It is madness?

'You can never define madness in terms of an external, visible manifestation'

Psychoanalyst Darian Leader on certainty, madness, and what it means to be normal

Video discussion here. (Sorry, won't allow embedding.)

This is interesting and, to an extent, has a certain merit: how does one clearly define the boundaries of sanity and madness? But this is not the way he poses the question; he forgets to mention, just as their is problem defining the exact boundaries of madness, conversely there must be a symmetrical problem with that of sanity. You could say they're not necessarily mutually exclusive “conditions”. In any case, his argument displays a slight of hand, otherwise known as the "slippery-slope argument". That is: because we cannot provide a clear-cut distinction, as there are levels of ambiguity in diagnosis, as well as social factors, there is none to be made. You might say, even the very categorization involves a kind of madness itself. Now, if there is no – even “in principle” – method by which we could solve these ambiguities, then it is unreasonable to demand one as a measure. However, we do have other methods available to us that utilise a combination of diagnostic tools: from behavioural observations, biology, pharmacology, to psychiatry, neurology, and so on. On their own, they may be insufficient, but together they build a patchwork of inter-disciplinary knowledge and experience which is more clinically robust – that's not say it doesn't have its flaws. Of course, this knowledge has not always been used for merely therapeutic purposes, but ones of social oppression - merely because some did not conform to the statistical norm, doesn't mean they're mad. Indeed, there's a tradition of genius which seems could only have existed by going against, challenging, entrenched assumptions and cherished beliefs. Hopefully, as we become more sensitive to the way our views of madness and sanity are formed, we can at least try to avoid sweeping, dehumanising, tendencies. He offers no substantive reason to abandon our attempts to at least draw some boundaries, other than it's difficult. For example, it's difficult to say what art is; not to mention, agree on whether it's good. Does that mean we should abandon the distinction between “art” and “not art”? There are artists whose work challenges those boundaries, but implicit in such attempts, is the idea that there is something that can be “said” about it; there is a debate to be had, otherwise, why bother calling yourself “an artist” or denying that you were one? We accept art exists, while also accepting there is no overarching theory or understanding that encapsulates every putative instance of its manifestation. The relation between madness and art I will leave for another discussion. Or not.