Madness as An Individual Attribute Or A Process Of Social Construction

Madness as An Individual Attribute Or A Process Of Social Construction

Madness is a largely contentious issue for a variety of reasons,

comprising of operational discrepancies and its implications for wider

society. In a very rudimentary sense madness implies a state of

insanity beyond the control or will of the person considered to be

mad. This however presupposes the existence of madness as tangible or

concrete phenomena and dismisses the possibility that 'madness' may

simply be the product or expression of alternate truths or different

expressions of reality. In other words one may question whether the

behaviour of the individual is abnormal enough to be located outside

the realm of normal human functioning and whether the reason behind

this is truly 'madness'? These questions are ultimately philosophical

and ultimately unanswerable. But asking such questions does not

entirely unrewarding, since it is our societal understand which

informs our treatment of the mad. Principal to this essay is an

understanding of social representations of madness, which comprise of

notions what is assumed to be normal within a society, wherein lies

the danger of relegating the experiences of the mentally ill as

abnormal and something to be rejected. Subsequently, in order to

establish whether madness is an individual attribute or social

construction, it is important to try to analyse the various

differences in representations/ allocations of madness across time and

across different perspectives. This essay will provide an insight into

the problematic nature of madness, by assessing the contribution of

psychiatrists and psychologists, against the criti...

... middle of paper ...

... argue can become

more or less pronounced depending wider society's representation of

madness. Critiques of mental healthcare, such s that of Foucalt, are

specific to time and perhaps slightly outdated. The fact is that

mental health practioners actually hold more positive representations

of the mentally ill and it is they who are entering into the dialogue

Foucault argued for. Additionally, it is the mental health practioners

who appear to be deconstructing the traditional confines pf what

constitutes and what 'ought' to constitute 'normal' behaviour.

Undoubtedly, there is a greater level of understanding to be reached

in this area, and for the most part it is the lay representations of

the mentally ill, that prevent these individuals from becoming the

valid and recognized members of a society that they deserve to be.