Search results

This paper has two purposes. One is to examine the ways mentally disabled children were disciplined and cared for in Berlin, Germany/Prussia, at the end of the 19th century, by considering the way the architecture of the asylum affected the practices within it. The second purpose is to examine the manner in which the practices at the Dalldorf Asylum, especially the administrative paperwork, fabricated and stabilized the medico-pedagogical category of “feeble-mindedness”.

This paper engages with reflections on asylum architecture and its connection to disciplining bodies as shown in Disability History and linking these insights to recent scholarship from the field of Science and Technology Studies on the fabrication of knowledge through observation. Drawing on microhistory as methodology it examines the fabrication of “feeble-mindedness” with and within the Dalldorf Asylum, focusing on architecture and design as well as administrative practices.

The analysis of the asylum's architecture reveals how certain ideas of hygiene and control derived from 19th century psychiatry, along with personal attentiveness and individualized learning were incorporated into the building, creating the notion of a “feeble-minded child” as being simultaneously dangerous and in danger. The paper further shows how the professionals involved were struggling with diagnosing these children, further showcasing that the space as well as the categorization of children, oscillating between psychiatry and pedagogy, has to be understood as contested.

This paper engages findings on the disciplining structures organizing everyday life within the asylum with concepts of fabricating knowledge as central to science studies. The Dalldorf Asylum, the earliest state-funded asylum for mentally disabled children in Germany and largely understudied, is used as the main research object. A microhistorical approach allows to make visible the intricate yet mundane practices involved in stabilizing the category of “feeble-mindedness”.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the role played by accounting in managing an early nineteenth century lunatic asylum in Palermo, Italy.

The paper is informed by Foucault’s studies of lunatic asylums and his work on governmentality which gave prominence to the role of statistics, the “science of the State”.

This paper identifies a number of roles played by accounting in the management of the lunatic asylum studied. Most importantly, information which formed the basis of accounting reports was used to describe, classify and give visibility and measurability to the “deviance” of the insane. It also legitimated the role played by lunatic asylums, as entrusted to them in post-Napoleonic early nineteenth century society, and was a tool to mediate with the public authorities to provide adequate resources for the institution to operate.

This paper encourages accounting scholars to engage more widely with socio-historical research that will encompass organisations such as lunatic asylums.

This paper provides, for the first time, a case of accounting applied to a lunatic asylum from a socio-historical perspective.

The Godfather theory of management is a power and control model of leadership. Explains a process whereby leaders can move a dysfunctional and subversive organization into the realm of a quality organization. Although the theme of the article is based on the Godfather series of motion pictures, the reality of the management style focuses on principles of organizational behaviour. The author continually stresses that Godfather Management is transitional management and cannot sustain itself over an extended period of time. Provides a model to assist leaders in the retention, the selection, and the elimination of individuals within either the organizational structure or the leadership team. Discusses a systematic method for new leaders to initially assess the organizational culture and to make the changes necessary for long‐term success.

The purpose of this paper is to qualitatively analyse the inspection and regulation of care for people with learning disabilities and mental health problems in Scotland, in two time periods.

The paper uses comparative historical research drawing on primary sources from 1857 to 1862 in the form of Annual Reports of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland and associated papers, to compare inspection methods, quality standards and to identify persistent challenges to effective inspection.

Political, clinical and public awareness led initially to criticisms of existing care and eventually to the development of the “The Lunacy Act” of 1857. This Act resulted in the first attempts to set minimum standards of care for individuals at risk, with enforceable regulation. Some factors recur as challenges to effective practice in the inspection and regulation of care today.

There are problems of definition, reliable monitoring of quality standards and adequate, independent inspection of services that respond to unacceptable standards of care. There is a growing evidence base about best methods of inspection of services for people in care who are most at risk. These methods attempt to strike a balance between evidence- and value-based judgments. Perspectives from history may help focus resources.

This paper compares common and common challenges in two time periods to investigate what can be learned about the development of policy and practice in inspection and regulation of care.

The most salient fact about the relationship between sociology and mental retardation is its lack of interest in the topic. Sociologists, as well as anthropologists, who study medical care, health systems, the insane, deviant behaviour and social stratification have conspicuously avoided the examination of those individuals in society who are developmentally disabled. As the British sociologist Richard Jenkins (1991) asks regarding the study of the mentally retarded

This study aims to explore the role of the Indian merchant class in 19th-century colonial India in addressing the social concerns of disability. Specifically, it addresses why and how business engaged with disability in colonial India.

This study’s methodology entailed historiographical approach and archival investigation of official correspondence and letters of business people in 19th-century colonial India.

Using institutional theory, the study’s findings indicate that guided by philanthropic and ethical motives, Indian businesses, while recognizing the normative and cognitive challenges, accepted the regulative institutional pressures of colonial India and adopted an involved and humane approach. This manifested in the construction of asylums and the setting up of bequeaths and charitable funds for people with disability (PwD). The principal institutional drivers in making of the asylums and the creation of benevolent charities were religion, social practices, caste-based expectations, exposure to Western education and Victorian and Protestantism ideologies, the emergence of colonial notions of health, hygiene and medicine, carefully crafted socio-political and economic policies of the British Raj and the social aspirations of the native merchant class.

In contrast to the 20th-century rights-based movement of the West, which gave birth to the global term of “disability,” a collective representation of different types of disabilities, this paper locates that cloaked in individual forms of sickness, the identity of PwD in 19th-century colonial India appeared under varied fragmented labels such as those of leper, lunatic, blind and infirm. This paper broadens the understanding of how philanthropic business response to disability provided social acceptability and credibility to business people as benevolent members of society. While parallelly, for PwD, it reinforced social marginalization and the need for institutionalization, propagating perceptions of unfortunate and helpless members of society.

Reexamination and reinterpretation of the process of deinstitutionalization of public mental hospital inpatients.

A comprehensive review of related research is presented and lessons learned for the sociology of mental health are identified.

The processes of both institutionalization and deinstitutionalization were motivated by belief in the influence of the social environment on the course of mental illness, but while in the early 19th century the social environment of the mental hospital was seen as therapeutic, later in the 20th century the now primarily custodial social environment of large state mental hospitals was seen as iatrogenic. Nonetheless, research in both periods indicated the benefit of socially supportive environments in the hospital, while research on programs for deinstitutionalized patients and for homeless persons indicated the value of comparable features in community programs.

While the process of deinstitutionalization is largely concluded, research should focus on identifying features of the social environment that can maximize rehabilitation.

The debate over the merits of hospital-based and community-based mental health services is misplaced; policies should instead focus on the alternatives for providing socially supportive environments. Deinstitutionalization in the absence of socially supportive programs has been associated with increased rates of homelessness and incarceration among those most chronically ill.

A comprehensive analysis of deinstitutionalization that highlights flaws in prior sociological perspectives and charts a new direction for scholarship.

The medical suppression of female sexuality in Victorian society has long been the subject of historical and cultural scholarship, with documentation not only of textual threats by religious and medical “experts,” but also of surgical assaults on female reproductive systems (Longo, 1979, 1986; Scull & Favreau, 1986; Sheehan, 1997). Less well known is the apparent obverse: the use of medical techniques to stimulate the female genitalia as a means of treating hysteria and other mental disorders (Maines, 1999; Schleiner, 1995). In this paper, I trace the cultural history (mainly Anglo-American) of the psychiatric enhancement, as well as repression, of female sexual pleasure, through various genital treatments, including the surgical and the electrical.¹ I then make the case that these “opposite” treatments are, in the context of Victorian society, two sides of the same coin of the patriarchal, medical control of female sexuality.²