Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason

The first English translation of Madness and Civilization appeared in 1965, four years after its original publication. Previously, Madness had gained traction almost exclusively in France, where Foucault was widely recognized. Initial English-language reviews praised the work’s theory and methodology. A 1970 review lauds Foucault’s formulations as revolutionary ideas that “may well transcend [their] intrinsic merits and information” (Rousseau, G.S., “Review: Madness and Civilization” in 18th-Century Studies, 1970, p. 4). Foucault was experimenting with approaches to history and philosophy that felt simultaneously novel and rigorous. Criticisms of the book were framed as asides within overwhelmingly positive reviews.

By the 1980s, however, scholars were presenting more reserved interpretations of the book and its merits. José Guilherme Merquior’s landmark 1985 biography of Foucault, published one year after the philosopher’s death, highlights some of the book’s critical flaws. In particular, Merquior highlights the historical inaccuracies of Foucault’s portrayal of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

During these periods, “madness” was regarded in a far less benevolent light than suggested by Foucault (J.G. Merquior, Foucault, 1991, p. 28). There is ample evidence of cruelty toward and confinement in cells, jails, or even cages of people perceived as “mad” or “insane.” Also, madness during these times was frequently connected with sin—a moral failing or divine punishment rather than a medical condition in need of treatment.

Foucault’s selective use of historical data became a concern to historians, who specialized in fields that Foucault misrepresented for the purposes of supporting his arguments. As an intellectual historian, Foucault specialized in the 17th and 18th centuries, and his analysis of the Enlightenment was regarded as well-researched and insightful. But he made sweeping assertions about the Middle Ages and Renaissance, which were not his areas of expertise.

Now, more than 50 years after its first translation into English, Madness and Civilization has become a canonical work of intellectual history. Academics assess the book both on its own merits and in terms of how it fits into the larger philosophical context of the 20th century. In 2006, a new translation of Madness was released in English for what would have been Foucault’s 80th birthday. In addition to the recognizing the core validity of the argument despite its faults, one reviewer noted that Foucault anticipated historians’ contemporary view of “multiple, conflicted enlightenments” instead of considering the Enlightenment as operating on one cohesive set of beliefs, as most 20th-century scholarship did (Gordon, Colin. “Review: History of Madness,” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2007). This approach to the book—as making multiple contributions to Western intellectual history—bridges the gap between the common criticisms and compliments aimed at Madness; it recognizes Foucault’s ambitious lines of inquiry without treating his historical arguments as unimpeachable or invalid.