Monday 28 July 2008

Uncertainty is always present: story from Brno

What a strange coincidence! Yesterday, I was working on the analysis of interview with Lucie (24), girl who stopped using meth three years ago, nowadays has two children with her husband (who also took part in my research) and cooperates with our organisation Podane Ruce in Brno. Few hours after I finished the analysis, my colleague phoned me and as one of the most important news she mentioned that Lucie started to use meth again. Suddenly, she took all the money she could and ran away from their home. Filip (it is a pseudonym of her husband) had then a phone call from his friend who told him that Lucie is in a bar, totally stoned.

My first feelings were simple sadness: I know the whole family, I know that they have been having quite hard time these days because their rent of their flat was at the end. And I know that this current situation is going to be really hard time for Filip and his two children.

Today, I started to look at the situation as a researcher. I don´t use the concept of addiction as an illness in my study so I do not perceive Lucie as having a chronical disease and her current behavior as the recidivism of the disease. So how could I interprete this from the framework of social construction which I use?

My basic assumption is that abandoning a long-term regular drug use usually involves a major shift within one´s identity that can be captured even as an identity transformation. For maintaining the change the person needs a continuous presence of significant others who are capable to confirm and preserve his/her new roles and provide support to the new identity. This identity is further developed through the everyday activities in which one is involved and places where one stays. In addition to this, the person needs to have access to a symbolic universe (term of sociologists Berger and Luckmann) that will provide the overall explanation and legitimation of the life and world as a whole including the life of the individual.

Everything seemed to be present in Lucie´s life. Her husband, children, her friends and people from our organisation including some ex-users, a Catholic priest and a nun formed her basic social network. She had a job and she volunteered in a drug-prevention program. Most of the time she spent with her children at home or in a park. These are her words:

„I have a job, so the life already makes sense to me. I used to perceive this as a stereotype before … in fact, what I was doing before was stereotype: still thinking just where to go to sleep, where to get a next fix, every day the same. And now I perceive this life as kind of joy, I can decide, I can think about what to do, I can choose. At once I have so many options!“

However, when she and the whole family started to be in danger of losing a place to live, she left home and returned to her old identity. In fact, when we consider the gender roles in our society, she took the risk of being stigmatized much more than if Filip would do it – common sense here is that she, as a mother, is supposed to stay with her kids. So the question could stay: why it was her and not Filip who started to use again, even when Filip used meth much longer than her?

One of the possible answer lies in the development of symbolic universe. Filip was raised in a Christian family and after he stopped using meth he adopted this symbolic universe (based in Christianity) again, just within another, maybe more suitable, social network. He was mentioning it several times during our interview. Lucie was raised in a family which did not function really good, the only important person she mentioned was her grandfather who died when she was 14. After she stopped using, she started to visit the Christian events with Filip, but she was not mentioning this symbolic universe in our interview as a significant for her.

In this perspective, Filip´s identity seems to be more fixed and resistant towards changes including unpleasant situations. So, even if there is an existential danger present in his life, he still has a God and the values and moral imperatives that evolves from his faith. On the contrary, Lucie´s identity is more flexible, open to many possibilities, one of which was the return to regular methamphetamine use. In fact, most of the postmodern thinkers talk about today´s situation as supporting these flexible and fluid types of identities which are more suitable for the fast changing life in today´s society. But since family is a pre-modern and modern product, it applies for identities that are more fixed.

This is just one of the possible interpretation. Maybe, if Filip would speak English and would read this blog, he could decide that he would do everything just opposite to this theory. Fortunately, unlike medical discourse, social constructionist perspective do not have ambitions to make any predictions. The social life is subject to continuous interpretation and re-interpretation. That´s why we can be witnesses of such stories as this one. Hopefully the continuation of it will be more positive for all actors.

Monday 14 July 2008

RELAPSE!!!

I have not posted for so long time! Mainly it was because I was in Mexico for some time and wanted to take an internet holiday. After coming back I had quite a lot of work here and since I am still not able to write in English very quickly, it took me so much time…

The trip to Mexico was significant in relation with this blog for two reasons: 1) I had very good discussions at Kanankil Institute in Merida about the substance abuse field and 2) I started to smoke again. Both these events stimulated even more my thinking about CHANGE in general – about its forms, purpose for change, perspective from which change is perceived.

It was even in Austin airport when I had the first cigarette after six weeks of not smoking. In fact, I was considering to smoke in Mexico before – cigarettes are connected mostly with relax for me and I was expecting real relax there. What is more important, my approach to substance use is not medical one. I do not believe that addiction is an illness. I think that I can change everyday long – term behavior such as smoking by myself and that the only option for result does not involve pure abstinence until the end of my life. (I am hearing the voices of abstinence-oriented in-depth therapists or counselors shouting: YOU ARE JUST RATIONALIZING!!! and of the ex-smokers: WE ALL WANTED TO BE CONTROLLED USERS AT FIRST PLACE!!!)

What was causing troubles for me when I have been smoking everyday, was the feeling that I MUST smoke every day. I think it was not even a taste for nicotine, it was a strong commitment to regular smoking. I had to HAVE cigarettes by myself – sometimes, in the night, I found that I do not have cigarettes any more and I went out and was looking for a place where I could buy it. And, I confess, when I was younger and did not have money, I was even searching for cigarette butts in the streets. Interestingly, when I finally bought the cigarettes, the strongest taste for it was away…

When I came to U.S., it was my first attempt to stop smoking ever. But the sole term „stop smoking“ is influenced by the illness narrative and the only response for this striving is not to smoke even one cigarette. But I think, humans are able to do more choices: for me, the desired result would be if I wouldn´t feel stucked in smoking – I would like to have a freedom in decision when to smoke and when not. I would like to try it. The last time I have smoked was Cancun airport 10 days ago. But my return back to Czech Republic will be more important. So far, I made one decision: I do not want to smoke every day neither in U.S., nor in Czech Republic or Mexico. I will let you know.