Tour Information:

• **Tour Name**: "Hit Me Hard and Soft TOUR"
• **Presale Date**: April 30th

• **Rumored Tour Dates (from X (twitter))**: - Copenhagen: April 28th-29th, 2025 - Hanover: May 2nd, 2025 - Amsterdam: May 4th-5th, 7th, 2025 - Berlin: May 5th, 2025 - Cologne: May 29th-30th, 2025 - Krakow, Poland: June 3rd-4th, 2025 - Vienna, Austria: June 6th, 2025 - Italy, Unipol Arena: June 8th, 2025 - Paris, Accor Arena: June 10th-11th, 2025 - Spain, Palau San Jordi: June 14th-15th, 2025 - Glasgow, UK, OVO Arena: July 7th-8th, 2025 - UK, O2 Arena: July 10th-11th, 13th-14th, 16th-17th, 2025 - Manchester, Co-op Arena: July 19th-20th, 22nd-23rd, 2025 - Dublin, Ireland, 3Arena: July 26th-27th, 2025

Ticket prices (past testimonials) :

• HTE US tour: - From $150 to $400 for different seating options. so for this tour I think ticket prices will vary from $130 to $500, but I can't put an exact price.
• HTE tour in Europe: - General admission tickets in Germany and France cost around €80 in the pit and were higher in vip, so I'd say prices will vary between €80 and €180. - Resale tickets in Glasgow cost £200 each. I think the price will stay about the same. - General admission tickets in London cost £76. so for this tour I think prices will vary from £76 to +£200. - Some reddit users and others have mentioned pit tickets ranging from $180 to $400 in other countries, but mainly in the US. - Nosebleed tickets in Australia used to cost around 100 USD, so I'm guessing they'll cost 150 USD. - Others mentioned ticket prices between $125 and $200.

Tips and recommendations :

• **Presale**: Try to participate in the presale to get tickets in advance (with tickemaster fan option).
• Seating options**: Consider different seating options depending on your budget and preferences. Pit seats and seats close to the stage tend to be more expensive.
• Resale tickets**: Keep an eye on resale platforms like eBay for potential bargains, but be wary of inflated prices.
• Arrive early**: For general admission tickets, arriving early can get you a better seat in the house.
• Merchandise purchases**: Some users have mentioned receiving offers for premium seats after purchasing products from Billie Eilish's online store.

Recommendations for Paris Concert (my cityy):

• Venue**: Accor Arena
• Date**: June 10-11, 2025
• Tickets**: Check the official pre-sale and resale options for the best deals, most tickets will be available on ticketmaster, but used tickets are also an option.
• Arrival**: Plan to arrive early, about 1 day in advance if you want to be at the front if you have general admission tickets, to ensure you get a good seat.
• Merchandise**: Don't forget to buy products from the on-site boutique!

LGBQ Lesbian Love Spells Online Norway +27710188399 Lost love spell Denmark, Gay/lesbians love spell to attract the same sex to Find a Gay lesbian love partner Australia, Woman To Woman love Spells Finland Attraction Spells, Love Spells To Reconcile With Ex After break Up Germany, Cancel Divorce Spells To Save a Marriage To avoid breaking down .

LGBQ Lesbian Love Spells Online UK, +27710188399 Voodoo Lost love spell, Gay/lesbian love spell to attract the same sex, Legal spells to get a court case dismissed Finland LGBQ Lesbian Love Spell Attraction Spells, spells muthi to get him back from another woman, Death spells caster, Binding Love Spells, Binding Commitment Spell, Black Magic Spell to Bring Back Lost Lover, Business Boosting Spells, Stop A Cheating Lover Spell, Gay love spells that work USA, GENUINE SPELL CASTER, GOOD LUCK SPELLS, how to get your ex-girlfriend back +27-710188399, Join illuminati Life, Lost Love Spell caster, lost love spell caster in new york, lost love spells magic in UK, lost love spells caster, lost love spells caster in Netherlands, Lost love spells in Birmingham, Lost Love spells in Canada, Lost love spells that work, LOTTERY SPELLS THAT WORK FAST, Lesbian love spells, love spells caster in maldives, love spell in Birmingham, love spells in England, LOVE SPELLS IN KUWAIT, Love Spells in Monaco, love spells in washington, Lost love Spells London, Magic ring Spells, Magic wallet spells, CallWhatsApp the original spells caster Mu.da on plus two seven seven three one eight four one five five seven MARRIAGE SPELLS, Mend A Broken Heart Spell, Lottery spells caster, Spells for Mending a Broken Partnership, Money Spells, Penis Enlargement cream, protection spells, bad luck cleansing, psychic reader, Real Life Reasons People Use Love Spells, Revenge spells, SEX LIFE SPELLS IN FRANCE, spell to make someone love you forever, obsession spells in Denmark, Death spells in New York, strong magic love spells, Traditional Healer, Valentine Love Spells Malta, Voodoo Spells, weight loss spell +27710188399, Witchcraft spell to win your ex back, Witchcraft Spell USA, lost love spell muthi to bring back my ex-boyfriend, Real Love Spells That Work GAY LOVE SPELL Are you enamoured with one particular person? Are you Attracted To Someone of The Same Sex? and you’re looking for gay love spells, gay love spells, lesbian love spells that work, lesbian love spells, CallWhatsApp the original spells caster Mu.da on plus two seven seven three one eight four one five five seven gay love spells that work fast, gay witchcraft, gay lesbian powerful love spells caster, powerful gay love spells, Wicca gay lesbian love spells, gay love spells caster online, gay love spell someone you know in your heart is perfectly right for you? +27731841-557 But their feelings toward you, their interest in you is not being reciprocated? And your fondest wish is for them to love you the way you are capable of loving them? Priest Mousa is here A powerful traditional healer who can cast a Gay Love Spell for you, making spiritual contact with this very special person – to convey your dreams, your desires, your love. And if there is a possibility that they could be interested in you, this spell could dramatically intensify their feelings toward you! Energy is energy! There really are no major differences in the casting of a love spell for a gay man or a lesbian woman, a straight lesbian man or heterosexual woman, the approach is pretty much the same. In my line of work when it comes to gay clients I have found a serious lack of understanding or compassion on the behalf of other practitioners for their gay and lesbian clients, being a gay lesbian spells caster , I have worked hard over the years to develop a rapport with my gay and lesbian clientele, with that said I have also managed to maintain a positive rapport with my straight clients as well, working metaphysically on behalf of clients is easy once you develop a good understanding of the base needs and realize that we all are simply human and it is within our nature to love and to be loved. Now, aside from the fact that we are all human, whether we are straight or gay, when it comes to gay magic, there are a few minor tweaks in the magical approach that must be acknowledged and put into play to successfully unite or reunite same sex lovers CallWhatsApp the original spells caster Mu.da on plus two seven seven three one eight four one five five seven. I have worked hard over the course of my magical career to develop a series of rituals and spells that I utilize specifically for my gay and lesbian clients. If you are a gay man or lesbian woman who is in need of attracting a new lover, or perhaps your desire is to reunite with an old flame, I can help you manifest your desires and realize your goal of bringing that special someone into your life. If you are single and looking to attract a brand new lover, Contact me Priest Muda +27710188399 now for special help for a working Gay Love Spell’ to get started. If you are a gay man or lesbian woman looking to reunite with your lover, you will need to order now CallWhatsApp the original spells caster Mu.da on plus two seven seven three one eight four one five five seven. Either way I look forward to working with you and if you have any questions call the number listed on the website or use the contact form on this site to contact a powerful traditional Priest Muda who will help you to solve your problem. Gay lesbian love spells Gay lesbian love spells is a portion of love spells designed with powerful African herbal roots from southern Africa that can be used to change the minds of your gay or lesbian lover (same-sex lover) about what or she thinks about you. This gay love spell may not set you free from all that has been troubling you ,like being ashamed of who you really are and hide your feeling in the public, once you cast these spells you have freedom. Apply this gay lesbian love spells when you don’t feel comfortable with your soul mate, Order gay lesbian love spells when your lover is busy cheating, You will need gay lesbian love spells when your lover is not sure about both of your future together. You can speak to Priest Muda for a strong gay love spells when your partner is seeing two people at the same time. Gay Lesbian Love Spells that works are good to be used when you are confused about you. Now, aside from the fact that we are all human, whether we are straight or gay, when it comes to gay magic, there are a few minor tweaks in the magical approach that must be acknowledged and put into play to successfully unite or reunite same sex lovers. +277318-41557 I have worked hard over the course of my magical career to develop a series of rituals and spells that I utilize specifically for my gay and lesbian clients. If you are a gay man or lesbian woman who is in need of attracting a new lover, or perhaps your desire is to reunite with an old flame, I can help you manifest your desires and realize your goal of bringing that special someone into your life CallWhatsApp the original spells caster Mu.da on plus two seven seven three one eight four one five five seven. If you are single and looking to attract a brand new lover, Contact for a working Gay Love Spell’ to get started. If you are a gay man or lesbian woman looking to reunite with your lover, you will need to order my. +2773184155-7 Either way I look forward to working with you and if you have any questions call the number listed on the website or use the contact form on the right side of the site to contact Professor. Lesbian Love Spells That Works Fast Heal a lesbian relationship & save it from a breakup using lesbian love spells. Heal your lesbian relationship using lesbian spells. Love spells to make someone fall in love with you. Get your ex lesbian lover back using powerful lesbian lost love spells that work. This powerful Lesbian Love Spell is designed in such a way that it will attract only your female partner or love towards you and so is the name Lesbian Love Spell. So if you are heartbroken that your female lover has left you, or you are looking for your soul mate, or the person you love is no more interested in you or is losing interest in you then yes this spell is perfect for you. Also if your lover is having a relationship somewhere else also then with the power of this spell, all her relations will be over and your lover will have no option then to be with you and also will be loyal to you. Once after the spell casting, if your lover will cheat you or even try to cheat you, then she will be punished and so your relationship will always be powerful and strong with your female lover. +2-7710188399 If your lover is not giving you proper commitment, then she will not only commit to you but will want to marry you also. Many times because of religions and our society there are many who are always hiding if they are in love with the same sex, and many times your lover will not be open to you even if she is in love with you because of the surroundings and people around and also sometimes family pressure etc. CallWhatsApp the original spells caster Mu.da on plus two seven seven three one eight four one five five seven, with the power of Lesbian Love Spell, your lover will be open to you will not care about the society and people etc. and will openly accept you and will always be with you. Spells To Make Gay & Lesbian to Love Me Alone It’s very important to make you gay or lesbian to love you alone because today’s diseases are very terrible, cheating and fighting in relationship are the order of the day, so once you make you gay or lesbian to love you alone, you will never meet any challenge in your relationship and marriage, Remember this love spells can make him or her to love you alone and not only that it can prevent him or her to fall in love with other people, last week I received gay clients complaining about that he got a stain voodoo priest to help him with gay & lesbian spells to control his gay lover and up to date he never received any positive results, My dear spells to make your gay & lesbian to love you alone it only makes your gay or lesbian to love you alone, and sometimes it helps to avoid him or her cheating but not to control him or her, +27710188399 Unless if you tells me that you want to control him or her respectively and perform it when am commanding your rituals, So make you gay or lesbian to love you alone with spells, remember once you use these spells no you lover will never fall in love with other people, he or she going to wait you even if you going somewhere like vacation for a year without seeing each other, so longer as you love him or her and you perform these spells well as recommends it to you, never expect him or her to fall in love with someone else unless when you get tired of him or her, CallWhatsApp the original spells caster Mu.da on plus two seven seven three one eight four one five five seven again once you get tired of him or her you have to perform break up spells because these person he or she won’t stop loving you until you perform break up spells in between of you and him or her, This because spells to make you gay or lesbian to love you alone, are similar to love spells to make someone love you alone, so which means we use same tricks only few thing changes but are related, the reason why you gay or lesbian can’t fall in love with any other gay or lesbian it because we have what we call soul mate spells in spiritualist, they spalls they joint feeling and lock feeling of someone to another person, so it means these spells lock her or his feeling of love on you, the minds and love feeling get it on only one person which is you, so once you get tire of him or he we just unlock his or her minds and feeling to be free with break up spells, so if you have any question you’re free to leave it here chief Muda will come back to you within less than 24 hours thank you. FOR MORE INFORMATION. Call ☎:/What-Sapp: +27710188399

school final exams will become admission exams for universities, and the number of exams will be reduced.

Government greenlights an amendment to the Criminal Code to more clearly define what "cybercrime" is, and to ban cash transactions of crypto

Armenia's economic activity grew 14.3% YoY in Q1

IRS released the number of income-generating jobs as of March 2024

the average monthly nominal salary in February

surging U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy calls for U.S. to sanction Azerbaijan until the safe return of Armenians to Nagorno-Karabakh: VIDEO

65% of Nagorno-Karabakh refugees have no desire to leave Armenia: National Democratic Institute survey

Parliament President Alen Simonyan thanks the French Senate for efforts towards the safe return of Nagorno-Karabakh refugees to their homes

opposition MP Garnik Danielyan fainted while blocking the interstate road linking Armenia to Georgia: VIDEO

the U.S. reiterates its support for the AM-AZ delimitation agreement reached on April 19

Armenia and Azerbaijan have already installed 20 border posts on the newly delimited sections of Tavush-Kazakh

Azerbaijani President Aliyev about the border delimitation in the Tavush-Kazakh section

Q&A with Parliament President Alen Simonyan

Armenia and Czechia discuss military industry cooperation after signing an agreement in September

regulates relations between the two countries in areas of production, import, export, licensing, quality control of military products; training of specialists

India: we have good relations with Azerbaijan, but we have a policy to promote our defense exports (including to Armenia)

Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Serbia spoke over the phone

European Parliament calls for sanctions against the head of the ruling party

The EU Parliament has adopted a scathing condemnation of Georgian Dream’s foreign agent draft law, calling for the sanctioning of the party’s founder, Bidzina Ivanishvili, and hinging Georgia’s accession talks with the abortion of the draft law.

Armenian government hosted a delegation from the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations

Armenia confirms plans to open a consulate in Iran's Tabriz, after the latter opened a consulate in Armenia's Syunik

anti-corruption: authorities report the discovery of ֏263 million in COVID-era healthcare fraud in a case involving a Pashinyan-era deputy minister

top-10 taxpayers in Q1 2024 (and their Q1 2023 numbers), in billion drams

Andrew Scull
What was Psychiatric Deinstitutionalization?
Andrew Scull
Apr 22, 2024 21 min
An interview with sociologist and historian of psychiatry Andrew Scull about the history and legacy of psychiatric deinstitutionalization.
The first school for the deaf founded in the United States. Opened in 1817 as the Connecticut Asylum (at Hartford) for the Education and Instruction of Deaf and Dumb Persons, the name later changed to the American School for the Deaf. Hiram P. Arms, Library of Congress, 1881.
Damage Magazine: What did care for the mentally ill look like before the rise of the asylums?
Andrew Scull: Well, that's going back a very long way. The asylum becomes the primary response to serious forms of mental illness beginning in the early nineteenth century, and as far as America's concerned, 1820’s, '30s, '40s. Before that, it depends a bit on where you are geographically. If you're talking about the United States, as far as we know, virtually everything revolved around the family. It was the family's responsibility to somehow cope, as best they could, with a deranged member. If there were no family members, then communities often intervened in an ad hoc fashion, often simply by locking them up in some informal fashion, as best they could, particularly if somebody were considered to be a dangerous person because of their mental distress.
That had been the case for many centuries in England. Beginning, even in the late seventeenth century, we see a handful of small, private madhouses operated for profit beginning to emerge, and a few charity asylums, the most famous of which dates all the way back into the twelfth century. That's Bethlehem Hospital, or Bedlam, as it was called. But we're talking about a very, very tiny fraction of people institutionalized in such places. At the end of the eighteenth century in England, there were maybe a couple thousand in such institutions, and a very wide range of experiences for those who were confined in them.
The asylum is essentially a nineteenth-century creation. It became apparent that mental illness bankrupts people, that it makes them unable to provide for themselves, and because its victims are incapable of work, mental illness tends to crash household resources. So whereas medical care remains a commodity you have to pay for, increasingly in the nineteenth century, on a state by state basis in the United States, state asylums begin to emerge, paid for by the public. The lunatics, as they're then called, are confined largely at public expense, sometimes with subventions from the family if they have some money.
There is a small private sector that emerges in the United States and some of those hospitals persist all the way down to today. The McLean Hospital, in the Boston area, being one example. Others of them have changed location, or names. There was one called the Hartford Retreat, set up in Connecticut at a time when Hartford was a very affluent part of the country. That, now, is called the Institute of Living—an attempt, I think, to disguise what it's about. Unfortunately, its address is “Asylum Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut,” so it doesn't quite work.
So, asylums begin in America. Once the notion has arisen that asylums might be able to cure mental illness, in a time of extreme optimism about what they can do, the main driving force spreading that notion and getting states to sign on to the expense of building these places is a woman named Dorothea Dix from Boston. At a time when women had no vote and were largely excluded from public life, this single, moral entrepreneur travels the length and breadth of the United States persuading good ol’ boy politicians that they need to spend money on this project.
Thanks to Dix and others, asylums grow rapidly in both number and size. So by the end of the nineteenth century, asylums of 1000, 5000, and even, in the case of Milledgeville, 10 or 12,000 patients, had arrived on the scene. From then forward until at least the middle of the twentieth century, the major official response to serious mental illness is to put people in institutions. Not everybody ends up there, of course, but we're talking by 1950, half a million people, on any given day, in state and county mental hospitals across the US.
DM: In accounting for the rise of the asylums you talk about moral entrepreneurs like Dix, and about the economic burden of caring for the mentally ill on individual families, but were there broader political economic shifts that gave rise to what you call the “empire of asylumdom”?
AS: Yes. I think there were. Geographical mobility, urbanization, the separation of work from the home, all of these things multiplied problems for families. They often broke extended families down. They made it much more difficult for families to use traditional expedience to cope with people at home.
This is also a time when states, including the United States, start to invest in institutional solutions to all sorts of social problems: poverty in the form of workhouses, prisons in the form of penitentiaries, and much more elaborate prison regimes, even institutions for other kinds of people who are seen as socially problematic, or have problems that are hard to cope with—institutions for the blind, institutions for juvenile delinquents. The nineteenth century sees the rise of that whole enterprise. Of course, it's dependent upon the expanding power of the state, its ability to tax, but also on an ideological shift that sees these kinds of institutions as a solution to the problems of crime, mental illness, or poverty.
Dorothea L. Dix, Superintendent of Army Nurses for the Union Army, holds a book and sits in a room with a medical bag on the floor, 1865. Liljenquist Family collection, Library of Congress.
DM: What was the “moral treatment”? Where did it come from? And how did it influence asylum practices?
AS: In the late eighteenth century, in France, in England, in Italy to some degree, you have the rise of institutions trying to cope with people rather than keep them scattered among families. In those institutions, there's very little in the way of external control, at that time. There's a wide variety of things tried out. Almost by trial and error, some of the people managing mental patients develop a technique, which is known in France as traitement moral and in England as moral treatment.
Fundamental to this moral treatment approach, to its early successes, and to the optimism that it generates is the idea that human nature is malleable; that it's a product of environmental influences, that people can be coaxed back to sanity, or to the common sense that the rest of us think we share. That's done partly through the physical environment. This is why asylums are so central, early on, because in those institutions you can control things much more, but you also create a moral architecture. Moral treatment wants to do away with straightforward imprisonment as much as possible, to substitute for it incentives for people to behave themselves, coax them into reasserting their own powers of self-control over their behavior. Reward them when they do that, and penalize them, but not through harsh punishments, when they don't.
So all aspects of the environment are terribly important. You locate asylums in pleasant surroundings. You disguise the fact there are bars on the windows by painting them to look as though they're the usual wood dividers of windows. You allow people who behave themselves to take tea with you in the English ritual, at four o’clock in the afternoon. You encourage them to take pets because that brings them out of themselves.
To be clear, the point was not to reason with people about their madness. Moral treatment proponents are very clear that you can't do that. This is not Freudianism. This is not getting people to talk about their mind, it's getting them to suppress it. When I say “suppress,” that highlights the other side of moral treatment, which is that it becomes a series of techniques for controlling people's behavior and evolves eventually into a ward system, which the Canadian American sociologist, Erving Goffman, analyzes in the mid-twentieth century.
So if you act out, if you behave badly, you move down the hierarchy to an ever more impoverished environment until you are with people who are demented and otherwise incapable of normal communication. The basic message is, “If you behave yourself, we'll start to improve your surroundings. If you want to see the outside world at all, you better control yourself.” Eventually it becomes this organized routine, this set of rules, that really is no longer the kind of individualized moral therapy that it started out being in the early nineteenth century. Over time, patients lose their autonomy, they lose their ability to make choices in their lives. From the point of view of those running the institutions, that makes it easier for them to cope. But from the patient's point of view, it kind of exacerbates whatever pathology already exists.
DM: You have written in Madness in Civilization: "Few would dispute the claim that asylums operated along moral treatment lines provided a more humane environment than the worst of the traditional madhouses. Well, actually the French philosopher Michel Foucault and his followers would." What was Foucault's characterization, and why is it wrong?
AS: I have a lot of quarrels with Foucault as a historian, which he really wasn't. He was a philosopher and social thinker. I would say I see a more complicated, more nuanced picture than Foucault does. There was a Roman god named Janus, who had a face facing forward and a face facing backward, two-sided. Foucault, for me, is too one-sided. He sees the defects, but fails to acknowledge anything on the other side of the equation. It's all oppressive. It's all hopeless. I'm, by no means, a naive optimist about the situation. I don’t subscribe to the meliorist notion that these asylums were wonderful places. They clearly were not, in many, many ways, particularly as time passed. The thing they did provide was a roof over people's heads, food (which was often pretty awful, but nonetheless was food), clothing, and some attempts at social stimulation, for at least a fraction of the patients.
But it’s certainly true that asylums did become awful places over time. When patients were locked away like this, out of sight and out of mind, there was a lot of hidden violence. You were asking ill-educated, ill-trained attendants, who were the people most of the patients saw most of the time, to turn the other cheek when patients exhibited no gratitude, when they were violent, when they would throw feces at you. So, the subculture of a certain degree of violence was certainly there, no matter how hard anybody tried to eliminate it.
Patients also came increasingly to be blamed for their own status. They were seen as lacking some of the central qualities of humanness, if you like. When you look at the writings of alienists, or psychiatrists, as they came to call themselves at the end of the nineteenth century, they start talking about these people as defective, as people who have the sort of pedigree of mongrel dogs, as if they'd be wrapped up in a sack and thrown into a pond and drowned. So there's this very harsh language that then mutates into an untrammeled willingness to experiment on patients, in ways that in retrospect look quite horrific. It's the isolation of these institutions, and the stigma attached to mental illness, and the powerlessness of the patients, that permits this kind of thing to happen over and over again.
By the last third of the nineteenth century, mental hospitals had lost their luster. They had lost much of their claim to be therapeutic institutions. In part, it was an over-exaggeration, but they're seen as places where once you enter, the only way you're going to come out is in a pine box. Now, that's not actually true. Even in the depths of late nineteenth-century pessimism, perhaps a third or a little more of each year's intake would leave within a year. The thing is, if you didn't leave within a year to eighteen months, you were unlikely to leave, except when you were dead.
So, the institution's reputation becomes one of a kind of warehouse, if you like. Then in the early twentieth century, faced with that reputation, we see the emergence of attempts to break with that pessimism. These often move social policy in directions that, looking back, seem rather pernicious. So we have, for example, the connections of mental illness to eugenics, to the fact that it appears to be to some degree a hereditary disorder, as it still is thought to be. This is when we see the rise of involuntary sterilization and other interventions increasingly directed at the body. Attempts to shock people back into sanity, attempts to operate on their brains, to operate on other body parts, assuming that infections elsewhere in the body are poisoning the brain. In a pre-antibiotic era, you've got to rip out the bits that are infected, whether it be teeth, tonsils, stomachs, or colons. So, there are a lot of interventions of that sort: insulin coma therapy, ECT, lobotomy, and a lot more besides.
The mentally ill become shut up in a double sense. They're obviously locked away, but they also lose all their civil rights, and their voices are not listened to. They're seen as the product of their mental illness, and therefore, to be disregarded.
DM: Aside from the bad reputation that the asylums had gained, and the obvious inhumanity of the new methods adopted in the twentieth century, what else drove deinstitutionalization?
AS: The nineteenth century solution to the problems of criminality, poverty, and mental illness was to build big institutions, and that persisted well into the middle of the twentieth century. In New York state in 1950, if you looked at the state budget, 30% of it went to New York state's mental hospitals. They were a huge expense. There were conferences of governors in the late '40s and '50s, where they all asked, “What are we going to do? This is a huge problem.”
It was becoming more expensive, and thus a more pressing problem, for a couple of reasons. First of all, many of these institutions had been built 50, 100 years before and were decaying, particularly because they hadn't been invested in during both the Great Depression and World War II. Also, after World War II, union strength was growing. The attendants in the mental hospitals were unionizing. Work weeks had been 80 or 90 hours a week, and you lived on the premises. If you were an employee, you were trapped every bit as much as the patients. But now work weeks became 50 or 55 hours. That added to the expense of things.
There were also a lot of journalistic exposés of the mental hospital, later supplemented by the work of sociologists and anthropologists. Right after the war, a number of American journalists had been to the death camps in Germany and in what's now Poland. These returning journalists came back and visited America's mental hospitals and said, “These are America's death camps.” Due to the wartime shortages of food, attendants, and physicians, the hospitals were probably at the nadir of their status in those years. So Albert Deutsch, for example, was a journalist who'd written the first positive history of mental illness in America. He went around and produced a series of newspaper articles that were published in a book called The Shame of the States, where he explicitly compared what he'd seen to Belsen and Buchenwald. He wasn't alone in making that comparison.
So the reputation of the mental hospital was plummeting. It was in a very bad way. And yet, by 1955, on any given day, there were 500,000+ patients in these hospitals. Today, it’s less than 40,000, and our overall population has doubled. If we still institutionalized at the rate we did in the mid-'50s, there'd be over a million people in mental hospitals. Obviously, there aren't. A lot of them, however, are back in the jails. Dorothea Dix's campaign, in part, was to rescue mental patients who were confined in colonial and early national jails, and put them in reformed asylums. Now, the three largest institutions coping with the mentally ill in America are LA County Jail, Cook County Jail in Chicago, and Rikers Island in New York—all of them hellholes, without exception.
Of course, another side effect of the relatively abrupt discontinuation of the asylum system, and its non-replacement by anything substantial, is the homeless problem that confronts cities all across the United States, and particularly along the west coast.
Rikers Island, 2006. Wikimedia.
DM: I want to provide a summary judgment of the asylum as an institution, and maybe you can say why it's wrong, or how it needs to be complicated. In brief, it’s an institution that started off with good intentions, under the belief that through the moral treatment people could be brought back to some kind of common sense. But over time, through an increasing emphasis on biological factors, they became more inhumane towards asylees' individual subjectivity, and at the same time institutions that, because of a lack of funding and being overstretched for the populations they were trying to deal with, just sort of fell into ruin. Is that a fair summary judgment of the asylums?
AS: I think it's not far off the mark. The early moral treatment institutions, when they began, had 50, 100, 120 patients. On Long Island, in the 1930s and '40s, you had institutions of 10, 15, 20,000, and any chance of individual attention to a patient simply vanished in the face of that kind of growth. It really, in part, was a function of simple mathematics. The early people thought they could cure 60, 70, 80% of patients in the asylums. In fact, maybe 40% would leave within the year, and then the rest would accumulate. Of course, some died. But over time, that inevitably created a situation where a larger and larger fraction of the whole were the chronic patients, and the new incomers, as a fraction of the whole, were less and less. That fed into the sense that these were places that didn't work and didn't cure. Once that perception spread, getting states to allocate substantial sums of money to keep these places running, at a reasonable level, became almost impossible.
The old phrase, "Out of sight, out of mind," really did apply. Patients were isolated. Except for the occasional journalists penetrating the scene, patients were largely invisible, and families lost hope. Connections to families, over time, attenuated and disappeared. So it really was a very difficult situation. That said, it's still important to recognize that even in fairly horrible conditions, patients had a roof over their head. They had some kind of food and some kind of clothing, and occasionally some social activities. It's, on the whole, a negative picture, but something where you have to bear in mind what the alternatives might've been and have proved to be, I think, since we've abandoned this system.
DM: There were two books that appeared in 1961. You've mentioned one already, Erving Goffman's Asylums, and then Thomas Szasz's The Myth of Mental Illness. Together they comprise something like a foundational critique of, not just the asylum as an institution, but the entire paradigm that informs the asylum as an institution. What do you make of these two works today? Were they accurate in their critiques? Were they overblown?
AS: Well, they were part of a broader movement in the '60s to criticize the psychiatric enterprise. They're rather different, I think. But overall, both of them contributed to delegitimizing the asylum system and did so by pointing out, often quite powerfully, its drawbacks and its defects, without really talking about what the alternatives were likely to be, if indeed they existed. Goffman tended to imply that the institution was the problem itself, that it tended to create the very behaviors that legitimized its existence in a kind of paradoxical fashion. It undermined patient autonomy. It created behaviors that to outsiders looked bizarre. But he had very little sense, other than talking about a certain “betrayal funnel,” about why it was that people ended up in these places. I think that was a huge failing in the book.
Szasz was... how to put it? He was an extreme libertarian in his politics. The Left often, in the '60s, adopted him, but they didn't realize what they were adopting. Szasz was a violent opponent of any state support for anything and considered that the mental hospitals were equivalent to concentration camps or prisons. He thought the people running them, his fellow psychiatrists, were acting in the interest of the state, not the patient. This condition called mental illness was, in his view, a myth because there was no physical cause of the condition. It wasn't an illness like pneumonia or tuberculosis. It was a socially constructed thing, a way of coping with people whose behavior we didn't like, and we couldn't abide. Under the guise of helping them, Szasz claimed, people were railroaded into these institutions that were nothing better than holding pens, prisons.
In the late 1960s, the purview of public interest law, which had emerged mainly around the Civil Rights Movement, began to expand. Some of those lawyers began to move from civil rights to talking about gay rights, to talking about the rights of mental patients, to talking about feminism and the rights of women. So they often seized upon these critiques of the mental hospital, and the critiques of the whole concept of mental illness, to launch a legal attack on these institutions.
There was a very famous case in Alabama, where George Wallace was the governor. It's called Wyatt v. Stickney. Stickney was the mental health commissioner for the state of Alabama. He actually invited the lawsuit because he wasn't getting any money out of Wallace to run his mental hospitals. He thought this lawsuit might help. So the lawsuit was launched, and it was heard by Judge Frank Johnson. He was a federal judge who'd been in law school with Wallace and loathed Wallace. He had testimony about what the minimum American psychiatric standards for a mental hospital would be, how many doctors per 100 patients, how many nurses, how many attendants, what the budget should be like, etc.
He decided the case and said to Wallace, “You have to provide these conditions.” Wallace's response was to discharge about 4,500 of the 5,000 patients in Alabama’s hospitals. Then for the 500 remaining, why, then he met the rules. So it was kind of perverse, but I think the lawyers bringing that suit, in part, actually wanted to get the patients out. What happened in the 1960s was this odd convergence of the Left and the Right in the critique of institutional psychiatry.
On the Left, they'd been convinced by the stories of the abuses in mental hospitals, of the travails of the patients, the loss of civil rights that confronted somebody who was declared insane. On the Right, for people like Szasz, these were examples of the state spending money it shouldn't have. I shared a lecture platform with him a couple of times. Once up in Canada, for example, two topics came up that kind of shocked the left-wing audience that assembled to hear him. This was a time when there were a series of murders in New York by somebody called the Son of Sam, who had gone around shooting courting couples in their cars and killing them. He'd finally been caught and pleaded insanity. The audience asked Szasz what he would do. He said, “Well, if he were my patient, I'd turn him into the police. Once he was convicted, I'd be happy to throw the switch and electrocute him.” There were gasps from the audience, but that was Szasz's position.
Then, the second thing that came up was about the safety net, social welfare, and social security, and Szasz said, “That should be abolished. People should provide for themselves, and if they can't, that's their tough luck.” So you had civil libertarians attacking the institution because of its failings. You had Szasz and people like Ronald Reagan, who became governor of California at the crucial moment, also wanting to abolish these places for a rather different reason. They didn't like the state intervention, but they also didn't like the amounts of money it was costing.
DM: How did deinstitutionalization proceed through different phases?
AS: Mental hospital populations peaked in 1955 in America. They begin to decline, somewhat slowly, for the first decade. Then from the late 1960s onwards, the pace of discharge picks up very sharply. Eventually, mental hospitals are largely emptied, and it becomes very hard to get into them. The psychiatrists often embrace the idea that this was all because of the advent of modern drug therapy, anti-psychotics, antidepressants. There's a lot of evidence that shows that's not the case, from a whole variety of perspectives. Some states adopted the drugs early, some adopted them later. Some state’s systems, like California’s, had hospitals that used drugs extensively, and others that didn't. When you look for patterns, you don't see what you'd expect to see. The hospitals that weren't using drugs were discharging patients more rapidly than the ones that were.
Yet when you look at the pattern of discharge, what you do see in the late 1960s is a massive discharge of old patients, patients over the age of 65. Then what you see from about 1972 forward is that that discharge pattern extends to younger patients. So what's going on at that point?
The first point, the '60s discharges among the elderly, that's Johnson's Great Society program. It's the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. Those old patients, if they're in the state hospitals or on the state budget, if they're discharged and go to nursing homes and board and care homes, they're on Uncle Sam's budget. So there's an incentive to move the patients out. You can see, as the elderly population in the mental hospitals goes down, the elderly population in the nursing homes goes up. It's a parallel development. What happens in 1972, under Richard Nixon of all people? Supplemental Security Income, in addition to social security, which provides a stipend to people who are disabled, including those who are mentally disabled.
You get the emergence of what I call a new trade in lunacy, another one of these things where entrepreneurs batten onto a new source of income. Problems emerge here because they're only lightly regulated, if they're regulated at all, these alternatives to the mental hospital. And the amount of profit you make is inversely proportional to how much you spend on the patient. So the patient brings in a check for $300. If you spend $290 of that on the patient, they probably get better living conditions, but you only make a tiny amount of money. If you spend $180 on them, well, you make a lot more money. So the logic of the marketplace dictated that these places did not provide great care. Then when we get into the 1990s, there’s welfare reform, which is one of Bill Clinton's great initiatives, and before that we have Reagan and Bush. So the safety net, which was never terribly strong, gets weakened and weakened and weakened. Now the states aren't providing, and the feds aren't providing, and you have a festering problem.
A homeless encampment in downtown Los Angeles, near City Hall, 2021. Russ Allison Loar, Wikimedia.
DM: What is needed for the care of the mentally ill today? Is it too much to say that we need to re-institutionalize in some way?
AS: Well, that's an enormously complicated question. What's happened over the last 50, 75 years is much more complicated than I've been able to talk about here. One of the great changes, of course, has been the psychopharmacological revolution, the arrival of drugs. Those have become American psychiatry's almost sole and singular remedy for serious mental illness. If you look at patterns, very few MD psychiatrists offer psychological counseling of any sort anymore. Yet when we look at mental illness, we see a problem that may well have not only biological roots, but also environmental, social, and psychological roots, and certainly environmental, social, and psychological impacts that have to be addressed.
So to the extent we narrow our focus to simply medication, and medication which is a band-aid rather than a cure anyway, we’re only addressing the symptoms of some fraction of patients. Half of all patients with depression aren't helped by antidepressants, and a large fraction of people with psychosis aren't helped, or only helped a bit, by these drugs, which have powerful side effects as well. So we've got to move away from biology as the sole solution to the problem.
We are also going to have to provide, but I don't think the political will is there to do it, some sheltered housing. This is going to be very controversial, but we also have to ask: to what degree are we going to involve compulsion in the system, and to what degree are the courts going to even allow that to happen? Both commitment statutes and court rulings about what you're allowed to do to somebody against their will have made it a very fraught legal situation to actually introduce an element of compulsion. It depends on whether you buy Szasz's view that this is all a myth, or you accept that there's a reality to psychotic illnesses, whether you accept the proposition that some people lose the ability to make appropriate choices about their lives. If you take the position that the state should not be able to compel somebody to get treatment, then I think you're facing a massive problem. But if you allow that compulsion, first of all, are you going to get it past the courts? Assuming you do, how are you going to guard against the kinds of abuses that existed back in the past? We would need to invest very substantial resources in this problem.
The difficulty is that this is a very unappealing population. Mental illness carries with it stigma. It always has. In every society I know, people recoil from it. Many people with serious mental illness are not going to get better. It's one thing to invest money where you're going to see a return, if you like, in the form of somebody being rescued. I don't want to imply that people never recover. Of course, that's not true. But with patients who were chronic in the asylum, patients who at best are going to improve a bit but are still going to be probably incapable of providing for much of their daily living, they're a burden. How do you persuade a public that has been sold on the idea that we're all individually responsible for ourselves that there is a collective obligation to provide a minimum level for all citizens? It's a hard sell. When you see budgets being cut over the last 70 years, programs for the mentally ill are always among the easiest to cut, and the hardest to increase.
Then the further problem is, "Do we have effective treatments?" The answer is, "Well, for some fraction of patients, yes. We have things that will make their lives significantly better." So, it's not a completely hopeless situation. But for many mental patients, what's going to happen to them with the best tools we have at hand? Drugs, cognitive behavioral therapy, whatever interventions we're talking about here. We can control their symptoms a bit. We can get them back, to some degree, in control over their lives. But being able to abolish their problems completely, we don't have that magic bullet. We simply don't possess it. I wish we did, but the honest answer to that situation is that we have, at the best, palliative measures.
Right now mayors across the United States, in New York, in Portland, in Seattle, in LA, in San Francisco, they’re all realizing they've got a huge problem on their hands. The public, which is increasingly seeing how having our streets full of people, some of whom are seriously mentally ill, is damaging the very social fabric of daily life. So there's some pressure on the other side. Whether that will result in punitive responses, or more caring and effective responses, remains to be seen.
■
Andrew Scull is Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Science Studies at the University of California-San Diego and author of ~Madness in Civilization: A Cultural History of Insanity, from the Bible to Freud, from the Madhouse to Modern Medicine~.

• a wargaming blog article (language : french) about the battle of Rocroi, describing the positioning and name of the battalion/squadron, but lacking informations about the spanish, although it gives some. For example, the right wing of spanish is described as "six squadrons of Lorraine and one - croatian squadron" for the first line, and "six german squadron and one squadron of 'compagnies franches' (I don't know how to translate it)" for the second line. Unfortunately, this article does not provide any source.
• a blog article (language : spanish, which I understand a little) about the battle of Rocroi, giving the same kind of informations than the previous one, but here with informations about each battalion/squadron of the spanish army. It mentions a "chronicle of Galeazzo Gualdo Priorato", a soldier who participates to the war and published in 1647, four years after the battle, a chronicle describing the positioning of the troops in the battle of Rocroi, but I didn't find anything about it.

• French army : cavalry on the left and right wing, infantry on the center. I know the name of each battalion/squadron, but not the specific kind of troops used.
• Spanish army : cavalry on the left and right wing, infantry on the center (including italian and spanish tercios). I have a source I cannot verify about the names of the battalions/squadrons and do not have more detail about the kind of infantry/cavalry used.

• Not upset the balance of power in the region, particularly the Balkans
• Help each other in cases of revolutions/uprisings (particularly in regards to the Polish as the 3 Empires each had parts of Poland)
• Provide troops and equipment if war broke out between a member and an outside power

The treaty provided that Germany and Austria-Hungary were to assist Italy if it was attacked by France without provocation. In turn, Italy would assist Germany if attacked by France. In the event of a war between Austria-Hungary and Russia, Italy promised to remain neutral. (wikipedia)

The treaty provided that both parties would remain neutral if the other became involved in a war with a third great power, with the exception of if Germany attacked France or if Russia attacked Austria-Hungary. (wikipedia)

• Royal Diplomacy (Which countries do members of the royal family visit)(Who gets invited to Royal Weddings, who is getting married, who is invited to royal funerals)
• People go on vacations with each other, such as Bismarck going to the spa with a British diplomat.
• Naval Diplomacy, which nations receive what ships, when, and where (Think of the US's Great White Fleet under Roosevelt)
• Military events, such as troop maneuvers, military attaches, and the granting of titles and uniforms (Monarchs often were granted titles in other countries, for example, Queen Victoria making her grandson Willhelm II an Admiral of the British Fleet)