Discussion of Bourgois's Moral Econonomy

Chapter 3 of Philippe Bourgois’s Righteous Dopefiend discusses the “moral economy” of the heroin-dependent homeless people who constitute the Edgewater community. I intend to use discussion of this chapter to specifically relate Bourgois’s concept to the anthropological theory it draws on.

In the Edgewater community, the moral economy is driven by the physiological drive for heroin. Operating on the cellular level, heroin does not merely promote psychological dependence or an internalized craving for the drug. Instead, it creates a fundamental need in addicted bodies that can only be satisfied by heroin. After an injection, this need reasserts itself approximately every eight hours. If more heroin is not injected, then dependent individuals began to experience “dopesickness,” a feeling described by those who have experienced it in the Edgewater community as “a million ants crawling through your skin,” “anxiety,” lack of muscle control,” and “scraping your bones.” Bourgois explains that due to the extreme discomfort resulting from heroin withdrawal and the persistent fear of dopesickness being just around the corner, actions that prevent dopesickness drive the moral economy.  The moral economy is like a system of reciprocity aimed at preventing dopesickness onset. The actions of individuals in the moral economy all strive for this goal. It is necessary to have a generous reputation to best insure continued availability of heroin. When heroin is purchased, it is most often bought by a small group of people who then evenly divide up the heroin. This is not the result of economic necessity, but instead the basis for network boundaries that provide companionship and also facilitate material survival. It is a process that hedges bets against a potential future risk. For example, someone that has a desirable product now (in this case, heroin) shares it with others instead of hoarding it because in the near future the roles of this person and their peers could be reversed. This positively reinforces social relationships and prevents excess suffering among community members. A “loan” of heroin can be given out to stave off withdrawal symptoms because it is understood this will be paid back in the future if the lender needs a fix or something else the loan recipient can provide.

There are connections between the moral economy and the ideas from many anthropological schools of thought, depending how far back in time one wishes to travel. Going back to Emile Durkheim, a social scientific pioneer of structural functionalism, we begin to see questioning of the forces that allow groups to maintain cohesion and solidarity. Durkheim argued that community members were bound together through shared beliefs and values that were taught. Further, he differentiated the cohesive forces in “primitive” and “complex” societies, claiming the earlier was bound by similarity, while the latter maintained cohesion through difference. The Edgewater homeless are an interesting task for Durkheim because they exhibit both similarity and difference, and varying degrees of cohesion. There is division within the moral economy based on race and gender, but there are also forces that transcend these boundaries, like the physiological dependence on heroin. So it is unclear to me if the Edgewater would qualify as a “primitive” or “complex” group to Durkheim. Durkheim’s student Marcel Mauss expands and refines Durkheim’s ideas through his understanding of gift giving. He placed precedence on the individual’s mind over that of the group mind, prioritizing internalized structures in guiding reciprocal systems. He recognized that a gift and the process through which it was given embodied basic social principles. This is evident in the Edgewater moral economy when “cottons” are given to close group members in order to stave off the effects of withdrawal. This action hints at the unethical nature in the Edgewater community of allowing a non-enemy to experience dopesickness when it can be prevented. Failing to observe this practice can end friendships. Finally, the great French structural anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss developed theory that reflected the study of linguistics. Consequently, he valued the form of social events as much as the content itself. The importance of form in the Edgewater community moral economy manifests itself in numerous ways. The processes of purchasing, sharing, and consuming heroin all have specific ways they should occur. To illustrate, we can consider the process of dividing heroin to be shared prior to injection. Since it is often bought by small groups of people, instead of individuals, it must be divided evenly to be fair. However, the black tar heroin used in the community is “sticky when warm and brittle when cold” and is therefore difficult to split up evenly. Consequently, there is a very structured process for dividing up the heroin in liquid form using a measured container to insure that everyone gets as close to an equal amount as possible. The process upholds the values of fairness and cooperation that maintain cohesion.

These theorists I have discussed are all structural anthropologists, but the ability to interpret the moral economy is certainly not limited to their contributions. Further critique from other perspectives may reveal additional insight about the moral economy, or present critical flaws in the concept.

-Phillip