In Richard Bentall’s Madness Explained, the company might have a candidate for bestseller status to set beside Laing’s The Divided Self. THIS BOOK WILL EXPLAIN WHAT MADNESS IS, TO SHOW THAT IT CAN BE BENTALL ARGUES INSTEAD THAT DELUSIONS. Review of Madness Explained: Psychosis and Human Nature by Richard Bentall. Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin Books: London, Penguin Books was.
|Published (Last):||8 November 2018|
|PDF File Size:||15.15 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.81 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Bentaall Read.
Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem?
Madness Explained: Psychosis and Human Nature by Richard P. Bentall
Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Madness Explained by Richard P. Psychosis and Explined Nature by Richard P.
Is madness purely a medical condition that can be treated with drugs? Is there really a clear dividing line between mental health and mental illness – or is it not so easy to classify who is sane and who is insane? In Madness Explained leading clinical psychologist Richard Bentall shatters the modern exlpained that surround psychosis. This groundbreaking work argues that we cannot define madness as an illness to be cured like any other; amdness labels such as ‘schizophrenia’ and ‘manic depression’ are meaningless, based on nineteenth-century classifications; and that experiences such as delusions and hearing voices are in fact exaggerations of the mental foibles to which we are all vulnerable.
We need, Bentall argues, a radically maadness way of thinking about psychiatric problems – one that does not reduce madness to bain chemistry, but understands and accepts it as part of human nature. Paperbackpages. Published April 29th by Penguin first published June 5th British Psychological Society Book Award To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
Madness Explained: Psychosis and Human Nature
To ask other readers questions about Madness Explainedplease sign up. Lists with This Book. Madnfss 12, Daniel rated it really liked it. I would have given this book four and a half stars were I able. In any case, I found Bentall’s book very accessible from a non-specialist’s point of view.
Throughout, he argues that Emil Kraepelin’s foundational schema for classifying madness into manic depressive and dementia praecox is fraught with a number of problems and should bentlal abandoned.
In its place, psychiatrists should take a symptom-oriented approach. Rather than diagnosing a patient with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, psychiatr I would have given this book four and a half stars were I able. Rather than diagnosing a patient with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, psychiatrists should diagnose their patients as having delusions, paranoia, episodes of mania, and treat them accordingly.
When I checked this book out of the library along with a few of R. Laing’s works I didn’t think I’d end up mavness the whole thing. But I did because Bentall’s writing made the reading easy and the arguments clear. Three things I want to point out: So though some drugs are useful for some people I would never dispute this pointdrugs are not always necessary.
Sometimes therapy or generic medications are better. Bentall does a good job of dispelling the myth that studies always or even often reveal the truth about medication and disorders. More needs to be said about how these two problems relate to mental illnesses.
Is there a continuum between them or are they discrete phenomena? I already know that Bentall would reject the latter option. But how might auras and madness be connected? May 22, Holly rated it really liked it Shelves: I have been a fan of Bentall’s ever since the early s, when Harper’s published an excerpt from his “Proposal to Classify Happiness as a Psychiatric Disorder. I dutifully tracked down the original, and it was just wxplained clever, insightful and deadpan funny as I expected.
So when I came across a mention of this book recently, I had to read it. It was interesting and informative but OMG is it a slog. The book is intended to be intelligible to a lay au I have been a fan of Bentall’s ever since the early s, when Harper’s published an excerpt from his “Proposal to Classify Happiness as a Psychiatric Disorder.
The book is intended to be intelligible to a lay audience and persuasive for a professional one, so it has plenty of background info to bring average readers up to speed as well as detailed explanations to answer specialists’ objections to Bentall’s arguments. Here are two small examples of the explanations provided for readers very ignorant of the basics involved in the discussion, including the fact that research into madness occurs in many different countries around the globe: Why did that label need to be included?
I realize it’s only three words, but when you have a book over pages long, even three extra words in every single paragraph and there are indeed at least three extra words in every single paragraph add up. Likewise, no researchers mentioned in this book are ever just psychologists or psychiatrists–no, they are British psychologists or American psychiatrists or Australian clinicians, or located in Bentalll or Los Angeles or Perth.
I can’t be the only one who just doesn’t explaned a shit and would have preferred to see the text move along more quickly. Still, I loved Bentall’s basic project of questioning “the neoKraepelinian project–that there is an unambiguous dividing line between the psychologically healthy and the psychologically disturbed, that there is a finite and countable number of different mental illnesses and that these types of illness must be explained primarily in terms of aberrant biology.
And I will be continue to ponder his suggestion that not just madness but illness may be culturally determined and that “it just might be possible to be xeplained in one culture but at the same time sane in another” and that what really matters is how well one functions in society, not whether one’s brain fits the Krapelinian idea of biologically “normal.
Mar 24, Andrew rated it it was ok Shelves: The title of this book is misleading. Bentall has no better – but, in my view, a potentially more confusing – explanation of madness then those he wishes to supplant. The reason why this reads well is because criticizing others is easy compared to bringing forth your own ideas.
The trouble is that apart from his ad hominems against the seminal figures of psychiatric history, Bentall’s writing co The title of this book is misleading. The trouble is that apart from his ad hominems against the seminal figures of psychiatric history, Bentall’s writing comes across as high and mighty and arrogant “all these great figures of the past are wrong, and I will show my much better way” – he may not mean it that way, but to me it sure comes across that way.
But then he goes into a rather tedious enumeration of all sorts of predominantly psychological; hardly any biological research which show a variety of opposing results and can only lead to conjecture. He then uses these conjectures by his own admission “highly conjectural” to build up his “explanation” of mental illness. But, in my view, his explanations are no explanations at all, they are just a psychological mapping of symptoms of psychosis.
To give an example: How did the researchers select the group of thought disordered patients in the first place? Surely because they heard these patients talk in an unusual way i.
So all these psychological tests prove nothing more than that thought disordered patients are I’m not sure who Bentall intended as an audience. Surely not professionals like psychiatrists or psychologists when he writes things like “don’t worry, you won’t need any knowledge of maths to understand what I am going to say”.
And surely not the general public and possibly those suffering with mental illness, as they will get bogged down in a tedium of research results pro and con, and wont get past the first few chapters.
As they will be looking for CLEAR explanations about their condition and some practical advise on how to deal with their problems – and there is none of that in this book. All in all, this book is a failed enterprise, and not worth the effort.
Nov 23, Abailart rated it it was amazing. I am going to enjoy this. From the start it exposes that the way out of the epistemological quagmire that surrounds discussions of mental health or whatever you call it is to agree to agree with the most rudimentary taxonomies and classification systems provided they have coherence, stability and reliability.
Validity need never be in question in a world where pragmatic silencing in all its meanings is ‘result’ enough. The huge weight of evidence that different psychiatrists using different s I am going to enjoy this.
The huge weight of evidence that different psychiatrists using different systems from different cultures, plus other arbitrary factors, makes ‘diagnosis’ and ‘care’ a lottery. The beentall of ‘madness’ is problematised: The entire sweep of ideological assumptions going on suggests that we are in the dark ages when it comes to understanding the concepts of personal identity and individuality undivideness.
This is not a quick read. It is textured with particulars and details, but therein is a madneds and much-needed antidote to the sweepings of commercialised ‘cures’, teleological control, and damaging gross sentimentality.
It may enable a few readers who are service users to gain some perspective on the field, to some extent at least to ‘stand above’ expertise and hidden assumptions for instance as evidenced in the unconscious stigmatisations and prejudices within the well-meaning non-statutory support systems and networks and be able to negotiate a ‘recovery’ from much broader resources, the ‘mental health’ field offering a scope of such resources, not any of which need necessarily utilising. However, I think realistically that this book is not for everybody: For me, what I particular appreciate about the book is the central emphasis upon emotion.
The expression of an individual has, of course, some relationship with the ‘inner feelings’, mqdness for clarity the inner world can be considered as an autonomous region, a place of subjective narratives and mood texture.
The apparent ‘flatness’ or other mask of an individual should not and cannot be taken as a totalised encoding of their subjectivity, and hence a therapist’s work, and indeed an individual’s own interior work, has to be down where the outer exolained functioning is ‘cut through’, and this latter phrase is with reference to my review of Janic Galloway’s, ‘The Trick is to Keep Breathing’.
Madnwss 30, Greta rated it it was amazing Shelves: This book provides plenty of evidence that the current model of diagnosing and treating psychosis leaves a lot to be desired.
The author explajned as if he’s chatting with the reader while citing and footnoting endless research studies and other evidence to support his hypotheses and claims. It sort of reads as a whodunnit in that he starts out investigating, proving and substantiating his assertion that human expplained is more than just sanity and insanity, mental health and mental illness.
We’re not This book provides plenty of evidence that the current model of diagnosing and treating psychosis leaves a lot to be desired. We’re not so black and white it seems, and we need to look more into learning how to live maddness the grey. This involves treating compassionately what we can and accepting more as “normal” what we can’t. Because psychosis appears to be part of the human legacy, there is hope that if we learn to deal with it better, we just might evolve to phase it out.
Oct bentaol, Tiago Faleiro rated it it was amazing Shelves: Its name certainly isn’t misleading and gives a very impressive account bbentall both psychosis and human nature. Bentall spends a significant portion of the book explaining, and then arguing against, what he calls the Kraepelin paradigm.
The view that dominates current psychiatry, started by Kraepelin, the founder of modern scientific psychiatry in the early 20th century, and who exlained dementia praecox explalned we now call schizophrenia. Bentall is more than qualified for this type of book and pr Its name certainly isn’t misleading and gives a very impressive account of both psychosis and human nature. Bentall is more than qualified for this type of book and proposal, having practiced for decades as a clinical psychologist, conducted countless research himself, and being very familiar with the literature relating to psychology and psychiatry.