PDA

View Full Version : What is "Sanity"? Why Accept Our Definition of it?



Phil75231
01-10-2012, 09:37 PM
Is the definition of sanity arbitrary or independent of societal opinions of what a person ought to be?

For example, if everyone alive barring you thought they had the spirit of the Archangel Gabriel within them, what right would you have to call yourself sane and others insane? The Soviets declared 'anti-Socialist' behavior a mental disorder. What gives us the right to condemn the USSR for such practices? What's the difference between the Soviet practice and our usual practice of considering someone possessed of Gabriel insane?

Also, is having any mental disorder enough to keep you from having sound mind and will"? Also, what constitutes a sound mind and will, and what criteria do you use to determine it?"

The wikipedia entry, IMO, is a fairly good starting point. Basically it says that the scientific method can shed light of what is meant by sanity independent of societal perceptions


From Sanity (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanity) (wikipedia entry)
A theory of sanity was proposed by Alfred Korzybski in his general semantics. He believed that sanity was tied to the structural fit or lack of it between our reactions to the world and what is actually going on in the world. He expressed this notion in a map-territory analogy: "A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a "similar structure" to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness."[1] Given that science continually seeks to adjust its theories structurally to fit the facts, i.e., adjusts its maps to fit the territory, and thus advances more rapidly than any other field, he believed that the key to understanding sanity would be found in the study of the methods of science (and the study of structure as revealed by science). The adoption of a scientific outlook and attitude of continual adjustment by the individual toward his or her assumptions was the way, so he claimed. In other words, there were "factors of sanity to be found in the physico-mathematical methods of science."

Psychiatrist Philip S. Graven suggested the term "un-sane" to describe a condition that is not exactly insane, but not quite sane either.[2]

In The Sane Society, published in 1955, psychologist Erich Fromm proposed that, not just individuals, but entire societies "may be lacking in sanity". Fromm argued that one of the most deceptive features of social life involves "consensual validation."[3]:

“ It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas or feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing is further from the truth... Just as there is a folie à deux there is a folie à millions. The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane.[4]

Aemma
01-11-2012, 04:24 AM
And then there is Foucault :)


Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genre History (299 pp.)

Keywords Communication, Cross-Cultural Issues, Doctor-Patient Relationship, Freedom, History of Medicine, History of Science, Hospitalization, Hysteria, Institutionalization, Law and Medicine, Literary Theory, Medical Advances, Mental Illness, Poverty, Power Relations, Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Public Health, Society


Summary

A severe synopsis of Foucault's first major work might show how Foucault charts the journey of the mad from liberty and discourse to confinement and silence and how this is signposted by the exercise of power. He starts in the epoch when madness was an "undifferentiated experience" (ix), a time when the mad roamed the countryside in "an easy wandering existence" (8); Foucault shows the historical and cultural developments that lead to "that other form of madness, by which men, in an act of sovereign reason, confine their neighbors" (ix), challenging the optimism of William Tuke and Phillipe Pinel's "liberation" of the mad and problematizing the genesis of psychiatry, a "monologue of reason about madness" (xi).

Central to this is the notion of confinement as a meaningful exercise. Foucault's history explains how the mad came first to be confined; how they became identified as confined due to moral and economic factors that determined those who ought to be confined; how they became perceived as dangerous through their confinement, partly by way of atavistic identification with the lepers whose place they had come to occupy; how they were "liberated" by Pinel and Tuke, but in their liberation remained confined, both physically in asylums and in the designation of being mad; and how this confinement subsequently became enacted in the figure of the psychiatrist, whose practice is "a certain moral tactic contemporary with the end of the eighteenth century, preserved in the rites of the asylum life, and overlaid by the myths of positivism." Science and medicine, notably, come in at the later stages, as practices "elaborated once this division" between the mad and the sane has been made (ix).

Commentary

This history is one of Foucault's most fascinating explorations of the relationship between knowledge and power. It would be simplistic to say that an exercise of power is then justified by a body of knowledge which forgets how it is related to that exercise of power, but that is one message that can be derived from Foucault's project here: the role of discourses, imaginary figures, political and economic developments, all play a role in organizing the relationships between people, power, and knowledge.

Says Foucault: "the essential thing is that the enterprise did not proceed from observation to the construction of explanatory images; that on the contrary, the images assured the initial role of synthesis, that their organizing force made possible a structure of perception, in which at last the symptoms could attain their significant value and be organized as the visible presence of truth" (135). This could be a criticism of psychiatry, of science, or of Foucault's project itself.

The book provides a deeply challenging portrait of madness and, Foucault argues, the loss of madness as a voice in dialogue with reason: although many psychologists, psychiatrists and psychoanalysts may argue that the analyst's couch (or chair, etc) has allowed this voice to return, they might want to consider Foucault's provocative arguments to the contrary, that the Freudian development of therapeutic listening was, though a return of sorts to listening to madness, nevertheless undertaken under such circumstances and in such a relationship that it "can unravel some of the forms of madness [but] it remains a stranger to the sovereign enterprise of unreason. It can neither liberate nor transcribe, nor most certainly explain, what is essential in this enterprise" (278).

As he will do in Birth of the Clinic, Foucault watches men describe other men and women, and sees how their observations begin to take a shape recognizable to us today: but this is not "because in the course of centuries we have learned 'to open our eyes' to real symptoms; it is not because we have purified our perception to the point of transparency: it is because in the experience of madness, these concepts were organized around certain qualitative themes that lent them their unity, gave them their significant coherence, made them finally perceptible" (130). This is a challenging book for psychologists, psychiatrists, and other physicians, and is a gauntlet thrown that few have chosen to take up.

Publisher Random House
Edition 1988 (Vintage)
Place Published New York
Miscellaneous First Published in the United States by Pantheon Books in 1965, and in France as Histoire de la Folie in 1961 by Librarie Plon

GeistFaust
01-11-2012, 05:03 AM
I think this is a very complex question, and of course this will result in a multitude of interpretations and perceptions. I think a lot of the feelings regarding sanity and the standard definition is something which is dynamic relative to a certain given culture or group of individuals. That said I think it can be in a sense objectively defined to some extent or another. A lot of this objectivity resides on a situational basis.



But I think that sanity is usually defined within the confines of society with which is capable of conforming to a certain norm. That norm can apply to the education process, career work, or other venues of society. A lot of these normative evaluations of sanity will be judged on an arbitrary basis, which appears to have reached a certain level of objectivity through experimentation and practice.



This is to say that the validity of the term sometimes resides in good which it produces in experimentation and practice in accordance with the individuals developing the norm for sanity, and the good of society as a whole. At the same time the network of people who these standards or norms are applied to "construct" or "build" there own standard or norm. They do this within the framework of the institutions and organizations in which they are being evaluated in accordance with a certain standard or norm.



I think these standard or norm which these people develop within the context of the institutions and organizations in society deviates from the standard or norm. This is there is a subconscious transvaluation which the masses possess when it comes to determining that which is sane or insane within the context of society in totality. This is all in the face of the standards and norms of society which "shape" and "mold" the masses perception of sanity or insanity to some extent or another.



There is always a friction in place within the context of these standards and norms, and always an inherent need to re-define these standards and norms in accordance with the average set of actions and behaviors which the mass engage in. In a sense the evolution of a the standard and norm of sanity and insanity is derived on the basis of the "desires" of certain groups in society in reaction to the "desires" of other groups in society.



I think that the repressive nature of civilization and society in total to "channel" the energy or subconscious psyche of these group towards an end which conforms with the individual self-interest of certain persons or groups. In large part the standard and norm of society is affected by the "desires" of each given individual or group in accordance with a certain overarching determinant standard or norm of sanity or insanity.




I think the error or glitch in defining sanity or insanity adequately is not so much to do with the arbitrary definition of it. It has to do with the objective nature of it, which is manipulated by our sensations and other subjective forms of evaluating our reality as we come face to face with it. This leaves us with a dilemna of sorts, which there seems to be no way out of.




It seems we are left to leave the individual with the only option to define that which is insane or sane, and this would not be an appropriate way to measure a standard definition objectively. This would leave it open for possibly or potentially insane people to define, that which they can not grasp conceptually in any meaningful way.



We could let the masses define the standard or norm of sanity or insanity within the paramters of the codes of society and culture. Although this seems to result in possible error, because everyone just simply reacts to each other, and thus the standard definition of sanity or insanity is defined on the basis of what others do. I think in a large part this is the way the human mind and brain works though.



If you look at young children for instance a lot of them will follow the behaviors and habits of the parents. They will not question the sanity or insanity of their action or the possible consequences, but will have their standard definition of sanity or insanity defined on the basis of their subjective impression of the behaviors and actions of those around them.



If you look at geniuses for instance they could be as insane or outside the norm of those who conform to parameters of the codes of society in a "normal" manner. They could be viewed as insane for some of the ways they think or the material they espouse. This is the problem with defining a true and authentic standard or limit for what defines sanity or insanity.



It seems that if we come this or that perspective we will continously get a one sided conclusion which only opens itself to possible error and fallacious results. I think though I can make one conclusion from this, and that is sanity or insanity have no definition or meaning to us in a theoretical or practical sense, unless we given them an arbitrary reason for being so.


This is because other then this we are depending on the subjective nature of our sensations and sensibilities to define the definition of sanity and insanity. The thing is though an arbitrary definition can not be accepted by the masses without that individual or groups of individuals possessing some form of credibility in the eyes of the public.



This means that certain individuals have to pass through the evaluation of certain standards and norms as it applies to them in order to reach a stage where they can truly define in an objective state the standard and norm of sanity or insanity.

I think that in a large part, although sanity or insanity might be a conception which can be seen as evident in our observations, that there is not always a consistent conclusion or line we can draw to the definition of it.


This is just due to the dynamic and variant issue of the problem we are dealing with here. We just have to set up certain parameters and boundaries, which although incomplete and inconsistent, will establish a complete and objective definition of sanity and insanity.

GeistFaust
01-11-2012, 05:04 AM
Repeat Post, I apologize.

Aemma
01-11-2012, 05:08 AM
Repeat Post, I apologize.

You can delete this yourself or report it and a mod can delete this for you. :)

Phil75231
01-15-2012, 10:36 AM
To Aemma,

Maybe I’m misreading Foucalt, but it sounds like he’s asserting that “sanity” is enforcement of societal and/or elite expectations of what a person ought to be and/or assumptions of what “proper mental health” is, then misusing the scientific method to define what sanity is – namely by assuming the societal and/or elite definitions are the only proper foundation on which to build, then building psychiatry’s whole superstructure on that foundation.


To Geist,

Lots to cover here, but (correct me if I'm misrepresenting you) you seem to say that there are both arbitrary and objective definitions of sanity. If so, then I do agree with you. As I said in the OP, I think the scientific method of discerning the truth of a situation is a pretty objective standard. What that means is that if a person uses the scientific method to interpret the facts he or she comes across, and they are independently confirmable, then that signals a sound mind.

Still, we have to ask how many gross mistakes in perception and interpretation they make. As a general rule, the more simple the fact or relationship, the more a gross error in perception or judgment will count towards insanity. For example, claiming you are, in fact, the POTUS when you clearly are not definitely counts for insanity. If you say you have a good chance to be POTUS when you clearly have little to no chance of getting elected, then you may close to the edge. On the other hand, if a highly ambitious politician thinks to him or herself "I deserve to be sitting in the oval office because I'm more right than POTUS is and therefore can administer the country better", we probably won't consider the politician insane - although we'd consider him or her an egotistical fool. However, the ultimate litmus tests ought to be (a) whether their cognitive processes and self-awareness of who they are are strikingly out of touch with reality and (b) the degree of emotional control or self-discipline they have in interpersonal interactions (i.e. no consistent history of emotional reactions common knowledge says are well outside the boundaries of legal behavior). Of these, I think (a) is more important, although no violations of (a) and several violations of (b) are are at least fairly likely symptomatic of a personality disorder (an entirely separate category from insanity).

Still, I definitely agree with your point (or maybe it's just my point that I extracted from what you said (?) ) about societies constant dangers about developing too broad a definition of sanity - namely "behavior highly outside the norm". That definition would cover some of the greatest authors, writers, musicians, artists, etc. (although greatness itself doesn't not immunize one from insanity).

Anyway, I think you're essentially correct, though I can't quite agree with you on some of the details (namely, I think the objective information-processing of facts and data about reality is more important than the one expressed by the society on its mere sao-so).

Eldritch
01-15-2012, 10:48 AM
Just very briefly, I think sanity is simply the willingness and ability to adjust one's own mental state based on conclusions reached by observing outside reality. I think all diagnosable mental illnesses are in one way or the other disorders in that process.

Aces High
01-15-2012, 09:32 PM
Also, is having any mental disorder enough to keep you from having sound mind and will"?

Also, what constitutes a sound mind and will,

Depends on the gravity of the disorder.If you arent aware of it (the disorder)and are unable to control it then the answer is yes.

Having the faculty to control your urges and thoughts......and sift out the wheat from the chaff...so to speak.

Phil75231
01-16-2012, 01:06 AM
Depends on the gravity of the disorder.If you arent aware of it (the disorder)and are unable to control it then the answer is yes.

Having the faculty to control your urges and thoughts......and sift out the wheat from the chaff...so to speak.

What if cultural attitudes convince the person that it is ok not to control it, to the point where they may not even recognize the person has a problem. Seems to me that obsessive pursuit of money without regard to others is a prime example of this, given how materialistic and image conscious we are. Also, bullemia is another (again, image-consciousness), antisocial personalities (in high crime neighborhoods), sex addiction (everwhere in this society)? Aware of the disorder but unable to control it I can agree with. What about not even aware that the action is a prime symptom of a disorder due to cultural attitudes?

Barreldriver
03-07-2012, 12:47 PM
Just very briefly, I think sanity is simply the willingness and ability to adjust one's own mental state based on conclusions reached by observing outside reality. I think all diagnosable mental illnesses are in one way or the other disorders in that process.

If sanity is the willingness and ability to adjust one's own mental state based on conclusions reached by observing an outside reality then would not those who are diagnosed as mentally ill, or insane rather, who attempt to adjust their state whether it be via medication or other methods be considered sane contrary to their diagnosis?

Eldritch
03-07-2012, 03:16 PM
If sanity is the willingness and ability to adjust one's own mental state based on conclusions reached by observing an outside reality then would not those who are diagnosed as mentally ill, or insane rather, who attempt to adjust their state whether it be via medication or other methods be considered sane contrary to their diagnosis?

Well, if their perception and ability to adjust are somehow flawed, not necessarily.