Addiction stigma and the biopolitics of liberal modernity: A qualitative analysis

Abstract

Definitions of addiction have never been more hotly contested. The advance of neuroscientific accounts has not only placed into public awareness a highly controversial explanatory approach, it has also shed new light on the absence of agreement among the many experts who contest it. Proponents argue that calling addiction a 'brain disease' is important because it is destigmatising. Many critics of the neuroscientific approach also agree on this point. Considered from the point of view of the sociology of health and illness, the idea that labelling something a disease will alleviate stigma is a surprising one. Disease, as demonstrated in that field of research, is routinely stigmatised. In this article we take up the issue of stigma as it plays out in relation to addiction, seeking to clarify and challenge the claims made about the progress associated with disease models. To do so, we draw on Erving Goffman's classic work on stigma, reconsidering it in light of more recent, process oriented, theoretical resources, and posing stigmatisation as a performative biopolitical process. Analysing recently collected interviews conducted with 60 people in Australia who consider themselves to have an alcohol or other drug addiction, dependence or habit, we explore their accounts of stigma, finding experiences of stigma to be common, multiple and strikingly diverse. We argue that by treating stigma as politically productive - as a contingent biopolitically performative process rather than as a stable marker of some kind of anterior difference - we can better understand what it achieves. This allows us to consider not simply how the 'disease' of addiction can be destigmatised, or even whether the 'diseasing' of addiction is itself stigmatising (although this would seem a key question), but whether the very problematisation of 'addiction' in the first place constitutes a stigma process.

Drug and alcohol treatment providers’ views about the disease model of addiction and its impact on clinical practice: A systematic review

“…Proponents of the BDMA argue that it will benefit addicted individuals by reducing moral judgment and providing enhanced biomedical interventions (e.g. However, critics have contested the neurobiological evidence underpinning the BDMA, claiming it may increase stigma for people with addictions and lead policy makers to focus on medical solutions to social problems [5][6][7][8][9]. However, critics have contested the neurobiological evidence underpinning the BDMA, claiming it may increase stigma for people with addictions and lead policy makers to focus on medical solutions to social problems [5][6][7][8][9].…”

Roles And Responsibilities Of Nurses Struggling With Substance Abusers

“…Substance dependent individuals define their feelings as being treated by health care professionals in a different way compared to other patients and as being belittled. These individuals experiencing labeling anxieties with past experiences do not go to hospital even when they have minor health problems and are unable to prevent these problems from turning into more difficult and serious situations later (Fraser et al, 2017).…”

“…Fraser et al (2017 identified in their study that substance dependent individuals are exposed to labeling in the health care system, in their offices, in judiciary systems, in media, family and friend environments (Fraser et al, 2017). Kelly et al (2009) expressed in their study that depending on the labeling they are exposed http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.09.23 Corresponding Author: Z. Yaman Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN: 252 to, substance using individuals have difficulties in setting up a home, in their offices and in getting health care and that they are judged and denied by health care professionals (Kelly and Westerhoff, 2009).…”

“…Substance dependent individuals experience negative effects of labeling intensively in the physical, social, emotional, environmental, spiritual, financial, intellectual and vocational sense and at the same time, they are subject to labeling by society, family and health professionals (White, 2009). Fraser et al (2017 identified in their study that substance dependent individuals are exposed to labeling in the health care system, in their offices, in judiciary systems, in media, family and friend environments (Fraser et al, 2017).…”

La adicción como enfermedad: ¿mitigando o alimentando el estigma?

“…De hecho, desde la perspectiva de la sociología de la salud y la enfermedad, la idea de que el hecho de etiquetar algo como enfermedad mitigará el estigma no deja de ser sorprendente (Fraser et al, 2017).…”