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

Foucault describes “madness” in the Enlightenment’s framework as a “discourse of delirium.” What does he mean by this, and why is this idea important to his overarching arguments?

Over 60 years have passed since the publication of Madness, during which time Western society’s attitudes toward mental health have shifted immensely. What issues might be addressed in a hypothetical 10th chapter of Madness that roughly covers the period between 1960 and 2020?

Madness is a study of how Western European societies have historically constructed concepts of “madness.” Compare and contrast the Western concepts of “madness” with similar concepts in other cultures. Do other cultures define “madness” similarly through the ages, or do they interpret the characteristics that Western culture considers “mad” differently?

Foucault is well-known for his impressionistic, elevated style of prose. How does this writing style contribute to the overall effectiveness of his arguments? Remark on your personal experience as a reader, using examples from the text in your response.

Compare Madness to another one of Foucault’s monographs, such as Discipline and Punish. Are there any shared themes between the two works? How are the ideas that Foucault was developing in Madness—such as power structures, spectatorship, and surveillance—expressed in his later work?

Foucault cites many pieces of literature that he claims reflect the societal understandings of “madness” of their time, such as Rameau’s Nephew by Diderot, King Lear and Macbeth by Shakespeare, and various works by the Marquis de Sade. Choose one such cited work and assess whether it supports Foucault’s arguments or not; do you agree with his interpretation?

Despite presenting an academic study of history, Foucault does not pretend to be an impartial narrator of events. Identify a moment in the text where Foucault makes his personal opinions clear; why do you think he chose to do that here? More generally, what are the benefits and costs of historians being open about their biases in this way?

Foucault publicly disavowed both positivism and structuralism, but in Madness he toys with ideas that could be interpreted as fitting into both of these categories. Is this contradiction reconcilable? If so, how? If not, what does it reveal about Foucault’s philosophy more broadly?