Madness

Francois Voltaire once said that madness is to think of too many things in succession too fast or of one thing too exclusively. If that is the case, most people in the world are mad. How do you define 'too fast' or 'too exclusively'? Or is it that we have redefined madness? The latter seems more plausible as this is an era which promotes what Voltaire calls madness.

Recently, I had a chance to get acquainted with a mother and a daughter, both of whom are considered to be 'a bit mad' by the society in general. No, they have both never been to a psychiatrist and do not take any medicine for their 'ailment'. I found that their 'diagnosis' was based on three observations:
1. They were pathologically curious about the things normal people tend to ignore in their normal lives.
2. They usually have an abnormal fear of the disasters that might strike them and have a habit of telling others about them in a quite descriptive manner.
3. They ask uncomfortable questions quite persistently.
Though both of them have been non-violent through their entire lives (except for the time when they pick up fights with each other), I live in the fear of meeting either or both of them.

'Am I mad?' is a question I asked myself after meeting them. To be honest, I have been pathologically curious many a time and I do have a fear that things may go wrong but I do not ask uncomfortable questions. So is it just the third factor that distinguishes me from madmen? Deep down, I know that I am insane - neither my actions nor my thoughts conform wholly to the standards of rationality set by the society. That brings us to some other questions - is the society sane?

How are rationality and sanity related? I have seen perfectly rational people being called 'insane' and vice versa. So we can conclude that rationality and sanity are almost independent of each other. The society is not rational, and in the absence of rational standards, it cannot unambiguously define sanity. There will always be an amount of vagueness when it declares a person sane or insane.

The sanity of a person is a position-dependent, time-dependent variable. For example, if the three characteristics I have described above, were to be exhibited by a highly respected social or natural scientist, he will still be considered normal. Hence sanity depends on social position. The higher you are in the social strata, the more it takes to be declared mad. Again, excessive inquisitiveness will be more readily forgiven in a traditional, rural society than in a modern society. So sanity depends on the social milieu in which you live. The definition of insanity also varies with time. A person who renounces all that he has and roams around in the streets in rags has a greater chance of being locked up in a lunatic asylum in India today than say, about four or five hundred years ago.

Given that insanity depends on too many factors, is it fair to declare a person sane or insane? Our sanity today may be sheer insanity tomorrow. Just as we find 'sati' an insane act today, following a religion may become a sign of insanity tomorrow. What is sanity, after all? Isn't it finally, another barrier erected to separate man from man, to keep away the people who threaten the order in our lives, who upset our comfort levels by asking us uncomfortable questions and articulating their fears, which, though irrational to us, may be perfectly rational for them? Who are we to decide rationality and sanity, given that throughout the history, these concepts have changed, sometimes overnight, sometimes through centuries? Who am I to call a fellow human being insane?