The
offending word is found in the U.S. Code, Title 1, Chapter 1: “the words `insane’
and `insane person’ and `lunatic’ shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane
person, and person non compos mentis.”
That reads like common-sensical legal boilerplate but lobbyists with the Mental
Health Liaison Group say such words “only serve to perpetuate this
stigmatization.” I’m not convinced. No one confuses run-of-the-mill
eccentricity, oddness of character or what Dr. Johnson, speaking of his friend
the poet Christopher Smart, called “unnecessary deviation from the usual modes
of the world,” with true lunacy. Would you rather be diagnosed as a lunatic or,
in the words of the DSM, as
suffering from “a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome
or pattern that occurs in an individual [which] is associated with present
distress...or disability...or with a significant increased risk of suffering?”
George Orwell, always lexically cautious, uses “lunatic” with vernacular,
non-clinical care in his 1936 essay “Bookshop Memories”:
“In
a town like London there are always plenty of not quite certifiable lunatics
walking the streets, and they tend to gravitate towards bookshops, because a
bookshop is one of the few places where you can hang about for a long time
without spending any money.”
All of us know who Orwell is talking about. Elsewhere,
he writes: “What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word,
and not the other way around.” The sole dissenting vote in the House was cast
by a member of the Texas delegation, Rep. Louie Gohmert, who said of “lunatic”:
“It really has application ’round this town.”
2 comments:
Well, for once I'm proud of a Texas politician.
My congressman and a distant relative! ha! You made my day.
mm
Post a Comment