Indian Journal of PsychiatryIndian Journal of Psychiatry
Home | About us | Current Issue | Archives | Ahead of Print | Submission | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
    Users online: 2084 Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page


    Advanced search

    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded91    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


LETTER TO EDITOR Table of Contents   
Year : 2006  |  Volume : 48  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 275
Author's response-III

Department of General and Social Psychiatry, University of Zurich, Lenggstr. 31, P.O. Box 1931, CH 8032 Zurich, Switzerland

Click here for correspondence address and email

How to cite this article:
Hoff P. Author's response-III. Indian J Psychiatry 2006;48:275

How to cite this URL:
Hoff P. Author's response-III. Indian J Psychiatry [serial online] 2006 [cited 2021 Jun 22];48:275. Available from:


In response to Dr Basu's and Dr Chatterjee's commentaries I would like to briefly address two points:

  1. Both colleagues are perfectly right when stating that it is not justified to simply identify Foucault's writings with 'antipsychiatry'-and such an identification is not what I intended. However, Foucault's critical discussion of the close relationship between psychiatric practice and the public and political opinion about normality, madness and the resulting methods to define the latter and reinforce psychiatric procedures, was, of course, attractive to 'antipsychiatric' authors as a theoretical framework-even if they had not in any case reflected about Foucault's writings extensively.
  2. More important, in my view, is the second point, which deals with the central ideas of enlightenment: On the one hand, it is true that a predominantly rationalistic reading of the ideas of enlightenment will create a flawed perspective on human subjectivity and behaviour by grossly under­estimating affective and volitional aspects. On the other hand, enlightenment itself was by no means homogeneous in that respect. Especially I. Kant's and J.G. Fichte's writings-mostly labelled as 'transcendental idealism'- explicitly acknowledge the essential impact of volition, affect and interpersonal relationship not only on practical aspects within societies, but also on any possible theoretical concept of man. So, in summary, I agree with Dr Basu that a narrow rationalistic interpretation of enlighten­ment is not helpful, especially not for psychiatric issues. But the central idea of enlightenment, personal autonomy and responsibility, which is not restricted to rationalistic arguments, is of great value for psychiatry when it comes to difficult and controversial issues like the concept of illness or the degree of autonomy in the presence of a mental disorder. This debate should be strongly encouraged in present day psychiatry-be it of eastern or western origin.

Correspondence Address:
Paul Hoff
Department of General and Social Psychiatry, University of Zurich, Lenggstr. 31, P.O. Box 1931, CH 8032 Zurich
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 20703359

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions