1. Introduction
While the so-called “War to End All Wars” did not fulfill its name-giving promise of putting an end to international warfare, it changed the very structure of modern societies through confronting them with new phenomena created by trench warfare. One of these phenomena was the emergence of “shell-shocked” young men returning back home with war-induced trauma, challenging medical practices and conceptions. In her 1925 novel “Mrs. Dalloway”, modernist writer Virginia Woolf discusses madness and institutionalization extensively through the character of Septimus Warren Smith, a shell-shocked war veteran. Throughout his journey we learn about the wars impact on his psyche as well as the measures society and medical experts take in order to cure him before his eventual suicide. This paper will argue that Virginia Woolf uses the narrative of Mrs. Dalloway and the character of Septimus Warren Smith in order to criticize social exclusion and spatial segregation of people perceived as shell-shocked in modern Britain after World War 1. Firstly, in order to understand the discrimination and general character of Septimus, this paper will draw on Michel Foucault’s spatial theory as developed in his lecture “Of other Spaces” putting specific focus on his analysis of psychiatric institutions expanded in “Madness and Civilization”. Moreover, a general introduction on the phenomenon of Shell Shock and World War One’s effects on British society will be provided. Afterwards, the specificities of Septimus madness will be discussed pointing out their ambiguous character. This analysis of his madness throughout his own point of view will be contrasted with the seemingly medical perspectives of Dr. Holmes and Dr. Bradshaw. Finally, this paper will argue that their approaches do not only discriminate and segregate Septimus but also lead to his eventual suicide which can be understood as a desperate attempt to communicate and revolt against spatial segregation.
2. Methodology – Heterotopias and Shell Shock
This paper draws on Michel Foucault’s spatial theoretical concept of “Heterotopias”, first introduced in his lecture “Of Other Spaces” which was held in 1967. According to Foucault, historical knowledge is not constructed solely by relations of time, but also relying on space and its distinct properties and relations throughout certain periods (Foucault 1986: 22-23). Specifically, Foucault focuses on places that break with societal conventions by contrasting the very relations they are meant to enact (Foucault 1986: 24). Utopias are imaginative places that fulfill this function of contrasting societal norms (Foucault 1986: 24). In contrast, there are real places with similar attributes called “heterotopias” (Foucault 1986: 24). These places can be described by six principles: they are produced by all cultures, have changing functions, can contrast several other sites, are linked to parts of time, rely on “a system of opening and closing” (Foucault 1986: 26) and have a function connected with all other places of the given society (Foucault 1986: 24-27). Crucially, these heterotopias were originally associated with social groups in crisis such as menstruating or pregnant women (Foucault 1986: 25). However, heterotopias of crisis are largely substituted by heterotopias of deviation reserved for individuals deviant to social norm and moral, such as psychiatric institutions (Foucault 1986: 25).
This specific heterotopia of deviation is explored in Foucault’s earlier work “Madness and Civilization”. In this examination, Foucault uses what he calls an archaeological approach, focusing on “a history of concepts” (Gutting 2014: 14), analysing multiple European perceptions and approaches to madness from the end of the Middle Ages up to modernity. According to Foucault, the Renaissance perceived madness as symbolic wisdom of a tragic truth about the world, an upcoming “final catastrophe” (Foucault 1965: 17) that is symbolized by the literary “Ship of Fools” (Foucault 1965: 22). Hence, for the Renaissance madness was not the antithesis of reason, but a tragic truth of existence denying the belief in progressivism and rationality as a means of accessing truth (Savoia 2014: 274). In the subsequent classical age, an economic crisis led to the confinement of the unproductive, including people suffering from poverty, unemployment, imprisonment as well as the insane (Foucault 1965: 39). These groups were collectively labeled as “unreason”, with madness serving as its most visible and dangerous form (Foucault 1965: 64-66, 84). They were confined in quarantine structures outside of civilization left behind by leprosy epidemics in the Middle Ages (Foucault 1965: 50-51). The mad became a negation of reason, confined in mere „prisons of moral order” (Foucault 1965: 63). Moreover, madness was no longer seen as a deviation of nature but as a product of immoral environments, justifying social exclusion (Foucault 1965: 220). General confinement was abolished in a larger set of reforms in 1790 due to its economic inefficiency (Foucault 1961: 233-236). However confinement remained “reserved for certain categories of criminals and madmen” (Foucault 1965: 236). Consequently, Tuke’s Retreat in England as well as Pinel’s asylum in France were founded as new institutions of segregation (Foucault 1965: 278). While Pinel used religion to simulate “pure morality” (Foucault 1965: 257), Tuke constructed “a simulated family” (Foucault 1965: 254) based on Quaker beliefs. Therefore, both of these institutions used a positivist morality either based on religion or societal norms lasting until modernity (Foucault 1965: 269). Hence, asylums remain moral rather than medical institutions, making madness “imprisoned in a moral world” (Foucault 1961: 269) segregated from society. In particular, Foucault sees the psychiatric doctor as no medical figure but rather a “wise man” (Foucault 1965: 270) judging on the basis of morality justified by medical authority. Subsequently, this hierarchical power relation between doctor and patient remained while being mystified in its origin (Foucault 1965: 275). This power hierarchy is transferred to modernity. Segregation has disrupted any form of dialogue as “modern man no longer communicates with the madman” (Foucault 1965: x). While there may have been a shared language once it does not exist anymore (Foucault 1965: x).
These modern institutional psychiatric practices were confronted with a new crisis in 1914 due to the start of the First World War. As historian Arthur Marwick argues, the Great War had been an unprecedented destructive force that was simultaneously accompanied by progressive social reforms (Marwick 1968: 63). In particular, the war destabilized traditional political and social institutions, allowing for progressive reforms (Marwick 1968: 61). Specifically, psychiatric knowledge, as well as institutions, were confronted with the “emblematic disorder of the First World War” (Loughran 2012: 97): Shell Shock. To define this phenomenon is rather difficult, as symptoms included „psychiatric, psychological and physiological responses to war” (Loughran 2017: 15) not synonymous with the modern diagnosis of PTSD (Loughran 2017: 10). A more fitting definition formulated by historian Tracey Loughran remains imprecise as Shell Shock is defined historically “as the totality of its wartime meanings” (Loughran 2012: 104). This new perceived condition challenged medical definitions of madness and concepts of masculinity (Bonikowski 2013: 1). Virginia Woolf captures this crisis through the character of Septimus Warren Smith in “Mrs. Dalloway“, whose experience of war trauma and institutionalization illustrates the tension between personal truth and societal morals.
3. Analysis
3.1 Ambiguity of Septimus Madness
In order to understand Septimus’ madness in its ambiguity, the distinct characteristics of his illness need to be assessed. For this purpose a brief analysis of the origins of his madness, his symptoms as well as his style of portrayal in the novel will be provided.
While little is told about Septimus‘ character before the war, one important characteristic of him is his admiration for classical tales of heroism and patriotism. To him “England consisted almost entirely of Shakespeare’s plays” (Woolf 1925: 73). His life is guided by socially accepted forms of morality and idealized visions of heroism when he volunteers for the Great War (Bonikowski 2013: 151). Hence he is limited to a dualistic view on good and bad that originates from social conventions produced by reason. However, Septimus‘ beliefs become an object of drastic reevaluation in consequence of the war. Initially he rose through the military ranks with various honours while developing a new “manliness” (Woolf 1925: 73). Moreover he befriends and possibly falls in love (Thomson 2004: 59) with his officer Evans. When Evans dies due to the impact of a shell, Septimus feels no emotions and congratulates himself for feeling “very reasonably” (Woolf 1925: 73). This moment constitutes the inciting moments of his madness (Thomson 2004: 59). Subsequently, Septimus progresses into a chronic state of not being able to feel anything after the war has ended (Woolf 1925: 74-75). Because of this, Septimus concludes that life and the world are devoid of any meaning (Woolf 1925: 75). Moreover, he develops a new interpretation of Shakespeare and other literary works that used to inspire him. They no longer communicated the virtues of civilization but rather portrayed “a secret signal” (Woolf 1925: 75) of the world’s and society’s absurdity.
This newly found epistemological realization of Septimus echoes Foucault’s notion of a tragic wisdom of the fool, present in the works of Shakespeare and other writers of the Renaissance (Foucault 1965: 31). According to Foucault, it is madness that represents the “punishment of knowledge and its ignorant presumptions” (Foucault 1965: 26). This is particularly true for Septimus as his realization increasingly distances him from modern society and his previous assumptions about the world that are apparently ignorant about this tragic truth (DeMeester 1998: 652). This developing distance extends into his newly arranged marriage with the Italian Lucrezia after the war. As Shalom Rachman argues, Septimus married without loving her, only looking for stability and security (Rachman 1972: 6). However, this hope remains illusionary, as Septimus continues to feel nothing for his wife or anyone else. This leads the veteran to suicidal thoughts and hallucinations of his dead friend Evans speaking to him (Woolf 1925: 78-79). Evidently, the symptomatic stages of his madness start at this point. Therefore, the madness of Septimus does not originate in a specific traumatic experience such as the death of Evans. Rather, Woolf shows the shell shocked soldier as being unable to connect his experiences made during the war to any system of beliefs, destroying any sense of continuity (DeMeester 1998: 658). He is confronted with the meaninglessness and destructiveness of human life as an irrational, uncontrollable force. Therefore, he can not pretend conformity to post World War London society that is still guided by the same moral standards and ideals that have created the war. Slowly he becomes detached from society as he finds no meaning at the basis of reason virtues.
This revelation causes the development of various symptoms of insanity, many of them distinctly hallucinatory. His hallucinations start out with the appearance of his dead friend Evans that reoccur at various instances throughout the novel. However, wherever Evans appears, such as in Regents Park (Woolf 1925: 21) and in Septimus apartment (Woolf 1925: 79), their communication remains incomplete as it is interrupted by external events (Bonikowski 2013: 154). Crucially, Septimus does not have direct access to the message he is promised to receive. He is not capable of hearing the lost language of madness, alluding to Foucault’s idea (Foucault 1965: x). Despite Evans, Septimus perceives other hallucinatory experiences. In particular, he hears birds singing in Greek while sitting in Regents Park. Through their song they are telling him that crime and death are illusions (Woolf 1925: 21). According to Bonikowski, this perception does not only relate back to Woolf’s own descriptions of her personal periods of madness (Bonikowski 2013: 139) but additionally show her incorporating “a long tradition of associating Greek with both madness and meaninglessness” (Bonikowski 2013: 140). Bonikowski refers to an essay written by Woolf herself titled “On Not Knowing Greek”. In this essay Woolf argues that, as we can not inhabit the language without any cultural as well as semantic differences, Greek confronts us with an “intensity of not knowing” (Bonikowski 2013: 145). Hence, the symbolism implied can be connected to Foucault as Greeks function as a lost language of not knowing, similar to madness reflecting in the impossibility of absolute knowledge. Furthermore, this theme of an inexplicit message in an unknown language can be applied to Septimus‘ perception of commercial letters in the sky. To him, they are of profound beauty while not being able to “read the language yet” (Woolf: 1925: 18). Thus, it can be argued that Septimus finds beauty in the unreasonableness of the letters, the explicit characteristic of madness in the Renaissance (Foucault 1965: 13).
Despite his hallucinations Septimus language in itself can be seen as communicating death, meaninglessness that symbolizes a tragic truth present in madness. Because of Woolf’s special narrative technique, the reader is able to read Septimus‘ own thoughts and revelations which he fails to communicate to other characters (Bonikowski 2013: 137). However, this language remains idiomatic (DeMeester 1998: 656) as Septimus continuously speaks and thinks in metaphors and maximalist poetics. Subsequently, Septimus remains the strangest in his interiority (Bonikowski 2013: 138), reflecting his inability to articulate his newly found insights in his general language system.
In juxtaposition to his ineffectiveness to properly articulate his thoughts, a significant characteristic of Septimus madness is a wish for communicating his revelation. This desire is visible in various situations. For instance, Septimus proclaims after his first hallucination of Evans voice that “Communication is health; Communication is happiness” (Woolf 1925: 79). Moreover, he ensures the longevity of his thoughts by noting them down on the back of envelopes (Woolf 1925: 21). There is also a significant political ambition as Septimus wants to gain the attention of the prime minister (Woolf 1925: 125). Kareen De Meester argues that this goal of Septimus does not represent a mad delusion. Rather, his need for conversation indicates a wish to give meaning to his experiences by sharing them, hoping to create social change (DeMeester 1998: 659). Consequently, Septimus‘ need for communication can be interpreted as an attempt to reestablish the dialogue between the mad and the reasonable, lost in modernity’s solely medical perception of insanity (Foucault 1965: xii).
Taking all these characteristics into consideration the specificities of Septimus madness become apparent. It originated in a loss of meaning created by the war eventually distancing him from post war London society. He gains what Foucault calls the “wisdom of fools” (Foucault 1965: 22) showing the tragic character of the world and the inadequacy of reason as a tool for truth. This message remains fragmented as it represents a lost language that can not be converted to modern languages. However, Septimus finds beauty in his newly found revelation and believes in its ability to change society for the better leading to his need for communication.
3.2 Perceptions of Septimus Madness
Septimus encounters two medical professionals who assess his madness throughout the novel: Dr. Holmes as well as his second doctor Sir William Bradshaw. Both have distinct perceptions and seemingly medical approaches towards Septimus conditions. Their conceptions of Septimus’ condition will be analysed in order to determine their diminishing and segregating character.
Dr. Holmes is a general practitioner that attends Septimus after he suffers through his first symptoms. He dismisses all of Septimus symptoms leading him to misdiagnose his patient as completely healthy (Woolf 1925: 77-78). His analysis of Septimus‘ change in behaviour characterizes him as being “in a funk” (Woolf 1925: 78) and nothing else. This notion presented through Holmes relates back to the ambiguity of defining as well as diagnosing shell-shock. To many doctors shell-shock merely indicated a “weak and suggestible mind” (Bonikowski 2013: 25). Moreover, Dr. Holmes‘ assessment can be interpreted as judging Septimus to be unreasonable rather than mad. Hence, Septimus to him is not conforming to the moral masculine virtues of society that he sees as “the universal good” (Blanchard 1972: 298). This becomes particularly apparent when Holmes worries that Septimus might give his wife Rezia a general bad impression about Englishmen as husbands. Because of this, to Holmes, the madness of Septimus upsets the very virtues of English society and morality. This notion relates back to Foucault’s argument that madness is still judged on a basis of morality in modernity.
He had actually talked of killing himself to his wife, quite a girl a foreigner, wasn’t she? Didn’t that give a very odd idea of English husbands? Didn’t one owe perhaps a duty to one’s wife? Wouldn’t it be better to do something instead of lying in bed? For he had forty years of experience behind him; and Septimus could take Dr Holmes‘ word for it – there was nothing whatever the matter with him. (Woolf 1925: 78)
This quote also shows that his approach towards treatment is minimal, putting explicit emphasis on Septimus‘ own responsibility to be reasonable. To him “health is largely a matter in our own control” (Woolf 1925: 78). Accordingly, his advice merely suggests free time activities in order to relax. Holmes makes minimal use of medication, only giving Septimus “something to make him sleep” (Woolf 1925: 79). Hence, Jean Thomson describes Holmes‘ approach as a „commonsense paternalism” (Thomson 2004: 61) that diminishes and morally judges Septimus‘ condition, appealing to his own responsibility as an English man. His oppressive patriotic virtuosity is also reflected in his appearance and character. He is a large, handsome man with four children and a respectable profession (Woolf 1925: 77-78). Consequently, he represents the masculine virtuous ideal that Septimus fails to conform to. This unconformity to masculine standards is not only apparent in the general character of his madness, but especially highlighted when Septimus cries (Blanchard 1972: 304). As Thomson argues, to Holmes and British society “a psychologically disturbed ex-soldier was unthinkable, liable to be designated a traitor or a coward” (Thomson 2004: 66).
Therefore, Holmes represents commonsense denial of Septimus‘ mad experience. The deterministic implications of his madness are incompatible with societal morals and virtue of post war British society. Instead of entering into discourse with Septimus, Holmes labels him as unreasonable and demands his conformity as a renowned soldier. Therefore, his treatment is not medical but morally paternalistic. Taking Foucault’s analysis into consideration, Septimus is governed by morality and denied any form of self expression by his first doctor who represents an abstract moral authority (Foucault 1965: 270).
In contrast Septimus‘ second doctor, Sir William Bradshaw, regards Septimus as shell-shocked, categorizing him in the specific group of madness rather than unreason. He is a specialist in the field of mental illness, denouncing the treatment by his colleague Holmes (Woolf 1925: 81). Moreover, Bradshaw instinctively categorizes Septimus as having a “complete physical and nervous breakdown” (Woolf 1925: 81) when he first enters the room. It becomes apparent that similarly to his predecessor, he does not conduct a concrete medical assessment. Rather, he bases his diagnosis on his experience. However, Bradshaw accepts this limitation of his profession as he states that “as a doctor he fails” (Woolf 1925: 84). Consequently, Bradshaw’s experience is guided by two terms that guide his treatment: Proportion and Conversion (Bonikowski 2013: 149). According to Bonikowski, a sense of Proportion means a sense of meaning that is consistent with the socially accepted moral but not present in the mad (Bonikowski 2013: 148). This is particularly apparent in Bradshaw’s elaboration of proportion. He sees his practice as providing a service to England in general by confining persons to the template of his moral system and persona (Woolf 1925: 84). Moreover, similarly to Holmes‘ judgement, Bradshaw sees proportion as gender specific, as he distinguishes between male and female variants (Woolf 1925: 84). Margaret Blanchard defines this notion as echoing the universal moral standard implied by Dr. Holmes (Blanchard 1972: 298). In consequence, both practitioners are illustrating the ambiguity of shell-shock and Foucault’s concept of psychiatric doctors‘ being wise moral judges rather than medical practitioners.
However, as aforementioned Bradshaw sees Septimus as seriously mad and not just unreasonable. His perception is caused by the second principle of his treatment: Conversion. Bradshaw claims that Conversion is the menacing sister of Proportion disguised as “some venerable name; love, duty, self-sacrifice” (Woolf 1925: 85). As Bonikowski points out, conversion “is a system of domination” (Bonikowski 2013: 148) utilized by the agents of proportion. This principle is societal and individual as Bradshaw claims it is used wherever reason is threatened (DeMeester 1998: 665). It is applicable in international political affairs, his relationship to his patients and in marriage (Woolf 1925: 85). Hence, it is the absolute authority of patriarchal reason that creates proportion by dominating unconform individuals. In consequence, this wish for domination is the basis of Bradshaw’s treatment. He wants to confine Septimus in one of his psychiatric facilities in order to gain absolute authority over him. He describes this facility as “a beautiful house in the country” (Woolf 1925: 82) indicating the apparent peaceful character of the new psychiatric facilities after general confinement (Foucault 1965: 241). Moreover, despite attempts by Septimus to deny his plans, Bradshaw makes him and Rezia submit by rationally augmenting that confinement is necessary due to his suicidal tendencies (Woolf 1925: 83-84). Thus, the dominance of reason and the monologue it has to madness become apparent. Furthermore, the institutionalization of Septimus does not only serve his individual case but has a wider purpose for England’s post World War One society. As DeMeester and Blanchard argue, his revelation and general condition could negatively affect other soldiers‘ perceptions of the war severely (DeMeester 1998: 662; Blanchard 1972: 303). Subsequently, his segregation seems essential to preserve military morale. This reason for Septimus segregation is particularly interesting as it illustrates Bradshaw’s psychiatric facility as a “heterotopia of deviation” (Foucault 1986: 25). Septimus revelation would disturb the social order, particularly the military service. Therefore, to Bradshaw his segregation to a closed place is essential until he has been “changed to have more acceptable behavior” (Thomson 2004: 64). The doctor himself benefits personally from this segregation as he is part of the upper class profiting from the status quo secured by military power (Blanchard 1972: 303). Consequently, the function of Bradshaw’s homes in relation to all other places is preserving societal behavioural norms and hierarchies by segregating unconformity exemplified by the mad.
Taking the two distinct approaches into comparison their key differences become apparent. Both Holmes and Bradshaw diagnose Septimus in regards to a universal moral standard in accordance with Bradshaw’s notion of Proportion. This standard is based on their own character as well as patriotic and male virtues making them both seemingly wise moral judges and not medical experts. However, while Holmes makes paternalistic appeals to Septimus, Bradshaw is aiming towards his conversion. In particular he is confining Septimus in one of his facilities, hoping his segregation will help to sustain social order. His facilities can be seen as a heterotopia of deviation, imprisoning shell-shocked soldiers because of their mad unconformity.
3.3 Septimus’ Revolt Against Reason
In response to the doctor’s diagnosis and especially Bradshaw’s segregational approach Septimus reacts antipathetically. He denies their treatment and eventually kills himself as a final act of despair and revolt. Accordingly, his perception and his suicide need to be analysed in order to determine his narrative as criticizing spatial segregation of persons perceived as shell-shocked in London after World War One.
Septimus feels judged by “human nature” (Woolf 1925: 77) personified by both of his doctors. This notion of human nature can be defined as the dark tendency he has discovered in human civilization (Bonikowski 2013: 152). He experienced the disruption of all his beliefs during the war, becoming symbolic of tragic wisdom described by Foucault. Moreover, human nature simultaneously functions as a static morality he is not conforming to (Blanchard 1972: 298). This is particularly evident as human nature becomes his name for Dr. Holmes (Woolf 1925: 119). Initially, Septimus seeks to escape by fleeing together with Rezia “anywhere, away from Dr. Holmes“ (Woolf 1925: 78). However, she declines leading Septimus to think of suicide. Initially, Septimus dismisses this solution as his knowledge and madness still provides him with “a freedom which the attached can never know” (Woolf 1925: 79). However, his conviction is reevaluated when he encounters Bradshaw imposing an immediate threat to his freedom. To Septimus, he symbolized the second incarnation of human nature (Woolf 1925: 83). Both doctors were “men who made ten thousand a year and talked of proportion; who differed in their verdicts […] yet judges they were” (Woolf 1925: 126). As Bradshaw’s verdict is no longer limited to common sense paternalism Septimus feels like “the criminal who faced his judges” (Woolf 1925: 82). Septimus‘ first reaction is an attempt to communicate that remains unsuccessful as he is only able to stutter (Woolf 1925: 83). Accordingly, Septimus still lacks the language to convey his message. Subsequently, Bradshaw tells Rezia that he is ruled to be institutionalized without including Septimus in the decision.
After their encounter with Bradshaw, Septimus and Rezia share a peaceful moment at their home leaving Septimus “very happy” (Woolf 1925: 123). As Bonikowski argues “home for a brief moment becomes a place of rest” (Bonikowski 2013: 158) where Septimus could live peacefully with loss of meaning. This place of refuge from authority is shattered when Rezia decides to tell Septimus about his impending segregation. In response, Septimus questions Bradshaw’s authority over him: “What right has Bradshaw to say “must” to me” (Woolf 1925: 125). This reaction shows Septimus as understanding the arbitrarily imposed “obscure” (Foucault 1965: 275) rule of the doctor over the mad patient. Subsequently, Septimus asks Rezia to burn his sketches and notes which she denies, finding them “very beautiful” (Woolf 1925: 125). However, as Bonikowski points out this act of preservation is pointless, at least to Septimus‘ quest to convey his message. They lack a comprehensible language and a recipient who is willing to listen. Thus, they remain “unread and unreadable” (Bonikowski 2013: 158). This is symbolized by the lack of an envelope, showing that the message will never be received (Bonikowski 2013: 158).
Therefore, in Septimus‘ mind there remains only suicide as a last option to avoid his impending segregation. Septimus states himself that his suicide is not caused by his depression or general will to kill himself: “He did not want to die. Life was good. The sun hot” (Woolf 1925: 127). As Blanchard states, Septimus “chooses death rather than submit to tyranny of Proportion” (Blanchard 1972: 302). Consequently, Septimus knows that the psychiatric facility of Bradsahw would surrender him to total domination of reason in a heterotopia of deviation. To him his message has become more important than his own life as he believes his knowledge can change societies power structures for the better if he is able to communicate it. As DeMeester argues killing himself is “a desperate but futile last attempt to communicate” (DeMeester 1998: 653). Because his message is about tragedy, death, war and the absurdity of life and reason, Septimus suicide communicates his message directly trough his action. At last, he found a language for his message by taking direct action in order to communicate. Consequently, he is contradicting society’s moral segregation of the mad and the exclusion of their truth. However, he is losing his own life in the process making him unable to have a political impact or experience further moments of happiness with Rezia. Finally, his death highlights that he will never conform to being segregated into a heterotopic institution of deviation. In contrast, he symbolizes that societal norms and morals are inherently flawed, as they are not able to integrate or communicate to unconformity.
4. Conclusion
Virginia Woolf shows the spatial dimension of London’s societies incapability to integrate World War One veterans suffering from shell-shock. Throughout “Mrs. Dalloway” and the narrative of Septimus Warren Smith it becomes apparent how modern medical approaches to madness failed to listen to their patients‘ beliefs and ignored the ambiguity of their condition. This is especially apparent considering Foucault’s spatial theory of heterotopias. The psychiatric facility as presented through Bradshaw’s homes can be understood as a heterotopia of deviation, meant to exclude the mad as they are incompatible with conventional morality. The tragedy of Septimus‘ character is not merely his individual loss of meaning and incapability to communicate. Rather, his communicational as well as spatial exclusion lead to his eventual suicide that serves as a desperate act of revolt. The two doctors portrayed represent different mechanisms of this moral exclusion. Dr. Holmes aims to discipline Septimus in existing societal space by employing a paternalistic moral judging Septimus character. In contrast, Sir William Bradshaw seeks complete exclusion through a segregated institution. Both approaches deny Septimus‘ wish to communicate his newfound meaning, aligning with Foucault’s ideas of a lost dialogue and doctors as moral judges. His suicide becomes an ultimate and desperate refusal of exclusion and segregation. Moreover, it provides the possibility to communicate his revelation of the world’s meaninglessness. Woolf’s critique can be seen as extending beyond psychiatric facilities, questioning general spatial power structures present in society after World War 1. As she illustrates the social exclusion and spatial segregation of the mentally ill, Woolf questions general modern morality, masculinity as well as the military service. Septimus‘ death additionally functions as a political statement revealing the deadly consequences existing hierarchies had on shell-shocked soldiers in England after the war. Therefore, the narrative of Septimus Warren Smith in “Mrs. Dalloway” reveals how space itself becomes an instrument of power in order to preserve dominant hierarchies and morals. Finally, this narrative remains relevant to this day, particularly questioning our treatment of the mentally ill and generally questioning spatial relations of power and exclusion.
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Woolf, Virginia. Mrs. Dalloway, edited by David Bradshaw Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 [1925].
Secondary Sources:
Blanchard, Margaret. “Socialization in Mrs. Dalloway.” College English, vol. 34, no. 2, 1972, pp. 287–305. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/375287. Accessed 10 Sept. 2025.
Bonikowski, Wyatt. Shell Shock and the Modernist Imagination: The Death Drive in
Post-World War I British Fiction. London, New York: Routledge, 2016 [2013]
DeMeester, Karen. “TRAUMA AND RECOVERY IN VIRGINIA WOOLF’S ‘MRS.
DALLOWAY.’” Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 44, no. 3, 1998, pp. 649–73. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26286042. Accessed 10 Sept. 2025.
Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. New York: Random House Inc., 1988 [1965]
Foucault, Michel, and Miskowiec, Jay. “Of Other Spaces.” Diacritics, vol. 16, no. 1, 1986, pp. 22–27. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/464648. Accessed 10 Sept. 2025.
Gutting, Garry. “Archaeology.” The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon, Lawlor, Leonard, and John Nale, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Print, pp. 13-19.
Loughran, Tracey. Shell-Shock and Medical Culture in First World War Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Print. Studies in the Social and Cultural History of Modern Warfare.
Loughran, Tracey. “Shell Shock, Trauma, and the First World War: The Making of a Diagnosis and Its Histories.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol. 67, no. 1 2012, pp. 94–119. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24631881. Accessed 10 Sept. 2025.
Marwick, Arthur. “The Impact of the First World War on British Society.” Journal of
Contemporary History, vol. 3, no. 1, 1968, pp. 51–63. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/259966. Accessed 10 Sept. 2025.
Rachman, Shalom. “Clarissa’s Attic: Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway Reconsidered.” Twentieth Century Literature, vol. 18, no. 1, 1972, pp. 3–18. JSTOR,
Savoia, Paolo. “Madness.” The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon, Lawlor, Leonard, and John Nale, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Print, pp. 273-280
Thomson, Jean. “Virginia Woolf and the Case of Septimus Smith.” The San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, 2004, pp. 55–71. JSTOR,