There is no question that there were abuses at these institutions. But what really makes me wonder is whether the ability of the mentally ill to care for one another and to create a working communal life did not strike some as setting a bad example. The possible success of that therapy through work and socialization would then be weighed against the success of popping a pill. What would be more profitable? Having a sizable population bound for all life to psychotropic drugs? Or having that same population achieve some kind of balance or even sanity through cooperative work and living? There are financial and political consequences to each of these options.
It's kind of like: were unions destroyed because they were corrupt? or because they were unions?
Joanna
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Claxton" <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org, "lbo-talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 11:25:45 AM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Asylum
At 09:24 AM 12/28/2010, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>Sacks' introduction makes me want to know a lot more about why and
>how these institutions were destroyed.
It was Foucault's fault.
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk