What do you think?
Rate this book
The Female Malady: Women, Madness and English Culture 1830-1980
In this informative, timely and often harrowing study, Elaine Showalter demonstrates how cultural ideas about 'proper' feminine behaviour have shaped the definition and treatment of female insanity for 150 years, and given mental disorder in women specifically sexual connotations. Along with vivid portraits of the men who dominated psychiatry, and descriptions of the therapeutic practices that were used to bring women 'to their senses', she draws on diaries and narratives by inmates, and fiction from Mary Wollstonecraft to Doris Lessing, to supply a cultural perspective usually missing from studies of mental illness.
Highly original and beautifully written, The Female Malady is a vital counter-interpretation of madness in women, showing how it is a consequence of, rather than a deviation from, the traditional female role.
Highly original and beautifully written, The Female Malady is a vital counter-interpretation of madness in women, showing how it is a consequence of, rather than a deviation from, the traditional female role.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
77 people are currently reading
4780 people want to read
About the author
Elaine Showalter
79 books143 followersElaine Showalter is an American literary critic, feminist, and writer on cultural and social issues. She is one of the founders of feminist literary criticism in United States academia, developing the concept and practice of gynocritics.
She is well known and respected in both academic and popular cultural fields. She has written and edited numerous books and articles focussed on a variety of subjects, from feminist literary criticism to fashion, sometimes sparking widespread controversy, especially with her work on illnesses. Showalter has been a television critic for People magazine and a commentator on BBC radio and television.
(source: Wikipedia)
She is well known and respected in both academic and popular cultural fields. She has written and edited numerous books and articles focussed on a variety of subjects, from feminist literary criticism to fashion, sometimes sparking widespread controversy, especially with her work on illnesses. Showalter has been a television critic for People magazine and a commentator on BBC radio and television.
(source: Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
February 22, 2016
Posted at Shelf Inflicted
Elaine Showalter’s The Female Malady: Women, Madness, and English Culture, 1830-1980 is a very informative, very accessible, and very disturbing look at how “insanity” was treated from 1830 to 1980. It examines cultural expectations about how women should behave and how these male perceptions affected the diagnosis and treatment of women’s mental health problems.
I read this book from cover to cover and would have been very happy if it were a school text. One of the things I liked most about the book was its personal approach, using the perspectives of female "inmates" themselves, and fiction excerpts from a variety of authors, such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Sylvia Plath, Charlotte Bronte, Doris Lessing, and others to highlight women's mental health issues and experiences with doctors and provide an insight into the culture and period.
There was also a section on men who suffered "shell shock" during WWI, the treatment they received, the similarities between "hysterical" men and women, and the modernization of psychiatry.
I highly recommend this book for those interested in mental health, history, and the effects of power and gender imbalance in the mental health care profession and in society.
February 19, 2018
This was an exceptionally compelling overview of "all that ails us" ... the us being women. It appears that the only thing that ails us is men, according to Showalter. I'm not sure whether I disagree, although I'll throw in just a pinch of irony.
With an eye to tracking our inner malady, Showalter traces the treatment of women from 1830 to 1980: a nice chunk of time which should have shown progression and breakthroughs in dealing with mental health issues in women. From my point of view, not much had "progressed" in 150 years, except that the facilities were somewhat more modern. The attitudes, the biases, the prejudices remained extant, for the most part -- at least well into the 1980s when this book was published. (Whether much has changed since the 30-odd years that Showalter wrote this book, I wouldn't begin to guess. Superficially, it seems so.)
Mental health is quite a misnomer, in any case, for the most part of this book, for women were considered "mad" for the most innocuous of "offences". Suffice it to say that I wanted to set my own hair on fire while reading the travesties that women committed against society: the travesty of wanting dignity to raise their children out of poverty; the travesty of earning a decent wage for a profession of choice, and not relegated to the kitchen or the scrubhouse; the travesty of wanting a voice in how their bodies were treated; the travesty of wanting a say in society. All these were crimes for which at one time or other women were imprisoned in asylums for merely speaking their minds. Oh, and you'd definitely not want to speak your mind. That in itself is the worst travesty.
Suffice it to say, also, that in the Victorian era, "they" would have locked me up and thrown the key into the deepest well for I am one who has never known "my place". Lord knows I've tried to scrape and curtsey; to do obeisance, and even genuflect, on occasion. But it just isn't me. The gall rises every time. So, I had my gall stones removed, and became a whole human being. If only society had known long ago the remedy to women's madness.
This is not a review by any means. Just some random thoughts. A review would require a thesis: and I'd be quoting more than half the book. Just read it. Showalter has such an engaging style, you'll be thinking you're reading just another gothic novel, but by the time you're through, you'll be scared to death. For real.
Recommended to everyone!
Why only 4 stars? I wanted more. : (
With an eye to tracking our inner malady, Showalter traces the treatment of women from 1830 to 1980: a nice chunk of time which should have shown progression and breakthroughs in dealing with mental health issues in women. From my point of view, not much had "progressed" in 150 years, except that the facilities were somewhat more modern. The attitudes, the biases, the prejudices remained extant, for the most part -- at least well into the 1980s when this book was published. (Whether much has changed since the 30-odd years that Showalter wrote this book, I wouldn't begin to guess. Superficially, it seems so.)
Mental health is quite a misnomer, in any case, for the most part of this book, for women were considered "mad" for the most innocuous of "offences". Suffice it to say that I wanted to set my own hair on fire while reading the travesties that women committed against society: the travesty of wanting dignity to raise their children out of poverty; the travesty of earning a decent wage for a profession of choice, and not relegated to the kitchen or the scrubhouse; the travesty of wanting a voice in how their bodies were treated; the travesty of wanting a say in society. All these were crimes for which at one time or other women were imprisoned in asylums for merely speaking their minds. Oh, and you'd definitely not want to speak your mind. That in itself is the worst travesty.
Suffice it to say, also, that in the Victorian era, "they" would have locked me up and thrown the key into the deepest well for I am one who has never known "my place". Lord knows I've tried to scrape and curtsey; to do obeisance, and even genuflect, on occasion. But it just isn't me. The gall rises every time. So, I had my gall stones removed, and became a whole human being. If only society had known long ago the remedy to women's madness.
This is not a review by any means. Just some random thoughts. A review would require a thesis: and I'd be quoting more than half the book. Just read it. Showalter has such an engaging style, you'll be thinking you're reading just another gothic novel, but by the time you're through, you'll be scared to death. For real.
Recommended to everyone!
Why only 4 stars? I wanted more. : (
March 14, 2010
By Victorian standards, I'd be considered clinically insane. As would you. We might be sent away, at first, for a rest cure which would require we do absolutely nothing with our time - we could not write, we could not read, we could not work. That wouldn't do it for me, so eventually I'd probably be institutionalized and forced to undergo electroshock treatments of such strength that my pelvis bone would probably break, forced feedings (complete with tubes being shoved down my throat), and most likely a lobotomy. But then once I'm released I would be taught how to get my hair did so the lobotomy scar wouldn't show. On top of all that, since I am a woman and have desires of the sexual nature, I probably would be made to have a clitoridectomy which is not unlike Female Genital Mutilation we hear about on the news.
Society (particularly the men) has a funny way of deciding what is considered appropriate behavior. In the 19th-century and early-20th-century if a woman did not fit the mold of a well-behaved lady she was considered insane, and treatment was sought. We think, oh, hey, those dumb Victorians. But what Showalter illustrates is that these treatments were not exercised all that long ago, and more often than not, these treatments were not necessary. She uses literary examples throughout, with mentions of Virginia Woolf, Sylvia Plath, Doris Lessing, Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Not only did these authors write characters suffering from mental disorders, but they also suffered from them and were forced into extreme therapies at times.
Again, another fantastically researched and all around fascinating book from Showalter. And look, I know the dude who came up with the idea of clitoridectomy is dead and all, but I hope he is burning in hell, preferably with the Hounds of Hell chomping on his nut-sack for all eternity.
Society (particularly the men) has a funny way of deciding what is considered appropriate behavior. In the 19th-century and early-20th-century if a woman did not fit the mold of a well-behaved lady she was considered insane, and treatment was sought. We think, oh, hey, those dumb Victorians. But what Showalter illustrates is that these treatments were not exercised all that long ago, and more often than not, these treatments were not necessary. She uses literary examples throughout, with mentions of Virginia Woolf, Sylvia Plath, Doris Lessing, Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Not only did these authors write characters suffering from mental disorders, but they also suffered from them and were forced into extreme therapies at times.
Again, another fantastically researched and all around fascinating book from Showalter. And look, I know the dude who came up with the idea of clitoridectomy is dead and all, but I hope he is burning in hell, preferably with the Hounds of Hell chomping on his nut-sack for all eternity.
November 27, 2012
I've been looking for a good social history on hysteria for awhile now and I came across this book at work. It wasn't exactly what I was looking for but it was quite interesting. The author looked at the history of women and "madness" and the way they were treated by doctors and psychiatrists in the 19th and 20th century. It was an interesting women's history, some parts better than others, but I think ultimately if the author was trying to reclaim women's voices in relation to their treatment she failed. One of the biggest problems with this book was that by only looking at women's treatment she failed to see what was gendered treatment and ideas and what was practice for everyone. Things were broken down too much into sex first and other things second. In other words whether someone was a man or woman became their most important distinguishing feature which I thought created its own gendered differences. The other problem with this book seemed to be the lack of addressing the reality of mental health issues for women. Nearly all the examples she used of women diagnosed with conditions were women who would not be classified as having those conditions today. For example Sylvia Plath being schizophrenic, instead of depressed. By doing this she made it seem like none of the women were actually mentally ill and in need of treatment. To me this came across as very false. These cases to me were the exceptions not the norm, and as such gave a distorted view of the history of mental illness. The first part of the book looked at Psychiatric Victorianism (the history of the first half of the Victorian era). She discussed the treatment of the mentally ill in asylums, and the development of them, and then the treatment of women in general. Her biggest criticism of women's treatment was that it was based on gender stereotypes of the time. Women were expected to be docile, not interested in sex, and reserved. It was a very good look at the gender stereotypes of the time, however by analysing from a 20th century perspective she didn't really fit these generalisations in context. Complaining that women's treatment in Victorian psychiatry silenced women (98) didn't really differ from the treatment of non-mad women in normal society. Comparing women's treatment in the asylums, to that within mainstream society, would have given a better understanding I think. Only at the very end of the section does she mention that women who lived in asylums often had easier and more pleasant lives than those without. One thing that was interesting, that I didn't know about while reading this section was her talking about Florence Nightingale's depression (or hysteria) and her book/memoir called Cassandra about a woman restricted by society, which sounded really interesting. The next section looked at Psychiatric Darwinism, late 19th century to early 20th century treatment of women. This part focused largely on the development of hysteria and the symptoms and treatments thereof. For me it was interesting to see how closely the symptoms of hysteria matched those of saint possession, demon possession and mediumship in other times and other cultures. Having studied these other areas it was interesting to read Showlater's interpretation of these symptoms. She saw hysteria as a sign of protest, a way to get attention, though never addressed whether these were intentional or not. She also failed to address what the women gained, why reacting this way was seen as a successful form of rebellion when it brought them nothing but grief in the form of treatments. She also failed to address the success or failure rate of treatments, such as the rest cure. She also drew heavily on women's literature to illustrate her points, while this made more sense for the earlier history I questioned its use in the later stages of the book. Particularly when she stated she was specifically focusing on English not American history, and then used examples from America, such as Charlotte Perkins and Sylvia Plath. I couldn't help but wonder why she'd not looked at actual case notes from the institute of psychiatry instead. The chapter that seemed the oddest to me was when she looked at male hysteria among soldiers from World War I. Here she tried to present that the soldiers were suffering from hysteria, and were treated in the same way as the women. To me this kind of undermined her earlier argument that treatment was based on a gendered model. For if the male patients were being treated the same way, then were not the psychiatrists attempting cures that had nothing to do with gendered stereotypes at all. She also seemed confused to the cause of the man's shell shock, stating that it was because of the failure of gender stereotypes, men were shocked because they were supposed to be "men at war" and weren't able to cope. Rather than actually suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, because world war one was a totally horrific thing to have to live through. The writing on the 20th century seemed equally odd. Here she mentioned schizophrenia, which despite being a disease that was equally split between men and women she said was seen as feminising because of the treatments such as ECT and lobotomies. (An argument that really didn't hold out). She seemed to fail to identify schizophrenia as a real illness, and I admit I felt it was all a bit strange. One of the most interesting things I did learn was that there was a female psychiatrist who was a contemporary with Freud who denounced his ideas for being totally sexist, and failing to understand women's problems had nothing to do with "penis envy". I definitely learned some fascinating things while reading this book, and despite its flaws I'd definitely recommend it. It didn't quite do what it was intending to do, but nonetheless there are some really interesting parts and some good insight, particularly into the gender divisions of Victorian society.
August 2, 2015
A stellar analysis of women's issues in a time when it was easier to just decide that she was crazy, rather than giving her any rights. I read this, and I know I will never, ever vote for Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum. We have come a long way, ladies. But we can slide back, if we aren't alert. Vote, and shame the devil.
May 16, 2015
Lady time-travelers, take note - if you wish to set your TARDIS to the Victorian era (and why wouldn't you? It's quite fascinating), be quite careful not to raise suspicion. Especially if you are - not desiring of children, interested in politics or a job outside of the home, or enamoured of cuss words. Be prepared to make a quick exit if you are discovered, for it is quite possible that you would become a prisoner in a mental institution!
Facetiousness aside, this is a quite interesting and well-researched book. Ms. Showalter begins with the Victorian age and their ideas of "madness" as pertaining to women, which was basically anything that showed them to not fit the mold of "femininity" the menfolk had constructed. Hysteria and other "nerve disorders" were pretty much the hallmark of a weaker female system. There is also discussion of the first World War, where male soldiers were suddenly coming home in droves with the same symptoms of the supposed female malady. The book ends on the cusp of the 1970s, where treatment of females and mental illness was a bit better, but still seeming to be focused on the wrong things. I think today we still use ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) in certain circumstances.
Facetiousness aside, this is a quite interesting and well-researched book. Ms. Showalter begins with the Victorian age and their ideas of "madness" as pertaining to women, which was basically anything that showed them to not fit the mold of "femininity" the menfolk had constructed. Hysteria and other "nerve disorders" were pretty much the hallmark of a weaker female system. There is also discussion of the first World War, where male soldiers were suddenly coming home in droves with the same symptoms of the supposed female malady. The book ends on the cusp of the 1970s, where treatment of females and mental illness was a bit better, but still seeming to be focused on the wrong things. I think today we still use ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) in certain circumstances.
April 30, 2015
This is a heavy but interesting read. I have actually studied it to death for an essay on hysteria. If any ladies have a secret desire that they might have liked to have lived in the Victorian period, this book might change your mind. Women were treated disgracefully. I think had I been around in the late Victorian period I would have been institutionalised and certifiably mad. Overall, good read for it's purpose but not for relaxation.
May 31, 2025
Elaine Showalter, I would pay so much money for an hour of your time
December 21, 2025
Un libro de obligada lectura si te interesa saber por qué a las mujeres se nos atribuye "ser locas" o estar "desequilibradas" con tanta facilidad. Minuciosamente documentado y riguroso como ninguno!
August 23, 2025
4.5*
Fascinating and incredibly well researched book.
If you're interested in the topic of mental illness in relation to genderas well as in how society shaped the way perception of mentally ill women changed from the Victorian era to the late 20th century, I highly recommend it. Elaine Showalter explores the perception of mental illness through the decades, as well as the state of the facilities they were sent to and treatments they were put under. This was, overall, a very compelling read, and I am interested to continue reading about this topic.
Fascinating and incredibly well researched book.
If you're interested in the topic of mental illness in relation to genderas well as in how society shaped the way perception of mentally ill women changed from the Victorian era to the late 20th century, I highly recommend it. Elaine Showalter explores the perception of mental illness through the decades, as well as the state of the facilities they were sent to and treatments they were put under. This was, overall, a very compelling read, and I am interested to continue reading about this topic.
December 21, 2015
I picked up this book after its' chapter on shell shock in male combat veterans was referenced in another historical text. That chapter is not typical of this book (although it is set well in context, showing that society viewed shell shocked veterans as having lost their "manhood") but I'm glad it led me down this path.
I feel like we all know that insane asylums were horrible places, but this book was an eye-opener in many respects -- the most notable being just what behaviors could get you declared "mad" as a woman in the Victorian era. Basically, any deviation from the expected path of quietly marrying and raising children without showing too much enthusiasm for other pursuits or sharing too many opinions.
I feel like we all know that insane asylums were horrible places, but this book was an eye-opener in many respects -- the most notable being just what behaviors could get you declared "mad" as a woman in the Victorian era. Basically, any deviation from the expected path of quietly marrying and raising children without showing too much enthusiasm for other pursuits or sharing too many opinions.
August 17, 2011
By dissertation bible. Incredibly detailed, and well written. I've always been a massive fan of Showalter, and this book is possibly among the most interesting non-fiction reads I've ever had.
February 10, 2022
this book was a project and it took me a solid four months to read, but it was worth it.
if you want an insight into the imbalance between genders and how they were treated for mental health related issues in the not-so-distant past then this is the read for you. surprisingly easy to dip in and out of, and not as dense as i was expecting.
i particularly liked that some of my favourite female authors were a strong focus. it was interesting to read about these women from a different point of view and to see how their work came about... sylvia plath, virginia woolf, janet frame, charlotte bronte, charlotte perkins gilman to name a few.
if you want an insight into the imbalance between genders and how they were treated for mental health related issues in the not-so-distant past then this is the read for you. surprisingly easy to dip in and out of, and not as dense as i was expecting.
i particularly liked that some of my favourite female authors were a strong focus. it was interesting to read about these women from a different point of view and to see how their work came about... sylvia plath, virginia woolf, janet frame, charlotte bronte, charlotte perkins gilman to name a few.
October 30, 2025
Excellent, haunting, and insightful analysis that instigates righteous anger. Would be curious to see if someone has continued this study from 1980 to perhaps 2020. Also, what of the American side? How does the asylum differ?
And is the modern psychiatric ward all that different from the asylum? Is it effective at all? In what ways does it distinguish between doctors and patients, portraying patients as a different class of human to be hidden and controlled?
And is the modern psychiatric ward all that different from the asylum? Is it effective at all? In what ways does it distinguish between doctors and patients, portraying patients as a different class of human to be hidden and controlled?
March 21, 2024
super comprehensive, immensely useful for my diss, good old elaine
February 12, 2021
mad women in all attics rise
November 26, 2023
Really interesting and informative. I read it for research purposes, but it was manageable and enjoyable to read the whole thing cover to cover.
June 30, 2024
Three stars. I was surprised by this. I expected it to be a radical feminist text, or, at the very least, a feminist one, going by its description and publication date, but it proved not to be a radical feminist analysis of the way madness has been perceived in women and used against them, but instead to be a history of madness that touches on women—and also men. I suppose I should have paid more attention to the author’s name, as I’ve read essays by Showalter in collections of feminist literary criticism, and she is shockingly staid and un-radical, rather boring for my tastes really.
Anyhow, I found that this book really was quite a history, and around midway through the book, at the 155 page point, it started to become postmodernist, or at least very much touched by its influence, which I despise. But then, Showalter continued writing into the 2010s, I’m pretty sure, and so she must have been establishment enough to not get suppressed. It’s still surprising and disappointing, though, as this was published in 1985! The way I scout out feminist texts to read is that I make sure they are published between 1970 and 1990. That way, they are reliably radical feminist—not liberal, or postmodernist, or touched by the feminist backlash. I also read books from 1990 to the present that I know with confidence are radical feminist. So I am disappointed that this book slipped through my filters.
Another thing I noticed in the way Showalter wrote was that it was largely descriptive. There was little criticism and little critical analysis through a radical feminist lens. She even seemed to be describing some of these horrible sounding men in positive terms, at times. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t an intelligent and interesting book—I was never really bored—but it was not what I was expecting, and I mean that in a negative way. Another very disappointing factor was that Showalter never touched on female childhood sexual abuse, not even when she was discussing Freud and hysteria, and that is a grievous omission. Overall, I did learn a lot about madness and the way it was treated in the specified time period in women (and some men) by psychiatry and the institution, but it was hardly through a feminist lens but instead a forcibly neutral one—at least, much of the time. Nonetheless, it was a very impressive and well-researched book.
Quotes:
Anyhow, I found that this book really was quite a history, and around midway through the book, at the 155 page point, it started to become postmodernist, or at least very much touched by its influence, which I despise. But then, Showalter continued writing into the 2010s, I’m pretty sure, and so she must have been establishment enough to not get suppressed. It’s still surprising and disappointing, though, as this was published in 1985! The way I scout out feminist texts to read is that I make sure they are published between 1970 and 1990. That way, they are reliably radical feminist—not liberal, or postmodernist, or touched by the feminist backlash. I also read books from 1990 to the present that I know with confidence are radical feminist. So I am disappointed that this book slipped through my filters.
Another thing I noticed in the way Showalter wrote was that it was largely descriptive. There was little criticism and little critical analysis through a radical feminist lens. She even seemed to be describing some of these horrible sounding men in positive terms, at times. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t an intelligent and interesting book—I was never really bored—but it was not what I was expecting, and I mean that in a negative way. Another very disappointing factor was that Showalter never touched on female childhood sexual abuse, not even when she was discussing Freud and hysteria, and that is a grievous omission. Overall, I did learn a lot about madness and the way it was treated in the specified time period in women (and some men) by psychiatry and the institution, but it was hardly through a feminist lens but instead a forcibly neutral one—at least, much of the time. Nonetheless, it was a very impressive and well-researched book.
Quotes:
August 29, 2024
I chose to read this book firstly as an aspiring psychology student, but also with an interest in history and learning more about the sociology of womanhood (as a somewhat juvenile, but genuine, feminist). This book manages to combine all three topics cohesively in an informative and pragmatic way. It is a bit of a dry read as it focuses mainly on intellect and there isn’t much sensationalism or mythical storytelling to it (which, as a spiritualistic Irish woman; I am partial to) compared to alternative books in this genre. ’Women who run with the wolves’ by Clarissa Pinkola Estes is the first that comes to mind if you are looking for something more spiritual or holistic than scientific. However, this book does still serve my initial expectations and is valuable reading material for budding psychology enthusiasts who wish to learn more about historical theories and relate them to the current status and role of psychology in society.
To start, I feel the introduction of the book very clearly sets the tone and style of the upcoming chapters. If you find it a bit drab and factual, then the introductory chapter establishes this for the reader. As per my introduction, educational reading isn’t always going to be riveting and exciting, so I took this opportunity to realign my expectations a bit and appreciate the depth in which the writer actually studied and researched for this book. Her aim is clearly education, rather than speculation, fabrication or (as so many feminist books have) expressing strongly biased or personal opinions. This book is a well-written, scientific-based read. A female writer explains, objectively, the maltreatment of women in psychiatry for their femininity, based on the prognosis of subjectivity, which makes them ‘crazy’. Showalter narrates from the beginning that ‘madness is the price women artists have had to pay for the exercise of their creativity in a male-dominated culture’. This book is in one sense a historical artefact of female psychiatry and she doesn’t fail to mention those whose names serve as a reminder. ‘ In the annals of feminist literary history, Virginia Woolf, Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath have become our sisters and our saints’. As a fellow female writer, her subtle and gracious solidarity towards the voices of those before her is a sweet snippet to be found amongst the informative text.
‘Domesticating Insanity’ was definitely my favourite chapter. It describes how women of any class or position could classify as clinically insane. We learn just how much women were reprimanded and controlled for behaviour that was considered socially unacceptable, how their ‘hysteria’ was often a rebellious response to the confinements of society on their gender. As Showalter defines it, this female insanity was a psychological aversion to ‘resist the social definitions that confine them to the doll’s house of bourgeois femininity’. As society technologically and corporately progressed (there are a lot of other progressions I could mention here like consumerism and vanity), it is clear that over time humanity has suffered psychologically, but it is difficult to determine where it all went wrong and how to remedy it. It becomes clear, however, that England played a paternal role in domesticating insanity, as ‘both natives and foreigners agreed that as the richest and the most advanced society, England necessarily had the highest incidence of insanity.’ Medical practitioners understood this at the time and, as quoted by Dr. Andrew Halliday, ‘madness was a disease of the highly civilised and industrialised; “We seldom meet with insanity among the savage tribes of men... Among the slaves in the West Indies it very rarely occurs... and the wilds of Ireland are almost free from this complaint.’ This should have prompted a lot more social considerations in psychiatry.
As reflected by Dr. Halliday, the advancement and progression of the external structures of society has wrecked havoc on the internal structures of our psyche. From a social psychology perspective, this makes you consider how the pressures of society and economy have inhibited our ability to create happiness and how humanity was never supposed to live in such a fast-paced, competitive environment. However (as a proud Irish woman), my attention drew to the factual basis of England’s profound influence on culture globally, how the power and greed of the very ‘masculine’ English appetite created a generational wound for years to come in the psychological effects of its industrialisation, but also its entire colonisation of rural Ireland. The English both destroyed and transformed Ireland in a psychologically traumatic way-but also socially through its pastimes, values, and norms. English, in a sense, groomed the Irish to behave and think like them-but that’s part of a historical story for a different day. But I think it made clear in these chapters that England, with all its prestige and ambition, also promoted the unravelling of social psychology.
Another point worth mentioning is that those who failed to keep up with the ever-increasing demands of society were, and still are, more susceptible and vulnerable to psychological issues. Whether this is negligent of the individual or of the government to which the individual conforms to is another question of social policy that we can consider after reading this book. But what struck me as interesting, and likely accurate in many cases, is that the writer outlines the possibility that society could have considered insanity as an economic choice for the poor and homeless. As a statistical consequence, ‘Between 1844 and 1890, the number of pauper lunatics in public asylums quadrupled’. It is, of course, extremely unfortunate that anyone (past or present) would feel it necessary for their survival to feign insanity (and morally it is questionable too), but from a historical or scientific standpoint, it creates inconsistencies. The credibility and authenticity of the documented diagnoses in these asylums are not truly reliable because of the many variables, misdiagnosis and sexism prevalent in psychiatry. Although the female psyche is the focus in this book, it is hard not to reflect on the correlation between poverty and insanity, even more so the higher incidence of poverty-stricken women in these asylums as they fell into two minorities of class and sex.
This made me think of how this statistical situation in asylums could mirror in other sectors of community segregation. It must also occur in correctional facilities (although probably not as rampant in modern days) where inmates like these asylums patients seek refuge, shelter, sustenance, and maybe even structure and routine by convicting themselves. Poverty and homelessness can make even the most grim institutions seem domestic and hospitable. However, the factual credibility of a convict’s crimes, whether intentional or not, is easier to prove-the detection of mental insanity and hysteria is difficult to define. Hence, the historical records of insanity and asylum patients are definitely very inaccurate, even more so than that of criminal incarnation. Regardless, an issue of poverty and lack of education correlate the two. This just shows how flawed our socio-economic systems are to this day, that the lack of support and resources for lower-class citizens can hinder the progression and accuracy of psychology as a science and a treatment. Poverty and psychiatry have more reasons for being linked than just this, but it is the most simplified correlation that we can first detect.
Poverty in society also affected the practice of psychiatry in more subconscious causes of insanity. The repressive attitudes of classism only served to ostracise mentally precarious people to rehabilitation, because often poverty was so socially unacceptable that it genuinely did create breeding grounds for insanity. Especially since in the asylums, the aim was to promote certain ideals for standards of living. It is certainly a counterproductive approach to inclusion, integration and ‘curing of mental illness’ when we are giving a portraiture of normality. The writer describes how, when reformers created ‘moral’ and ‘normal’ structures of class in the asylums, ‘they defined their facades of sanity as well’. Although this approach is obviously flawed, we can also appreciate how it may have held some value to patients who craved normality as promoted by the status quo and potentially for acceptance and recognition from society. However, the writer also makes another point which I think is comparable for analysis in the psychiatric attempt to ‘domesticate’ insanity. She points out that these asylums typically used the nuclear family model when treating patients, perhaps to replicate the experience of childhood to comfort patients through feelings of maternal/ paternal care. This argument can also face challenges, as it appropriates society, suggesting that any deviation from the nuclear family is disruptive and psychologically harmful. But personally, from a humanistic and biological perspective, I actually approve of this system, one that could potentially promote inner child healing and address the psychological effects of traumatic formative years in patients.
Earlier I mentioned how poverty played a significant role in contributing to the number of asylum patients, but really this book is trying to tell us that above all factors and considerations, most of these patients were women. ‘The rise of the Victorian Madwoman’ makes it profoundly clear to us - even the header itself suggests that women were quite literally driven insane. As the writer explains-‘In a society that not only perceived women as childlike, irrational and sexually unstable but also rendered them legally powerless and economically marginal, it is not surprising that they should have formed the greater part of the residual categories of deviance’. A gen-z would say that women were gaslighted into believing they were crazy, and we very much still are! Although our current society has developed in its attitudes, the way in which women are judged based on their sexuality has just evolved. Its demand and pressures imposed upon women are still very prevalent, but now they are more subtle and subconscious. Social media has heightened the ideals of femininity, and marketing, consumerism and corporatism still undermine women sexually and mentally. This book just highlights how sexism developed from one perspective-a psychological one.
However, we have liberties and choices that Victorian women could not have considered for themselves-we can access education. The Female Malady illustrates how the patriarchal systems almost set women up for mental illness through the restrictions imposed on their livelihood-‘Since their education provided them with so little of the self-discipline and inner resources psychiatrists deemed essential for the individual’s struggle against moral insanity, women were seen as poor mental risks’. Sexism is easy to understand generally, so one doesn’t need to refer to this book. However, it is easy to forget that historically, the segregation and degradation of a woman and her mental capacity have been connected to her body. Showalter reminds us that Victorian psychiatric care for women was based on the belief that the ‘instability of the female nervous and reproductive systems made women more vulnerable to derangement than men’. This meant that before a woman even attempted to put herself out there in the world, she was scientifically deemed inferior. We are reminded that their supposed psychological inferiority ‘was used as a reason to keep women out of the professions, to deny them political rights, and to keep them under male control in the family and the state.’ I think that piece of information really summarises how the Victorian woman rose to madness.
Much of this book refers to the biology of women and as modern readers we have a healthier understanding of the relationship between our hormones, menstrual cycles and the psychological phenomenons we feel that differentiate our mental experience to that of an assigned male at birth. Sometimes, it even feels empowering to bleed, especially when we can better track our cycle and appreciate the catharsis of menstruation. But in ‘Managing Women’s Minds’ we are informed that even Victorians understood the connection between a women’s cycle and her mind, except it was considered an issue where ‘the regulation of women’s cycles in Victorian psychiatry often seems like an effort to postpone or extirpate female sexuality’. This wasn’t just mythology but a medical theory, as quoted by a practitioner-‘Dr. Edward Tilt argued that menstruation was so disruptive to female brains that it should not be hastened but rather be retarded as long as possible’. The trans-generational effect and relevancy of this opinion can be accounted for today. My sexual education was devoid of any compassion and emotional consideration for the transitory experience of menstruation. It was taboo, shameful, embarrassing. Many girls hid their signs of puberty or prayed to delay the onset. It seems females have been conditioned for centuries to see menstruation as something problematic. Women of the past, and even still in the present, are not educated enough academically or socially about female anatomy and sexual pleasure. Our organs are often diminished to a monthly nuisance, a plague on our sanity, or a vessel for the duties of motherhood.
Womanhood and the connection between our psyche and body have long been wounded. In Victorian times where young girls were encouraged to ‘eliminate meat from the diets’ only reminds me of the widespread disordered eating, fad diets and body image issues that plague girlhood and womanhood today. We have been sold advice both socially and medically where the contradictions are endless, the limitations and rules ever-changing. This also applies to the fashion industry and the beauty standards we are upheld to but also scrutinised upon. It didn’t occur to me fully, until reading this book, how much a woman’s mentality is judged based upon appearance (or maybe I did) but was shocked to see it mentioned scientifically. This book narrates how it all started in these asylums where ‘female sanity was often judged according to their compliance with middle-class standards of fashion’. In Hanwell Asylum, the psychiatrist would commend and compliment women for their neatly groomed hair-almost as if an affirmation of external conformity was a sign of psychiatric improvement. It seems valuing a woman for her beauty goes so far as to clinically assess and treat her mental illness through the same means.
In lliterature, culture and the media a ‘mad woman’ has always been portrayed as unkept, but is it not half crazy in itself to expect women (or those who are unwilling) to spend hours of time grooming and styling themselves, especially if it wastes time that could be spent on more empowering and stimulating tasks of the heart, mind and soul? As the Victorian doctors contradict themselves in their prognosis of the many lunatic ladies they’ve taken into care, we also learn that ‘too much attention to dress and appearance was a sign of madness as well’. This also has relevancy to the current psychological state of women and their relationship with their appearances, self esteem and self-worth-the mental health effects are obvious. It isn’t surprising that this issue dates back to Victorian times. Women are already at their most vulnerable in psychiatric care, only to be degraded and reduced even more to the frivolity of their outward appearance, cuts to the core of feminism and the ‘crazy’ feminist who shaves their head or refuses to shave their armpits. The irony of all of this lies because they were supposedly inpatients for the ‘insanity’ of their brains, only to be treated for the socially constructed perception of insanity perceived in their appearance. Madness!
In ‘Nervous Women’, the writer revisits a lot of themes discussed previously, but talks more intimately about the experiences women had in their everyday lives and how social structures failed to support or value them beyond their maternal or matrimonial roles. The most extreme action taken in an attempt to subdue, control and marginalise women was, of course, the lobotomy. The reason that it was mainly women who were lobotomised seems quite obvious to the reader, but we are reminded that practitioners recommended these procedures because psychosurgeons considered that ‘the operation is potentially more effective with women because it is easier for them to assume or resume the role of a housewife’. It is heartbreaking to consider the women who were forced into this, or even worse, the women who entrusted themselves into the care of psychiatry in a hope of elevating their nervousness. Whilst some women truly put all their faith in their doctors (some still do), even Victorian women developed a scepticism and resistance to this male authority, as included from Alice James diary-‘I suppose one has a greater sense of intellectual degradation after an interview with a doctor than from any human experience’. Once again, the writer brings the point of view back to the modern-day reader, so many women will relate to this experience of feeling misunderstood, dismissed or reduced to a prescription or prognosis when sitting in a practitioner’s patient chair.
In the final chapter of ‘Women, Madness, and the Family’ we start to see some of the breakthroughs that began to circulate in psychiatry, mainly through the mention of Ronald David Laing. His understanding was that we would not progress in science, but especially practice because ‘the mad things said and done by the schizophrenic will remain a closed book if one does not understand their existential context’. This summarises the use of empathy and emotional intelligence to develop a wider scope of understanding and eventually statistical patterns to apply in treatment of patients. It is obvious throughout the book that the patient, the mental illness and the lunatic were reduced to their symptoms before their life experiences were ever truly considered. I now know what book I will add to my psychology reading list-‘The Divided Self’ is clearly a must read for people like myself, who wish to learn more about the history and development of theories and practice of psychology. Even the preface of Laing’s book sounds promising; its ‘basic principle is to make madness and the process of going mad, comprehensible’. Overall, I really did think The Female Malady was a valuable read on my quest for information about psychiatry, however it is definitely more historical than scientific, so I would keep this in mind for any assignments or specified reading recommendations.
To start, I feel the introduction of the book very clearly sets the tone and style of the upcoming chapters. If you find it a bit drab and factual, then the introductory chapter establishes this for the reader. As per my introduction, educational reading isn’t always going to be riveting and exciting, so I took this opportunity to realign my expectations a bit and appreciate the depth in which the writer actually studied and researched for this book. Her aim is clearly education, rather than speculation, fabrication or (as so many feminist books have) expressing strongly biased or personal opinions. This book is a well-written, scientific-based read. A female writer explains, objectively, the maltreatment of women in psychiatry for their femininity, based on the prognosis of subjectivity, which makes them ‘crazy’. Showalter narrates from the beginning that ‘madness is the price women artists have had to pay for the exercise of their creativity in a male-dominated culture’. This book is in one sense a historical artefact of female psychiatry and she doesn’t fail to mention those whose names serve as a reminder. ‘ In the annals of feminist literary history, Virginia Woolf, Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath have become our sisters and our saints’. As a fellow female writer, her subtle and gracious solidarity towards the voices of those before her is a sweet snippet to be found amongst the informative text.
‘Domesticating Insanity’ was definitely my favourite chapter. It describes how women of any class or position could classify as clinically insane. We learn just how much women were reprimanded and controlled for behaviour that was considered socially unacceptable, how their ‘hysteria’ was often a rebellious response to the confinements of society on their gender. As Showalter defines it, this female insanity was a psychological aversion to ‘resist the social definitions that confine them to the doll’s house of bourgeois femininity’. As society technologically and corporately progressed (there are a lot of other progressions I could mention here like consumerism and vanity), it is clear that over time humanity has suffered psychologically, but it is difficult to determine where it all went wrong and how to remedy it. It becomes clear, however, that England played a paternal role in domesticating insanity, as ‘both natives and foreigners agreed that as the richest and the most advanced society, England necessarily had the highest incidence of insanity.’ Medical practitioners understood this at the time and, as quoted by Dr. Andrew Halliday, ‘madness was a disease of the highly civilised and industrialised; “We seldom meet with insanity among the savage tribes of men... Among the slaves in the West Indies it very rarely occurs... and the wilds of Ireland are almost free from this complaint.’ This should have prompted a lot more social considerations in psychiatry.
As reflected by Dr. Halliday, the advancement and progression of the external structures of society has wrecked havoc on the internal structures of our psyche. From a social psychology perspective, this makes you consider how the pressures of society and economy have inhibited our ability to create happiness and how humanity was never supposed to live in such a fast-paced, competitive environment. However (as a proud Irish woman), my attention drew to the factual basis of England’s profound influence on culture globally, how the power and greed of the very ‘masculine’ English appetite created a generational wound for years to come in the psychological effects of its industrialisation, but also its entire colonisation of rural Ireland. The English both destroyed and transformed Ireland in a psychologically traumatic way-but also socially through its pastimes, values, and norms. English, in a sense, groomed the Irish to behave and think like them-but that’s part of a historical story for a different day. But I think it made clear in these chapters that England, with all its prestige and ambition, also promoted the unravelling of social psychology.
Another point worth mentioning is that those who failed to keep up with the ever-increasing demands of society were, and still are, more susceptible and vulnerable to psychological issues. Whether this is negligent of the individual or of the government to which the individual conforms to is another question of social policy that we can consider after reading this book. But what struck me as interesting, and likely accurate in many cases, is that the writer outlines the possibility that society could have considered insanity as an economic choice for the poor and homeless. As a statistical consequence, ‘Between 1844 and 1890, the number of pauper lunatics in public asylums quadrupled’. It is, of course, extremely unfortunate that anyone (past or present) would feel it necessary for their survival to feign insanity (and morally it is questionable too), but from a historical or scientific standpoint, it creates inconsistencies. The credibility and authenticity of the documented diagnoses in these asylums are not truly reliable because of the many variables, misdiagnosis and sexism prevalent in psychiatry. Although the female psyche is the focus in this book, it is hard not to reflect on the correlation between poverty and insanity, even more so the higher incidence of poverty-stricken women in these asylums as they fell into two minorities of class and sex.
This made me think of how this statistical situation in asylums could mirror in other sectors of community segregation. It must also occur in correctional facilities (although probably not as rampant in modern days) where inmates like these asylums patients seek refuge, shelter, sustenance, and maybe even structure and routine by convicting themselves. Poverty and homelessness can make even the most grim institutions seem domestic and hospitable. However, the factual credibility of a convict’s crimes, whether intentional or not, is easier to prove-the detection of mental insanity and hysteria is difficult to define. Hence, the historical records of insanity and asylum patients are definitely very inaccurate, even more so than that of criminal incarnation. Regardless, an issue of poverty and lack of education correlate the two. This just shows how flawed our socio-economic systems are to this day, that the lack of support and resources for lower-class citizens can hinder the progression and accuracy of psychology as a science and a treatment. Poverty and psychiatry have more reasons for being linked than just this, but it is the most simplified correlation that we can first detect.
Poverty in society also affected the practice of psychiatry in more subconscious causes of insanity. The repressive attitudes of classism only served to ostracise mentally precarious people to rehabilitation, because often poverty was so socially unacceptable that it genuinely did create breeding grounds for insanity. Especially since in the asylums, the aim was to promote certain ideals for standards of living. It is certainly a counterproductive approach to inclusion, integration and ‘curing of mental illness’ when we are giving a portraiture of normality. The writer describes how, when reformers created ‘moral’ and ‘normal’ structures of class in the asylums, ‘they defined their facades of sanity as well’. Although this approach is obviously flawed, we can also appreciate how it may have held some value to patients who craved normality as promoted by the status quo and potentially for acceptance and recognition from society. However, the writer also makes another point which I think is comparable for analysis in the psychiatric attempt to ‘domesticate’ insanity. She points out that these asylums typically used the nuclear family model when treating patients, perhaps to replicate the experience of childhood to comfort patients through feelings of maternal/ paternal care. This argument can also face challenges, as it appropriates society, suggesting that any deviation from the nuclear family is disruptive and psychologically harmful. But personally, from a humanistic and biological perspective, I actually approve of this system, one that could potentially promote inner child healing and address the psychological effects of traumatic formative years in patients.
Earlier I mentioned how poverty played a significant role in contributing to the number of asylum patients, but really this book is trying to tell us that above all factors and considerations, most of these patients were women. ‘The rise of the Victorian Madwoman’ makes it profoundly clear to us - even the header itself suggests that women were quite literally driven insane. As the writer explains-‘In a society that not only perceived women as childlike, irrational and sexually unstable but also rendered them legally powerless and economically marginal, it is not surprising that they should have formed the greater part of the residual categories of deviance’. A gen-z would say that women were gaslighted into believing they were crazy, and we very much still are! Although our current society has developed in its attitudes, the way in which women are judged based on their sexuality has just evolved. Its demand and pressures imposed upon women are still very prevalent, but now they are more subtle and subconscious. Social media has heightened the ideals of femininity, and marketing, consumerism and corporatism still undermine women sexually and mentally. This book just highlights how sexism developed from one perspective-a psychological one.
However, we have liberties and choices that Victorian women could not have considered for themselves-we can access education. The Female Malady illustrates how the patriarchal systems almost set women up for mental illness through the restrictions imposed on their livelihood-‘Since their education provided them with so little of the self-discipline and inner resources psychiatrists deemed essential for the individual’s struggle against moral insanity, women were seen as poor mental risks’. Sexism is easy to understand generally, so one doesn’t need to refer to this book. However, it is easy to forget that historically, the segregation and degradation of a woman and her mental capacity have been connected to her body. Showalter reminds us that Victorian psychiatric care for women was based on the belief that the ‘instability of the female nervous and reproductive systems made women more vulnerable to derangement than men’. This meant that before a woman even attempted to put herself out there in the world, she was scientifically deemed inferior. We are reminded that their supposed psychological inferiority ‘was used as a reason to keep women out of the professions, to deny them political rights, and to keep them under male control in the family and the state.’ I think that piece of information really summarises how the Victorian woman rose to madness.
Much of this book refers to the biology of women and as modern readers we have a healthier understanding of the relationship between our hormones, menstrual cycles and the psychological phenomenons we feel that differentiate our mental experience to that of an assigned male at birth. Sometimes, it even feels empowering to bleed, especially when we can better track our cycle and appreciate the catharsis of menstruation. But in ‘Managing Women’s Minds’ we are informed that even Victorians understood the connection between a women’s cycle and her mind, except it was considered an issue where ‘the regulation of women’s cycles in Victorian psychiatry often seems like an effort to postpone or extirpate female sexuality’. This wasn’t just mythology but a medical theory, as quoted by a practitioner-‘Dr. Edward Tilt argued that menstruation was so disruptive to female brains that it should not be hastened but rather be retarded as long as possible’. The trans-generational effect and relevancy of this opinion can be accounted for today. My sexual education was devoid of any compassion and emotional consideration for the transitory experience of menstruation. It was taboo, shameful, embarrassing. Many girls hid their signs of puberty or prayed to delay the onset. It seems females have been conditioned for centuries to see menstruation as something problematic. Women of the past, and even still in the present, are not educated enough academically or socially about female anatomy and sexual pleasure. Our organs are often diminished to a monthly nuisance, a plague on our sanity, or a vessel for the duties of motherhood.
Womanhood and the connection between our psyche and body have long been wounded. In Victorian times where young girls were encouraged to ‘eliminate meat from the diets’ only reminds me of the widespread disordered eating, fad diets and body image issues that plague girlhood and womanhood today. We have been sold advice both socially and medically where the contradictions are endless, the limitations and rules ever-changing. This also applies to the fashion industry and the beauty standards we are upheld to but also scrutinised upon. It didn’t occur to me fully, until reading this book, how much a woman’s mentality is judged based upon appearance (or maybe I did) but was shocked to see it mentioned scientifically. This book narrates how it all started in these asylums where ‘female sanity was often judged according to their compliance with middle-class standards of fashion’. In Hanwell Asylum, the psychiatrist would commend and compliment women for their neatly groomed hair-almost as if an affirmation of external conformity was a sign of psychiatric improvement. It seems valuing a woman for her beauty goes so far as to clinically assess and treat her mental illness through the same means.
In lliterature, culture and the media a ‘mad woman’ has always been portrayed as unkept, but is it not half crazy in itself to expect women (or those who are unwilling) to spend hours of time grooming and styling themselves, especially if it wastes time that could be spent on more empowering and stimulating tasks of the heart, mind and soul? As the Victorian doctors contradict themselves in their prognosis of the many lunatic ladies they’ve taken into care, we also learn that ‘too much attention to dress and appearance was a sign of madness as well’. This also has relevancy to the current psychological state of women and their relationship with their appearances, self esteem and self-worth-the mental health effects are obvious. It isn’t surprising that this issue dates back to Victorian times. Women are already at their most vulnerable in psychiatric care, only to be degraded and reduced even more to the frivolity of their outward appearance, cuts to the core of feminism and the ‘crazy’ feminist who shaves their head or refuses to shave their armpits. The irony of all of this lies because they were supposedly inpatients for the ‘insanity’ of their brains, only to be treated for the socially constructed perception of insanity perceived in their appearance. Madness!
In ‘Nervous Women’, the writer revisits a lot of themes discussed previously, but talks more intimately about the experiences women had in their everyday lives and how social structures failed to support or value them beyond their maternal or matrimonial roles. The most extreme action taken in an attempt to subdue, control and marginalise women was, of course, the lobotomy. The reason that it was mainly women who were lobotomised seems quite obvious to the reader, but we are reminded that practitioners recommended these procedures because psychosurgeons considered that ‘the operation is potentially more effective with women because it is easier for them to assume or resume the role of a housewife’. It is heartbreaking to consider the women who were forced into this, or even worse, the women who entrusted themselves into the care of psychiatry in a hope of elevating their nervousness. Whilst some women truly put all their faith in their doctors (some still do), even Victorian women developed a scepticism and resistance to this male authority, as included from Alice James diary-‘I suppose one has a greater sense of intellectual degradation after an interview with a doctor than from any human experience’. Once again, the writer brings the point of view back to the modern-day reader, so many women will relate to this experience of feeling misunderstood, dismissed or reduced to a prescription or prognosis when sitting in a practitioner’s patient chair.
In the final chapter of ‘Women, Madness, and the Family’ we start to see some of the breakthroughs that began to circulate in psychiatry, mainly through the mention of Ronald David Laing. His understanding was that we would not progress in science, but especially practice because ‘the mad things said and done by the schizophrenic will remain a closed book if one does not understand their existential context’. This summarises the use of empathy and emotional intelligence to develop a wider scope of understanding and eventually statistical patterns to apply in treatment of patients. It is obvious throughout the book that the patient, the mental illness and the lunatic were reduced to their symptoms before their life experiences were ever truly considered. I now know what book I will add to my psychology reading list-‘The Divided Self’ is clearly a must read for people like myself, who wish to learn more about the history and development of theories and practice of psychology. Even the preface of Laing’s book sounds promising; its ‘basic principle is to make madness and the process of going mad, comprehensible’. Overall, I really did think The Female Malady was a valuable read on my quest for information about psychiatry, however it is definitely more historical than scientific, so I would keep this in mind for any assignments or specified reading recommendations.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 20, 2012
i had to read this for a presentation i did on the history of mental illness in my BA 3rd year history class. i loved it then, and i've read it since and still love it. i often recommend books i've read for uni to people i know who are researching or just interested in particular issues, and this one i've recommended more than any other, it's informative and readable and very persuasive.
June 30, 2019
Thrilling and scholarly, this book from the 80s shines the light on the link between oppression of women and ways their mental troubles were treated in England. E.g. I learned schizophrenia used to be called hysteria.
March 29, 2019
Very interesting book about female "insanity," with a feminist bend.
March 6, 2019
Showalter's writing is so engaging and her ideas are really compelling. Before reading, I thought I had the topic figured out - it seems quite evident if you've read anything about mental illness and feminism. But I was gladly mistaken - her arguments are very nuanced and focused and made me think about facets of the topic I hadn't previously. In addition, a historical scope like this can often make texts feel rushed, spending not enough time on each time period. This text never really felt like that. For my interests, I would have loved more time spent on the more recent years, but that would have made it unbalanced in treatment.
There were a couple things that nagged at me in the this text. First is that her analysis on any given topic seems to change based on the point she's trying to make in that she'll make two conflicting analyses of the same topic simply because she trying to make two different points in two different chapters. For example, in one of the first chapters, moral therapy is made out to be a positive alternative to the previous practice of simply locking away mentally ill people. In a later chapter, moral therapy is the judgmental, negative practice that was overcome by the triumphant, non-judgmental psychoanalysis. And still later, psychoanalysis results in false, judgmental ideas about the patient's sexual fantasies and activities. There doesn't seem to be any one clear overarching analysis that takes into accounts both the negatives and positives at the same time. This is implied, of course, so I wasn't completely put off by it, but I would have liked a clear articulation of these conflicts.
In the same vein, she would often ignore a thorough analysis of a source simply for the point of an argument. The most egregious example of this problem is when she writes of the 'lunatic balls' that people attended as a positive alternative to when people would previous pay to laugh at people in asylums; how these differ in any great respect is beyond me. She later criticizes those spectators, but I believe that that analysis should have occurred right away. And other things, like taking a medical superintendent's passage on how his modern asylum is so much better than the old dungeons at face value, when clearly he would be writing in order to influence people to believe he was truly better and was almost certainly exaggerating aspects of how bad it was before in order to do so. I also think she makes a lot of excuses for the cruelty of medical professionals in the past, which literally almost every author writing on this topic does so I guess it's not a huge issue, but I think it's so unnecessary and personally aggravating to read.
Other than those small issues, I really enjoyed this book. In particular, her focus on literature and her small survey of texts on mental illness is absolutely excellent and really relevant to me. And I LOVE how careful she is about not romanticizing/glorifying mental illness, warning against saying that it's a positive tool for female empowerment, while also not presenting it as a prison for women. She walks the line between those two extremes perfectly. She never uses it solely as a metaphor (as Gilbert and Gubar do), treats it as a very real experience for many, many women, but also doesn't close her self off to its metaphorical capabilities. It's really hard to walk those lines and she does so in a way that I hope I can emulate. Definitely a crucial text for this area, both in its information and approach.
There were a couple things that nagged at me in the this text. First is that her analysis on any given topic seems to change based on the point she's trying to make in that she'll make two conflicting analyses of the same topic simply because she trying to make two different points in two different chapters. For example, in one of the first chapters, moral therapy is made out to be a positive alternative to the previous practice of simply locking away mentally ill people. In a later chapter, moral therapy is the judgmental, negative practice that was overcome by the triumphant, non-judgmental psychoanalysis. And still later, psychoanalysis results in false, judgmental ideas about the patient's sexual fantasies and activities. There doesn't seem to be any one clear overarching analysis that takes into accounts both the negatives and positives at the same time. This is implied, of course, so I wasn't completely put off by it, but I would have liked a clear articulation of these conflicts.
In the same vein, she would often ignore a thorough analysis of a source simply for the point of an argument. The most egregious example of this problem is when she writes of the 'lunatic balls' that people attended as a positive alternative to when people would previous pay to laugh at people in asylums; how these differ in any great respect is beyond me. She later criticizes those spectators, but I believe that that analysis should have occurred right away. And other things, like taking a medical superintendent's passage on how his modern asylum is so much better than the old dungeons at face value, when clearly he would be writing in order to influence people to believe he was truly better and was almost certainly exaggerating aspects of how bad it was before in order to do so. I also think she makes a lot of excuses for the cruelty of medical professionals in the past, which literally almost every author writing on this topic does so I guess it's not a huge issue, but I think it's so unnecessary and personally aggravating to read.
Other than those small issues, I really enjoyed this book. In particular, her focus on literature and her small survey of texts on mental illness is absolutely excellent and really relevant to me. And I LOVE how careful she is about not romanticizing/glorifying mental illness, warning against saying that it's a positive tool for female empowerment, while also not presenting it as a prison for women. She walks the line between those two extremes perfectly. She never uses it solely as a metaphor (as Gilbert and Gubar do), treats it as a very real experience for many, many women, but also doesn't close her self off to its metaphorical capabilities. It's really hard to walk those lines and she does so in a way that I hope I can emulate. Definitely a crucial text for this area, both in its information and approach.
October 1, 2021
شوالتر و تاکید بر نقش زنانگی در ادبیات
نگاهی کوتاه به کارنامه ی کاری الین شوالتر بنیانگذار نقد ادبی زنانه ی
آمریکا
فرزامکریمی
مترجم/منتقد
الین شوالتر زاده ی بیست و یکم ژانویه سال 1941 در ایالت ماساچوست میباشد,شوالتر را آموزگار,منتقد ادبی و همچنین بنیان گذار نقد زنانه ی آمریکایی میدانند،مکتبی که با ترکیب نقد فمنیستی زنان نویسنده با تاریخ، مضامین،ژانرها و ساختارهای ادبی ساخته شده توسط زنان می پردازد.شوالتر دوران کارشناسی خویش را به سال 1962 در کالج برین مایر گذراند,مدرک کارشناسی ارشد خویش را در سال 1964 از دانشگاه برندیس اخذ کرد و مدرک دکترای خویش را در رشته ی زبان انگلیسی از دانشگاه کالیفرنیا اخذ نمود.وی در سال 1969 به عضویت هیئت علمی کالج داگلاس دانشگاه راتجرز پیوست و در آنجا دوره های مطالعات زنان را توسعه داد و شروع به نوشتن و ویرایش مقالاتی برای گاهنامه های مربوط به ادبیات زنان کرد.او بعدتر مشغول به تدریس در دانشگاه های راتجرز و پرینستون شدکه هیچکدام از این دانشگاهها در زمان شروع تدریس وی,زنان را استخدام نمی کردند؛شوالتر در سال 2003 از دانشگاه پرینستون بازنشسته شد,همچنین او برای مدتی به عنوان روزنامه نگار و مفسر رسانه ای مستقل فعالیت می کرد.شوالتر متخصص ادبیات دوره ی ویکتوریاست.مبتکرانه ترین آثارش در این زمینه را می توان در کتاب های دیوانگی و احساسات غیرقابل کنترل رویت نمود که نگاه ویژه ای به زنان و نوشتار زنان دارد,از شناخته شده ترین آثار شوالتر میتوان به پیش به سوی نظریه های شاعرانه فمنیستی،بیماری زن بودن: زنان، دیوانگی و فرهنگ انگلیسی (بررسی موردی از سالهای 1830-1980)، آنارشی جنسی: جنسیت و فرهنگ در پایان قرن نوزدهم،ادعای یک میراث فکری فمنیستی اشاره کرد.شوالتر در سال 2007 رئیس داوران جایزه بین المللی من بوکر،جایزه ادبی معتبر انگلستان بود
کتاب "ساختن خویشتن" شوالتر، با بررسی ویژگیهای فمنیستی،نقطه ای پرررنگ در کارنامه ی وی است چرا که او در این کتاب تاکید ویژه ای بر اهمیت انتقال سنت فمنیسم و درک آن دارد.نخستین مقالات شوالتر در اواخر دهه هفتاد و هشتاد میلادی، به بررسی تاریخچه سنت فمنیسم در پهنه نقد و نظریه های ادبی می پردازد.فعالیت وی در زمینه نقد و نظریه های ادبی فمنیستی،تلاش علمی نوظهوری در عرصه ی آکادمیک در دهه ی هفتاد میلادی به شمار میرفت.هدف وی از انجام این کار اثبات نقد و نظریه های ادبی فمنیستی و اثبات جایگاه آنان در نظریات بنیادین و تشکیل پایگاه اطلاعاتی کاملی بود که مسیر پژوهش را برای بررسی های آکادمیک فمنیستی در آینده هموار می کرد
شوالتر در کتاب "پیش به سوی نظریه های شاعرانه فمنیستی" تاریخچه ادبیات زنان را دنبال می کند و طبقه بندی از ادبیات زنان را ارایه میدهد,به زعم وی میتوان ادبیات زنان را به سه مرحله تقسیم کرد:
تأنیث: در مرحله تأنیث (1840-1880)، زنان در تلاش بودند تا از طریق نوشتن با دستاوردهای فکری فرهنگ مردان به برابری برسند و فرضیاتشان در باب ماهیت زنان را درونی کنند
فمنیستی: در مرحله فمنیستی (1880-1920)،زنان به وسیله آثارشان به اعتراض در باب ارزش ها و استانداردهای مردانه پرداخته اند و از حقوق و ارزش هایشان از جمله تقاضای استقلال حمایت میکردند
زنانگی: مرحله زنانگی (1920 تا کنون) در ارتباط با خود شناسی است. به گفته شوالتر،زنان تقلید و اعتراض -این دو شکل از وابستگی- را رد می کنند و درمقابل با اتکا به تجربیات زنانه خود به هنر مستقل روی می آوردند که این امر موجب گسترش تجزیه و تحلیل فمنیستی در قالب ادبیات می شود
شوالتر با رد تقلید و اعتراض و نزدیک شدن به نقد فمنیستی در مرحله زنانگی از دیدگاهی فرهنگی حمایت کرده است و از دیدگاهی که با توجه به نگاه مردانه از رویکرد روانکاوانه و بیولوژیکی نشات می گیرد،حمایت نمی کند.شوالتر در مقاله ای عنوان میکند:« یک نظریه فرهنگی اذعان می کند که در بین زنان نویسنده تفاوت های بسیار مهمی وجود دارد که عبارتند از: طبقه اجتماعی، نژاد، ملیت و تاریخ، که به اندازه جنسیت در ادبیات آنها نقش دارد.با این وجود،فرهنگ زنان تجربه ای جمعی را در کلیتی فرهنگی شکل می دهد،تجربه ای که نویسندگان زن را ورای فاصله های زمانی و مکانی به یکدیگر پیوند می دهد
نگاهی کوتاه به کارنامه ی کاری الین شوالتر بنیانگذار نقد ادبی زنانه ی
آمریکا
فرزامکریمی
مترجم/منتقد
الین شوالتر زاده ی بیست و یکم ژانویه سال 1941 در ایالت ماساچوست میباشد,شوالتر را آموزگار,منتقد ادبی و همچنین بنیان گذار نقد زنانه ی آمریکایی میدانند،مکتبی که با ترکیب نقد فمنیستی زنان نویسنده با تاریخ، مضامین،ژانرها و ساختارهای ادبی ساخته شده توسط زنان می پردازد.شوالتر دوران کارشناسی خویش را به سال 1962 در کالج برین مایر گذراند,مدرک کارشناسی ارشد خویش را در سال 1964 از دانشگاه برندیس اخذ کرد و مدرک دکترای خویش را در رشته ی زبان انگلیسی از دانشگاه کالیفرنیا اخذ نمود.وی در سال 1969 به عضویت هیئت علمی کالج داگلاس دانشگاه راتجرز پیوست و در آنجا دوره های مطالعات زنان را توسعه داد و شروع به نوشتن و ویرایش مقالاتی برای گاهنامه های مربوط به ادبیات زنان کرد.او بعدتر مشغول به تدریس در دانشگاه های راتجرز و پرینستون شدکه هیچکدام از این دانشگاهها در زمان شروع تدریس وی,زنان را استخدام نمی کردند؛شوالتر در سال 2003 از دانشگاه پرینستون بازنشسته شد,همچنین او برای مدتی به عنوان روزنامه نگار و مفسر رسانه ای مستقل فعالیت می کرد.شوالتر متخصص ادبیات دوره ی ویکتوریاست.مبتکرانه ترین آثارش در این زمینه را می توان در کتاب های دیوانگی و احساسات غیرقابل کنترل رویت نمود که نگاه ویژه ای به زنان و نوشتار زنان دارد,از شناخته شده ترین آثار شوالتر میتوان به پیش به سوی نظریه های شاعرانه فمنیستی،بیماری زن بودن: زنان، دیوانگی و فرهنگ انگلیسی (بررسی موردی از سالهای 1830-1980)، آنارشی جنسی: جنسیت و فرهنگ در پایان قرن نوزدهم،ادعای یک میراث فکری فمنیستی اشاره کرد.شوالتر در سال 2007 رئیس داوران جایزه بین المللی من بوکر،جایزه ادبی معتبر انگلستان بود
کتاب "ساختن خویشتن" شوالتر، با بررسی ویژگیهای فمنیستی،نقطه ای پرررنگ در کارنامه ی وی است چرا که او در این کتاب تاکید ویژه ای بر اهمیت انتقال سنت فمنیسم و درک آن دارد.نخستین مقالات شوالتر در اواخر دهه هفتاد و هشتاد میلادی، به بررسی تاریخچه سنت فمنیسم در پهنه نقد و نظریه های ادبی می پردازد.فعالیت وی در زمینه نقد و نظریه های ادبی فمنیستی،تلاش علمی نوظهوری در عرصه ی آکادمیک در دهه ی هفتاد میلادی به شمار میرفت.هدف وی از انجام این کار اثبات نقد و نظریه های ادبی فمنیستی و اثبات جایگاه آنان در نظریات بنیادین و تشکیل پایگاه اطلاعاتی کاملی بود که مسیر پژوهش را برای بررسی های آکادمیک فمنیستی در آینده هموار می کرد
شوالتر در کتاب "پیش به سوی نظریه های شاعرانه فمنیستی" تاریخچه ادبیات زنان را دنبال می کند و طبقه بندی از ادبیات زنان را ارایه میدهد,به زعم وی میتوان ادبیات زنان را به سه مرحله تقسیم کرد:
تأنیث: در مرحله تأنیث (1840-1880)، زنان در تلاش بودند تا از طریق نوشتن با دستاوردهای فکری فرهنگ مردان به برابری برسند و فرضیاتشان در باب ماهیت زنان را درونی کنند
فمنیستی: در مرحله فمنیستی (1880-1920)،زنان به وسیله آثارشان به اعتراض در باب ارزش ها و استانداردهای مردانه پرداخته اند و از حقوق و ارزش هایشان از جمله تقاضای استقلال حمایت میکردند
زنانگی: مرحله زنانگی (1920 تا کنون) در ارتباط با خود شناسی است. به گفته شوالتر،زنان تقلید و اعتراض -این دو شکل از وابستگی- را رد می کنند و درمقابل با اتکا به تجربیات زنانه خود به هنر مستقل روی می آوردند که این امر موجب گسترش تجزیه و تحلیل فمنیستی در قالب ادبیات می شود
شوالتر با رد تقلید و اعتراض و نزدیک شدن به نقد فمنیستی در مرحله زنانگی از دیدگاهی فرهنگی حمایت کرده است و از دیدگاهی که با توجه به نگاه مردانه از رویکرد روانکاوانه و بیولوژیکی نشات می گیرد،حمایت نمی کند.شوالتر در مقاله ای عنوان میکند:« یک نظریه فرهنگی اذعان می کند که در بین زنان نویسنده تفاوت های بسیار مهمی وجود دارد که عبارتند از: طبقه اجتماعی، نژاد، ملیت و تاریخ، که به اندازه جنسیت در ادبیات آنها نقش دارد.با این وجود،فرهنگ زنان تجربه ای جمعی را در کلیتی فرهنگی شکل می دهد،تجربه ای که نویسندگان زن را ورای فاصله های زمانی و مکانی به یکدیگر پیوند می دهد
May 24, 2023
Excellent review of how little has changed in the past 150-200 years of the treatment of psychopathology in women. This is a historical piece about the experiences of women whose deviations from femininity are and have been pathologized and how cultural sexism causes psychopathological experiences, not a review/critique of the science of psychopathology, and it fulfills its purpose quite well.
My only real critique is that I wish there had been a more extensive review of how women have experienced drug revolution - for instance, reviewing the experiences presented in Girl, Interrupted.
My only real critique is that I wish there had been a more extensive review of how women have experienced drug revolution - for instance, reviewing the experiences presented in Girl, Interrupted.
December 23, 2025
La pena que siento por todas las mujeres que aparecen (y las que no) es inmensa. El análisis es perfecto, pero creo que se queda corto al expresar el dolor que han sufrido las mujeres que se han sometido a estos tratamientos a lo largo de la historia (porque básicamente no hay palabras que puedan describirlo). No sé cómo esto no se estudia en los colegios porque es verdaderamente sorprendente. Si algún día hago tesis, será por este libro y por todas ellas. The best hope for the future is the feminist therapy movement💜
September 1, 2019
I learned a few interesting facts, like anorexia nervosa was first identified in 1873. But this book was still written by an English instructor from Princeton and not a Dr. of Psychiatry or even psychology. (it might have been better if Showalter had co-authored with the one both). Actual case studies with footnotes other than Sigmund Freud's would be nice. I think this deserves a 2.5 but since I gave it a four last time I read it, I just knocked it down one before I give it away.
June 22, 2021
A bit of a difficult read for me personally. I came at this book with a psychology mindset; wanting to know the scientific ins and outs of the psychology behind the female malady. This book reads more like a historical piece, therefore I was disappointed. However, if you are interested in more of a psychology history type of book this may be for you.
Want to read
February 19, 2022REF: La imaginación feminista: Debates y transformaciones disciplinares en el capítulo de Dau García Dauder
April 11, 2022
Una aproximación bastante académica y rigurosa pero muy disfrutable sobre el tratamiento de las enfermedades mentales (y de las que no lo eran, pero eran etiquetadas así) a lo largo de siglo y medio. Aporta un montón de información y reflexiones muy interesantes e iluminadoras, una pena que no esté traducido al castellano.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews