Cognitive enhancing drug use amongst students in (neoliberal) higher education: a functional response

Abstract

Over the past number of decades there has been an increasing amount of literature and media attention concerning the use of cognitive enhancing drugs (CEDs), particularly by higher education students. This increased interest in the use of CEDs by contemporary higher education students, has seemingly coincided with the spread of neoliberalism, principally in the West, into every sphere of the social environment, including higher education. Accordingly, along with the trend in wider enhancement drug use, the use of CEDs by higher education students and the apparent significance of neoliberalism to this drug trend, requires innovative theoretical developments in the area of drugs and drug use. Certainly, the use of CEDs by higher education students does not neatly fit within dominant, established drug use theories, often developed in accordance with medical perspectives, which frequently individualise, pathologize and stigmatise, via the subsequent positioning of drug users within dichotomic binaries, such as, the prevailing recreational or problematic, dichotomic binary. Therefore, this paper draws on the author’s qualitative research, to establish an innovative, ‘Functional Response Framework’ for augmenting understandings of CED use by students in higher education. In addition, a Functional Response Framework can make a significant contribution to advancing theoretical understandings of drug use, more broadly.

Keywords:

• Cognitive enhancing drugs
• higher education
• students
• neoliberalism
• theoretical developments
• drug use

1. Introduction

This paper, by drawing on data from the author’s study, will seek to expand theoretical understandings of alcohol and other drug use, by hypothetically demonstrating the ways in which ideological, discursive shifts, have been significantly influential to contemporary cognitive enhancing drug (CED) use amongst students in higher education. Suppositionally, this would be the predominant neoliberal ideology (Aikins, 2019; Keane, 2011; Mann, 2021) and its key characteristics, competition, and entrepreneurialism (Dardot & Laval, 2017; Davies, 2017; Foucault, 1979; Harvey, 2007), embedded in discourse. Accordingly, via the presentation of data examples from the author’s qualitative research, this paper will set-out a ‘Functional Response Framework’ for conceptualising CED use by students in higher education.

This theoretical framework is developed via the combination of two qualitative methods. Firstly, Netnography (Kozinets, 2015), which is the collection and analysis of data on public online (student CED related) forums and secondly, fifteen semi-structured face-to-face interviews with (UK) higher education student participants who had experience of using CEDs. Netnographic data was collected between 2019 and 2021, from a range of public student CED related forums, dating back to circa 2006 (the data examples presented in this paper, are taken from forums established between 2014 and 2019). The face-to-face interviews were conducted in 2019, pre Covid-19 pandemic. The data gathered via each of the respective methods, was analysed and interpreted using NVivo software, in accordance with the interdisciplinary, Dialectical Relational Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 2010). Ethical clearance for the research, was granted by Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.

A Functional Response Framework for understanding contemporary higher education student CED use, will significantly aid in shifting the emphasis of other drug use, to a greater extent from dominant, individualistic medical perspectives, to ideological, discursive conditions in a given, socio-historical moment; a perspective that remains largely at the periphery of dominant drug use theory and discourse (DeGrandpre, 2006; Dilkes-Frayne et al., 2017). This is important not only in terms of nuance, but also, as dominant medical perspectives have been pivotal in the flourishing of dichotomic drug binaries, such as, ‘good’ or ‘bad’ drugs (Tupper, 2012), ‘controlled’ or ‘uncontrolled’ drug use, and the, ‘recreational’ or ‘problematic’ binary (Askew & Williams, 2021; Booth-Davies, 1997, 1998; Decorte, 2001; Moore et al., 2017; Pienaar et al., 2017), within which, HE student CED use does not neatly fit (Askew & Williams, 2021).

Furthermore, dominant dichotomic drug binaries, underpinned by the discursive supremacy of (neoliberal) medical perspectives, ostensibly decontextualise, individualise and pathologize, subsequently producing subject positions within which, negative stereotypes can flourish, often resulting in the public stigmatisation, of many drug users (Herzog, 2016; Keane, 2002; Moore et al., 2017). For example, the negative stereotyping of Heroin users—the ‘addict junkie’: a morally flawed, sick individual, who lacks self-control (Askew & Williams, 2021; Moore et al., 2017). Moreover, negative stereotypes and public stigmatisation, can often result in extremely negative outcomes at the level of the individual (e.g. see, Schomerus et al., 2011; Matthews et al., 2017; Witham et al., 2020). Therefore, framing higher education student CED use in terms of a functional response, will make a valuable and substantial contribution to addressing the necessity for innovative theoretical developments in the field of wider drug use.

Crucially, innovative theoretical developments which challenge the supremacy of reductionist, individualising medical perspectives, dichotomic drug binaries, and hence, the pathologizing, negative stereotyping, and public stigmatisation of particularly, ‘illicit’ or ‘problematic’ drug users, within popular drug discourse (Askew & Williams, 2021; Herzog, 2016; Keane, 2002; Moore et al., 2017). Hence, innovative, nuanced theoretical advances should be considered as vital, not only in terms of softening public and institutional perceptions of, and attitudes towards, (‘problematic’) drug users, augmenting positive outcomes at the level of the individual, but also, for the development of increasingly progressive and possibly more effective, drug policy and practice. Indeed, there are several scholars who have worked to make nuanced theoretical elaborations in the field (e.g. see, Measham et al., 1994; Alexander, 2012; Keane, 2021), in an attempt to effect positive change. However, it should be stressed that, theoretical advances in the field do not necessarily translate into positive changes in perceptions around (problematic) drug use/users or result in progressive policy decisions at the level of government (Stevens, 2019).

2. Cognitive enhancing drugs (CEDs)

CEDs, also known as ‘Smart Drugs’, ‘Study Drugs’, Pharmacological Neuroenhancers, or ‘Nootropics’¹, form part of the wider human enhancement category of drugs (McVeigh et al., 2012). Human enhancement drugs are a class of drugs used primarily, as technologies for ‘self-improvement’ (Coveney et al., 2019; Van de Ven et al., 2019). Human enhancement drugs can be classified into six specific categories: drugs that are targeted towards, enhancing muscle structure and function; weight loss; cosmetic appearance; sexual behaviour; mood and social behaviour; and cognitive function (Evans-Brown et al., 2012, p. 10). Certainly, as Coveney et al. (2019, p. 320) make clear, about CEDs, ‘[…] motivations for use are configured in terms of the ‘improvement’ or ‘enhancement’ of cognitive capabilities in a way that benefits workplace performance’. Moreover, CEDs are most popularly associated with students in higher education, for improving academic performance and thus potentially, academic outcomes (Aikins, 2019; Askew & Williams, 2021; Cakic, 2009; Mann, 2021; Vargo & Petróczi, 2016); hence the term, ‘Study Drugs’ (Sharif et al., 2021).

The drugs most popularised as CEDs are pharmaceutical stimulant drugs obtained and used without a prescription, such as, Methylphenidate (Ritalin), Dextroamphetamine Salts (Adderall), and Modafinil (e.g. Provigil, Modalert) (Askew & Williams, 2021; Cakic, 2009; Mann, 2021; Vargo & Petróczi, 2016). However, there are a wide range of synthetic and naturally occurring substances that are considered cognitively enhancing and thus, also used as CEDs (Coveney et al., 2019). Therefore, it should be stressed that, the boundaries between what constitutes a CED, and what does not, are extremely blurred (Askew & Williams, 2021; Bell & Figert, 2012; Coveney et al., 2019; Hope et al., 2021; Keane, 2011). Indeed, arguably it is not a specific drug that defines a CED, but more the ascribed meaning, motivations, consumption regime, context, and desired outcomes of the user (Askew & Williams, 2021; Hope et al., 2021). For instance, drugs that produce stimulant effects, increase wakefulness, or memory enhancement; or, conversely, drugs that produce anxiolytic or relaxant type effects (Askew & Williams, 2021), such as, Benzodiazepines or Beta-Blockers, enabling the user to overcome the stress of exams for example, to function during exams, at an optimal level (Mann, 2021; Schermer, 2008). In addition, the emerging trend in microdosing psychedelic drugs (Cameron et al., 2020), such as Psylocibin (‘magic mushrooms’), could also be classified as CED use (Liokaftos, 2021). If undertaken by higher education students, a motivation for this drug practice might be to enhance creativity, during essay writing, for instance. Although, it should be stressed that, there is not yet enough available evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of microdosing, with several studies indicating strong placebo, concerning the positive effects (e.g. see Kaertner et al., 2021).

Therefore, it is crucial to point out that, given the blurring around what constitutes a CED there are subsequent methodological challenges that occur when attempting to research CEDs (Arria & Wish, 2006). For example, determining prevalence of CEDs amongst higher education students is extremely difficult, as evidenced by available data, which is often wide ranging—anywhere from between 5% and 35% (e.g. see Weyandt et al., 2018). Furthermore, although there are a growing number of studies from other parts of the world, many studies demonstrating prevalence come mostly from the US and are thus focused on US student groups (Mann, 2021), which also adds to the difficulties in providing an increasingly accurate picture in terms of overall prevalence. Another important consideration is whether CED use is a particularly new phenomenon (Ilieva & Farah, 2013; Lucke et al., 2011), or indeed, as Lucke et al. (2011) argue, that increased interest in the use of CEDs, specifically prescription stimulants, has created an ‘neuroenhancement bubble’ and that the use of CEDs by higher eduction students is largely overstated.

The presented knowledge raises an important question—why has there been a significant interest in CED use (by higher education students) over the past two-to-three decades and the so-called creation of an ‘neuroenhancement bubble’ (Lucke et al., 2011)? The author hypothesises that an aspect of this ‘neuroenhancement bubble’ is due to the role of the prevailing neoliberal ideology and its key characteristics, particularly, competition and entrepreneurialism (Dardot & Laval, 2017; Davies, 2017; Foucault, 1979; Harvey, 2007). Accordingly, the following section will discuss some important traits of neoliberalism, specifically the key characteristics, competition and entrepreneurialism, and the ways in which these have been pivotal in reshaping higher education, and thus, the use of CEDs amongst contemporary students.

3. Neoliberalism and contemporary Higher Education

Put simply, neoliberalism in essence, is born out of economics and is the revitalisation and modernisation of classical liberalism; a response to the 1930s economic crash, the rise of fascism and the ensuing, apparent flaws in the mid-twentieth century Keynesian economic order (Davies, 2014, 2017; Harvey, 2007). However, as Dardot and Laval (2017, p. 1) make clear, ‘neoliberalism has generally been interpreted both as an ideology and as an economic policy directly informed by that ideology.’ As with classical liberalism, the core principle of neoliberalism is that the market is identified as being a naturally occurring reality, which if left unimpeded by the state, or notions of universal morality, ensures society can maintain equilibrium, and progress, whilst preserving individual freedoms and thus, a free society (Dardot & Laval, 2017; Davies, 2017).

Hence, neoliberalism posits that human behaviour can be reduced to and understood by, ongoing analysis of market trends and forces, which thus reveals the authentic reality of human existence. Therefore, neoliberal ideology renders universal claims to truth that sit outside of economic calculation, such as, normative ethics rooted in the metaphysical—how one ‘ought’ to act according to ethical standards as set out by religion, for instance—as obsolete (Davies, 2017). As a result, political decisions grounded in normative ethics, are replaced by judgements that are formed purely through economic calculation (Davies, 2017). Accordingly, neoliberal societies and their institutions, such as higher education, are entirely organised around the values of the free market (Becker et al., 2021; Canella & Koro-Ljungberg, 2017; Maisuria & Cole, 2017).

Now, key to ensuring that the free market can maintain equilibrium and societal progress whilst preserving individual freedoms and thus a free society, is competition; competition is held as being the defining feature of human social relations (Hirsch, 1998; Jessop, 2002). Whilst classical liberal thinkers considered competition as an evolutionary, organic component of markets, early neoliberals², such as Hayek (2001), recognised that unregulated competition ultimately led to corporate monopolisation. Therefore, competition would cease, and corporate totalitarianism would emerge, which would undermine notions of the free individual and a free society. Hence, in contrast to classical liberalism, neoliberal ideology emphasises the importance of maintaining competition, specifically, fairness in competition at the outset. Maintaining fairness in competition at the outset requires rules and boundaries, which thus necessitates legislative action, planning, and design, which should be the primary purpose of the state, and other local, or global institutions (Davies, 2017).

Crucially, Davies (2017) points out that competition under neoliberalism is subsequently paradoxical—fairness in competition at the outset, to achieve inequality in terms of outcomes—there will inevitably be winners and losers in a fair competition, bounded by a set of established rules. Therefore, competition under neoliberalism commands ‘competitors’ to consistently develop their skills, to augment the probability that they can be winners Moreover, the risk of losing, ‘[…] commands competitors to interpret the rules in a purely self-interested fashion, to […] maximise advantage over the ‘enemy’, ultimately to survive.’ (Davies, 2017, p. 69). Consequently, an essential entrepreneurial spirit is liberated within ‘competitors’ and stimulated further through the free market economy (Mann, 2021) (the above will be illustrated and discussed in section 5). As Foucault (1979) reasoned, entrepreneurialism therefore develops as a style of self-governance, reconstituting individuals in neoliberal societies as, ‘income producing abilities machines’ (Foucault, 1979, p. 226).

Likewise, given that higher education has been reorganised around market-based principles (Adcroft & Willis, 2005), contemporary (neoliberal) higher education students have been reconstituted as competitive consumers (Adcroft et al., 2010), perpetuating an instrumental value system in HE (Saunders, 2007). As a result, higher educaton has been reshaped under neoliberalism into an increasingly individualistic, competitive pedagogic environment (Adcroft et al., 2010). This mirrors and serves the hegemonic interests of wider, powerful actors in neoliberal society—corporate, political, etc—(Gray et al., 2018; Saunders, 2007) and has aided in augmenting the pressures and stresses faced by students to succeed, in perpetual competition with their peers (Saunders, 2007). Indeed, as Houghton (2017) argues, the neoliberal, social and political narrative frames students as, ‘[…] being individually responsible […] for their own futures and their employment prospects, especially their own human capital.’ (Houghton, 2017, p. 7). Hence, there is an indication of increased pressure and stress exerted on students that also extends beyond university, for instance, the pressure to get a first class, or high 2:1 degree, in the hope of gaining a more lucrative job role post university (Astin, 1998; Saunders, 2007), in what is an increasingly competitive and unequal labour market, under neoliberalism (Davies, 2014).

Therefore, the neoliberalisation of higher education and the subsequent social and political narrative reframing of students, resulting in an indication that there is increased pressure and stress to achieve success at university, has hypothetically energised the afore-mentioned entrepreneurial spirit in students. This energised entrepreneurial spirit is theoretically exemplified in terms of CED use by some students, where they seek out and use CEDs, motivated by the possibility of gaining a competitive advantage over their peers and furthermore, as a means of entrepreneurially enhancing their human capital (Houghton, 2019). Bound up with this, is a notion of levelling up the competitive arena in higher education; whereby, some students could be motivated to use CEDs due to perceived, already established, and tolerated inequalities, such as, biological, socio-economic, or cultural disparities, which have been magnified further under neoliberalism (Aikins, 2019; Cakic, 2009) (all of which will be illustrated and discussed further in section 5).

Having discussed some important traits of neoliberalism and the ways in which neoliberalism has been pivotal in reshaping higher education to serve neoliberal, hegemonic interests and thus hypothetically, to the trend in CED use amongst contemporary higher education students, the following section will afford a brief outline of a Dialectical Relational Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 2010), which directed the author’s qualitative research methods. As detailed previously, given the ways in which definitions of CEDs are extremely blurred, and the ongoing debates concerning the phenomenon, resulting in myriad methodological problems (Arria & Wish, 2006), it is perhaps beneficial to consider CEDs chiefly, in terms of discourse. Indeed, critically analysing discourse, through the narrative accounts of higher educaton student CED users, rather than being overly concerned with the specific drugs used, for example, negates many of the methodological issues detailed elsewhere in the literature (e.g. see Arria & Wish, 2006). Moreover, given that the author hypothesised at the outset, a possible link between neoliberalism and cognitive enhancing drug use amongst contemporary higher education students, determined that other qualitative methodologies, such as Grounded Theory, would not suffice in terms of directing the research methods. That’s not to say the theory was conceived before data collection, analysis, and interpretation, merely that the author initially hypothesised a possible link between contemporary higher education student CED use and neoliberalism.

4. A dialectical relational approach to critical discourse analysis

A Dialectical Relational Approach is a research strategy within Critical Discourse Analysis accredited to Norman Fairclough, with the core theoretical attractors being Michel Foucault and Karl Marx (Wodak & Meyer, 2016, p. 18). For Fairclough (2010), Critical Discourse Analysis in its entirety, is founded upon the perspective that semiosis (the process of signification in language or literature) is an intricate component of all material social processes. For example, social relations, institutions, power, belief systems and cultural values are each characteristically, in part, semiotic (Fairclough, cited in Wodak & Meyer, 2016, p. 87).

Furthermore, Fairclough (2010) observes social life as being interconnected networks of diverse social practices: economic, political, cultural, familial, etc. For Fairclough, the concept of social practice is crucial, as it enables for the fluctuation between the standpoint of social structure and that of social action and individual agency. By social practice, Fairclough is referring to reasonably constant systems of [social] activity; for example, family rituals such as mealtimes, classroom teaching practices, standard workplace behaviours, medical consultations and thus, drug use practices or behaviours, such as cognitive enhancing drug use by higher education students. Each social practice is an expression of various social elements within a constant formation. Along with discourse, other social elements expressed in social practice include activities (e.g. CED use), subjects (e.g. student CED users) and their relations, instruments, objects (e.g. CEDs), time and place (e.g. CEDs used by students in the context of academia, at specific times, such as during exams and essay writing) and forms of consciousness (e.g. subjectivities shaped around the principles of the neoliberal ideology). Importantly, these social elements are dialectically correlated; in that, although different, they are not distinct or isolated elements. Therefore, there is an interconnectedness between these elements and the impression that each affects the others, though not being exclusively reducible to them. Hence, Fairclough’s Dialectical Relational Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis concerns the analysis of the dialectical relations between discourses (Fairclough, 2010).

Furthermore, a Dialectical Relational Approach is particularly concerned with radical changes that occur in social life and the role of discourse within such processes of change; for example, the role of discourse in the process of change concerning forms of drug use, such as, the contemporary trend in (student) cognitive enhancing drug use. Additionally, a Dialectical Relational Approach is interested in alterations in the relations between semiosis and other social elements, positioned within the networks of diverse practices (Fairclough, 2010). However, Fairclough (2010) stresses that the degree to which discourse functions in social practices should not be automatically assumed, the role of discourse may be more or less apparent in a given practice, or set of practices, than in others and furthermore, may change over time. Such a change over time could potentially be observed when considering student CED use in comparison to traditional (‘recreational’) student drug use. Certainly, it could be argued that discourse in the practice of student CED use, has been a recognisable alteration over time, to that of traditional (‘recreational’) student drug use, wrought by shifts in wider ideological forces—the shift towards neoliberalism, for instance (Aikins, 2019; Keane, 2011; Mann, 2021). Therefore, Fairclough insists that the degree to which discourse appears and functions in practices, should be demonstrated via ongoing appropriate analysis (Fairclough, 2010).

In addition, according to Fairclough (2010), discourse functions in social practices largely, in three ways. Firstly, discourse is a dimension of the social activity, in a social practice. For example, consider an employment role; an element of the role involves using language in a particular way that is specific to that given role; for instance, the language of a secretary, a builder, or a shop assistant (Fairclough, 2010). Likewise, the use of specific language is involved in the role of being a student, or indeed, a student CED user. Secondly, discourse features as a dimension in representations; during their activity within a practice, [social] actors reproduce representations of other practices (Fairclough, 2010). Put another way, [social] actors recontextualise other practices, in that, they integrate them into their particular practice; for instance, the practice of drug use, has been recontextualized by some students, into CED use, whilst in the practice of academic work; for instance, in terms of drug taking practices and drug taking regimes. Furthermore, other practices will be represented differently, contingent upon the positioning of individual [social] actors within the situation (Fairclough, 2010).

In addition, there is another crucial dimension to the concept of representation, which Fairclough terms, ‘imaginaries’ (Fairclough, 2010, p. 3). Whereas the discursive representations discussed previously concern how things are now and how things have been, imaginaries are abstract representations of how things could possibly be, might be, or should be; put another way, imaginaries are analogous to projections. For example, considered this way, the facts or ‘knowledges’ of neoliberalism or neoliberal society are imaginaries; they are projections of potential realities, or conceivable states. Likewise, with regards to the notion of social practice, imaginaries project possible social practices and indeed, possible networks of social practices. According to Fairclough, imaginaries in terms of the projection of possible social practices and networks of social practices, is the, ‘[…] possible syntheses of activities, subjects, social relations, instruments, objects, spacetimes, […] values, forms of consciousness.’ (Fairclough, 2010, p. 3). Moreover, such imaginaries may be enacted (Fairclough, 2010); hence, it is possible to envisage the ways in which the imaginaries of neoliberalism have intersected with the imaginaries of drug use, projecting possible innovative social practices and networks of drug use; in this instance, student CED use, which has subsequently, been enacted.

A simple example of representation in relation to CEDs, would be that their use is merely the reframing and representing by social actors of other drugs, into another form of drug use. Accordingly, if a student is using a pharmaceutical drug such as Modafinil for the purpose of cognitive enhancement, the use of Modafinil has been reframed from a medicine, and represented as a CED, as the collective, interconnected discursive representations, integral to the role of student and CED user, penetrates and shapes the discursive representations and practice around Modafinil use. Hence, all forms of representation penetrate and subsequently shape social practices and are therefore, a fundamental mechanism in the social construction of practices and the reflexive construction of the self (Fairclough, 2010). Certainly, for Fairclough, discourse is a dimension in identity formation, for example, the identity of a celebrity, or political figure (Fairclough, 2010). Likewise, the ‘student’, or ‘CED user’ identities, or indeed, a combination of these identities, the interconnectedness of which, forms a further identity—‘student CED user’—are comparatively, semiotically established ways of being.

In addition, another key function of discourse, for Fairclough, as a dimension of social activity, is that discourse constitutes what Fairclough terms, genres (Wodak & Meyer, 2016). Genres are different ways of acting semiotically, such as, conversations, business or political meetings, student seminars, or media commentaries, which thus produce, social life (Fairclough, 2010). For example, a genre to consider in terms of CED use by students in higher education, would be conversations around CED use, by students on, online, CED related forums, which aids in producing the social life concerning higher education student CED use. Likewise, the face-to-face (CEDs) interview research scenario can be considered a genre, as it is a way of acting semiotically, which aids in producing social life via the conversation between researcher and participant. Therefore, from the author’s perspective, researchers are also complicit in the production of discourse, via the face-to-face interview scenario and the collaborative interpretation of data, for instance. Accordingly, interestingly, Fairclough’s (2010) Dialectical Relational Approach and the concept of genres producing social life (within the context of neoliberalism), could hypothetically be drawn upon to account for the ‘neuroenhancement bubble’, speculated by Lucke et al. (2011), which future studies in the area, could perhaps explore.

The above brief overview of a Dialectical Relational Approach demonstrates the ways in which this approach to CDA is extremely useful in conceptualising the current trend in (student) CED use. Therefore, directed by a Dialectical Relational Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis, the following section will provide data examples taken from the author’s qualitative research, to explore the hypothesis concerning the discursive role of neoliberalism and the key characteristic, of competition, and the entrepreneurial subject position, in contemporary HE student CED use.

5. CED Use by contemporary HE students: neoliberalism, competition, and entrepreneurialism

To explore the hypothetical role of neoliberal ideology in contemporary higher education student CED use, specifically, the key characteristics of competition, and the entrepreneurial subject position, the following will detail and discuss data examples taken from both the Netnography and semi-structured, face-to-face interviews of the author’s study. Netnographic data collection and analysis was commenced prior to the semi-structured, face-to-face interviews, so that pertinent themes and issues that emerged from the Netnography could be identified. Therefore, the Netnography informed, structured, and focused the interviews, where relevant themes and topics could be clarified and probed further. Of course, it should be stressed that, given that the author directed the interviews, focusing on the themes and issues established via the Netnography, this could potentially have influenced the discourse that emerged. For example, in terms of focusing on the theme of competition in higher education and the associated issues. Following guidance set out by Sigiura (2016), all participant names, pseudonyms, and internet forum sources (in terms of the Netnography), have been omitted due to ethical considerations concerning specifically, anonymity and confidentiality. Hence, individual Netnography ‘participants’ are referred to as, Forum User 1, Forum User 2, etc; whilst face-to-face interview participants are referred to as, Interview Participant A, Interview Participant B, etc.

Firstly, it is evident in the opening narrative account below, that Forum User 1 (2014), points specifically to competition in highe education, explicitly fairness in competition, which is supposed to be fundamental to notions of competition under neoliberalism (Davies, 2017; Harvey, 2007; Hayek, 2001), as a motivating and legitimising factor for their use of CEDs.

I'm kinda worried about these sorts of things getting negative attention from the government because… I've been using them for like a year. Mostly legal ones. Some of them have really helped me study […] I'll get to the point: Many people have this ideal that all competition should occur on some sort of level playing field. [But] Some people really are just smarter than others on a fundamental level. How is that fair? Some people grow up in environments that are more conducive to learning, others don't. Almost everyone uses caffeine anyway. How is that fair for people who don't? (Forum User 1, 2014)

Interestingly, Forum User 1 appears to legitimise their use of CEDs in relation to other, wider inequalities, such as, ‘intellectual’, and socio-economic inequalities, already profuse and somewhat tolerated by society (Cakic, 2009; Mann, 2021), which have interacted with and been magnified further, under neoliberalism. Therefore, it is possible to infer that they square their use of CEDs, by employing a discursive strategy concerning an entrepreneurial notion of ‘levelling up’ the competitive arena in higher education. Indeed, through an act of entrepreneurialism this participant has seemingly sought out a way, via using CEDs, to potentially augment their chances in, what they consider, an unequal competition in higher education, that favours some individuals and groups over others, at the outset (which runs counter to the apparent core principle of fairness in competition at the outset, under neoliberalism) (Davies, 2017). Moreover, Forum User 1 invokes the discourse of functionality and notions of utility, considering their CED use as functional and beneficial, given the perceived inequalities and overly individualistic, competitive pressures in higher education. Hence, a fitting way to conceptualise Forum User 1’s use of CEDs, would be to infer that it is a functional response to wider disparities that have become increasingly pronounced in the hyper-competitive, individualistic arena, that is neoliberal higher education.

Such already established disparities, magnified further under neoliberalism in higher education, have been discussed elsewhere in the literature (e.g. Aikins, 2019; Cakic, 2009; Coveney & Bjønness, 2019) and were highlighted by another forum user, who again appears to legitimise student CED use, in relation to wider cultural and socio-economic inequalities:

The "Digital Divide" is another example of an existing and widening inequality, there is a gap between students already because of cultural differences and parent's income. If that gap is increased even more because some students don't have access to smart drugs, is that unethical? The gap already existed. (Forum User 2, 2017)

This perspective is supported by data taken from the face-to-face interview aspect of the study. For example, a participant studying at a so-called ‘elite’ university in the UK, positioned themselves discursively, within a lower socio-economic stratum than many of their peers. When asked about their motivations to use CEDs, the discourse of competition in higher education was again manifest in their narrative, with a necessity to be the ‘best’. However, as with the previous forum users, they also employ a discursive strategy concerning notions of fairness, in order to legitimise their CED use, arguing that it is not always a fair competition at the outset in higher education, again implicating specifically, wider socio-economic disparities, as illustrated below:

[…] everyone always wants to be the best, you’re never gonna be the best, everyone wants to be better and find that thing that pushes them to the next level. If someone beats you in an exam, it makes you wanna do better and beat them next time. It’s not always a fair competition though. […] In my student house of eight people I’m one of only two people to have taken a student loan, the rest are from families that are so rich they don’t have to take the loan. (Interview Participant A, 2019)

In addition, notions of the entrepreneurial subject are inferably evident once more in the above account, where Interview Participant A makes the point about finding that certain ‘something’, which can push a person to the ‘next level’, to be the ‘best’. Indeed, the inclination to be the ‘best’ is a motivating factor discussed in wider literature on the topic (e.g. Coveney & Bjønness, 2019). Therefore, Participant A’s use of CEDs can be conceptualised as a functional response to the current, competitive conditions in higher education, established under neoliberalism.

The discursive theme of competition in higher education, is again evident in the following data, taken from a student CEDs related forum thread (2017), where the conversation focused on the ethics of CED use in higher education. A brief element of the discussion between the forum participants concerned a comparison between performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sport and the use of CEDs in higher education:

Ethically: I think it is problematic when lots of students take adderall […] it's somewhat like taking steroids in sports–it's just silly that we are all trying to get ahead by taking drugs. (Forum User 3, 2017)

I don't believe steroids in sports is analogous to smart drugs amongst students. Education is not a competition. (Forum User 4, 2017)

Education is not a competition, but in today's world it certainly is. I agree that it shouldn't be, though. (Forum User 5, 2017)

Although the forum users disagree in terms of the validity of comparing sport with education, whether education is a competition, the discourse of competition is nevertheless evidently, a key discursive theme in the conversation. Furthermore, Forum User 5, although stressing education should not be a competitive arena, alludes to a view that wider ideological shifts (e.g. the shift to neoliberalism), have penetrated and been influential in reshaping education, into a competition: ‘Education is not a competition, but in today's world it certainly is’ (Forum User 5, 2017). Furthermore, although Forum User 5 argues that education in contemporary society is a competition, they reflect that education should not be constructed as a competitive arena.

Forum User 6, although agreeing with Forum User 5, goes on to argue, in more detail, that contemporary education is unavoidably competitive, due to dominant ideological, economic forces:

But, as we live in a capitalist society where education is directly connected to work and pay, it very much is competitive. I hate that it is like that, but until society changes dramatically, it is competitive. I went to one of the top schools in the country and the majority of students were not there to learn but rather to get good jobs. And they very commonly did stuff like take adderall to get by. […] competition is often directly woven into the way the classes work, with a certain bottom percentage always getting a failing grade. (Forum User 6, 2017)

It should be noted that, although Forum User 6 expresses living in a ‘capitalist society’, most contemporary capitalist societies, particularly in the West, are now structured around the principles of neoliberalism (Davies, 2017; Harvey, 2007), as detailed in section 3. Accordingly, as per the preceding participant narrative accounts, neoliberal discourse and the key characteristics of competition, and notions of the entrepreneurial subject, are inferably invoked as motivating and legitimising factors in Forum User 6’s account of higher education student CED use.

Indeed, the notion of legitimising CED use by seemingly framing motivations for use as functional, as a functional response to increasing competitive pressures in higher education, was again further supported by most of the face-to-face interview participants, as illustrated by the following account:

I always feel the pressure at university, I was used to always being first or second in my class and at A levels, now I’m competing with people who are smarter than me […] I like to think it [Modafinil] gives me that extra one percent, to get me ahead of other people. […] I’ve researched it, I’m taking it safely and I would tend to say that functionality is far more beneficial than drug use for experience. (Interview Participant B, 2019)

Interestingly, it is apparent that Interview Participant B ostensibly also seeks to legitimise their CED use in terms of drug binaries. They position functionality in opposition to drug use for experience (I.e., recreational drug use); that, functional drug use is safer and moreover, beneficial, and therefore, more acceptable. Hence, they appear to further legitimise their CED use through the discursive binary of, ‘good’ or ‘bad’ drug use. This way of legitimising enhancement drug use via the discursive strategy of ‘othering’, aligns with Askew and Williams’ (2021) findings, in their critical discourse study of enhancement drug use.

Furthermore, in line with what Forum User 6 narrated, another face-to-face interview participant described that they were motivated to use CEDs, as they felt that they could potentially enhance their grades, thus ultimately, augmenting their chances of getting a better paid job (in medicine), post university:

Although I do want to make a difference in the world, earning potential is a huge motivating factor and so I suppose yes, if taking a smart drug occasionally to help me study helps to boost my grades, to get a better paid job, then earning potential is definitely a motivating factor for me taking smart drugs. (Interview Participant C, 2019)

Subsequently, the entrepreneurial subject position is also inferably evident in the above account, where in essence, Interview Participant C indicates that taking CEDs is a form of self-investment, ultimately, to improve their future earning potential. Accordingly, drawing on Foucault’s (1979) concept of self-technologies, the notion of drugs as ‘self-technologies’ for self-improvement (Coveney et al., 2019; Pienaar et al., 2020; Van de Ven et al., 2019), is thus manifest in Interview Participant C’s account. Certainly, the notion of utilising drugs as ‘self-technologies’ for ‘self-improvement’, to augment one’s human capital and thus, future earning potential, as is the case with Interview Participant C, would indicate a form of entrepreneurial, functional drug use. Hence, Interview Participant C’s use of CEDs can again, be conceptualised as a functional response to wider societal conditions, established through neoliberal discourse.

Entrepreneurial, functional drug use is also illustrated by the following data examples, where the subjective internalisation of neoliberal discourse, interacting with drug use for study, in the context of higher education, has ostensibly fashioned student CED use into a strategic, regulated, disciplined, and risk averse form of drug use:

[…] If you are gonna take modafinil I'd have it right before your final exams (i.e 1 week in advance obviously not on exam) day so on the low chance that you do have an adverse reaction you can still recover over the summer. (Forum User 7, 2019)

I only take a 200mg Modafinil pill or two to three Caffeine pills on days when I know I have a lot of cramming to do. I only take it in the morning cuz otherwise I won’t sleep that night if I take it in the afternoon. […] I think its counterproductive to take these drugs too much. (Interview Participant D, 2019)

I’ve experimented with a few smart drugs, the best I found was to take half a gram of Phenibut³ with two Paramol pills in the morning before I study. The codeine from the Paramol works really well with Phenibut I think, I’m relaxed but more creative and focused. I would never take this in higher doses or on consecutive days though, cuz of what I’ve researched about addiction to these drugs. (Interview Participant E, 2019)

The above accounts are indicative of the ways in which students appear to use CEDs, certainly, according to the data gathered for the author’s study. As is evident, students appear to use CEDs entrepreneurially, for functionality, in a strategic, regulated, disciplined, and risk averse manner (that said, the author is not so naïve as to assume that all students who use CEDs, will do so in such a way). Furthermore, note that Interview Participant D uses the adjective, ‘counterproductive’, to describe the excessive use of CEDs. Again, this not only illustrates the notion of entrepreneurial, functional drug use, in that it is strategic, regulated, measured and risk averse, but also, hypothetically demonstrates the internalisation of neoliberal discourse, where the notion of ‘productivity’, which is tied in with the entrepreneurial subject position, is paramount (Down, 2009). Moreover, Interview Participants’, D, and E’s accounts demonstrate, in line with a Dialectical Relational Approach (Fairclough, 2010), the way in which pharmaceuticals (Modafinil, Paramol⁴), are discursively reframed, and represented as CEDs, in this instance, when used in the context of academia, for the practice of study. Furthermore, as is again implicit in the above accounts, students seemingly legitimise their use of CEDs in terms of functionality and perceived benefits.

Crucially, when analysing the examples of participant narrative accounts detailed above, it is apparent that neoliberal discourse, including the key characteristics of competition, and notions of the entrepreneurial subject, has ostensibly been internalised at the subjective level, by many individual participants. Whilst some do demonstrate a desire to resist, particularly the competitive aspect of neoliberal discourse in hiher education (namely, Forum User 5 and 6), participant narrative accounts nevertheless reveal an acquiescence, to the competitive, individualistic arena, that is contemporary, (neoliberal) higher education. Consequently, it is evident that higher education student CED use does not neatly fit medical theories of drug [mis]use and thus, the recreational or problematic drug use dichotomic binary in particular; but rather, can be more effectively conceptualised in terms of functional drug use, as a functional response.

6. Discussion

Data from the author’s qualitative research, interpretively supports the hypothesis concerning the crucial role of neoliberal ideology embedded in discourse, specifically the key characteristics, competition, and the entrepreneurial subject position, in CED use, amongst contemporary higher education students. Certainly, the narrative accounts of participants, appear to reflect the discourse of neoliberalism; explicitly, those said key characteristics, in terms of motivations for, and legitimations of, their CED use. Accordingly, their CED use can thus be framed as a functional response to the conditions in higher education, established under neoliberalism.

It should be stressed that, a Functional Response Framework that situates contemporary student CED use within the wider neoliberal milieu, does not necessarily concern the debate around structure and agency. For instance, that students’ use of CEDs can be reduced to and is determined by, ideological forces at the structural level; or that many students demonstrate acts of agency by choosing not to use. Indeed, a Functional Response would frame the choices of students around the discursive production of the neoliberal entrepreneurial subject, who makes incentivised choices, which are rooted in strategic and indeed, sometimes risky, calculations (Christiaens, 2020; Foucault, 1979). Hence, the choice whether to use, or not to use CEDs, are both equally entrepreneurial, they are responses to the necessity to remain competitive, to achieve success in what is a vastly unequal, competitive society (Davies, 2017).

This appears somewhat obvious in terms of the choice some students make to use CEDs, whilst the choice not to use, is less apparent, when framed around the notion of the entrepreneurial subject. However, the choice not to use can indeed be framed this way and as a functional response; for example, as a functional response to fears around drug ‘addiction’, and the ‘addict’. The ‘addict’’ is a subject position in neoliberal societies which, ‘is viewed negatively, associated with a loss of control and autonomy, deemed irrational and irresponsible behaviour […] ‘drug addicts’ are characterised as flawed citizens and consumers […]’ (Askew & Williams, 2021, p. 3). Therefore, the student who chooses not to use CEDs for this reason, is making an entrepreneurial choice, as the potential for ‘addiction’ and the subsequent ‘addict’ subject position, are deemed not beneficial, in terms of augmenting their chances for future success.

However, it is important to stress that, a Functional Response Framework is not envisioned as a universal grand theory of contemporary higher education student CED use. Rather, it is intended as a nuanced theoretical elaboration and to augment wider (functional) theories of drug use, which seek to challenge dominant (neoliberal) medical perspectives and dichotomic drug binaries (e.g. Askew, 2016; Askew & Williams, 2021; Boys et al., 1999; Williams, 2013; Williams & Parker, 2001). Thereby, debunking many commonly held assumptions around drug use and users, which can often result in significant negative outcomes at the level of the individual, in neoliberal societies (e.g. see, Schomerus et al., 2011; Matthews et al., 2017; Witham et al., 2020).

In addition, although similar to the Instrumental Use Framework developed by Müller and Schumann (2011), in that drug use is conceived of as being instrumental, a Functional Response Framework, differs. Rather than focusing exclusively on the individual, as with the Instrumental Use Framework (Müller & Schumann, 2011), a Functional Response Framework, seeks to position the individual and the concept of instrumental drug use, within the neoliberal version of society. Hence, a Functional Response Framework for augmenting understandings of higher education student CED use, may also make a valuable contribution to (functional) theories of drug use more widely, which also look at the relationship between the individual and society.

Indeed, understanding the ways in which contemporary drug users functionally respond to, adopt, and internalise subject positions, established through the key characteristics of neoliberal ideology, embedded in discourse, can help challenge many of the stigmas and negative stereotypes associated with certainly, illicit, and problematic drug use. As previously stated, such stigmas and negative stereotypes are in part wrought through the dominance of (neoliberal) medical perspectives which ostensibly decontextualise, individualise and pathologize (Herzog, 2016; Keane, 2002; Moore et al., 2017), having the potential for damaging effects at the level of the individual (Matthews et al., 2017; Schomerus et al., 2011; Witham et al., 2020).

For example, in response to recent figures published by the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) which demonstrated that drug related deaths in 2020, were at their highest levels since records began (ONS, 2021), vice-chair of the Addictions Faculty, at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Dr Emily Finch, stressed, ‘[…] shifting the focus […] to abstinence-based recovery is destroying lives and fuelling the increase in related deaths.’ (Finch, cited in Shearing, 2012). It should be noted that, the concept of abstinence-based recovery, which Dr Emily Finch argues as being extremely damaging, is produced in part, through the dominance of current medical perspectives, rooted in neoliberal ideology, which aid in the discursive construction of drug misuse, or ‘addiction’, as an individual pathology, or ‘disease’ (Karasaki et al., 2013).

7. Conclusion

The current use of enhancement drugs, including CEDs by higher education students, has presented drug researchers and theorists with thought-provoking drug trends through which they are able to reconceive drug use/users and develop innovative theoretical frameworks, such as contemporary functional theories. Innovative, contemporary functional theories of drug use can prove extremely beneficial, in that, they challenge established dominant theories and dogmas, which can often produce negative effects at the level of the individual. Indeed, by drawing on contemporary student CED use, this paper has demonstrated that this drug trend does not neatly fit established theories of drug use, such as, medical perspectives and subsequent drug binaries, such as, the recreational or problematic dichotomic binary, that have historically, framed and colonised the discussion. Certainly, the data examples presented in this paper, taken from the author’s qualitative research and interpreted in line with a Dialectical Relational Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 2010), highlights the ways in which students appear to recontextualise reframe, and represent other drugs as cognitive enhancers, legitimising their use in terms of functionality and perceived benefits.

Crucially, the examples of participant accounts inferably demonstrate that students are in part motivated to use CEDs in response to the conditions in higher education, established within the wider neoliberal ideological milieu; significantly, the key discursive characteristics of competition, and the entrepreneurial subject position. Therefore, contemporary students’ use of CEDs can be framed as a functional response to the current conditions in higher education, established under neoliberalism. A Functional Response Framework not only provides a nuanced perspective for understanding CED use amongst students but, can also make an extremely useful contribution to innovative theories of drug use more broadly. Innovative theories which seek to emphasise the importance of subject position and moreover, (re)contextualise drug use and users, within the wider societal, ideological, discursive environment.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 It should be noted that, historically, the term ‘Nootropics’ represented a different class of substances than the contemporary notion of CEDs. According to Dr. Corneliu Giurage (1973), who first coined the term ‘nootropic’, a ‘nootropic’ substance, be it natural or synthetic, should meet the following criteria: Enhance learning and memory. Be non-Stimulant or Sedative. Promote interhemispheric transfer. Augment cerebral resistance. Reinforce subcortical processes. Cause no harm, or negative side effects, to the user.

2 From the 1970s onwards, neoliberalism has generally been linked with, The Chicago School of Economics (Davies, 2014, 2017; Harvey, 2007).

3 Phenibut is a drug developed in Russia that is similar in molecular structure to the brain chemical gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and is purported to be an anxiolytic and a CED. However, unlike other anxiolytics such as Benzodiazapines, anecdotally, Phenibut does not produce sedative like effects, when taken in low doses (Lapin, 2001).

4 In the UK, Paramol is an over-the-counter pharmaceutical painkiller comprised of Paracetamol and the opiate, Dihydrocodeine.