This is an old revision of the document!
Questions for Tues. September 7, 2021
1. Tomes tells us that Lasch and Katz felt that asylums were instruments of social control that fostered a “single standard of citizenship” which worked well in a rapidly industrializing society. She also explains how they felt asylum treatments were nothing more than “scientific rationalizations of middle-class morality.” (10) It seems that Foucault, Lasch, and Katz all believed asylums were not necessarily good innovations. What do you think? Where asylums an integral part of 19th century America or just a way to “warehouse” social deviants?
2. Tomes Introduction calls asylums: “institutions sanctioned by the whole society to meet certain commonly perceived needs.” (12) To what needs is she referring?
Submitted by Bonnie Akkerman I pledge…
1. Throughout Chapter 1, Tomes makes the vague argument that “optimism” was a driving force for the success of hospitals in curing/dealing with mental disorders in the 18th century. Do you believe there are any counter-arguments to this simple line of thinking? Should the previously-held idea that “insanity” was related to a deficiency of one's soul have made mental-health workers more or less optimistic?
2. Reading through Tomes' Chapter 4, it appears that the Kirkbride model revolved around a similar paradigm as the “Great Man Theory” of History, in that it recommended authority be held by an all-powerful superintendent whose individual qualities would determine the welfare of an asylum. Given that theory's divisiveness, do you see any of the critiques against it taking form in the failings of the asylums this chapter follows?
3. What do you think of the idea of a separate Men's (and Women's) section, as proposed by the Kirkbride model? Tenable today?
Submitted by Theron Gertz. I pledge…