Foucault Vs Durkheim: A Comparison Between Deviation
In Of Madness Itself: Histoire de la Folie and the Object of Psychiatric History, Nikolas Rose provides an analysis of Histoire de la Folie by Michel Foucault. In Rose’s article, he poses the question, “What is specific to madness itself?” (1987, p. 142). Rather than having a specific definition or characterization of ‘madness,’ the term is in relation to the constitutions of society (Rose 1987, p. 143). The idea of ‘madness’ is reconstructed (Rose 1987, p. 144 and dealing with it is seen as a means of recognition and regulation in a given society (Rose 1987, p. 144).
Rose provides the interpretation that Foucault states the Histoire de la Folie is “a network of relays within which the vicissitudes of individual suffering …show more content…
146).” Foucault understands madness as being an example of a violation to social order (Rose 1987, p. 144).
The ‘mad’ that Foucault referred to in Histoire de la Folie were an umbrella term used to those deviating toward the social norms of the society (Rose 1987, p. 146). These included “the insane, the furious, the demented and the maniacal with the licentious, the blasphemer, the gambler,” and other individuals who were not considered to have met the social norms (Rose 1987, p. 144).
In Emilie Durkheim’s The Rules of Sociological Method, there is the same expectation to fulfill social order. Rather than utilizing an umbrella terminology such as Foucault’s ‘mad,’ Durkheim simply focuses on deviancy. If an individual does not meet the interests of the society (McIntosh 1997, p. 189), they deviate from the social ‘norms.’ If they deviate from the social order, they no longer conform to the society (McIntosh 1997, p.
In Of Madness Itself: Histoire de la Folie and the Object of Psychiatric History, Nikolas Rose provides an analysis of Histoire de la Folie by Michel Foucault. In Rose’s article, he poses the question, “What is specific to madness itself?” (1987, p. 142). Rather than having a specific definition or characterization of ‘madness,’ the term is in relation to the constitutions of society (Rose 1987, p. 143). The idea of ‘madness’ is reconstructed (Rose 1987, p. 144 and dealing with it is seen as a means of recognition and regulation in a given society (Rose 1987, p. 144).
Rose provides the interpretation that Foucault states the Histoire de la Folie is “a network of relays within which the vicissitudes of individual suffering …show more content…
146).” Foucault understands madness as being an example of a violation to social order (Rose 1987, p. 144).
The ‘mad’ that Foucault referred to in Histoire de la Folie were an umbrella term used to those deviating toward the social norms of the society (Rose 1987, p. 146). These included “the insane, the furious, the demented and the maniacal with the licentious, the blasphemer, the gambler,” and other individuals who were not considered to have met the social norms (Rose 1987, p. 144).
In Emilie Durkheim’s The Rules of Sociological Method, there is the same expectation to fulfill social order. Rather than utilizing an umbrella terminology such as Foucault’s ‘mad,’ Durkheim simply focuses on deviancy. If an individual does not meet the interests of the society (McIntosh 1997, p. 189), they deviate from the social ‘norms.’ If they deviate from the social order, they no longer conform to the society (McIntosh 1997, p.