I picked up The Heart of Addiction to use as a primary source for a paper I'm writing for my college research and writing class.
I was extremely disturbed by the results of my attempts to find a coherent clinical definition for addiction. While I understood that there are some definite debates about what qualifies as addiction, I expected to find two or three different definitions that would reflect the debate as I was aware of it. Instead I found a host of different definitions that offered a great many contradictory distinctions.
I recently started school as a non-traditional student, because I have a strong drive to go into clinical therapy and addiction research. Given my interest in language and communications, I have realized that defining addiction is rather more important than it might seem on it's face.
In particular, I think that the tendency of many harm reduction therapists to shy away from using the word addiction is fundamentally flawed. When the person with substance abuse issues gets to the point they're seeking help, the word addiction is already there. Rather than shying away from it, I think it makes much more sense to embrace it, bring it into a broader social context, where addiction is used to describe a great many behaviors that are less harmful, benign or even positive. As Dr. Dodes put it so aptly, addiction is in the mainstream of the human condition. At best, trying to remove the terminology from the equation is a break even prospect - at worst, it could provide yet something else the client can fail to manage.
As much as I appreciate the work of folks like Dr. Peele and Dr. Patt Denning, and I certainly have found a lot to admire from both of them, I really question this fear of the language of addiction.
I really appreciate The Heart of Addiction a great deal. As a budding addiction scientist and as an addict, it has been quite a pleasure. And I am very much looking forward to reading more by Dr. Khantzian. But for now, I have a paper to finish.
I picked up The Heart of Addiction to use as a primary source for a paper I'm writing for my college research and writing class.
I was extremely disturbed by the results of my attempts to find a coherent clinical definition for addiction. While I understood that there are some definite debates about what qualifies as addiction, I expected to find two or three different definitions that would reflect the debate as I was aware of it. Instead I found a host of different definitions that offered a great many contradictory distinctions.
I recently started school as a non-traditional student, because I have a strong drive to go into clinical therapy and addiction research. Given my interest in language and communications, I have realized that defining addiction is rather more important than it might seem on it's face.
In particular, I think that the tendency of many harm reduction therapists to shy away from using the word addiction is fundamentally flawed. When the person with substance abuse issues gets to the point they're seeking help, the word addiction is already there. Rather than shying away from it, I think it makes much more sense to embrace it, bring it into a broader social context, where addiction is used to describe a great many behaviors that are less harmful, benign or even positive. As Dr. Dodes put it so aptly, addiction is in the mainstream of the human condition. At best, trying to remove the terminology from the equation is a break even prospect - at worst, it could provide yet something else the client can fail to manage.
As much as I appreciate the work of folks like Dr. Peele and Dr. Patt Denning, and I certainly have found a lot to admire from both of them, I really question this fear of the language of addiction.
I really appreciate The Heart of Addiction a great deal. As a budding addiction scientist and as an addict, it has been quite a pleasure. And I am very much looking forward to reading more by Dr. Khantzian. But for now, I have a paper to finish.