Toward an Institutional Ethic of Treatment
Addiction is not an anomaly within modern culture but one of its most coherent symptoms. Any clinical or institutional approach that treats addiction as an isolated pathology—whether moral, behavioral, or neurobiological—fails to grasp the conditions that make addiction structurally necessary. What appears clinically as compulsion and loss of control reflects, at a deeper level, a historical configuration in which symbolic systems no longer regulate suffering, while the ethical demand to endure remains intact.
Modern societies have dismantled religious, ritual, and metaphysical frameworks that once distributed psychic burden across communal and symbolic forms. Yet the affects those systems mediated—guilt, despair, longing, responsibility, finitude—have not disappeared. They have been privatized. Individuals are now required to bear alone what was once held collectively. Addiction emerges where this burden becomes unmanageable, functioning as an improvised solution to a problem culture no longer knows how to name.
From this perspective, addiction is not primarily a disorder of pleasure-seeking or impulse control. It is a response to exposure. Substances are sought not because they intoxicate, but because they reliably regulate psychic states that have lost symbolic containment. Alcohol blunts moral and existential exposure; opioids simulate care and consolation; stimulants generate urgency and purpose; sedatives impose silence where no legitimate rest remains. These effects are not incidental side benefits but the very reasons substances become indispensable. Addiction is not excess enjoyment; it is emergency containment.
This diagnosis has decisive implications for clinical practice. The clinician does not encounter an individual failing to regulate desire, but a person who has been left alone with affects that exceed their capacity to endure. Addiction substitutes chemical certainty for symbolic holding. To remove the substance without addressing the function it served is to abandon the patient at the moment of greatest vulnerability. This is why treatments that focus narrowly on abstinence, compliance, or behavioral correction so often collapse into relapse: they eliminate the symptom while preserving the conditions that made it necessary.
The ethical position of the clinician must therefore be clarified. Treatment cannot aim at rescue, redemption, or metaphysical reassurance without becoming another form of illusion. Nor can it rely on moral pressure, humiliation, or coercion without reproducing the very dynamics of exposure and abandonment that drive addiction. The clinician’s task is more austere: to remain present where the patient can no longer anesthetize themselves. This requires tolerating despair, ambivalence, dependency, and repetition without prematurely resolving them through technique or judgment.
In this sense, treatment temporarily assumes a symbolic function that culture has relinquished. It does not replace religion or offer transcendence, but it provides continuity, intelligibility, and non-abandonment. The therapeutic relationship becomes a site where suffering can be borne consciously rather than chemically. This is not a matter of empathy alone, but of endurance. The clinician must be able to hold tension without demanding transformation as proof of worth.
Institutions bear equal responsibility in this regard. Treatment programs routinely demand honesty, responsibility, abstinence, and emotional exposure without adequately containing what these demands unleash. Removing substances exposes patients to psychic material they were not avoiding frivolously. Programs that celebrate confrontation, “breaking through denial,” or rapid transformation often retraumatize patients by mistaking exposure for insight. When containment fails, relapse is not moral failure but diagnostic feedback.
Dignity is therefore not an optional value but a structural necessity. Humiliation does not produce insight; shame does not generate responsibility; fear does not sustain change. Institutions that rely on degradation or coercion are not treating addiction but reenacting the conditions that produced it. Dignity is not indulgence—it is the minimum condition for psychic endurance.
This reframes the goals of treatment. Recovery cannot be defined as happiness, self-optimization, or spiritual fulfillment without falsification. Nor can addiction be cured in the medical sense, because it responds to a permanent historical condition rather than a removable defect. What treatment can cultivate is more modest and more difficult: the capacity to remain conscious, related, and responsible without chemical refuge. Endurance, rather than resolution, becomes the central clinical achievement.
Within this framework, behavioral and neuroscientific interventions retain an essential but limited role. Operant conditioning, pharmacotherapy, and neurobiological stabilization are indispensable tools, but they are instruments rather than explanations. They create the conditions under which psychic work becomes possible; they do not account for why addiction became necessary in the first place. When technique is mistaken for understanding, treatment degenerates into management rather than care.
Community, too, must be rethought. Belonging remains essential, but not as belief, identity, or metaphysical substitute. What community must provide is continuity through failure, shared endurance, and protection against abandonment. Community without illusion is more difficult than belief, but it is also more honest and more durable.
Addiction, finally, is not a scandal to be eradicated but a message to be understood. It testifies to the fact that modern individuals are being asked to carry psychic burdens once borne by gods, rituals, and cultures. Treatment does not remove this burden. It helps human beings carry it without destroying themselves.
For clinicians and institutions, the task is therefore not to fix the addict, but to stand where anesthesia once stood—without becoming anesthetic themselves. This task offers no salvation and no final cure. It offers something rarer: fidelity to suffering without abandonment.
Leave a Reply