Specifically ridiculous or ridiculous in general to think that someone
writing something might have an effect on something?
The materialist reductionism below won't work. People have 'ideal' interests
as Weber and others point out; medical health practitioners could only
pursue their institutionalizing efforts if they were accompanied by the
conviction that they were actually helping people.
The criticism of the practice of mental health institutions -- yes,
including the criticism sparked in elite circles by investigative reporters
and authors like Foucault -- played a very important role in their
delegitimation and abandonment.
One way to think of this is in terms if Brinton's point in _Anatomy of
Revolution_ (one also made by Lenin) that one of the conditions for the
emergence "revolutionary conditions" is the loss of self-confidence within
the ruling class itself.
--John Ransom
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Spoon Collective <spoons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
A: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Data: Sunday, September 13, 1998 3:15 PM
Oggetto: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market (fwd)
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:23:07 -0500
>From: TOM DILLINGHAM <tomdill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market
>
>The suggestion that Foucault influenced the deinstitutionalizing of
>mental "patients" is ridiculous. The development of drug treatments
>(specifically Thorazine in 1952, as was discussed recently on one of
>the news magazines) was the primary force driving that policy; second
>but not necessarily less important was the wish of officials to save
>public monies by emptying the asylums and reducing food and staff
>expenses. The impact of _Madness and Civilization_ was certainly
>significant in intellectual circles, but hardly a puff in the
>direction of public policy.
>Tom Dillingham
>
writing something might have an effect on something?
The materialist reductionism below won't work. People have 'ideal' interests
as Weber and others point out; medical health practitioners could only
pursue their institutionalizing efforts if they were accompanied by the
conviction that they were actually helping people.
The criticism of the practice of mental health institutions -- yes,
including the criticism sparked in elite circles by investigative reporters
and authors like Foucault -- played a very important role in their
delegitimation and abandonment.
One way to think of this is in terms if Brinton's point in _Anatomy of
Revolution_ (one also made by Lenin) that one of the conditions for the
emergence "revolutionary conditions" is the loss of self-confidence within
the ruling class itself.
--John Ransom
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Spoon Collective <spoons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
A: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Data: Sunday, September 13, 1998 3:15 PM
Oggetto: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market (fwd)
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:23:07 -0500
>From: TOM DILLINGHAM <tomdill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market
>
>The suggestion that Foucault influenced the deinstitutionalizing of
>mental "patients" is ridiculous. The development of drug treatments
>(specifically Thorazine in 1952, as was discussed recently on one of
>the news magazines) was the primary force driving that policy; second
>but not necessarily less important was the wish of officials to save
>public monies by emptying the asylums and reducing food and staff
>expenses. The impact of _Madness and Civilization_ was certainly
>significant in intellectual circles, but hardly a puff in the
>direction of public policy.
>Tom Dillingham
>