Published Paper Details:

This study examines the concept of "madness" as a social and political label rather than simply a medical condition. It argues that madness is often used to control or silence individuals who do not conform to dominant social expectations. Through a close reading of Jean Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea and Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the research explores how authority figures define madness and how that definition shifts attention away from questions of power and treatment. Instead of asking whether a character is truly insane, the study focuses on who has the authority to declare someone mad and how that declaration allows control, confinement, or exclusion to appear justified. In Wide Sargasso Sea, Antoinette is repeatedly labelled as mad despite the absence of any clear medical diagnosis or treatment. Her distress is interpreted through the perspective of those who hold power over her, especially her husband, whose social and colonial authority enables him to rename and isolate her without facing serious consequences. The critical debate often centres on whether she was actually mad rather than whether the treatment she received, silencing, confinement, and loss of identity was ethically justified. In contrast, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde presents a male character whose instability is hidden and rationalised for much of the narrative. Dr. Jekyll's social status and respectability protect him from immediate judgment, suggesting that madness is treated differently depending on gender and social position. Female distress is quickly pathologized and contained, while male instability is often concealed or excused. The study also connects these literary patterns to contemporary society. Even today, groups that challenge social norms, particularly marginalized communities such as LGBTQ+ individuals, are sometimes described using language that frames them as irrational or abnormal. Such language shifts attention away from structural inequalities and toward the supposed instability of the individuals themselves. By drawing these parallels, the research argues that madness continues to function as a tool of social control. Overall, the study demonstrates that madness is not a neutral diagnosis but a label shaped by power, authority, and social expectations, making it deeply relevant in both literature and the present world.