After re-reading section #4 and reading section #5, please respond to the following questions in SEPARATE posts, beginning with the number. Post each post IN REPLY to the previous post on that number. In each post, respond to another's post.
#1: In section 4, which we read in class, Foucault describes madmen—now seen as animals rather than sinful humans—enduring freezing temperatures with apparent ease. But the novel should remind you that in modern times most insane people understood to be particularly weak and fragile. How could madmen two hundred years ago be so different, so superhuman in their strength? Here is his explanation: "Animality, in fact, protected the lunatic from whatever might be fragile, precarious, or sickly in man. The Animal solidity of madness, and that density it borrows from the blind world of beasts, inured the madman to hunger, heat, cold, pain" (74). How is Foucault explaining the changed physical strength of the insane? Extrapolating from this example, how, for Foucault, do the subjective and the objective, the mental and the physical—our perception and understanding of things and the things themselves—interact?
#2: In excerpt 5, Foucault is explaining the origins of the modern asylum and the modern treatment of insanity (psychoanalysis). On the bottom of page 250, Foucault's historical argument seems to face a challenge. He needs to explain how the 19th century practice of keeping the insane in an obedient silence led to the 20th century practice of psychoanalysis, where the mentally ill patient does almost all the talking and the therapist listens in silence. How does he explain this connection? (Look at the bottom of 250 and top of 251.) And how is the increasingly humane treatment of the insane in some sense a bad sign? (Look from 250 to the top of 252.)
#3: Just to help your reading, on p 252 "minority" is used in the legal sense, meaning not a legal adult. And on p 253 and the top of 254, he is referring to the myth at the core of psychoanalysis, the Oedipus theory. The Oedipus complex is the child's desires to sleep with the mother and to kill the father (who stands in the way of sleeping with the mother). The relationship with the mother represents and determines all sexual relationships, and the relationship with the father represents and determines all relationships to authority (from your teachers to God to your inner conscience—think of "The Law" from Kafka). By explaining insanity in terms of the Oedipal complex, what role does the family acquire in causing and curing insanity? How, according to Foucault, is this 20th century vision of the traditional family part of the same trend that he identifies in the 19th century with Tuke's asylum?
#1
ReplyDeleteFoucault seems to be saying that treating the insane like animals made them more resistant to heat, cold, and pain. This contrasts with the insane today; they are treated very carefully - like other human beings - which causes them to be susceptible to heat, cold, and pain. Therefore, how someone (insane people at least) is treated has a direct impact on their physical strength - the worse you are treated, the stronger you are.
I am confused as to how this relates to the physical and metaphysical. If you treat someone like an animal, it makes other people see the person as an animal or makes the person believe he is an equivalent to an animal. This is metaphysical because it has to do with perception. Once the person is seen as an animal/believes he is an equivalent to an animal, the person takes on the physical strength of an animal. Therefore, metaphysical and physical are closely related - metaphysically perceiving yourself as something allows you to essentially become it (according to Foucault).
He also seems to be speaking about those that are hysterical. The madmen may have actually changed based on the change in the sane's behavior toward them. They may believe that they were immune to the world's environmental based on the way they were treated as Robert said, but they may have uncanny mental abilities that enable them relate to the world as they please, only they aren't sure how to use this because they are so separated form out logical reasons.
DeleteIf Foucault says this:
Delete"now seen as animals rather than sinful humans—enduring freezing temperatures with apparent ease."
Foucault makes it seem that Madmen are able to endure harsh conditions, and as a RESULT, they are seen as animals. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and I think he meant to flip it around, that because they're viewed as animals, they are able to endure harsh conditions.
Now we can say that there's a reflection of how people treat others like they're insane, and that the insane holds it in their sense of self.
This means that insanity stems from the accusers, not the accused people.
When the insane are treated as animals, from the perspective of the sane, they have the strength of animals. As we now think of them as fragile and weak, they begin to become fragile and weak. When a person is told something enough times, they begin to believe it, and when they begin to believe it, they believe that they have to act a certain way. In this case, they were told that they were weak, with the condescending authority mentioned at the end of the section, and they obey. The group view becomes the insane's view and the mental becomes the physical. I hadn't thought about what Robert said about how the worse someone is treated, the stronger they become, but I think it's true, and I think it goes with the view that you become what you are told.
DeleteAs Robert and Joana said, once the insane heard that they are more animal than human, then they will start to believe they are actually more animal then human. In turn,they would lose the characteristics that associated with being human and that make them weaker mentally and emotionally. They would in exchange gain the animal-like characteristic of the need to survive, that is stronger in animals then in humans. Survival is all about the mentality, and if you have the human characteristics that make you care about others and worry about emotions then you will just be distracted from you basic needs. In modern times, the insane cannot survive the conditions they used to be able to, because the sane tell them they are still human, just sick, and are therefore treated like children. Being treated like a child causes them to believe in sense that they are children that need to be taken care of,and therfore lose the ability to take care of themselves and survive.
DeleteFoucault is explaining their physical strength in connection to their inner thoughts about themselves. Society called them animals. Therefore they thought of themselves as animals. Animals and beasts are thought of as strong. Therefore, a human/animal would seem to have super physical powers- such as being immune to cold and pain. In today's society, insanity is consodered a sickness. When something is sick it is weak. Therefore, the insane are thinking of themselves as weak, powerless humans. This reminds me a lot of Shylock in Merchant of Venice being called a dog and therefore becoming a dog. Here, the affect of language on the way a person thinks is demonstrated. If something does not have a word, then it is not thought of. If the word for something changes then so do the thoughts associated with that thing.
DeleteLanguage control our thoughts and our thoughts control our physicality.
According to Foucalt, in earlier times, the insane were invulnerable to things like cold, heat, and pain because of their animalistic nature and the way that the sane and those in power acknowledged their animality as a cause to madness rather than disease. Because we have now aligned our thinking and the way we interact with the insane with a "castle of consciousness," the insane have lost their strength. Further, the insane's experiences of madness have not remained the same over time. Because those in power, the sane, have changed the way that we treat the insane, the insane, in turn, experience madness differently and are no longer invulnerable. The sane have changed the definition of insane and how it corresponds with action by changing the way that they treat the insane. I agree with Joanna's post above mine, specifically when she says "When a person is told something enough times, they begin to believe it, and when they begin to believe that they have to act a certain way" in that it exemplifies my argument. Because the insane were eventually told that they were not animals who could not be changed, but really diseased individuals that the sane should try their best to understand, they lost the notion that they were animals and therefore their protection against things such as the cold.
DeleteFoucault is portraying the change in strength of the insane in a certain way. The insane were treated very roughly and exposed to terrible conditions that no human would ever voluntarily live in, and these terrible conditions were most likely too difficult to deal with if you remained an over-thinking human. To survive in harsh conditions, it is necessary to draw out the animal instincts. I agree that upon first inspection, it seems very strange that the insane would have a sudden increase in strength, but the mental and physical states of the human being are quite interconnected. This situation is a result of the placebo effect. In the past, the insane were subjected to harsher conditions than the average human; they were treated like animals constantly. After being treated this way one can only assume the role of they are being cast as. Therefore, in agreement with Robert and Joanna, the insane began to see themselves as animals. But in my opinion, this animal strength was actually something beneficial to the insane in a way... it separated them from society and protected them. This is opposite of today's placebo effect dealing with the insane, where they are treated as fragile humans and therefore become in their own minds weak and fragile and unworthy, similar to how the men in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest see themselves.
DeleteI agree with what Robert says about how people will eventually become what they are perceived as, when they become animals in the eyes of those treating them and observing them. I think it's a product more of the insane than of people in general. Although people who are sane can still very easily have what they believe about themselves and others altered by someones opinions, someone who is insane is exponentially more susceptible to this. The insane WANT to believe what they're told, they want to be told what to think and do. For example, the chief in Cuckoos Nest. In his narration, he doesn't seem all that insane, but the fact that he pretends to be and allows himself to be treated like a child who can't defend for himself is what makes him insane. He wants to be told what to do and believe even if he won't admit it, and so do the people who were treated as animals. Because they were animals, they could survive the cold. They believed what they were told and treated as, and when the world became more tolerant of them, they became less tolerant of the cold and everything that made them seem more bestial. Foucault clearly sees that there is a major correlation between objective and subjective reality and, that the subjective reality can affect the objective reality. It reminds me of when we were talking about mass hysteria when reading The Crucible, how things that people were told and that were all inside people's heads caused their bodies to have actual physical reactions.
DeleteWhen reading this, I thought of how human being's inherent animal instincts appear when they are subjected to sub-optimal living conditions. It seems as though Foucault acknowledges the subconscious desire to survive and thus adapt to surroundings. I agree with Anna and the placebo effect on the insane to allow them to adapt to their surroundings. However, I find it interesting that while the sane saw that the insane were surviving in these conditions and they had allowed them to exist for so long, they ended up changing the treatment of the insane for a more humanitarian view. It is also interesting to note that not ALL insane people had the same severity of insanity, but their treatment made all of them equally animalistic and removed from society.
DeleteReading this the second time, it really set in to me what Foucault's thesis was for this question which came through for me in the quote "...madness in its ultimate form is man in immediate relation to his animality, without other reference, without any recourse" (74). It also stuck out to me that this animal-like madness reinforces the insane person's relationship with nature. This natural adaptation that the insane people had to the cold is very much like the adaptation that animals have to cold weather conditions. I agree with Chloe that it is interesting that the sane change the conditions of the asylums even though the treatment was "comfortable" for the insane. I also think that one reason why the insane acted comfortable was that they have already had so much dignity taken away from them, that they wouldn't want to give the sane any more satisfaction and admitting that they were cold or uncomfortable would make them feel even worse about themselves.
DeleteFoucalt uses the relationship of our animality to our ability to adapt to demonstrate the relationship of the subjective and objective. When humans try to change the subjective, I.E. the attitude of the insane towards their treatment,the objective, I.E. the insane's physical ability to tolerate the treatment, is changed because humans often limit themselves physically based on what their minds believe they can and cannot do, which links to what Caroline said about the insane not wanting to lose any more dignity by allowing the sane any more satisfaction at their suffering.
DeleteAs the posters above me have stated, Foucault seems to be saying that with the power of words the insane have been physically changed in order to be resilient to cold and heat. Society saw them as animals, and animals are able to withstand heat, therefore the insane are able to withstand mighty low and high temperatures because they are animals. Words have power, and our subjective view of reality can have very real and objective effects or so Foucault seems to be saying, similar to how in Merchant of Venice Shylock becomes a dog because people tell him that he is one, how in 1984 the Party can control people’s memories and actions with words, in the Crucible how people believed there were witches and demons when it was really girls yelling things at each other.
Delete#2
ReplyDeleteHe seems to be saying that the new structure did not completely replace the old structure. He says that the new structure of dialogue built on the old structure of observation by adding the component of dialogue, which balanced the actions of the observer and the insane person.
The new structure, which involves a more humane treatment of the insane could be a bad thing because it does not exert the same control that the previous structure did. The previous structure used authority to prevent the patients from using violence. The new structure has gotten rid of this authority, which could potentially lead to violence.
I don't think it necessarily balances the actions of the insane; maybe to the sane person, but to the insane; that is high;y doubtful. The new structure is just the old structure with an added component; very similar to the fortress to castle comment made earlier in the handout.
DeleteThe new structure, as said before is essentially the old structure. I think that what he is saying is that thee is essentially not much change after psychiatry, and that is the problem. Under authority are the repressed, and that normally results in a revolt that may or may not be violent.
Earlier, the instructors were talking, and the madmen were silent.
DeleteNow, the instructors are silent, and only the insane speak
We see in modern times, like with the LSD experiment, doctors DO infer things, and pull things from their experiments, so they are not silent in that regard. They are silent, however in the sense that they don't try to understand the insane FROM them, but through their own "logical" means. The talking represents gibberish, since the other party is unable to understand. Earlier, the doctors would do the gibberish, while the insane would be silent, and behind them, they would pull from their "experiment," that they themselves are actually insane, like the doctors are telling them, so they would ACT more insane, hence "madmen."
The relative silence of the observers gives them power, which stems from the very fact that they are observing rather than directly interacting with the insane to understand their perspectives. The observers look at the insane as something to study, and continue to not personally interact. In a way, the insane remained isolated and silent even though they are able to talk. They have no voice because they are seen as children to convince of things or subjects to be observed. This takes some of the strength that the insane previously had away and weakens them individually. Fahrawn's comparison with LSD is interesting, and I think it relates well to the idea of the insane being silenced while speaking, though it confuses me toward the end.
DeleteIt seems as if he is saying there may be a difference in the technique of the two asylums, but that the affects are the same- unbalanced with dialogue. Neither of them are able to break through the barrier of the silences between the sane and insane.
DeleteThis new treatment almost seems worse because they don't even need weapons or anything threatening the patients. The patietns have been taught that they will always be wrong and inferior to the sane so they automatically will listen simply by language. Their voices and thoughts are not being heard, but further supressed by the asylum.
I think Foucault is trying to convey the similarity and differences of the two asylums, one old and one new. They both have a lack of reciprocation. Either the analyst or the patient must be the observer, the position of the most power. But in the new asylums of the 20th century, the patient must do all of the talking while the psychoanalyst judges constantly . One could argue that this allowance of expression for the insane is healthy and beneficial, but in reality, it exposes them to even more judgement and submerges them even deeper into the control of the doctors. The therapists begin to view the patients as specimens. They don't try to understand them, they merely analyze them. The result is a lack of personal connection which all humans need and a greater amount of isolation in the patients' lives.
DeleteFoucalt explains this connection by distinguishing between what the sane and insane are allowed and eexpected to do. The sane, for example the therapists looking to "cure" the insane of their "disease," only listen to what the insane tell them, without speaking, and then come to their own conclusions. Further, this gives the sane the power of judgment and some sense of control in that language favors the sane. Although the insane are the ones speaking, their use of language directly correlates to sane ideals in that language is a tool created by the sane. Because of this, the insane are unable to convey their mad ideas to the sane in a way that truly is insane...the syntax within language that would allow them to do so is nonexistent in society. This could be a bad sign in that the insane are becoming increasingly defenseless...when the insane were treated as animals, physical violence, brutality, and constraint was accessible to both those in power and the insane. Now that constraint is not used and the sane try to approach the insane with compassion through the use of the language, the insane are helpless because language, being controlled by the sane, is unable to convey their thoughts to the sane accurately.
DeleteFoucault believes that the system of a monologue vs. a dialogue has not been replaced, it has just merely adapted to the changing times. It used to be the sane would talk about what is wrong with the insane, therfore convincing the rest of the public and the insane that they should be seperated. But as people started to feel as if they had the freedom to question things, the system changed to the insane doing all of the talking, therfore convincing themselves that they truly are insane while the sane keep quiet and make this insanity seem more humane by calling it "mental illnes". The sane have the power in this relationship still because they are not the ones being open about themselves and instead are the ones who can easily judge the other group, or the insane.This newer,and more humane seeming version of the system is actually a bad sign because it now only seperates the two groups with some sane people there to make sure the power relationship is constantly active, and therfore forever making the insane person weak and unable of forming relationships and being "cured".
DeleteThe silence that the authority figures use maintains order simply because they do not voice an opinion. In Cuckoo's nest, the excitement in the group sessions is brought not by the words of Nurse Rachet, but by her silence. This silence is also seen in authority figures such as Big Brother; Big Brother exists and is seen, but his words are not written by himself, but by his citizens. This is seen in psychoanalysis, where the doctor is not there to provide answers, but to allow the patient to answer them for himself. For the patient, their insanity is decided on their own, and not by the words of the doctor. It is a false sense of independence.
Delete(I had a much longer reply than this but the computer shut off in the middle so this is the shorter version)
DeleteI think essentially what he is saying is that, like Robert says, he's balancing out between the observer and the subject, with the subject talking as much as they can. The reasoning behind this seems simple: self help. I've always thought that the best way to deal with something is to talk to yourself about it, and I think people realized that giving the image of a friendly listening ear for people to talk about and deal with their problems was the best way to go about it.
Now, the problem with this method is that giving treatment over to people to accomplish themselves is a double edged sword. In some cases, they can help themselves, but in others they can hurt themselves a good deal more. There are plenty of times where it is likely necessary for the observer to help out and it just seems like that doesn't happen all that much.
Just like Knox said, the act of a doctor silently observing, diagnosing, and then the oberserved talking out the problem is kind of like taking turns. The oberserver has to silently observe the patient in order to diagnose, and then hands off the healing job to the person who is being observed. In essence, its kind of like the psychiatrists want the mentally ill to heal themselves. They want the insane to be able to take all of the credit, all they need is a little push or diagnosis to get them thinking. Once there is a diagnosis, the problem also seems much smaller and seems much easier to solve than when the problem was unknown. The process of silent observing and then patient talking is kind of like team work. One problem with this method is that since the insane got themselves out of the hole, they can let themselves right back in. Their fate all depends on themselves, nobody else can help them out of it.
DeleteIt's interesting thinking about this hole that Caroline mentions. The insane can't see this hole, they may not know they're making the progress we say they are. If they stop willingly cooperating with the sane we may see them as falling back into a hole, but in their minds maybe they have succeeded because they have been heard as much as they want to. The insane may not necessarily want to be heard / healed, they may just want people to understand their predicament. One problem with the treatment of the insane becoming too humane is that people are assuming that the best way to interact with the insane is to treat them exactly like we treat sane humans. I'm not sure how to word that without coming off as really immoral.
DeleteWhen the insane speak, they are showing signs of becoming human. When they stay in silence, they appear to be animals. Older practices saw them as nothing more than mindless animals, and animals would keep quiet and not say anything to a higher authority figure. However, in an effort to try and cure the patients, they tried to start treating them as humans, by letting them do all the talking while they kept silent, or by keeping an open dialogue so both parties could speak. Open dialogue within yourself, as Knox said, is a risky idea. On one hand you may stumble across a good idea or a plan for yourself to help get yourself back on track, on the other hand you could stumbles yourself further into the depths of insanity because your messing with your head when you begin to work through your body by talking.
Delete#3
ReplyDeleteThe family plays a role in curing insanity. Foucault relates the family to the system of authority in the asylum. Therefore, the parent or father is the figure of authority in the asylum. This authority figure works to treat the insane and cure them. As for how the family plays a role in causing insanity, I am very confused. Perhaps the conflict between the father and child caused insanity...
In Tuke's asylum the authority figure has complete control in the asylum. This relates to the vision of the family; the father has control and is the authority figure. The two relate by comparing the insane to the child and the authority figure to the father.
Putting this in terms of Oedipus, then the father would represent power, sanity, and reason which would make sense if this is what stands in your way of sleeping with your mother. The father would be like the asylums and society. If the mother represents sexual desires and you are her child yet want to sleep with her then she would represent insanity and weakness. THe father would be trying to cure his child. But overbearing power and supression can lead to insanity. So could sleeping with your mother because that is messed up... Foucault is possibly saying that what we view as insane (mother) is actually not and that the father causes insanity by trying to stop the child from being themself.
DeleteThe asylum is similar to the modern family because in the asylum the doctors and nurses hold all of the power just as the father does in the family. However, I don't think I agree with the mother representing insanity in the modern family. Of course we all think our mothers are crazy at times, butt this confuses me. Then, you have the child that doesn't understand reason and is insane. Maybe the asylum is trying to be like the insane's parents and get them to grow up jsut as parents teach their kids reason as they grow up, but the insane are already grown up and are just being themselves which the asylum fails to recognize.
If the inherent desire to sleep with the mother is a trait found in all human being's subconscious, and this trait represents insanity, then insanity is found inherently in all human beings, it is just a matter of how well a person is able to suppress this desire. However, this suppression is also supported by the father, thus the sanity of a person is held up by their family members, or authority and sexual desires. Insanity is not controlled by the individual itself, but by the strength of the beings around him.
DeleteIt seems to me like the largest catalyst for mental instability is family problems. If you're putting it into the Oedipus sense, I have to agree with Chloe on some level that while sleeping with the mother is a subconscious sense, it also is something that makes us insane and we have to test ourselves to restrain this desire, mostly without us even knowing it. The harder we're straining to repress it, the more insane we're becoming. It can also be argued that another leading factor in familial insanity is the presence of the father stopping us from sleeping with mother. We struggle with the concept that it is wrong and build up rage toward the father for being in the way. In Tukes, the father is represented by the warden. Controlling every move of the son, who represents the insane. This system is terrible because for this exact reason, the patient will build up resistance against the warden like a son will with his father.
DeleteThe Oedipus Complex in and of itself is insane within the bounds of our objective society. The idea of sleeping with the mother and killing the father is not exactly an idea that our society accepts. As well, as Knox said the greatest way to screw up a persons mind is to give them family troubles. A shift in your family, the very people who made you what you are and when they are different it feels like a part of you is different. Tearing out the core of someones being can easily make them mentally unstable, as their previous conceptions of reality are now false. In terms of specific relationships within the asylum, the father obviously represents the authority and oppression of the asylum in keeping the insane contained. The motherly figure could very well be the idea of trying to rejoin society, but the asylum is keeping the insane from doing that.
DeleteI think that the father makes someone insane; for if one cannot overcome the authority of the father to have a healthy relationship with the mother, then the individual is handicapped in life by not belong able to have healthy relations with those around him. He will also remain under the authority of others after his father if he never has the chance to overcome it.
ReplyDeleteThis could explain how the insane end up in an asylum under the authority of those controlling the facility. Just as the father keeps the child insane, the authority keeps the insane in the state of mental illness to remain in power. It makes me wonder though about why they would do that; sure to make themselves feel more sane, why wouldn't they try to cure the insane and try to prove their sanity and ability to break insanity?
I wiki'd the Oedipus complex, and found that the theory includes that it could cause homosexuality, heterosexuality, and insanity.
DeleteWe see that homosexuality could be viewed as a type of insanity, so we know this idea could cause insanity.
If the boy is made to be unable to compete for the mother, then maybe the "insanity" of homosexuality could stem from this, due to his non-desire for the mother.
Many times, insanity is associated with sexuality, so I guess that could be where the idea of the mother comes in. Perhaps the mother is a symbol for the source of insanity: sex. I took the part about the father to mean that when a person in an asylum rebels, it is seen as an act against the family. This may be wrong, and he may actually mean that this is the cause of insanity. I'm a bit confused on his position regarding Freudian psychology, because Freud believed this was a characteristic of all humans, and was convinced of the inherent sexuality of everyone, even children. Maybe this has to do with the idea of the insane being treated as, or becoming, an overgrown child. Or maybe this is all a sort of expression of the desire to overcome authority, which dominates through family rhetoric and condescending treatment.
DeleteFoucault also discusses the isolation within a family unit, especially in a family with rigid bourgeois values. A rejection or rebellion against these values may also have something to do with the Oedipus complex leading to a person being treated as insane.
I agree with Ashley's idea that mothers can represent insanity and weakness and fathers represent authority in that insanity has a lot to do with contradiction. I am still unsure if insanity is a chosen separation from society, or if society is what separates certain people and therefore makes them insane, nor do I believe that there is one right answer or no overlap between these two theories, but either way, the insane are caught between the idea of conforming or rebelling against power structures within society. They are familiar with what is "right," because society has taught that things like sleeping with your mother are wrong, yet their desires still remain so that would represent rebellion in that sense. Further, the father, just like those in power within the asylum or society, are those imposing what is "right" or "wrong" on the insane, but in the end they seek to eliminate these authority figures because there is often a disconnect within the insane between what they know is "insane" and what they think is normal.
DeleteFamily is a huge influence on someone's life. The treatment you receive from your parents and relatives can permanently affect you. As Joanna said, rejection from a family can cause insanity. Rejection is the source of isolation, separation, and depression. The rejection of a person as insane or different can make them feel as if they indeed are insane. This is the same isolation that an insane person goes through at asylums. As for the relationship with the father, I can only connect back to one of our Kafka short stories, where the power and authority of the father over the son's life basically cause the son to become insane and "supposedly" commit suicide. The father's role may be to power over the son or daughter until the pressure breaks them; this can be compared to the power of the doctor and nurse in the asylum.
DeleteIn terms of the Oedipus Complex, the mother represents sexuality and the lack fo reason,while the father represents not so much authority, but the expectations of soceity. These expectations though will highly influence, if not dictate (and will therefore have some authority over the child and he or she lives his or her life), how the child acts. If the child goes with the father and what he represents, then he will be considered "sane" and part of the majority, but if the child goes with what the mother represents then he might have some confusion about his sexuality or anything having to do with it,and therefore be considered "insane" and a part of the minority.In the Tuke's asylum, the doctor had the same representation as the father, and the patient being considered"insane" wants to try to live up to the public opinion and is why he obeys at once.
DeleteI had the same interpretation as Holly, but instead of the father being society, i saw his views as personal expectations for the child. Everyone, even if they don't act like it, has a natural wanting to make their parents proud, and do what they are told. Going with the father would be living up to the expectation, while going with the mother would be going against it. So in this case, insanity would be choosing to go with the mother, and therefore not living up to personal expectations set by the father. This also brings up how insane people try to hide their insanity. Nobody wants to admit the guilt of not living up to their parents' expectations, so instead of admitting or succombing to the insanity, they do their best to hide it and go along with the father.
DeleteCaroline's idea of purposefully going against the expectations of the father and others in positions of power is interesting when applied to the struggle of the insane. In the Oedipal Complex, the father or authority figure can be killed metaphorically if one demonstrates that the father has no power over them. So by going against the authority figure's expectations, it is like destroying society's hold over the insane. The mother can be seen as the insane's own desire to be able to care for themselves. Can one half of the Oedipal Complex fulfill the other? If so, can the insane being able to care for themselves cause them to against society's expectations of them, and vice versa?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete