When the Brain Leaves the Scanner and Enters the Clinic

Addiction neuroscience promises to uncover the neural basis of addiction by mapping changes in the “diseased brains” of people with “drug addictions.” It hopes to offer revolutionary treatments for addiction and reduce the stigma experienced by those seeking treatment for a medical, rather than mora...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Contemporary drug problems 2018-09, Vol.45 (3), p.227-243
Hauptverfasser: Barnett, Anthony, Dilkes-Frayne Ella, Savic, Michael, Carter, Adrian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 243
container_issue 3
container_start_page 227
container_title Contemporary drug problems
container_volume 45
creator Barnett, Anthony
Dilkes-Frayne Ella
Savic, Michael
Carter, Adrian
description Addiction neuroscience promises to uncover the neural basis of addiction by mapping changes in the “diseased brains” of people with “drug addictions.” It hopes to offer revolutionary treatments for addiction and reduce the stigma experienced by those seeking treatment for a medical, rather than moral, condition. While the promises of addiction neuroscience have received considerable attention, relatively few studies have examined how neuroscientific discourses and promises play out in drug treatment settings. Instead of asking how neuroscience might measure or treat a preexisting addiction “problem,” we draw on poststructuralist ideas to trace how neuroscientific discourses produce addiction as a certain type of “problem” and the effects of these particular problematizations. Based on interviews with a range of different types of treatment providers working in Victoria, Australia, we discuss three themes that reveal neuroscientific discourses at work: (1) constituting pathological subjects, (2) neuroplasticity and “recovery,” and (3) the alleviation of guilt and shame via references to the “diseased brain.” On the basis of our analysis, we argue that dominant neuroscientific discourses produce patients as pathologized subjects, requiring medical treatment. We also contend that the intersection of neuroscientific and recovery discourses enacts “recovery” in terms of brain “recovery” through references to neuroplasticity. Further, when neuroscientific and moral discourses intersect, addicted subjects are absolved from the guilt associated with immoral behavior emerging from a “hijacked brain.” We conclude by emphasizing the need for future critical work to explore the complex ways in which neuroscientific discourses operate in localized care ecologies.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0091450918774918
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2113998011</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2113998011</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1178-375ef8a33063e1f2737052e2bad6ea3eab9e8939f68d7624fe7cfada72cc772f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjs1LAzEUxIMouFbvHgOeV5O83bzkqEv9gAUPtngsr9kXuqWkurv17ze1XmZgfjAzQtxqda814oNSXld1FodYZT0ThdEWSu2UOxfFEZdHfimuxnGrlDY1qELg54aTnDYsnwbqk2yZfnj8Cz4CpcSDpNTJeZp4OMXNrk99uBYXkXYj3_z7TCyf54vmtWzfX96ax7YM-ZUrAWuOjgCUBdbRIKCqDZs1dZYJmNaenQcfrevQmioyhkgdoQkB0USYibtT79ew_z7wOK22-8OQ8uTKaA3eO5XtF_OlRtg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2113998011</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>When the Brain Leaves the Scanner and Enters the Clinic</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Barnett, Anthony ; Dilkes-Frayne Ella ; Savic, Michael ; Carter, Adrian</creator><creatorcontrib>Barnett, Anthony ; Dilkes-Frayne Ella ; Savic, Michael ; Carter, Adrian</creatorcontrib><description>Addiction neuroscience promises to uncover the neural basis of addiction by mapping changes in the “diseased brains” of people with “drug addictions.” It hopes to offer revolutionary treatments for addiction and reduce the stigma experienced by those seeking treatment for a medical, rather than moral, condition. While the promises of addiction neuroscience have received considerable attention, relatively few studies have examined how neuroscientific discourses and promises play out in drug treatment settings. Instead of asking how neuroscience might measure or treat a preexisting addiction “problem,” we draw on poststructuralist ideas to trace how neuroscientific discourses produce addiction as a certain type of “problem” and the effects of these particular problematizations. Based on interviews with a range of different types of treatment providers working in Victoria, Australia, we discuss three themes that reveal neuroscientific discourses at work: (1) constituting pathological subjects, (2) neuroplasticity and “recovery,” and (3) the alleviation of guilt and shame via references to the “diseased brain.” On the basis of our analysis, we argue that dominant neuroscientific discourses produce patients as pathologized subjects, requiring medical treatment. We also contend that the intersection of neuroscientific and recovery discourses enacts “recovery” in terms of brain “recovery” through references to neuroplasticity. Further, when neuroscientific and moral discourses intersect, addicted subjects are absolved from the guilt associated with immoral behavior emerging from a “hijacked brain.” We conclude by emphasizing the need for future critical work to explore the complex ways in which neuroscientific discourses operate in localized care ecologies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0091-4509</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2163-1808</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0091450918774918</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Sage Publications Ltd</publisher><subject>Brain ; Drug addiction ; Neurobiology ; Neuroplasticity</subject><ispartof>Contemporary drug problems, 2018-09, Vol.45 (3), p.227-243</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1178-375ef8a33063e1f2737052e2bad6ea3eab9e8939f68d7624fe7cfada72cc772f3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Barnett, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dilkes-Frayne Ella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savic, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carter, Adrian</creatorcontrib><title>When the Brain Leaves the Scanner and Enters the Clinic</title><title>Contemporary drug problems</title><description>Addiction neuroscience promises to uncover the neural basis of addiction by mapping changes in the “diseased brains” of people with “drug addictions.” It hopes to offer revolutionary treatments for addiction and reduce the stigma experienced by those seeking treatment for a medical, rather than moral, condition. While the promises of addiction neuroscience have received considerable attention, relatively few studies have examined how neuroscientific discourses and promises play out in drug treatment settings. Instead of asking how neuroscience might measure or treat a preexisting addiction “problem,” we draw on poststructuralist ideas to trace how neuroscientific discourses produce addiction as a certain type of “problem” and the effects of these particular problematizations. Based on interviews with a range of different types of treatment providers working in Victoria, Australia, we discuss three themes that reveal neuroscientific discourses at work: (1) constituting pathological subjects, (2) neuroplasticity and “recovery,” and (3) the alleviation of guilt and shame via references to the “diseased brain.” On the basis of our analysis, we argue that dominant neuroscientific discourses produce patients as pathologized subjects, requiring medical treatment. We also contend that the intersection of neuroscientific and recovery discourses enacts “recovery” in terms of brain “recovery” through references to neuroplasticity. Further, when neuroscientific and moral discourses intersect, addicted subjects are absolved from the guilt associated with immoral behavior emerging from a “hijacked brain.” We conclude by emphasizing the need for future critical work to explore the complex ways in which neuroscientific discourses operate in localized care ecologies.</description><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Drug addiction</subject><subject>Neurobiology</subject><subject>Neuroplasticity</subject><issn>0091-4509</issn><issn>2163-1808</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotjs1LAzEUxIMouFbvHgOeV5O83bzkqEv9gAUPtngsr9kXuqWkurv17ze1XmZgfjAzQtxqda814oNSXld1FodYZT0ThdEWSu2UOxfFEZdHfimuxnGrlDY1qELg54aTnDYsnwbqk2yZfnj8Cz4CpcSDpNTJeZp4OMXNrk99uBYXkXYj3_z7TCyf54vmtWzfX96ax7YM-ZUrAWuOjgCUBdbRIKCqDZs1dZYJmNaenQcfrevQmioyhkgdoQkB0USYibtT79ew_z7wOK22-8OQ8uTKaA3eO5XtF_OlRtg</recordid><startdate>20180901</startdate><enddate>20180901</enddate><creator>Barnett, Anthony</creator><creator>Dilkes-Frayne Ella</creator><creator>Savic, Michael</creator><creator>Carter, Adrian</creator><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>K7.</scope><scope>K9.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180901</creationdate><title>When the Brain Leaves the Scanner and Enters the Clinic</title><author>Barnett, Anthony ; Dilkes-Frayne Ella ; Savic, Michael ; Carter, Adrian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1178-375ef8a33063e1f2737052e2bad6ea3eab9e8939f68d7624fe7cfada72cc772f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Drug addiction</topic><topic>Neurobiology</topic><topic>Neuroplasticity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Barnett, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dilkes-Frayne Ella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savic, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carter, Adrian</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Contemporary drug problems</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Barnett, Anthony</au><au>Dilkes-Frayne Ella</au><au>Savic, Michael</au><au>Carter, Adrian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>When the Brain Leaves the Scanner and Enters the Clinic</atitle><jtitle>Contemporary drug problems</jtitle><date>2018-09-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>227</spage><epage>243</epage><pages>227-243</pages><issn>0091-4509</issn><eissn>2163-1808</eissn><abstract>Addiction neuroscience promises to uncover the neural basis of addiction by mapping changes in the “diseased brains” of people with “drug addictions.” It hopes to offer revolutionary treatments for addiction and reduce the stigma experienced by those seeking treatment for a medical, rather than moral, condition. While the promises of addiction neuroscience have received considerable attention, relatively few studies have examined how neuroscientific discourses and promises play out in drug treatment settings. Instead of asking how neuroscience might measure or treat a preexisting addiction “problem,” we draw on poststructuralist ideas to trace how neuroscientific discourses produce addiction as a certain type of “problem” and the effects of these particular problematizations. Based on interviews with a range of different types of treatment providers working in Victoria, Australia, we discuss three themes that reveal neuroscientific discourses at work: (1) constituting pathological subjects, (2) neuroplasticity and “recovery,” and (3) the alleviation of guilt and shame via references to the “diseased brain.” On the basis of our analysis, we argue that dominant neuroscientific discourses produce patients as pathologized subjects, requiring medical treatment. We also contend that the intersection of neuroscientific and recovery discourses enacts “recovery” in terms of brain “recovery” through references to neuroplasticity. Further, when neuroscientific and moral discourses intersect, addicted subjects are absolved from the guilt associated with immoral behavior emerging from a “hijacked brain.” We conclude by emphasizing the need for future critical work to explore the complex ways in which neuroscientific discourses operate in localized care ecologies.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Sage Publications Ltd</pub><doi>10.1177/0091450918774918</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0091-4509
ispartof Contemporary drug problems, 2018-09, Vol.45 (3), p.227-243
issn 0091-4509
2163-1808
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2113998011
source HeinOnline Law Journal Library; SAGE Complete A-Z List
subjects Brain
Drug addiction
Neurobiology
Neuroplasticity
title When the Brain Leaves the Scanner and Enters the Clinic
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T19%3A34%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=When%20the%20Brain%20Leaves%20the%20Scanner%20and%20Enters%20the%20Clinic&rft.jtitle=Contemporary%20drug%20problems&rft.au=Barnett,%20Anthony&rft.date=2018-09-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=227&rft.epage=243&rft.pages=227-243&rft.issn=0091-4509&rft.eissn=2163-1808&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0091450918774918&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2113998011%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2113998011&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true