Responsibility Assignment Narrative

The Responsibility Assignment Narrative (RAN) is a methodological framework initially outlined by Daniel Waterman and Casey William Hardison in their 2013 book Entheogens, Society & Law: Towards a Politics of Consciousness, Autonomy & Responsibility. This approach is particularly relevant for analyzing language and narratives surrounding drugs, their users, effects, social implications, and legal status, including drug policy and approaches to ameliorating drug-related harms.

Origins and context

Responsibility Assignment Narrative was first proposed in 2013 by Daniel Waterman and Casey William Hardison as they focused on the ethics and politics of disciplines and discourses involved in drug policy as well as other areas where moral judgment, beliefs, superstition and unstated interests impact Human Rights. The authors recognized a need to refine Critical Discourse methods to reveal the covert interests implicit in explanatory models of drug use and how these impact the interests of consciousness and Responsibility.

The authors argue that explanatory models expressive of beliefs and assumptions about causality and morality play an integral role in drug policy. This argument adopted from medical anthropology provides an incentive to examining the beliefs, assumptions, hypotheses and/or understandings that specify for a given problem it’s possible or probable causes, durations, modes of onset, pathologies, progressions and outcomes, thus implying possible interventions. (Waterman & Hardison, 2013). In Drug Policy: a Question of Responsibility the authors argue that explanatory models are often presented as predictive tools, even though they ‘are [rarely if ever] predictive of consequent behaviour’ or outcomes. (Waterman & Hardison 2013. p2.) They argue that a significant factor often overlooked by those considering the failure of drug policy is the general aim of deflecting or assigning responsibility away from the policy-makers and the ‘moral-majority.’ (Ibid). RAN can therefore play a crucial role in revealing how responsibility assignment undermines the aims of reducing drug related harm while infringing on the Human Rights of drug users and those inadvertently caught up in the "War on Drugs".

Relation to critical discourse analysis

RAN shares similarities with critical discourse analysis (CDA) in that both methodologies scrutinize the power dynamics and ideologies embedded within language. CDA, as described by Norman Fairclough and others, examines how discourse shapes and is shaped by societal structures of power and control. However, RAN distinguishes itself by focusing specifically on how responsibility is assigned within these narratives. It investigates the implications of attributing blame or credit in discussions about drugs and their societal impact.

Core principles

• Assigning Responsibility: RAN emphasizes the importance of clearly identifying who or what is responsible for the various aspects of drug use and its consequences. This includes understanding the roles of individuals, communities, institutions, and policies in shaping drug-related outcomes.
• Explicit vs. Implicit Responsibility: A critical aspect of RAN is making explicit the often implicit assignments of responsibility in discourse. When responsibility is not clearly articulated, it can undermine both individual self-regulation and collective efforts to mitigate harm.
• Empowerment through Clarity: By elucidating the assignments of responsibility, RAN seeks to empower individuals and communities. Clear responsibility assignments enhance the ability of drug users to make informed decisions and enable society to implement more effective harm reduction strategies.

Application in drug policy and harm reduction

In drug policy, the failure to explicitly assign responsibility can lead to misguided approaches that exacerbate harm. For instance, punitive measures often place the burden solely on drug users without addressing systemic issues such as social inequality, inadequate healthcare, and flawed legal frameworks. RAN advocates for a more nuanced understanding of responsibility that includes policymakers, healthcare providers, law enforcement, and society at large.

Here are three examples to illustrate the utility of Responsibility Assignment Narrative (RAN):

Distinctions between effects and outcomes

"The distinctions effect and outcome interpret causality with the aim of determining agency and moral responsibility. These interpretations then propose various actions or interventions. Thus, the differences between effect and outcome play a critical role in the balancing and differentiation of individual rights and collective responsibilities. Depending on how causality is interpreted, an individual may be held morally responsible for causing a given situation or may be considered an innocent bystander or even a victim, in which case responsibility devolves to the community as a whole" (p. 17).

This quote highlights how RAN explicitly examines the assignment of agency and moral responsibility. Unlike CDA, which generally focuses on how power and ideology are embedded in language, RAN provides a structured approach to discern who is held accountable in various scenarios. This precision in interpreting causality and responsibility makes RAN particularly useful for formulating policies and interventions aimed at balancing individual and collective responsibilities.

Complexities of assigning responsibility

"There is however a secondary responsibility relating to why the drug user took that particular drug, took too much, whether they were aware of what they were doing, the quality, potency or effects of the drug, etc., as well as to the extended circumstances surrounding drug use, including the user’s personal background (abuse, neglect, employment status, disability, mental health) and to social, economic and political conditions, e.g., racial abuse, social exclusion, education, employment prospects, health care, child support etc." (p. 19).

This quote illustrates the depth of analysis that RAN offers by considering multiple layers of responsibility. While CDA might identify the social and political contexts influencing discourse, RAN goes further by dissecting the reasons behind drug use and the multifaceted responsibilities of individuals and society. This holistic view is crucial for developing comprehensive harm reduction strategies and effective drug policies that address root causes rather than just symptoms.

Empowerment through interpretation

"When we acknowledge that meaning is something we create, it opens up a space in which we feel free to reconsider our interpretations, to adopt other more inspiring, empowering or meaningful ones, and in doing so we reclaim our responsibility and regain control of that part of our lives over which we have artistic license" (p. 23).

This quote emphasizes the empowering aspect of RAN by encouraging individuals to reinterpret their experiences and narratives. While CDA often focuses on revealing how discourse perpetuates power imbalances, RAN empowers individuals by making them aware of their capacity to reinterpret and reclaim responsibility. This empowerment is vital for enabling self-regulation and fostering personal and societal resilience against drug-related harms.

These examples underscore how RAN’s explicit focus on the assignment of responsibility and its multidimensional approach to analyzing causality and agency provide unique and valuable insights that extend beyond the scope of Critical Discourse Analysis.

Conclusion

The Responsibility Assignment Narrative offers a powerful lens for analyzing and improving discourse on drugs and their societal implications. By clearly assigning responsibility, it helps uncover the underlying assumptions and power dynamics that shape these narratives. This clarity is crucial for developing policies and practices that genuinely reduce drug-related harms and promote a more just and equitable society.

See also

• Drug policy reform