«We had some social constructivism, actor-network theory, and rave assemblages»
How do sociologists and anthropologists study substance use?
Have you read articles about how smoking affects memory?
How does this or that substance help fight depression, physical pain, or even cancer?
What psychoactive substances are effective as painkillers?
This publication is about something else.
This publication is about what approaches to the public role of illicit psychoactive substances are offered by social researchers and researchers. Their ideas and theories are often counterintuitive, and therein lies their value: they provide new insights into psychoactive substances and their functioning in contemporary human societies.
Rejecting the stigmatizing approach and not reducing consumption to an «addiction» or a «problem», we will present the relationship between people and psychoactive substances as a spectrum of possible modalities: monstrosity, social interactions and «attachment».
How do sociologists and anthropologists study substance use?
Have you read articles about how smoking affects memory?
How does this or that substance help fight depression, physical pain, or even cancer?
What psychoactive substances are effective as painkillers?
This publication is about something else.
This publication is about what approaches to the public role of illicit psychoactive substances are offered by social researchers and researchers. Their ideas and theories are often counterintuitive, and therein lies their value: they provide new insights into psychoactive substances and their functioning in contemporary human societies.
Rejecting the stigmatizing approach and not reducing consumption to an «addiction» or a «problem», we will present the relationship between people and psychoactive substances as a spectrum of possible modalities: monstrosity, social interactions and «attachment».
Careers of substance users
One of the major works of modern drugstudies is Outsiders by Howard Becker, a classic of modern sociology. Becker's focus has always been on people and social groups marginalized in society: jazz musicians, mental health patients, pot smokers. The latter are the focus of only two chapters in Outsiders, but they are among the most interesting chapters of contemporary sociology of drugs.
To analyze the social trajectory of cannabis users, Becker uses the concept of a deviant career. The very notion of career, which comes from occupational research, refers to «a sequence of movements from one position in a professional system to another made by an individual working in that system». Such movement is determined by career conditions, that is «the factors on which the transition from one position to another depends».
For Becker, it is also important that careers can be both «successful» and «unsuccessful» and that individuals, of their own free will or due to various circumstances, can stop or resume their career movement.
One of the major works of modern drugstudies is Outsiders by Howard Becker, a classic of modern sociology. Becker's focus has always been on people and social groups marginalized in society: jazz musicians, mental health patients, pot smokers. The latter are the focus of only two chapters in Outsiders, but they are among the most interesting chapters of contemporary sociology of drugs.
To analyze the social trajectory of cannabis users, Becker uses the concept of a deviant career. The very notion of career, which comes from occupational research, refers to «a sequence of movements from one position in a professional system to another made by an individual working in that system». Such movement is determined by career conditions, that is «the factors on which the transition from one position to another depends».
For Becker, it is also important that careers can be both «successful» and «unsuccessful» and that individuals, of their own free will or due to various circumstances, can stop or resume their career movement.
In «Outsiders», the concept of career is transformed from the professional sphere and applied to the social trajectories of individuals. Becker distinguishes two large groups of social careers: conformists and deviants.
Conformists build careers of «normal» people, who gradually become accustomed to generally recognized institutions and forms of behavior. As in professional careers, in social careers one step is related to another: to be normal, you need to graduate from school, go to university, get a job, get married, and so on. At the same time, one cannot go to prison, use drugs, or have mental problems.
As Becker writes: «The average person should not be interested in drugs because there is much more at stake than immediate pleasure; he may believe that his job, family, and reputation among his neighbors depend on him continuing to avoid temptation».
However, there are people who somehow manage to stay out of the fetters of conventional society. Such people are considered deviants by conventional society.
In contrast to psychological and social theories, which see deviancy as a manifestation of some inner motivation of individuals, Becker suggests that it is the result of a social learning process: the individual learns to be a member of a subculture organized around deviant activities.
Conformists build careers of «normal» people, who gradually become accustomed to generally recognized institutions and forms of behavior. As in professional careers, in social careers one step is related to another: to be normal, you need to graduate from school, go to university, get a job, get married, and so on. At the same time, one cannot go to prison, use drugs, or have mental problems.
As Becker writes: «The average person should not be interested in drugs because there is much more at stake than immediate pleasure; he may believe that his job, family, and reputation among his neighbors depend on him continuing to avoid temptation».
However, there are people who somehow manage to stay out of the fetters of conventional society. Such people are considered deviants by conventional society.
In contrast to psychological and social theories, which see deviancy as a manifestation of some inner motivation of individuals, Becker suggests that it is the result of a social learning process: the individual learns to be a member of a subculture organized around deviant activities.
For example, the career of cannabis smokers includes three main stages: «mastering the technique»; «mastering the ability to discern the effects»; and «mastering the ability to enjoy the effects». Each of these stages requires practice, but also involves social interactions and active engagement with the cultural and social context - for example, talking to more experienced users or familiarity with films and literary works that describe the process of use.
All in all, it is not an easy task and not everyone succeeds.At each stage something can go wrong - and then your career as a consumer is over, you decide it's not for you.
Completion of the three basic stages of learning is necessary but not sufficient for a career as a user. The individual must still learn to cope with the powerful forces of social control that make cannabis use seem unwise, immoral, or both.
The important point here is that for Becker, deviancy is not about the action of smoking, but about how the rest of society perceives this action. The greatest harm from smoking pot is precisely the judgmental attitudes of society and law enforcement.
«Social stigmatization» can lead to problems at work, with family, friends, and generally adversely affect social interactions and the psychological state of the individual.
In the case of law enforcement intervention, the smoker may suffer significant financial losses or be imprisoned altogether.
All in all, it is not an easy task and not everyone succeeds.At each stage something can go wrong - and then your career as a consumer is over, you decide it's not for you.
Completion of the three basic stages of learning is necessary but not sufficient for a career as a user. The individual must still learn to cope with the powerful forces of social control that make cannabis use seem unwise, immoral, or both.
The important point here is that for Becker, deviancy is not about the action of smoking, but about how the rest of society perceives this action. The greatest harm from smoking pot is precisely the judgmental attitudes of society and law enforcement.
«Social stigmatization» can lead to problems at work, with family, friends, and generally adversely affect social interactions and the psychological state of the individual.
In the case of law enforcement intervention, the smoker may suffer significant financial losses or be imprisoned altogether.
Object-oriented attachment
Becker's understanding of drug use emphasized the social and cultural components of the process, while the activity of the substance itself was either ignored or analyzed through the prism of cultural and social relations.
Another approach is offered by Antoni Hennion and Emile Gomart in «A Sociology of Attachment:Music Amateurs, DrugUsers». The French sociologists propose to consider the object of consumption itself as an actor in the process of interactions with humans.
In their study, Hennion and Gomart mix music and substance addiction. Only they do not speak of infatuation, but of attachment. It is with this word (attachment) that they describe the complex set of relationships that arise between an individual and the object of his «attachment», whether it be music or the same Mary Jane.
According to French sociologists, in order for something to «move» you, you also have to work hard: go through a certain amount of social training, develop your tastes, your senses, your feelings.
However, the attachment that Hennion and Gomart speak of implies the presence of at least two actors. The substance must be seen as as active an actor in the consumption process as the consumer.
The human actor must go through a series of specific states (openness, patience, receptivity, sensitivity), but only in order to let the object of his attraction master himself and transform himself.
Becker's understanding of drug use emphasized the social and cultural components of the process, while the activity of the substance itself was either ignored or analyzed through the prism of cultural and social relations.
Another approach is offered by Antoni Hennion and Emile Gomart in «A Sociology of Attachment:Music Amateurs, DrugUsers». The French sociologists propose to consider the object of consumption itself as an actor in the process of interactions with humans.
In their study, Hennion and Gomart mix music and substance addiction. Only they do not speak of infatuation, but of attachment. It is with this word (attachment) that they describe the complex set of relationships that arise between an individual and the object of his «attachment», whether it be music or the same Mary Jane.
According to French sociologists, in order for something to «move» you, you also have to work hard: go through a certain amount of social training, develop your tastes, your senses, your feelings.
However, the attachment that Hennion and Gomart speak of implies the presence of at least two actors. The substance must be seen as as active an actor in the consumption process as the consumer.
The human actor must go through a series of specific states (openness, patience, receptivity, sensitivity), but only in order to let the object of his attraction master himself and transform himself.
This preparation is necessary so that the object of attachment can reveal itself more fully. Analysis of interviews with drug users and music connoisseurs shows that both regard the subject as an active agent in the situation of interaction. Moreover, the subject can «lose himself or herself» and allow the psychoactive substance to control him or herself.
Attachment thus turns out to be a complex and fragile set of interactions in which both object and person are constantly trying to adjust to each other, either becoming more active or moving into a more passive phase.
It's like a classic novel, with passions, betrayals and betrayals, where absolutely any ending is possible. Yea, this is the most intimate and in its own sweet way sociological study related to drug use.
The disadvantages are that the French researchers pay little attention to the potential negative effects of drugs: family breakdown, personality degradation, health problems, job loss, poor appetite, sleep disturbance, irritability, forgetfulness, and so on. Reading their article may lead to the false assumption that using drugs is hardly more problematic than listening to your favorite music.
Attachment thus turns out to be a complex and fragile set of interactions in which both object and person are constantly trying to adjust to each other, either becoming more active or moving into a more passive phase.
It's like a classic novel, with passions, betrayals and betrayals, where absolutely any ending is possible. Yea, this is the most intimate and in its own sweet way sociological study related to drug use.
The disadvantages are that the French researchers pay little attention to the potential negative effects of drugs: family breakdown, personality degradation, health problems, job loss, poor appetite, sleep disturbance, irritability, forgetfulness, and so on. Reading their article may lead to the false assumption that using drugs is hardly more problematic than listening to your favorite music.
Rave Monster
Psychoactive substances and music are combined in another extremely interesting and theoretically significant study — «An assemblage of desire, drugs and techno // J. Fitzgerald». This is a postmodern anthropologist armed with multiple interviews with DJs, promoters and ravers, as well as a whole year of ethnographic observations at legal and illegal raves in Melbourne.
Fitzgerald sees rave culture as the culture of a translocal and situational tribe that falls into a godless «urban» ecstasy on weekends and chooses abandoned factory buildings or clubs to conduct its filthy cult. Drugs, in most cases, are one of the key elements of raves.
According to Fitzgerald, drugs during a rave can play multiple functions, and simultaneously.
Firstly, they induce the very ecstasy that disperses through the collective body of the rave, uniting that body, setting its tension and sensitivity.
Second, the drugs act as a kind of mediator between the raver's body and its environment, especially the music.
Many ravers describe their experiences under the influence of substances as a complete merging with the music, dissolving in it, when your body becomes only an extension of the rhythm, its embodiment. Dance-music-drug is the basic axis in the rave assembly. However, the trick is to assemble unique situations from almost the same basic components each time.
Psychoactive substances and music are combined in another extremely interesting and theoretically significant study — «An assemblage of desire, drugs and techno // J. Fitzgerald». This is a postmodern anthropologist armed with multiple interviews with DJs, promoters and ravers, as well as a whole year of ethnographic observations at legal and illegal raves in Melbourne.
Fitzgerald sees rave culture as the culture of a translocal and situational tribe that falls into a godless «urban» ecstasy on weekends and chooses abandoned factory buildings or clubs to conduct its filthy cult. Drugs, in most cases, are one of the key elements of raves.
According to Fitzgerald, drugs during a rave can play multiple functions, and simultaneously.
Firstly, they induce the very ecstasy that disperses through the collective body of the rave, uniting that body, setting its tension and sensitivity.
Second, the drugs act as a kind of mediator between the raver's body and its environment, especially the music.
Many ravers describe their experiences under the influence of substances as a complete merging with the music, dissolving in it, when your body becomes only an extension of the rhythm, its embodiment. Dance-music-drug is the basic axis in the rave assembly. However, the trick is to assemble unique situations from almost the same basic components each time.
Another function of drugs is to produce «monstrosity», that is, such negative states and situations, which, also being part of the rave, set its dark border.
We are talking about overdoses and badtrips, as a result of which the body of the raver turns into the body of a completely unmanageable and dysfunctional «monster».
This monstrosity, which at first glance does not seem to belong to rave culture, can be seen as its constitutive element, the element that introduces unpredictability and novelty, through which rave always has the potential to become something else.
We are talking about overdoses and badtrips, as a result of which the body of the raver turns into the body of a completely unmanageable and dysfunctional «monster».
This monstrosity, which at first glance does not seem to belong to rave culture, can be seen as its constitutive element, the element that introduces unpredictability and novelty, through which rave always has the potential to become something else.
«During a rave, body changes are possible that are impossible in any other environment. Here there is the possibility of a monstrous epidemic, an incredible intensity of flows that form a rhizome, which, in turn, generates an unstoppable process of infection. It can be a «marvelous», «monstrous» and «nomadic» experience of disorder».
- says Fitzgerald.
- says Fitzgerald.
Unspeakable
While Fitzgerald's study, like all the previous ones, is based on an analysis of what is said about substances, Valverde and O'Malley's article focuses on something that is not commonly discussed in close connection with drugs in contemporary societies, namely pleasure.
In «Pleasure, Freedom and Drugs:The Uses of 'Pleasure' in Liberal Governance of Drug and Alcohol Consumption», the researchers try to understand how discursive regimes of public discourse about drugs and drug use are regulated and reformatted. Their main thesis is that in today's politically relevant discussions of these topics, pleasure is almost never an argument, and is most often neither spoken about nor mentioned at all.
The exclusion or stigmatization of the category of «pleasure» in the drug use debate has a history of its own and still has a significant impact on how we understand and what we say about drugs.
While Fitzgerald's study, like all the previous ones, is based on an analysis of what is said about substances, Valverde and O'Malley's article focuses on something that is not commonly discussed in close connection with drugs in contemporary societies, namely pleasure.
In «Pleasure, Freedom and Drugs:The Uses of 'Pleasure' in Liberal Governance of Drug and Alcohol Consumption», the researchers try to understand how discursive regimes of public discourse about drugs and drug use are regulated and reformatted. Their main thesis is that in today's politically relevant discussions of these topics, pleasure is almost never an argument, and is most often neither spoken about nor mentioned at all.
The exclusion or stigmatization of the category of «pleasure» in the drug use debate has a history of its own and still has a significant impact on how we understand and what we say about drugs.
Valverde and O'Malley show that although discourses on drugs have changed in many societies throughout history, from the eighteenth century to the modern «harm minimization» approach, they have always explained use by anything other than what can conventionally be called the pleasure of the process and its results.
For example, the use of hard alcohol, and later any alcohol, from the eighteenth to the middle of the nineteenth century was explained by the fact that the lower classes were like animals (turning to the bottle among the upper classes was not problematic) and could not properly control their instincts and desires.
Later, alcoholism was attributed to the oppressive influence of an increasingly isolated lifestyle in the big city, that is, seen as a reaction to the disorganization, crises and injustices of the outside world, which only exacerbated problems rather than helping to solve them at all.
Drug use in the twentieth century was first seen as a sign of some inner pathology, then as an indicator of asocial lifestyle, negative influence of social environment, the result of psychological or chemical dependency, a remedy for depression, and so on.
Even the «harm minimization» discourse, which has a reputation for being the most progressive, associates drug use with potential health or other risks. And the science-centered approach that surrounds it also views consumption solely in pragmatic terms:
- Does smoking increase creativity?
- And how does it affect memory?
- Are mushrooms useful for treating psychological disorders?
And so on to infinity.
Valverde and O'Malley conclude that the connection between drug use and pleasure has been subject to severe and sustained ideological repression and silence. They argue that the political logic of modern liberal societies, in which pleasure is always tied to categories of normal and permissible, is to blame. Those pleasures that are associated with socially and legally disapproved practices are inevitably demonized and stigmatized.
State discourses on drugs and alcohol tend to gloss over pleasure as a motive for consumption and instead offer a vision of consumption related to compulsion, pain, and pathology.
It is argued that problematic drug use is not caused by the search for pleasure but by such things as «slavery of will»; «behavioral drives» in many modern psychological theories; or some other bodily, social or psychological failure or defect that pushes people to «unreasonable actions».
Nevertheless, they call for getting rid of ideological censorship when talking about drugs, if only because censorship prevents adequate conversation.
Valverde and O'Malley conclude that the connection between drug use and pleasure has been subject to severe and sustained ideological repression and silence. They argue that the political logic of modern liberal societies, in which pleasure is always tied to categories of normal and permissible, is to blame. Those pleasures that are associated with socially and legally disapproved practices are inevitably demonized and stigmatized.
State discourses on drugs and alcohol tend to gloss over pleasure as a motive for consumption and instead offer a vision of consumption related to compulsion, pain, and pathology.
It is argued that problematic drug use is not caused by the search for pleasure but by such things as «slavery of will»; «behavioral drives» in many modern psychological theories; or some other bodily, social or psychological failure or defect that pushes people to «unreasonable actions».
Nevertheless, they call for getting rid of ideological censorship when talking about drugs, if only because censorship prevents adequate conversation.