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
Very thoughtful and insightful.
ReplyDelete