Addiction, Inclusion & Exclusion — With Foucault and Goffman as Guides, Parsons and Luhmann as Companions

Teaser

I take today’s essay to a difficult intersection: addiction as a test of social inclusion and exclusion. Guided by Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman, with Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann alongside, I ask how societies like Germany can celebrate the Rausch (intoxication) in everyday life and yet expel people once the label “addicted” sticks. A recent DLF radio segment captured the paradox crisply: alcohol is cheap and omnipresent—the celebration is cultural—and the stigma can still push people to the margins.

Why inclusion/exclusion is the right lens

I read addiction not only as a health issue but as a social location. Who gets access to housing, work, credit, care, and dignity—and who is kept out? The answer depends on how we name the person (Foucault), how we mark the person (Goffman), which roles are available (Parsons), and how different function systems handle the case (Luhmann).

Foucault: Governing the “addicted subject”

Problematization. Addiction becomes governable when medicine, law, welfare, and media produce it as an object of knowledge. Diagnostic checklists, risk categories, and “compliance” audits do not just discover; they format lives (Foucault 1975/1977; Foucault 1976/1978).
Discipline & security. Prisons, some rehabs, and drug courts look disciplinary (routines, inspections), while harm reduction and pricing policies are security mechanisms that act on populations (Foucault 1975/1977; Foucault 1976/1978).
Confession & self-technologies. Assessment interviews and recovery testimonies are truth-producing practices that invite people to work on themselves—enabling care, but also setting thresholds that some cannot pass.

Inclusion/Exclusion insight: the same apparatus that offers help can sort people—those who perform the right truths are included; the non-compliant are excluded. (PenguinRandomhouse.com)

Goffman: Stigma, passing, and total institutions

Stigma “spoils” identity when a mark (diagnosis, police record, gossip) eclipses all other attributes (Goffman 1963).
People try passing, covering, or seeking own (peers) and wise (allies). Costs are uneven: some have resources to manage a spoiled identity; others do not.
Total institutions (hospitals, prisons, shelters) strip autonomy while promising protection. Re-entry often fails because stigma travels outside those walls.

Inclusion/Exclusion insight: exclusion is not a single gate; it’s a cascade—from bar ban to job loss to eviction to custody battles to legal sanctions. (Google Bücher)

Parsons: Sick role—permission and obligation

Parsons saw illness as a social role: temporary exemption from normal duties (permission) conditional on help-seeking and recovery (obligation). Addiction fits only partly: it’s chronic, relapsing, and moralized. When people cannot enact the “good patient,” the system flips from care to blame (Parsons 1951).

Inclusion/Exclusion insight: if the only legitimate path is “cure quickly and permanently,” many fall outside eligibility for sympathy, benefits, or time. (Taylor & Francis)

Luhmann: Function systems and structural couplings

For Luhmann, society consists of autonomous systems—law, health, welfare, economy, media—each with its own binary code (legal/illegal, healthy/ill, solvent/insolvent). A person with addiction meets different logics at once:

Health may signal “treatable,”
Law may signal “illegal,”
Economy may signal “unemployable,”
Media may signal “spectacular.”

Inclusion depends on how these systems couple (e.g., diversion to treatment vs. prosecution). Where coupling fails, people drift into exclusion zones (Luhmann 1995).

Inclusion/Exclusion insight: we must design the interfaces—so a legal event can activate care, not just punishment; so a welfare encounter can mobilize housing, not only sanctions. (Stanford University Press)

Germany’s “wet culture” paradox (my field note)

In everyday Germany, alcohol is normalized—from supermarket aisles to festivals. As the DLF expert observed, we celebrate the Rausch; yet once someone carries the mark “dependent,” social reactions quickly slide toward moralization: distance, denial of chances, sometimes punitive responses. I read this as a governance contradiction: we privatize risk in a culture of availability and then individualize failure when control breaks.

A sociological spiral of exclusion (working model)

Labeling (medical, legal, media) →
Resource loss (work, home, relationships) →
Administrative hurdles (proofs, waiting lists, sanctions) →
Identity squeeze (stigma → hiding → late help) →
Institutional cycling (hospital–street–cell–shelter).

Breaking the spiral requires counter-labels (person-first language), counter-losses (rapid housing, income stabilization), and counter-cycles (diversion, peer-led care). See also syntheses on stigma and inequality (Room 2005; Link & Phelan 2001). (diva-portal.org)

What inclusion would look like (principles I work with)

Harm reduction as default ethics. Safer use, easy naloxone, low-threshold care, non-punitive pregnancy pathways.
Housing first & recovery capital. Secure shelter, IDs, bank accounts, peer networks—before (not after) sobriety.
De-stigma by design. Person-first language, co-produced services, staff trained in confessional safety (tell your truth without penalty).
Function-system bridges. Protocols so a legal or hospital touchpoint automatically activates benefits, housing, and treatment slots.
Alcohol policy coherence. Align celebration with responsibility: curb cheap high-ABV promotions; protect alcohol-free spaces; support cultural alternatives to Rausch as the only social glue.

Method note (Grounded Theory)

I will code interviews and field materials against these frames—discipline/security (Foucault), stigma work (Goffman), role fit (Parsons), system couplings (Luhmann)—and revise the model as evidence accumulates. Each post is a public memo; the outline will grow with the project.

AI co-author disclosure

I collaborate with an AI co-author for outlining, synthesis, and draft polishing. I remain responsible for selection, verification, and argument. Any generative vignettes will be marked [HYPOTHESIS].

Sociology Brain Teasers (for seminar use)

Celebrate & Expel?
Germany normalizes Rausch (availability, rituals) yet stigmatizes “the addict.” Using Foucault (discipline/security) and Goffman (stigma), sketch a two-step mechanism that makes celebration and exclusion compatible.
Hint: Think “population-level permissiveness” + “individual compliance tests.”
Confession without Coercion
Intake interviews often demand detailed “truths.” Redesign three intake questions so they keep clinical usefulness but lower confessional pressure (Foucault) and face threat (Goffman).
Hint: Autonomy-supportive wording; optionality; person-first language.
Sick Role, Stuck Role
Does Parsons’ sick role fit a chronic, relapsing course? Propose two rule tweaks that turn it into an inclusion device instead of a gatekeeping device.
Hint: Replace “obligation to get well quickly” with staged recovery commitments.
System Codes in Collision
A person is caught with alcohol in a no-drink shelter after detox. Map how Law (legal/illegal), Health (ill/well), Welfare (eligible/ineligible) and Media (visible/invisible) might each code the event (à la Luhmann). Where can structural couplings prevent exclusion?
Hint: Automatic referral protocols; housing-first overrides.
Micro-Power at the Door
A bouncer denies re-entry after a visible relapse at a club. Identify one disciplinary micro-technique (Foucault) and one stigma management strategy available to the person (Goffman).
Hint: Timetable bans vs. “covering” with a sober companion.
From Label to Life Course
Draw a three-node “moral career” (Goffman/Becker) for alcohol dependence that either widens inclusion or accelerates exclusion—same first node, different second node. Name the institutional switch that flips the path.
Hint: Drug court → treatment diversion vs. fines → job loss.
Policy Paradox
Two municipalities both cut heavy drinking by 10%. City A raises minimum prices; City B intensifies public shaming. Who is more included afterward, and why? Argue with Foucault’s security vs. discipline and Goffman’s stigma.
Design an Anti-Exclusion Cue
Propose one sentence for a hospital discharge letter that simultaneously satisfies Parsons’ role expectations and softens Goffman-style identity threat.
Hint: Emphasize rights, next supports, and non-punitive follow-ups.

Literature & Links (APA)

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Free Press. (Monoskop)
Foucault, M. (1975/1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage/Penguin. Publisher page · Penguin UK. (PenguinRandomhouse.com)
Foucault, M. (1976/1978). The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. Vintage/Penguin. PRH page · Penguin UK. (PenguinRandomhouse.com)
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall/Simon & Schuster. Catalog record. (Google Bücher)
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press. Publisher page. (Stanford University Press)
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Free Press. Modern reprint (Routledge/T&F). (Taylor & Francis)
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. JSTOR entry. (JSTOR)
Room, R. (2005). Stigma, social inequality and alcohol & drug use. Drug and Alcohol Review, 24(2), 143–155. Repository record. (diva-portal.org)
Fraser, S., & Moore, D. (2011). The Drug Effect: Health, Crime and Society. Cambridge University Press. Publisher page. (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)

Publishable version of the prompt

“Good morning, let’s start with a WordPress article about addiction and social inclusion and exclusion — with Foucault and Goffman as guides for theory, and Parsons and Luhmann as companions. A few weeks ago on DLF Radio, an addiction expert said: alcohol is always available, and we celebrate alcohol and the Rausch. But as soon as someone bears the stigma of addiction, society — especially in Germany — often kicks him or her out, lets them down, even punishes them. Please write the article accordingly.”

Prüfprotokoll

Status: WordPress-ready v2.0 (with linked references + brainteasers + prompt).
Checks: Publisher-first links verified; theory claims aligned with cited sources.

Sociology of Addiction