Hello everyone and welcome back. In our last sections we have been
talking about psychological and biological models of substance abuse. In
this section we begin talking about sociological models of substance abuse.
Let's begin by going to slide two.
As we can see in slide two, sociological models are different from the other
models that we have previously been discussing (biology and
psychology). There the focus is on the individual. In sociological models the
focus is on the behavior and the impact of groups.
And as we can see in slide three, there is a wide variety of different
submodels that occur with models of sociology. So let's look at some of
these, get a look at what they are and how they work.
So let's begin with sociocultural theories or models on slide
four. Generally, these models are based on observations of similarities or
differences between some particular group or subgroup. Basically,
like some psychological models, they contend that environmental factors cause
the difference in use rates. Further these factors also cause differences in use rates
for different types of compounds. Basically, what many of these models
contend is that socially disorganized communities have less control and
fewer shared values than more organized communities. So they have fewer
social controls on the using behavior and consequently, individuals use a lot more
compounds. The classic example is inner city drug use versus rural or
suburban drug use.
Goode, as we see in slide five, contends that the social context determines
a wide variety of things. It determines the drug definitions, the effects of
the drugs, drug-related behavior and often times the drug experiences. What
Goode contends is that all these aspects must be considered when discussing
drug use.
Let's take an example by examining heroin and morphine on slide six.
Both of these substances are narcotics and are used for pain relief. However, heroin in
the United States is considered dangerous and having no value, while morphine
is considered a medicine.
However, as we see in slide seven, when you use morphine on the street the
feelings and effects are different than when you are using morphine in a
hospital. Other drugs will have similar impacts. For example, Peyote on the street
has different effects than when used in a religious ceremony.
So, what many sociologists contend is (as we see in slide eight) is that
social context is extremely important. Drugs have effects on many different
aspects of the individual. However, the user only pays attention to some of
these. And they then interpret these effects based on some sociological
context and interpret those effects. So, what many of the sociologists
contend is that use, abuse, and addiction are all based and influenced
inside some kind of sociosocial or sociocultural system where one resides.
For example, in the United States taking hallucinogens or smoking marijuana
is bad but the social use such as smoking or using alcohol is okay. In
contrast, in other countries marijuana and other drugs are okay, while
smoking is not considered to be a good thing.
So in general, as we can see in slide nine, the culture where one resides is
extremely important in deciding what particular aspects of drugs are
appropriate and what particular aspects or drugs are inappropriate. This
observation
is backed up by literature in both psychology and in sociology. We can give
you a wide variety of studies to support for those contentions.
The next major set of models in sociological theories is what we call the
supracultural models and the first major theorist to talk about this concept is
Bales.
As we see in slide eleven, Bales initially was examining alcohol use. What
he contended was that there are relationships between the culture, the
social organization and alcohol use. Further, how the culture dealt with the
particular issues related to alcohol use was very important.
So let's take an example in slide twelve. Cultures that produce guilt,
suppress aggression, suppress sexual tension and condone alcohol to relieve
tension, Bales contends, will have very high rates of alcoholism.
The social attitudes, as we see in slide thirteen, are also important.
Different attitudes about alcohol by societies will have major impacts in
their abstinence rates, ritual use, in drinking and in personal situations.
Societies, in essence, that focus on abstinence, ritual use, or drinking in
social situations tend to have lower rates of alcoholism than societies
which focus on drinking for personal reasons. (These individuals have higher
social tensions and will ultimately have higher rates of alcoholism).
Related to all this is a concept shown on slide fourteen
called Strain. If a society basically has ways to release tension, stress
or other types of problems or provides some particular kind of substitute that
achieves some kind of satisfaction, those societies in general will
have fewer alcohol problems. In contrast, if there is a strong emphasis on social
upward mobility and people are blocked from achieving it by lack of
education, geographic area (as we have in Idaho), etc., strain theorists contend
that higher rates of alcohol problems would occur.
So let's examine rural areas such as we have in slide fifteen. There is a
wide variety of rural areas so let's focus on areas in Idaho. Idaho has many logging
or mining communities. These have jobs and some upward mobility. So when on
looks at communities such as these one finds that with
communities that have lots of activities they have fewer problems. But
communities that in essence have fewer activities have lots of problems. So
example, if you have a rural community that does not have anything to do but
drink then what does one do? One drinks. Now, if you cut the jobs or you
have fewer jobs and have more unemployment, then more problems are going to
occur as well. This is due to the strain that one has within the
particular area.
Social agreement regarding use is also very important As we can see in
slide sixteen, cultures that have little agreement regarding controls or
regarding use (or have weak social control), those cultures will have higher
rates of consumption. And the person is not seen as deviant.
Cultures are also going to have major influence in the rate of use. As we
see in slide seventeen, there is a major aspect of this that is important.
Let's look at French and Italian drinkers. Both major cultures are Catholic,
both make lots of wine and distilled spirits, and both groups drink lots of
alcohol.
If we study the French culture as we see in slide eighteen, the French drink
both wine and spirits, they drink with and without the meals, they drink
with and without family, and they do not disapprove of drunkenness. They
really consider it bad manners to refuse a drink.
On the other hand if you look at the Italians (on slide nineteen) they usually
drink with meals, usually drink with family, usually drink wine, strongly
disapprove of drunkenness, and do not pressure others to drink. So what should one
see when examining the consumption rates and problems of these societies?
Well, as we see in slide twenty, France has one of the highest alcoholism
rates in the world while Italy has a 1/5 lower rate than France. In Italy
there are also strong sanctions for getting drunk. That is, the focus is on
moderation. Of course the type of beverage is going to have a major impact
as well.
Social communities as we see in slide twenty-one can also differ. Idaho
State has many different rural communities. Many of these communities are
geographically isolated. Few also have any major industries or economic
support. And few have activities for most members in most communities.
So, let's take a look at a couple of towns in the state of Idaho. We'll look
at town one on slide twenty-two. Town one it is a logging town located in
northern Idaho. Drinking here is considered to be normative even among
youth. Sometimes the town will close down the streets for the major
community fair where you have lots of drinking and other associated
behavior.
Town two, in contrast, is a different community. It is found in southern Idaho
and is primarily a farming community with a large LDS and Lutheran presence.
Here, alcohol use is frowned upon and drunkenness is discouraged.
So, what should one see as we compare the rates in these two communities
with problems with alcohol use? Well, as we see in slide twenty-four, you
are going to have more problems with alcohol in town one. Again, as we
talked about in earlier examples, community norms and the social controls
will have a major impact on the consumption and use rates within that
particular culture.
The next major model I want to talk about is called subculture models )shown on slide twenty-five). Basically, subculture models contend
that there are many differences between groups within the same population.
So, if we have a major metropolitan area such as Boise and look at that
area, we will find that there is a variety of different ages, races, ethnicity,
religiosity, socioeconomic status and many other sociologic demographic
variables. All of these will have an impact on use rates and problems.
Now, a classic study that really looked at all these variables was done by
Cahalan. As we see on slide twenty-six, what Cahalan did was examine social
variables related to alcoholism. The results he found are still
applicable today. Basically what Cahalan contends is that your social
environment plays a major role in determining if a person will drink and
also how much a person will drink.
You will also have sex differences as well. For example, as we see in slide
twenty-seven, females tend to drink less than males (although that is
changing). Females also tend to get less drunk than males and they get drunk
less often than males. Drunkenness is often disapproved of more in females
than in males although, again, both of these statistics are changing and females are
moving more toward males in both of these areas.
There is major sex
difference in the use of drugs. Smoking, for example, is cool for females
except when pregnant. It is now not cool for males to smoke. As a
consequence, what you are seeing is huge increases in female smoking
cigarettes. Also, you need to note that females become addicted much faster to
nicotine than males. Plus, the earlier a female begins smoking the higher the
probability is they will become addicted to nicotine and other compounds
within cigarettes than males at the same age group.
Other drugs show similar results. As we see in slide twenty-eight, different
groups tend to use different types of drugs. For example, heroin is a
favorite of musicians. Spray paint and glue is a very common drug used by
inner city youth. Rave Clubs and individuals who attend them primarily use
Ecstasy and GHB (although remember, GHB with alcohol is the classic
date rape drug. Marijuana is primarily used across youth in general and the
reason for that statistic is you can't get alcohol.
Now, there is lots of problems societies have in relation to all this. As we
see in slide twenty-nine. Most societies have few if any alternatives to
using compounds. And as I have listed here, Yoga just does not cut it!
Exercise also takes work. Let's go play golf! Well, golf will probably cost
you $20 to $50 to $100 for greens' fees each time you play. It also takes
lots of time. And, what about the nineteenth hole?
Youth, as we see in slide thirty, need activities. Kids need to be involved
in after school with activities. And if you look at kids involved in after
school activities they have fewer alcohol and drug problems than kids who do
not. It does not matter what the activity is. You do not need to be on the
football team, or the basketball team; even chess club or drama club will have a major impact. Kids with parents at home
when they arrive will also have fewer alcohol and drug problems. This is a
major problem in society today as both parents are working. We have
latchkey kids that come home and have access to anything in the house. Kids
who have active parents in their lives also have fewer alcohol and drug
problems. And, kids with good peer networks usually have fewer alcohol and
drug problems. Note however, what is "cool" for parents may not be
"cool" for kids. Another aspect related to youth is that one "bad apple" will
have a major impact on good peer networks and will usually modify the good
peer groups to more deviant behavior.
Youth subculture as we see in slide thirty-one is different that other
subcultures. It focuses on different activities. Kids "hang" with their own
and they do not like to "hang" with their parents. Kids also reinforce each
other. And kids who are in deviant subcultures are often social outcasts.
Well, what about the next major model? That is called labeling Theory.
As we can see in slide thirty-three, Labeling theory usually does not try to explain why the use begins. Basically it explains why a person comes to
view themselves as "deviant" or "different" from the society. Deviance from
a sociological standpoint is how much one is different from the particular
norms of society or culture. Deviant is how much the person perceives
themselves to be different. So deviance is more socially based and deviant
is a person's expectations and view of themselves. However, from a
sociological standpoint both of these are not judgmental. So just because
one is deviant does not mean one is bad from a sociological standpoint.
Lemert contends, as we can see in slide thirty-four, that we only exert a
very small amount of control over the image we portray. What we often do is
get an image of ourselves from others. We get these images of ourselves from
observing the actions and opinions of others. Ultimately, these images
influence the definition we have of ourselves.
So let's take an example as we see in slide thirty-five. Joe or Maria, it
does not matter which one you choose is a thirty-five year old
occasional marijuana smoker. They are also very outgoing; they do not have a
problem talking about things and like to exaggerate their drug and alcohol
use. However, over time, their friends begin to perceive them as a "stoner".
They make comments about them being a stoner. Joe or Maria also begin to exaggerate
their drug use. As a result their friends begin to dissociate themselves from Joe
or Maria. Now, over time, because of this feedback, Joe or Maria begins to
believe they are a stoner. They also begin to be reinforced that they are a
stoner by others. So, consequently, since they can not belong to one
particular peer group they begin to change their peer groups, and reject the
flack they receive from their current peer group. Consequently, the
drug use continues.
On slide thirty-six is another classic example of how labeling can be very
important. Let's take a child, usually a boy, who is very active, especially
active in the classroom. They may also be somewhat disruptive. As a
consequence of that they begin to develop a label from the teacher. The kid
is....! This isn’t a good kid! He is always out of control! Blah, blah,
blah! The teacher talks to other teachers at lunch. And as a consequence, if
this label begins in grades one or two this label is attached to the child.
That label will follow that child as he progresses through all the classes.
Every "bad" behavior this kid does, even though it is the same as all the
behaviors the other kids are doing, is added to the particular label.
So as we see in slide thirty-seven there are some very major points. As the
child engages in the some behavior their behavior is seen as problematic,
while behavior of other children in the same class is seen as less problematic.
When the child changes the grades, guess what, the label follows them into the next grade. So even if the child gets his act together and the
behavior changes, the label by the teacher tends to not change. As a
consequence a variable reinforcement schedule begins. That is, even when the
child is good most of the time, one incident will maintain the label for the
teachers and the staff.
As a result, as we see in slide thirty-eight, the child will not receive
reinforcers or comments for good behavior, but only receives comments for
bad behavior. And, due to the label, even grading can be stricter. For
example, if a child
provides material that is the same as a child with good behavior, but
problem child will receive a lower grade because of other aspects of their
performance.
So, what is the result of all of this? Well, as we see in slide thirty-nine,
the child’s cognition and behavior begin to change. Child performance
deteriorates and this only reinforces the teacher’s perception and behavior.
The child will also perceives themselves as a poor student, deviant, etc.; and
as a result, begins to engage in deviant behavior. This is perceived by other
students as deviant, problematic, and the kid is seen as a thug, etc. Also,
the child may be seen by legal authorities as deviant or problematic. The
key to note with all of this is, even though the child's behavior is the same
as some of the other children, the consequences and the perceptions are
perceived as different.
The ultimate results of all of this, say a lot of sociological theorists (as we see in slide forty)
is that there is increased drug use to feel good. There is
also depression, suicide and law enforcement problems or legal problems.
Now, there is a classic study out there that really examines this and
demonstrates it really clearly. This is shown in slide forty-one. We have a
teacher study. Basically, what the researchers did was examine a variety of
different youth in a classroom. The teacher was told that half of these
students are very, very smart; they are very bright, etc. The teacher was
then observed. And guess what? The teacher tended to spend more time with
the "smart" kids and less time with the kids who were "less smart." After a
while the teacher is told there was a mix-up and in
fact the other kids were the smart kids and the first group of kids was the
dumb kids. And the teacher was again observed. And guess what? The teacher
started spending more time with the previous "less smart" kids and decreased
their times with the previous "smart" kids. The key to this is
that the teacher did not even recognize they were engaging in the
behavior. So, often when we talk about children in a classroom setting,
a lot times the behaviors exhibited by teachers, related to labels and
behaviors are not conscious, they are a totally unconscious type thing that
occurs.
Now, as we see in slide forty-two, it is also very difficult to change the
label or change the group that one is in. It is very difficult to go from
"bad" to "good" or "dumb" to "smart". It is also hard to go from "good" to
"bad" social groups as well. And here is the classic example of the gang
wanna-be's that are out there. There are many barriers that are designed to
prevent movement between groups.
There are a variety of reasons for this difficulty. Some of these are shown in
slide forty-three. First of all, the new group does not want the new person.
The classic example of that is in high school. Try moving from the "stoner"
group to the "jock" group. Often times to get the changes you have to have a
complete severance of ties to any group that had knowledge of where ever you
were. Consequently, you need to change schools. Sometimes, just changing
schools does not eliminate the problem because the label may follow the
person as well. You may change by leaving the location of the label. That
is, you need to move cities, and you graduate from high school, etc.
However, many of you have returned for class reunions and such, even though
you are extremely successful, what do you have when you return? You have the
some label that you had when you returned to the high school area.
So, what is the impact and how valid are these theoretical models we
have talked about with sociological theory? Well, as we see in slide
forty-four, many of these models are purely correlational. They also have a lot
of face validity. That is, they look right. They also have a lot of
empirical support but again they are correlational in nature. As a
consequence you have to be somewhat suspect of some of these models.
So, in conclusion as we see in slide forty-five, we have a wide variety of
sociological models. Some have more reliability and validity than others.
But again, they do not focus on the genetics or the biological types of
explanations. They focus on how the society and the group influence
behavior. They also use a lot of correlational evidence, but it is often
very difficult in sociological models to identify causal variables in a
precise manner.
Well, that concludes this section, in our next section we are going to begin
talking about family models. So until then, we hope you enjoy your day and
we look forward to talking with you soon.
Back
