Both Nietzsche and Foucault emphasize the importance of history and how perceptions change over time. Nietzsche questions traditional views of "good" and argues it has been manipulated by the powerful for their own gain. Foucault examines how views of madness have changed from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, leading to increased confinement of the mentally ill. They both believe we should use history to develop new understandings rather than rely on established principles that may no longer apply.

1. Nietzsche and Foucault on Historical Change.
In “Good and Evil”, Nietzsche questions the way in which society recognizes
the good. It is traditionally believed that those that do good deeds do so as
altruistic actions, because of their concern for others. However, Nietzsche is
skeptical of the unselfishness of their actions. He holds the view that it was
the good themselves that made the class distinction and gave themselves the
title of good, and in such manner became the noble. He is suspicious of the
powers within society, how the noble manipulate the “simple” people for
personal gain. In claiming that good didn’t stem from selfishness, he
describes it as originally being a power. His main argument for the stature of
the Noble in society is that they use the pretense of “Good” for their own
interest.
The nobles determined the terminology for the weak and in this manner lifted
themselves above the natural “vulgar” state that is natural to us. However,
Nietzsche points out that they too are “little better than uncaged beasts of
prey” when outside the circles in which good manners are of benefit.
Nietzsche’s symbolism behind acting like animals, which Foucault found to be
reflective of how society see’s madmen, is a demonstration of our desire for
freedom from the constraints placed on us by society and reflects our true
nature. Foucault further explores this link between an animal state and
freedom of expression in search for the unreason.
Justice is exposed as something that is merely an agreement between the
weak and the strong that serves to delude the weak in feeling comfortable in
their position. Steering away from our nature, society saw an inversion of
values, for which he explicitly blames religion. Good is now to be poor and
weak because you will get to go to heaven at the end as a reward for
conforming to societal structure. Nietzsche criticizes the role of religion in
modern life as a barrier to undiscovered potential within the lower classes,
who are left with nothing but menial labour as a means to survive. Their life of
“drugged tranquility” allows only glimpses of happiness. Undiscovered
potential lead to unfulfilled life, based on the promises of an empty institution,
the God of which Nietzsche believed was dead.
The Death of God was an important aspect of Nietzsche’s work. He believed
that the outdated system of believing in a spirit as a moral guide no longer
had a place in society. Instead, he expresses the need for humanity to step in
to replace the gap left by the absence of God, and to create a common moral
code for all. This Übermensch requires the human race to question the
actions of the good, and to create a universal understanding between the
classes. For this to happen, Nietzsche argues that humanity is like a learning
block, which needs to base its judgments on its history rather than on the
concrete principles dictated by those with “higher morals”. With such a critical
approach towards history, Nietzsche stresses the importance of using it as a
resource for human advancement.
“The age of reason confined” is the strong opening statement of Foucault’s
chapter on The Insane. In saying this, he draws the parallel between the

2. treatment of the insane and how society interprets madness. His reference to
medical archaeology expresses concern for the definition of insanity, and how
one might come to be called a madman. What is normal? A citizen of the
enlightenment was idealized as a man of reason that is able to think for him or
herself with sensibility. These qualities evoke a sense of dominance over
nature, and lead to how we approach the problem of insanity: by taming it.
This lead to the confinement of madmen in mental institutions, with the dawn
of the enlightenment, as an attempt to hide the abnormal. Foucault recognizes
that our understanding of normality is in constant change, and that our
treatment of the insane should adjust to recognize the true needs of the
insane.
Exemplifying the Renaissance as a time of freedom of expression, Foucault
focuses on how madness at that time was something to be dealt with in the
open in order to balance evil. He then shows how societies understanding of
the insane shifted with the onset of the classical period. The insane became
those that needed to be confined, in order to save society from multiplicity of
unreason. Foucault’s love of contradictions is well expressed in this theme:
with passion for reason being the main drive of radical change, which swept
through Europe in the eighteenth century, it is the ideal of the Enlightenment
to define ourselves as civilized folk without submission to barbaric passions.
Hence the birth of the enlightenment came with much madness, expressed
through passion, even though it defined itself as civil and orderly.
In dealing with the reasons for which one might find themself confined, he
claims dishonor for family or the church as being the key factors. However,
exile due to different perceptions of reality only works to draw the eye of
society. Exhibiting the insane as entertainment, with the example of how the
Hospital in Bethlehem charged a penny every Sunday to display madmen,
reflects how madness in Western society became tamed under the movement
of the Enlightenment. A new stereotype emerged of those that were deemed
mad comparing them to animals in their lack of reason. Foucault suggests
that society used the insane as a venting point that replaced the medieval
relations to lepers. The link between passion, as a gateway between body
and soul, and delirium is his explanation for madness that overwhelms a
being. However, his writings show madness to be interpreted in a wide variety
of ways, and at its foundation is the way in which madness is recognized by
society based on cultural and intellectual prejudice.
The main theme of this work is to allow the reader to recognize that society
forms its own definition of madness. Although the practicalities adopted by the
people of the Renaissance are unsuitable to modern society, we can still learn
the lesson of giving a voice to those deemed insane. Foucault stresses the
importance of the unreason as something that medical practices can never
understand, and that it needs to be shared with the rest of humanity as a cry
for help that can be related with. With this point he carries on to emphasize
the importance of art, and unreason as creative spark. Although art, when
seen through the unreasoned eye, becomes destroyed by its obvious
sentiment, it is the only way for breakthrough.

3. Both Nietzsche and Foucault emphasize the importance of history as a
resource for human knowledge, claiming that we should take advantage of the
progress of humanity in how we see the world. Nietzsche demonstrates that
our perceptions of Good have changed over time and lead to an inversion of
morals based on the teachings of the church: that it is now good to be weak
and compliant. However, with the age of reason bringing with it total disregard
for mystical spirits, Nietzsche is critical of the powerful men in the church. Our
understanding of good has evolved into making us abide in a system of
regress, a system that, Nietzsche claims, is radically different from our nature.
Nietzsche claims that humanity is in need of a new code of morals that could
replace the emptiness of God in our advanced society. In this manner we
should draw from the experiences of past lifetimes in trying to delve out a
universal code of morals.
For Foucault, history is an example of how our perceptions of madness have
changed throughout time, and reflect our need to adjust in how we treat the
insane. He draws on the Renaissance as a time of freedom. Although this
perception of the Renaissance is somewhat idealized in how open he
perceived society to be, his main point is that with the onset of the classical
age, the goal in the treatment of the mad was to avoid scandal. This lead to
seclusion of the mad, which only serves to darken what our perception of
madness is due to a lack of confrontation. Foucault drew heavy influence from
the work of Nietzsche mainly because he was an exemplary historical figure
whom he admired for his unreason, as well as his study of how deep-rooted
reasons for good human behavior reflect on us as a society. This tied in with
his belief that the unreason is the fuel behind creativity as a means of
expression, and in turn a liberation of the artist.

4. Foucault, Michel, Madness and Civilization:A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, trans. Richard
Howard (London: Routledge, 1993).
Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Genealogy of Morals, trans. Francis Golfing (New York: Doubleday, 1956).
Shapiro, Gary, Archaeologiesof vision:Foucault and Nietzsche on seeing and saying. (London:
University of Chicago Press, 2003)
Rossbach,Stefan, The author'scare of himself: on Friedrich Nietzsche, Michel Foucault and Niklas
Luhmann (Badia Fiesolana, Firenze: European University Institute,1993)
Theriot, Nancy, Nineteenth-century Physicians and ‘Puerperal Insanity”
https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/viewFile/2472/2431 (accessed 10/04/2012)