This chapter looks at the illnesses attached to revolutions, among which “morbus democraticus” (“democratic disease”) that was said to drive people to rebellion and to a morbid desire for equality. But why would revolt be considered systematically unhealthy, while order, including the most authoritarian, considered sane? In their effort to link revolution to madness, psychiatrists had to acknowledge that the number of confinements decreased during revolutionary periods and increased in times of political stability. But such statistics could be interpreted either that madness has nothing to do with revolution, or that it is the aftermath of political involvement. Medical cases, such as the revolutionary feminist Théroigne de Méricourt, or specific periods, such as the year 1848 and the birth of the Second Republic, contribute to a debate over how ideology and patriarchy continuously contaminate the scientific discourse.
Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.