Remaking the ‘angry Narcanned subject’: Affording new subject positions through take-home naloxone training

Naloxone is a medication used to reverse opioid overdose. Alongside its lifesaving effects, it also has a reputation for producing distress, aggression and occasionally violence upon administration. This article analyses how take-home naloxone (THN) training initiatives address naloxone's reputation for producing aggression and conflict, and how new subject positions emerge in the context of this training. While the role of naloxone in producing aggression has been discussed in a range of research, this work emphasises that such conflict is neither inevitable nor even likely because it is contingent on several other issues such as administration practices. Building on this scholarship, we work with Bruno Latour's theorisation of technological ‘affordances’ to analyse THN as a socially co-produced technology that, rather than either determining or neutrally communicating actions and effects, ‘affords’ possibilities, capacities and subjects. Analysing data drawn from observations of THN training in Victoria, Australia, and in-depth interviews with training participants, we argue that the issue of conflict upon revival affords a subject position we term the ‘angry Narcanned subject’. This subject, we note, has come to hold a powerful position in understandings of naloxone, not least because it tends to accord with stereotypes of antisocial drug users. From here, we argue that a much of THN training is focused on challenging and reframing naloxone's reputation for conflict and questioning related subject positions, especially that of the angry Narcanned subject. We argue that this process of challenging and reframing affords two new subject positions for consumers: the ‘capable administrator’ and the ‘calmer revivee’. We conclude that while THN training affords multiple, potentially positive, subject positions, unless these initiatives are accompanied by broader interventions such as decriminalisation campaigns, they may inadvertently responsibilise people who consume opioids for addressing overdose and erase the role of prohibition, criminalisation and stigmatisation in producing overdose events.