Take a moment to consider some of the images that come to mind when you think of the word ‘addict’. What does the typical ‘addict’ look like to you? How do they dress or look? How do they act? What parts of town do you imagine them in? What kinds of jobs do you imagine them having? Would you trust them in day-to-day interactions? What about as a friend? What about with your kids?
If your answers to these questions were not so positive, do not feel alone. All it takes is one Google search of the term to see that the way we conceive of addicted people carries a tremendous amount of negative moral judgment. The definition that Google presents is “a person who is addicted to a particular substance, typically an illegal drug”. While this definition does not appear to explicitly carry any negative connotations, some of the similar words suggested by google include (but certainly are not limited to): abuser, druggie, junkie, -fiend, tripper, needle man, and dopester. Furthermore, the images section is full of dark and depressing photos such as the ones placed throughout this blog post. Our typical view of the ‘addict’ appears to be of a very specific type of person; usually wearing dirty, worn-out clothes, their eyes sullen and skin pale, hanging around alleyways and -somehow- always managing to catch your attention with a drawn-out story as to why they “truthfully, sincerely, honestly, swear on their mother” that the money you give them will not be used for drugs.
Now, you may not feel like this is an issue. It could very well be the case that people who we define as ‘addicts’ carry those moral judgments for a reason. By calling a person an addict, it may be that we are recognizing our disapproval of the characteristics that may have led them to their position, as opposed to simply defining them as addicted to a substance. Consider the types of people you may call an addict; they are usually not people you want to be associated with. It may be easy to call a shady-looking stranger an addict, and it may even be easy for you to say about the trashy cousin you don’t like. However, when dealing with those you love, it tends to be a lot harder to use the term. We instead choose to say things like “oh, they’re just struggling with a little drug problem” or “he’s just using it to relax, he’s a good guy otherwise” or “It’s just a small vice”. If/when it does become time to talk to your friend about being an addict, we often say things like “You’re no longer the person I once knew” or “We want the old you back”. By using the term ‘addict’, we are implying a degree of irresponsibility and untrustworthiness about the person in question, and signifying to ourselves and others (and the person in question) that they should be generally avoided.
In stark contrast to the popular conception of the addict we appear to have, addiction is recognized as a psychological disorder in the DSM 5 – the primary diagnostic tool for psychiatrists and psychologists. Meaning that addiction consists of a clinically significant disruption in your ability to think, feel, or behave in comparison to the norm. When a person is an addict, or experiences the disorder of addiction, what starts out as a fully conscious choice can very quickly become a physical need for their body to even function. We tend to recognize that, in the same way that no person is entirely responsible for having the psychological disorder of depression or OCD, no person is entirely responsible for having an addiction. We also tend to recognize that, with proper psychological help, these disorders can be significantly improved upon – if not entirely resolved – for the individual. Given that we recognize the state of addiction as a psychological disorder, why do we have such an irredeemable picture of the ‘addicts’ themselves?
Addiction treatment outcomes are unsuccessful in comparison to treatment of other psychological disorders. 40-60% of people in drug and alcohol treatment relapse while in recovery. Only about a third of people with alcohol use disorder attempt to quit alcohol in any given year, and only about 25% of them are even partially successful in doing so (AAC: Rehab Success Rates and Statistics). With such poor outcomes of treatment, we are left with a choice as to what that means about addicts and the ways we view them. Is it that our negative view of the addict is accounting for this poor success rate, and making an accurate assessment of the person’s inability to accept psychological treatment. Or is our negative view itself pushing the addict away from successful treatment/ the beliefs necessary for successful treatment?
Philosopher of emotions, Robert C. Solomon, can provide us with some clarity on these questions by looking at his assessment of the negative emotions of guilt and shame. For him, the emotions of guilt and shame belong to a family of emotions (including embarrassment and, on the flip-side, pride) that are associated with self-judgment. Meaning that they are not just emotions that one has about themself, but instead relate to – and are formed around – the normative standards and morals that one aligns with. Our feelings of these emotions are directed by the social standards that we believe we ought to be living up to, whatever context(s) or culture(s) those may derive from (Solomon, 90-91). Without an understanding of what society requires of us, there is no basis with which to feel shame, guilt, or even pride – they are necessarily social emotions. Furthermore, for Solomon, the emotions of shame and guilt carry the moral weight that they do because they communicate a wish to continue being a member of the society whose standards have been violated in some way. In order to feel shame or guilt towards a community, we must truly, authentically desire to be a functioning member of society. Shame can be imposed on a person via social shunning and various rituals of shame, but that can all be ignored if that person does not feel like they belong to the society. It can actually be quite easy to shrug off the shaming of outside groups (for example, when was the last time you seriously considered the insults of whatever political party may oppose you?). One must truly believe the message of that shame in order to feel it (Solomon, 96).
When we look at how the emotions of shame and guilt apply specifically to the phenomena of addiction, the aspect of social belonging that Solomon identifies cannot be ignored. For the emotions of shame and guilt to have any use at all, the person experiencing those emotions must feel like they can become a member of that society once more. We develop rituals of shame, as Solomon points out, in order to communicate our wish to belong once more (96). However, one must be able to communicate that shame to the society in a way that yields responses – if one communicates their shame truthfully and honestly, and they are met with no acceptance or even listening, then there is no longer a logical reason to hold this shame. I feel as if those who are defined as addicts often do not have a logical reason to feel shame, when defined in Solomon’s terms. I also feel like this may be a prominent piece of our massive failure in addiction treatment, allow me to explain.
Our view of the addict, as laid out at the start of this paper, carries far more negative connotations than our view of addiction itself. Under Solomon’s framework of how shame and guilt function socially, it may appear useful to use the term ‘addict’ in such a negative way. By calling someone an addict, we are making it known that their behaviors are entirely unacceptable for their given circumstances – that they should feel shame for what they have done. Even more useful, this harsh shaming can scare away future people from participating in ‘addict’ behavior. However, this does not take account of the whole story. If our shaming of addiction were to be working ‘well’ (carrying out the functions that Solomon describes), then we would expect to see a high rate of these people returning to society. That is obviously not the case.
Our view of the addict communicates more than just shame, it communicates a degree of unsolvability and untrustworthiness that is often inescapable. Directly in the face of a treatment system that informs one of the fact that their addiction is largely not their fault, they are met with a social stigma that paints a distinct (and negative) moral picture of the addict. This leaves the addict in a place in which it simply is not rational to feel shame. It may be totally right for us to describe places like Skid-Row as shameless, but it also may be totally right for the addicts to feel that way. Even if one conquers this disease that is not their fault, what remains is an entire world of negative moralization about the person with the disease. Why would you ever want to feel belonging to a society that blames you for something that is not your fault? Furthermore, why would you feel the shame of a society to which you don’t belong? The answer is quite obvious for any rational person who may be addicted to drugs, you don’t.

Shared by: JB