I celebrated 7 years of sobriety last week. Woah. What!? To say I never thought I’d live to see the day would be a colossal understatement. I’m happy to be here. It hasn’t been easy, but it has been worth it.
So. Very. Worth. It.
I’ve been asked a lot, amidst this milestone, “What would you suggest to people who are earlier on in their recovery so they too can live to see 7 years?” This is a valid and important question – one that I asked in my earlier years, and one that I continue to ask my mentors with lived experience so I can live to see 8 years, 10 years, and 20 years.
There’s another question though – one that’s been rolling through my mind quite a lot amidst this particular milestone – and it’s one that I’ve always hoped I’d be asked, but have yet to.
The question goes something like this: I consider myself an ally for people with lived/living experience of addiction and/or recovery, but as someone without experiential knowledge, I want to ensure I am practicing allyship in a way that is more helpful than harmful, what would you suggest?
If only I were to be asked this question. Because you see, dear reader, people navigating addiction and recovery are already working their asses off to live in a world that is not built for them. There is a reason I don’t get asked this question – and that is because the spotlight has been shining on us “tainted others” for ever and ever. This question doesn’t get asked because allies are a part of the “norm.” So there is no spotlight. Allies are able to enter the conversation when they feel so inspired, and can just as easily leave the conversation and slip into the protection of their heavily-shaded-ally-life whenever they so choose. Yet there is so much allies can do to make it easier (or harder) for folks to navigate addiction and recovery.
Allies are an important part of any recovery journey. In ways both helpful and damaging. Unfortunately, because this topic is rarely discussed, the damaging components tend to outweigh the helpful ones.
Hence, my intent here, amidst this 7 year milestone, is to raise awareness about 5 common pitfalls well-intended allies tend to fall into….and some tips about how to avoid them. Before you continue to read, dear reader, I want to gently offer to you this small thought – you may feel defensive as you read this. That’s ok, but only temporarily. Sit in it, do what you need to do to work through it, and then read this again. If you genuinely want to practice allyship (which is an action), this is part of your own necessary process. Welcome.
Pitfall #1: Misunderstanding stigma with a lowercase “s”
For the most part, allies are aware of, and completely against, acts of Stigma with a capital “S”. This type of Stigma is explicit and obvious. Like calling a person derogatory names like “junkie” or believing “addicts” deserve to be punished. Most allies, in this day and age, have moved past and understand why this type of Stigma is harmful and inaccurate.
But understanding stigma with a lowercase “s” is tougher to grasp because it is not so in-your-face. It is often implicit; embedded in one’s own internal world. The things that you wouldn’t dare tell others you actually think, feel, or believe. Stigma with a small “s” refers to those internal assumptions, judgements, biases, and beliefs that often go unexamined and therefore unaddressed.
There tends to be this idea that if an ally understands the destructive nature of stigma with a capital “S,” the work is done.
Wrong.
It is actually stigma with a small “s’ that is keeping us stuck as a society. This type of stigma is just as harmful if not moreso.
To help you begin to think about areas you can work on to address stigma with a small “s,” I offer just a few examples for consideration. Ask yourself, have I done this or something similar? It’s ok if you have, the first step in this work is to simply acknowledge it. Name it to tame it!
- You invite fellow students/colleagues to participate in social gatherings that circulate around alcohol and other drug use (e.g., an event at the local pub, a house party or dinner party). If this is done without giving it a second thought, you are already overlooking the fact that there are people in the room who are in recovery and/or struggle with addiction. This may be well-intentioned, but it isolates and produces emotional labour for those with lived/living experience.
- You ask people around you why they are not drinking or using along with everyone else. You then might urge them to partake. It never occurs to you that this person may be navigating addiction/recovery. Putting them on the spot in this way is shaming and incredibly difficult for people with lived/living experience to navigate.
- You assume that people with lived/living experience need to suck it up and adjust to the “normativity” of events/holidays/gatherings that include alcohol and other drug use. You have never taken the time to explore why this is considered normal and have yet to critically examine why this is problematic.
How to do better: My dear friends had a birthday party a few weeks ago. As part of the invitation circulated to guests, they explained that some people will be drinking/using and some people will not. They asked that everyone bring their own beverages in unmarked containers, and suggested that nobody share or offer drinks/substances to anyone else in order to ensure nobody feels peer pressure. They also made a fancy non-alcoholic punch for everyone and listed the ingredients so each person could read and understand it was non-alcoholic without anyone having to ask and potentially out themselves. Wow, what amazing allyship! I’m so grateful for them.
Pitfall #2 You are a cheerleader for people with lived/living experience, but don’t partake in your own internal work around this topic.
To ensure you don’t regularly and unknowingly fall into stigma with a lowercase “s,” it’s important you do your own work.
Let’s be real here – we all have blind spots and biases – it’s part of being human.
Hence, it’s important we not only accept this, but take it a step further by actively participating in the lifelong learning and unlearning of those blind spots and biases. It is only when we recognize and acknowledge our own biases and assumptions that we are able to do something about them. Addiction is considered one of the most stigmatized health conditions in the world. This means that you and I both have biases in this area, and it is up to each of us to do something about them.
Here are a few examples of biased assumptions I’ve heard from allies just in the past few weeks. When reading the examples, you might consider the following: what is the bias/assumption here? How might this be harmful? What could this person do to address this bias?
- If people would just use less, they would be safer.
- Weed isn’t addictive so I just laugh when I hear people say they have a problem with it.
- Abstinence-based recovery is bullshit!
- I don’t know anything about this topic, so I’m just here to learn from you.
How to do better: I had one very amazing student openly admit their internal bias when professionals explain some people struggle with cannabis use. This willingness to acknowledge their own internal process, including bias they experience is a huge demonstration of active allyship. Not only is this difficult to do, it’s also an awareness that says, “Hey, I’m not perfect and I’m not claiming to be. I want to name this so I can begin to do better.” This person asked themselves the questions above and then actively sought out resources to learn more. They were also open to listening to the experiences of people who do struggle with cannabis use, which helped to shift their understanding. You go gurl!
Pitfall #3 You advocate for change in communities elsewhere, while ignoring what’s happening in your own backyard
I see this far too often in the university setting. There is a trend to focus on and talk about communities that faculty, staff, and students are not a part of – to want to go into those communities and save the day! Yet there are so many struggling right here in your own backyard. This goes largely unaddressed and ignored. I urge you to ask yourself why that is? Perhaps it is easier to focus on an issue that people feel more detached from – if the problem is happening over there, then I am safe in my bubble right here.
Thing is, the active choice to ignore your own backyard solidifies the fact that stigma will continue to operate all around you. Here are a few examples:
- University policies and procedures around substance use, addiction, and recovery are antiquated and oppressive. They contribute to isolation, marginalization, and lack of safety for students with lived/living experience.
- University classrooms and events are unsafe for students with lived/living experience of addiction and recovery.
- The accidental drug poisoning crisis has impacted the university population and has gone completely unacknowledged.
- Most students/faculty/staff who have lived/living experience remain closeted because university settings present real dangers should they out themselves.
How to do better: The examples above provide a starting place for allies in this community to begin educating themselves around the issues in their own backyard. The next step would be to find out what people with lived/living experience, who live/study/work in your own backyard are doing and simply ask them how you can help.
Pitfall #4 You embrace one component of the harm reduction+recovery spectrum, yet ignore the entirety of that spectrum
Unfortunately we live in a society that often pits harm reduction and recovery against one another. This is unproductive, inaccurate and perpetuates harm. Harm reduction is recovery and recovery is harm reduction. It is not up to you to decide what another human being needs or wants, it is up to you to understand that different people need/want different things, and to support the entirety of the needs/wants, regardless of your opinion about them.
I have been involved in countless meetings and conferences over the years where there is a focus on either harm reduction or recovery and the siloed thinking is really damaging the path forward.
How to do better: Refer back to Pitfall #2. You must reflect on your own personal stance on this issue and get filthy honest with yourself about why you are so adamant about meeting some people with lived/living experience where they are, and ostracizing the rest. In short, get out of your own way. Then, change your language. Talk about a spectrum of supports and services, and meeting every individual where they are Next, review the initiatives you’re involved in and ensure they are not perpetuating siloed thinking and action.
Pitfall #5 You make decisions about how to take action without centering the voices of people with lived/living experience as the leaders and decision-makers of said actions
Time and again, as part of the UBC Student Recovery Community, we have experienced faculty, staff, and students approaching us under the guise of “partnership.” At first glance, this offer seems harmless enough, supportive even. However what happens 9 times out of 10, is that the term “partnership” is actually a front for said faculty, staff, or student group wanting to check a box that reads “included people with lived/living experience in the creation and development of this presentation/event/technology/policy reformation.” The issue is that most of the decision-making process has already occurred without the input of our community. “Partners” hope we will endorse what has already been decided upon with no questions asked. This is called performative allyship and it’s not ok. Too many times, our community dedicates time, thought, and energy to provide “partners” with their requested feedback only to hear, “ok, well we’ll consider the changes you suggest, but we’re pressed for time” or “this is political so we have to do it this way” or “we wish we could have worked with you from the beginning, but it’s too late to change anything now.” Then the “partners” check their box and keep it moving as if the conversation with us never happened. This, my friends, is how policy, practice, and societal messaging keeps getting it wrong. To not engage (and compensate) people with experiential knowledge from the very beginning is a flawed approach and always will be.
How to do better: I was awestruck with admiration when the SRC received a message the other day from a student advocacy group whose goal is to address stigma on campus. The message was simple, “Hi there! We are here to help support the SRC in any way you deem appropriate. How can we help? What can we do to be useful?” This is how you go about allyship – as people with privilege and power in this situation, they understood how to operate in solidarity with a marginalized group.