February 19: Evaluating nineteenth-century asylums
Read:
1) Freeberg, The Education of Laura Bridgman, ch. 10-11 and “Legacy”
2) James E. Moran, “Asylum in the Community: Managing the Insane in Antebellum America,” History of Psychiatry (1998): 217-240 (Blackboard)
3) Elizabeth Packard documents (Blackboard) [I couldn't get access the document I wanted, but hope to bring it to class on Tuesday. Sorry!]
Please answer one of the following questions:
1) Overall, were nineteenth-century asylums benevolent? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from Freeberg and Moran.
2) What is the legacy (or legacies) of nineteenth-century asylums for ideas about disability and/or people with disabilities? How important were asylums, and in what ways? Support your answer with evidence from Freeberg and Moran.
2) Alternatively, you can summarize in several sentences (or possibly a short paragraph each) your “muddiest point(s)” in Freeberg and Moran.
Ostensibly, the asylums of the antebellum era took on a benevolent character, but both Freeberg and Moran illustrate the ulterior motives of administrators and policymakers during the period as well. As Freeberg repeatedly alludes to throughout the book, Howe wished to use Perkins and his start pupil Laura Bridgman to redefine the nature of epistemology and religion by showing that she had the full capabilities of someone without a disability. Although he later revised his hypothesis to argue that the disabled had inherent mental defects associated with the physical impairments, his original intentions of uplifting the impaired seem benevolent. Moran paints a similar portrait of asylums in America which could assist the mentally ill when initial community and family efforts had failed. In both cases, however, there seem to be conflicts of interest between the administrators (or in the case of Moran’s article, family members) that call into question the assumption that these institutions were intended simply to help the unfortunate. In these cases, there does not seem to be anything terribly nefarious in their intentions, but they left behind an important imprints on American culture. They inculcated citizens with the belief that disability carried with it inherent defects in the mind, body, and soul, and that these must be treated aggressively and scientifically. It set the precedent for treatment without regard to context and began entrenching the medical models of disability into the culture. Perhaps their intentions remained benevolent, but their work opened the door for the darker side of eugenics and progress that followed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The 19th century asylums came into being when the local community couldn’t’ deal with the mental stability of the local farmers with a problem. Most of the time, the community could deal with the farmers’ mental problems, but in some cases, the farmer became unmanageable. The superintendent of the New Jersey state asylum stressed the advantage of treating the insane in a public asylum rather than in private homes. He stressed the importance of appropriate curative treatments early after the attack of possible insanity.
Based on the readings, I believe that asylums featured in the readings had benevolent intents. Freeburg states in the final chapters of the reading that even though Howe was disappointed in the end results of Laura and other graduates, he never gave up on wanting their independence. Howe went so far as “writing to prospective employers, consoling, and encouraging his students when their prospects looked dim, and often arranging for them to return to the school to work” (e-book Ch. 11). So, I do believe he was well meaning.
The intents don’t appear to be as clear in the Moran reading. It seemed like the community was so used to taking care of their disabled, that they didn’t believe in the effectiveness of the asylums. However, the asylums “were designed to restore reason to the insane through a combination of medical and moral treatment” (236). The key word here I believe is restore. They had a goal of helping the insane and returning them to their homes and lives.
I believe in essence the nineteenth-century asylums were indeed benevolent. Moran explains, “lunatic asylums were by design therapeutic centres which removed the insane from the harmful familial and community context which supposedly gave rise to mental instability, and placed them in a controlled environment in which reason could be restored.” (Moran p.238) Even though the community did not determine the asylums were the source of restoring sanity in any of the cases in Moran’s reading, the community did believe that it was a safe place of confinement for those exhibiting threatening or disturbing behaviors.
It was also evident by Freeberg as he describes, “… Howe spending a growing amount of his time at Perkins trying to help graduates- writing to prospective employers, consoling and encouraging his students when their prospects looked dim, and often arranging for them to return to school to work.” (Freeberg p. 196) Howe believed that each student at Perkins would have the ability to become successful contributors in their respective communities upon graduation. In fact, they would no longer need to rely on others but would have the skill set to be self-reliant. When Howe realized that his graduates were not experiencing the level of success he envisioned, Howe began to change his duties as well as Perkins to better assist them.
I believe that 19th century asylums were benevolent in general. They were established to cause a change and to “help” those in need. Based on the reading, communities seemed to view asylums for people with physical disabilities more positively than asylums for those with mental issues. In the final chapters of “The Education of Laura Bridgman: First Deaf and Blind Person,” we learn the positive and negative effects of The Perkins Institute on Laura. Chapter 10 discusses Dr. Howe’s efforts to educate students with different “aptitudes.” The author states, “trusting in the redemptive power of the common school curriculum, Howe continued to teach all ofhis students as many of the common branches of instruction as they could handle and musical training.” The school also provided extra training in manual labor in order to prepare students for some means of support. Students struggled, when leaving the institute, more than Howe anticipated; however, they did have skills that they would not have developed without the education the institute provided. The benefits of The Perkin’s institute provided social benefits to Laura Bridgman and other students. It gave them a social group and people with which they could communicate. Laura’s health declined when she left the institute but after returning seemed to recover and thrive in the place in which she felt most comfortable.
In the article, “Asylum in the community: managing the insane in antebellum America,” Moran discusses the ways that communities worked to help people in need or “lunatics,” as they called them. The author states, ’some communities’ state lunatic asylums were either too far away or too expensive to be considered as options for their indigent insane.” Many communities chose to serve members by offering a “guardian” for the individual until they returned to health. The guardianship was determined if someone could not take care of business or take care of their farms. This was very much a cultural belief system of communities at the time. It did not prove that the asylums were or were not benevolent or beneficial.
I think that asylums were not very good. They housed people who had problems because nobody else wanted to help take care of them. In Freeberg the blind students were taught skills in order for them to make some money but once they got out of the school they were not able to do much with their skills. They also did not know that other people were less accepting to them as they were in the asylum. The blind students were all accepted in the school but once they got out they found life was really hard and begged to come back to the school. In the Moran article the asylums were only used to take in people who were considered insane. These people did not receive much good from the asylum except they were kept away from the public.
The legacy for the asylums in the 19th century were benevolent overall. Howe’s struggles finally are confirmed on the challenges he had with Laura. Towards the end of her education, people around him noticed that he was not as excited about Laura like he once was. His disappointment took over him resulting into less visits for Laura. He realized that after his students would leave from the institution in order to continue their life with their loved ones, it was difficult for them to find jobs that required their skills. There was no compensation for their labor. Howe states, “When Laura lost her eyes and ears, she also lost any hope of developing a fully balance, harmonious character” (p. 203). His personal goal that consisted of Laura had failed, but to others it did not. For example, Helen Keller was the opposite of Laura. On a positive note, Freeburg ends “Legacy” with what Howe’s experiment caused positive consequences for the next generation. “Since then, generations of disabled people and their allies have worked toward the same goal, trying to ensure that no member of society’s marginalized because of physical or mental disability” (p. 221).
James Moran explains how people who had “sure signs” of insanity were managed. I thought it was very interesting how the “writ de lunaticos inquirendo” was established. I didn’t think it was the worst thing but I did find it suspicious how many of the farmers who had money were considered insane. For example, David Burns over 115 acres of land and his concern was “that his family was trying to deprive him of his property” (p. 225). Did it ever occur to someone that his concerns made sense and should had been followed up with investigation? What if an “insane” person is wrongfully accused and never has his petition for writ de lunaticos inquirendo?
2) I think that before answering this question, there needs to be a differentiation between the Perkins school and the asylums discussed in Moran’s article. I don’t think that one answer is suitable for both places and will answer accordingly. I think that the Perkins school initially set up a good legacy of creating futures for their students that would otherwise be impossible (such as the guy who went to Harvard and several teaching positions). As they began to accept students that weren’t as bright as their alumni, it seemed like this task became impossible and they turned into an asylum of sorts (one like the few mentioned in Moran that act as the community would and keep their patients working). When students couldn’t get jobs, they were forced into poor houses or back into the halls of Perkins. There is also a difference in the fact that the community trusted the Perkins School (maybe because it was called a school and not an asylum) and allowed their children to continue treatment until their Howe felt they were able to move on.
Moran, on the other hand, made the asylums seem like they were holding places that weren’t trusted to cure insanity. He mentions on page 232 that as soon as Leary was released, he got the writ revoked (almost as a “serve your time and move on” type of situation). It seems like since the community didn’t trust them, asylums were unable to do the work and help the patients in their care. Since family members would “asylum-hop” and only leave the accused in the asylum for short periods, they became useless.
I think asylums were originally meant to be benevolent. However, based on the readings, they did not work as well as they were intended to. Howe’s system seems to have worked fairly well in that many of his former students were able to at least support themselves while living at Perkins even if they could not get jobs elsewhere. The lunatic asylums are a different story all together. Being insane seems to have been more of a failure to manage economically than anything medical related in some cases. This is one reason why asylums may not have worked as well as they were intended. Families did not see the need for asylums with the community system already in place to take care of situations where a man would become incompetent in his work or financial management.
1. Overall, I thought some of the 19th century asylums treated the patient’s there with kindness. They were on these lavish sprawled out estates, at least most of them were, and they provided the resources to help manage one’s own sanity or disability. The only problem with them was that most of them were expensive to attend and some states didn’t have any so they were forced to go to another neighboring state to attend. Like in Moran, he described how New Jersey didn’t have an asylum so people would have to go to New York or Pennsylvania. I thought that the whole “de lunatico inquierendo” was ridiculous. If your family thought you were acting a little off then they can declare you insane and seize your property. That is not something that seems fair.
The place that Laura is at is one that truly cares about it’s patient’s. They treat them as human beings and help them to understand when they do something wrong with communication or showing rather than yelling or striking. During this time when asylums were more private, they were more kind but when the state started to be involved and more and more popped up around the country; the quality went down.
In many ways the argument can be made that asylums of the nineteenth century acted in a benevolent way. These institutions provided direct care under the supervision of administrators and physicians that rivaled and sometimes exceeded the care that could be had with in the community of the insane. Howe acted as caretaker, educator, and in instances friend to Laura. Can we say this was an isolated occurrence and not the norm? Perhaps there were other instances of acute care given to those cast aside in favor of ‘professional’ care. Moran argues that community interference at times led to a premature release of patients in need of further care whom showed signs of improvement. Overall I would argue that in severe cases their existed aide among the community that surpassed that of an asylum, but these to me would probably fall under exceptions rather than the rule.
I do believe that asylums of the 19th century were benevolent. By definition, benevolent means that they mean well, are kind, and serve for a charitable, rather than a profit-making purpose.
For those like Howe, asylums were created to make a difference in the disabled. Even if it was a personal gain for Howe individually, Laura was still benefiting by his teachings. This shows in her ability to learn as the years go on. I do feel that Howe, in some instances could have been kinder to Laura in the way he treated her, but overall his acts were benevolent. I do, also, feel that in some ways he was doing this to gain fame from his society, but he was proving that the disabled were able to learn and become a part of society just like the non-disabled. Howe, also, never gave up on the independence of each individual, even though he was disappointed with the end results with Laura.
In the article by Moran, insanity was assessed by whether or not you could care for your property. If you were unable to, then you had to ‘start from the bottom’ and work your way back up to the top. You needed to not be insane in order to be a member of the community/have your own land. Thus, you needed to be “cured” of your insanity. In order to do this you had to go to an asylum or some form of institution most likely. Though, “For some communities, state lunatic asylums were either too far away or too expensive to be considered as options for their indigent insane” (Moran, 219). Moran discusses different situations, though, of individuals who go through rehabilitation and succeed as a part of the community again. For example, “Peterson’s long rehabilitation on his guardian’s farm ended successfully with the repeal of his insane status and reacquisition of his property” (Moran, 225).
I believe that although generally asylum’s in the 19th century are inherently benevolent, it is difficult to determine whether or not this benevolence is the underlying factor in their creation. Moran’s written accord of the use of asylum’s solidifies my belief that some of these institutions were created with the recovery and reintegration of patients in mind, however I find it difficult to imagine that each asylum had such altruistic motives. Moran’s account detailing the amount of time and resources necessary to diagnose each individual as unfit for their affairs genuinely strikes me as an attempt only to help, however Freeberg seems to only use his findings to further his personal agenda. I do not doubt that Freeberg was trying to help when he changed the main outcome’s of his findings, however who he was trying to help seems only to be himself.
I believe that the overall intentions of asylum administrators in the 19th century were benevolent. According to Moran asylums were designed to care for disabled people only when the families and communities of these people were unable to do so. It is also clear from Freberg that schools such as Perkins were designed to integrate the blind students into mainstream society. However, as stated before it is difficult to determine whether people like Howe saw these institutions as anything more than scientific experiments. Although Howe seems to have originally had benevolent intentions. The fact that many students like Laura Bridgman were unable to find employment outside the institution indicates that whatever his intentions were, Howe failed to achieve his goals. On the other hand, the fact that he was willing to allow his former students to stay at the institution and teach indicates that he is not as purely scientific as I had originally thought.
I think that with the reading that the asylums where meant to be benevolent. In some cases that we read it seemed that it was beneficial to the individuals placed in asylums to remain in the care of someone outside of their own community. However, it also shows that the request for a writ de lunatico inquirendo was not always due to an individual’s evaluation. In the case of Elias Brown his brother seemed to claim he was not in his right mind in order to be able to control the joint business they shared. If he would have remained in the care of the community he may never have received the right to control his own property again. The benefit of the asylum is clear that it lowered the time an individual would be unable to control his own property and with having a trained individual make the decision on when someone was well enough to manage their own affairs the time would naturally be shortened. With that though, I think that people within the communities did not use the asylums as often as they could have because they were comfortable with the way that things had always been handled and felt that they were better able to determine when an individual was back to their “right mind”. In the case of Freeburg’s novel, I think that it was better for these individuals to obtain the education they wanted through the asylum. I think that it was better for these individuals to be educated by trained teachers and they would make greater progress this way. It would also always a universal language to be developed and allow them to be able to communicate with others easier than before. As it was stated in the last part of the book, Howe had decided that it would be better for these individuals to be incorporated into the neighborhood around the school. I would have to agree for several reasons. In order for the community to except the dead and/or blind students the community would need to be exposed to them through their daily lives. I think that Howe because increasable discouraged with what had developed from his life’s work but I think that the progress he made with the educational progress was remarkable. Overall, in some situations asylums could be benevolent reform when they were used managed correctly, used effectively, and the facilities where used for the reason they were intended for.
1) Overall, were nineteenth-century asylums benevolent? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from Freeberg and Moran.
From the readings of Moran and Freeberg, I came up with the conclusion that overall nineteenth-century asylums were benevolent.
When reading Moran, I felt like he wanted to emphasize the importance of asylumns. According to him “The asylum,as it emerged as a new way to deal with insanity, did not supersede more traditional strategies but rather was incorporated into and blended with pre-existing community practices concerning the management and care of the insane.” (Moran p.220). This suggest to me that the problem of the insane was affecting the community, thus leading to build asylums in order for the insane to get treatment in an isolated envirnoment. Keeping in mind that disabilities or the insane were imparaties that were just beginning to be reasearched into. There was not alot of information or studies done at this point in time to understand the insane ,much less how to treat it.
Freeberg tells how Howe and the case of Laura Bridgman would help change all that. I think Howe’s intentions were to help Laura and show the community,that in fact a disabaled person can learn things like “normal” people. His scientific measures within schools like Perkins help support his research. Howe wanted to leave a legacy behind for future generations to show how benevolent he was. As stated, “generations of disabled people and their allies have worked toward the same goal, trying to ensure that no member of society’s marginalized because of physical or mental disability” (Freeberg p. 221).
I believe that asylums overall were not very benevolent and that they more often then not acted on the bases of fear to create social order and safety in their lives. First off there was not a clearly defined or understood definition of why someone needed to be in an asylum, only that if one could no longer manage their affairs properly. This leaves the decision of institutionalizing a family member up to the family or community sending a request of the “writ” up to the state legislature. Thus, leaving much of the decisions up to more often then not uneducated friends and family (some not even looking out for the best interest of the alleged insane). As with David Roberts case, Roberts was institutionalized by his family, but a neighbor (John Oliphant), “testified that Roberts;s mental health ‘would have been as well if he had been kept at home and not sent to the asylum’ in the first place.” Furthermore Howe would not have been so fervent in asylum reform if it was a good system.
Were asylums benevolent? Yes and no. There is some grounding for both answers, though.
Yes, because asylums could be considered benevolent institutions as they were places persons with disabilities could go who were not fully capable (allegedly, at least) of managing life on their own, and providing a community support system of sorts for persons, such as with the examples of former Perkins students coming back to the school to the work program who were not able to find work on their own (Freeberg, p. 196). Laura Bridgman was not able to receive the full stimulation that she needed outside of the institutionalized environment, because her family could not provide her the care and attention to the level that she received at Perkins.
No, because it was a way to put persons with disabilities in a form of isolation from the rest of the community, putting the residents on display, and not letting persons live to their full potential in the community. In the Moran reading, it can be seen that there were alternatives to the asylum that gave persons a more rehabilitative path, or at least tried to do so, such as putting persons in the care of a guardian (Moran, p. 227), while the institutionalized care could be used as more of a means of keeping persons contained than to rehabilitate them, as in the case of Elias Brown (Moran, p.236) . In that sense, is it truly benevolent to keep people in isolation from the rest of the community, regardless of their ability to be fully part of the mainstream society?