Analysis of Ussher's The Madness of Women: Myth and Experience - Book Report/Review Example

 SUMMARY AND REVIEW OF USSHER’S BOOK ON MADNESS Sociologists, philosophers, and the entire medical fraternity is often striving to understand the behavior of women in the presently civilized society and understanding the contentious issue of women madness. While many uphold that women are naturally mad and easily infuriated, Ussher (2011) uncovers that the perceived madness of women is attributable to psychological stress and their disadvantaged societal statuses including their race, gender, socioeconomic status, age, and the social construct that places the task of childcare on women. Apparently, women become mad due to the social experiences that often debilitate or torpedoes their reasoning capacity and mental stability. Through the review of Ussher’s book, “The Madness of Women: Myth and Experience”, and incorporation of various resources, this paper candidly and comprehensively expound that women’s madness is basically a social construct, gender-labeled, myth and is due to the experiences women undergo in life thus victims should not be subjected to medicalization. Book Summary Jane Ussher, in the introductory paragraph brings in Philip Martin’s quote that “Woman and madness share the same territory” and goes ahead to explain how the term “mad” has since been inexplicably applied to women (pg. 1). Whenever someone talks of madness, women are brought into the epicenter of the circle as it is believed that insanity is part of a woman’s life. Ussher shuns explications that point to women’s hormonal fragility and genetic frailty as the source of their madness and instead concentrates on the cultural and social stress that women face in their daily lives. In fighting the social and cultural prejudices help by many in a predominantly chauvinistic society, Ussher (2011) maintains that what people consider to be symptoms that necessitate psychiatric analysis or diagnosis are purely constructed by and on the time that a woman lived and the domineering culture during that time. She backs her idea by referring to hysteria, a common female malaise of the 18th and 19th century. Usher (2011) centers on depression and validates her premise that most behaviors perceived as symptoms of madness were merely developed by women as they struggled to adapt to the challenges of life. These symptoms came about as a way of responding to daily stress. Captivatingly, Usher (2011) excruciatingly notes that although the behaviors and emotions that serve as connote madness are portrayed by both men and women, madness is tied to feminity hence qualifying madness as a gender-labeled conception. Additionally, the author examines epidemiological evidence that indicates that women are more predisposed to madness than men. Ussher further notes that Susan Nolen holds that women’s susceptibility to depressive symptoms increases due to rumination, where women think and reflect about their past with the main intention of changing the situation or averting similar adverse occurrences. This is more ubiquitous in adolescent girls as well as mature women, a clear implication of the connection between madness and age. What’s more, Ussher applies the DSM-IV criteria to disorders such as premenstrual dysphoric, borderline personality, and posttraumatic stress to reinforce the understanding that the symptoms of madness came as a response to life experiences. Through various examples and use of women’s actual words, the author succeeds in illustrating that given a woman responds to the neglect or abuse they encounter, and their responses associated with psychosis, giving the book a sociological importance. For instance, Ussher considers the extreme and unfitting wrath for borderline personality malady to be a tremendously sensible and realistic reaction to a prolonged period of duplicity and abuse. Through such examples, the author makes the masterpiece thoughtful and engaging thus easily arousing feelings among readers. In the final chapter of the intriguing manuscript, Ussher concentrates on “Resistance and survival” where she proposes what women can do to contest the social paradigm of the problem of madness as a women’s issue. While her theoretical formulations are complex, the solutions she suggests are rather limited. According to Usher (2011), women should say no to the images on how the society expects them to behave. They should then engage in activities that indicate that they care for their lives. Among these includes reading books, taking a bath, and resting. As a sociocultural thinker, Ussher believes that this will help in reducing the cases of madness among women. Critical Review Jane Ussher is committed to demolishing the common misconception that “women are more likely to be diagnosed as mad than men” (Ussher 2011: pg. 1). For that reason, Ussher is trying to convincing us that women’s madness is basically a social construct, gendered label, myth and once women are labeled in this way, they are then more probable than men to be “treated” as “mad”. As a result, this has caused hospitalization and electroshock therapy as ways of dealing with women’s “mental disorders” (Ussher 2011). Consequently, Ussher has provided a skeptical view that presents an alternative account on how to comprehend women’s relationship to psychotherapy and psychology. She agrees that women’s lived experiences can be capable of giving rise to misery; nevertheless, she differs with the pathologizing and medicalizing of such misery (Ussher 2011). For that reason, the author sees that medicalizing of such depression is inappropriate responses to life stresses so that feelings such as anger or sadness are believed to be indicators of psychiatric syndromes. What’s more, Ussher explicates that, such borderline personality disorder or depression are one that makes a person to be diagnosed hence resulting in a scenario where a person falls under the wheels of the juggernaut of mental illness (Ussher 2011). From this, I was made to comprehend that since a psychiatric syndrome is a dysfunction, an abnormality, and a deviation from “normal,” referring women as the most likely to be diagnosed as mad than men is typically a feminist trope. As Grace (2010) captures in her book, “The desiring, gendered speaking being:,” the subjective experience of mental illness and its social consequences must be established in a way that is sociologically grounded and informative. Therefore, we should never allow the science of psychiatric nosology, medicalization, deviance, and anomie to outshine the humanity captured in the excerpted descriptions (Ussher 2011). Additionally, Ussher has developed a sustained argument for a particular model that she calls a ‘materialist-discursive-intrapsychic analysis’ (MDI) of women’s lunacy. By averring this, Ussher means that a meta-analysis of women’s correlation to psychiatric illness and psychiatry necessitate a contextualized thoughtfulness not only on what cause misery on women but also the customs that epistemic bodies such as psychology, medicine and psychiatry approach mentally-ill among women (Ussher 2011). From this, we can depict how Ussher has developed a credible reflection of the practice of medicalizing to the normal human reactions cause by suffering hence make her to denounces the ways we then treat the sufferers. In view of that, we I can say that Ussher has offered strong critique to the most of the ideologies and theories of our intellectual world and particularly to what she identify as the “psy professions.” (Ussher 2011, pg. 108) This made her to suggesting most of the ideologies and theories of our intellectual world are themselves products of the socially constructed hence allowing women to be perceived as irrational, weak, and inferior. From this, Ussher is advising us to develop an alternative approach that will create a more balanced view of women’s madness. Therefore, she preferred “material–discursive–intrapsychic” (MDI) approach” as this approach will provide us with a multidimensional examination of the irretrievable interconnections between the material contexts of women’s lives, which is crucial in explicating the misery women experience (Ussher 2011). Hence, Ussher is conveying to us that it is only “material–discursive–intrapsychic” approach that will help us develop ‘critical realism” necessary in creating a more balanced view of women’s madness (Ussher 2011, pg.106). Apparently, Ussher’s thoughts are closely supported by Busfield (1994) in his article on female malady. According to Busfield (1994), the conception that in Britain madness was a female condition is unsubstantiated. I firmly believe that this is a fragment of the feminist orthodoxy, and the limited empirical evidence often presented to portray madness as a feminist problem is often created by people who simply work to prove a conclusion rather than offering room for refutation. The way women were culturally represented during the 18th and 19th century was belligerent, a more reason most of them ended in asylums. Busfield (1994) further holds that there is no noticeable affinity between madness and women hence psychiatrists should stop subjecting distressed women to medication on the claim that they are mad. What psychiatrists perceive to be symptoms of madness are merely actions or manners generated as a way of countering a stressful incident in a woman’s life. Similarly, in her journal in “Mental Illness”, Mossakowski (2011) supports my thesis as well as Ussher’s assertion that madness is not a women’s problem and has nothing to do with their genetic or hormonal agility. Rather, it is caused by life experiences. Mossakowski (2011) illustrates this using the social stress theory where she indicates that mental health problems arise out of stress. Apparently, the stress is attributable to life experiences and social statuses. Hence, medics should not treat depressed women as mad, but should rather work towards the aversion of the stressful factors, events, or experiences. Therefore, the promptness of our society to medicalize behavior that is otherwise perfectly comprehensible as a comeback to life difficulties is a lack of critical realism highlighted by “material–discursive–intrapsychic” approach. From this, I was able to comprehend that diagnosis of misery in women, is a way of constructing women as hysterical, the ‘emotional’ femininity and individual who are genetically predisposed. Thus, medicalize behavior is a way to enforce hetero-patriarchal gender roles. Stimulatingly, the theory behind Ussher’s approach is feminist and deconstructionist in that it examines ways that subject positions are created through systems of oppression and political discourses. Therefore, it is fundamental for us to realize that any reconstructive venture must endorse a sense of balance to women’s experience of misery with the political and social origins of this misery. For that reason, I am convinced by Grace who says, `I think once you're aware of your reactions then it's easier to control if you like' (Grace 2010 pg. 133). Consequently, lunacy may stand as the spectre that fixates all women, but it is not our inevitable fate (Chesler (2005). Hence, it is the right moment for me to confront the myths of lunacy that labels women as `mad' and I refuse to accept the medicalizing monikers as the right was for approaching women madness. These diagnostics do not react to “material–discursive–intrapsychic” approach which is fundamental in providing us with a multidimensional examination of the irretrievable interconnections between the material contexts of women’s lives and the social construct and gender labeling (Chesler 2005). Additionally, while Ussher’s claims, which she puts across through multifaceted theoretical formulations, almost distort my understanding of women’s madness, the numerous examples presented makes the message vibrant. Her conclusion that women should change the way the society thinks about them seems to be a superior solution to the problem of women’s madness. Regrettably, it is not an easy task as candidly asserted by Busfield (1994). Social expectations are deeply rooted in culture. With time, an individual’s mind is corrupted and starts expecting a certain gender to behave in a certain way. Elimination of such prejudices is almost an impossible task considering the mob psychology concept where people reason as a group (society) and not independently. Thus, most women are unable to say ‘no’ to the expectations of the society and live a life that is free from stress because their super-ego is displaced by the society (crowd). This makes it even harder to eliminate fallacies and social prejudices that are threatening to engrave the contemporary society (Mossakowski 2011). In conclusion, the above elucidation clearly illustrates that whereas many believe madness to be linked to women’s biological characteristics, it is a problem that most women suffer from due to disparaging encounters in life. Moreover, many symptoms that psychiatrists consider to be signifiers of madness are purely responses generated to counter stress. Thus, the study upholds that psychiatrists must consider madness as a condition that is experienced by both men and women, and stop subjecting victims of unfavorable life events to medication meant for mad persons. Furthermore, sociologists should work towards elimination of social prejudices that disadvantage women. Offering special consideration to women’s health conditions should be prioritized by those who care. References List Busfield, J. (1994). The Female Malady? Men, Women and Madness in Nineteenth Century Britain. Sociology-the Journal of The British Sociological Association. doi:10.1177/0038038594028001016 Chesler, P. (2005). Women and madness. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published 1972) Grace, V. (2010) The desiring, gendered speaking being: Going a bit further with Ussher on women and depression. Feminism and Psychology, 20(2):272±277. Mossakowski, Kysis, N. (2011). Unfulfilled expectations and symptoms of depression among young adults. Social Science & Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.021 Ussher, J. 2011 The Madness of Women: Myth and Experience. Routledge: New York. Read More