people, you have to understand that they don't usually live in reality. And if you want to understand why people fly planes into buildings or spend their lives pursuing money that they don't need, you'll first have to suspend disbelief and make an effort to understand their reality. That is the postmodern approach to social science.

So you can understand how it can become reduced by new age wackos to, "There is no objective reality! We're all in a dream, herp derp!" Someone else here compared it aptly to the frustration of quantum physicists.

---
*edit: if I'm going to write an essay, I may as well have some footnotes, right? Examples of this approach: Foucalt's History of Madness and his _Archaeology of Knowledge & The Discourse on Language_ are two of the cornerstones.