After "Dual Diagnosis" by Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CODA

After “Dual Diagnosis”

Madness, Intoxication, and the Right to Name a Life

A new concluding essay for I Just Wanted to Dance with Dionysus

Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

Draft • August 2026



Returning to a Story I Once Told

Five years after beginning the work that became I Just Wanted to Dance with Dionysus, I return to it with gratitude and uneasiness. I still recognize the man who wrote that story. I recognize his grief, his exhilaration, his hunger for a language large enough to hold what happened to him. I recognize why he turned toward Dionysus and Chiron, James Hillman and Joseph Campbell, soul loss and soul retrieval. Clinical vocabulary had reduced a convulsive passage through love, sexuality, intoxication, madness, incarceration, homelessness, and spiritual searching to a pair of diagnoses. Archetypal psychology returned depth, image, mystery, and moral seriousness to experiences psychiatry had flattened into symptoms. The Hero’s Journey gave temporal form to a life that had shattered. It allowed me to say that descent was not necessarily destination, that wounds might become gifts, and that a person expelled from the ordinary world might return bearing knowledge.

I do not renounce that interpretation. It helped save my life. Stories can become survival equipment, and this one did. Yet a story that saves us at one moment can constrain us at another. The task of a coda is not to invalidate the song that preceded it. It is to hear the unresolved notes still sounding after the apparent conclusion. Looking back, I now see that my earlier account challenged psychiatric reductionism while retaining more of its conceptual architecture than I understood. I began by writing, “In psychiatric terms I am dually diagnosed with bipolar disorder and substance abuse.” I then offered a richer account of what those diagnoses missed. But I still allowed “dual diagnosis” to identify the object requiring interpretation. I accepted that there were two disorders inside me and argued that they also possessed mythic and spiritual meanings.

The more radical question is whether “dual diagnosis” ever named the most important reality at all. Perhaps it did not discover two diseases residing within me. Perhaps it joined two institutional classifications already imposed upon a complicated life: psychiatry’s classification of unusual consciousness and addiction medicine’s classification of prohibited intoxication. Once joined, those classifications produced a governable person—the dually diagnosed client—whose conduct could be screened, documented, medicated, treated, supervised, criminalized, and made eligible or ineligible for services. The category was not meaningless. It sometimes opened doors to care, insurance, housing, and recognition. But it also organized what professionals were prepared to see and what they could no longer hear.

This coda therefore turns the analytic gaze around. Instead of asking only what my madness and substance use meant, I ask what institutions accomplished by naming them as co-occurring disorders. Instead of treating diagnosis as the neutral description and Dionysian interpretation as the poetic supplement, I place psychiatric and addiction classifications inside history, culture, political economy, and relations of power. The DSM becomes not scripture but data. “Addiction” becomes not a self-evident property of a chemical or a person but a contested way of organizing human attachments. Recovery becomes not a mandatory plot ending in abstinence and normality but a struggle over safety, agency, pleasure, belonging, and the right to author one’s life.

The Administrative Invention of Two Disorders

“Dual diagnosis” sounds like an innocent statement of numerical fact: two conditions are present at the same time. Yet the phrase presupposes that mental disorder and substance-use disorder are distinct natural entities capable of being counted and then combined. Historically, that presupposition is recent. As Larsen and colleagues (2022) observe, the contemporary field became possible after transformations in psychiatric classification, particularly the DSM-III’s turn toward supposedly atheoretical, symptom-based categories and addiction’s emergence as a primary disorder in its own right. Psychiatry first divided a field of suffering, conduct, desire, and altered consciousness into separate pathologies. It then discovered their “comorbidity.”

To say this is socially constructed is not to say imaginary. Money, race, citizenship, homelessness, and criminality are also socially constructed; they can decide who eats, who is confined, and who survives. A diagnostic category becomes real through its consequences. It enters case files, funding formulas, epidemiological tables, courtrooms, shelters, disability applications, treatment plans, and ordinary conversations. It changes how other people interpret the past and anticipate the future. It may also become part of how a person understands himself. Thomas Scheff’s labeling perspective, Erving Goffman’s analysis of the moral career of the mental patient, and Michel Foucault’s studies of psychiatric power direct attention to this productive capacity of classification. Institutions do not merely encounter preexisting psychiatric subjects. Their examinations, records, routines, spatial arrangements, and authorized vocabularies help constitute the people they claim only to describe (Goffman 1961; Scheff 1966; Foucault 1965, 2006).

I experienced that transformation. Before diagnosis, my actions were contradictory events in a biography: sleeplessness, grand plans, sexual exploration, frantic work, intoxication, grief, generosity, paranoia, terror, and collapse. After diagnosis, they became evidence of bipolar disorder. Once substance use was added, almost any action could be distributed between the two conditions. Was I grandiose because I was manic, paranoid because I used methamphetamine, using methamphetamine because I was manic, or manic because I used methamphetamine? The framework offered an answer to every question while protecting itself from disconfirmation. Agreement demonstrated insight. Disagreement could demonstrate denial or lack of insight.

Goffman helps us see how institutional responses can then become further clinical evidence. A person deprived of privacy becomes guarded. A person repeatedly betrayed by agencies becomes distrustful. A person ordered to tell intimate truths to strangers becomes evasive. An unhoused person denied sleep becomes irritable and disorganized. Institutional descriptions detach these responses from the situations producing them: guardedness, paranoia, noncompliance, agitation, poor judgment. The record converts an interaction into an attribute of the individual. What organizations helped accomplish returns as proof of what the person essentially is.

The history of homosexuality in psychiatry remains an unforgettable warning. Until 1973 the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a disorder, and “ego-dystonic homosexuality” remained in the DSM until 1987. That history does not establish that all diagnoses are false. It establishes something more important: psychiatric categories are never produced by empirical observation alone. They carry judgments about normality, maturity, productivity, sexuality, family, danger, autonomy, and the acceptable boundaries of experience. Professional authority can transform cultural prejudice into clinical fact, complete with diagnostic codes and treatments.

My earlier essay already distrusted the biomedical model. But its critique sometimes remained too simple: psychiatry on one side, soul on the other; chemical imbalance versus spiritual emergency; medication versus meaning. Critical psychiatry asks us to go beyond choosing between these competing descriptions. Pat Bracken and Philip Thomas argue that mental suffering always occurs within the meaningful world of human reality; psychiatry cannot escape interpretation by claiming to be purely technical (Bracken and Thomas 2010). The question is not whether biology matters. Bodies plainly matter: sleep, neurochemistry, inherited vulnerabilities, illness, nutrition, withdrawal, and toxicity can transform experience. The error is allowing biology to monopolize explanation and professional institutions to monopolize meaning.

From the Patient’s Voice to Mad Knowledge

R. D. Laing’s enduring contribution was to insist that apparently incomprehensible conduct can become intelligible when situated within a person’s relationships and world. Madness may be a response to an unlivable situation rather than meaningless cerebral malfunction. Thomas Szasz concentrated on coercion: the power of the therapeutic state to confine people, strip rights, and redescribe conflicts in living as medical diseases. Foucault showed how expert knowledge and disciplinary power developed together. Franco Basaglia moved critique into institutional practice by treating freedom not as a prize awarded after cure but as a condition of human life and healing. Frantz Fanon refused to psychologize injuries whose origins lay in colonial domination, racial violence, and cultural dispossession.

These thinkers opened doors, but most were still celebrated men speaking about those classified as mad. Mad Studies and psychiatric-survivor movements make a more decisive break. They insist that people who hear voices, experience psychosis, survive involuntary treatment, or live under psychiatric descriptions are not merely repositories of symptoms or sources of qualitative data. They are producers of theory. Their exclusion creates epistemic injustice: they are denied credibility because the very experiences about which they possess intimate knowledge are used to disqualify them as knowers (Rose 2021; Beresford 2023; Okoroji et al. 2023).

The Hearing Voices Movement is exemplary. It does not require every voice hearer to accept that voices are meaningless auditory hallucinations. Voices may be terrifying, consoling, critical, ancestral, spiritual, playful, commanding, or connected to trauma. Hearing them does not by itself settle whether someone is ill. Many people hear voices without entering psychiatric care. What often matters is the person’s relationship with the voices, the meanings available in the surrounding culture, the degree of distress, and the presence of communities capable of receiving the experience without panic (Corstens et al. 2014).

This does not mean that every voice should be followed or every psychotic state celebrated. Some experiences produce unbearable fear and grave danger. The counter-narrative becomes irresponsible when it romanticizes what people themselves experience as torment. Laing sometimes drifted toward that romance, and my earlier essay occasionally did as well. “Madness as initiation” can become as totalizing as “madness as disease.” Not every breakdown is a summons from the gods. Not every person returns bearing gifts. Some people are injured, abandoned, or killed. Some want medication, quiet, protection, and relief—not an interpreter explaining their sacred ordeal.

The ethical alternative is pluralism under conditions of noncoercion. A person may understand an episode neurologically, psychologically, politically, spiritually, or through several frames at once. Medication may be useful without proving the chemical-imbalance story. A spiritual interpretation may be profound without immunizing dangerous conduct from accountability. What matters is expanding interpretive citizenship: the right to participate as an equal in naming one’s experience, selecting assistance, refusing unwanted meanings, and revising one’s understanding over time.

My present relationship to “bipolar disorder” is therefore neither simple acceptance nor theatrical refusal. The diagnosis identifies recurring patterns that can help me anticipate danger. Sleep loss matters. Acceleration matters. Psychosis is not a metaphor when one cannot determine what is real. But the category does not exhaust what happened in 1999, and it does not own the meaning of my life. I can use a diagnosis without becoming its possession. I can accept help without surrendering authorship.

The Second Pathologization: What Counts as a Drug Problem?

The same critical movement is necessary for substance use. Drug discourse regularly confuses use, heavy use, physical dependence, addiction, illegality, and moral disapproval. A person can use frequently without losing control. Tolerance and withdrawal can occur in prescribed medication, caffeine use, and other relationships that few people regard as addiction. A substance can be risky without its user being disordered. A practice can be illegal because of political history rather than pharmacological exceptionalism.

Thomas Szasz’s Ceremonial Chemistry described the ritual persecution of drugs, users, and sellers, exposing how the therapeutic state translates moral and political judgments into medical language. Alfred Lindesmith showed how American narcotics policy grew through mythology as well as evidence. Craig Reinarman and Harry Levine documented the repeated construction of drug scares in which racialized populations, threatening pleasures, and social anxieties become attached to chemicals. Carl Hart brings this critique from within neuropsychopharmacology. Drawing upon laboratory research and his own regular drug use, Hart argues that most drug use does not produce addiction and that responsible use can contribute to pleasure, productivity, intimacy, and a good life (Hart 2013, 2021).

Hart’s candor matters because it breaks the authorized narrative. He is a scholar, husband, father, colleague, and citizen who has openly described using heroin and other substances without accepting that he is secretly diseased. The usual response is to preserve the theory by inventing hidden dysfunction: he is a “high-functioning addict,” his damage has not appeared yet, or his insistence that life is going well is denial. But a concept that treats every contrary report as evidence of its own truth cannot learn from experience.

Norman Zinberg’s Drug, Set, and Setting provides a sociological account of control. Drug effects and trajectories do not arise from molecules alone. They are organized by the person’s expectations and dispositions, the physical and social environment, and informal sanctions and rituals governing when, where, why, with whom, and how much one uses. Studies of controlled heroin and cocaine users similarly show people protecting work, relationships, finances, and projects through rules embedded in ordinary life (Zinberg 1984; Decorte 2001). Controlled use is not a magical trait residing inside a strong-willed individual. It is a social accomplishment.

This insight clarifies the social type that prompted the present rethinking: the intensely intelligent, psychologically unusual, vocation-anchored person whose substance use occupies a durable place within a productive and satisfying life. Such a person may experience cravings, tolerance, or periods of excess. Yet the substance remains one practice within a life populated by commitments, relationships, rituals, and purposes. It has not become the only reliable route to relief, reward, belonging, or transcendence.

Calling this person a “high-functioning addict” can obscure more than it reveals. “High functioning” suggests a pathological essence temporarily masked by achievement. It also privileges employment as the decisive measure of wellness. A celebrated writer may produce masterpieces while terrifying a spouse or destroying his body. Conversely, someone without conventional employment may live with dignity, reciprocity, and control. Functioning is multidimensional and socially supported. Wealth, flexible work, tolerant colleagues, safe housing, reliable supply, and private healthcare can stabilize practices that poverty and criminalization make chaotic.

I therefore prefer to distinguish integration from colonization. A psychoactive practice is integrated when it remains answerable to a larger life: relationships, obligations, bodily care, vocation, pleasure, ethics, and a future the person values. It becomes colonizing when it progressively displaces those other goods and narrows the world around obtaining, using, concealing, or recovering from the substance. This is not a binary classification of people. It is a changing relationship. The same practice may be integrated during one period, precariously held together during another, and life-narrowing after bereavement, unemployment, housing loss, trauma, illness, arrest, or a change in the drug supply.

Pleasure, Happiness, and the Missing Half of the Ledger

Official accounts often acknowledge pleasure only as the lure by which drugs capture the brain. Once dependence appears, continued use is explained through craving, withdrawal avoidance, impaired control, or pathology. Critical drug studies has shown how much disappears through this account. Scholars including Suzanne Fraser, David Moore, Helen Keane, Kane Race, Fay Dennis, Kiran Pienaar, and Nancy Campbell analyze drugs as unstable social and material phenomena whose effects emerge through bodies, technologies, spaces, laws, expectations, relationships, and narratives. Drug use may produce embodied pleasure, erotic connection, courage, concentration, sleep, sociability, creative experimentation, emotional access, ritual belonging, or temporary freedom from the disciplined self (Fraser and Moore 2011; O’Malley and Valverde 2004; Dennis 2017).

Pleasure is not an embarrassing contaminant of serious scholarship. It is evidence. A risk-benefit analysis that itemizes every harm while refusing to count pleasure is moral bookkeeping with half the ledger removed. People sometimes use drugs because drugs work. They change consciousness in desired ways. They may do so unreliably or dangerously, but their benefits cannot be understood if every favorable report is dismissed as rationalization.

My earlier phrase “misguided shamans” was meant compassionately. It rejected the contemptuous picture of the addict as weak, immoral, or biologically hijacked and recognized a hunger for altered consciousness. Yet it now troubles me. It universalized my spiritual interpretation. Not everyone who uses cocaine, methamphetamine, opioids, cannabis, or alcohol is seeking the sacred. Some seek fun, sex, stamina, sleep, relief from pain, friendship, rebellion, or a few hours without fear. These are not necessarily degraded versions of spirituality. Pleasure does not need to disguise itself as medicine or sacrament to become legitimate.

Nor are people who develop addiction failed shamans. That metaphor can replace one hierarchy with another, valuing drug use only when it can be elevated into religious seeking. It risks appropriating Indigenous ceremonial roles while redescribing modern users through a romantic fantasy of archaic life. It can also imply that catastrophe resulted primarily from missing ritual guidance rather than grief, precarious housing, policing, market conditions, adulterated supply, social isolation, and the specific pharmacology of particular substances.

My own use carried several meanings at once. I sought ecstasy, certainly. I also sought numbness, sexual freedom, companionship, intensity, escape from loss, extension of the night, and relief from the unbearable collapse of an identity organized around partnership and academic achievement. At times substances enlarged experience. At other times they narrowed it drastically. They connected me with vivid social worlds and exposed me to danger, betrayal, humiliation, and death. Any honest interpretation must resist making the whole history sacred or the whole history diseased.

Happiness complicates the matter further. I remain persuaded that a person who is flourishing, endorses their use upon reflection, sustains relationships and commitments, and retains the capacity to modify the practice should not be labeled addicted merely because an observer disapproves of the substance or quantity. Yet happiness alone cannot settle the question. A happy person can remain unable to stop smoking while developing lung disease. A brilliant worker can transfer the costs of use to family members. People may be satisfied with arrangements that are physically unsustainable. The relevant standard is not conformity, nor a momentary feeling, but temporally extended flourishing joined to agency, accountability, and honest attention to consequences.

Intoxication, Sacrament, and Colonial Ways of Knowing

Anthropology radicalizes the critique by showing that “drug” is not a culturally innocent description. Peyote may be contraband to federal law, mescaline to pharmacology, a hallucinogen to psychiatry, an intoxicant to a recreational user, and sacred medicine within the Native American Church. Ayahuasca may become a brew containing DMT in a laboratory report, a therapeutic intervention in a Western clinic, a commodity at a retreat, or a plant teacher embedded in Amazonian relations among healers, songs, diets, spirits, communities, and territories.

These are not merely different opinions about one stable object. The practices help constitute what the substance is and what it does. Michael Winkelman’s work emphasizes ritual technologies—rhythm, chanting, fasting, preparation, communal expectation, and post-experience integration—that organize altered states. Anthropological reviews of ayahuasca show that healing occurs within ethnomedical systems irreducible to a molecule administered against symptoms (Winkelman 2019, 2021; Bouso et al. 2020). Joseph Calabrese’s work on the Native American Church describes peyote practice as a form of cultural psychiatry in which moral teaching, sacred relationship, communal belonging, and medicine are inseparable.

The implication is unsettling: why is an altered state classified as psychosis in one setting, revelation in another, intoxication in a third, and therapy when administered by licensed professionals? There are substantive differences. Duration, consent, preparation, dose, vulnerability, danger, and capacity for integration matter. But institutional authority also distributes legitimacy. The clinic can convert a prohibited psychedelic into medicine while preserving its monopoly over acceptable use. Western science isolates an active molecule, operationalizes an outcome, and treats Indigenous knowledge as suggestive cultural background rather than theory.

Decolonial scholars such as Evgenia Fotiou warn that the “psychedelic renaissance” can repeat colonial extraction. Indigenous peoples preserved plant knowledge under persecution; Western institutions now translate it into intellectual property, professional expertise, and commercial treatment while Indigenous communities remain marginalized. Decolonization requires more than thanking traditional wisdom in an introduction. It requires recognizing Indigenous epistemologies, sovereignty, ecological stewardship, and material claims (Fotiou 2020).

This critique also disciplines my Dionysian imagination. I cannot place the maenad, the Amazonian healer, the Native American Church roadman, the urban psychonaut, and the unhoused methamphetamine user into one universal story of humanity’s “will to party.” Comparison can illuminate, but it can also conquer by abstraction. Practices emerge within distinct histories and moral worlds. A coda written in the name of liberation must not turn other peoples’ sacraments into props for my theory.

Beyond Disordered Individuals: Dislocation and the Social Organization of Dependence

Bruce Alexander’s dislocation theory shifts the unit of analysis from the defective individual to the relationship between persons and society. Addiction, in his account, often becomes an adaptation to the loss of psychosocial integration: durable connections with family, culture, place, community, identity, tradition, meaningful work, and spiritual belonging. Modern market societies intensify dislocation by making relationships provisional, identities competitive, labor insecure, and consumption a primary answer to unmet need (Alexander 2008).

This does not mean poverty automatically causes addiction or that affluent people are protected. Dislocation can occur inside a beautiful house. Nor does the theory deny pharmacology. It asks why a substance becomes indispensable in one life and remains episodic in another. It also explains why treatment directed exclusively toward an individual brain repeatedly disappoints. A person returns from detox to homelessness, loneliness, unemployment, criminalization, untreated pain, and the same poisoned market, then is said to have relapsed because addiction is a chronic relapsing disease. The social world disappears twice—first as a cause and again as a target of intervention.

My “vocation-anchored outsider” is the inverse figure. Vocation can provide time structure, identity, recognition, fellowship, obligation, and reasons to protect tomorrow from tonight. It does not merely conceal pathology. It may be part of the ecology that prevents an intense relationship with a substance from becoming colonizing. This is why loss of work, partnership, home, and community in 1999 mattered so profoundly. I did not simply possess two disorders whose symptoms intensified. The structures that organized my life collapsed together. Crack cocaine entered a field of grief and dislocation that had been stripped of counterweights.

The official narrative individualizes this sequence: bipolar disorder plus substance-use disorder caused functional decline and homelessness. A relational account reverses the arrows and multiplies them. Relationship loss, queer history, academic precarity, uninitiated longing, mood acceleration, available drugs, criminalization, shame, policing, and housing loss interacted recursively. The more my social world contracted, the more valuable intoxication became; the more intoxication reorganized my conduct, the more my world contracted. No single element was the sovereign cause.

This account preserves accountability. Social explanation does not mean that every harmful act was society’s fault or that I lacked agency. I made choices, some cruel, reckless, dishonest, and destructive. Other people paid prices for my conduct. A radical critique that erases those facts becomes another defense against truth. But responsibility need not be metaphysical blame. It can mean becoming able to answer for consequences, repair what can be repaired, recognize what cannot, and build conditions in which different actions become possible.

The Hero’s Journey Reconsidered

Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey gave me a magnificent container. Separation, initiation, ordeal, return: the pattern converted chaos into movement and humiliation into knowledge. Yet its elegance now requires interrogation. A life does not naturally arrive divided into Campbellian stages. The narrator performs that division retrospectively. I selected a holy longing, identified demons, named a supreme ordeal, discovered gifts, and declared a return. As I acknowledged in the original essay, the longing I chose influenced the story’s outcome. The hero found what the narrator had taught him to seek.

The form carries moral risks. It can make suffering appear necessary because it produced wisdom. It can imply that those who did not “return” failed their initiation. It can subordinate everyone else to the hero’s development: partners become threshold guardians, street companions become helpers or tricksters, and institutions become dragons. It can turn structural violence into scenery for personal transformation. Homelessness is not ennobled by functioning as my underworld. Jail is not sacred because I later extracted meaning from it.

Arthur Frank distinguishes restitution, chaos, and quest narratives in accounts of illness. The quest narrative can restore agency by making suffering meaningful, but it can also become culturally compulsory. Audiences prefer survivors who redeem pain, exhibit gratitude, and return improved. Mad Studies similarly warns that approved recovery stories may discipline narrators into recognizable plots: illness, insight, treatment, recovery, productive citizenship. My archetypal story opposed the medical version while retaining its redemptive architecture.

The coda does not abolish the Hero’s Journey; it provincializes it. It becomes one interpretive practice among others, valuable because of what it enabled, limited because of what it arranged outside the frame. My life contains return, but also recurrence. It contains gifts, but also losses that never became gifts. It contains transformation without cosmic guarantee. Chiron’s wound does not need to justify itself by producing a healer. A wound is first something that hurts.

Perhaps Dionysus offers a less orderly temporal form. Dionysus does not travel once from ordinary world to ordeal and back. He arrives, departs, dismembers, recombines, disrupts identity, and returns in seasonal and unpredictable rhythms. His temporality is recursive rather than linear. This better fits a life in which psychological intensity, intoxication, vocation, danger, pleasure, and care must be repeatedly renegotiated. Integration is never a trophy carried home. It is work performed again and again.

From Dual Diagnosis to an Ecology of Altered Consciousness

I now propose replacing the dual-diagnosis framework, for many analytic purposes, with an ecology of altered consciousness. This does not forbid diagnosis. It refuses to let diagnosis predefine everything worth knowing. The ecological approach begins with five dimensions.

First is phenomenology: what is the person actually experiencing? Acceleration, terror, voices, numbness, erotic intensity, sleeplessness, sacred presence, grief, pleasure, connection, grandiosity, creativity, or despair? Clinical categories too quickly translate the texture of experience into symptoms.

Second is function and meaning: what does the experience or substance accomplish within this life? Does it soothe, energize, connect, reveal, conceal, protect, enlarge, or narrow? A practice can perform several contradictory functions at once.

Third is social ecology: what relationships, rituals, vocations, settings, resources, and communities organize the experience? What keeps it bounded? What makes it dangerous? Housing, reliable supply, companionship, policing, work schedules, stigma, and sacred interpretation are not external variables added after the real disorder. They participate in producing the trajectory.

Fourth is power and classification: who may name what is happening? What institutional actions become possible once the experience is called mania, psychosis, addiction, sacrament, medicine, pleasure, or crime? Whose testimony is trusted, and whose disagreement is converted into pathology?

Fifth is trajectory and flourishing: over time, does the arrangement support agency, bodily survival, meaningful relationship, purpose, pleasure, accountability, and an inhabitable future? Can the person revise it? Are harms honestly recognized? Is the practice integrated, precariously integrated, ambivalent, or progressively colonizing?

This approach generates different questions in services. Instead of asking only whether a client meets criteria and is ready for treatment, we might ask: What are the substances doing for you? What would become unbearable if they disappeared tomorrow? What parts of your use do you value? Which consequences trouble you? What keeps you safe? Who helps you recognize when an altered state is becoming dangerous? What kind of life would make the substance less central—or allow it to remain without taking over? What meanings do you reject from us?

Harm reduction moves in this direction by declining to make abstinence the entrance fee for dignity. Its political tradition treats people who use drugs as citizens and knowledge holders, not passive targets. It separates drug use from drug-related harm and recognizes that people may seek moderation, safer use, medication, abstinence, stable supply, housing, or no clinical intervention at all. The slogan “nothing about us without us,” shared across disability, psychiatric-survivor, and drug-user movements, is not a courtesy. It is an epistemological demand.

A More Radical Amethyst Path

The Amethyst Path emerged as my attempt to reconcile Dionysus with survival. It affirmed ritual, moderation, harm reduction, entheogenic possibility, community, and service. I still believe in that path, but I would now remove the assumption that it should become a universal recovery model. A path is an invitation, not a diagnostic replacement.

A more radical Amethyst Path would begin with sovereignty over consciousness while acknowledging interdependence. Adults should possess broad authority over their minds and bodies, but no one uses alone in a purely private universe. Conduct affects lovers, children, friends, neighbors, workers, and communities. Sovereignty therefore includes responsibility, consent, truthful information, and repair.

It would defend pleasure without requiring pleasure to become therapy. It would protect entheogenic religion while refusing to appropriate Indigenous knowledge. It would welcome medications chosen by people without treating medication adherence as moral virtue. It would recognize abstinence as a meaningful path for some and reject its elevation into the only evidence of recovery. It would seek a regulated, accurately labeled supply because criminalization manufactures danger. It would provide housing without demanding psychiatric submission or sobriety. It would cultivate secular and sacred rituals through which altered states can be prepared for, accompanied, interpreted, and integrated.

Most importantly, it would refuse the category “lost soul” when that phrase implies a person whose authentic self has disappeared beneath illness or drugs. People may feel lost; I certainly did. But institutions also lose people by refusing to recognize the forms in which they appear. A man speaking rapidly on a sidewalk may be distressed, intoxicated, inspired, sleep-deprived, neurologically ill, or several of these. Before deciding what he is, we might learn his name, listen to his account, determine whether he is in danger, and ask what recognition would have traction in his world.

The new path is therefore less heroic and more political. Soul retrieval is not solely an inward journey. Souls are also retrieved through housing keys, safe bathrooms, unhurried conversation, chosen medication, clean syringes, trustworthy friendship, meaningful work, music, dance, erotic honesty, food, sleep, legal protection, and communities capable of receiving difference. Sometimes what appears to be a damaged psyche is a person starved of conditions under which any psyche could flourish.

Still Dancing, Without a Final Diagnosis

I once wrote that I had faced the abyss and returned bearing gifts. I still believe that. But I no longer want the beauty of that sentence to close the case. I returned because many people and institutions helped me, because others tolerated my unfinishedness, because I found work worth doing, and because historical contingencies could have gone otherwise. Some companions from the underworld did not return. Their deaths must not become supporting characters in my redemption.

Nor do I want to replace psychiatry’s certainty with Dionysian certainty. Madness is not always disease, but neither is it always initiation. Drug use is not inherently addiction, but neither is every claimed harmony sustainable. Ritual can contain altered states, and rituals can also legitimate exploitation. Communities can recognize difference, and communities can abandon people in the name of freedom. Critical thought must remain capable of criticizing its beloved counter-narratives.

What I claim is more modest and more radical: no institution should possess the final word on the meaning of a human life. Diagnostic knowledge is one vocabulary among several. Lived experience is indispensable but not infallible. Biology matters without becoming destiny. Spiritual meaning matters without becoming compulsory. Pleasure matters. Harm matters. Power matters. The social conditions making some forms of consciousness livable and others catastrophic matter.

The central question is no longer “Do I really have dual diagnosis?” Even a negative answer would leave the institution’s terms in command. The better questions are these: How was my life divided into two disorders? What did that division reveal, and what did it conceal? Under what conditions did altered consciousness become generative, precarious, or devastating? Who was authorized to interpret it? What forms of community, vocation, ritual, and material security now help me live the life I value? What obligations follow from having survived?

I still want to dance with Dionysus. But I no longer imagine that the dance has only two outcomes: sacred integration or diseased addiction. Human beings improvise innumerable relationships with ecstasy, medicine, poison, pleasure, compulsion, revelation, and relief. The task is not to sort every dancer into the healthy and the disordered. It is to build worlds in which people can speak truthfully about what they seek, gain reliable knowledge about risks, receive help without surrendering dignity, and remain answerable to those affected by their choices.

The coda ends, therefore, without a triumphant return and without a final diagnosis. It ends in practice: attending to sleep, writing, serving, loving, taking medication when I choose it, questioning the stories I tell about substances, honoring pleasure, recognizing danger, and remaining in conversation with people whose interpretations differ from mine. It ends with the work of making a life spacious enough that no single substance, diagnosis, institution, archetype, or story can colonize the whole.

Dionysus remains. So does Chiron. But beside them now stand the voice hearer, the psychiatric survivor, the controlled user, the harm-reduction worker, the Native ceremonial practitioner, the unhoused neighbor, the critic of colonial psychiatry, and the person who wants no myth at all. They do not form a chorus singing one doctrine. Their discord is part of the knowledge.

I did not simply recover from two co-occurring disorders. I learned to inhabit contested forms of consciousness inside a social world that distributes recognition unequally. I learned that a life can be psychologically unusual, chemically accompanied, morally accountable, socially useful, joyful, wounded, and unfinished at the same time.

That is not dual diagnosis.

That is a human life.



References

Alexander, Bruce K. 2008. The Globalisation of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beresford, Peter. 2023. “Decolonising Global Mental Health: The Role of Mad Studies.” Global Mental Health 10.

Bouso, José Carlos, et al. 2020. “Traditional Healing Practices Involving Psychoactive Plants and the Global Mental Health Agenda.” Health and Human Rights 22 (1): 145–158.

Bracken, Pat, and Philip Thomas. 2010. “From Szasz to Foucault: On the Role of Critical Psychiatry.” Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 17 (3): 219–228.

Calabrese, Joseph D. 2013. A Different Medicine: Postcolonial Healing in the Native American Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, Joseph. 1949. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. New York: Pantheon.

Corstens, Dirk, Eleanor Longden, Simon McCarthy-Jones, Rachel Waddingham, and Neil Thomas. 2014. “Emerging Perspectives from the Hearing Voices Movement.” Schizophrenia Bulletin 40 (S4): S285–S294.

Decorte, Tom. 2001. “Drug Users’ Perceptions of ‘Controlled’ and ‘Uncontrolled’ Use.” International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (4): 297–320.

Dennis, Fay. 2017. “Conceiving of Addicted Pleasures: A ‘Modern’ Paradox.” International Journal of Drug Policy 49: 150–159.

Fanon, Frantz. 1963. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.

Fotiou, Evgenia. 2020. “The Role of Indigenous Knowledges in Psychedelic Science.” Journal of Psychedelic Studies 4 (1): 16–23.

Foucault, Michel. 1965. Madness and Civilization. New York: Random House.

Foucault, Michel. 2006. Psychiatric Power: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1973–1974. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Frank, Arthur W. 1995. The Wounded Storyteller: Body, Illness, and Ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fraser, Suzanne, and David Moore, eds. 2011. The Drug Effect: Health, Crime and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Hart, Carl L. 2013. High Price: A Neuroscientist’s Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know About Drugs and Society. New York: Harper.

Hart, Carl L. 2021. Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear. New York: Penguin Press.

Laing, R. D. 1960. The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. London: Tavistock.

Larsen, Jonas L., et al. 2022. “What Kind of Science for Dual Diagnosis? A Pragmatic Examination of the Enactive Approach.” Frontiers in Psychology 13: 825701.

Lindesmith, Alfred R. 1947. Opiate Addiction. Bloomington, IN: Principia Press.

O’Malley, Pat, and Mariana Valverde. 2004. “Pleasure, Freedom and Drugs: The Uses of ‘Pleasure’ in Liberal Governance of Drug and Alcohol Consumption.” Sociology 38 (1): 25–42.

Okoroji, Celestin, et al. 2023. “Epistemic Injustice and Mental Health Research: A Pragmatic Approach to Working with Lived Experience Expertise.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 14.

Peele, Stanton. 1985. The Meaning of Addiction: Compulsive Experience and Its Interpretation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Reinarman, Craig, and Harry G. Levine, eds. 1997. Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rose, Diana. 2021. “Critical Qualitative Research on ‘Madness’: Knowledge Making and Activism among Those Designated ‘Mad.’” Wellcome Open Research 6: 98.

Scheff, Thomas J. 1966. Being Mentally Ill: A Sociological Theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Szasz, Thomas. 1974. Ceremonial Chemistry: The Ritual Persecution of Drugs, Addicts, and Pushers. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.

Winkelman, Michael J. 2019. “Introduction: Evidence for Entheogen Use in Prehistory and World Religions.” Journal of Psychedelic Studies 3 (2): 43–62.

Winkelman, Michael J. 2021. “The Evolved Psychology of Psychedelic Set and Setting: Inferences Regarding the Roles of Shamanism and Entheogenic Ecopsychology.” Frontiers in Pharmacology 12: 619890.

Zinberg, Norman E. 1984. Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

1