To diagnose someone as psychotic one has to document a group of symptoms,
most of which would not be considered in themselves inappropriate in all
circumstances. Joan of Arc heard the voices and saw the visions that were
expected of visionaries in her culture. The same could be said of Crazy
Horse. Neither suffered from psychosis, which when it's active is a serious
problem for the sufferer.
It's nonetheless true that some cultures value loose associations, a
prerequisite for visions and also for most kinds of art making, more than
others, and members with loose associations tend to positions of power and
respect in those cultures. The shaman may be able to enter into thought and
behavior modes that look like psychotic symptoms, but that alone wouldn't
qualify him/her--it's the ability to enter that state and come back again
to the everyday that's important.
Which is to say that Artaud would have suffered from his illness in any
culture.
Mark
>I've been reading Artaud's The Peyote Dance recently, a collection of his
>writings about his encounters with Indian mysticism. I don't think it can
>have any anthropological status at all, Artaud's observations being so
>inflected through a very tormented Christianity and then later repudiated by
>him anyway - but as a record of a poetic liminal state that can only be seen
>as psychotic in Western society, it's a pretty fascinating and rather sad
>document.
>
>Best
>
>A
>
>
>
>Alison Croggon
>
>Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
>Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
>Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|