“There’s No Sense to It”: A Posthumanist Ethnography of Agency in Methamphetamine Recovery

IF 2.3 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Samuel Brookfield, L. Selvey, L. Maher, L. Fitzgerald
{"title":"“There’s No Sense to It”: A Posthumanist Ethnography of Agency in Methamphetamine Recovery","authors":"Samuel Brookfield, L. Selvey, L. Maher, L. Fitzgerald","doi":"10.1177/00914509211031609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The orthodox construction of agency within addiction recovery discourse is built upon a fault line between two conflicting principles: that people who use drugs in harmful ways cannot control their behavior, but that they can also regain that control through intentional effort. The conceptual confusion inherent in this framework can harm people using drugs by producing inadequate accounts of commonly invoked aspects of recovery such as “triggers,” “self-control,” and “addictive behavior.” This ethnographic study involved qualitative interviews and observations with nine people over 6 months as they engaged in recovery from harmful methamphetamine use, to explore their experiences of agency, and how these experiences could be shaped by the discourse of volition/compulsion. Thematic analysis was conducted using a posthumanist theoretical framework. We found “relapse triggers” to be diffuse aspects of particular environments rather than specific stimuli, able to provoke what would normally be considered conscious, intentional behavior rather than only autonomic or “mindless” processes. Participants also described their identities as internally divided and multiple, with drug related behaviors separated from their true selves. Finally, agency was experienced as emergent and distributed rather than as a particular resource located within individuals. Attending to these complex experiences of agency can help resolve the tension between loss of control and personal responsibility for people who use drugs, by renegotiating the historically imposed categorical distinction between volitional and compelled actions, and the cultural constructions of “addictive” versus “normal” behavior.","PeriodicalId":35813,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Drug Problems","volume":"49 1","pages":"278 - 298"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/00914509211031609","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Drug Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509211031609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The orthodox construction of agency within addiction recovery discourse is built upon a fault line between two conflicting principles: that people who use drugs in harmful ways cannot control their behavior, but that they can also regain that control through intentional effort. The conceptual confusion inherent in this framework can harm people using drugs by producing inadequate accounts of commonly invoked aspects of recovery such as “triggers,” “self-control,” and “addictive behavior.” This ethnographic study involved qualitative interviews and observations with nine people over 6 months as they engaged in recovery from harmful methamphetamine use, to explore their experiences of agency, and how these experiences could be shaped by the discourse of volition/compulsion. Thematic analysis was conducted using a posthumanist theoretical framework. We found “relapse triggers” to be diffuse aspects of particular environments rather than specific stimuli, able to provoke what would normally be considered conscious, intentional behavior rather than only autonomic or “mindless” processes. Participants also described their identities as internally divided and multiple, with drug related behaviors separated from their true selves. Finally, agency was experienced as emergent and distributed rather than as a particular resource located within individuals. Attending to these complex experiences of agency can help resolve the tension between loss of control and personal responsibility for people who use drugs, by renegotiating the historically imposed categorical distinction between volitional and compelled actions, and the cultural constructions of “addictive” versus “normal” behavior.
“毫无意义”:甲基苯丙胺回收机构的后人文主义人种学
成瘾康复话语中代理的正统结构建立在两个相互冲突的原则之间的断层线上:以有害方式使用药物的人无法控制自己的行为,但他们也可以通过有意的努力重新获得这种控制。该框架中固有的概念混乱可能会对吸毒者造成伤害,因为他们对康复的常见方面(如“触发因素”、“自我控制”和“成瘾行为”)的描述不足。这项人种学研究涉及对9名6个月以上的人进行定性访谈和观察,探讨他们的代理体验,以及这些体验如何被意志/强迫的话语所塑造。专题分析是使用后人道主义理论框架进行的。我们发现,“复发触发因素”是特定环境的扩散方面,而不是特定的刺激,能够激发通常被认为是有意识、有意识的行为,而不仅仅是自主或“无意识”的过程。参与者还将自己的身份描述为内部分裂和多重的,与毒品相关的行为与真实的自我分离。最后,代理是作为一种紧急的和分布式的,而不是作为一种位于个人内部的特定资源。通过重新谈判历史上强加的意志行为和强迫行为之间的明确区别,以及“成瘾”与“正常”行为的文化建构,关注这些复杂的代理体验可以帮助解决吸毒者失去控制与个人责任之间的紧张关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Contemporary Drug Problems
Contemporary Drug Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Contemporary Drug Problems is a scholarly journal that publishes peer-reviewed social science research on alcohol and other psychoactive drugs, licit and illicit. The journal’s orientation is multidisciplinary and international; it is open to any research paper that contributes to social, cultural, historical or epidemiological knowledge and theory concerning drug use and related problems. While Contemporary Drug Problems publishes all types of social science research on alcohol and other drugs, it recognizes that innovative or challenging research can sometimes struggle to find a suitable outlet. The journal therefore particularly welcomes original studies for which publication options are limited, including historical research, qualitative studies, and policy and legal analyses. In terms of readership, Contemporary Drug Problems serves a burgeoning constituency of social researchers as well as policy makers and practitioners working in health, welfare, social services, public policy, criminal justice and law enforcement.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信