The complexities of addiction have long been compounded by all the discussions about what addiction is, how it develops, and the factors behind this development. Parallel to this is the discussion on how to better address addiction. Of course, these proposals on treatment and recovery are directly related to the answers someone might have in regards to the first set of discussions: what it is, how it develops, and the factors behind this development. I would term this, someone’s “personal philosophy of addiction.”

Some of the common discussions include the role of genetics, the role of social factors, the role of neurobiology, the role of learned behavior, the role of co-occurring disorders, and the role of childhood experiences. The weight a person would place on any of these factors would inform their “personal philosophy of addiction.”

Once a person has formed their “personal philosophy of addiction”, they could have a sense of what would provide a better alternative on how to address this issue. Do I believe addiction is mostly a direct result of childhood experiences that included trauma? Then I would probably place priority emphasis on the resolution of this issue as it relates to treatment and recovery. Examples as such can be made with all other factors.

When proponents of single factors that explain addiction are making their points, they usually do a great job providing rationale and isolating the factor in such a way that it provides a great opportunity of enriching knowledge on the influence this factor has on addiction. Their intention is a noble one as they attempt to find a better solution to this problem by exploring its root causes and underlying conditions.

The problem in this occurs when a proposal as such does not consider a context in which this factor interacts with many others. Reducing our understanding of addiction to one single explanation is not warranted in our attempt to improve the way we help those afflicted by addiction.

Discussion around these topics tends to be based on premises of mutual exclusivity. If this is right, then that must be wrong.

Can addiction be a disease of the brain while also having been influenced by social factors and adverse childhood experiences? Why not.

One critical factor not to be left out of the conversation is the person struggling with addiction issues themselves. Each person has a story and a narrative. What could be the perceived causes of one’s addiction could be totally different that the perceived causes of somebody else’s. So let’s listen to them. Let’s try to understand where they are coming from and what they believe in. Let’s also listen to how they believe they can recover. At the end of the day, what the person struggling with addiction believes about all this is more relevant than what I believe as a helper.

Many speak about person-centered approaches, individualized treatment, integrated behavioral health, bio-psycho-social-spiritual approaches, holistic, and whole-body perspectives. Do we really believe it? Does it really show in what we do to help those in need? What do I honestly believe about addiction, how it develops, and how people recover? The answers make a world of difference.