In chapter 2 we are introduced to Monomania, which is the term used to describe the concept or definition of what we know as obsession today. Monomania is defined as a disease in which monomaniacs are aware of the wrongness or inappropriateness of some aspects of their behavior, reasonably seeing that this function or action is awry, while still being able to use their reason to resist the action or though(p.68). If you were a monomaniac you were preoccupied with on single idea or train of thought which you knew was wrong but had no control to resist it.I can see why Monomania relates to what we know today as an obsession and its development to OCD, I think the definitions are almost identical. It makes me consider Davis' theory of OCD as a disease entity, monomania its definition and symptoms isn't wrong and the person diagnosing it was not wrong for calling it that, instead it is considered a first step into learning about what we consider obsession now during that century, monomaniac evolved with new findings and became obsessions not proved that the previous findings were wrong. I believe that the whole idea of a disease entity is that with time things will change, change does not equal error instead change equals evolution.
Great response! I agree in that it seems like there was no major difference between monomania and obsession other than the terms. It seems like as the facts became clearer the term "obsession" became a more appropriate name. It just goes to show how as time changes so do the ideas what what we believe to be "normal". I feel that if someone suffering from OCD or severe obsession was called or labeled a monomaniac they would feel a little more insecure than they already do. We need to continue to make them feel good about themselves even if it means making small changes at a time. Either way they are steps in the right direction. We need to stop labeling and start understanding what these people are going through.
ReplyDelete