Member-only story
We Can’t Really Do Anything About Addiction Until We Tackle “Stigma”
I think you generally know what the word “addiction” means, and you generally probably know what “stigma” means. Basically, when you combine the two contexts, the idea is that the “addiction” is some type of “moral failure” of the person suffering it. It’s important to note here that many (and I mean many) things are addictions that we only tangentially talk about in the negative. The most notable example is “work.” Millions of people are addicted to work, are rather addicted to what they seem to get from work (relevance, in other words), but we generally don’t see this as a problem because it’s a “pro-social addiction.” I personally find a lot of this to be bullshit. Here’s the core problem: most people think of the word “addiction” and they think of, let’s say, this:
That is definitely not “pro-social.”
Then they think of someone addicted to work, and they tend to think of that person in virtuous terms like he or she is a “go-getter” and “moves the needle” and “gets things done.” In recent years, we’ve started to discuss burnout more, but I wouldn’t say anyone really cares about burnout that much (it’s a good thing to write articles about, but the ugly truth is that it’s seen as a badge of honor inside organizations). While someone addicted to work isn’t a zombie wearing their underwear inside out on a city street (good), someone addicted to work also is a bad role model to any children (bad), is often a bad partner to any spouse in the picture (bad), usually isn’t a good manager because they micromanage everything because of their addiction to the work (bad), etc, etc.
There’s a difference between being addicted to smack and being addicted to tracking documents, and I would never argue differently. But they’re both addictions, and we need to at least nod towards that.
