The anxious enjoyment of poverty: drug addiction, panhandling, and the spaces of psychoanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation draws on fieldwork with drug-using panhandlers and interviews with social service providers to examine drug addiction and panhandling as social issues significant to poor and gentrifying neighbourhoods. I provide ethnographic accounts of both of these phenomena, beginning with drug users’ experiences of Vancouver’s current harm reduction drug policy initiatives, such as the Insite supervised injection site and methadone treatment programmes. In the second half of the dissertation, I provide a similar account of panhandling in the rapidly gentrifying Gastown area of the Downtown Eastside. The dissertation draws on this empirical research to offer a social-theoretical framework for understanding panhandling and drug addiction as social issues with the capacity to provoke visceral, emotional reactions on the part of those who encounter them and those who are charged with regulating them. Characterizing this reaction as one of anxiety, I trace a series of anxieties which permeate discourses on panhandling and drug addiction, from concerns with the pleasures of drug users to anxieties over what poor people do with their money. The dissertation seeks to resolve paradoxes within both of these social phenomena: How can we account for the anger, discomfort, and disgust that are provoked in people by issues that affect them so little? How can we explain people’s implacability to drug policy that is so empirically sound? And how can we understand people’s anxieties with panhandling encounters when the amounts of money concerned are so insignificant? Drawing a distinction between the manifest and latent content of these anxieties, I use psychoanalysis to argue that they cannot be understood without recourse to the unconscious. I argue that the discourses and public policy that concern drug use and panhandling are subtended by unconscious anxieties about the jouissance and the lack in the Other. Only when we consider the unconscious dimensions of these social phenomena can we understand the visceral, emotional reactions that panhandling and drug addiction regularly provoke.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".