Today the word has an extraordinary importance, we live on words. And in a society like ours, speech production is controlled and selected, of course, what would happen if it was free? To the surface all the unrest barely suppressed anxiety towards what the discourse is in its material reality of what its delivery, the concern behind this activity to warn the powers and dangers that could hardly imagine, the anxiety suspect in what could conceal use the wrong word .. wars, battles, rulers, battles ...
precisely to avoid such danger will perform the procedures for checking and delimitation of discourse, which today are known as the three great systems of exclusion that affect the speech: the forbidden word, the partition of madness and the will to truth.
In the second principle of exclusion, rejection & partition, is tackled a subject that has its roots in the Middle Ages and still today is considered the object of study in various disciplines ranging from science to the field of mass media: the crowd
A man shouts: "I am the master of the world, from this moment on I obey because I have power of life and death ... "
Two people listen to what he says;
<
<
How do you answer that the man who cries is really crazy? Imagine
to continue the dialogue between two people, the answer "he's crazy," could follow such an application <
<
Too often we use the adjective "crazy" to describe a reality alien to us, for behavior different from ours, but something tells us that in reality we are not crazy? Madness, madness is defined as today, as alienation mental state of fanaticism or as advanced. The opposition between reason and madness has always been an object of study, research, criticism, and still remains a fascinating subject & mysterious at the same time, this is because you do not have the opportunity to learn in depth the crowd without being trapped in it. The madness of crowds was recognized through his words, they were the place where it makes the partition, but had never met or heard. In our society you do not have the right to say all we need to take into account the circumstances and content of the speech, because through this we will not only express our thoughts and our desires, but striving for power. This is a truth that we often tend to forget, what would happen if it took power in the word? We find ourselves in an untenable situation, we would be discriminated against and considered a nullity, we would be different, we would be treated just as the treaty was "crazy."
How the crowds was recognized, except by the company and internship? On the basis of what criteria are decided on his madness? Within that grid was trapped?
From the depths of the Middle Ages was the crazy one who was not able to give a speech, not inability, but because of psychological violence that was forced to endure, his word was in fact null and void, without any meaning, deprived of any importance, his word did not exist, but even worse was that it was not recognized no truth, all the talk of the immense crowd was nothing but noise. For centuries in Europe the word of the crowds was granted a strange power, to proclaim the truth hidden, to know the future, and even the great ability to completely naively what the wisdom of others could not see any way. There is therefore an important reversal, the crowd was not to mock him and to be removed, but was the one to fear because his was a word of truth.
But despite this, the crowds, in one way or another was not anyone, in both cases his word, or rejected as soon as uttered, or run over by a secret reason, did not exist.
Time to move towards a radical change in the concept of madness is between the sixteenth and seventeenth century. When, in literature, Cervantes and Shakespeare, shows human beings grappling with new social orders, political, symbolic. Where consent order boundaries become uncertain, jagged, shimmering, the surplus is no longer
easily identifiable and classifiable, then ritualized and is no longer controllable. The excess is kind of passion in a world where there is more code friendly. Too much happens in a world where religious there is no longer a shared sacred order. An excess of reason is in a world where reason is detached from the order of ethics. Now, a wild
is called to restore order now dissolved: Don Quixote of the cavalry, the Hamlet of the human condition itself: "The world is out of square: that damn fortune to be born to put it back on track."
And this is also the time when the advent of modern science opens a different state of subjectivity. It will be just science to reduce the madness of illness and create practices of internment and exclusion of all forms of excess.
born a different way of seeing the madness, a new "sensitivity" the confines and reject. Born total institutions, which exclude it from everyday life and shared, reduced to silence, and medicalization are trying to get rid of that question puzzling and disturbing, the truth of
inaudible that madness seems to put on the human condition. As Foucault pointed out succinctly: "The madness you can not find in the wild. The
madness exists only within the company, do not exist outside of the forms of sensibility that isolate it and forms of repulsion that exclude or capture. Thus, one can say that in
Middle Ages, then during the Renaissance, madness is this social horizon as a fact
aesthetic or newspaper, then in the seventeenth century., starting from the inside, the crowd through a period of silence and exclusion. It has lost that aspect of the event, the revelation that he had at the time of Shakespeare and Cervantes (for example, Lady Macbeth
begins to tell the truth when it becomes neutral), and becomes a mockery, false. Finally, the twentieth century. takes up the madness, reduces it to a natural phenomenon, linked to the truth of the world
[world in the sense of natural-organic and non-human]. From this positivist were to take possession result, first, that any derogatory philanthropy manifested in psychiatry
against the crowds, on the other, the great opera that we find in the poetry of Nerval until Artaud, and that is an effort to return to the experience of madness depth and power of revelation that had been destroyed from within. "
These words of Foucault enable us to highlight how the madness is now split into two different representations: one is a classic concept and literary, the other a modern and scientific.
Today, we think the issue is finally closed, that we are too far ahead of these ideas have still "primitive." But how do you really reacting? Consider the almost normal insanity?
madness and normality two situations are not exclusionary to each other, are not two opposites between the two because there is always the possibility of moving and in some sense the madness is set to normal. In this sense, psychiatry comes to help and try to explain their internal structures and very complicated. The ego is in between two worlds, a world outside and an inner world, the world outside is what comes from others, not themselves, is the world of experience where there are things in where there are dangers. Here there are also others to whom we feel sympathy or antipathy, often immediate, and there are ties, friends or enemies. In relation to this world we suffer injustice and feel frustrated. All of the outside world is the social theater, the company also lists us and we pretend that it does what it requires. It must fit in the sense that it must also active in calarvisi. And dive in it's unavoidable, though often this world is not very attractive.
the other hand there is the inner world, which is equally if not more complicated than the outer. Here they lived, ideas, resentment, feelings of being misunderstood. Here are the dreams. This is the inner theater, which is also a world of fear without an object. Within it there are unpleasant memories. And a lot of data which we have no awareness, which form a presence of absence. There are subliminal signals, data that is associated in an unconscious way. But this being marked in an unconscious experience is also present in adults. This is the world which may be the desire to not exist. The inner world is an unknown world within us, but also outside there is largely unknown. And we are caught between two worlds, fragile places between desire and action. It seems as though the crowds is a prisoner, prisoner of himself, and seems to reflect a bit 'all of us. Rousseau said "Man is born free and everywhere is in chains."
From 1904 to 1978 for the Italian legislation is defined crowds who is "dangerous to himself or others and a public scandal." The treatment of the insane provided first and then prevent the danger.
But since Freud has also developed the treatment of care through the floor. A word in the statement, that exchanged within the same code. In fact, if the codes are different, as often happens, do not communicate. The word thus in the transference that is a halo, affective communication, which is a total communications system. And it is the affective communication that is possible to understand the unsaid. In this there is the gesture and gaze, which are common to all intents and purposes, as evidenced by the participation silent which consist in the rituals of "primitive." This report is a cover, which is different from explaining. A bill is in fact explain, understand one another. Understanding means to go-take-with these forms and refer to a form of embrace. Understand, however, above all, involves keeping the piece. While the explanation tends to divide. So when there is transfer the generic word change, just pass the word-link. This is complicated phase where
"word" is to communicate, is an element of awareness that we have. L 'absence of this bond is solitude, the solitude of that mass is "being as if it were transparent. "
There is madness in the long history of psychiatry, that the seventeenth century. is committed to studying and treating the insane. The madness of the big paintings nosographical, manuals of psychopathology, clinical schools of thought. We have the madness in total institutions.
And then there's something else. As another folly. The madness of the great literary and drama. The madness of Hamlet, King Lear, Don Quixote. Before the madness of Orlando. Long after the madness of Pirandello's Enrico IV. Among them are very different, but in any case
the same side. On the side of the writing that never ceases to ask.
the crowds between the two, then. Between the clinic and the field of art.
We could say, madness as you come into an institution dedicated to the care and treatment and the sparkle of madness told by the artistic genius. We then
the same object but on two different registers. Now the question is to try to give answers to what that difference.
Foucault gives us a first indication about the literature. The madness in literature has a function of revelation, of truth. When the characters of literature are crazy, they are to say or show the truth. A truth that can only embody
from that position and that other characters can not occupy.
Yet something does not come back. The madness does not tell us only the truth, shows us painful.
What emerges on the side of clinical and institutional practice is far from the madness in his artistic side, philosophical, existential, the madness that can open to the fundamental truths of existence. More often in clinical practice one is faced with
people suffering from their condition with devastating effect in the body and in the management of everyday life.
It seems then that literature and art in general has to do with the truth that can show the folly, while the clinic has to do with the consequences of this condition. Real consequences that fall within the body, suffering and who need to be addressed.
Literature and the clinic seem to look at two different aspects of madness. Our guess is that you may have groped a synoptic approach in the clinical field and bring the question of truth that literature and art in general explore, and on the other hand groped
to recognize and deepen their share of suffering and the price the mad
pay for his "choice" of freedom, a price that often makes the "freedom" a prison.
not take much to realize that the old partition is still valid. The example of psychiatry shows him exactly. What has changed is the network of institutions, no longer a society of the Middle Ages, which accuses the discourse of the madman, but a society that allows someone to listen to this word, to treat and study it without mercy. The partition otherwise acting today, in different lines and even the effects are different.
In reality the problem of insanity, despite the extensive studies conducted over the centuries by scholars and scientists first and then, still remains undefined, a phenomenon contours are unclear, a mystery, like all the most important events of human existence. Perhaps, from this point of view, it is convenient to all of us a reminder of the past. Give more space in our lives means the madness now, accept that there are people who think differently from us, who see a different view the world it means to feel compassion for the suffering, but also to acquire open-mindedness, flexibility, ability to get in touch with others and, above all, the other that lives within us, with our shadow issues that we struggle to accept, because they collide with our routine and functionality of our daily roles. It means to tolerate and encourage dissent. Do not forget that the hardest and authoritarian attitudes towards madness are those adopted in countries with a dictatorial system. Do not forget that in the former Soviet Union were detained in a mental hospital all those who expressed their dissent to power. Often it was of great intellectual value, which was attributed after the Nobel Prize. And the diagnosis of insanity were made by psychiatrists accredited by the international scientific community. As we
Basaglia, even Foucault in France, advocated the cause of the closure of mental hospitals, knowing that was not enough to end the lives burned within its walls, silent holocaust consumed in the name of science, to obtain from a review of his relationships with figures of madness and, more generally, of the discomfort. To this we must add that science today has become more demanding, more tank, even cleaner, even if it is more invasive than it was the 'asylum institution. Today the company is to be threatened as a total institution, where too many people, in an effort to better manage their moods, they prefer, the social relationship, the use of the pills daily, until robots become more chemicals to 'height of their performance in the grim silence of their souls.
We are good at pointing the finger and say "you're crazy", perhaps we are less able to open our minds and try to understand .. it is obvious that the madness makes us afraid, because we do not know, but this does not have the right to discriminate, and to end their lives. We learn from the past, do not make the same mistakes over, because if we did it first in the name of science .. what we do today? In the name of fear?
There's a little 'madness in all of us, groped and it is useless to deny it, repress this aspect .. the fear is that it can be treated as he treat him? The crowds? We need to change things, because every word has its importance, has its truth, because it is inconceivable to think that the speech is just noise .. Changing this could change the condition of all .. Because the speech is not simply what is a desire, not only what that translates struggles or systems of domination, but this is why, through which we struggle, is the power of that seeks to capture.
