Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 06:22:59 -0500 From: Ian Robert Douglas <Ian_Robert_Douglas-AT-Brown.edu> Subject: Re: ADD the new onanism? >Normality, per se, is a very vague term. Especially when one begins to >look at it over time. Is it normal to have a microwave? Is it normal to >beleive in god? Is it normal to take medications? I think that the >"enforcement of normality" is of ancilary worth until the "evolution of >normality" is examined. It sort of makes me wonder how less about how >societies are becoming pathological, and more about why this is defined as >pathological now, whereas something else completely was defined as >pathological in the past. of course, of course, this is standard Foucault. I'm not sure you understand me correctly. We can look at this case in terms both of the enforcement of normality, and the evolution of it (actually the normality being sought here is not too radically removed from the standard normality sought over the period of the modern world as a whole). But it seems the most important part of the issue is the pathological effect of the world being "aswash with information and images". The idea being, that these kids are developing these hyperactive and low attention span conditions because of the ways in which are societies are 'made up' at present. The interesting Foucauldian point--given his interest in the 'theory of police' (which in essence attempted, as far as was possible, to provide a stable and healthy environment for the existence of populations)--is to note precisely how we move from a welfarist social environment to one that is now (despte your definition) _pathological_, at least for these kids. One of two explanations can be put forward: 1) the notion of welfare no longer matters to the State (which of course rings bells, certainly over the last 30 years or so). The interesting question then would be become, 'by what technologies beyond those of welfare does the State now ensure the good order of the civitas?', or 2) States (and governments) really have lost control, and are no longer able--even if they would like to--to ensure a healthy environment within which populations can exist. In short, it seems to me that this issue raises interesting questions about both the location of power and the specific rationalities of political power that operate at present. Coming back quickly to your last point, has it ever been clearer that it is the functioning of society that is actually making people mad? (1) ian (1) I use this phrase entirely without perjorative content with regard to 'the mad', obviously. The point I'm making is that pathological behviour has rarely--if ever--been seen as a consequence of the normal functioning of society. Its root has always been elsewhere. Here, in the case of ADD, we have a far more direct--at least not as easily dismissed--link between 'the problem' and the everyday functioning of this information-overloaded world we live in.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005