Beyond Reason and Unreason. The Time of Space of Idiocy as a Cultural Figure

AXEL CHERNIAVSKY

Encuentro; Humboldt Colloquium: ?Shaping the Future of German-Argentinian Scientific Cooperation ? The Role of Curiosity-Driven Research?; 2018

At first glance, it may seem that research into idiocy could lack theoretical depth and practical interest. But then, one should recall first that the figure of the idiot is present throughout the history of philosophy, from the appearances of certain imbeciles [elíthioi] in the Platonic dialogues to what Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, when thinking in the characters of Descartes' and Nicholas of Cues' dialogues, refer as the philosophical character par excellence. Furthermore, idiocy constituted one of the main clinical pictures of the psychiatric nosography during the nineteenth century and much of the twentieth (although some of its elements are still present in the most recent classifications of neurodevelopmental disorders, the DSM-V and the ICD-10). And finally, the character of the idiot plays the leading role in some literary works, such as "Bouvard et Pécuchet", by Flaubert, or "The Idiot", by Dostoevsky, just to mention the most quoted when dealing with the topic. From a general point of view, since the moment that the idiot was considered the last term of human degeneration, perhaps it could represent an exceptional perspective from where one can interrogate the conditions for defining what we interpret as human, rational or healthy. And from a more particular and current point of view, since idiocy was defined as retardation, perhaps its relation with the contemporary societies that keep accelerating is not contingent. Nevertheless, how are we to understand idiocy? There is a traditional image, but still present in the most contemporary philosophy and cultural studies, where idiocy is conceived as a mental defect. However, the analysis of the different sources above mentioned shows that the description of idiocy concerns, for example, feelings, instincts, desires, language, an experience of time and space, as well as the intellect and event the thought in general. It also shows that its description does not always imply lacks or deficiencies but also some real strengths (and even intellectual strengths). And it finally shows that sometimes, far from being the target of a negative judgment, idiocy is celebrated, both from a moral and clinical point of view. In comparison to the traditional image, this analysis could enable the construction of a wider, positive and relative figure. Wider, because idiocy would not be limited to the mental dimension and would correspond to a form of existence. Positive, because it would not imply the opposition of a presence and absence but the difference of multiple forms. And relative, because its value would depend on the interests of the judgments involved but would not be attached to the figure itself.