Rethinking recovery and desistance processes: developing a social identity model of transition

Abstract

Background: In recent years, the role of social identity (or identities which are developed through involvement in social groups with others), has received increasing attention in relation to recovery from substance abuse disorders. However, it is also widely noted that the transformation of one’s social identitie(s) is vital for the cessation of other, non-addictive behaviours, such as offending. Interestingly, the discussion of the role of social identity tansformation in relation to both desistance and recovery simultaneously has seldom been undertaken.Methods: Drawing on primary research consisting of 20 double narrative interviews with young adult offenders on an Intensive Community Order, the paper builds upon the two most prominent social identity models surrounding addictive behaviour, the Social Identity Model of Recovery and the Social Identity Model of Cessation Maintenance in order to develop a social identity model which aids our understanding of desistance and recovery processes.Results: The paper presents a Social Identity Model of Transition (SIMOT), allowing for the synergies between desistance and recovery as processes of transition to come to light.Conclusion: SIMOT allows for an understanding of the role of social identity transformation in the transient nature of desistance and recovery processes. The model allows for an examination of the impact of macro and micro contextual factors on desistance and recovery processes in a way which has seldom been possible with the currently available models.

Keywords:

• Desistance
• Recovery
• Social Identity
• Context
• Spatial Dynamics

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Notes

1 Recovery capital “is the sum total of one’s resources that can be brought to bear on the initiation and maintenance of substance misuse cessation” (Cloud and Granfield 2008: 1972, see also Laudet and White 2008).

2 It was a conscious decision on behalf of the authors to avoid the term “addict” to refer to individuals with substance use disorders as there is considerable debate surrounding the implications of the use of such terminology. While this may have been used previously in the available literature, the authors are aware of the potential negative connotations of its use and, as such, have made the decision to avoid this term here (see Kelly et al. 2010, 2016 for a detailed discussion of the importance of language in the discussion of substance use disorders). Indeed, while the term ‘addict’ is avoided here, the term addiction is still used as addiction is not attributed to the person. Simply, addiction is something one experiences, the term addict suggests what one is. While this distinction is seemingly subtle, we consider it to be considerable in its impact.

3 It is important to note that the sample was initially chosen for their offending history, not their recovery from addiction. As such, there is a limit to the extent to which SIMOT can be tested here. Although we do believe that the model is consistent with both the available literature and the transitions highlighted above, the authors would welcome further testing of this approach with a sample selected to investigate both desistance and recovery transitions.

4 While Gary is used as an example here, it is important to note that his desistance/recovery transitions were similar to that of the rest of the sample and is also consistent with the available research literature on desistance and recovery processes (see for instance Maruna 2001; Bryne and Trew, 2008). This narrative has been chosen by the authors as it is a critical case study and perhaps the clearest example of a desistance and recovery narrative from the sample. While there was evidence of both desistance and recovery efforts across most participants in the research, the narrative offered by Gary was the most amenable to representation here (see Kay 2016b).

5 While the privatisation of the probation service was multi-faceted, the main focus here will be on the division of probation services, and the reallocation of offenders, between the National Probation Service (responsible for managing high risk offenders, registered sex offenders and those subject to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements), and Community Rehabilitation Companies (responsible for managing medium and low risk offenders).