Addico, ergo sum (1)

By Jeffrey Schaler

What does the word "addiction" mean? "Addiction" means to devote oneself toward something, toward someone, toward some activity, or toward some experience. It means "to say yes to", "to consent to". The word "addiction" shares the same Latin root, dicere, as the words abdication, dictator, and dictation.

Addiction is a choice. It refers to something a person does, not to something a person has. It refers to behavior, mode of conduct, or deportment. Addiction is, by definition, voluntary, arising from one's own free will. Addiction is a socially constructed concept - like "the economy." There is no such thing as the economy. There is no such thing as addiction. The word "addiction" describes nothing. It is often used to prescribe something - a behavior, a way of life. This means that while many people use the word "addiction" as if they are describing some behavior, they are really prescribing how a person should or shouldn't live. In this sense, they are being moralistic.

Addiction is not a disease. It is not something someone has. It is not a lesion, or a seizure. Addiction is not involuntary. This distinction is important because since addiction is not a disease, it can be neither diagnosed or treated.

Despite the fact that behavior and disease are different, many people who believe addiction is "treatable" equate the two. Smoking is a behavior. Cancer is a disease. Drinking is a behavior. Cirrhosis of the liver is a disease. Smoking is not cancer. Drinking is not cirrhosis.

Scientists abide by certain rules to identify and treat diseases. If we are to take seriously the assertion that Internet addiction is a treatable disease, it is necessary to inquire as to whether the rules for diagnosis and disease classification are applied and abided by in responsible and meaningful ways.

Diseases are physical. They are diagnosed by symptoms (complaints) and signs (lesions), or by signs alone (asymptomatic diseases). They are rarely diagnosed on the basis of symptoms alone (there are a few exceptions, such as migraine headache). "Addiction" is not listed in standard textbooks of pathology because it does not meet the nosological criteria for disease classification. This is because addiction is "diagnosed" solely on the basis of symptoms. There are no signs of addiction. All pathologists agree: Addiction is not a disease.

What do people mean by the term "nternet addiction?" They are, first and foremost, referring to a behavior, an activity, that is, something that people do. What do these people do? They log on to the Internet and read words written by other people. They write words to other people. They may engage in this activity at the expense of other activities, such as being with one's wife, being with one's family, going to work, working on the job, sleeping, etc. The activity of logging on to the Internet may upset other people. People choosing to log on to the Internet may be happy with themselves or they may not be. While there are diverse ways in which people spend their time on the Internet, those who are allegedly "addicted" to reading the words of others, and to writing words to others, are expressing an interest in contact and intimacy with others. This is obvious.

On this basis alone, Internet addiction does not qualify as a literal disease. When people pronounce Internet addiction a "treatable" disorder, that is, a disease, they are confusing metaphorical and literal disease. When "patients" in psychotherapy confuse symbolic (metaphorical) with literal reality psychotherapists diagnose them as "psychotic." The fact is this: Internet addiction does not meet the nosological criteria for classification as a literal disease, therefore, it is treatable in a metaphorical sense only.

The diagnosis of literal disease is objective. The diagnosis of metaphorical disease is subjective. The diagnosis of literal disease is value free. The diagnosis of metaphorical disease is value laden.

To assert that Internet addiction is a "diagnosable" condition is to make a meaningless pronouncement. Anything is "diagnosable." The "diagnosis" of Internet addiction is a moral judgment of a mode of conduct masquerading as objective assessment of an inanimate object. This is not the case for real disease. We must follow certain and objective rules for accurate diagnosis. People who insist that Internet addiction is a real and treatable disease do not abide by a valid and reliable scientific methodology for disease classification. They are not scientists, they are charlatans. Real diseases are treated with real (literal) medicines by real doctors. Fake diseases are "treated" with fake (metaphorical) medicines by fake doctors.

This is not to say that people don't engage in behaviors that are self destructive - nor is it to say that talking to someone cannot be helpful or useful. It is just that when we speak of disease and treatment, we must carefully differentiate between literal and metaphorical disease and treatment.

I submit that Internet addiction is a metaphorical or fake disease that is "treated" with metaphorical or fake medicine by charlatans. In other words, to assert that the "diagnosis" and treatment of Internet addiction is legitimate medical practice is pure quackery. The diagnosis and treatment of "Internet addiction" tells us more about the diagnostician and treatment provider than it does about the person diagnosed and treated.


Continued on next page...


Copyright © New Therapist