Were the mad doctors right?
The experiences of many of the early dissenters seem so weird that it is
difficult for us not to feel convinced that the mad doctors
were on the right track when they suggested these experiences were
exacerbated by distemper. Bunyan and Fox both had visions, heard voices,
and acted out the most amazing convictions.
For example:
"I lifted up my head and saw three steeple house spires, and they struck at
my life... the word of the Lord came to me, that I must go thither ... I
was commanded by the Lord to pull off my shoes ... it was winter, but the
word of the Lord was like fire in me ... I went up and down the streets,
crying with a loud voice: Woe to the bloody city of Lichfield. As I went
down the town, there ran like a channel of blood down the streets, and the
market-place was like a pool of blood."
(Fox, writing about an experience he dates
Winter 1651, shortly after his release from prison)
Our beliefs and experiences of what is normal today should not
be allowed to cloud our judgement with respect to the past.
The credibility of Fox and Bunyan's accounts was not so low in their time
that
anyone tried to inter them as mad. Maybe if their social position had
been weak enough, or there had been a family dispute over property, it
would have been different.
Cruden, who was interred in the eighteenth century proved difficult to
keep in a mad-house because of his single-minded conviction of purpose. He
escaped, and convincing the Lord Mayor of his sanity was "set at liberty".
Neither was Wesley, in the same
period, ever at risk himself, only his followers and those showing signs
of being his followers.
From accounts such as those that Wesley gives,
it would appear that the "sufferer" needed to be ambiguous enough in his
conviction to be willing, under pressure, to co-operate with the doctor,
before his experience could be successfully invalidated as exacerbated by
distemper.
This situation is analogous to one described by
Jock Young
in his
analysis of 1960s drug-takers. Two roles are open to the dissenter and the
drug-
taker, the normal one of his subculture or the
sick role.
The
latter role tends to be adopted by isolated deviants, people under
particularly intense social strains and in ambiguous positions that can be
resolved by becoming tame deviants.
A major difference is that the dissenters experiences were far more
culturally acceptable as normal in their time than those of drug-users in
ours.
The orthodox (Anglican) church was, of course, a far more influential
authority in the late seventeenth century than now. It taught and
maintained belief in the literal truth of the Bible where such things as
the dissenters experienced are described, and it taught belief in the
active intervention of God and the devil in human affairs. Furthermore,
its teachings established the importance of such issues for human affairs,
for the unbeliever and the unregenerate were condemned to a life in Hell
during the hereafter.
The culture of the seventeenth century thus maintained the conditions in
which Bunyan and Fox's testimony was likely to be believed, and accepted as
evidence of the hand of God rather than a distempered imagination.
Nor is this climate of opinion necessarily due to superstitious
credulity on the part of the "masses" which led them to believe in the
reality of hallucinations rather than their own senses. In other words
the mad doctors were not simply urging an empirical scientific approach
to the problem as against the simple credulity of the populace. Beliefs
can determine perceptions to a large extent as Paul Feyerbend points out
in a lengthy footnote to Problems of Empiricism. There is, he
says, a
"partial dependence of perception upon belief. What we receive from the
outer world (and from the so-called 'inner' world are certain clues, which
most of the time are pretty vague and indefinite. Perception is the result
of the reaction of the total organism to these clues."
"In this reaction, the knowledge acquired, the beliefs held, the emotional
condition of the receiver, his fears and his expectations, play a most
important role. It is these that are (partly) responsible for the
formation of well-defined wholes out of indefinite patterns of stimuli ...
the tendency to perceive a well-defined objective situation may make the
observer see things that are not really there .. The very same process is
responsible for the existence of genuine observational reports (emphasis
given by Feyerbend) concerning devils and gods. We are all aware of
thoughts, impulses, feelings that run counter to our conscious intentions.
Usually we disregard them, for they do not occur in a very coherent
fashion. It is quite different with a person believing in the existence of
demons. He would perceive a meaningful pattern in such occurrences."
(Feyerbend, P.
1965, note 8, p.220)
The sensual experiences that Bunyan and Fox had, of supernatural
direction are perhaps the most incredible aspect to our minds of their
reports. But these may well have been fairly commonplace to their
contemporaries. Indeed, contemporary doctors emphasise the persistent
melancholy rather than the visions. They laid emphasis on the period of
conviction of sin which was the part of the religious experience where
the sufferer was actually suffering and was most likely to be willing
to accept help from a mad-doctor. Furthermore, the argument for
considering this the product of distemper rather than the hand of God
appears to have been theological in origin not medical or an empirical
observation of incidence.
"We must very much take heed lest we ascribe Melancholy Phantasms and
Passions to God's Spirit ..• I advise all ... to take heed of placing
Religion too much in Fears and Tears and Scruples."7
An attempt has been made by Murphy, Wittkower, Fried and Ellenberger (1965)
to identify those of the accepted symptoms of schizophrenia which are most
likely to vary with culture. They found, in their cross-cultural study,
that delusions of destruction and religious delusions were frequently
reported from Christian and Mohammedan cultures and quite infrequently from
Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and other East Asian religious cultures. They say
that these types of disturbance cannot therefore be considered an intrinsic
part of the schizophrenia process.
This finding would appear to indicate that techniques of cultural analysis
rather than medical analysis are the correct ones to the religious
experiences of the sects in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
This web page is based on Psychiatry and Social Conflict. A Study in the
History of Psychiatry in England during the Seventeenth, Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Centuries an essay by Andrew Roberts, 1973. Typescript.
© Andrew Roberts 1973-