Mixing drink and drugs: ‘Underclass’ politics, the recovery agenda and the partial convergence of English alcohol and drugs policy

Abstract

Where policy is concerned, academic discussion of alcohol and illicit drugs frequently emphasises their disparities. This is understandable, to a degree, as the criminal law upholds a 'great regulatory divide ' (Seddon, 2010: 56) decades. Drawing on various policy documents and commentaries, we look at recent developments relating to the control and regulation of drugs and alcohol in the broader areas of criminal justice and welfare reform. We conclude that, although the great regulatory divide remains firmly intact, illicit drugs and alcohol policies are becoming more closely aligned, especially in regards to the respective significance of abstinence (or abstinence-based 'recovery'). Importantly, it is contended that this new historical direction in policy should be understood in reference to an evolving governmental concern for the apparently problematic behaviour of a social underclass.

Neo-liberal discourse of substance use in the UK reality TV show, The Jeremy Kyle Show

“…caring responsibilities, employment). Through such neoliberal connotations, substance users were therefore demonised and stigmatised through the process of othering, as they are blamed for failing to live up to the neo-liberal notion of the productive and responsible (Lancaster et al, 2011;2015;McKendrink et al, 2008;Monaghan & Yeomans, 2016, Wincup & Monaghan, 2016. In turn, creating a distinction between the undeserving 'us ' and deserving 'them' (McKendrink et al, 2008;Monaghan & Yeomans, 2016;Taylor, 2008;Wincup & Monaghan, 2016).…”

“…'junkie', 'druggie', 'scum') identity (Kosovski & Smith, 2011;Neale et al, 2011). Reflecting the neo-liberal focus on achieving an authentic distinctive self through self-surveillance and control (Giddens, 1991;Harvey, 2007;Monaghan & Yeomans, 2016: Steinburg & Johnson, 2003 and the idea that a stigmatised identity can be repaired through abstinence, it was suggested that individuals do indeed have a 'true' inner self (Giddens, 1991), that differs substantially from the person they have become due to their drug use, and as such provides a convincing justification for recovery primarily through abstinence (Gibson et al, 2004;Neale et al, 2011).…”

“…For example, within media representations of substance use, discourses of unemployment, welfare dependency and criminality overlap to marginalise substance users in ways that deprioritise the structural determinants (e.g. poverty, inequalities) of their experiences (Boyd, 2002;Hartman, 2005;Harvey, 2007;Monaghan & Yeomans, 2016;Ramen, 2008;Schwiter, 2013;Steinberg & Johnson, 2003;Taylor, 2008;van den Bom et al, 2018;Wincup & Monaghan, 2016). Such framing helps shape collective perceptions that contribute to a lack of understanding and empathy, drive policy responses and neo-liberal thinking around substance use that prioritise individual choice and responsibility (van den Bom et al, 2018;Forsyth, 2001;Hartman and Golub, 1999;Harvey, 2007;Lancaster et al, 2011;Schwiter, 2013;Smith & Anderson, 2017;Taylor, 2008;Wincup & Monaghan, 2016).…”

“…The sub-genre of 'poverty porn' fits within the Reality TV genre, and focusses on the lived experience of poverty in a voyeuristic manner (Tyler, 2015;van den Bom et al, 2018;Monaghan & Yeomans, 2016;Wincup & Monaghan, 2016). Whilst producers claim the genre aims to educate, it has been accused of using and demonising the behaviours of lower-socio economic groups as unpaid 'human capital' for 'the manufacturing of reality', entertainment and 'the accumulation of wealth for media corporations' (Tyler, 2015;495).…”

“…Whilst producers claim the genre aims to educate, it has been accused of using and demonising the behaviours of lower-socio economic groups as unpaid 'human capital' for 'the manufacturing of reality', entertainment and 'the accumulation of wealth for media corporations' (Tyler, 2015;495). It is underpinned by an anti-welfare stance, and often associates substance use with unemployment and criminality, further labelling such groups as the deviant 'Other' and providing further justification for anti-welfare rhetoric (van den Bom et al, 2018;Monaghan & Yeomans, 2016;Taylor, 2008;. This may lead to misconceptions and negative attitudes towards welfare claimants and their behaviours, defining them as a homogenous group of substance using 'scroungers' and as undeserving of state support (van den Bom et al, 2018;McKendrink et al, 2008;Mooney, 2011;Wincup & Monaghan, 2016).…”