From (in)dependence to interdependence

A qualitative study on multiplicity in assemblages of agency and addiction recovery

Bibliographic Data

ID7787759
AuthorsFlorian De Meyer (0000-0002-0394-9145, Ghent University, corresponding author), G Roets (0000-0003-0746-998X, Ghent University), Wouter Vanderplasschen (0000-0001-6513-4243, Ghent University), Clara De Ruysscher (0000-0001-8601-1875, Ghent University)
Year2025
Volume29
Issue6
Pages876-896
Publication date2025-05-22
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1363-4593 • E-ISSN: 1461-7196
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/13634593251342997
PMID40402153
OpenAlexW4410594383
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited45

The concept of agency in substance use recovery remains contested, positioned between deficit-based models emphasizing dependence and recovery paradigms highlighting personal strengths and capacities. However, the latter approach has faced criticism for individualizing responsibility, overemphasizing independence, and promoting normative notions of citizenship. This is particularly visible in the context of recovery without treatment. Commonly referred to as “natural recovery,” many people recover without engaging with formal addiction treatment or mutual aid. This study explores the lives of individuals in recovery without treatment, using an assemblage perspective to capture its complexity and relational nature. Eighteen in-depth interviews with participants in recovery without treatment from alcohol and/or other drug problems were conducted following the lifeline interview method. Transcripts were analyzed using reflective thematic analysis informed by assemblage theory. Two overarching themes emerged: (1) “agency while losing and gaining control,” illustrating addiction as an ambivalent aspect of subjectivity that both enables and constrains; and (2) “agency, multiplicity, and emergence,” demonstrating how agency operates within dynamic assemblages of shifting elements and forces, rather than as a fixed state. Our findings imply an understanding of agency as interdependent and emergent within multiplicities. Hence, we argue that recovery and the influential strengths-based concept of recovery capital should be cautious of simplifying practices that risk reproducing individualist and normative notions of recovery. We discuss recovery as a practice of freedom and identify avenues for further research

Epistemology · Normative · Political science · Social science · Sociology · Law · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Psychology · Schizophrenia research and treatment · Social Psychology · Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access