I think heÕs going to do a guest blog on my critical psychiatry blog, so IÕll let him speak for himself, Andrew!


Best wishes, Duncan




On 2 Apr 2020, at 03:06, Andrew Scull <ascull@ad.ucsd.edu> wrote:


Dear Duncan.


I was "quoting" by memory from Alan Howard's translation that appears as Madness and Civilization.  Like you, I'm constrained by the damned corona virus.


Yes, you may post my response on your blog if you'd like.  I don't know John's work, so will try to get a copy.  Difficult just at the moment, as you'll appreciate.  What sort of territory does it cover?


Best wishes,


From: Duncan Double <dbd10@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 3:04 PM
To: Andrew Scull <ascull@ad.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: The origins of psychiatry according to Scull and Foucault


PS. Are we talking about the same paragraph which in History of Madness is translated as:-

Since the late eighteenth century, the life of unreason has only manifested itself in the incendiary work of a small number of writers such as Hšlderlin, Nerval, Nietzsche and Artaud — works that could never be reduced to these alienations that cure, resisting, through their own strength, that gigantic moral imprisonment that became known, ironically perhaps, as Pinel and TukeÕs liberation of the mad.


I havenÕt got a copy of Madness and civilisation (and I cant go to a library because of coronavirus restrictions!)


By the way, John Iliopoulos has been in touch and is also interested in your article, in History of Psychiatry, yes. Do you know his work? Maybe IÕve been too influenced by it, although I think it certainly deserves more attention than it seems to have had. Perhaps you can do a review for History of Psychiatry?! I did suggest to German Berrios that he ought to commission a review some time ago, but he didnÕt seem interested in taking it up, I think because then heÕd got enough reviews to publish anyway.


Do let me know if you are happy for me to post your comment as a response on my blog.


Best wishes, Duncan



Sent from my iPad

On 1 Apr 2020, at 22:51, Duncan Double <dbd10@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

Thanks, Andrew. Do you mind if I post your email as a comment on my blog.


Best wishes, Duncan



On 1 Apr 2020, at 19:46, Andrew Scull <ascull@ad.ucsd.edu> wrote:


Dear Duncan,


I greatly appreciate your taking the time to forward this piece.  So far as your discussions of Tuke, Pinel, and Willis are concerned, there is not much with which I would disagree - I would add some complexity, but that wouldn't alter my fundamental agreement with what you have set out.  It does correspond pretty closely with what I have to say on the subject in The Most Solitary of Afflictions, and in Madness in Civilization.  Please note the full context of what Foucault has to say about T and P: "that gigantic moral imprisonment that, doubtless by antiphrasis, we call the 'liberation' of the insane by Pinel and Tuke."  Not, as I would have it, that we need to see moral treatment as Janus-faced, embracing a mixture of positive features and more intrusive controls, but "a gigantic moral imprisonment."


As for Foucault, my criticisms of his scholarship and its empirical foundations stand.  It is interesting that Uppsala rejected the thesis that became Folie et derision precisely because it was historically so weak, and I have pointed out how devoid of reference to 20th century scholarship the book is.  I am far from the only person to have commented on Foucault's status as a critic of the Enlightenment, and so far as I know, even true believers like Colin Gordon do not take issue with this characterization.  More generally, as I've said in the piece that is (I think) the one you are responding to, a point by point discussion of how I differ from Foucault strikes me as pointless now.  Those who want to compare our respective accounts of the territory should read his History of Madness alongside my Madness in Civilization.  The differences in scholarship and interpretation should then stand out in bold relief.  


For all that, and presuming you are responding to my forthcoming piece in History of Psychiatry (which is available on line), mine is not a complete rejection of everything Foucault has to say, or a denial of the important role his work played in the re-orientation of the history of psychiatry.  I merely think he got lots of things badly wrong, and the field has now moved on from the iconoclasm he represented.


Best wishes, and thank you for being in touch and taking these issues seriously!




From: Duncan Double <dbd10@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 1:47 AM
To: Andrew Scull <ascull@ad.ucsd.edu>
Subject: The origins of psychiatry according to Scull and Foucault


My comments on your piece on Foucault https://criticalpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-origins-of-psychiatry-according-to.html


Kind regards, Duncan