Mark Whiteley Jan 2017. (Social Scientist)

 The Resonance Factor, epigenetics and criminology: a holy alliance…

The Resonance Factor as an approach to substance misuse work is innovative, challenging and infused with common sense. I’ve been tussling with these ideas for the past four years and, as an erstwhile academic, have been keen to find links between key constructs applied to Resonance Factors based work and pre-existing theories and ideas. In doing so, it has become clear that there is a direct relationship between specific constructs applied in RF work, criminological theory and epigenetics. Not least, the discovery of the high, the justifications an individual constructs in order to perpetuate substance use and the relationship the individual nurtures (and protects) with the high. I believe what I outline here is, in a sense, a working paper, a suggestion for further work to be done that serves to demonstrate that Resonance Factor principles will be found to have utility in addressing a range of problematic behaviours other than substance misuse, including criminal behaviour, eating disorders, depression and anxiety.

The discovery of a beautiful relationship:

Epigenetics as a field of study explores the impact of experience and environment on the expression of genes. The notion that genes dictate behaviour or bodily experience has been found wanting and overly deterministic.

Recent developments in the field of epigenetics appear to support the idea that, rather than an individual being born an addict, it is through exposure to substances that the expression of genes is realised. A genetic predisposition is simply not enough to account for substance misuse.

Ruth Williams (2006) reports:

“The brain’s ability to learn is an iterative process that continually links events with outcomes until associative memories are formed. Psychoactive drugs that induce a ‘high’ (or reward) stimulate this learning circuitry and it’s thought that, in addiction, the reward-related learning system essentially enters pathological overdrive leading to compulsion. Regular (chronic) compulsive drug taking then further reinforces the learnt association and exacerbates the problem”.

The high:

The work of maverick criminologist Jack Katz speaks to us directly of a coherent link between a Resonance Factor concept and the world of criminological research. In his classic 1988 book The Seductions of Crime, Katz outlines an argument that essentially goes like this – “people do bad stuff because they get a buzz out of it!” His ideas have been subject to much criticism over the years but to many who have worked within the fields of criminology, criminal justice or substance misuse they have the authentic chime of common sense.  I would also argue that one could develop this notion to include any and all behaviours that engender a reward. For example, those who gorge on food find the act pleasurable (but the consequences intolerable). For good or bad, human beings engage in behaviours (or consume substances) that are rewarding.

Justifications:

In the same decade that Festinger (1957) first proposed his theory of cognitive dissonance, a key component the Resonance Factor, two criminologists Gresham Sykes and David Matza were busily developing a theory that has become a much contested but highly regarded and influential thread of thought in criminology. In their article: Techniques of Neutralization (1957) they explored the mechanism by which criminals (or delinquents to use their own rather dated language) are able to defy social and moral norms and accommodate the potential psychological conflict this may engender. They proposed what they termed techniques of neutralization. Anyone who has worked in the substance misuse field and/or in criminal justice settings will be very familiar with the five techniques of neutralisation suggested by Sykes and Matza and, I would argue as did the authors, these techniques of neutralisation represent no more than justifications – the stories an individual tells him- (or her-) self to make behaviours “OK” and to minimise consequences:

Denial of responsibility. The offender (substance user) will propose that they were victims of circumstance or were forced into situations beyond their control — “It wasn’t my fault”.

Denial of injury. The offender (substance user) insists that their actions did not cause any harm or damage – “It wasn’t a big deal, they could afford the loss”.

Denial of the victim. The offender (substance user) believes that the victim deserved whatever action the offender committed – “They had it coming”.

Condemnation of the condemners. The offenders (substance users) maintain that those who condemn their offense are doing so purely out of spite, or are shifting the blame off of themselves unfairly – “You were just as bad in your day!”

Appeal to higher loyalties. The offender (substance user) suggests that his or her offense was for the greater good, with long term consequences that would justify their actions, such as protection of a friend – “My friends needed me, what could I do?”

The relationship between Resonance factor ideas and the techniques of neutralisation noted above are, it seems to me, clear. Anyone who has facilitated key-works or groups with substance misuse client will, I believe, recognise this relationship of ideas. The Resonance Factor it seems has a wonderful, synchronous relationship with a rich and varied canon of thought that, arguably, represents and speaks the fragility and contingent nature of most human behaviour.

dBibliography

Katz, J. (1988) The Seductions of Crime. New York: Basic Books.

Sykes, G. & Matza D. (1957) Techniques of Neutralization: a theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review. 22:6: 664-670.

Williams, R. (2006) cited in Addiction: the epigenetic effect. http://www.epigenesys.eu/en/articles/in-brief/198-addiction-the-epigenetic-effect: Accessed: 12/1/17.