1 / 20

IMAGES CONSORTIUM MEETING St Petersburg 25-28 April 2010

IMAGES CONSORTIUM MEETING St Petersburg 25-28 April 2010. Agenda of the concluding session: What Next ? What did we learn ? Publication plans ? Funding issues : after 2010? Further meetings ?. Why do we need a sociology of addiction ? What we have learned .

moshe
Télécharger la présentation

IMAGES CONSORTIUM MEETING St Petersburg 25-28 April 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IMAGES CONSORTIUM MEETINGSt Petersburg 25-28 April 2010 Agenda of the concluding session: WhatNext? Whatdidwelearn? Publicationplans? Fundingissues: after 2010? Furthermeetings?

  2. Whydoweneed a sociology of addiction? Whatwehavelearned.

  3. Theories of Addiction • State of the art • Whydoesnotbrain science do the job? • Because the effects of culturalinteraction (Hacking) arereal(e.g. People die, go to prison, feel pain, defectbabies) because of them • Whydoesnotordinary social constructionism (labelling, social definitions of the problem ) do the job? • because the culturalinteractioneffects on the addicteddesireitselfarealsoreal • Whydoesnot the publichealthpoint of viewdo the job? • Becauseaddictionsarenotonly a policyissuebut a social phenomenon in a widersense

  4. Images and representations • the Moskowiciaproach • the Imagesapproach • Sulkunen, P. Between culture and nature: intoxication in cultural studies of alcohol and drug use. Contemporary Drug Problems 29, Summer 2002 24, 7/2002. • Sulkunen, P. & Rantala, V. : Is ProblemGambling Just a Big ProblemOrAlso an Addiction? Addiction Res. & Theory, submittedFeb 2010. •  arenotcontradictorybutcomplementary • imagesarenotrepresentations • representationsareoftenrelevant

  5. culture elaborated culture ”us”:subjects regression progression ”other”:non-subject ”other”: non-adult nature raw rotten nature Sulkunen, P.: Images of Addiction. Representations of Addictions in Films. Addiction Res. & Theory2007, Vol. 15 Issue 6, pp. 543-559.

  6. RepresentingPassionswithout a Name (Varpu) • A paradox • Historicity vs. production of cinematic ”effects” • The role of ”the mentalmoment” in production of effects on irresistibledesire, fear and disgust (the abject)

  7. Difference and equality (Irina et al.) • Focusgroups: substanceuse is part of identityconstruction • Agency: freewill! • Autonomy contra intimacy, esp. tobacco! • Sickness vs. ownresponsibility, espgambling & internet

  8. The ImagesTheory (Maija &…) • The imagery of ”learning”: agency, progress • (Endotactic) modalities and the issue of agency • A. Magicalskills to control the game • Attribution of logic • attribution of agency • B. How to controloneself • CONCLUSION: to be a goodplayerinvolves a competence (and a will)  addictedbehaviourinvolves a LEARNING process i.e. is a product of culture, whichdissipates in the addictionprocess • In the eyes of others • In the experience of the addict

  9. The ImagesTheoryctd.(…Matias & …) • Differentkinds of money • aredifferentvehicles of will, competence, ability and obligation • Chancegames • controllingone’sbudget • controllingchance and fate (magicalskills) • Skillgames • in the game • managing money •  CONCLUSION: the imaginarydimensions of the fascination of play are VERY diverse! But the samedissipation of theirculturalarticulationsaremostlikely to takeplace in the addictiveprocess

  10. The ImagesTheoryctd.(…& Virve) • The addict is the Other: • who is described as someonewhohaslost the modalqualitythatgivesmeaning to the activity • whichinvolves a loss of agency • Butitstill is a complicatedsemioticprocesswhichinvolvesalways a point of view

  11. Feartheory(Anja & Irina) • Familiarityreducesfear, in general (immigrants, religion, ethnicity, etc. ) • Legal OR media attentionincreasesfear to the extentthatpersonalexperienceincreasesrahterthandecreasesfear • Olderpeople and womenseesubstanceuse as a threat • Professionalslessopitmisticthanlayabouthealing in RU!!!

  12. Feartheory (Kari) • Twofactormodel: • A threats to security; • B social equality. Alladdictionsbelong to A! Sotheyarefrightening, ratherthanpublichealthissues This is whyaddictionprobemsarenotaboutrationalplanningbutimaginaryimages; theyarethereforesensitive to imaginary ”facts”, politicalconjunctures etc. Note: Balticastudyby J Simpura. Thereareothersurvey-basedstudies on rankorders of social problems (ask Olli Kangas)

  13. Help Theory • Finnsareafraid of substances • bothlay and professionalsdoubt help and self-help in the case of alcohol, opiates, prescriptiondrugs and amphetaminesbutnottobacco • Compulsorytreatmentmoreacceptable and number of dontknowanswerswashigheramonglaythanprof • Ignoranceincreasesstress of treatmentmotivation and compulsorytreatment? • Urgency (motivation + compulsory) is associatedwith the factthataddictionsarefelt to be a threat to security • Laypeoplethinkthatprofessionalsshouldbe in charge, notthemselves (whoarevictims) • OBS! The abovepointstowards the victimstheory, whichagaincouplesitwith the contradictionbetweenautonomy and intimacy

  14. Help theorycontd. • In Ruprofessionalsare in favour of isolation of addicts, morestrictthanlaypersons

  15. SicknessTheory (Laurence) • Heroine, cocaine, cocaineareconsidereddangerous; othersconsiderablyless • Stillfewpeoplebelievethatdrugfreesociety is possible • Stereotypes: heroine usersaresick, lackwill and havefamilyproblems, have no place in society, areparasite, aredangerous • Insecurity is the mostimportantproblem (49%); poverty 33.6%, unemployment 32% •  evenstronglymedicalisedview of addictionsdoesnoteliminate the threattheypresent to society (cf. contagiousdiseases)

  16. The Materialist Tradition (Arto) • ”medicalisation” in the Illich/Foucaultsensedoesnotapply to early 19th c approach to alcohol • ”alcoholism” as an enititydoesnotapplyeither: causativeloss of reason, a. in the etiology of differentailments, alcohol as part of materia medica • Empirical science of mansince the mid 18th c.: holism, mind&body, medicinepushed into society (?), typologies of humans

  17. The Materialist Tradition contd. • Symptomatology, etiology, sense of history (civilizationcritique, alcoholhistoricized, • Trotter: drunkenness a disease, causingotherdiseases and a disease of the mind • Huss: availability, beliefs and customs, moralcorruption; acquireddesire; physicalailments; therepeuticpessimism; ”alcoholpolicy” • clinics, specialisedinstitutions, heredity, badnature, laboratorychemistry (cf. interest in the liver)

  18. The InstitutionalTheory: ClinicalGaze in France and Finland (Michael) • Minorquantitativedifferencesbetween FR and FI • Cleardifference in emphasis in whatGPssay: alcoholic as apatientvs social problem • Peer help vsprofessionalmedical help • Work, friends, family as ”therapy” vs. Medical help • the psychiatricblack box for both • Abstinence: no pronounceddifferences •  longuedurée?

  19. The MedicalAmbivalence (Chantal) • The patients’ suffering: medicalethicsconcerning the GP’srole • Debate on whetherwecando, butnotwhetherweshould • PolicyopinionsareoftenHussian: availabilitytheory, • Involuntarytreatment/tutelage is a real option • Help for helpers! Training, specialists, institutions, the Police, the Legislator, Associations

  20. The GenderAspect (Chantal) • Danger, clearawareness of the genderedconsequences of alcoholism • Whataboutotheraddictions?

More Related