The Multiplicities of Internet Addiction

The Misrecognition of Leisure and Learning

Nicola F. Johnson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Topic: Social Sciences
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317023616
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

Overuse of the internet is often characterized as problematic, disruptive, or addictive, with stories frequently claiming that online use interferes with relationships, or that 'excessive' time in front of computer screens is unhealthy. The Multiplicities of Internet Addiction contests the claim that computers - specifically Internet use - are addictive, arguing that use of the Internet is now a form of everyday leisure engaged in by many people in Western society. Offering an analysis of the nature of addiction alongside a detailed empirical study of home computer use, this book will be of interest not only to sociologists of culture and popular culture, but also to scholars of media, ICT and education.

Chapter 1
Internet Addiction: Contrasting Viewpoints

There is an extensive amount of literature on addiction to sex, gambling, pornography, drugs and alcohol. Needless to say, some cases are acute and serious. However, there is a growing amount of questionable literature that suggests Internet addiction is an actual treatable disorder (Block 2008; Ferraro et al. 2007; Gavin et al. 2007; Hardie and Tee 2007; Li and chung 2006; Pinnelli 2002; Wu and Cheng 2007; Young 2007).

Before I continue, it should be acknowledged that within the Internet environment, sex, gambling and pornography are readily available and of course, can exacerbate one’s emerging or existent addiction. It seems the Internet provides a lucrative opportunity for some to make money out of selling and providing still and moving images that objectify and belittle women, as well as demean sexual intercourse. One of the provisions of the Internet is anonymity and being able to access chat rooms (or the 3-D chat room ‘Second Life’) to engage in cybersex allows people to do something considered taboo, within a space they feel is safe. Some of these people would never consider being sexually involved with others in a ‘Swingers’ type modality, however the anonymity associated with the Internet means that, for some people involved in cybersex and/or viewing pornography and participating in online gambling with a false or virtual identity, the availability and likelihood of this participation is enhanced. If people are already interested in gambling, pornography and paedophilia, there is no doubt that the Internet advantages them in their further use and exploration of these avenues.

There are many competing discourses or approaches to Internet addiction, including preferred descriptors. Multiple views of Internet addiction claim it to be:

• Real and is as addictive as drug addiction.

• A play on words, an interference with meaning that is questionable.

• Non-existent, as it is an environment and not a substance, but it enables people to act out their previous addictions or addictive tendencies.

• Not the issue as high frequency use is a lifestyle choice and vocational expectation.

• At one end of a continuum of addiction.

• Better suited to being titled ‘Pathological Internet Use’.

I now focus on addressing and critiquing each of these discourses in respective order.

Internet Addiction Does Exist

Many people are convinced that ‘Internet addiction’ does exist, but it is possible that some of these advocates might be making money from promoting Internet addiction as an actual disorder. The aim of this book is to criticize the facile generalizations about Internet addiction that seem to be so common throughout the media. These generalizations can, unfortunately, be found in numerous pseudo-scholarly works.

Dr Kimberly Young is the leading proponent of the existence of Internet Addiction. Her books Caught in the Net: How to Recognize the Signs of Internet Addiction – and a Winning Strategy for Recovery (1998), and Tangled in the Web: Understanding Cybersex from Fantasy to Addiction (2001) are based on the premise that Internet Addiction does exist, and that she is able to help those who are addicted through advice and through attendance at her center for Internet Addiction Recovery (see CIAR 2006). As this chapter elucidates, Dr Young’s means of determining Internet addiction are questionable. While Dr Young’s Internet Addiction Test (IAT) may have been relevant in 1998 when the book was published, it is possibly not as relevant now because of the permeation of the Internet as essential to one’s job and as a means for one’s improved personal communication with friends and family. The actual Internet Addiction Test seems to be out-of-date in 2008–2009. Questions on the IAT include: ‘How often do you check your email before something else that you need to do?’ (1998, 31) or ‘How often do you find yourself anticipating when you will go on-line again?’ (1998, 32), or ‘How often do you lose sleep due to late-night log-ins?’ (1998, 32). If I applied these questions to myself it is likely that I would be categorized as addicted to the Internet because the personal expectation of friends and family and the expectation of my vocation is that I need to be up to date with my email communication. Ten years ago this was neither a choice nor an expectation. If we applied these IAT questions to watching television, an art or craft, reading, playing board games, an invigorating hobby or exercising, the answers might simplistically suggest we are addicted to anything and everything. Yellowlees and Marks (2007, 1452) captured it well when they concluded:

The Internet is an extremely important social and communications tool, and is changing our daily lives at home and at work. It is entirely predictable that any major new technology, or way of doing business, should be associated with a variety of human responses, some good, and some not so good.

Young does emphasize how anyone can be an addict and that it is not limited to a particular demographic, and she does rightfully highlight that there is a dark side to cyberspace, where people neglect their personal health and their own families preferring to engage with the Internet. Young raises many relevant points to consider including the pertinent focus question of whether one is neglecting other responsibilities or roles in favour of engaging with the Internet. However, it seems that the Internet may be being blamed unfairly for the neglect of one’s responsibilities or roles. There are many things that can entertain us or provide leisure like reading a book, playing a game, watching our pets, viewing a television program or talking on the phone. These types of practices have their place in our modern day society and it is rather easy for some to become engrossed with these activities to the detriment of relationships with others or the neglect of household or work responsibilities. However, what we must keep in mind, as Young rightly points out, is that many forms of entertainment exist in increments or units of time, whereas using the Internet is not calibrated by a half-hour or hour-length television program, or a thirty-page chapter, or a two-and-a-half hour movie.

What is problematic with Young’s (1998) book is, as others have discussed (charlton and Danforth 2007; Huisman, van den Eijnden and Garretsen 2001; Widyanto and Griffiths 2006; Yellowlees and Marks 2007), transferring the diagnostic criteria of other addictions to an intangible environment such as the Internet is unsatisfactory. Young (1998, 9) suggested that, ‘Internet users become psychologically dependent on the feelings and experiences they get while using that machine, and that’s what makes it difficult to control or stop’. She aligns this type of psychological dependence with gambling and overeating. While this may be a possible occurrence there are two notions that contest this attachment to the Internet. First, if the Internet is an environment, then it is disputable as to whether anyone could be addicted to an environment (and of course we go back to examining whether dependence constitutes addiction). Second, if the Internet represents a place where people with already existing addictions can go, or if they have tendencies to be addicted, then of course the Internet can become a scapegoat for our discretions.

In a study of 442 online game players who utilized a web-based questionnaire, Charlton and Danforth (2007, 1531) concluded ‘it is inappropriate to use some of the previously used criteria for addiction when researching or diagnosing computer-related addictions’. Charlton and Danforth explained, in depth, the fact that the DSM-IV-TR criteria (adapted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, or APA) for the impulse control disorder of pathological gambling has been unsuitably adjusted and applied to the suggested clinical disorder of ‘Internet addiction’. The DSM-IV-TR helps psychiatrists to determine what disorders a person may have, and the publication includes things such as mood disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders and substance disorders. For example, the diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling includes ‘Persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior as indicated by five (or more) of the following’1:

• is preoccupied with gambling (e.g. preoccupied with reliving past gambling experiences, handicapping or planning the next venture, or thinking of ways to get money with which to gamble);

• needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the desired excitement;

• has repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop gambling;

• is restless or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop gambling;

• gambles as a way of escaping from problems or of relieving a dysphoric mood (e.g. feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety, depression);

• after losing money gambling, often returns another day to get even (‘chasing’ one’s losses);

• lies to family members, therapist, or others to conceal the extent of involvement with gambling;

• has committed illegal acts such as forgery, fraud, theft, or embezzlement to finance gambling;

• has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity because of gambling;

• relies on others to provide money to relieve a desperate financial situation caused by gambling (BehaveNet 2008).

It is arguable that it is incommensurate to group problematic Internet use with this disorder. It should be noted that no criteria for Internet addiction have been currently adopted into the APA’s DSM-IV-TR, despite recent arguments that they should be (Block 2008). It is somewhat easy to argue that the application of these criteria to the use of the Internet is awkward and incommensurable. In a recent editorial in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Block (2008) argued for the inclusion of Internet addiction in the DSM-V. His editorial included four references to his own work, and eight references to an international symposium on the counselling and treatment of youth Internet addiction held in South Korea (which he attended). This makes his recommendation somewhat biased and it can be argued that, of the South Korean conference papers he cited in his brief editorial,2 the participants could possibly be addicted to things other than the Internet such as gaming (Griffiths and Davies 2005) or gambling, or have other impulse control disorders. I suggest that it is more appropriate to title their Internet use as problematic or even pathological and explain these terms later in this chapter. It is possible there are inherent biases within these studies that perhaps do not objectively consider whether Internet addiction is a reality. There are those whose research stands to gain should Internet addiction be recognized as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. This is an area that remains subjective and contestable, and is why this book has been written.

Young does suggest some very valid questions to consider in regard to long-term consequences, including: ‘Whom are you hurting?’ ‘Where will you be in your work or school life one year down the road?’ ‘Where can you find greater rewards for your time, effort, and energy?’ (1998, 218). These questions are valid and relevant for any activity we engage in, including (over)work in our vocations or careers. As a result of a preoccupation with the Internet, it should be acknowledged it is possible for people to develop mood disorders, sleep disorders, and anxiety disorders. However, the main difficulties with Young’s work are the following premises; high usage of the Internet is bad, and will lead to damaging engagement with cybersex, pornography, gambling, dependence on those who are not real, and that online relationships are not as worthwhile as face-to-face ones. While people have become a lot more careful about online privacy and are more wary about sharing personal details with strangers, it is still evident that for many people the Internet provides intimacy, hope, and a purpose that is not available to them in their real, or biological lives. Additionally, ‘it is possible that exactly the same high degree of computer use exhibited by two people might be considered either pathological or non-pathological depending upon the impact that this has upon their life’ (Charlton and Danforth 2007, 1533). For many people, online interactions provide security and the ability to consider what they write before they say it, and as Amichai-Hamburger and Furnham (2007) claim, may provide a crossover from positive Internet relationships to positive face-to-face relationships.

Play on Words

William Glasser defined an addict to be ‘someone whose life is destroyed by heroin, alcohol, or gambling, and often the lives of those around him [sic] are [also] ruined’ (Glasser 1976, 1). Addiction is defined as ‘the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing or activity’ (Macintosh Dictionary Widget 2008). In contrast, the Microsoft Word™ dictionary (2008) defined addiction as ‘a state of physiological or psychological dependence on a drug liable to have a damaging effect’, but the second definition given states a ‘great interest in something to which a lot of time is devoted’. The synonyms for addiction include ‘dependency, habit, problem’ (Macintosh Thesaurus Widget 2008).3 There are discrepancies evident even in these examples.

Another perpetuated phrase in popular discourse is surrounding those that have a ‘slavish addiction to fashion’ (the second definition found on the Macintosh Dictionary Widget 2008). This can be termed a devotion to, dedication to, obsession with, infatuation with, passion for, love of, mania for or enslavement to fashion. If we use this secondary meaning to describe our practice, it may be in fact a correct use of the word: many people have a devotion to, dedication to, obsession with, infatuation with, passion for, love of, mania for, or enslavement to the Internet. However, it is of another nature to term this use to be pathological. Pathological is defined as ‘Involving, caused by, or of the nature of a physical or mental disease’ (Macintosh Dictionary Widget 2008).

However, informally, pathological is considered to be ‘compulsive’ or ‘obsessive’ (Macintosh Dictionary Widget 2008). It is interesting that the word ‘obsessive’ is used in both pathological and non-pathological definitions.

To add to this confusing and complicated matrix of linguistics,4 it should be noted that:

• Dependence is ‘the state of relying on or controlled by someone else’ (Macintosh Dictionary Widget 2008).

• To depend is to ‘be controlled or determined by’ (Macintosh Dictionary Widget 2008).

• Depending on is equal to ‘being conditioned by’ or ‘contingent on’ (Macintosh Thesaurus Widget 2008).

• To ‘depend on’ is ‘to need something in order to exist or survive’ (Microsoft Word Dictionary 2008).

• Addicted is defined as ‘physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects’ (Macintosh Dictionary Widget 2008). This is in contrast to the Microsoft Word Dictionary which defines addicted as ‘physiologically or mentally dependent on a harmful drug’ and secondly, ‘very interested in something and devoting a lot of time to it’ (2008). Wikipedia (2008) defines drug dependency as different from drug addiction and claims drug addiction is characterized by a psychological need for a drug rather than a physical need.

I argue in this chapter that a temporary obsession (in alignment with a secondary definition of addiction) is acceptable and not problematic. To me, drug dependency brings to mind notions of addiction, dependence, reliance, craving, compulsion, fixation, obsession and abuse. If we focus on the notion that addiction constitutes a dependence on substances and that the removal of the substances causes physical and mental problems, then it seems apt to highlight that if someone says they are addicted to smoking, we can reply, no, you are addicted to the nicotine found within cigarettes. Upon removal of the cigarettes, you will suffer the physical and mental problems of withdrawal. The Internet is not a substance. If someone ventures to say they are addicted to running, it may be correct in the sense of having a passion for5, or devotion to running, however, it is possible they may be actually addicted to the endorphins one can receive from running. Could this actually be the case that when individuals access and use the Internet, they obtain endorphins, and consequently continue the practice in order to attract more of those endorphins? If we come back to the removal of the item, if we remove the Internet, what will happen is that we will be disadvantaged in one of the ways we communicate and in the perpetuation of networking with those whom we deem important to keep in contact with. Therefore, we are not addicted if we do not suffer withdrawal symptoms and mood modification. The Internet is not to blame, just like cigarettes or running are not to blame. It is hard to make things any clearer than Vaughan Bell who stated (2007b, np):

It’s also important to make the distinction between something being compulsive, something that you want to do again (commonly, but confusingly, called ‘addictive’ in everyday language), and a fully-fledged behavioural addiction – a mental disorder where you keep doing the activity even when it has serious damaging effects.

The cinema, reading books, going for walks, chatting to friends and any other enjoyable activity can be compulsive, but it doesn’t make it an ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Addiction: It Got Your Attention
• 1 Internet Addiction: Contrasting Viewpoints
• 2 When Do We Say ‘Too Much’?: Being Cautious About ‘Over-use’ and Virtual Reality
• 3 Technological Development and Childhood Play: The Changing Nature of Everyday Leisure
• 4 Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice
• 5 Introducing Some Teenage Technological Experts: Digital Insiders
• 6 The Blur Between Leisure, Learning and Expertise
• 7 Internet Addiction in the Lives of Teenagers
• 8 New Forms of Privilege
• 9 Misrecognition of the Practice of Leisure
• Conclusion: Reframing our Gaze on Internet Addiction
• References
• Index