Ideology in My Contoversy

Now that I have analyzed many of the sources available for this controversy, I can start to break down the details of the debate. Using the information I have found, I'll answer a few questions about the controversy surrounding addiction within this post.

RayNata. "Alcohol desgracia" 11/25/08 via Wikimedia Commons.
Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license.

Who is involved in the controversy?

Both scientists and normal folks who come from two different schools of thought. One side follows the BDMA (Brain Disease Model of Addiction) who thinks that addiction is a disease and can form from anything other than the victims own choice, such as genetics or environmental sources. On the other side there are those who think that addiction is simply a choice and once the victim goes too deep into addiction, it gets harder to make the right choice. 

Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?

I would say that two of the biggest scholars that are speaking within this controversy are definitely Marc Lewis and Gene Heyman. All of their research and publications have been either about addiction or this controversy itself, and often are referenced either in articles or publications. 

What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

Socially, I think that those who believe in BDMA have the greater advantage because we, as a society, do not like to put blame onto victims themselves and say that it "was their choice". So, they would be easier to use the emotional appeal to convince others of their opinion. However, when it comes to other aspects of power, any person is able to join either side, powerful or not, so they would have the same amount of power.

What resources are available to different positions?

Research and experience would be the resources available. Whether it be research on the brain and what happens with addiction or someone that has recently recovered from an addiction themselves, either one could be used as proof to either side.

What does each group value?

I would say that the group that believes that addiction is a choice values individual decisions and integrity. They want to put the addicted in control of their own actions, including their choice to become addicted and the choice to start recovering. Those who believe in BDMA value the addict's perception of themselves because they don't want the addict to blame themselves for their addiction, 

What counts as evidence for the different positions?

The evidence surrounding BDMA is not as evident as the evidence that addiction is a choice. Their evidence would be that since BDMA is the current school of thought when it comes to recovery, every addict that has been treated like their addiction was a disease shows that the brain disease model is correct. However, there has been recent research by many scientists that addiction, once the initial choice is made, the brain will start to change and adapt to keep accepting the addictive substance. However, this can only be done with constant choices to partake in the addictive activity, and therefore, addiction would simply be a choice.

Is there a power differential between the groups?

I don't think that these types of groups are concerned with power as much as in other controversies. Mainly, these groups are concerned with who has the most scientific evidence, as any physician or support group is able to change their style of rehabilitation at any time.

Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?

Often, the scientists who believe that addiction is a choice will be asked to comment on the other side's idea that addiction comes from genetics and environment. They mostly tend to agree that genetics and environment play a small part in the addict making their choice. 

Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

Out of all the interviews and articles, something that I think was not mentioned enough was that both sides simply want to help to fight addiction. No matter how they look at at, both sides want to find the best way to cure an addict, and neither side wants the addict to feel bad about their situation but only want to help them recover. 

Do the various groups listen to each other?

As this is a very scientific argument, it would be very strange if someone were to not acknowledge the other side of their argument. Often, those one one side will share their research with someone on the other side to explain why they should rethink their theories.