“The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” is a story by Oliver Sacks that describes the condition of one of his patients called Dr. P. The patient is suffering from visual agnosia and has visited an ophthalmologist when he develops diabetes and thinks that it might affect his vision. A talented musician, Dr. P seems to have lost almost his ability to visually recognize things infront of him but had not lost his ability to do music. The implication of his loss of visual sensation is what led him to try to pick his wife’s head to put it on his as a hat. Throughout the story, Dr. Sacks tries to figure out different ways of helping him and eventually prescribes to him sticking to a sense that he seems to understand rather too well – his interpretation of music. This story highlights Sacks’ fascination with the functioning of the human brain and in Dr. P’s case, Oliver Sacks’ main point is that some neurological disorders may not be treated but may only be accommodated by engaging in what one is clearly good at. He brings the reader to the intersection between understanding the personality of the patient while still understanding the ailment itself. His main argument is that not all brain damages can reduce an individual’s ability to think in abstract and categorical ways as was suggested in classical neurology.
Dr. Sacks begins by describing the most important aspect of his patient. That he was a musician of distinction implies that Dr. P was a passionate individual. As such, this creates an avenue of understanding the personality of the individual. Perhaps this underscores the fact that his senses were quite on point before he developed agnosia. The fact that Dr. P could not recognize the student who walked into his office but could recognize his voice tells the beginning of his problem. The individual only seems to have lost facial recognition ability but is still able to think in an abstract way. He is able to make deductions without having a physical presentation of the things in front of him. As such, the patient is unable to recognize the concrete and does not use his visual senses when making deductions.
It is also apparent that the patient in this case is able to visualize color. When looking at a picture, Dr. P is able to describe the color and the shape of the object but not the picture as a whole. The representation of the picture in his mind is basically on its abstract traits i.e. the color and the shape and not the concrete image symbolized in it. When given a rose, he is only able to describe it based on the color and probably the smell of the object. He describes it as “about six inches in length. A convoluted red form with a linear green attachment… I think this could be an inflorescence or flower.” The implication of this instance is that the patient cannot decipher the particular and the person as a whole but can only create a concrete object by combining the abstracts. Additionally, the fact that he can only be sure it is a flower by smelling it implies that he is unaware of any unusual alterations that may occur in the flower.
The final diagnosis by the doctor actually comes after he observes the patient painting. He asserts that Dr. P was a good painter initially. He could draw concrete objects. However, after observing him draw for a while, the best the patient could come up with was what he describes as ‘botches of color.’ The fact that he could not tell how well the colors blended to form a picture implied that the loss of his visual senses meant a loss for his perceptive ability. Realizing that the condition of the individual could not really be cured mechanically, he suggests that the patient continues teaching music.
In the story, the doctor implies that the case of this particular patient holds an allegorical warning for the science of neurology. Dr. P’s case juxtaposes one of the vital axioms of classical neurology that assumes that any brain damage can reduce or remove one’s ability to think in abstract or categorical ways. He suggests that the modern science has moved inescapably towards the abstraction while still striving to eschew the particular and the personal. He also implies that modern science seems to be unaware of certain difficulties such as the development of agnosia and pursued the abstract opinion of disembodied bodies. Modern medicine seems to have lost touch with humanity and has become more mechanist as it strives to treat even those ailments that cannot really be treated. In this case, Dr. Sacks implies that the fact that Dr. P’s illness may have been neurological did not necessarily imply that he would be better placed to seek medical help and as such creating an avenue where he would concentrate on subjects that he was more prolific on was the best form of therapy for him. At the end of the story, it is quite apparent that Sacks never met Dr. P again but he assumes that he continued to teach music for the rest of his life.
Work Cited
Sacks, Oliver, and Samuel M. Stein. "The man who mistook his wife for a hat." The British Journal of Psychiatry 166.1 (1995): 130-131.
