Cannabis culture: A stable subculture in a changing world
| Author | Sveinung Sandberg |
| Published date | 01 February 2013 |
| Date | 01 February 2013 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1748895812445620 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
2012
Article
Criminology & Criminal Justice
13(1) 63 –79
Cannabis culture: A stable
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
subculture in a changing world sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895812445620
crj.sagepub.com
Sveinung Sandberg
University of Oslo, Norway
Abstract
In criminological and sociological studies of illegal drugs, the thesis of normalization suggests
that when a drug goes from being a marginal to a widespread phenomenon, theoretical and
methodological approaches that rely on subculture theory fall short. This article argues that
normalization theory fails to recognize the existence of a distinct cannabis culture because it
has a traditional understanding of subcultures as ‘groups of people’. The article suggests that a
definition of subculture as a collection of rituals, stories and symbols is better for understanding
contemporary subcultures and especially the cultural aspects of cannabis use. The conclusion is
that although many use cannabis, it still signals opposition and cultural difference. A subcultural
theoretical framework is thus crucial to understand illegal drug use. The study is based on
qualitative interviews with 100 cannabis users in Norway.
Keywords
Cannabis, narrative, normalization, ritual, subcultural theory, symbol
Introduction
Peter was a cannabis smoker in his mid-20s. He was from a village originally, but he was
now a student in the city. He told us he had always felt like a ‘natural oppositional’. ‘All
that stuff about feeling like an outsider in a small, narrow-minded town. It made me
sympathize with oppositional-type stuff’, he said. In a recent study of cannabis users in
Norway, many expressed similar attitudes. One said, ‘We were curious. It was exciting.
We wanted to test boundaries … rebel a bit.’ Another cannabis user expressed this even
more clearly, ‘If it was forbidden, we’d do it.’ It seemed that an oppositional attitude was
widespread among cannabis users. At first many would say that cannabis was ‘nothing
Corresponding author:
Sveinung Sandberg, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, PO Box 1096,
Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway
Email: sveinung.sandberg@sosgeo.uio.no
64
Criminology & Criminal Justice 13(1)
much to talk about’ or ‘that everybody uses’, but as the interviews proceeded and more
detailed accounts emerged, use of cannabis was described quite differently. Cannabis
users described both explicitly – but more often indirectly, subtly, hidden in asides – how
use of the substance was woven into an attractive subculture.
The use of illegal drugs in general, and cannabis in particular, has increased in the last
few decades. Commenting upon these trends, Howard Parker and his colleagues devel-
oped a theory about the normalization of adolescent recreational drug use. They argued
that a subcultural theoretical framework was no longer fruitful for understanding illegal
drug use. Using the same formulation in the original and in the ‘revisited’ version of
normalization theory, they stated that when drug trying has ‘moved from being a small
minority to majority activity subcultural theory struggles’ and that normalization theory
‘sits uncomfortably with subcultural explorations’ (Aldridge et al., 2011: 206; Parker
et al., 1998: 156). Michael Shiner (2009), on the other hand, has argued that subcultural
insights from the classic studies of illegal drug use still provide insights necessary to
understand contemporary drug use (see, for example, Becker, 1963; Goode, 1970;
Johnson, 1973; Young, 1971). This study reaches a similar conclusion. The general crim-
inological and sociological theorizing on subcultures however, needs further theoretical
development to fit contemporary use of cannabis.
A previously published article from this study reveals how cannabis users have three
discursive repertoires (Sandberg, 2011). One of these emphasizes the fascinating differ-
ence of both users and the drug. Many cannabis users, for example, stated that cannabis
was used by ‘free-thinking, open people’ and triggered creativity. This was the most
frequent discursive repertoire and that which positively determined the symbolic value
or meaning of the drug. It will therefore be at the centre of the discussion in this article.
It should not be left out however, that there are also other, more defensive, ways to talk
about the drug.
The article discusses the theoretical understanding of subcultures and suggests a shift
of emphasis to understand cannabis culture. As defined here, cannabis culture consists of
a collection of rituals, symbols and stories to which all users must relate. These different
elements of cannabis culture are linked, and they are embedded in values such as ‘natu-
ral’, ‘organic’, ‘authentic’ and ‘oppositional’. The thesis is twofold. First, a concept of
‘subculture’, and more specifically ‘cannabis culture’, is necessary to understand the use
of cannabis today. Second, to understand this subculture it is crucial to see how it is col-
oured by the time period when cannabis was introduced and by the subcultures that
introduced it. To be more specific, contemporary smoking rituals, cannabis symbols and
users’ stories cannot be understood without seeing how they are embedded in the hippie
and bohemian cultures of the 1960s and 1970s.
Is Cannabis Normalized?
Cannabis is by far the most frequently used illegal drug in the world. Globally there
are at least 150 million users annually. In Norway 40 per cent of men and 29 per cent
of women have used cannabis by their late 20s, and in the Oslo region 30 per cent of
men in their late 20s used the substance last year (Pedersen, 2008). The real propor-
tion is probably somewhat higher, because marginalized groups, such as heavy users
Sandberg
65
of illegal drugs, are typically underrepresented in general survey studies. It is not
surprising then that normalization dominates criminological and sociological inter-
pretation of cannabis use.
It is commonly understood that cannabis use has been in a process of normalization
from the margins to the mainstream. In the social science literature this was supported by
statistics revealing an increase in illegal drug use in the 1990s, and it is known as the
thesis of normalization (Aldridge et al., 2011; Parker et al., 1998). According to Parker
and his colleagues (2002) there are five key dimensions of normalization of illegal drug
use: increased availability and access; increased drug trying rates; increased drug-usage
rates; accommodating attitudes towards ‘sensible’ recreational drug use (especially by
non-users); and a degree of cultural accommodation to illegal drug use.
Although the thesis of normalization clearly has it strengths, and captures some
important changes in the drug field, there are also shortcomings. One of the main
criticisms of the thesis has been that it exaggerates the increase and extent of illicit
drug use (Shiner and Newburn, 1997, 1999). In Norway, it has been argued that those
who use illegal drugs still have particular characteristics and that a process of nor-
malization does not describe them adequately, they do for example have other socio-
economic characteristics and other popular cultural references (Pape and Rossow,
2004; Pedersen, 2009). Shiner (2009) argues that in the UK there is no reason to
believe that the increases in drug use have taken the sudden or spectacular form that
normalization theory suggests. There has been a slow evolution rather than a struc-
tural shift in drug use (for the full discussion, see Aldrigde et al., 2011; Measham and
Shiner, 2009; Shiner, 2009).
Another problematic aspect of normalization theory is the use of concepts such as
‘risk society’ (Beck, 1992) and ‘late modernity’ (Giddens, 1991). It is claimed that:
‘Rapid social changes in so many facets of everyday life have conspired to make grow-
ing up today “feel” far less secure and more uncertain for far longer’ (Parker et al., 1998:
151). Drug use is ‘about using “time-out” to self-medicate the impact of the stresses and
strains of both success and failure in “modern” times’ (Parker et al., 1998: 152). These
assumptions about the link between use and general societal changes are neither empiri-
cally demonstrated in their data, nor is it clear that the contemporary ‘feeling’ of being
insecure is stronger than it has been at any other time in history.
Moreover, in an effort to disclaim subcultural approaches, Parker and his col-
leagues (1998: 158) argue that: ‘Our drug users are essentially extending the same
decision-making processes to illicit drugs as others do in respect of cigarette smoking
or drinking alcohol or indeed horse riding, hang gliding or mountaineering.’ However,
rational decisions about drug use, ‘recognizable cost–benefit assessments’ (1998:
154), or the presence of a ‘rational, consumerist, decision-making process which dis-
tinguishes between drugs, their effects and dangers’ (Parker et al., 2002: 948) should
not be interpreted as indicators of normalization. Similar decision-making processes
are described in the ‘subcultural’ historic period (see, for example, Becker, 1953;
Johnson, 1973; Young, 1971), and there is no reason to assume that drug use with
subcultural characteristics, cannot be ‘rational’, consumerist or involve a decision-
making process. Cannabis users in this study for example, distinguish between can-
nabis...
To continue reading
Request your trial