What do you think?
Rate this book
Historia social de la locura
A través de los escritos autobiográficos de un buen número de «locos» famosos (Schumann, Nijinski, Virginia Woolf...), el doctor Roy Porter trata de hacer llegar hasta nosotros las experiencias vitales, la sensibilidad y la visión del mundo de aquellos seres pretendidamente anormales, u ello no tanto desde sus supuestas patologías individuales como desde el entramado ideológico común del que forman parte los locos, los psiquiatras y la sociedad misma. Los locos son gentes de su tiempo, reflejos de una época que los condiciona, pero que ellos también contribuyen a forjar. ¿Por qué, si no, hubo tantos maníacos religiosos durante la Reforma y tantos exorcistas expertos para curarlos? O ¿por qué la Viena finisecular produjo numerosos pacientes con trastornos sexuales, curados por freudianos obsesionados a su vez con la sexualidad? Las palabras de los locos, evocadas en este libro, configurar un mundo al otro lado del espejo en el que se refleja la sociedad «cuerda», su hipocresía y su insensbilidad, hija casi siempre del prejuicio y la ignorancia.
345 pages, Paperback
First published October 15, 1987
16 people are currently reading
409 people want to read
About the author
Roy Porter
221 books123 followersRoy's books cover several fields: the history of geology, London, 18th-Century British ideas and society, medicine, madness, quackery, patients and practitioners, literature and art, on which subjects (and others) he published over 200 books are articles.
List of works can be found @ wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Porter )
List of works can be found @ wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Porter )
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 6, 2015
Terrific survey of autobiographical writings of the insane.
September 25, 2019
Overall, I'd say that I enjoyed this book. There were a lot of stories and historical figures that I was not previously aware of and I do feel like I learned quite a bit. I felt he had a pretty good balance between paraphrasing the stories and providing historical context, particularly the context of how those stories have been analyzed by others. In particular, I really liked that he treated different types of analyses in the same way - for example, both the Catholic interpretation and psychiatric interpretation were treated with the same attention and tone and thus got across his larger message that psychiatry is just one of many interpretations of madness over the course of history. I don't often see this perspective in texts and it was very refreshing - not outright deriding psychiatry, but pointing out that it is not omnipotent nor the key to Truth. Another aspect of this text that I liked was the frequent discussions on Freud - I felt his criticisms were well researched and astute.
I have two main criticisms of this text. The first is that, while he claims to seek not to Other mad people, he still frequently does it. Granted, not as strongly as many other texts, but the mentality of "us vs. them" is still incredibly present and he assumes that the reader is "sane." I understand that he does need to explain to some stubborn and bigoted readers that "mad people" can still use language and such, but it sometimes gets to a point where it's just insulting. Of course we can use language and communicate our feelings. To overstate this point is honestly just as dehumanizing as saying we cannot.
My second criticism is that he claims to not present an analysis of the mad people's stories, but he frequently does. That he does this is certainly not a bad thing! But it's very interesting that he does not view his interpretations as analysis, perhaps because at the time that he wrote them they were so different to the common analyses being presented. He frequently attributes symptoms of madness as normal, if overwhelming, human reactions to the stresses and tribulations of life - i.e. Margery Kempe was emotional and dramatic and unhappy because she was forced to have children she did not want and was oppressed as a woman. This is still an interpretation/analysis, one that is actually akin to a theorist like Thomas Szasz - although Porter certainly does not make a claim that mental illness is a myth, his interpretations imply something along these lines (i.e. "madness" is not a biological phenomenon or something extraordinary, but a normal reaction to problems in living). Again, nothing wrong with the analysis, but it's just so odd that he consistently claims he's merely presenting the stories of madness when to me it was obvious that this is not the case.
I have two main criticisms of this text. The first is that, while he claims to seek not to Other mad people, he still frequently does it. Granted, not as strongly as many other texts, but the mentality of "us vs. them" is still incredibly present and he assumes that the reader is "sane." I understand that he does need to explain to some stubborn and bigoted readers that "mad people" can still use language and such, but it sometimes gets to a point where it's just insulting. Of course we can use language and communicate our feelings. To overstate this point is honestly just as dehumanizing as saying we cannot.
My second criticism is that he claims to not present an analysis of the mad people's stories, but he frequently does. That he does this is certainly not a bad thing! But it's very interesting that he does not view his interpretations as analysis, perhaps because at the time that he wrote them they were so different to the common analyses being presented. He frequently attributes symptoms of madness as normal, if overwhelming, human reactions to the stresses and tribulations of life - i.e. Margery Kempe was emotional and dramatic and unhappy because she was forced to have children she did not want and was oppressed as a woman. This is still an interpretation/analysis, one that is actually akin to a theorist like Thomas Szasz - although Porter certainly does not make a claim that mental illness is a myth, his interpretations imply something along these lines (i.e. "madness" is not a biological phenomenon or something extraordinary, but a normal reaction to problems in living). Again, nothing wrong with the analysis, but it's just so odd that he consistently claims he's merely presenting the stories of madness when to me it was obvious that this is not the case.
February 15, 2026
There are some good accounts in this book. however, the author clearly had strong feelings about some topics and it often came across in comments or criticisms that were left hanging without justification or follow-up.
The work starts off with the still somewhat in-vogue idea of giving voices to the under-represented. In this case the mad, suggests Porter, are usually known only through the writings of others and he wishes to give them their voice. It's a good premise for a book but the reality is that it often feels like he has to reign-in his accounts of certain people because of quite how mad they actually were.
In a sense I feel like this sort of work is part of the problem it professes to contribute a resolution to. On the one hand we have historical accounts of the mad from the externalized perspective of psychiatrists, mad doctors and historians; on the other we have a book like this which mostly wants to look at it from the internal perspective of the mad persons. This lacking is felt most keenly when he gives an account of some people in asylums who felt they were treated poorly (and that could be so) while often glossing over quite how difficult they were/would have been as patients (or, indeed, quite how mad they were).
This is not a comment on whether such accounts have value (I think that they do) but, rather, on the feeling that reacting to partisan accounts (those about the Mad) with other accounts which are partisan in a different way (by the Mad) doesn't feel all that helpful.
This is an interesting tension because, surprisingly, Porter is extremely reluctant to go down the path of anti-psychiatry. He certainly gives accounts later in the book of mad people who did not reject their labelling as 'Mad' and did not object to psychiatric treatment on-principle; but the first half of the book is pretty much full of those who had no insight into their illness or acceptance. In light of this and his claim to not be making judgments it's hard to square how one can accept such people's rejection of a diagnosis of insanity without also engaging with some sort of anti-psychiatric position.
The closest he comes to integrating both (partisan viewpoints) is at the end of the book (Chapter 12 - 'The Therapeutic God') when talking about Freud; but that's because he wants to imply that Freud was both Mad-Man and Mad-Doctor, so-to-speak; something accepted by Freud and Freudians but perhaps with a rather different take-home message (for Freud it was a sign of the rightness of his theory but for others it taints his views- the latter Porter drives home with numerous examples from Freud's own cases).
Particularly good was Chapter 11 - 'The American Dream', and exceptionally bad was Chapter 6 - 'Mad Women'.
The work starts off with the still somewhat in-vogue idea of giving voices to the under-represented. In this case the mad, suggests Porter, are usually known only through the writings of others and he wishes to give them their voice. It's a good premise for a book but the reality is that it often feels like he has to reign-in his accounts of certain people because of quite how mad they actually were.
In a sense I feel like this sort of work is part of the problem it professes to contribute a resolution to. On the one hand we have historical accounts of the mad from the externalized perspective of psychiatrists, mad doctors and historians; on the other we have a book like this which mostly wants to look at it from the internal perspective of the mad persons. This lacking is felt most keenly when he gives an account of some people in asylums who felt they were treated poorly (and that could be so) while often glossing over quite how difficult they were/would have been as patients (or, indeed, quite how mad they were).
This is not a comment on whether such accounts have value (I think that they do) but, rather, on the feeling that reacting to partisan accounts (those about the Mad) with other accounts which are partisan in a different way (by the Mad) doesn't feel all that helpful.
This is an interesting tension because, surprisingly, Porter is extremely reluctant to go down the path of anti-psychiatry. He certainly gives accounts later in the book of mad people who did not reject their labelling as 'Mad' and did not object to psychiatric treatment on-principle; but the first half of the book is pretty much full of those who had no insight into their illness or acceptance. In light of this and his claim to not be making judgments it's hard to square how one can accept such people's rejection of a diagnosis of insanity without also engaging with some sort of anti-psychiatric position.
The closest he comes to integrating both (partisan viewpoints) is at the end of the book (Chapter 12 - 'The Therapeutic God') when talking about Freud; but that's because he wants to imply that Freud was both Mad-Man and Mad-Doctor, so-to-speak; something accepted by Freud and Freudians but perhaps with a rather different take-home message (for Freud it was a sign of the rightness of his theory but for others it taints his views- the latter Porter drives home with numerous examples from Freud's own cases).
Particularly good was Chapter 11 - 'The American Dream', and exceptionally bad was Chapter 6 - 'Mad Women'.
January 10, 2025
É un libro documento oramai un po’ datato ma interessante per chi è interessato alla storia della medicina
September 28, 2013
It took me a long time to make it through this, but it was worth the time. An interesting glimpse into the lives of those deemed "mad" and how they felt to be treated as such. Also loved the Freud quotes and reading of his troubles.
December 23, 2008
Fascinating.
Frightening.
Haunting and inspiring.
Frightening.
Haunting and inspiring.
June 2, 2014
Loved the intro, but for me it just didn't deliver what I wanted. Shame.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews