2.0 Introduction

Chapter Introduction

How we come to view, understand, or make sense of social phenomena is a product of human interaction. Whether something is considered a social good, or a social issue or problem, is the result of how we as humans have come together to define and make sense of it. In other words, our perceptions or definitions of reality are social products or constructs. The constructs and definitions we use to understand and order our lives, are influenced by claims-making activities, and impacted by both the historical and cultural context in which we live. For example, have you ever stopped to consider how or why alcohol consumption is seen as a normative aspect of Canadian culture, but the use of other substances, such as cocaine or heroin, are not? Why is alcohol viewed as a necessary part of many social and celebratory activities (e.g., the popularized image of the “traditional wedding toast”)? Has it always been this way? Whose reality do such definitions reflect, and whose reality is not represented? Why is this the case?

Another important question to ask is, who benefits from such perceptions of normality? On the one hand, are those persons and groups whose cultural values and beliefs are privileged through normalizing alcohol consumption. On the other hand, are those who profit from alcohol sales. On a daily-basis, the normativity of drinking is sold to us through direct-to-viewer alcohol advertisements, life-style branding, and product-placement, found in all forms of media. The idea being promoted and reinforced is that consuming alcohol is a normal and necessary part of fun, relaxation and socializing. Such promotional activities serve the interests of the alcohol industry, including the individuals, businesses, and corporations who manufacture and sell alcohol, and provide alcohol-related products and services.

Similar questions can and should be raised about all psychoactive substances. It is important to inquire as to why one form of substance use is considered normative, and another criminal or bad, and how/why such definitions change over time and/or context. This chapter uses a constructionist lens to explore varying definitions of substances and their use, both historically and cross-culturally. Part of this involves drawing attention to claims-makers, interest groups, and/or moral entrepreneurs, and their role in constructing how we view and respond to social phenomenon or social issues, such as drug use. As you work your way through future course materials, you will discover that the constructionist framework outlined in this chapter can facilitate the challenging of taken for granted ideas tied to drugs, their use, and the social polices we use to control them.

Questions to Think About When Completing Chapter Materials

1. How can using a constructionist lens aid in understanding how people who used drugs (PWUD) are viewed and treated in our society?
2. Think of a current media story about drugs, people who use drugs, and/or drug policy. In what way can constructionist theory help us to understand the slant of the story and how and why it is receiving media attention?
3. Identify two types of claims-makers in the chapter materials. Who is their intended audience? What types of claims are they making? Which cultural themes do they draw upon to win audience support? Who benefits from such claims? How do they benefit? Why these claims and this target, at this time?
4. Reflect on your beliefs about a currently illegal psychoactive substance and the people who use it. In what way do the chapter materials challenge and/or impact your beliefs? How can constructionism aid in your reflection process?