Deconstructing Social Gender Constructs.....

*Or, as was pointed out to me, I was just being oversensitive due to issues that are entirely unrelated to the thread mentioned below. Not the time-out needed part - the anti-feminist accusations I was reading into some of the comments, that do not in fact exist. Because I do believe in owning my stupidity, I am not going to remove that bit. The rest of the post is valid and topical to ongoing discussions.

See the inspiration for this post here - be warned, this link is to scientists and other very bright people acting like bloody obnoxious little children who need a time-out. Included in the attached thread are people who are attacking the totally hot Dr. Isis, for actually being a shoe-loving domestic and laboratory goddess. This is, supposedly, anti-feminist

Give me a break.

See this post (if you haven't) and come back - this current discussion will still be here.

We are who we are and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not in any way counterintuitive to actually fall into certain archetypal social gender stereotypes, while trying at the same time, to deconstruct those stereotypes as actual social gender constructs. Indeed, what is counterintuitive is denying ourselves and who we are, in the name of said deconstructions. Who the hell is going to want to actually accept such deconstructions if it means pretending to be something or someone we're not?

Deconstructing archetypal social gender constructs is all about the meaning we put into who we are and what we do. My love for hunting, power tools and such doesn't define my gender, any more than my love of skirts and tendency to be very sensitive to feelings, mine and others, defines my gender. Deconstructing social gender constructs does not mean we need to defy those constructs, it means we need to deny their ability to define gender. It really is that simple.

This Made Me Very Happy. Very, Very Happy.....

More thoughts - post Wizard

Just to be clear, I am not even considering quitting school. I am going to far way too fast to quit and the reasons I am tempted are much better served by me getting my education. I will see about blogging about the problems in the near future, probably would do me some good.

So I managed to get a good kick in the ass. And to give you an idea of the quality therapist I have, it came from where she thought it should, not where I did. Total bloody blindsided me - while still getting me where I needed to go for today.

For one thing, she made it very clear that a big part of the problem, is probably far more chemical in nature, than I have ever really considered. We discussed quite a bit about the cognitive aspects and she just smacked me hard - "You have the cognitive down, you need to think chemical." This was not put very politely....

And I realized this is true. I do have a firm handle on the cognitive issues (these specific ones, not all of them). But I have never really considered the possibility that my neurological proclivities could have an affect on what I have always viewed as a cognitive problem. But the Wiz is quite patient with me and suggested that when I go back to the Doc next Friday, that I discuss the possibility of looking in a different direction medication wise. Doc is also a psychotherapist with some previous experience in my head, so I think it could work out reasonably well.

I am also very glad to have taken the xanax today, because she really was firm about some aspects of what is the very worse experience of my life, which I am going through right now. Not things I wanted to hear by a stretch, but things that I really needed to hear. And because of the interconnectedness of all things DuWayne, it will probably impact some of my academic decision-making for the time being. Which could be good, because while I am not exactly straying from the path I am developing, it may be cause for adjustments that will make the experience less stressful, though no less wrought with seriously hard work.

The direction I am heading now, sans adjustments, is going to put me in a solid place career and educationwise, but would also put me in line for some serious discontentment among my future colleagues. And the more I pay attention to the politicing bullshit that most great grad programs are rife with, the more I actually get a bit concerned about it. I am not concerned about gossip per say, but I am concerned about outright attempts to sabotage.

Of course nothing is in stone at this point and it may become moot. The issues that are pushing me to push myself, may iron out to something more reasonable. But regardless, I am trying to accept that what will be will be - that there are a lot of factors that are just entirely beyond my control.

And I apologize for being so damned cryptic, but I really don't feel much like delving into the heart of the worse of my life right now. A few of you know what it is and for the moment, that will have to suffice. Just realize that it is really hard for me not to do a lot of really stupid things right now, including, but not limited to dropping out of school....

Random thoughts before I go to see the Wizard......

Sometimes being me is a pain in the ass. I have a lot to do right now - a lot lot. And I am getting a lot of it done.

But par usual, I am focusing way too much energy on the things that are of relatively lower importance. I know that I am going to get a basic four point. My remedial algebra class, ironically, would screw me, but it doesn't count as a non-transfer, non-degree supporting class. But I am obsessing over my last paper - even though I will get a high enough score to get full points. I am obsessing over another paper for my humanities class, even though it really isn't that important either. And I'm obsessing over my next English paper, even though I really don't need to.

I am moving forward on my side project that will, ultimately, be far more important to my educational and career goals, but I am not focusing nearly as much as I should be on it. In part, I suspect it is because of this fear of success bullshit that has been plaguing me for years. I have this stupid damned habit of sabotage through attrition.

I was a very decent actor, lyricist and pretty boy, when I was living in St. Louis. I was regularly interviewed on public radio. I had a chance to get in with an agent, who would have started me in adverts and moved me up from there. But when it came time for my major interview - I showed up fifteen minutes late, mildly drunk and coked up. While being in that state worked reasonably well for performances and public radio, it didn't so much for the execs from a major marketing agency. They were suitably impressed with my body and my ability to spout off, but my inability to sit down and the speed with which I spoke was not so impressive.

I am a very good songwriter. I actually made some money at one point, writing Christian worship music. Then it came out that I'm not actually a Christian and the publishing house actually talked about suing me - many of the churches that were using my music quit using it at all. I was also working on getting in with a marketing firm (pays really damned well), but managed to screw that around, because I was too focused on where I was already making some money, little as it was.

I really need better flexibility so I can kick my own ass!!!

Kerlikowske: Is Heading the Director of Drug Control Policy Position Appropriate?

While Gil's not without his faults, I have to say that overall I've come to rather like Kerlikowske, the more I read about him. We'll start with some of the bad, to get it out of the way, then we'll get into the good. But ultimately, I have to conclude that Drug Czar isn't the right position for him.

In 2001 Kerlikowske made some errors in judgment that led to one death and several injuries, some critical during a Mardi Gras celebration. He did not take decisive action and allowed his second to order officers to pull back when the celebration started getting violent. However, Kerlikowske also accepted full responsibility for what happened and admitted that mistakes were made. Small comfort for those injured and the family of the young man who died, but at the same time decisions made in the heat of the moment are not always the right ones.

Kerlikowske also has a record for supporting fairly extreme gun control measures, something that I tend to have mixed feelings about. While I certainly see some gun control laws as critically important to public safety, I also believe very strongly in the right to own and in many cases carry firearms. Some of the discussion surrounding Kerlikowske's position on gun control has made me a bit uncomfortable. This is especially ironic, given that in 2004 he left his own weapon under the seat of his car while shopping with his wife - which ended up being stolen from the car.

There are a lot of other tidbits that do paint Gil in an unfavorable light, but ultimately I don't think you're going to find an effective chief of police anywhere that doesn't create a fair amount of controversy. And to counter the negatives, Kerlikowske has some very positive marks.

Gil Kerlikowske has a solid record for effectively supporting harm reducing public health measures. He changed the policy of having police officers watching needle exchange sites, a practice that previous to his administration was a matter of policy. He also instituted a policy of making misdemeanor cannabis arrests a low priority, even before I-75 passed in Seattle, a ballot measure reflecting the voting public's support for that policy. Seattle journalist Dominic Holden lays it out clearly (link above):

The bigger issue—and safer issue, politically—is replacing enforcement with public services. On that issue Kerlkowske has incubated a revolution. Seattle implemented two programs that get drug users off the street before they get arrested. Most notably, the Get Off The Streets (GOTS) program hatched in the Central District when Lieutenant John Hayes (now a captain) set up a table as an arrest-free area that people with criminal warrants could visit for health and human services.

“That was, at that time, a very edgy approach, and the chief was willing to let one of his people staff the program,” says City Council Member Nick Licata, who soon seized on the idea, passing legislation to fund the project permanently. “It was a stage where Gil could have stopped it from [getting funding], but he allowed it go forward,” he says.

I also really like Kerlikoswke because I am a very strong advocate for community policing, which he is as well. Under the Clinton administration he was director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services of the DOJ. During this time he developed a strong working relationship with then Deputy AG Eric Holder, now Obama's AG. He has fostered solid, positive community policing strategies in every police department he's worked in.

That pretty well defines my support for Kerlikowske. While he certainly doesn't support legalization, no one who does is going to get this slot. But Kerlikowske is a strong advocate for harm reductionist drug policies and seems to have a record for listening to the science and basing his decisions on evidence. But there are two very good reasons why I think Gil's the wrong choice for Director of Drug Control Policy.

First, he's a cop, not a public health expert. While I think his respect from law enforcement leadership across the U.S. is a major advantage, I still believe that having a public health expert in the field of illicit drugs would be a much better direction to go. Doing so would show a firm commitment on Obama's part that his desire to shift the focus of drug policy to public health is absolute. Appointing a police officer to the position, even one with a solid record on public health sends a very mixed message.

But most importantly, I think that Kerlikowske would be far more valuable in a law enforcement position that is in desperate need of new leadership. The DEA is in dire need of leadership that will reflect the priorities of the Obama administration. And there are several reasons why Kerlikowske would be a excellent choice for the role, not the least being - he has an interest in the position.

The respect he commands from the law enforcement community would be just as useful in the head slot at DEA, as it would as DDCP. This is an agency that often works in cooperation with local law enforcement, having a leader who is well respected by cops across the country would go a long way towards smoothing the often rocky relationships between federal and local law enforcement officers.

Kerlikoswke has a solid relationship with AG Holder. I have no doubt that he would also develop a fine relationship with the public health expert who should get the DDCP position, which in turn would help develop reasonable priorities for the DEA. But most importantly, Gil Kerlikowske has a solid record as a law enforcement leader. While he has listened closely to the communities he's worked in and public health experts, he is not a policy maker. He's a policy enforcer and top notch leader.

I suspect that Kerlikowske will make a fine DDCP. I definitely think his appointment signals a serious commitment on Obama's part to the shift of focus in drug policy. But I feel very strongly that Kerlikowske's skills would be far more valuable, focused on enforcement instead of policy.

Social Gender Roles, Feminism and Men

To develop a solid focus for my next paper, I am reading Terrance Real's book I Don't Want to Talk About it. I will definitely delve into the book itself in a later post, probably after I finish the actual paper. For the moment though, I want to delve into where exactly I'm trying to go with this paper - which will be eight to twelve pages in APA format. On page twenty-three he delves into the heart of where I am going.

For decades, feminist researchers and scholars have detailed the degree of coercion brought to bear against girls' full development, and the sometimes devastating effects of the loss of their most complete, authentic selves. It is time to understand the reciprocal process as it occurs in the lives of boys and men.

I will take this a bit further and assert that this study that Terrence is calling for is as important to women's studies and modern feminism, as it is to men. It is not nearly enough for feminists to tell us what we are doing wrong, how we are oppressing women. It must be understood that in any discussion of gender issues, all sides of the equation need to be addressed. The solutions to many of the issues facing women and modern feminism, are inexorably tied to solving the problems of male gender constructs.

Dr. Isis recently posted the letter of a male reader here. And this is an important discussion. While I take serious issue with the writer's use of the phrase "reverse discrimination," this is a semantic issue - important to be sure, but not fatal to his underlying point. The issue of discrimination against men based on social gender constructs, is just another facet of the issue of discrimination against women based on the same social gender constructs. The male gender doesn't exist in a vacuum, separate from the female gender - the social constructs are intertwined, they interact with and impact each other in very complex ways. Simplistic dichotomies cannot and never will be able to address the fundamental problems inherent to both male and female social gender constructs as they exist in society today.

On all fronts changes are being made and progress is being made, but that progress is dramatically stunted by the fact that nearly all of the focus is on studying women and female gender constructs. There are probably no more than a handful of colleges in the United States, or anywhere in the western world, that do not have a women's studies program. In contrast, there are probably no more than a handful of colleges that have men's studies programs. While there are general gender studies programs, those are generally focused on women's studies, transgender studies and queer theory, with little emphasis placed on men's studies.

I am very glad that JLK recommended Terrence's book. I am also most grateful to her for fostering the gender discussions. It has definitely made for some interesting lines of thought. I Don't Want to Talk About It is an intense read thus far. Terrence is a very compelling wordsmith, on top of having truly awesome insight into the issues of male depression and the underlying gender constructs that allow it to remain largely hidden, even from the men who suffer it.

So on top of some repair work with my first addiction paper, I now need to work out a basic thesis and set of research questions for my next paper. I actually have a pretty solid preliminary bibliography already, I just need to develop the actual topic proposal. If I can, I want to get finished with the abstract and outline during this week of spring break. We'll see what happens...

In Lansing/East Lansing, to see Richard Dawkins

So I came into town yesterday, to see a friend in a play and spend time with old friends and play a little music. Today will be much of the same, while tomorrow will involve less visiting for fun and more substantive discussion. I'll be meeting with someone I've been interacting with online, about addiction. Then tomorrow evening, I get to see Richard Dawkins at the Wharton Center at MSU.

I am on spring break, but it looks like a fairly packed week for me. I have some time in a friend's woods with a chainsaw lined up, three books to read and a small paper to write, as well as getting the preliminary biblio and my thesis/research questions ready for my gender paper. I am hoping to get the intro and initial outline done as well - we'll see. But I am definitely get a post about our soon to be drug czar up, as well as another addiction post and a gender post. My mind's something of a whirl at the moment and wanting to get some informal writing in this week. I do enjoy the papers, but the style and formality of academic papers is fairly restrictive.

Metaphor: The Mundane Made Beautiful And the Foundation of Language Itself

We won't talk about my naughtiness here. This was due for my writing about literature class at nine tonight. I wrote a paper for the assignment earlier, but hated it - I'm not sure this one, which I started around one this afternoon was much better.

And if you actually read this, yes, I absolutely love Adrienne Rich, while John Keats is still my hero - and I don't care if his words don't bring a tear to your eye, they certainly do mine.

“Here I am, naked on the stage, my sweat is my blood shed to entertain.”

Metaphor is nothing less than the very essence of transcendent lyrical expression – primitive, pure – fundamentally human. At its base, metaphor is simply “a figure of speech based on an unspoken or implied comparison” (Brereton 2064). But metaphor is so very much more than this, it is the core of expression that is intended to evoke an emotional reaction. It is far more effective than simile, because rather than making a simple comparison, it takes ownership of the imagery in conjunction with what is being described by the metaphor. Metaphor immerses the reader into the core experience of the writer, avoiding altogether the hard reality that the imagery is meant to describe.

But metaphor is also so very much more than that. Metaphor is also the core embodiment of cognition and the creation of language itself. It is fundamental to how we think and how we view the world around us. In “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor” Professor Lakoff takes metaphor far beyond the context of literature and even basic language:

Moreover, these general principles which take the form of conceptual mappings, apply not just to novel poetic expressions, but to much of ordinary everyday language. In short, the locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another. The general theory of metaphor is given by characterizing such crossdomain mappings. And in the process, everyday abstract concepts like time, states, change, causation, and purpose also turn out to be metaphorical. The result is that metaphor (that is, cross-domain mapping) is absolutely central to ordinary natural language semantics, and that the study of literary metaphor is an extension of the study of everyday metaphor (Lakoff).

The implication then, is that metaphor is fundamental to the thinking that governs our use of language. “Hurry! We're running out of time.” This is a very basic example of metaphor that quite often shapes our thoughts even if it's not actually verbalized in a given situation. Or when one has a head cold, “I'm dying,” is what many people are thinking, even if there is no one around to express that to and even though most people know full well that within a matter of days they will feel just fine and very much alive. We are thinking metaphorically, without even considering that that is what we're doing. Indeed if you were to ask people, most would probably question the idea that they think metaphorically at all.

Lakoff is far from finished though. “ The metaphor is not just a matter of language, but of thought and reason. The language is secondary. The mapping is primary...” (Lakoff). People create imagery based connections – imaginary connections, if you will, before they ever describe what they've seen. This is quite probably why, when witnesses to a crime are questioned, many of them will claim to have seen something different. It's not just a matter of perspective, it's a matter of metaphorical mapping. Different people create different images to help them remember, help them describe things. Is it all that remarkable to think that this may skew their memory?

This is why metaphorical poetry is the purest, most primitive form of human expression. It is the condensing of pre-reasoning and the virtually raw subconscious brought to the glorious light of day. By primitive, I do not mean mean to say simple – in many ways the most primitive workings of the human mind are among the most complex. It is the foundation for who and what we are, what makes us us, what makes us human. It is like the difference between raw garlic and garlic that has been processed into an odorless tablet. The complexity of the raw garlic is in the power of its flavor and odor. The complexity of the odorless tablet is in the refinement, the process that takes it from this overwhelmingly flavorful, strong smelling clove, into something that's barely noticable. In it's finished form, the tablet is really rather simple – it's the process that's complex.

Take the line; “Here I am, naked on the stage, my sweat is my blood, shed to entertain.” The first time those words escaped my lips, was during a improvisational poetry slam in South City St. Louis at the Way Out Club. I was in fact, fully clothed and my sweat was just that, sweat, yet that line was an absolute and fundamental truth. Just hours before I took the stage that night, I was interviewed on one of the St. Louis public radio stations. The interviewer had asked a great many, increasingly deeply personal questions, all of which I responded to with great candor. Too, my lyrics and poetry were heavily focused on exposing my experience of the human condition. At that point in my life, I was both the singer/lyricist for a band and also an actor in a small professional company and in a amateur company. At that point in time, I gave every bit of my life to the art that I was involved in.

I wanted to provide that example, because I could provide a literal meaning to the metaphorical imagery I used. But part of the wonder of metaphorical poetry, is that the reader is given the opportunity to take ownership of the literal truth of the imagery. So lets look at examples of metaphor from other writers.

What immortalized John Keats, was his ability to draw the reader full into his own experience of the world around him. Not just into what he observed, but into what he was feeling. Through his poetry, it isn't hard to imagine just what it was, his experience of the human condition. His adept use of symbolism and simile paint a vivid background, but it's his use of metaphor that exposes us to what his experience of that background was to him. In “Ode to a Nightingale” Keats paints a luscious, vibrant backdrop, the beauty of which manages to strike through the obvious suffering the poet (Brereton 1039). But the following metaphoric imagery betrays the paradoxical joy in Keats' experience of natural beauty, that countered his pain and fear of dying:

Now more than ever seems it rich to die,
To cease upon the midnight with no pain,
While thou art pouring forth thy soul abroad
In such an ecstasy!
Still wouldst thou sing, and I have ears in vain -
To thy high requiem become a sod.

Having read a great deal about Keats life, I know the why of his depression, but one need only read this single poem to know he was a deeply disturbed young man. The first two lines provide a clear insight into the poet's frame of mind:

My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains
My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk

or:

Fade far away, dissolve, and quite forget
What thou among the leaves hast never known,
The weariness, the fever, and the fret
Here, where men sit and hear each other groan;
Where palsy shakes a few, sad, last gray hairs,
Where youth grows pale, and spectre-thin, and dies;
Where but to think is to be full of sorrow
And leaden-eyed despairs,
Where Beauty cannot keep her lustrous eyes,
Or new Love pine at them beyond to-morrow.

This is despair to bring tear to the eye of the most cynical stoic. Yet in the depths of this despair, Keats manages to express the ecstasy of his agony:

Already with thee! tender is the night,
And haply the Queen-Moon is on her throne,
Cluster'd around by all her starry Fays;
But here there is no light,
Save what from heaven is with the breezes blown

And again, the expression of the beauty of his world, spikes through in metaphor, from the most primitive, hidden recesses of his mind. He knows the beauty is all around him, he knows he's surrounded by awe inspiring wonders. But he is unable to force direct expression of that beauty, symbols, simile and direct descriptives fail him. In metaphor however, he able to carry us into the beauty that is this bird, this song and ultimately, his joy of it.

Then there is the writing of Adrienne Rich, who more than anything, seems to wonder what it is to be something, someone else. In “Diving Into the Wreck” she is an underwater fairypeople, she's an explorer and she's the wreck she's diving into (Brereton 738). But of course, she must first remind herself what she is about:

I came to explore the wreck.
The words are purposes.
The words are maps.

For Adrienne its not the sum of the words, but words themselves that are the meaning. Her poetry is filled with “word” and “words” as metaphors. But back to the Wreck:

the thing I came for:
the wreck and not the story of the wreck
the thing itself and not the myth
the drowned face always staring
toward the sun

In the second and third lines, she is wanting to experience the thing, the wreck – not someone else's experience of it, the story of it. But in the forth and fifth lines, she gives us her first experience of it, or what we can believe is her first impression. Though it could just as well be her pre-impression of this thing, this wreck. Then she fully envelops herself, immerses herself into the experience:

This is the place.
And I am here, the mermaid whose dark hair
streams black, the merman in his armored body.
We circle silently
about the wreck
we dive into the hold.
I am she: I am he

whose drowned face sleeps with open eyes
whose breasts still bear the stress
whose silver, copper, vermeil cargo lies
obscurely inside barrels
half-wedged and left to rot
we are the half-destroyed instruments
that once held to a course
the water-eaten log
the fouled compass
She swirls through this metaphor where she is a underwater fey then two, then she is the wreck itself – blending her merman personas into one into the wreck itself. And the ending is simply masterful:
We are, I am, you are
by cowardice or courage
the one who find our way
back to this scene
carrying a knife, a camera
a book of myths
in which
our names do not appear.

This flowing back, easing us out of this metaphor is truly wordsmithing at it's very finest. Rich has eased us into her world of words and beauty, taken us about this wreck, become this wreck and then eases us back out and into reality again. No abrupt transition, no blunt imagery, like that we see from Keats, her words begin in our world, the recognizable, mundane world. It's slowly that her words flow, water and we flow with them, into her head. Once we've spent a short time in her mind, we ease back out and finish with the unidentified myth from which this adventure began.

The power of words, the power of language is in metaphor. It allows us to be something else, someone else, somewhere else – to journey is someone else's mind. But more importantly, it takes us to the roots of our language, our history, our pre-history and into a time and place before we were really quite humans yet.

Addiction: A New Paradigm

This is my first addiction paper. Unfortunately I got too distracted in the middle of writing it and had a rather awkward change of focus. While it will work for the assignment, I am less than pleased with the results. I will try to amend it when time and opportunity allow. Here is a link to the annotated bibliography.

I should mention that any comments and criticisms are quite welcome, especially those that are constructive in nature. I know that some of the folks who come by are quite well versed in psychology and addiction. Please don't hesitate to point out errors, either factual or implied. And of course I welcome criticism of the writing itself.

Substance abuse and addictions cost American taxpayers more than $500 billion a year (NIDA). And more than sixty-five percent of Americans are affected by substance abuse issues, either directly as an addict, or because they are close to someone with substance abuse issues (Riskind). Yet twelve step programs, the dominant method for treating addictions in the U.S. has proven itself woefully inadequate at reducing the harms associated with addictions. Only a very small percentage of addicts and substance abusers who utilize twelve step therapies manage to get control over their addictions, and the percentages associated with cognitive-behavioral approaches are equally dismal. Society is in desperate need for a new addiction paradigm, a paradigm that addresses not only treatment, but our very perception of addiction and successful addiction management.

According to the American Psychology Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), addiction is defined as "impaired control over drug use” (APA). The NIH's MedlinePlus medical dictionary defines addiction as "...compulsive physiological need for and use of a habit-forming substance..."(Merriam-Webster), while the MedlinePlus encyclopedia claims that "A physical dependence on a substance (needing the drug to function) is not always part of the definition of addiction”(NIH & USNLM) Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines addiction thus; "Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control”(Houghton Mifflin).

While the aforementioned definitions may seem to be quite similar, there are important differences. The distinction between overt chemical dependence and the underlying psychological dependence is particularly critical. It's also a major point of contention for those involved in addiction science. Another critical point of contention is whether or not non-substance addictions are addictions at all. Language largely defines reality and in regards to addiction it fails us in the most fundamental context: addiction science. It's no wonder that many of the people who work with addicts and substance abusers tend to eschew the word “addiction.” Lacking a coherent, cohesive clinical definition, addiction has become a very loaded term, even in the realm of hard science.

In Over the Influence Dr. Denning et al. express concern that “addiction” is often used too loosely “and does not speak to the user's relationship with a drug” (Denning 141). Instead the authors prefer to restrict “addiction” to the very top of a definitive spectrum that describes specific characteristics of the different relationships that people have with drugs. Moreover, the authors prefer to use the word “chaos” to define that point on the spectrum (Denning 28-30). While their desire to eschew the using the word addiction and it's related connotations is understandable, doing so ignores the broader social perception of what “addiction” means. And there is nothing to prevent describing the important distinctions between the different sorts of relationships people have with drugs, within a broader contextual framework of “addiction.”

The generalized social perception of what “addiction” means is in parts more simplistic and more complex than the confusion surrounding it in the clinically-oriented definitions presented above. Outside the hard science and clinical frameworks, context becomes even more important when discussing “addiction.” From the myriad pop songs that describe a romantic relationship as “addiction” to describing a homeless drunk who exists in a perpetual stupor, the connotations of “addiction” range from something warm and loving to something very dark and ugly. While on it's face it might appear that the use of “addiction” in the context of a romantic relationship or other ambivalent/benevolent contexts is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, it cannot be ignored. Again, language largely defines reality. More clearly our use of language largely defines reality. So like it or not, in the broader social context, ambivalent/benevolent behaviors are an important aspect of the discussion of “addiction.”

When Denning et al. shy away from the negative implications of “addiction,” they are also shying away from the positive connotations. While those connotations aren't part of any clinical framework of “addiction,” they are an important part of the broader social connotations. There is no reason not to take advantage of these implications in a clinical setting and many ways it could be used to effectively help people who are significantly hampered by substance abuse or other negative “addictive” behaviors. Words, with their implications, hidden meanings and quiet connotations are incredibly powerful tools. We should never be afraid to explore the possibilities that these tools have to offer. Especially when we are working with the intricacies of the human mind. There is no reason, when discussing addictions in a clinical setting, to ignore the less negative connotations of addiction. When someone comes forward with concerns about their substance use issues or other negative addictive behaviors, “addiction” is in the room, whether the therapist wants it to be or not. Instead of trying to change their language, it would be much easier to work on the association they have with the language they're thinking in.

In The Heart of Addiction, Lance Dodes, MD doesn't shy away from it. He takes a very broad approach that strikes to the core:

Addictions have been segregated as though they are different from other human problems, as though they required a unique approach (as in Alcoholics Anonymous), and as though they could not be understood as emotional issues by either the people treating them or the people suffering with them. But if addictions and compulsions are basically the same, psychologically, there can be no reason to think of or treat them differently. Like compulsions, addictions are...in the mainstream of the human condition (Dodes 185).

And this is why it is so very important to embrace the use of the term “addiction.” Not so addicts can cower in fear, in the hopelessness of their ability to ever manage their addictions, as the dominant approach to addiction treatment would have them do. Nor so they can exist apart from society, as some are wont to do. We should embrace the term “addiction” because we are human and addictions are very much a part of the human condition. Not just the negatives either, by embracing the language of “addiction” we are embracing it in all of it's glory, the good, the bad and everything in between. By embracing the language of “addiction” we are embracing the humanity of the addict and facing head on the problems of the addict's addictions. By embracing the language of addiction, addiction becomes less scary – less insurmountable, because we come to understand that addictions, like every other aspect of the human condition, aren't inherently good or bad, it's the expression that defines its positives/negatives.

Unfortunately, many of the expressions of addiction are quite negative and destructive. Substance abuse alone really is a mainstream human condition, all in itself. As NIDA tells us, it costs more than five-hundred billion dollars a year (NIDA). And as the survey posted by Faces and Voices for Recovery points out, addictions affect more than sixty-three percent of Americans (Riskind). Addressing the definitions of addiction only gets us so far, while definition is important, we also need to address the approaches of addiction treatment. There are three basic approaches to addiction treatment, which I will discuss in the order of their prevalence in practice. But it is important to understand that when dealing with addictions, there is no “one size fits all” approach. While I am going to be rather critical of the most prevalent, twelve step programs, it's important to keep in mind that for some addicts, the twelve steps not only work, but are critical – in many cases a lifesaving approach. The problem is not with the twelve step programs, it's with the broad assumptions that go with them.

The twelve steps to recovery are based on the disease model of addiction. The disease model of addiction is rather controversial, with notables in the field, such as Dr. Stanton Peele and the authors of Over the Influence, Denning et al., disputing its validity altogether. But a lot of research suggests a fairly definite link between alcoholism and genetics and there is a growing body if evidence to suggest a link between dopamine deficits and substance abuse. At the same time it's pretty clear that not all addictions are founded in that disease model and even those that are, don't necessarily fit into a single treatment approach. The Narcotics Anonymous: Basic Text typifies the basic assumptions that dominate the social and political addiction paradigm.

We realize that we are never cured, and that we carry the disease within us for the rest of our lives. We have a disease, but we do recover. Each day we are given another chance. We are convinced that there is only one way for us to live, and that is the NA way.(NA International 8)

Over time some addicts lost contact with other recovering addicts and eventually returned to active addiction. They forgot that it is really the first drug that starts the deadly cycle all over again. They tried to control it, to use in moderation, or to use just certain drugs. None of these

control methods work for addicts. (NA Inernational 78)

The problem with this, is that it presupposes that any addict who doesn't follow the NA or some other twelve step program, is doomed to a life of addictions. It also presupposes that it doesn't matter if someone alters their drug use to be less harmful. Any use is considered failure and any other method of treatment for addictions cannot possibly succeed. This is patently false and the repercussions of this position resonate throughout our society to the detriment of the vast majority of addicts.

This position has a huge influence on public policy in the U.S., including the sentencing guidelines for a variety of civil and criminal offenses. From drunk driving, to simple possession of an illicit drug, hundreds of people are sentenced to twelve step drug treatment programs every day in the U.S. Many of these people aren't addicts at all. Others are simply not going to successfully respond to twelve step treatment plans. In spite of several studies, including studies in which AA and NA were involved with (AA 12), showing that coercion into twelve step programs is ineffective and possibly counterintuitive, the principle that only the twelve steps can successfully treat addictions provides the momentum to keep such policies alive.

This position also has a detrimental effect on the perception of society as a whole. First off, it provides many addicts with an excuse not to try anything. They believe that because the twelve steps failed them, they should just give up – or that because they know they can't quit everything they won't bother trying to quit using the substances that are causing them the most harm. Second, it creates a perception in our society, that more people have addiction problems than really do. It convinces parents and friends, that because an individual has had substance abuse issues in the past, that any use on their part is a “relapse,” which can lead to alienation. And finally, this view segregates addicts from the rest of society. It says that addicts are somehow different from everyone else, that we're somehow damaged, weak or otherwise unfit.

With those criticisms in mind, it is also important to remember that AA, NA and other twelve step programs do seem to work for some people. Just because they don't work for everyone, there is no reason to assume they don't work at all. There are a great many people alive today, who attribute their survival to the twelve step approach to addiction recovery. And for some addicts total abstinence from all psychoactive substances is an absolute necessity. While the assumption made by many proponents of the twelve step philosophy, that the only treatment for addictions are the twelve steps is absolutely wrong, it is equally erroneous to assume that this makes the twelve steps a categorical failure. Indeed, quite often the twelve step approach is combined with the second most prevalent approach to addiction treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy.

The most common cognitive-behavioral (C-B) approach is really quite simple. The premise is to change the way that an addict thinks of their addictions. The goal is to empower the addict, help them think in terms of strength and success. To move them away from hopeless, defeatist thought processes (Kadden et al). It is rarely, if ever a stand-alone therapy. It is a part of almost all in-patient addiction treatment programs. Indeed, it is rarely engaged outside the context of in-patient or aggressive out-patient treatment programs. While engaged in C-B therapy, the addict will usually meet with their therapist several times a week, sometimes daily for the initial few weeks of treatment. As treatment progresses, the patient will meet with the therapist less often. Usually they will be down to one session a week with their therapist after ten to fifteen weeks. Sometimes they will stop meeting with their therapist altogether at this point (Barry ch4).

A less common form of C-B is meeting with a therapist in a more traditional psychotherapy setting. Dr. Dodes. author of The Heart of Addiction, engages is therapy in a similar manner. The idea is to redirect the thinking and actions of the addict (Dodes). Really, this form of therapy has existed for as long as we've had psychotherapy, though the individual tactics have changed considerably over the years. One of the advantages to this method is that therapy is tailored to the addict and the addict has the advantage of a trained therapist who can help him or her make decisions about treatment beyond the C-B therapy sessions. Quite often, this form of therapy forms the core of harm reduction approaches to treating addictions.

The harm reduction approach to addiction treatment is firmly entrenched in the idea that there is no and never will be a “one size fits all” approach. As Patt Denning, Phd puts it in Over the Influence, “The harm reduction way of understanding drug use and abuse takes into account the complexity of each person's relationship with drugs” (Denning 8). That's right, everyone who uses drugs has a “relationship” with the drug or drugs they use. Moreover, people who engage in any addictive behavior have a specific relationship with that behavior that is central to their addiction. This recognition that there is a relationship involved and that said relationship is unique to the person experiencing it, is the key advantage that harm reduction therapy has over other, singular methods of addiction treatment.

By understanding that everyone has their own relationship with drugs, harm reduction can help addicts find approaches that will work for them. The harm reduction approach recognizes that not everyone will be abstinent from all psychoactive substances or even the substance that is the object of their addiction. Harm reduction doesn't gauge success by arbitrary standards. Success is gaged by reducing the harm of the addictive behaviors. The harm reduction approach recognizes that success may be an ongoing process of gradual reduction of harm. But most importantly, the harm reduction approach recognizes that success is entirely relative to the addicts relationship to their drugs or other addictive behavior.

Another powerful advantage to recognizing that people have relationships with drugs and their addictive behaviors, is possibly the most powerful. “Relationships change” (Denning 28). Our relationships are always changing, always evolving – no matter the relationship being discussed. As they grow and change, my relationship with my children changes. I'm confident that it will continue to do so well into their adulthood, because my relationship with my own parents has been ever changing. Change is very much the nature of relationships.

But while the harm reduction approach sounds and ultimately is pretty remarkable, many practitioners of the harm reduction approach have a very singular view just the same. As was shown in our exploration of the definitions of addiction, many harm reduction practitioners are uncomfortable using the word addiction. In part, because they are uncomfortable with the disease model of addictions as a whole. And this is ultimately to the detriment of the addicts who come along, who would be best served by a twelve step program. Just like the dominating twelve step approach that claims that nothing else can work, many harm reduction practitioners would exclude ideas outside their purview. And even Dr. Dodes, who seems very open to many different approaches isn't immune to the language of exclusion. While he really does have a rather revolutionary approach to viewing addiction and avoids couching his terms in outright absolutes, it's clear that he has a very strong preference for his analytical approach.

It is time for us to chart a new course for dealing with addictions in our society and at the very top of the list is a driving need to get over our petty turf wars. You saw the figures in the introduction to this paper. We aren't running out of addicts any time soon, there are more than enough to go around. Unfortunately all too few of them are getting any help at all. While this is largely due to the exclusivity of the dominant paradigm, it is also due to the claims by various elements that they have the method to help the addict with their addictions. What the message to addicts should be, is that one way or another, there is a way to help them reduce the harm caused by and ultimately overcome their addiction. That if one approach doesn't work, there are other options available.

Beyond that, we need to fundamentally change our perception of addictions. Addiction is a mainstream, even a fundamental aspect of the human condition. Humans are creatures of habits and compulsions. When taken out of the context of negative, harmful behaviors, “addiction” takes on a great many connotations that range from benign to outright positive. While searching for a coherent clinical definition for addiction, it was hard not to notice that there are probably hundreds of pop songs with addiction in the title or as the title. People talk about their addictions to books, walks in the park, hiking, spending time with their kids, community service – the list is endless. And there isn't a single thing in that list that couldn't be taken to a unhealthy, negative extreme. There are few, if any humans who can truly claim to have never manifested some sort of addictive behavior that was taken to an unhealthy extreme.

Yet as a society, we feel justified in segregating the “addicts” into a special group. And “addicts” are just as guilty of anyone else in perpetuating this tendency. Because people want to believe that there are addicts and there are “addicts.” It's easier that way. Segregative labeling is also, quite unfortunately in the mainstream of the human condition.

There are a great many things that would make a major difference in helping people reduce the harm of their addictions. Policy changes, such as legalizing, regulating and taxing currently illicit drugs, for example, would make it much easier for people with serious addictions to get help, while removing a lot of people who don't have addiction issues with those drugs out of the treatment system. Making sure that people who commit crimes such as driving under the influence of intoxicating substances both pay for their crime and get treatment that will help them get control of their addictions, instead of just pawning them off on AA or NA. Providing kids with a realistic view of drugs and drug use, that doesn't make claims they're going to know are false but ensures that they understand the very real dangers involved with drug use and other risky behaviors.

But most important, is fundamentally altering our view of addictions as a society. Language largely defines reality. Before humans developed language, we were little different than any other omnivore out there. It could be and in fact has been argued that language is what makes humans human. We need to be using our language to move us forward with regards to addictions. Because right now we are failing and failing badly. Considerably more than half of the people in our society are dealing with the effects of harmful substance addictions. We are spending more than $500 billion every year in the U.S. alone, just dealing with substance addictions. And according to the median of several statistics I saw, from sources at the NA website, to the harm reduction sites and substance abuse help clearinghouse sites, we are failing more than seventy percent of the people who actually go looking for help. No way of knowing what percentage of actual addicts we fail, because most of them never look for help.

Be back to blogging tomorrow or Tuesday....

I've been in Tennessee since Friday, heading home tomorrow. I will try to get to Kerlikowske asap, but I have quite a bit of work to do for school. Spring break is coming up after this week, at which point I should definitely have time. Suffice to say for the moment, that my excitement is becoming less and less tentative.

I will be posting about addiction again and plan on getting some gender discussions up, as hte focus of the next paper is gender, sex and gender roles.

All right, I can breath for a few minutes...

I finished the rough draft of my first addiction paper. So now I just need to get the books for my next paper, which will be on gender. Mainly because I've really been enjoying the discussion at Pieces of Me and it got me thinking in that direction. I will also hopefully be writing some posts about gender coming up here.

But I also need to get the final draft of this paper finished and slam out a couple more addiction posts I've got rumbling around in me. And I will probably get the paper itself posted late next week, though I am considering actually fleshing it out a bit more. Twelve pages just aren't enough - especially double spaced. I mean come on, you should definitely get more pages if they're double spaced!!!!

Fuck You California Bigots!!!

Sorry to those who don't care for the language, but I'm angry and I just don't feel like hiding it. The fucking monsters who want to pretend to be all about family, are anything but, when in the name of family, they want some families to be less than "real" families. Fucking look these people in the eyes. These are families that are just as important as any other family. Fuck You, all of you, who claim to be protecting families.


"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Ok, so that was a bad way to try and get what I wanted.

But it's ok, because I have a plan. A few of them actually.

The first is to make a few sets to be defined. One of them being: "substance abuse," "addiction," "compulsion," "rage," "depression." The next being: "love," "addiction," "affection," "passion," "lust." The final being: "duty," "being," "doing," "wanting," "addiction." So a computer savvy friend is hopefully going to help me get these into a couple of those "make your own survey" sites, in a way that they will be fairly equally distributed when people click to do the survey, which will ask for a quick definition of each word. In theory it should be possible to get it up there and just get me the responses to the word addiction, while letting me know which list the definition came from.

Wish me luck, I haven't actually gotten a commitment, just a "kind of, sort of, I can probably do that." I'd like it to happen, because it will probably give me the most valuable responses.

The second is to start random conversations with random strangers at the coffee shops and bring up addiction in various contexts. Occasionally while wearing a skirt, because I've noticed that wearing one makes people want to talk to me. I'm kind of introverted, so it will be a boon.

The last is tallying the discussion that got going at my brother's blog. Which I really recommend checking out and participating in. It did not work out as I hoped it would, but I really like the results anyways.

Defining Addiction

I am no longer keeping this post up top, but feel free to post your definitions.

I am keeping this post on top for the time being. Look for new posts under this one... But please, seriously, feel totally free to give me definitions for addiction. Don't think about it, just bust out with the first thought that comes into your head when you read the word "Addiction."

If you had only one, maybe two sentences, how would you define addiction?

Language largely defines our reality. Unfortunately, I am finding that a cohesive, consistent clinical definition for addiction is awfully hard to come by. It is becoming easy to understand why addiction is such a pervasive and destructive force in our society. We can't even come to a consensus about what the actual problem is.

So please, let me know what you think. Leave it in comments or email me. I want to know what you think. It is mostly for my paper, but it will also become the subject of a blogpost.

Also, considering carefully a variety of contexts, is your reaction to the word "addiction" uniformly negative?

I should also mention that you'll get my undying gratitude if you decide to post the question at your own blog, assuming you have one. If you want to post it for me, let me know by email. I have a standardized post for the blogs of others and will list your blog in this post. The more responses I get the better.

Blog as Safety Valve: Yup, more about addiction

Writing a research paper is really restrictive. Who'd have thought that twelve damned pages would be a painful restriction? Who'd have thought that I'm actually nuts enough to wish for twice the space?

I did most of the basic research before I started writing and had a very solid direction for this paper. But as I got into the process of writing, I realized that it's not the direction I want to go at all. It has also sent me into a very different direction of interest in general, that may well have ramifications on the direction of my education. Though honestly, not much of a difference, as I intended on seeking a secondary degree in English and/or communications anyways. The direction I am seeing right now would just mean taking that secondary degree beyond a bachelors.

Anyways, I really don't want to say much more than that, because I don't want to influence the responses I am hoping to get from my request for definitions of addiction.

What I will do, is recommend one of my primary sources for the paper I'm writing, The Heart of Addiction, by Lance Dodes, M.D. His discussion of addiction is really, really exciting for me, because it largely reflects where I have been going. Except instead of being a high-school dropout turned non-traditonal student, he's been in practice nearly as long as I've been alive....

Now I head for bed, as I have school tomorrow. Though I need to wind down with some more brain candy. I actually worked up a sweat writing today, not a little one either - more of a defeating the industrial strength antiperspirant, need another shower sort of sweat. But then, I wrote a hella lot today.

And just in case you didn't catch it before, I love Pandora.