Louis C. Charland

(1958 - 2021)

This is a chapter on the history of ideas related to recovery. Moral treatment was a novel approach to caring for mentally ill patients that arose towards the end of the eighteenth century in Europe, and then spread to North America. It is most famously associated with the names of William Tuke in York, and Philippe Pinel in Paris. These two very different men—Tuke was a wealthy English Quaker businessman and philanthropist, and Pinel was a famous French medical author and doctor—formulated two quite different approaches to the care of the mentally ill. Yet there are also important similarities in their approaches. The concept of “recovery” plays a fundamental role in both Tuke's and Pinel's conceptions of the care and treatment of mental illness. It is interesting, and important, to consider the underlying premises of their respective clinical approaches as we consider the nature and origins of the concept of “recovery” today.

Philippe Pinel (1745–1826) is often said to be the father of modern clinical psychiatry. He is most famous for being a committed pioneer and advocate of humanitarian methods in the treatment of the mentally ill, and for the development of a mode of psychological therapy known as moral treatment. Pinel also made important contributions to nosology and the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder, especially the psychopathology of affectivity, stressing the role of the passions in mental disorder. Pinel also conducted what may be considered one of the first large‐scale clinical trials in psychiatry and was also arguably the first to introduce the new statistical methods of the time to that domain.

First ever English Translation of Philippe PInel's 2nd Medico-Philosophical Treatise on Mental Alienation. The founder of French psychiatry wrote Medico-Philosophical Treatise on Mental Alienation in 1800 and reworked it nine years later. This book is the "Entirely Reworked and Extensively Expanded" version from 1809. Today, it can give historians of medicine and psychiatrists an overview of mental illnesses as they were viewed in that era. The author, Philippe Pinel, became known as the doctor who worked to free the insane from chains.

Louis Charland's ‘Technological reason and the regulation of emotion’ focuses on a specific area, that of the emotions, in which he sees a problematic dominance of the technical attitude. He argues that our technologically oriented psychiatry has taken an instrumentalist approach to regulation of emotion that severely limits and distorts the role of emotion in psychiatric practice. A prominent example is the exclusion of moral judgments and values, emotion-laden aspects of experience, from psychotherapy because they do not fit the technical model. To illustrate his point, Charland both contrasts the modern notion of emotion with the traditional notion of passion, and our contemporary practice of technically regulated emotion with the ‘moral treatment’ of the nineteenth century.

This essay results from a common interest in the history of emotions shared by an academic with appointments in philosophy and psychiatry (Charland) and a literary historian (White). Where our interests converge is in the early modern concept of 'the passions,' as explanatory of what we now call mental illness. The task we have set ourselves is to see how this might: (a) be exemplified in a 'case study' of the dramatic revelation of Leontes's jealousy in the first half of William Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale, and his 'cure' which takes sixteen years. Both events have troubled literary critics as implausible, lacking in realistic motivation, and clumsy as narrative devices, but can be explained in terms of theories of the passions ; and (b) open up a greater, modern understanding of irrational, pathological states, their onset and termination, by using as an explanatory model the early modern understanding of passions as revived and refined in the nineteenth century by Théodule Ribot. Janus-like, this chapter faces into the past and the future (our present) via a play written in 1610 that is still performed to receptive audiences today. We hope to show that the theory can illuminate a playtext, and that the play can revivify the theory, and to contend that historical analysis can shed light on modern clinical problems. The particular historical distinction which lies at the heart of our approach derives from early modern terminology offered by Thomas Wright in his book, The Passions of the Minde in Generall (first published in 1601; corrected, enlarged and augmented in 1604), and presented in more modern fashion in the nineteenth century by Théodule Ribot, in his La Psycholgie des sentiments * We dedicate this essay to Philippa Maddern, whose inspiration has generated so much inter-disciplinary research in the history of emotions and has brought so many like-minded scholars into fertile contact—in our cases, linking Western Ontario and Western Australia.

Paradoxically, the profession whose primary mandate is to instruct and comment on matters of ethics spends inordinately little time reflecting on its own ethical practices. Consider the fact that while professional ethicists of all stripes crusade to expose and denounce conflicts of interests in all other branches of the health care system, they typically fail to pay much attention to their own potential ‘ethical’ conflicts of interest. Admittedly, there have been some efforts to address the problem. However, despite laudable intentions, they are highly unsatisfactory. Unenforceable ‘model’ draft codes of ethics on professional websites,1 and obscure addenda to technical reports that are only available at a cost,2 do not constitute acceptable responses to this predicament. Th is is a problem of profound social importance, a matter that threatens the very foundation, integrity and accountability of one of the most powerful forces in the modern health care system.

Clinton is certainly correct that there can be serious ethical problems with mental health professionals referring clients with substance dependence and other addictionrelated problems to 12-step programs. But the philosophical doctrine of representationalism he proposes is not a helpful way to address those issues. It seems more like red herring that only serves to detract attention from the real problem. This is the coercive nature of referrals to 12-step programs in many treatment and rehabilitation centres. Clinton’s discussion is helpful because it invites us to consider this important ethical issue. But unfortunately his analysis fails to address the issue satisfactorily. At the same time, it seriously misconstrues the nature of 12- step programs, obscuring their own ethical stance on consent, eligibility and membership...

Philippe Pinel is widely regarded as one of the founders of modern evidence-based psychiatry. Yet, until recently, his most important contributions to psychiatric theory and practice were effectively lost in myth, or lost in translation. It is instructive to review the history of these developments in order to correct any errors or omissions that may stand in the way of an accurate recognition of Pinel’s contributions to psychiatry, while at the same time highlighting some of his achievements that have been hidden by his celebrated mythical status as a pioneering humanitarian reformer. The aim of this article is to motivate further historical study of Pinel’s work, especially his 1809 Medico-Philosophical Treatise on Mental Alienation, which has only recently become available in English translation.

Along with Philippe Pinel (1745–1826), Jean‐Étienne Esquirol (1772–1840) is often considered one of the fathers of clinical psychiatry. While his indebtedness to the views of his teacher, Pinel, is indisputable, his own later contributions to the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder are often considered to be clinically superior and more sophisticated than those of his mentor. Esquirol's contributions to the psychopathology of affectivity are especially important and differ in many important respects from those of Pinel, who also stressed the role of the passions in mental disorder.

THE TARGET OF ERICA LILLELEHT'S interesting comparison between 19th-century moral treatment and 20th-century psychiatric rehabilitation is contemporary psychiatric rehabilitation. Using Foucault's (1979) Discipline and Punish as her critical foil, she argues that psychiatric rehabilitation is "an approach to madness fraught with paradox." The paradox lies in the fact that the techniques of psychiatric rehabilitation can be practiced in a manner that contradicts its professed humanitarian intentions; notably, liberating the mad from "resource dependency and segregated living." The lesson to be drawn from this paradox is that "our practices, may be shaped and reformulated to serve goals of which we are only dimly aware." The resulting "mindfulness" is supposed to make us more careful and critical of what to count as success and progress in psychiatric treatment.

Building on what he believed was a new ‘medico-philosophical’ method, Philippe Pinel made a bold theoretical attempt to find a place for the passions and other affective posits in psychopathology. However, his courageous attempt to steer affectivity onto the high seas of medical science ran aground on two great reefs that still threaten the scientific status of affectivity today. Epistemologically, there is the elusive nature of the signs and symptoms of affectivity. Ethically, there is the stubborn manner in which fact and value are intermingled in affectivity. Both obstacles posed insuperable difficulties for Pinel, who never really managed to extricate his affective psychopathology from the confines of the Lockean intellectual paradigm.

Sir—In their editorial, Hall, Carter & Morley [1] present an incorrect interpretation of my central argument. The point of my paper [2] is that there are solid reasons to suspect that the capacity of heroin addicts to consent to heroin therapy is compromised because of their addiction. As one medical commentator on my paper states, if active heroin addicts can give voluntary and competent consent to heroin therapy without any problems, then we need a new conceptualization of addiction: they are not addicted, almost by definition [3]. Yet obviously there are problems and grey zones. The solution is to investigate the issue empirically in order to determine the extent of the problem. (As we have done for consent to research on depression and other mental illnesses.) Ultimately, the question can only be solved on a case by case basis, using standardized assessment tools adapted for this purpose. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool (MaCAT‐T) is the particular assessment tool I chose to discuss. [4] It is the most promising candidate available, and it has proved its merits in the areas of depression and schizophrenia. At no point do I condemn heroin therapy and endorse an abstinence model of treatment, as the authors state. On the contrary, I note the success of heroin therapy and make suggestions about how to facilitate the consent process. Ironically, it may be Hall et al . who have oversimplified the issues. What we need here are empirical studies on the decisional capacity of heroin addicts to consent to heroin therapy. Only then will we be able to refute the naive view they have no ‘free will’, or say how much they have; but really my paper is not about ‘free will’ at all. This is a philosophical concept. The topic I chose to discuss is ‘decisional capacity’, also called ‘mental competence’. This is a clinical concept with complex legal and ethical associations that often vary across jurisdictions. My point was that although the Swiss Heroin Trials were approved in Europe, they probably would not be approved in Canada or the United States under existing regulations. Interested readers might want to consider the wide variety of reactions to my paper, published in the same issue [5]. Unfortunately, the editorial by Hall et al . does little to advance this debate.

Moral treatment refers to a psychological approach to treating mental disorder that arose across Europe and North America around the turn of the eighteenth century. It is mostly associated with the French physician Philippe Pinel (1745–1826) and the English Quaker philanthropist William Tuke (1732–1819). Pinel and Tuke each independently developed their own distinct models of the once popular therapy known as moral treatment. Although moral treatment is often considered to have been a successful therapy in its early years, it was eventually replaced by custodial care on a mass scale and became a travesty of its earlier self.

The York Retreat is famous in the histor y of nineteenth-centur y psychiatr y because of its association with moral treatment. Although there exists a substantial historical literature on the evolution of moral treatment at the Retreat, several interpretive problems continue to obscure its unique therapeutic legacy. The nature of moral treatment as practised at the Retreat will be clarified and discussed in a historical perspective. It will be argued that moral treatment at the Retreat was pr imar ily a matter of affective conditioning guided by `benevolent theory'.

Alexander Crichton (1763—1856) made significant contributions to the medical theory of the passions, yet there exists no systematic exegesis of this particular aspect of his work. The present article explores four themes in Crichton's work on the passions: (1) the role of irritability in the physiology of the passions; (2) the manner in which irritability and sensibility contribute to the valence, or polarity, of the passions; (3) the elaboration of a psychopathology of the passions that emphasizes their physiological form rather than meaningful content or connections; and (4) the insistence that medical science ought to ignore ethical and other `moral' psychological and social aspects of the passions.

What follows is a case study in the foundations of cognitive science. In it I explore the relation between the computational theory of mind and the theory of emotion. The argument of the thesis is that these two domains have much more to do with one another than has traditionally been supposed. The strategy adopted is to formulate a computational theory of emotion and then go on to extol its virtues. On the whole the aim of the project is to explore the possibility of interpreting information processing models of emotion computationally. The conclusion reached is that computational foundations for emotion theory are not only possible, but that in fact they provide a provocative perspective within which to reinterpret and focus a large amount of hitherto ossified and otherwise nomologically scattered results in emotion theory