Maybe I am making too much of this, but see what you think.
This is the blurb, from a leaflet that fell out of the latest edition of the Radio Times (so no link), for a movie that has just come out on DVD about the musician Ray Charles:
MUSICAL BIOGRAPHICAL DRAMA The early life of celebrated musician Ray Charles, from 1930-1966. Charles loses his sight at the age of seven – two years after his brother’s tragic drowning. Encouraged by his mother, he forges a successful career as a pianist and singer, fusing together gospel, R’n’B and soul. But despite overcoming his early setbacks, Charles becomes dogged by drug problems and the complications arising from his numerous affairs.
The bit I object to is where it says that Ray Charles was “dogged by drug problems”. I do not know the exact circumstance in which Ray Charles turned to drugs and do not know to what degree he is to be blamed for his drug problems, but one thing is surely true, namely that these problems were set in motion by things which he himself did, and by choices which he himself made. Yet the blurb writer (who I do think is blameworthy) makes these “problems” read like entirely separate creatures who sneaked up behind Ray Charles and mugged him, without him doing anything to provoke them at all. To use the phrase “dogged by drug problems” to describe Charles’ drug misfortunes is to imply that these misfortunes were not in any way self-inflicted. It is to switch from the active to the passive, from responsibility for action, to excuse. At least those “complications” that arose from his affairs are described as arising from his affairs, rather than just from thin air. And of course Ray Charles gets all the credit that he surely deserves for forging (in a good way) his career, for fusing this music with that (ditto), and for overcoming early (and horrendous) setbacks. So why the “dogged by drug problems” stuff? Why not “problems caused by his drug-taking”?
You hear this kind of language – the passive evasive tense, and the relabeling of forces actually set in motion by the victim of them, into external life forces with minds of their own – a lot. (I recall this man referring to such language a lot – link anyone?) And this matters, because if individuals are not going to be described as at all to blame for what are actually their – at least partly – self-inflicted misfortunes, it is all too likely that someone else – someone who at worst only contributed somewhat to these problems – will be held entirely responsible for them. Which is unjust.
When things are said badly, they are liable to be done badly.
Sadly, an all too pervasive outlook towards self-created problems these days, amongst our governing bodies.
I read in my paper this morning about an initiative to get those admitted to Casualty due to excessive alcohol intake to ‘admit’ where they were served so that the police or licensing authorities can take action against the pub or bar.
Never mind the admitted folly of expecting someone in that state to remember where he/she was drinking, can someone tell me where to find a pub or bar that FORCES alcohol down your throat without any effort or choice on your part? Because I really want to spend an evening or two there……….!
It’s called reification: turning something you can’t be arsed to amend in yourself into an irresistible outside force, like demons in the Gadarene swine. That’s why when will power prevails and a celeb shapes up, the tabloids call it “conquering his demons”. Credit if you succeed, no blame if you don’t.
I recall similar articles about a “tide of crime and vandalism” sweeping through inner cities, as if it were no fault of the folks who lived there.
What Luniversal said… but I’m going to specifically finger AA (the Alcoholics Anonymous cult) for fostering the “disease” model, in which the addict is taught that he must fear the substance as a power greater than himself that only God can vanquish.
(spit)
Yet the blurb writer (who I do think is blameworthy)
But the devil made him do it…
Rich
This, in general, is what divides creeds.
If there is a gulf between cause and effect, then there is much room for forgiveness of the behaviour. Apparently it is much more forgiveable to feast on refined carbs until diabetes sets in than it is to hit yourself in the head with a hammer. If one smokes and gets lung cancer, it was a cartoon that made them do it, but if you cut your hand off with a knife, well, you’re just nuts.
I’m sure there is a fancy word for this concept which I’m not aware of, but the slower the modality the greater the likelihood that superstitions will creep into the picture. And the superstitious vary, and they all carry around their tomes filled with evidence ranging from fairy tales to distribution curves. But, again, the salient issue is when they desire to use force in making one comply with their sets of right and wrong based on their interpretations of cause and effect.
Why not call it “Whorfian morality”? By using different language, you can blame your woes on different actors. Perhaps the French have a hundred and one words for “surrender”.
I sympathize with the point of this post, but I think that we can take it too far by insisting that every reference to self-inflicted problems must remind us all that it was self-inflicted.
It’s useful to remember that problems are self-inflicted. But it’s also useful to be able to talk about dealing with the consequences without the distraction of referencing the blame.
Come on Brian, what do you expect? It is a straight-to-DVD!
Ordinarily I would agree with the general sentiment presented in this post, but not in this case. Do you really think that a blind man could become hooked on heroin without active participation and aid from someone else? I seriously doubt he was capable of preparing a syringe and then injecting himself without outside aid.
I agree entirely with you Brian. I consider the concept of personal responibility to be one of the main platforms that my idea of libertarianism is built upon. I’ve been thinking of writing a piece on this subject for some time as it is an interesting place to dig up all kinds of fixed ideas and assumptions.
Consider the widely pushed idea that all that we are is entirely the result of genes and/or environmental influences. If we accept that then, it seems to me, we must also accept a much dumbed down concept of responsibility for how could you hold someone to be responsible for something that was “caused by” his genes…. (or society or the influences of his class etc.)?
I don’t know. I think most people first use drugs with active aid and participation from someone else, especially drugs that require some technical skill such as injection. Granted, a blind man would need much more assistance, but this is mostly irrelevant, unless someone actually forcibly injected the drugs into his body.
Steve: no one shoved it up his arm without his consent, we can assume. If a quadraplegic wants a coffee, asks for it but doesn’t make it, pot it or administer it, (ie. pour it down his throat) who is responsible for the caffeine hit said quadraplegic feels? No doubt Ray Charles mixed in circles where such things were common and wanted a taste of the action, for whatever reason.
What a bunch of pompous, self-righteous bastards.
I wonder how many of you are muttering in your beards, “There, but for the grace……go I.”
Sure what you say does have some small merit, but do you have to make such an issue, in such a pedantic fashion?
I think you are getting a bit too PC – or at least the libertarian version of it. There are an infinite number of ways of saying something – you knew what was meant in this case and were able to place your own interpretation on it, so what’s the issue?
I can only speak for my cleanshaven self – that thought had never crossed my mind, but anyway…
Well, you know, it’s late, I’m sort of bored, seemed like a good idea at the time…pretty much the story of most of my posts here.
You’re (I’m) suffering…. (Me too),
Nice to see a sense of humour, and a generosity of spirit when meandering around these gloomy halls…..- and yes, I know, I’m as much to blame as anyone…. 🙂
In the movie Ray forces the heroin users in his band to give him the drugs. They are rather insistant that he not take them, and one leaves before getting high in protest. Ray Carles “saw” the movie before he died and supposedly endorsed it. So i would say his drug addiction is most deffinetly his fault and he new it.
I’m often astonished by the fact that all these famous, talented, people “dogged by drug problems” nevertheless manage to have successful lives. Witness not only Charles, but the well-publicised former and current habits of numerous celebrities.
Could it be that the drugs aren’t all that important: that a loser who does drugs is not generally made into a loser by them, and nor is a winner, but that your pattern of drug-use fits into the rest of the pattern of your life and personality.
Good point, Guy. On the other hand, though, I wonder how many non-celebrities are out there who were “dogged by drug problems”, and still managed to have successful lives. The answer may lie in our perception of “success”. Maybe it is one’s “happiness” we should rather examine.
Alisa,
You are of course correct. Of course we’ve (as a species) been trying to define “happiness” and the “good life” for some time now. 🙂
I also have to admit that I found the write-up to be somewhat pedantic and shrill.
Robert Speirs,
Perhaps the French have a hundred and one words for “surrender”.
Nope.
Anyway, its not like they didn’t send the English packing at the end of the Hundred Years’ War and thus spawn such an internal tumult in England that the English had themselves chopping off the heads of heirs to throne, fighting a civil war, etc., for decades afterwards. Probably the greatest revenge for the French (after slaughtering Englishmen at Formigny and Castillon) was to watch Englishmen shed the blood of one another.
I have to admit that I also doubt that the French psyche can historically be described as defeatist.
Happiness does not call for a definition, Gary. A person knows whether he is happy or not, and people around him can almost always tell as well.
The “write-up” begins with: “Maybe I am making too much of this, but see what you think.” I think Brian was simply thinking aloud, so I would suggest giving him a break.
The decision to begin taking drugs is a matter of personal choice, but once addicted it can be difficult for addicts to stop. Addiction is a physical process and, by its nature, can make the addict irrational and less able to see the consequences of their actions.
If the addict began taking drugs in ignorance of the long-term consequences, then I believe they are deserving of some sympathy. Few, if any, people start taking drugs with the intention of becoming addicts. To combat this, the consequences of addiction do need to be made clear to all. If a person begins taking addictive drugs in full knowledge of their effects, that person is entirely responsible for the consequences.
The way out of addiction is through re-asserting one’s own self-control, and those who do so successfully should be admired for having done so – it is rarely an easy thing to do. As such, people can be criticised for having begun taking drugs in the first place, but also congratulated for breaking that addiction.
Good point Guy.
I remember we used to say back in the 80s about cocaine: Cocaine does not turn anyone into an arsehole, its just makes an arsehole more of one.
Addiction is just a weakness of mind and a self-inflicted wound. I am impressed with someone who overcomes it, but have no sympathy for any addict.
I would like to point out that that herion addicts often begin by smoking it sometimes by skin popping before becoming main line users.
It is not surprising to me that Ray Charles was an addict the surprise would be working in that environment, somebody didn’t become an addict.
For stars, there are pimps and pushers for every conceivable vice and the the stars themselves are,outside their particular talent ordinary people,with fame,money and without the constraints of ordinary people.
They are kow towed to,pampered and shielded from reality,I don’t feel sorry for them but I understand.
Many of the preceding comments have struck me as pretty theoretical. My point would be that we have actual evidence in the matter under discussion: in his autobiography “Brother Ray”–which I highly recommend, by the way–Ray Charles himself says that the drugs were always his choice and that he generally enjoyed them a lot, which is why he indulged in them. (Also, of course, for the simple reason that he was in a position to do so.) He also says that on occasion his heroin use got out of control, but as I recall more or less claims that those states of affairs were his own damn fault, and that he addressed them when necessary.
Now, Ray Charles may have been deluded about the degree to which he wielded control over drugs (and would have been far from alone there), but if one takes him at his word, his own take on the matter would seem to support the argument in the Mr. Micklethwait’s post.
So called drug problems are not caused by drugs.
They are in fact self medication most likely for PTSD. There is also a genetic component.
Now at the present time most of society does not recognize self medication for PTSD as a good thing. OK.
When did so called libertarians get the idea that self medication is wrong?
I suppose no better can be expected from the brain washed libertarian masses. It is a sad day for liberty to hear this propaganda spouted from people who are supposed to know when the government and society is conning them.
Heroin
Addiction or Self Medication
Drugs do not cause addiction. Chronic pain causes chronic drug use. Duh.
A I Dodge,
Pain is just a weakness of mind. Any one using pain relievers is just weak.
At minimum we need to get aspirin and Tylenol etc. under doctor’s control or banned altogether. Can’t be supporting weakness now can we? At least not without medical supervision.
Sound good to you?
This thread is a perfect example of drugs making people crazy and stupid.
Please all of you – my friends (one can hope) – do some research on the connection between drugs and PTSD before you write another line on the subject.
I’d even be willing to do a guest column if asked.
Rob,
Habituation is a physical process. It can be reversed. Addiction is something else. We have to ask why the detoxed go back to drugs. I claim the most natural reason. People take pain relievers to relieve pain.
The pain/drug use connection is called addiction when we do not know the cause of the pain or deny the reality of it (PTSD). People with fybromyalgia were once thought to be addicts until medical science discovered their pain was real. My take is that there are still real pains that medicine does not recognize.
The whole idea of “addiction” in my opinion is superstition. What? 21st century libertarian scientific men superstious? How can it be? It is an impossibility. It turns out education is no proof against ignorance. For the simple reason that everything we know is not necessisarily true. It won’t be the first time.