It is a HISTORY subject instead of a PHILOSOPHY subject. The essay requires you to re-interpret the historians' interpretations, which is awkward since we as subjects should formulate our own understanding. The contents have lots of philosophical discussions but if you write philosophy in this subject, you will never get H1, what a hilarious joke! I thought it was good before I enter this subject since I heard that it has foucault, but in fact we cannot write about it and we can only select the historians from some chosen journals.

The content had so much potential to be interesting but the delivery method (individual short videos to watch each week) made it difficult to follow and the assignment briefs were confusing and impossible to interpret. I could tell that my tutor Kerstin was very knowledgeable but her classes were also confusing and she went on long tangents often only mildly related to content. But still an interesting subject, worth your time if you are willing to be mainly self-guided.

Really poorly organized subject, dense content, and the assessment criteria were really unclear

Such an interesting subject, and SO worthwhile if you're also studying psychology and want to have an opportunity to really understand the field - how it developed, the different approaches etc. Assignments are very interesting and the tutorials involved super interesting discussions. As some other comments have said, definitely NOT a wam booster - it's a very difficult subject to do well in, even if you're a strong researcher/writer and are used to doing very well, but I think the experience is definitely worth it

This is not a super easy subject, but it is incredibly interesting! James and Paul are wonderful, passionate, and highly enthusiastic teachers. If you are doing a psychology major, or a biomed major then I would highly suggest it! It portrayed a side to psychology and the DSM that I had not previously considered or would have even thought to criticise had I not taken this subject. As the other reviews stated, we covered some of the history of mental illness and psychiatry's evolution as well as the construction of the field and possible influences. If you have any interest in mental illness, philosophy and psychology (although you don't need to know much about the subjects), then I definitely recommend this subject! It's well organised and easy to understand, despite the somewhat confusing assignments. But Paul and James are usually quick to respond and happy to help answer any questions you have about them!

If you want an easy WAM booster, then this subject is not for you (Although, most people get h2b or above). If you want a subject that challenges the fundamentals of everything you thought you knew, then this subject is perfect for you. I highly recommend this subject to psychology majors, as it teaches you the skills to critically appraise the current mind science. We looked at the history of mental illnesses and how race, gender, etc can all influence on psychiatry's understanding of mental illness. We looked at how some mental illnesses had been constructed for certain demographics as a means of controlling them. E.g. Women who defied their husbands were sometimes locked away in asylums. Speaking of women, this subject has also influenced the way I view myself as a female. Although I already knew about the historical mistreatment of women, there was something about the way it was taught in this class that made me feel deeply connected to the women of the past. Finally, James is a highly enthusiastic, passionate and knowledgeable lecturer/workshop leader. He always makes time for students and loves engaging in deep, philosophical discussions. The class love him! You won't regret taking this subject, but you might regret not taking it!!

Some things I learned from M&M: Firstly, psychiatry as a form of Enlightenment social control was for me (as a neuroscience major) a shocking dissent from progressive biological historiographies. Furthermore, mass confinement of psychiatric patients was sustained into the early twentieth century by the speculative and dangerous therapies of powerful medical men vying for psychiatric dominance. (Closely related to Foucault's power and knowledge thesis - 'Madness and Civilisation'). This subject then traces how the patriarchal exploitation of soldiers, women and deviants during WWI and WWII was later rejected by counterculture anti-psychiatrists and feminists who argued society itself was insane. I wrote my major essay on the transition from 'Shell Shock to PTSD,' and how the notion of 'mental trauma' was not made real until it was documented in the 1980 DSMIII psychiatric manual due to work with Vietnam Veterans. Finally, the transient symptoms within PTSD and Multiple Personality Disorder has in the twenty first century actually undermined the ontology of mental illness. This indicates that whilst mental illness is of course real, some elements of it are a social construction, that can be influenced by the media we consume and geography or local society we live in. I highly recommend M&M as a breadth subject for those planning on sitting the GAMSAT and wanting a framework for essays regarding the impact of science on humanity, and social constructions.

Not entirely sure what I've learnt from this subject. Found myself floating around and getting lost in the somewhat confusing content. 2.5