This chapter argues that the conditions under the umbrella “personality disorders” actually constitute two very different kinds of theoretical entities. In particular, several core personality disorders are actually moral, and not medical, conditions. Thus, the categories that are held to represent them are really moral, and not medical, theoretical kinds. The chapter works back from the possibility of treatment to the nature of the kinds that are allegedly treated, revisiting 18th-century ideas of moral treatment along the way. The discussion closes (...) with a reflection on how the ambiguous medical status of personality disorders and their treatment today is reminiscent of the ideological tug of war that pits alienist “mad doctors” like Pinel against their lay counterparts such as Tuke as they battled over who should be in charge of treating the mad. (shrink)

For much of the 20th century, scholars of American and European applied psychology and psychiatry have concerned themselves with the concepts of progress and power. In an effort to revisit the character of 19th-century psychiatry and to use the results as a means of evaluating 21st-century practice, this paper explores the relationship between power and progress in two popular but chronologically distinct approaches to caring for the mad: 19th-century moral treatment and late 20th-century psychiatric rehabilitation. Using the theoretical framework of (...) Foucault (1979), moral treatment (as developed by Thomas Story Kirkbride, for example, [1854] 1973) and psychiatric rehabilitation (as developed by William A. Anthony and colleagues, for example, Anthony, Cohen, and Farkas 1990) are compared for the degree to which each is structured by disciplinary interests and technologies. Based on this textual analysis, important differences emerge. Not only do these differences cast moral treatment in a new, and perhaps more positive light, but they also shed light on how disciplinary structures might affect a psychiatric approach's ability to carry out expressly humanitarian goals. To the extent that both propositions are accurate, the traditional view equating psychology and psychiatry's progress with a diminished reliance on power is brought into question. (shrink)

In The Rules of Insanity, Carl Elliott draws on philosophy and psychiatry to develop a conceptual framework for judging the moral responsibility of mentally ill offenders. Arguing that there is little useful that can be said about the responsibility of mentally ill offenders in general, Elliott looks at specific mental illnesses in detail; among them schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorders, psychosexual disorders such as exhibitionism and voyeurism, personality disorders, and impulse control disorders such as kleptomania and pyromania. He takes a particularly hard (...) look at the psychopath or sociopath, who many have argued is incapable of understanding morality. Making extensive use of psychiatric case histories, Elliott explores the various ways in which mental illness can affect a person's intentions and thus excuse him or her from moral responsibility. (shrink)

Here the distinguished philosopher Ian Hacking uses the MPD epidemic and its links with the contemporary concept of child abuse to scrutinize today's moral...