↓ Skip to main content

Addiction stigma and the biopolitics of liberal modernity: A qualitative analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Drug Policy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Addiction stigma and the biopolitics of liberal modernity: A qualitative analysis
Published in
International Journal of Drug Policy, March 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.02.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne Fraser, Kiran Pienaar, Ella Dilkes-Frayne, David Moore, Renata Kokanovic, Carla Treloar, Adrian Dunlop

Abstract

Definitions of addiction have never been more hotly contested. The advance of neuroscientific accounts has not only placed into public awareness a highly controversial explanatory approach, it has also shed new light on the absence of agreement among the many experts who contest it. Proponents argue that calling addiction a 'brain disease' is important because it is destigmatising. Many critics of the neuroscientific approach also agree on this point. Considered from the point of view of the sociology of health and illness, the idea that labelling something a disease will alleviate stigma is a surprising one. Disease, as demonstrated in that field of research, is routinely stigmatised. In this article we take up the issue of stigma as it plays out in relation to addiction, seeking to clarify and challenge the claims made about the progress associated with disease models. To do so, we draw on Erving Goffman's classic work on stigma, reconsidering it in light of more recent, process oriented, theoretical resources, and posing stigmatisation as a performative biopolitical process. Analysing recently collected interviews conducted with 60 people in Australia who consider themselves to have an alcohol or other drug addiction, dependence or habit, we explore their accounts of stigma, finding experiences of stigma to be common, multiple and strikingly diverse. We argue that by treating stigma as politically productive - as a contingent biopolitically performative process rather than as a stable marker of some kind of anterior difference - we can better understand what it achieves. This allows us to consider not simply how the 'disease' of addiction can be destigmatised, or even whether the 'diseasing' of addiction is itself stigmatising (although this would seem a key question), but whether the very problematisation of 'addiction' in the first place constitutes a stigma process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 183 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 15%
Student > Bachelor 22 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Researcher 19 10%
Other 10 5%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 49 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 46 25%
Psychology 26 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Arts and Humanities 8 4%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 56 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,848,009
of 25,505,015 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Drug Policy
#693
of 3,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,830
of 323,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Drug Policy
#15
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,505,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,061 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.