Skip to main content

(In)Sanity: Staring starkly at attempts to define Madness (by Aaina Singh)


As I was scrolling through the material put up by Professor Ghosh for this remedial blog post, I stumbled upon a documentary titled “To define Madness”. Intrigued by its name, I decided to watch it. As soon as I hit play the screen came alive with a flurry of people, clearly patients of some mental disorder, talking about themselves.

In no particular order images flashed on the screen. One woman stared grimly at me through the lens and said "I will leave, you know. I won't be staying." Another woman laughed in a way that seemed almost demonic, frightening me to the extent that a shiver ran down my spine. 50 seconds into the documentary and I already found myself feeling both intrigued and frightened by the idea of madness, wondering what it truly means to be mad.

The documentary traced the history of abnormality, passing through all of its milestones ranging from attributions to supernatural powers, to the present day scientific study of it. What intrigued me however, was the questions it raised and the fact that in attempting define to true madness, it taught me that perhaps we will never be able to truly define it.

Halfway through the documentary, I paused the video take a moment to think about all the ideas that pop into my mind when I think of madness. Images much like those I had seen at the beginning of the documentary popped up. People who were hearing voices, seeing things, doing strange things with or to their bodies, making weird or unintelligible noises. Essentially people who were indulging in behaviour that seemed objectionable, frightening, and troublesome were all mad. Yet if they were all picked up and placed in a context that made their behaviour rational or understandable for others, suddenly they didn’t seem mad anymore, thus making the task of defining madness almost impossible and highly context dependent.

What struck me as interesting, however, was that even though we cannot define madness, we all seem to understand each other when we use the term mad. Even in exotic and foreign cultures, madness seems to be recognised in terms that are quite familiar. For instance, the documentary showed a witchdoctor in some tribal region attempting to smell out (literally) the disease of a boy who had become desperately ill. His mother couldn’t understand what the illness was but claimed that her boy had become dreamy, idle, withdrawn, and dirty. She added that sometimes he would hear voices when nobody spoke. Clearly these were symptoms that we would all classify as signals of abnormality.

The documentary made a point that I had not realised before. A person who was classified as mad never seemed to think of him/herself as mad. It was always others who called attention to the deviant behaviour and/or traits. A person seemed to be considered mad only when others could not understand and explain the causes for his/her behaviour. Therefore madness or abnormality in itself was a socially constructed phenomenon, to the extent that at one point it was seen as no more than a manipulative label.

This suggested that not only were there stigmas attached to the idea of abnormality or madness, madness itself could be a result of repeatedly being stigmatised. A clip from the documentary really brought this point home. A woman was asked what the voices in her head said to her, to which she replied “Voices tell me I’ve been doing bad. I’m a bad girl.” The voices in her head sounded dangerously similar to the voices in society who constantly told (and continue to tell) people who have problematic behaviours, or behaviours that are away from normal that they are mad.

It is important to point out here that I am not suggesting that all behaviours that are considered abnormal are socially caused. There are several biological factors as well and it is indeed still important to treat mental disorders as they can be dangerous for both, the people who have them as well as society at large. However, I am suggesting that the very idea of madness is socially constructed and we must keep that in mind when having a discourse about any form of abnormality so that we treat people with mental disorders as precisely that - people with mental disorders, rather than being fearful of them or shunning them as mad people.

The main take-away that I had from this documentary was that even though we have come a long way from attributing the cause of mental illness to witches, there is one thing that hasn’t changed much. We still seem to be unable to divorce the mental illness from the image we have of the person. In talking about schizophrenia or depression as illnesses to be treated, and looking at people as patients or clients to whom services need to be provided, we stop seeing them as people.

As students studying clinical psychology, I think it is important that even as we go through this course, we keep in mind that what we are studying aren’t just disorders or problems to be understood and cured. These are all aspects of people’s lives that they are grappling with. They are all very real phenomena that impact people all around us. Yet they are just aspects of their lives, not who they are. We need to find a way to strike the balance between reading about abnormality as a subject in our classes and remembering that these are not just subjects for the people who have them, they are lived experiences of fellow humans.

References





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Analysing “Anniyan”: Dissociative Identity Disorder meets Personality Disorders

Pranaya Prakash In the movie “Anniyan” (Shankar, 2005), the protagonist Ramanujam Iyengar, also known as Ambi, is the host of his alters: Remo and Anniyan. While the focus of the movie is only on Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), also known as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), the host, Ambi, and the alter, Anniyan, show symptoms of Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) and Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), respectively. In this blog post, I attempt to critically analyse the portrayal of DID and the possibility of the protagonist having comorbid Personality Disorders. While it is highly unlikely for individuals with DID to have comorbidities with Personality Disorders ( Antisocial Personality Disorder ), especially with OCPD and ASPD (Fink, 1991), it is interesting to think of the possibility and analyse the developmental trajectory of these individuals.  The movie starts with the character development of Ambi, a lawyer who is meticulous and very particular ...

Hardin's trauma

“After”, is a 2019 teen romantic drama directed by jenny gage that revolves around the love of  Tessa, an inexperienced teenage girl, with Hardin, a mysterious ‘bad boy’ . Hardin, the main male character, never had a secure relationship with his father. When Hardin was young, his father used to be an alcoholic with a lot of debt. When he was just eight years old, intruders broke into his home looking for his father for money, however, there was only Hardin and his mother. The intruders forced themselves on Hardin’s mother, and Hardin, who was sleeping then, came downstairs to see what was wrong. To Hardin’s shock, his mother was being raped by three men, one by one. Hardin’s mother told him to leave, however, one man forced him to watch everything.  I would assume that Hardin has PTSD as a result of this incident, and in this paper I will try to prove it. Symptoms of PTSD and scenes that prove Hardin had it: The person subsequently re-experiences the event through both intrusi...

Is Patrick Jane a psychopath?

Under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), Psychopathy was never recognized, until the revised DSM-5 categorized it under Anti-Social Personality Disorder. “He will choose you, disarm you with his words, and control you with his presence” (Hare)  Psychopaths can replicate the behavior which the person they are interacting with thinks they want from them, without feeling a thing, which contributes greatly to their ability to manipulate. Psychopaths charm and lie their way seamlessly to the top, and while they lack empathy, they are well-liked because they know what to say and when to say it. Psychopaths occupy most of the positions of power in our society and corporations and thus often end up being glorified. This glorification of psychopaths is most evident in the portrayal of psychopathy in TV shows. Some of the most notable characters which the screen has ever seen, like Marlo Stanfield from ‘The Wire’, James Moriarty from ‘Sherlock’, Hanni...