International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 37–40

Response

Class, alliances and harm reduction: a personal view

Jenny ScottUni6ersity of Bath, Cla6erton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK

www.elsevier.com/locate/drugpo

Friedman et al., (2001) are to be com-mended for raising the issues of class, allianceforming and harm reduction. As the authorssaid, harm reduction is about collective strug-gle, but the issue of class appears not to havebeen such a focus of discussion and debate asother dividing factors such as racism andsexism. I am grateful for the opportunity toadd to this discussion in this journal.

Friedman et al. raise several points, someof which I will undertake to comment onfrom a personal viewpoint. The first is thequestion of how class is judged. As propo-nents of harm reduction one of our key activ-ities is speaking out against prejudices andgeneralisations about drug use and drugusers, criticising compartmentalising attitudesthat stigmatise and label. In doing so wemust take care not to be guilty of similarbehaviour by allocating labels of class togroups and individuals on the basis of em-ployment status, job title, income andlifestyle without consideration of evidencefrom their practice and politics. Althoughclass stereotypes are commonplace, and sadlyall too often the negative expectations are

endorsed, preconceived tags can be barriersto debate and interaction. When faced withan individual or group of people who couldbe expected to hold a particular political viewand be largely influenced by economics orgovernment policies, we should try to ensurethat judgement is reserved until evidence oftheir practices and politics has been seen. Theability to demonstrate open-mindedness, tol-erance, understanding and respect of others isnot necessarily created or destroyed by mate-rial factors. Preconceived class judgementscan hinder interaction between those tradi-tionally defined as working class and middleclass and vice versa. Evidence from practicecan test a person’s politics, attitude and com-mitment to harm reduction, and on suchevidence we should base our judgements.

Definition of class can also be debated onthe basis of transition across traditional classbarriers. Such transition may be facilitated byeducation or lack of, barriers and opportuni-ties faced by the individual or group andmotivation. As an example, can a childbrought up in a working class family, whothrough intelligence and opportunity such asfree state and university education, goes onto hold a ‘professional’ job be labelled asE-mail address: prsjs@bath.ac.uk (J. Scott).

0955-3959/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0955 -3959 (01 )00069 -X

J. Scott / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 37–4038

middle class, with all the assumptions thisimplies, because through the financial benefitsfrom their employment they have materialpossessions that were previously inaccessibleto them and their family? Judgement cannotbe made without an assessment of their be-liefs, politics and the values they uphold andif applicable, their practice in the harm-re-duction field. When judgement and class allo-cation is made on the basis of these widerfactors, this leads to the meanings of ‘work-ing class’ and ‘middle class’ being redefined.For example, the term ‘middle class’ may beused in a derogatory sense by those on theleft, to refer to stereotypes that fit the defini-tion of capitalist, selfish and self-interested.Those on the right may use the term ‘workingclass’ also in a derogatory manner.

In my personal experience coming from a‘working class’ background and doing whatcan be termed as a ‘middle-class’ job, I haveexperienced barriers due to class discrimina-tion and prejudice, based on peoples precon-ceived allocation of class, and thereforeexpectation of how I should behave and whatI should believe. Such opinions are based ongeneralisations, but I would urge cautionagainst making assumptions without individ-ual assessment, especially when working insuch a multi-factorial field as harm reduction,otherwise opportunities may be lost.

Harm reduction is a political issue andrequires political will. A large threat to harmreduction is those who may be described as‘pseudo-believers’. As an example, those whohave gained so-called harm-reduction jobs inso-called harm-reduction services, by express-ing an interest in working with drug users,but who do not hold the necessary values andrespect for others and for human rights, orbelieve in the philosophy that underpinsharm reduction. As such individuals andgroups do not believe in the necessary valuesand philosophy, they will practice harm re-

duction as lip service rather than it being therock upon which their service is based. Con-sequently, they will not fight for what harmreduction stands for in the political, decisionmaking arenas and they will alter their ser-vices to gain funding, leading to the dangerof highly politically-charged, and potentiallynon-evidence based election winning policiesbeing implemented in practice without ques-tion of benefit or concern for their potentialharm.

This raises questions around the employ-ment of people in the harm-reduction field. Inthe selection of staff, emphasis should beplaced on testing values and commitmentrather than on qualifications. ‘Professional-ism’ is often considered to mean holding aqualification. Such requirements may be im-posed by funders. However, I believe the truemeaning of professionalism is the ability ofan individual or team to work independentlyto uphold the standards of practice and val-ues that they believe to be in the best interestsof the client group and society, campaigningagainst political pressures imposed by fund-ing bodies and governments. Friedman et al.point out that some drugs services use drugusers as volunteers and that users oftenbenefit in terms of stability of their drug use.I would argue that one of the roles of harmreductionists and our trade unions should becampaigning against the use of volunteers,arguing for such volunteers to be paid a fairrate and given the opportunity to becometrade union members, so they are protectedas workers and have their campaign powerincreased. I consider the benefits to drugusers as paid workers could be greater thanthose as volunteers.

The next issue I wish to discuss is whetheralliance forming is a way forward for harmreduction. As Friedman et al. have shown,there can be great strength and benefit fromalliance forming. Alliances often form natu-

J. Scott / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 37–40 39

rally when working with individuals andgroups who also support these common val-ues. We should identify our allies and uniteon a broad front and avoid getting fraction-ated by differences that are be overcome.The issue, in this case reducing the potentialfor harm from risky drug use, becomes sec-ondary to the importance of whether bothparties in the alliance subscribe to the samevalues and uphold the same beliefs in hu-man rights. Such commonalities should beestablished through discussion and debatebefore the issue of alliance forming is fur-ther explored. In groups with overlappingvalues and aims, much strength and knowl-edge could be gained from alliance forming.Alliances should gain strength from theirunity in terms of each other’s cause andbenefit the wider community. They shouldform to widen their common cause and cau-tion must be exercised to ensure that theydo not become driven by the personal agen-das of a few at the expense of the views ofothers. Alliances must take care not to be-come ‘super-groups’ that merely unite thefractionated views of a few and are not in-clusive of all concerned.

In local communities alliance formingmay well add strength and widen the causeof those concerned by bringing togethergroups of people who understand local is-sues and concerns. There may also bebenefit in forming national alliances to raiseawareness and strengthen argument forchange. Several national alliances have re-cently formed in the UK, including theHarm Reduction Alliance, which formed asan outcome of a meeting called by con-cerned individuals at the 11th InternationalConference on the Reduction of Drug re-lated Harm. This is an alliance of a rangeof people from a variety of backgroundswho share the common concern that in all

four nations of the UK, harm reduction isunder threat.

This leads me on to one final issue, thatof conducting research into alliances. Aswell as generic study into the impact andprocess of alliance forming, we need tomeasure the effect this has on local and na-tional harm reduction initiatives. This willinclude the study of the benefits or other-wise to drug users and community mem-bers, and the impact of alliance forming onpolicy. Ultimately what many will be con-cerned with is whether alliance forming hasbrought about greater strength for theharm-reduction movement and wider beliefin its cause and from this, whether individu-als and communities have benefited fromthe outcomes.

Just as I have outlined the importance ofdrugs workers subscribing to human rightsvalues and believing in the wider cause ofharm reduction, such values and beliefs arealso an issue in research. Passion for acause can be deemed a weakness if you area researcher. The ability to maintain objec-tiveness and integrity is essential, but Iwould argue not mutually exclusive fromhaving passion and a belief in human rights.This can enable the researcher to translateabstract academic findings into real life.Without this ability, many of the benefits ofresearch may be lost or missed. In order forharm-reduction researchers to translate theirfindings into application to the wider com-munity, they too may benefit from formingalliances, in terms of partnerships with com-munity groups, service providers and drugusers. This may in a sense provide a ‘realitycheck’ to prevent academic work from beingtoo abstract.

In conclusion, the formation of alliancesis a positive way forward for many in thedrugs field, as long as human rights values

J. Scott / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 37–4040

are common to all groups involved and up-held. Issues of class play a key role but wemust be careful not to make assumptions ofclass based on job title, lifestyle and incomealone. For the harm reduction cause to bewon, we need to consider the issue of class inthe debate. We also should consider drugsworker recruitment, the importance of theirpolitical values and maximisation of theircampaign power. Friedman et al. are to be

commended for beginning such an importantdebate.

References

Friedman SR, Southwell M, Bueno R, Paone D, ByrneJ, Crofts N. Harm Reduction – a historical viewfrom the left. International Jounal of Drug Policy2001;12(1):3–14.

.