To coincide with mental health awareness
week (13-19 May 2019), this post will look at the treatment of women in the
nineteenth century lunatic asylum. Taking into consideration the notion of
balance, the focus will be on the inequality of attitudes within asylum
environment, which reflected the moral conventions that governed the Victorian
era.
Lunatic Asylums themselves were
patriarchal institutions. Modelled on a familial framework, the male medical
superintendent formed the head of the ‘family’, and the patients were the ‘children’
who had to adhere to the regime. The patients were segregated by gender, and
interaction with the opposite sex was limited to mealtimes and during certain
events such as the weekly dance. The day-to-day tasks of the asylum were
completed by the patients, and were implemented by gender. For instance, men
would work on the land, tend to the gardens and the livestock on the
institution’s farm. Women would be required to carry out household chores, work
in the laundry and tend to any clothing repairs.
Treatments implemented in asylums were
also decided upon by men. All doctors in county institutions were male. There
were female nurses employed to work on female wards, but they had no say in
what treatments should be administered, even though they – along with male
attendants employed on male wards - were the ones who had the most day-to-day
contact with the patients.
Upholding moral standards was an important
aspect of the regime and the asylum environment, which reflected wider societal
attitudes. The female staff could not socialise with the male attendants, relationships
were prohibited and could result in dismissal. Similarly, immorality was a key
factor commented on in asylum patient casebooks, and was used to indicate
symptoms of insanity. For instance, in the case of females admitted that had
given birth to an illegitimate child, it would be clearly outlined in the
admission documents.
An example is Barbee L (Barbra on birth
record, but spelling fluctuates), who was admitted in November 1902, aged 18
from Ambleside. The supposed cause for her condition was given as: ‘through giving
birth to illegitimate child’, which occurred 25 days prior to asylum committal.
The form of her illness was given as ‘puerperal mania’, which we know today as
post-natal depression. Her occupation was given as a domestic servant, and she
had given birth in Milnthorpe workhouse, where she had begun accusing the
nurses of mistreating her baby, which was stated as a delusion. After some
months in the asylum, Barbee was discharged as recovered, and did not return to
Garlands. It is unclear whether or not she was reunited with her child. However, on the records of males who had
fathered illegitimate children, there was no mention of this, and certainly not
as a factor in their illnesses.
The stigma of illegitimacy was also passed
down to the illegitimate children. For both male and female offspring, if later
in life they were admitted to the asylum, it would be remarked in their case
record that they were illegitimate. Thus, indicating that it could have been a
contributory factor in their mental illness which caused them to be admitted to
the asylum.
The display of unfeminine behaviour
attracted attention in the asylum casebooks, and was also used an indication of
insanity. This is evident in the next two cases. The first is Elizabeth S,
admitted in July 1887, aged 21, single, a domestic servant from Kendal, said to
be suffering from mania caused by a 'love affair'. On her case notes recorded on
admission, it was stated that: ‘Behaving foolishly and in a silly way, swore a
great deal, and began to go with loose company’. It was also stated that she
talked in a ‘lewd way’ and ‘said she was pregnant’. Six days after admission
the superintendent recorded the following observations of Elizabeth: ‘She
labours under mania. She told me today that she had been pregnant for long;
that she felt the child moving in her, that its father was a William Woodburn.
She is menstruating at present. She also says that Woodburn several times
induced abortion for her, but can owe no account of how it was done or the
result: talks about little else than sexual subjects.’ The supposed love affair
that caused her illness is not mentioned in any detail, rather, the doctors
focus on her ‘coarse and vulgar’ language that she used, and referred
constantly to the sexual nature of her conversation. Also stated in her notes,
four months after admission, was that she: ‘Is very lazy and untidy, foolish
and erotic looking’. The reference to laziness and willingness to work is
common throughout the case books, but the ‘erotic looking’ reference is quite
unclear and is not something which I have come across in other patients, particularly
never for males. Thus, the descriptions of her demonstration of insanity were
based on appearance and her sexuality, and in turn her immorality. Elizabeth
remained in Garlands until October 1888 when she was discharged as recovered.
The second case, that of Phoebe D, demonstrates
that the societal notions of femininity presided over the diagnosis of mental
illness in the late nineteenth century. Admitted in April 1871, Phoebe was transferred
to Garlands from Carlisle Gaol, where she had been imprisoned for throwing
vitriol over a man who accused her of having sex with him. Whilst in gaol she
began showing signs of insanity, and was admitted to Garlands. In her casebook
record, the two causes given for her illness were: ‘lactation’ and ‘being
accused by a man of having had sexual intercourse with him’. Throughout her
notes the feminine stereotypes are prevalent in signalling recovery. For
instance, two weeks after admission it was noted that: ‘A few days ago got
much excited when she saw her husband. She even asked about her children.’
However, the following month, any signs of her returning back to normality, in
which she would be interested in the welfare of her family, had abated: ‘taking
no interest in anything. Shows no signs of caring for children.’ Therefore the
stereotypical role of women as primary caregivers was used as an indicator of
recovery. If she showed an interest in her family, she must be getting better.
Phoebe remained in Garlands until December 1873 when she was transferred
unimproved to Staffordshire Asylum. This case demonstrates that female norms
were predicated upon women in the asylum as diagnostic tools that could signal
both their insanity and recovery. It would be interesting to examine the extent
to which male patients were judged by notions of masculinity, and whether or
not this was used in their diagnosis and recovery.
The final case to be discussed in this
post, is one that I found reported in the local Carlisle press. Titled
‘Shamming Insanity’, a small news item detailed how Mary G from Dumfries had
been arrested in Carlisle as she has broken a grocer’s shop window, and was in
a state of intoxication. Whilst on trial for her crime, she behaved in an
‘excited manner’ and struck the chief constable in the face whilst in the dock.
The constable noted that she had only just come out of gaol, and was behaving
this way ‘in the hope of being sent to an asylum’. However, she was noted as
not being insane, and was sentenced to two months hard labour. This case
demonstrates that, as much as the asylum was believed to be a place of
perceived horror that carried a great stigma, for some it was a viable option,
as the alternative was much worse.
Through this post, some of the preconceived
notions of femininity of the nineteenth century, are evidenced through the statements
recorded by doctors on the patient case records. Attitudes towards illegitimacy,
female sexuality and women’s roles as mothers have been demonstrated using a
handful of cases. Male patients could also be noted to have symptoms of a
sexual nature – i.e. through masturbation which was regarded as a sinful act
signalling insanity – but these were predominantly through physical acts,
rather than through using sexual language, or through illegitimacy or other
symptoms discussed here that were attributed to women.
This is part of my ongoing research into
the Garlands Asylum, through which I aim to encourage the conversation around mental
health by reflecting on the history of treatment, the patients who suffered,
and the institutions in which they were resident. For more information on
mental health awareness and support: https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/ http://www.cemind.org/
Women were not only judged by men once in the garlands but by their own fathers. I worked as an archiving and capacity project assistant at Carleton clinic. My role was to archive all records onto a new system. We had to check through paper records which dated from 1887 through to the present day. The number of young girls that were handed over to the asylum by fathers and husbands was high. They were put there for being pregnant out of wedlock, having sex, being lazy, answering back along with other charges that would today never be a reason to admit to an asylum. Many of these young women never got realised while alive.
ReplyDelete