黑料网’s Wrong With The Word “Addict”?

The word addict has been around in English since at least the 1500s, adapted from the Latin addictus, meaning 鈥渁ssigned, surrendered.鈥� But the way we talk about people with addiction is changing, and here at Dictionary.com, we鈥檙e changing along with it.

In a major update to Dictionary.com, our lexicographers have replaced all instances of addict used as a noun with 鈥渁 person addicted to鈥� or a 鈥渉abitual user of.鈥� For example, we no longer define our second sense of user as 鈥渙ne who uses drugs, especially an abuser or addict.鈥� Our definition now reads: 鈥渁 person who is addicted to or abuses a controlled substance or alcohol; one who uses illegal or addictive drugs.鈥� These and other revisions have improved over 25 entries across our site.

Another big change? Our definition of addict as a noun, which dates back to the late 1800s, now labels that the word is sometimes offensive. We鈥檝e also added an extensive Sensitive Language Note to our revised entry for addict.

But why would a dictionary change a word that鈥檚 been around for centuries? The way we use language evolves鈥攁nd so does Dictionary.com. And when it comes to words around addiction, there鈥檚 been a lot of evolution in recent years.

Why calling someone an addict is harmful

鈥淒rug and alcohol addiction was historically considered a moral failing, demonstrating a weakness of character,鈥� explains Dictionary.com Lexicographer Heather Bonikowski. 鈥淭his disparaging connotation persists in the nouns addict and alcoholic, in spite of our evolving modern understanding of the problem.鈥�

Bonikowski specifically notes alcoholic for reason. She led the implementation of our changes to addict in parallel with revisions to the sometimes offensive noun alcoholic, which we now define as 鈥渁 person with alcoholism or alcohol use disorder; a person addicted to intoxicating drinks.鈥�

From disparaging slang and informal expressions to technical terms, English has many words for people who鈥攚hile they may not have alcohol use disorder, another new entry in our dictionary鈥攁re habitual drinkers of alcohol. Words used for these people, like lush or dipsomaniac, have been historically glossed using the noun alcoholic; we revised our definitions of these terms to be in line with whole-person language.

Using words like addict to refer to people has become increasingly stigmatizing, Jess Keefe, a Senior Editor with , tells Dictionary.com. Shatterproof is a national nonprofit focused on educating the public on the disease of addiction.

鈥淭here鈥檚 a lot of disdain for the people we call addicts,鈥� Keefe says, 鈥淚t鈥檚 the only medical condition where you鈥檙e criminalized for what your body does.鈥�

That鈥檚 what the noun addict has come to connote to most English speakers: 鈥渃riminal,鈥� 鈥減roblem.鈥� And to the people who are facing addiction, hearing themselves described as nothing more than an addict can be extremely dehumanizing.

鈥淵ou start to believe it; you start to internalize it,鈥� Keefe says. 鈥淚f people don鈥檛 believe they can get better, they won鈥檛.鈥�

Changing societal perception of substance-use disorders means changing the language surrounding the topic of addiction, and as the updates to Dictionary.com show, that鈥檚 happening.

How doctors helped drive dictionary changes聽聽

Providing insight into the complex nature of addiction, Bonikowski explains: 鈥淎ddiction is the complicated result of genetic predisposition intersecting with dysfunctional behavior, neurochemical modification, environmental factors, and social influences. Many major medical associations treat addiction as a disease, in part because it is a chronic condition that is demonstrably present in a person鈥檚 neurophysiology.鈥�

Dictionary.com鈥檚 updates reflect the change in language surrounding addiction has been led in large part by medical practitioners. In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association published its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM鈥�5) with new language that removed the words abuse and dependence in relation to addictive (and often illegal) substances.

In 2017, the director of the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy directed all federal agencies to adjust both internal and external communications to . Organizations from the American Medical Association to the American Society of Addiction Medicine have made similar calls to their membership to adopt non-stigmatizing language for all communications (written and spoken) about addiction.

Newsrooms are doing their part, too

Changes have been recorded on a cultural level too. In 2017, the Associated Press (AP) added a new entry to its AP Stylebook鈥攁n English grammar style and usage guide used by thousands of publications across the country鈥攖hat includes guidance to avoid the use of words such as abuse, problem, abuser, and addict.

In their new entry, AP editors note: 鈥淢any researchers and organizations, including the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the International Society of Addiction Journal Editors, agree that stigmatizing or punitive-sounding language can be inaccurate by emphasizing the person, not the disease; can be a barrier to seeking treatment; and can prejudice even clinicians.鈥�

Individual newsrooms have been following suit. In spring 2018, the Philadelphia Media Network, which includes the Inquirer, Daily News, and Philly.com, put its own kibosh on use of the word addict as a noun. The move was in part due to the AP鈥檚 recommendations and in part because of requests by local health officials, Assistant Managing Editor David Sullivan tells Dictionary.com. With proximity to the so-called 鈥淧harmaceutical Belt,鈥� in addition to the effects of the country鈥檚 opioid crisis in the greater Philly area, an increasing amount of column inches are being devoted to issues of addiction鈥攁nd that meant making a choice on how to codify language for reporters.

The Philadelphia Media Network鈥檚 style guide leaves room for the use of addict in quotes or usage by those who want to self-identify as addict, but it makes a general rule for writers to 鈥渦se a phrase that respects the individual as a person who is not defined by being addicted 鈥� a person in (or with) addiction, an addicted person, and the like.鈥�

And it鈥檚 not just editors and copyeditors: many writers, notably food writers, are also transforming how they characterize foods. Based on the guidance of health experts, these writers are no longer casually describing extremely delicious foods鈥攖he sorts of聽 grub you just can鈥檛 resist noshing鈥攁s addictive or like crack, as such terminology make light of addictions.

黑料网 is person-first language?

The switch from calling a person an addict to constructions like a person addicted to, habitual user, a person with an addiction, and someone facing addiction are in line with what鈥檚 called person-first language.

Person-first language puts the human being ahead of their diagnosis. Person-first language has been around for decades, with its champions arguing that it prevents the dehumanizing of people that comes with limiting discussion about them to a disease or condition.

For example, it鈥檚 preferred to refer to a person with a physical disability鈥攏ot a quadrapalgeic, which reduces a whole person to their disability. But speaking of preferences, it鈥檚 always advisable to ask a person, if you can, how they prefer to refer to themselves.

Its application extends beyond addiction, with the Centers for Disease Control and similar organizations when talking about (or addressing) people with a range of health conditions and disabilities. A person with cerebral palsy, for example, is a use case that is encouraged, while calling someone a CP victim has been determined to be offensive and disparaging.

The Special Olympics has long been a proponent of person-first language in its campaign to end the usage of the replacing it with more inclusive language that references a person with intellectual disabilities.

Why whole-person language matters

Changing the language of addiction and replacing words like addict with more human, holistic, and person-first descriptors is a good thing to do, but does it make a difference?

Yes, according to science.

In 2010, Harvard Medical School Professor John Kelly conducted two studies to test a theory that exposure to specific terms associated with addiction affect our unconscious biases. In one, Kelly worked with health clinicians, and in another he worked with the general public, presenting each group to descriptions of someone facing a substance-use disorder. In some descriptions, the person was referred to as a 鈥渟ubstance abuser,鈥� while in others, they were described as having a 鈥渟ubstance-use disorder.鈥�

The findings were even more conclusive and impactful than Kelly anticipated.

鈥淚n that study with mental-health clinicians and one that followed with the general-public sample, we found that the 鈥榓buser鈥� terminology evoked more negative, punitive, blaming attitudes toward individuals suffering from substance-related conditions than the term 鈥榮ubstance-use disorder鈥�,鈥� Kelly tells Dictionary.com. 鈥淭he implications of these findings struck me as being very important given how stigma prevents people from seeking help, and we found that the language we use can systematically bias someone鈥檚 viewpoint toward that individual increasing stigma and discrimination.鈥�

As a result of his study, Kelly helped the Recovery Research Institute to create what鈥檚 called the , a database of addiction-related terms to help both clinicians and the general public find the right words to use when talking about addiction.

So, what鈥檚 the final word on the word addict? Here鈥檚 what the 鈥淎ddictionary鈥� has to say:

Don鈥檛 say addict. Describe them as 鈥渁 person with, or suffering from, addiction or substance use disorder.鈥�

After all, a person is a person. They鈥檙e more than 鈥渏ust an addict.鈥�

 

Revisions to addict and alcoholic are a big part of our major dictionary update, but they are only one part. Discover what else is new in our article, 鈥淒ictionary.com Releases Its Biggest Update Ever.鈥�