32 pages • 1 hour read
David L. RosenhanOn Being Sane in Insane Places
Nonfiction | Essay / Speech | Adult | Published in 1973A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Literary Devices
Anecdote
An anecdote is a brief story—often one that interrupts a broader narrative or work. David L. Rosenhan’s anecdotes detailing the experiences of pseudopatients within psychiatric hospitals serve multiple purposes. Firstly, they provide concrete examples of the abstract concepts being discussed, such as the misinterpretation of “normal” behaviors as symptoms of mental illness; he recounts, for example, how staff assumed a pseudopatient pacing the hospital was nervous, when in fact he was simply trying to pass the time. These personal experiences make the essay more understandable to the layperson. Secondly, anecdotes add a human element to the critique, moving beyond theoretical discussion to showcase real-world implications. For instance, the description of a pseudopatient’s behaviors being seen as pathological highlights the systemic issues in psychiatric diagnosis—in particular, Stigmatization and Dehumanization in Mental Health Care. These personal stories are thus a form of pathos, engaging the reader emotionally and making the critique more impactful and memorable.
Irony
Irony involves a gap between what one perceives or expects and what is in fact the case. It appears in various forms throughout Rosenhan’s essay, including dramatic irony: a form of irony in which the reader knows more than the characters. In this case, readers privy to the true nature of the pseudopatients witness the stark contrast between reality and the psychiatric staff’s perceptions. This irony is a narrative tool that develops the themes The Unreliability of Psychiatric Diagnoses and The Subjectivity of Mental Health Terminology. For instance, when pseudopatients’ note-taking is interpreted as a symptom of their supposed illness, the reader is positioned to question the validity of psychiatric interpretations.
The essay also contains heavy situational irony, in which what occurs is not what one would expect. For example, institutions designed for healing and understanding contribute to misdiagnosis and misunderstanding, while staff behave in ways that frequently seem more “bizarre” than the actions of patients who purportedly have mental illnesses. Such irony also serves to underscore the essay’s central thesis about the subjective and often flawed nature of psychiatric diagnoses and treatment.
Juxtaposition
Juxtaposition involves placing two things alongside one another to highlight their similarities and differences or to create dramatic effect. Rosenhan employs juxtaposition by placing the pseudopatients’ behavior alongside the hospital staff’s reactions to these behaviors. This narrative device highlights the stark contrast between the pseudopatients’ normalcy and the staff’s interpretation of their actions as symptomatic of mental illness. The juxtaposition reveals the discrepancies between reality and perception within psychiatric settings, emphasizing the study’s theme of The Unreliability of Psychiatric Diagnoses and the power of preconceived notions in shaping one’s interpretation of another’s behavior.
Rhetorical Question
Rhetorical questions are posed without the expectation of an answer. Rosenhan employs rhetorical questions as a literary device to engage readers and provoke critical thinking about the nature of “sanity,” the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses, and the broader implications for the mental health system.
For instance, using a rhetorical question right at the outset of the essay—“If sanity and insanity exist, how shall we know them?” (250)—immediately engages the reader by prompting introspection and reflection. It sets the tone for an investigative narrative that will explore the constructs of mental health. By posing questions that do not require—or perhaps have—an answer, Rosenhan emphasizes the complexity of the concepts of “sanity” and “insanity,” suggesting that the essay will challenge the reader’s preconceived notions and the ostensibly clear-cut definitions provided by society and medicine. This technique establishes a critical framework for the ensuing discussion and foreshadows the essay’s exploration of the blurred lines and gray areas within the mental health field.
Additionally, rhetorical questions contribute to a reflective and skeptical tone that supports the essay’s challenge of established norms and practices in psychiatry. They encourage readers to question and critically evaluate the status quo rather than passively accept it.
