Similar to other articles we have read, Roy Porter's article "Mental Illness," begins by defining the different meanings of "mental illness," then goes on about the history of mental illness in different cultures, next states some "Psychiatric" techniques, and ends in modern day medicine. I thought it was very interesting how the Greek defined madness not only through medical tradition, but also through rhetoric, art and theatre. Aretaeus had different versions of madness ranging from "the patient imagin[ing] he has taken another form than his own" to "manifestations of religious mania involving possession by a god" (Porter 242) The Medieval and Renaissance Ages looked at madness as "inherited from antiquity" (Porter 243). They also defined religious madness as a "diabolical contagion." WIthin the Madness in the Age of Reason, anatomists turned to the nervous system for answers to madness and replaced ideas of religious madness and witchcraft with symptoms of a mental sickness. In the fifteenth century, institutions began popping up in order to confine the insane. Within these institutions, patients were subject to gross brutality and these institutions "represented a degradation of the status of madness" (Porter 247). Due to critics, institutions halted the use of chains and other brutal "treatments" on the patients and began using "'moral therapy' which valued kindness, calm, and rationality" (Porter, 251). In the 19th century, Mental Institutions began being strictly regulated and acts were enforced, such as the Madhouse Act of 1774, to ensure that "all private madhouses [were] licensed by magistrates" (Porter, 253). Critics were very glad when psychiatrists began turning to medicine to help treat mental illnesses, but these medicines cannot cure these mentally ill patients. Porter closes by mentioning, after all the history of the disease, that people still don't agree on a common definition of mental illness.
I thought Porter did a nice job of covering all the different definitions of mental illness or madness as defined by all different cultures, doctors, and theorists. He also set up the article in a way in which everything flowed and concluded by mirroring the introduction in that after all that, we still don't have a simple definition of mental illness.
Porter's article, "Mental Illness" In my opinion it was interesting to read but I was disappointed at the end of Porter's conclusion. I though with all the specific background information that he wrote and broke down in about seven topics by the end of the article I was going to be satisfied with an answers. Reading the "Introduction" to the DSM IV-TR, I understand why Porter’s article did not have a definition to mental illness. As stated in the introduction, there is a problem with the term “mental” disorders and I agree that there really are more reasons why is it difficult to define the term then to have an answer. “The concept of mental disorder, like many other concepts in medicine and science, lacks a consistent operational definition that covers all situations” understanding that “all medical conditions are defined on various levels of abstraction” gives me the reason why Proter lays out his article with all the history about mental illness. Both readings wore very interesting, I am looking forward into hearing what others thoughts/conclusions are after reading these articles.
It was very interesting to see the changes in how madness was viewed by the public in Roy Porter's article, "Mental Illness." Porter first begins with the history of how madness was viewed starting with the Greek’s idea that insanity could be explained through physical means, thus deeming madness as a physical disease. After the history, he then goes on to show how madness started to become viewed in a negative light. During the “great confinement” period there was a switch in who took care of people who were mad. What typically consisted of the immediate family’s responsibility moved to the church’s responsibility then finally to an institution’s responsibility. It was interesting to learn that once mental illness was institutionalized it immediately became associated as a negative condition. This so-called “shutting up” of the mad spread like wildfire throughout Europe as mental illness became a necessity to segregate from the society. During this time institutions were lacking in any regulation laws and often inmates were faced living in brutal, prison like conditions. During the 1800s there was another switch towards not just securing mentally ill patients from the society, but to reform and treat the patients. With this came laws regulating conditions and treatment of the mentally ill changing the institution from a prison into a home. During this time mental institutions become much more of a selective process otherwise known as a last resort criteria. This proved to be a difficult task though because mental illness had many categories of various degrees. Once again institutions transitioned to the rise of the drug revolution. Porter concludes by stating his belief that psychiatry is a pseudoscience and therefore there is no such thing as mental illness (259). I was very interested in this reading and I thought it was very informative and easy to follow. I believe the author did a good job in showing the changes in madness and how much it has formed and changed throughout the years. The fact that he ended his paper stating his belief rather than the beginning only made his argument resonate even more in my mind. It was easy to see how the institution itself is corrupt and how mental illness seemed to rise from the core of it.
I liked how it was easy to follow the changes in how mad people have been seen over time as Ashley has described above. Mad people, people with some sort of "mental" disease, went from being treated like wild beasts needing to be confined and kept away from society to eventually medical patients. The view of the mental institution also changed from being a place of confinement to a place of rehabilitation and possibly as a place which creates the " illnesses of institutionalization" itself.
A claim author states to support the idea of the mental institution becoming more of a problem than a solution to mental illness is that at the end of the nineteenth century psychiatrists "warned that society was riddled with masses of hitherto unknown psychiatric disorders-which they, and they alone, could treat(254)." The warning that psychiatrists gave to society probably made people become more judgmental of those they saw behaving unlike themselves or the majority of people. In this way, the mental institution can be bad for both the mental patient and society.
Roy Porter's "Mental Illness" illustrates how madness and its definition and people's reaction to it have changed throughout history. It was very interesting to see how ancient Greek society treated mad or insane people.Starting from Greek history of madness to Contemporary madness, it was intriguing how people's attitude and institutions for mad people have developed differently but also with interrelatedness. In Renaissance era, people got an insight from Greek and it developed step by step as time went by. It was especially interesting to see how institutions treated mad people over time. In the far past, mad people were treated violently whereas in more modern times, they were treated with kindness and treatments. The conclusion of this article, however, came to me as a little bit shocking because he said that madness can't be still defined in one phrase. At first I was a little puzzled, but thinking about it, I couldn't agree more with his argument. Even though in today's society, technology and empirical studeis have been well developed, we can't categorize and define madness in a perfect term. As long as we don't experience being mad, we can't exactly figure out what being 'mentally ill' or 'mad' or 'insane' means. Therefore, I found this article pretty intersting.
I agree with Lindsay's comment on how Porter's structure of writing flows. I especially found it helpful that he restated his main argument at the end. I believe that that Porter's "Mental Illness" is informative and lets the reader survey the transformation of attitudes on "madness" in each time period. Also this chapter helps the reader analyze the triumphs and trials of Western psychiatric medicine. It's interesting how the number of patients rose as the population increased during industrialization. Society starts questioning the efficacy of the asylum and then a shift towards biomedical theories occurs (255). Questions like, "What is the role of psychiatric medicine? How has it been shaped and has it meet the needs of the sick?" can be used to access mental illness throughout history.
Similar to other articles we have read, Roy Porter's article "Mental Illness," begins by defining the different meanings of "mental illness," then goes on about the history of mental illness in different cultures, next states some "Psychiatric" techniques, and ends in modern day medicine. I thought it was very interesting how the Greek defined madness not only through medical tradition, but also through rhetoric, art and theatre. Aretaeus had different versions of madness ranging from "the patient imagin[ing] he has taken another form than his own" to "manifestations of religious mania involving possession by a god" (Porter 242) The Medieval and Renaissance Ages looked at madness as "inherited from antiquity" (Porter 243). They also defined religious madness as a "diabolical contagion." WIthin the Madness in the Age of Reason, anatomists turned to the nervous system for answers to madness and replaced ideas of religious madness and witchcraft with symptoms of a mental sickness. In the fifteenth century, institutions began popping up in order to confine the insane. Within these institutions, patients were subject to gross brutality and these institutions "represented a degradation of the status of madness" (Porter 247). Due to critics, institutions halted the use of chains and other brutal "treatments" on the patients and began using "'moral therapy' which valued kindness, calm, and rationality" (Porter, 251). In the 19th century, Mental Institutions began being strictly regulated and acts were enforced, such as the Madhouse Act of 1774, to ensure that "all private madhouses [were] licensed by magistrates" (Porter, 253). Critics were very glad when psychiatrists began turning to medicine to help treat mental illnesses, but these medicines cannot cure these mentally ill patients. Porter closes by mentioning, after all the history of the disease, that people still don't agree on a common definition of mental illness.
ReplyDeleteI thought Porter did a nice job of covering all the different definitions of mental illness or madness as defined by all different cultures, doctors, and theorists. He also set up the article in a way in which everything flowed and concluded by mirroring the introduction in that after all that, we still don't have a simple definition of mental illness.
Porter's article, "Mental Illness" In my opinion it was interesting to read but I was disappointed at the end of Porter's conclusion. I though with all the specific background information that he wrote and broke down in about seven topics by the end of the article I was going to be satisfied with an answers.
ReplyDeleteReading the "Introduction" to the DSM IV-TR, I understand why Porter’s article did not have a definition to mental illness. As stated in the introduction, there is a problem with the term “mental” disorders and I agree that there really are more reasons why is it difficult to define the term then to have an answer. “The concept of mental disorder, like many other concepts in medicine and science, lacks a consistent operational definition that covers all situations” understanding that “all medical conditions are defined on various levels of abstraction” gives me the reason why Proter lays out his article with all the history about mental illness.
Both readings wore very interesting, I am looking forward into hearing what others thoughts/conclusions are after reading these articles.
It was very interesting to see the changes in how madness was viewed by the public in Roy Porter's article, "Mental Illness." Porter first begins with the history of how madness was viewed starting with the Greek’s idea that insanity could be explained through physical means, thus deeming madness as a physical disease. After the history, he then goes on to show how madness started to become viewed in a negative light. During the “great confinement” period there was a switch in who took care of people who were mad. What typically consisted of the immediate family’s responsibility moved to the church’s responsibility then finally to an institution’s responsibility. It was interesting to learn that once mental illness was institutionalized it immediately became associated as a negative condition. This so-called “shutting up” of the mad spread like wildfire throughout Europe as mental illness became a necessity to segregate from the society. During this time institutions were lacking in any regulation laws and often inmates were faced living in brutal, prison like conditions. During the 1800s there was another switch towards not just securing mentally ill patients from the society, but to reform and treat the patients. With this came laws regulating conditions and treatment of the mentally ill changing the institution from a prison into a home. During this time mental institutions become much more of a selective process otherwise known as a last resort criteria. This proved to be a difficult task though because mental illness had many categories of various degrees. Once again institutions transitioned to the rise of the drug revolution. Porter concludes by stating his belief that psychiatry is a pseudoscience and therefore there is no such thing as mental illness (259). I was very interested in this reading and I thought it was very informative and easy to follow. I believe the author did a good job in showing the changes in madness and how much it has formed and changed throughout the years. The fact that he ended his paper stating his belief rather than the beginning only made his argument resonate even more in my mind. It was easy to see how the institution itself is corrupt and how mental illness seemed to rise from the core of it.
ReplyDeleteI liked how it was easy to follow the changes in how mad people have been seen over time as Ashley has described above. Mad people, people with some sort of "mental" disease, went from being treated like wild beasts needing to be confined and kept away from society to eventually medical patients. The view of the mental institution also changed from being a place of confinement to a place of rehabilitation and possibly as a place which creates the " illnesses of institutionalization" itself.
DeleteA claim author states to support the idea of the mental institution becoming more of a problem than a solution to mental illness is that at the end of the nineteenth century psychiatrists "warned that society was riddled with masses of hitherto unknown psychiatric disorders-which they, and they alone, could treat(254)." The warning that psychiatrists gave to society probably made people become more judgmental of those they saw behaving unlike themselves or the majority of people. In this way, the mental institution can be bad for both the mental patient and society.
Roy Porter's "Mental Illness" illustrates how madness and its definition and people's reaction to it have changed throughout history. It was very interesting to see how ancient Greek society treated mad or insane people.Starting from Greek history of madness to Contemporary madness, it was intriguing how people's attitude and institutions for mad people have developed differently but also with interrelatedness. In Renaissance era, people got an insight from Greek and it developed step by step as time went by. It was especially interesting to see how institutions treated mad people over time. In the far past, mad people were treated violently whereas in more modern times, they were treated with kindness and treatments. The conclusion of this article, however, came to me as a little bit shocking because he said that madness can't be still defined in one phrase. At first I was a little puzzled, but thinking about it, I couldn't agree more with his argument. Even though in today's society, technology and empirical studeis have been well developed, we can't categorize and define madness in a perfect term. As long as we don't experience being mad, we can't exactly figure out what being 'mentally ill' or 'mad' or 'insane' means. Therefore, I found this article pretty intersting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lindsay's comment on how Porter's structure of writing flows. I especially found it helpful that he restated his main argument at the end. I believe that that Porter's "Mental Illness" is informative and lets the reader survey the transformation of attitudes on "madness" in each time period. Also this chapter helps the reader analyze the triumphs and trials of Western psychiatric medicine. It's interesting how the number of patients rose as the population increased during industrialization. Society starts questioning the efficacy of the asylum and then a shift towards biomedical theories occurs (255). Questions like, "What is the role of psychiatric medicine? How has it been shaped and has it meet the needs of the sick?" can be used to access mental illness throughout history.
ReplyDelete