Obsession: A History by Lennard J. Davis

Obsession: A History Reviews

• 
  Yules

  In this book Davis offers a biocultural reading of OCD, which recognizes that our views of mental illness change from era to era, with wildly different definitions, limits, diagnoses, and even value judgments placed on what (may or may not be!) the same symptoms. I agree with Davis when he says that learning about the biocultural dimensions of an illness is itself a therapeutic measure. Personally, I find this kind of perspective more helpful with processing the condition than, say, self-help books that rely solely on DSM-x.
  
  Most interesting to me is Davis’ discussion of partial insanity. Several centuries ago, insanity was all or nothing: you were either clearly, noticeably devoid of reason, or you weren’t. With the introduction of partial insanity in the 19th century, mental illness became democratized, and the number of people who could be termed mentally ill greatly increased. Davis argues that economic forces were also at play in the process of this democratization, because, unlike the poor who were thrown into asylums never to be seen again, the upper classes were now presented with wider treatment options for which they could pay. And while in the past, madness was considered the province of philosophers and priests, over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries it was slowly taken over by medics, and eventually also by pharmaceutical companies.
  
  Davis claims that obsession is to some degree normalized in the modern era, because we praise those who are “passionate” or “dedicated” to their work or their cause, even when that dedication goes to extremes. It can thus be difficult to determine who is laudably passionate and who is suffering from a medical illness. In the first case, the obsessive is perhaps benefiting the corporation for which he works; in the second, he pays a clinic for therapy, or a pharmaceutical company for medication. All roads lead to capitalism?
  
  This is not to say that obsession isn’t a real, terribly painful condition. It most certainly is! Sometimes, however, it’s interesting to step back and see how the condition as we see it today fits into a larger historical, cultural, and even economic picture.
• 
  Ashley

  Interesting premise, boring execution. Like, really boring. Collosally boring. And I don't say that often.
  
  Picked this one off the shelf simply because it sounded interesting. Main idea - mental illnesses, specifically those dealing with obsessions, would be better understood and examined from a biocultural perspective, rather than merely a medical one. For example, back in the day (early 1900s), OCD was incredibly rare. Now, it's a termed batted about and a common diagnosis. Why such an explosion in matter of less than 100 years? Davis argues that not only advances in medicine have led to more accurate diagnoses but that our culture has shifted as well. Like I said, an interesting and arguably valid premise, but totally botched in execution. The story meanders about with a smattering of anecdotal case studies but ultimately falls flat.
• 
  Simone Collins

  Wow. I love reading about OCD, but this goes way beyond just the "disease." Davis' purpose with this book is to explore the disorder from a biocultural viewpoint. I've never thought about it this way before, but our perception of different disorders or sicknesses really does change over time, as does our treatment. Heck, even the way these abnormalities manifest themselves over time depends not only on one's genetic makeup but also the society in which one is raised.
  It was an interesting read. There were LOTS of references to history, art, famous writers and their works, scientific studies, etc... I liked all of the random things I learned. And how my perception of disease and medicine is entirely changed. Hurrah!
• 
  Bad Horse

  Lennard makes interesting particular observations, but is radically biased in his choice of those particulars. He wants to show that obsession is a symptom of modernity and (I'm extrapolating here, from the theme that runs through all his books) evidence of its degeneracy. So he writes off all earlier obsessions on page 13, admitting that the phenomenon existed, yet implying that it doesn't count because there weren't psychiatrists around to give it a name. That makes no sense at all.
  
  The book has 2 severe flaws:
  
  1. Obsession has always existed. If modernity deviates in any way, it's in people having short attention spans and broad interests--the opposite of obsession!
  
  2. I can't get over Davis' hypocrisy in writing an entire book arguing that having a fascination with something is an abnormal "disease"; and several other books (e.g., "Enforcing Normalcy") arguing that calling anything abnormal, including devastating physical disabilities, is just a "controlling narrative" of oppression. How, logically or morally, can he say that obsession is a terrible disease, while deafness with an obvious physiological cause is actually just a social construct?
  
  Yet we can learn one important thing from this book.
  
  Lennard is right in saying that obsession became privileged in the 18th century (Rousseau is as good a starting point as any) in a way it had not been [since the 15th century]. But millions of people have noticed this before.
  
  What /is/ worth noting is that Lennard describes a condition which was at its height in the century /preceding/ the modern world, and attributes it to modernity. Whereas modernity could more fairly be described as the time when humanity began applying democracy and liberal humanism to begin fixing the problems caused by the industrial revolution. Lennard says "modernity" and thinks "industrial revolution".
  
  I don't know /why/ he thinks this way; but I realize now that a lot of other people do, too. Perhaps /most/ of our intellectuals today have devoted their lives to battling social evils that were crushed before they were born. I still see people writing stories today whose theme is that slavery is bad, and know many people who want desperately to believe that they're fighting actual Nazis when they mob someone on Twitter.
  
  That's the summary of my review. From here on, I'll just elaborate on point 1 above.
  
  Lennard, who claims to be a literary critic, ignores the fact that literature is rife with obsession all the way back to Gilgamesh. The most-recent peak of obsessive literature was Romanticism (which Lennard doesn't even mention!), from 1779 (when Goethe published "The Sorrows of Young Werther") through 1850--a period which also gave us Byron, Keats, Shelley, the Frankenstein he mentions, Wuthering Heights; not to mention Robespierre and Napoleon. Oh, and a period which /precedes/ literary modernism, modern Continental democracies, modern liberal humanism, modern art, modern architecture, modern cities, & modern cosmopolitanism, obliterating his "obsession is a modern disease" argument.
  
  Did not the neoclassicists abhore obsession? They didn't write about obsessed people; but that's because they were themselves totally OCD about writing everything precisely balanced, proper, in a maddeningly monotonic meter, while respecting every rule they could strain out of the ancients and several they made up because the ancients just didn't make /enough/ rules for them.
  
  Then go back before 1650, to the age of Milton's Satan, and Shakespeare's Hamlet, Othello, Lear, Romeo, Juliet, Shylock, I could go on and on here... Cervante's /Quixote/ was an entire book meditating on an obsession. Did the Puritans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, lack obsession?
  
  Keep going back: Arthurian romances, Troilus and Criseyde, the Romance of the Rose, in fact /all/ the romances. Obsession wasn't even /called/ obsession in the Middle Ages because fanaticism was considered /virtuous/. I think we can call standing on top of a column for 30 years obsession, even if they didn't yet have the DSM.
  
  Keep going back: Aeneas obsessed with duty; Alexander with conquest; Medea with her revenge; Oedipus with his investigation; Antigone and Creon; Odysseus obsessed with getting home.
  It goes all the way back to Gilgamesh's obsession with immortality. There is nothing modern about obsession.
• 
  Merve

  Oldukça ilgi çekici bir konu aslında. Özellikle pandemi sürecinde yaşadığımız hijyen obsesyonu konuya daha çok merak duymamı sağladı. Buradaki kapak haricinde, Doğu Batı yayınları güzel bir kapak ve güzel bir tanıtımla yayınlamış. İlk çıktığı zamanda heyecanla aldım. Uzun zaman sonra okuyabildim. Bazı yerleri çok sıkıcı ilerledi. Odaklanamadım. Hakkını veremedim okumanın araya başka kitaplar girdi. Yanlış zaman yanlış motivasyon okumayı soğuttu kitaptan. Bedenin Tarihi'nin gölgesinde kaldı araya kaynadı canım kitap (:
• 
  Jesus

  Page 31
  "...In Latin obessio and possesio were two aspects of besieging a city. Possideo, -ere and obsideo, -ere were two phases in the assault. If you've obsessed a city, you've surrounded it, but the citadel remains intact; while if you possess the city, the walls have been breached and you've conquered the citadel..."
  cites Christian Renous, "Possession and Obsession in the XVIIth Century: Diagnosis and Treatment," Healing, Magic, and Belief in Europe: 15th-20th Centuries New Perspectives (Zeist, Netherlands: Conference Centre Woudschoten, 1994), 208.
• 
  Elizabeth

  Another book i'm reading for research. Very invested in developing a certain kind of interdisciplinarity, so it feels a bit meta- and even vaguely defensive in the intro. It's still tough to mix literary and science studies! Still, the book's cleverly written and interesting. OCD is a "disease entity," a phenomenon of culture and history as much as neurology. It has an awesome cover. I believe that contemporary culture is in many ways "OCD," so if you feel that you have such tendencies, you may be interested in this book.
• 
  Rena Sherwood

  The Obsession: A History Drinking Game: Take a shot whenever you read the word "interestingly." You'll either pass out from the booze or from the book.
  
  One chapter on obsession in art was brilliant -- and the rest of it was a snooze. Even Obsession and Sex -- how the HELL can you screw that one up? Well, Davis manages to.
  
  There are also a staggering amount of typos. It got more interesting to spot the typos than it was to read the book.
• 
  Suzan

  Well, after pushing myself to read 50 pages of this book, I decided I am not so obsessed with obsession to finish it. Way too much discussion about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" for me. Some interesting facts but I just couldn't get through it....
• 
  Shawn M

  Though the beginning of the book was a bit tedious and drab, starting from chapter two on was very interesting. I liked the in depth research about obsessions from writers, scientist, sex, and visual art to what we think of obsession s in modern times.
• 
  Gillian

  Good idea, but a boring book, unfortunately.
• 
  Tamara

  Way too technical. Good if you're doing research or care about medical history.