There were several stages in the process of deinstitutionalizing
"mental patients" in the U.S. (I don't claim to know anything about
the process in Britain or elsewhere.) The first steps involved,
as I said earlier, enthusiasm for drug treatments that abated or
suspended the symptoms of schizophrenia and other disorders.
The wish to economize was a constant political theme and remained
an undercurrent throughout the 60's and 70's. I would suspect that
if any intellectual/artistic work had an impact on the movement to
deinstitutionalize in the U.S., it was the film _Titicut Follies_
which was far more widely "known" than seen because of a successful
lawsuit in Massachusetts that disgracefully suppressed it for many
years on entirely specious grounds. But I distinctly remember the
third stage of the development, which was the civil liberties-based
campaign to "free" mental patients from involuntary incarceration.
This was successful in the courts but probably as much because the
budgetary arguments could be supplemented with the evidence that
drug treatment could "control" symptoms and both could be added to the
constitutional arguments supporting the rights of the patient/prisoners.
It is not necessary to argue that Foucault's writings had no influence, and
I am certainly not suggesting that his or other writers' influences are
always or even sometimes negligible. But the record is clear that the
movement to deinstitutionalize began before Foucault's publication and
was bolstered by arguments and political forces that had nothing to do
with his writings. This is not to say that his writings are irrelevant
to the issue--only that arguments about causation are not very useful.
Tom Dillingham
"mental patients" in the U.S. (I don't claim to know anything about
the process in Britain or elsewhere.) The first steps involved,
as I said earlier, enthusiasm for drug treatments that abated or
suspended the symptoms of schizophrenia and other disorders.
The wish to economize was a constant political theme and remained
an undercurrent throughout the 60's and 70's. I would suspect that
if any intellectual/artistic work had an impact on the movement to
deinstitutionalize in the U.S., it was the film _Titicut Follies_
which was far more widely "known" than seen because of a successful
lawsuit in Massachusetts that disgracefully suppressed it for many
years on entirely specious grounds. But I distinctly remember the
third stage of the development, which was the civil liberties-based
campaign to "free" mental patients from involuntary incarceration.
This was successful in the courts but probably as much because the
budgetary arguments could be supplemented with the evidence that
drug treatment could "control" symptoms and both could be added to the
constitutional arguments supporting the rights of the patient/prisoners.
It is not necessary to argue that Foucault's writings had no influence, and
I am certainly not suggesting that his or other writers' influences are
always or even sometimes negligible. But the record is clear that the
movement to deinstitutionalize began before Foucault's publication and
was bolstered by arguments and political forces that had nothing to do
with his writings. This is not to say that his writings are irrelevant
to the issue--only that arguments about causation are not very useful.
Tom Dillingham