Review of 'The Least of Us' by Sam Quinones
By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, January 09, 2022
‘True Tales of America and Hope in the Time of Fentanyl
and Meth.” So reads the subtitle of Sam Quinones’s latest, The Least of
Us. I am not entirely convinced these tales are true—by
which I do not at all mean to suggest that they are something other than factual,
that they are inventions and fictions. Quinones is not that kind of bad writer.
He is a different kind of bad writer, the kind who is capable enough—and
sometimes much more than capable—when it comes to relating the stories
recounted to him by the feckless sad sacks with which his terrarium of human
failure is populated but, at the same time, utterly unable to organize those
sad stories into anything other than the tired, hackneyed,
shady-back-alleys-of-capitalism narrative that one expects from a 62-year-old
Berkeley graduate.
Both men would probably loathe the comparison, but
Quinones is in a sense a version of Tucker Carlson, another child of the old
California aristocracy. Quinones is the son of a Harvard-educated Claremont
professor, and he’s a former president of the Association of Literary Scholars
and Critics later appointed to the board of the National Council for the
Humanities by George W. Bush—but one who offers himself as a journalistic
tribune of the plebs, a voice for a marginalized underclass he knows in an
essentially anthropological way, who are not his people but his profession. I
do not fault Quinones for being born to privilege; I blame him only for his
failure to overcome the difficulties imposed by such an upbringing.
These deficiencies are both intellectual and moral, and,
consequently, narrative. The Least of Us is mainly a series of
potted biographies of junkies. There is Tom Ruah, who graduated from
prescription painkillers to injecting heroin and described the experience as
“like seeing God.” (One of the problems with telling junkies’ stories in their
own words is that their accounts are almost invariably silly and
self-aggrandizing, and packed with clichés on the level of “like seeing God.”)
Ruah steals and cons his way through life until dying from an overdose of
acetylfentanyl. There’s Lou Ortenzio, the junkie doctor who acts as a pipeline
for other addicts and dodges prison but loses his medical license, becoming a
pizza deliveryman before going on to work with other recovering addicts.
And there’s Joss Sackler, a standard-issue society-page
grotesque. About her, Quinones writes:
The crowd tonight is here for a
performance-art piece. The piece centers around Joss Sackler. Ms. Sackler has a
PhD in linguistics; she owns a clothing line; she employs an entire PR team;
she is said to be very interested in “women’s issues.” She is, above all, the
wife of David Sackler, who is the son of Richard Sackler. Both men had resigned
from Purdue Pharma’s board of directors a year earlier. Tonight’s event is
billed as Joss et Ses Amis. That is French for “Joss and Her
Friends.” But the event also has a subtitle. It’s in English: “Undeterred.”
Mrs. Sackler appears in a blue
Elizabeth Kennedy evening gown, which is cut from her body piece by piece and
burned as she stands on a rotating platform in the pose of an Olympic discus
thrower. She is then spray-painted. The performance is photographed by Lynn
Goldsmith, reported in Town & Country, and, of course,
applauded. “Curated” wines are served, and Mrs. Sackler schmoozes with Keith
Richards’s daughters before flashing her breasts at the audience, to additional
applause.
The Sacklers are the villains of the book, and they
are easy targets. Purdue Pharma’s executives and board members, the
Sacklers prominent among them, took an attitude of indifference toward
prescription drug abuse that was as Olympian as Joss Sackler’s discus-thrower
pose. The firm has not exactly covered itself in glory. Quinones reports that
opioid pain medication is “virtually its only product,” but that isn’t quite
right; Dun & Bradstreet puts the sales of its Avrio Health subsidiary at
about $200 million a year, enough to buy a truckload of Elizabeth Kennedy
evening gowns and truckloads of curated wines. Avrio’s big products are
Senokot, Colace, and Peri-Colace—all laxatives—Betadine antiseptics, and
magnesium supplements, presumably a by-product of its laxative business. That’s
an all-American portfolio: hillbilly heroin and laxatives, Betadine for life’s
little scrapes, and dietary supplements, the communion wafer in the Reformed
American Church of Self-Improvement.
The Purdue story is familiar enough by this point, an
easily digested (hold the Senokot!) morality tale with corporate villains in
black hats. That Quinones and much of the rest of the media, and the country,
have accepted this simplistic tale more or less at face value is a very good
example of why it is that we 21st-century Americans, owners of vast wealth and
controllers of immense power, cannot grapple in a direct way with common,
longstanding social problems.
It is not as though this is our first go-round with a
national episode of socially destructive substance abuse. The Temperance League
of yore didn’t just spring up out of atavistic Puritan disgust—widespread
public drunkenness and private alcoholism were major social issues in the 19th
century, and not only for old-stock Protestants worried about drunken Indians
and Irishmen. The commercial press at the time was full of advertisements
offering miracle cures for the scourge of dipsomania, including such famous and
now forgotten products as the “Double Chloride of Gold Cure for Drunkenness.”
And this is hardly our first trouble with heroin,
opiates, or opioids. In the late 19th century, Bayer’s heroically named
compound—Heroin—was offered as a treatment for morphine addiction, among other
ills. Businesses have always found a way to profit from human misery,
compulsion, and decadence, and, in that sense, Purdue is not so different from
Anheuser-Busch InBev, Yum! Brands, or Pornhub. The Sacklers, comical and
obscene as they are, are very much like the ugly rich who came before them and
the ugly rich who will, we may predict with metaphysical certitude, come after
them.
Quinones, whose 2015 book Dreamland proved
to be key in alerting American elites to the opioid crisis, here demonstrates
an unfortunate determination to force the complex facts of social life into a
simplistic morality tale. In his rendering, addiction is something that
simply happens to unhappy people.
Opioids may rob them of their health, their families, and
even of their lives, but it is shallow moralists such as Quinones who would rob
them of their humanity by recasting them as amoebae swept along by market
forces without any sort of meaningful moral autonomy or personal agency. And it
is, of course, precisely this abandonment—or rejection—of personal agency that
is most characteristic of the personality of the modern American drug addict.
Opioids are, in this telling, simply a storm that rolls into town to rain
misery on those who do not have the resources to get in out of the weather. But
the workaday publicists down in the marketing department do not, in fact, have
the godlike powers ascribed to them by our voguish anti-capitalists. Purdue
wanted to sell more pain pills and was willing to put considerable resources into
pushing those out the door; Barnes & Noble would like to sell a lot more
books than it does, but all the marketing money in the world is not going to
get Americans to buy a book of poetry written by someone not named Dr. Seuss.
Religious writers and preachers often run into trouble
with metaphor and analogy. Because God is so mysterious and so entirely alien
to the human experience, religious writers often end up leaning very heavily
on metaphor. An example is the metaphor of the judge for the
demanding moral aspect of God, which Christian writers in particular often
internalize so thoroughly that they reduce the Almighty to something like a
literal judge in a court of law. Journalists writing about complex
social problems often fall victim to the same tendency, taking the metaphorical “wiring”
and “rewiring” of the human brain as literal, even though the similarity of the
human brain to a computer or another electronic device is only superficial and
analogical. Quinones has learned a little about the neurobiology of addiction,
and he writes about the brain as though it were a literal mechanical apparatus,
with parts that are “shut down” by drugs. He personalizes neurotransmitters and
hormones: “Dopamine tells us” this, while “serotonin says” that. This is a way
of transferring the agency away from human beings to neurobiological processes.
But human beings are not mechanisms, and even the most powerful social force in
modern American life—by which I mean moral cowardice—is not sufficient to make
them so.
Quinones’s need to make everything about everything else
leads him down some silly roads, i.e., his occasional clumsy forays into
presenting capitalism and addiction as aspects of each other:
Drugs … shut down the prefrontal
cortex.… An addicted brain is one where a raging primitive reward system has
silenced the prefrontal cortex’s wise counsel. The reward system, unbalancing
the natural competition among brain chemicals, gains a monopoly on the brain.
You can see the train wreck approaching, and then it arrives:
“Adam Smith, in describing capitalism in The Wealth of Nations,
called monopoly a ‘derangement’ and ‘hurtful to the society in which it takes
place.’ That sounds to me like what’s going on in the addicted brain.” Normal
stupidity cannot account for those sentences. That kind of nonsense requires a
carefully cultivated mind.
I do not need reporting about opioid addiction to be a
morality story that fits in with my own moral assumptions—in fact, I do not
need it to be a morality story at all. I think of the placid Buddhists
contemplating the end of the human species—and, hence, the end of human
suffering—in Michel Houellebecq’s The Elementary Particles: “The Enlightened
One, if he had meditated on it, would not necessarily have
rejected a technical solution.” Mitigating destructive behavior,
including the abuse of opioids and opiates, is likely to prove as much a
technical (meaning medical) question as a moral one, in the long term.
What I do need is for the story not to be a morality tale
with a cowboys-and-Indians level of moral sophistication that obscures the
facts of the case. The Least of Us is an assault on
intelligence in places, but mostly it is a missed opportunity—because there is
much that is of interest in it. What happens to sugar-addicted rats when you
give them a drug used to treat heroin overdoses? That very interesting scenario
comes up in the book, but Quinones is too much of a dabbler—a neuroscientific
dabbler, a moral dabbler, and a tourist—to make the most of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment