Posted: August 5th, 2022

How different Social identities are Defined, justified or Ridiculed in Use of Non-Medical Stimulants

How different Social identities are Defined, justified or Ridiculed in Use of Non-Medical Stimulants

Kerley, Kent R., Heith Copes, and Hayden Griffin. 2015. “Middle-Class Motives for Non-
Medical Prescription Stimulant Use among College Students.” Deviant Behavior 36:589-603. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01639625.2014.951573?journalCode=udbh20
Middle-Class Motives for Non-Medical Prescription Stimulant Use among College Students by Kerley, Copes, and Griffin aims to study how college students make sense of their non-prescribed use stimulant drugs in school. These drugs are non-medically prescribed to most of the students, some even without doctors’ consent. Most of the students are belong to middle-class homes and view the use of these drugs as necessary to their success. The author identifies that the study’s overall goal is to see the perspective that justifies the misuse of these stimulant drugs by college students, most of which have been borrowed from the average middle-class value system and beliefs.
Middle-class value systems that have been adapted ranges from the moderation of drug use, to use of the drug only through proper motives; to use of the drugs through the identified manners (taking pills as opposed to snorting); to use of the drugs only because they have a well-established background and information on their consequences and symptoms. Essentially, the research aims to identify why college students do not find addiction to the stimulant that is illegally acquired as bad as an addiction to cocaine, marijuana, and other illicit drugs that are illegally acquired.
A theory of otherness used to formulate identity in sociological studies is being measured. The theory identifies that a dominant group or one that views its motives and place as superior to the other creates social identities that justifies how it conducts its goals relative to the minority social group (Guttormsen, 2018). The working theory being tested in the paper is that most students drew on larger middle-class cultural stories to justify their acceptance and misuse of stimulants. The researcher identifies that most people identify themselves differently from a symbolic other.
Cultural identity requires a person to believe that they belong to a certain group as they do something in a particular manner as opposed to another group. This conduct forms the basis of their difference, although they may achieve the same goal in their actions. This is how social identities are formed. In the research paper, the authors identify that middle-class value systems influence how students justify the use of drugs for aspects out of the realms of academic success. This is how the dominant social group being tested conceptualizes their drug use different from the minority group defined as druggies or drug addicts who similarly use the same drugs or other harder drugs for aspects such as parties or just to get high because they are already addicted to the drugs.
Kerley, Copes, and Griffin used the inductive approach to establish a generalized perspective in this study. They evaluate students to use and justify certain wayward behaviors, such as drug use, through the larger cultural stories that frame these same attitudes and behaviors as acceptable. They discover that this is true but only if done in certain limits, e.g., moderation, among others. Simultaneously, the idea of the use of drugs acquired through illegitimate use is defined as deviant. Still, a majority of the people in the test group do not see it that way; since the middle class passively allows it as a means to achieve success. They instead judge and create separate social identities separate from the other groups that use the drugs for means other than academic success.
The research conducted to evaluate the above stance used 22 students in a major Southern University. The group consisted of 11 men and 11 women. They were all above 19 up to the age of 24. The group consisted of white, black, Asian, and multiracial persons. The research was majorly qualitative, as it conducted numerous 30-50 minutes’ interviews and recorded the results. It sought to answer why the students behaved the way that they do and, in so doing, learn the formulation of human behavior rather than collecting data that were analyzed and mathematically answered based on statistics.
The research’s dependent variable was “drug use”/ “use of drugs,” as this group used drugs to achieve a defined purpose of academic success. The other group defined by the test group as “druggies,” “junkies,” etc. used drugs similarly for recreational purposes or at parties or because they were addicted to the drugs. The qualitative data sought to establish why (independent variables) certain prescription stimulus use was defined as acceptable within their social identities and why others were not. It also sought to establish what motives constituted “proper,” how one ingestion technique was justified as safe and pleasant instead of another, how the drug was acceptable as it was used as directed, and why its use was okay since it was only used in moderation.
This was generally ethnographic research, which also used interviews as the researchers observed and interacted with the test subject. It used narrative analysis to evaluate the information provided. The narrative analysis creates value under the particular and subjective lived experience of the test subject. The interviews were considerably lengthy, chronological, and very rich in detail. It utilized an inductive approach, which involves making some observations and then forming generalized observations.
One major disadvantage of this type of research is that they are likely to affect or be affected by their outcomes in interaction with the test subject. This is defined as reflexivity. According to researchers, a researcher’s activities will work to influence what is happening in the field setting when they interact with their subjects. Ferris and Stein (2019) identify that “Ethnographers may feel respect, contempt, curiosity, boredom, and other emotions during their time in the field, and these feelings may influence their observations.” Another disadvantage is that the research suffers from replicability to establish its validity would be impossible. There was bias in representativeness. Within the study group, most people were white, accounting for 15 of the 22 students. This difference is likely to affect the outcome of the study.
The advantages of the study are that it was very detailed and rich in information. This amount of detail works well to understand social life. The type of study also allowed the researchers as ethnographers to challenge assumed or ignorant notions by asking very detailed questions on why this social group’s use of the drug was not considered wayward but recreational one was. It also allowed them to evaluate the social life and value system that shaped their perspectives.
Conclusively the research identifies that the middle-class notion of success affects how students view a behavior to their advantage. Taking drugs, for instance, is bad. Nonetheless, a middle-class notion made it seem normal and needed to take drugs for success but only within the limits of moderation and production legitimacy. Moderation is defined as a key middle-class principle that guides how they perceive actions in life. Any behavior becomes acceptable as long as it does not go beyond what is defined as addiction (within their social value system), being able to control the use of a drug despite its effect or its meaning, and means of acquisition being illegal is fine as long as it is in moderation, and the drug itself is legitimate. This assumption and bias or ignorant view work to the student’s advantage.
Most of the students identified that they only used the drug within a specified time and date; there was so much pressure to perform. Other aspects that also bring acceptability is the fact that the drug is legal and has larger research and social acceptability as legitimate. Nonetheless, the research identifies that misuse of the drug was prevalent, and its justification was pegged in conventional middle-class values. They create symbolic boundaries that justify their use and criticize others as hedonistic users as they use it for means other than performance-enhancing in the academic arena. Both use and dependency are defined as wrong.

References
Ferris, K., & Stein, J. (2019). Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods. The real world: An Introduction to Sociology (7th ed.).
Guttormsen, D. S. (2018). Advancing otherness and Othering of the cultural other during “Intercultural encounters” in cross-cultural management research. International Studies of Management & Organization, 48(3), 314-332. DOI:10.1080/00208825.2018.1480874

Order | Check Discount

Tags: How different Social identities are Defined