What Can the Chemical Hold?: The Politics of Efficacy in the Psychedelic Renaissance.
Cult Med Psychiatry March 2, 2021 DOI: 10.1007/s11013-021-09708-7 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Ethnography Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Population | Psychedelic therapists and researchers |
| Key findings | A fundamental political tension exists between the efficacious ends envisioned by the self and the chemical in psychedelic therapy, as clinical trials link specific chemical effects to diagnostic populations, enfranchising the chemicals but not all their efficacies. |
Abstract
Drawing from ethnographic research with psychedelic therapists and researchers, this article explores political tensions between two sources of efficacy within psychedelic therapy: the self and the chemical. At times researchers and therapists emphasize the specificity of chemical effects in relationship to the neurobiology of particular diagnoses. And at other times they foreground the self as the true source of an experience which is not tied to that same biochemistry. Anthropologists have long emphasized that efficacy is a historically and socially embedded category and practice. Those conversations have new valence in light of recent theorization of the chemicals as material-semiotic structures shaped by their experimental contexts. This article argues that while the empirical claims embedded in these two efficacies can and do mutually include each other, a fundamental political tension remains between the efficacious ends envisioned by each. As clinical trials develop these drugs as therapeutic agents, they do so through linking the specific effects of the chemical to particular diagnostic populations, which may enfranchise these chemicals, but not all their efficacies.