Dr. Vasey’s lecture this afternoon, which approached madness from an existential standpoint, was an interesting and insightful finale to this semester’s lecture series on madness. Within his presentation, he addressed a number of topics we we’ve addressed ourselves in Dis/Lit this semester. Most notably, in my opinion, was his discussion of the medical view of disability (and mental illness, in particular).
In his lecture, Dr. Vasey repeatedly addressed the supposed “myth of mental illness.” In discussing this, he clearly made the argument that the linguistic term “illness” is a metaphor in this phrase, and that madness of any kind is not a literal disease or sickness. His primary point when discussing this was the concept of a potential cure, or lack thereof, for these “illnesses.” In his opinion, mental illnesses or disturbances (what he considered “madness”) are an inherent part of the individual, and cannot simply “go away.” This distinction was, according to him, the reason madness cannot be considered an illness. According to his definitions, an illness is something which can be treated and cured, and which will then leave the afflicted individual. Contrastingly, mental illness is a permanent part of an individual’s identity and existence. While symptoms of a mental illness can be treated and sometimes cured to potentially alleviate someone’s suffering, he argued this afternoon that the supposed madness itself is an inherent part of the individual.
I found this critical discussion of prescriptive, pathological approaches to madness to be very similar to some of the points we’ve made in class discussions ourselves. The controversial nature of such medical approaches to mental illness are applicable to all kinds of disability. As we’ve discussed, approaching disability with the intention of “curing” disabled individuals is a potentially problematic stance to take on this issue. While the suffering related to some individuals’ disabilities should not be invalidated, an oversimplified approach to “curing” disability perpetuates notions that it is inherently a weakness, problem, or burden. In this way, Dr. Vasey’s argument resonated with me, and I felt it connected strongly to our class discussions.
Overall, this lecture was a very unique presentation of madness, and I felt that it was an excellent piece to conclude this semester’s series with. By discussing incredibly broad, philosophical notions of disability and mental illness, Dr. Vasey made us critically examine our very understandings of what madness is. Additionally, however, he made connections to historical and contemporary applications of these ideas. This thought-provoking lecture was also an excellent bridge between the discussions of madness and our class discussions of disability, making it an enlightening experience all around.
