Showing 2 of 2 comments.
Tina, it’s great to read your thinking on Foucault. I studied Foucault as a student as a way of understanding how we understand history and ideas. Two things I thought were extremely valuable are that the subtext or underpinnings of the dogma/discourse the “what’s being said,” are the key to understanding them – and that history is not locked in, 1 dimensional but dynamic and multi-dimensional. It is strange considering how out of the box his thinking was that he did not consider the discourse of those identified as mentally ill. I have to think whether this is true in his others books on prisons and medicine. But what is exciting to me is that the historical dynamic and the social discourse can change because there is a growing voice that challenges what madness is, how we regard it and how it can/should be treated.