Anthropology Reading Reviews Questions

11b.ReadingbyMerrillSinger_04172019.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Anthropology Reading Reviews Questions

Anthropology and addiction: an historical reviewadd_3879 1747..1755

Merrill Singer Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

ABSTRACT

Aims This paper reviews the world anthropology of drugs and alcohol use literature, identifying key issues addressed by anthropologists, methods and theoretical models in use, trends in focus over time and future directions. Methods Papers and books that comprise the literature were identified through computer search using the keywords: ethnography of drug use (and variants, e.g. drug ethnography, qualitative approaches in drug research), ethnography of drinking, anthropology and drug use, and anthropology and drinking. Search engines included Google Scholar, EBSCOHost, AnthroSource and PubMed. Identified sources were read and integrated into the review. Results and Conclusions The literature search identified a rich and growing literature on the anthropology of drinking and drug use. The research and published literature on the anthropology of drug use has grown and diversified since the 1970s, found acceptance in the wider multi-disciplinary domain of alcohol and drug studies and developed beyond the socio-cultural model to include life-style, critical medical anthropology and experiential explanatory models. Anthro- pological research has helped to shape the field of addiction science, e.g. ethnographic studies show that the lived worlds and self-identities of drug users have cultural order and socially constructed purpose and meaning, and experiential research shows that some addictions or aspects of addictions can be affirmative, creative and sustainable, at least at the individual level. The human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome pandemic has significantly increased anthropological research on drug-related issues world-wide.

Keywords Anthropology, ethnography, critical medical anthropology, cultural model, syndemics.

Correspondence to: Merrill Singer, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Submitted 9 July 2011; initial review completed 11 August 2011; final version accepted 5 March 2012

INTRODUCTION

Archival research by Page [1] indicates that the fairly long human interaction with mind-altering and poten- tially addictive drugs—dating to at least 8–10 000 years ago—did not lead directly or immediately to the social delineation of a subset of consumers who were identified as problematic by their peers (also see Levine [2]). Even Benjamin Rush, an early and ardent campaigner against acute drunkenness, which he associated with the use of distilled liquor, did not label consumers as alcoholics [3]. Indeed, as an alternative to hard liquor he advocated the use of beer or even opium, noting that the ‘the different preparations of opium are a thousand times more safe and innocent than spirituous liquors in all spasmodic affections of the stomach and bowels’ ([4]; also see Trotter [5] on drunkenness as a disease). For Rush, problem drinking constituted an ‘I have’ as opposed to our contemporary ‘I am’ (as in: ‘I am an alcohol or drug addict’) conception of this disease [6].

Indeed, the term ‘addiction’—with reference to drug consumption at least—appears to be relatively new, dating to the refinement of various drug preparations into very concentrated forms that were capable of pro- ducing craving and compulsive use. This occurred during the 19th century as a consequence of political economic changes in Europe and North America leading to drugs becoming widely available global commodities [7]. As a result of the consequent re-envisioning of the world that resulted, by 1900 it became possible to be labeled publically an alcoholic (or inebriate) or a drug addict (although a number of decades earlier for alcoholic/ inebriate). The late 19th century was also the period during which anthropology developed, and it occurred in the same locations that drug addiction became a socially recognized pathological condition. Indeed, both these developments can be linked historically to the emergence of global capitalism and its desire for labor control, with anthropology focusing (at least initially) on understand- ing peoples of subordinate colonial status (including their

bs_bs_banner

ADDICTION AND ITS SCIENCES doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03879.x

potential as passive laborers) and addiction being used commonly to label possibly unruly and resistant sectors within dominant colonial societies.

Despite this historical/geotemporal relationship, anthropology was not quick to pay attention to addiction or even drug use. Until the early 1970s, ‘anthropology had not yet developed an explicit drug research tradition, especially with respect to the abuse of drugs’ [8]. Until this time, the study of drug consumption was not ‘treated as a highly venerated arena of anthropological research’ [9]. In part, this was because anthropology was seeking to comprehend normative behavior across cultural settings, rather than what came to be called deviant behavior in sociology. Additionally, anthropology was ori- ented towards a functionalist perspective that directed researchers’ attention to the ways in which parts of a culture were integrated and mutually reinforcing. One consequence, as Bourgois [10] notes, is that historically, anthropologists ‘avoided tackling taboo subjects such as personal violence, sexual abuse, addiction, alienation, and self-destruction’. During the 1970s this began to change, influenced by the drug revolution and the signifi- cant expansion in the numbers of people reporting using drugs in the West [11], as well as by the growing anthro- pological focus on western societies and the application of anthropology to addressing social problems [12,13]. Also critical to the rise of the contemporary anthropological focus on drug use and addiction was the role of drug use in the global human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) pandemic. A few years into the pandemic, the potential contribution of anthropology to the study of connections between drug consumption and HIV infection and disease pro- gression were recognized, and ethnographic methods gained value in public health efforts [14,15]. As a result, while in the past anthropological researchers often ‘fell into’ careers in drug research, recent research by Page & Singer [16] suggests that anthropologists are choosing increasingly to study drug use and to explore the concept of addiction. The products of this labor are discussed in the remainder of this paper.

ALTERNATIVE MODELS

In developing their understanding of drug use and drug addiction, anthropologists have embraced several differ- ent explanatory frameworks. The core component of the anthropological approach to human interaction with psychotropic drugs is known as the ‘cultural model’. To this, anthropological researchers have added several additional analytical approaches designed to address spe- cific issues. Reflecting a general tendency in the broader drug field, anthropological research has been segmented into separate streams concerned with individual drugs.

Only recently has there been an effort to unite the study of alcohol with that of other drugs, including tobacco, and the study of street drug use and addiction with patterns of consumption in the wider society [17–19].

The cultural model

The emergence of a distinct anthropological understand- ing of drug use and abuse has its roots in the study of drinking behavior. In the 1950s, Heath [20,21] carried out ethnographic research among the Camba, a mestizo population in eastern Boliva who, when he first began studying them, were engaged in horticultural production in a forested area. Heath observed that most adult Camba drank large quantities of rum and became intoxicated for several contiguous days at least twice a month. These drinking bouts were tied to community festivals. Further, he found that among the Camba intoxication was socially valued and was the goal of festive drinking. However, alcoholism, as that form of addiction has been defined in the drug literature, was not identifiable among the Camba, nor were there any signs of antisocial behaviors such as failure to live up to social responsibilities, inci- dents of interpersonal aggression or evidence of alcohol- related sexual disinhibition. Instead, consuming high doses of alcohol, even to the point of unconsciousness, contributed to Camba social solidarity and group health, including facilitating ‘rapport between individuals who are normally isolated and introverted’ [21]. These find- ings threw into question the common belief that heavy drinking is inherently disruptive and that continued use is inexorably addictive and damaging to the consumer’s health. In response to this unexpected finding, and based on subsequent examination of the cross-cultural alcohol literature, Heath proposed a cultural model of alcohol use.

According to this model [22–24], which gained general acceptance among anthropologists, the associa- tion of drinking with any specific ‘problem’, be it physical, economic, psychological or interpersonal, is quite rare among cultures throughout history. Further, most consequences of alcohol consumption are mediated by cultural factors rather than being narrowly determined by pharmacobiological factors [25–27]. While not denying that alcohol is a potent chemical, from the cul- tural model what is of key to determining the effects of heavy drinking are culturally constituted beliefs about the effects of alcohol [28–31]. Of equal importance is the issue of meaning. As a culturally constructed social prac- tice, drinking (and the type and context of consumption) evokes emotionally charged cultural meanings about diverse issues, including social solidarity, identity, re- cognition of new social statuses and accomplishment, nostalgic remembrances, the honoring of loved ones,

1748 Merrill Singer

hospitality, mourning, initiation of work efforts, tran- sitions, celebration of cultural heroes, intimacy, fun, health, religious experience and anticipated futures [32]. With reference to palm wine drinking among the Lele of the Cameroon, Ngokwey [33], for example, notes their ‘rules and practices concerning palm wine re-produce cultural values, notions, and categories’. The value of solidarity, for example, is expressed and strengthened in palm wine sharing among males and between them and the females, the sick and the elderly. Indeed, the role of drinking in the making of social solidarity has been a regular theme in the anthropology of drinking [34,35]. Further, observe MacAndrew & Edgerton [25]: ‘The way people comport themselves when they are drunk is determined not by alcohol’s toxic assault upon the seat of moral judgment, conscience, or the like, but by what their society makes of and imparts to them concerning the state of drunkenness’. Adds Marshall [36]: ‘The most important contribution anthropology . . . made to the alcohol [and wider drug] field was in demonstrating to non-anthropologists the importance of socio-cultural factors for understanding the relationship between alcohol and human behavior’.

The cultural model of drinking was sharply criticized by Robin Room [37], among others. Room asserted that the various health and social problems associated with drinking are ‘systematically underestimated in the ethno- graphic literature’. Listening to speakers at a conference on alcohol consumption, Room noticed that anthropolo- gists ‘tended to downgrade the severity of the problems’. Room attributed the problem of deflation tendencies that he found in anthropological studies of drinking to inad- equate familiarity with the multi-disciplinary alcohol lit- erature, the vague nature of the concept of addiction in cross-cultural contexts and the fact that many ethnogra- phers of drinking were the products of a ‘wet generation’ socialized to view alcohol consumption as normal.

Notably, over time, even Heath came to recognize that among the Camba patterns of drinking began to change, as their traditional way of life became untenable when the local forests were cut down to gain profit on the global lumber market. As a result, many Camba were dispos- sessed of their land and with it their customary way of life. At the same time, the Camba horticultural economy was ‘displaced by the illegal trade in coca and cocaine paste’ [38]. In short, Heath’s work, and that of other anthropological contributors to the cultural model, sug- gests that while routine heavy drinking without signs of addiction still occurs, it tends to be in settings in which traditional community social life has not been penetrated fully and disrupted by the forces of capitalist globaliza- tion. Other important aspects of Heath’s work include ethnohistorical research on the changing patterns of consumption through time and across societies and the

examination of the impact of globalization on consump- tion and consequences of use, two important themes in the contemporary anthropology of addiction [39,40].

Despite the position of the cultural model at the core of anthropological thinking, anthropologists have not been blind to the disruptive, dysfunctional and debilitating effects of alcohol consumption in non-traditional, indus- trial and post-contact indigenous societies [41–44]. Based on research among the Inuit of Frobisher Bay, John and Irma Honigmann [45] present heavy drinking as a significant personal and social problem. Similarly, based on interviews with 35 self-described Native American problem drinkers living in urban settings, Spicer [46] emphasizes that participants were profoundly ambiva- lent about their drinking, seeing it as both deeply embed- ded in significant social relationships and a barrier to the fulfillment of key social obligations. Drawing upon these findings, Spicer called for a clinically sophisticated anthropology of alcohol.

The ethnography of drinking has remained a focus within anthropology over time. In recent years, ethnog- raphers have framed drinking behavior in terms of broader processes of globalism and the effects of neolib- eral restructuring, cross-border labor migration, the world-wide flow of alcoholic commodities, contextualized time/space/social group configurations and the role of drinking in disease risk behavior [23,30,47,48].

Life-style model

Beyond alcohol research, the cultural model found expression in anthropological research on drug use as a life-style or a distinctive subculture tradition [49]. This approach reflects the two different ways in which anthro- pologists use the term ‘culture’. As used by Heath, culture refers to the distinctive way in which all human commu- nities engage the world through a socially generated and shared set of understandings, meanings and values. In addition, as reflected in the life-style model, anthropolo- gists speak of specific cultures and subcultures that have their own (more or less) unique configuration of evolving knowledge, attitudes, norms and behaviors, as seen in usages such as ‘inner-city street culture’ [10] and ‘street cultures of drug use’ [15].

This approach had its origin in a series of publications during the 1960s and 1970s [50–55]. One paper that played an especially important role in ushering in the subculture of drug use model was Preble & Casey’s ‘Taking care of business’ [56], which grew out of street ethnographic research in New York. The primary aim of the subculture approach is the development of a holistic description of the people for whom drug use had become a central organizing mechanism in their lives. In an effort to counter simplistic stereotypes and narrow pathological

Anthropology and addiction 1749

accounts of drug users and addiction, Preble & Casey [56] argued: ‘Their behavior is anything but an escape from life. They are actively engaged in meaningful activi- ties and relationships seven days a week’. In constructing their description of drug users and addicts, anthropologi- cal and related ethnographic researchers of other disci- plines use participant-observation ethnography to better understand and represent the world as it was actually seen and experienced by drug addicts. As Friedman et al. [57] comment:

In contrast to views that see [injection] drug use as simply a matter of individual pathology, it is more fruitful to describe [injection] drug users as constituting a ‘subculture’ . . . This calls our attention to the structured sets of values, roles, and status allocations that exist among [injection] drug users . . . From the perspective of its members, par- ticipating in the subculture is a meaningful activity that provides desired rewards, rather than psychopa- thology, an ‘escape from reality,’ or an ‘illness’.

While varying in specific focus [58–61], the literature produced by this approach is comprised of accounts of the survival strategies used to sustain a drug-focused life-style, the organization of the underground economy of drug acquisition, processes of socialization into drug use social networks and the street drug use subculture, the social settings and key locations that comprise drug users’ social environments, the systems used by drug users to classify social statuses within the subculture, risk behaviors and risk environments, the special street jargon that developed to communicate issues of concern to drug users and a sense of in-group membership.

Agar’s [62] seminal work, for example, was based on an ethnosemantic ethnography which entailed analysis of the cultural categories that guided the everyday events in the lives of drug addicts. Agar completed 2 years of fieldwork with patients at the National Institute of Mental Health Clinical Research Center in Lexington, KY, a federal drug treatment hospital. His approach was guided by the then emergent view of culture as a shared cognitive template for enacting socially appropriate behavior and for interpreting the behavior of others.

The cultural model informs a growing body of anthropological literature, including book-length accounts of drug use, addiction and the behavioral strat- egies of drug addicts (e.g. [63–76]). An especially useful aspect of this work has been its revealing accounts of ‘hidden populations’ of drug users and addicts that are not linked to social or health services [77,78], as well as its examination of lesser-studied subgroups such as female drug addicts [79–83]. Ethnography has given researchers access to the social settings in which drugs are acquired and consumed and where drug-related

behaviors and risk activities take place, such as shooting sites and galleries, crack houses, the homes of drug addicts, user encampments, clubs, private parties and even prisons [84–87].

In short, the ethnographic literature on street drug use from the 1960s onward has emphasized that the lived worlds and self-identities of drug users have considerable cultural order and socially constructed purpose and meaning. Through their lens on culture, anthropologists developed insights into the emic or insider perspective of drug users and addicts of their social worlds, including the culturally constituted emotions attached to actions, actors and social contexts. In attempting to counter popular and academic images of the urban drug user framed by the paradigms of psychopathology and the sociology of deviance, however, anthropologists have often ignored the wider social context that fosters drug use and addiction, the phenomenon Wolf [88] has called the ‘wider field of force’, a core issue among critical medical anthropologists studying drug use.

The critical medical anthropology model

The critical medical anthropology model emerged in the early 1980s and was applied quickly to the analysis of drug use [70,89–91]. Its development reflected a recogni- tion that whatever its strengths, the cultural model failed to fully consider drug use within the context of macrolevel structures (significant economic inequalities, institutions of social control), social processes and dominant institu- tions (such as corporate activities, the dominant media and systems of discrimination) and relations of power (e.g. social classes, unequal relations among nations and the development of underdevelopment). Across all these dimensions, unequal distribution of power enforces dis- parity directly and hegemonically through domination of the major institutions involved in the production and dissemination of prevailing ideas in society.

Within the domain of drug use and addiction, the critical medical anthropology model has emphasized three issues: the social production of suffering, the use of drugs to self-medicate the emotional injuries of injustice and mistreatment and the political economy of the licit and illicit drug markets, including their parallels and entwinements [92–98]. Because of their immediate rel- evance to addiction, the first two of these are discussed further below.

Social production of suffering

Bourgois’s research [10,67] has provided in-depth ethno- graphic description of impoverished drug addicts’ diffi- cult lives in New York City and San Francisco. In both cases, the addicted individuals he came to know through his fieldwork live in abject poverty, but are exposed daily

1750 Merrill Singer

(at a distance) to the great and even unimaginable wealth of other residents. This social disparity is maintained through numerous social practices, such as public poli- cies (e.g. the weakening of social welfare, tax policies that disproportionate burden the poor) that favor urban gen- trification and the needs of the wealthy while producing mounting despair among the poor. In the context of structurally imposed distress, the term ‘social suffering’ [74,99] has been used by anthropologists to refer to the immediate personal experience of broad human prob- lems caused by the exercise of political and economic power. In other words, social suffering refers the misery among those on the weaker end of power relations in terms of physical health, mental health and lived experi- ence. As Chopp [100] comments:

Knowledge of suffering cannot be conveyed in pure facts and figures, reportings that objectify the suffering of countless persons. The horror of suffering is not only in its immensity but in the faces of the anonymous victims who have little voice, let alone rights, in history.

Self-medication

From the perspective of critical medical anthropology, inequality as it is experienced by people who must endure its consequence is a major force driving heavy drug use and addiction. Life for a drug addict is often a vicious cycle of felt stress followed by self-medicating drug consump- tion and resulting social stigmatization and a sense of damaged self-worth (which, in turn, triggers the desire for comfort through drugs). Moreover, because of the damaging effects of drug use (e.g. hepatitis, HIV infec- tion) addiction contributes to health disparities. What- ever the harm wrought by legal and illegal drug use, at the moment of craving and desire they are seen as relief, temporarily removing the sufferer from their prison of personal misery. The consequences of such ‘relief ’ always come back to haunt the user as craving returns and they are confronted with the fact that there are always more drugs seeking those in need of being ‘fixed’ [97].

Drug syndemics

One development within the critical medical approach to drug use and addiction is a growing focus on drug- related syndemics, which are defined as the adverse interaction of diseases with each other and with punish- ing social conditions that promote both disease aggre- gation in a population and the reduction in immune competency and bodily capacity to resist and overcome disease (e.g. because of trauma, malnutrition, stress and infection) [101]. Prominent in this emergent anthropo- logical literature are discussions of a syndemic involving

drug use, violence, mental health issues and HIV/AIDS [102–106]. Some drugs, such as cocaine, may play a special role in drug-related syndemics because of their impact on the immune system [107] or, as in the case of tobacco and alcohol, because of their disease-causing effects [108].

Experiential model

Anthropologists influenced by phenomenology, the study of subjectivities, meaning-centered approaches within medical anthropology and the questioning of objectivity found in postmodernist perspectives have recently added what they have termed a new experiential orientation [109] to the cultural model. This refers to the idea that, in addition to suffering, addiction has other dimensions including creating opportunities for new experiences and new social relationships, some of which provide positive, self-affirming occasions for drug users [34], as noted earlier by Friedman and co-workers [57]. Addiction, in short, plays a role in the making of personal identities, and is thus more than suffering and social rejection. In addi- tion, those who embrace the experimental model believe, as Deleuze [110] argued, that some addictions or aspects of addictions can be affirmative, creative and sustainable, at least at the individual level. Additionally, within this perspective is a focus on drug therapies and the subjec- tive experiences of being in treatment. This approach to addiction was first presented at a workshop entitled the ‘Anthropologies of Addiction’ that was held at McGill University in 2009. Subsequently, one of the participants in that gathering, Angela Garcia [111], has written a book-length account of her study of addiction, disposses- sion and treatment among rural Latino drug users in New Mexico. In addition to showing how addiction in this context is interwoven with cultural and political history, and hence with political economy (involving the historical dispossession of Latino land holdings in the Southwest and emotional responses to this process) [112], Garcia shows how reigning treatment models force patients to relive their personal and social histories, further enhanc- ing their addiction-propelling melancholy and opioid self- medication. Additionally, Garcia [111] is concerned with forms of addiction experience of ‘getting high, overdosse and suicide’ that are at once social and yet, in the end, are individual and highly internal and subjective. As such, they are seemingly closed even to the anthropological researcher. One bridge across this divide according to Garcia, which reflects the special nature of ethnography as a field-based, researcher-embedded method, is ‘common vulnerability’, by which she means it is through his/her own vulnerability (personal suffering and moments of intimacy in the field) that the ethnographer can connect with the melancholy subjectivity of the addict.

Anthropology and addiction 1751

The anthropology of addiction and the HIV/AIDS pandemic

The HIV/AIDS pandemic has had a telling impact on the anthropology of addiction, sparking a significant upsurge in the number of anthropologists working on drug-related issues world-wide and the overall volume of the anthro- pological literature on drug-related topics. Additionally, involvement of anthropologists in the epidemic has elevated the concept of risk within the anthropological vocabulary as well as efforts to lower the HIV/AIDS threat through anthropological contributions to public health among drug users [113–126]. For example, ethnographic research has helped to clarify on-the-ground risk behav- iors among injection drug users, the significant role of syringe availability rather than planned syringe sharing in syringe-related risk and the development of interven- tion strategies such as the use of peer social networks and trained peer educators in reaching hard-to-reach segments of drug user populations [127].

CONCLUSION: THE TOMORROW OF THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF ADDICTION

Although anthropology was, in some ways, a late arrival to the multi-disciplinary field of drug addiction research, it has gained purchase and substantial impact because of the strengths of ethnography; the power of the cultural model; the concern with emic understandings, lived expe- rience and subjectivities; the stress put on understanding pathways of biosocial interactions; the cross-societal breadth of its gaze; and the now linkage of the micro- world of experience and the macro-world of political economy and globalism [128,129]. The tomorrow of the anthropology of addiction will be shaped by continued re-examination of the ethnographic approach in light of ongoing challenges [130,131], documenting the role of drug research as a valued arena of anthropological work, increasing ethnographic involvement in both examining and enhancing harm reduction, treatment and recovery, investigating user perception of drug risks and benefits, assessing the role of drug and alcohol use in work migrants and immigrant populations, assessment of dis- courses on drugs and security, ethnographically examin- ing global drug distribution networks and investigating societal response to the failure of the global war on drugs [132–136].

Declaration of interests

None.

Acknowledgement

The author thanks Pamela I. Erickson for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

1. Page J. B. Drug users through the ages: when did we decide addicts were a separate category? 2011; Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Miami.

2. Levine H. The discovery of addiction: changing concep- tions of habitual drunkenness in America. J Stud Alcohol 1978; 15: 493–506.

3. Katcher B. Benjamin Rush’s educational campaign against hard drinking. Am J Public Health 1993; 83: 273–81.

4. Rush B. An Enquiry into the Effects of Spiritous Liquors upon the Human Body, and Their Influence upon the Happiness of Society. Available as microfilm. Early American Medical Imprints, New Haven, CT: Research Publications; 1971; reel 79, no. 1636.). Philadelphia, PA: Thomas Bradford; 1784.

5. Trotter T. An Essay, Medical, Philosophical, and Chemical, on Drunkenness, and Its Effects on the Human Body. New York: Routledge; 1988 (original 1804).

6. Estroff S. Identity, disability, and schizophrenia: the problem of chronicity. In: Lindenbaum S., Lock M., editors. Knowledge, Power, and Practice: The Anthropology of Medicine and Everyday Life. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1993, p. 247–86.

7. Courtwright D. Forces of Habit: Drugs and the Making of the Modern World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2001.

8. Bennett L., Cook P. Alcohol and drug studies. In: Sargent C., Johnson T., editors. Handbook of Medical Anthropology: Contemporary Theory and Practice. Westport, CT: Green- wood Press; 1996, p. 2350–251.

9. Singer M. Toward a bio-cultural and political economic integration of alcohol, tobacco and drug studies. Soc Sci Med 2001; 52: 199–213.

10. Bourgois P. Search of Research: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

11. Stephens R. Drug use and youth consumption in West Germany during the 1960s. J Cultur Res 2003; 7: 107–24.

12. Rylko-Bauer B., Singer M., van Willigen J. Reclaiming applied anthropology: its past, present, and future. Am Anthropol 2006; 108: 178–90.

13. Kedia S., van Willigen J., editors. Applied Anthropology: Domains of Application. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers; 2005.

14. Kaplan C., Verbraeck H. Where have all the fieldnotes gone? The changing nature and politics of drugs ethnog- raphy in the Netherlands. Addict Res Theory 2001; 9: 299– 323.

15. Carlson R., Singer M., Stephens R., Sterk C. Reflections on 40 years of ethnographic drug abuse research: implica- tions for the future. J Drug Issues 2009; 39: 57–70.

16. Page J. B., Singer M. Comprehending Drug Use: Ethnographic Research at the Social Margins. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2010.

17. Hunt G., Barker J. Socio-cultural anthropology and alcohol and drug research: towards a unified theory. Soc Sci Med 2001; 53: 165–88.

18. Page J. B. Anthropology and the study of illicit drug use. In: Singer M., Erickson P. E., editors. A Companion to Medical Anthropology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011, p. 357–77.

19. Singer M., Saleheen H., Mirhej G., Santelices C. Research findings on drinking among street drug users. Am Anthro- pol 2006; 108: 502–6.

1752 Merrill Singer

20. Heath D. Continuity and Change in Drinking Patterns of the Bolivian Camba. In: Pittman D., White H., editors. Society, Culture and Drinking Patterns Reexamined: Alcohol, Culture and Social Control Monograph Series. New Brun- swick: Rutgers Center for Alcohol Studies; 1991, p. 78–86.

21. Heath D. Drinking patterns of the Bolivian Camba. Q J Stud Alcohol 1958; 19: 491–508.

22. Heath D. ‘Addictive behaviors’ and ‘minority populations’ in the United States: American Indian drug use as a cultural case-study. In: Nirenberg T., Maisto S., editors. Developments in the Assessment and Treatment of Addictive Behaviors. Norwood: Ablex Publishing; 1987, p. 339–51.

23. Heath D. Cultural studies on drinking: definitional problems. In: Paakkanen P., Sulkunen P., editors. Cultural Studies on Drinking and Drinking Problems. Helsinki, Finland: Social Research Institute of Alcohol Studies; 1987, p. 339–51.

24. Heath D. Decade of development in the anthropological study of alcohol use: 1970–1980. In: Douglas M., editor. Constructive Drinking: Perspectives on Drink from Anthro- pology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987, p. 16–69.

25. MacAndrew C., Edgerton R. Drunken Comportment: A Social Explanation. Chicago: Aldine; 1969.

26. Bacon M. K. Cross-cultural studies of drinking: integrated drinking and sex differences in the use of alcoholic beverages. In: Everett M. W., Waddell J. O., Heath D. B., editors. Cross-Cultural Approaches to the Study of Alcohol. The Hague: Mouton; 1976, p. 23–34.

27. Bennett L. Alcohol in context: anthropological perspec- tives. Drugs Soc 1988; 2: 89–131.

28. Bennett L., Wolin S., McAvity K. Family identity, ritual, and myth: a cultural perspective on life cycle transitions. In: Falicove C., editor. Family Transitions: Continuity and Change over the Life Cycle. New York: Guilford Press; 1991, p. 211–34.

29. Butler B. Holy intoxication to drunken dissipation: alcohol among Quichua Speakers in Otavalo, Ecuador. Tucson: University of New Mexico Press; 2006.

30. Gamburd M. Breaking the Ashes: The Culture of Illicit Liquor in Sri Lanka. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2008.

31. Douglas M., editor. Constructive Drinking: Perspectives on Drink from Anthropology. New York: Routledge; 1987.

32. De Garine I., de Garine V. Drinking: Anthropological Approaches. Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2001.

33. Ngokwey N. Varieties of palm wine among the Lele of Kasai. In: Douglas M., editor. Constructive Drinking: Per- spectives on Drink from Anthropology. New York: Routledge; 1987, p. 113–20.

34. Pine A. Working Hard, Drinking Hard. Berkeley, CA: Univer- sity of California Press; 2008.

35. Thornton M. A. Sekt versus schnapps in an Austrian village. In: Douglas M., editor. Constructive Drinking: Per- spectives on Drink from Anthropology. New York: Routledge; 1987, p. 102–12.

36. Marshall M. Weekend Warriors: Alcohol in a Micronesian Culture. California: Mayfield; 1979.

37. Room R. Alcohol and ethnography: a case of problem deflation? Curr Anthropol 1984; 25: 169–78.

38. Heath D. Camba (Bolivia) drinking patterns: changes in alcohol use, anthropology, and research perspectives. In: Coomber R., South N., editors. Drug Use and Cultural Contexts: Beyond the West. London: Free Association Books; 2004, p. 119–36.

39. Singer M., Mirhej G. High notes: the role of drugs in the making of jazz. J Ethn Subst Abuse 2006; 5: 1–38.

40. Arias E. Drugs and Democracy in Rio de Janeiro: Trafficking, Social Networks, and Public Security. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina; 2006.

41. Johnson B., Goldstein P., Preble E., Schmeidler J., Lipton D., Spunt B. et al. Taking Care of Business: The Economics of Crime by Heroin Abusers. New York: Lexington Books; 1985.

42. Janes C. R., Ames G. Men, blue collar work, and drinking: alcohol use in an industrial subculture. Cult Med Psychia- try 1989; 13: 245–74.

43. Ames G., Cunradi C., Moore R., Stern P. Military culture and drinking behavior among U.S. Navy careerists. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2007; 68: 336–44.

44. Quintero G. Nostalgia and degeneration: the moral economy of drinking in Navajo society. Med Anthropol Q 2002; 16: 3–21.

45. Honigmann J., Honigmann I. How Baffin Island Eskimo have learned to use alcohol. Soc Forces 1965; 44: 73–83.

46. Spicer P. Toward a (dys)functional anthropology of drink- ing: ambivalence and the American Indian experience with alcohol. Med Anthropol Q 1997; 11: 306–23.

47. Schensul J., Chandran D., Singh S., Berg M., Kamla G. The use of qualitative comparative analysis for critical event research in alcohol and HIV in Mumbai, India. AIDS Behav 2010; 14: 113–25.

48. Dupont H., Kaplan C., Verbraeck H., Braam R., van de Wijngaart R. Killing time: drug and alcohol problems among asylum seekers in the Netherlands. Int J Drug Policy 2005; 16: 27–36.

49. Moore D. Drinking, the construction of ethnic identity and social processes in a Western Australian youth subculture. Addiction 1990; 85: 1265–78.

50. Feldman H. Ideological supports to becoming and remain- ing a heroin addict. J Health Soc Behav 1968; 9: 131–9.

51. Fiddle S. Portrait from a Shooting Gallery. New York: Harper and Row; 1967.

52. Finestine H. Cats, kicks and color. Soc Probl 1957; 5: 3–13. 53. Siegal H. Outposts of the Forgotten. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Books; 1978. 54. Partridge W. The Hippie Ghetto: The Natural History of a

Subculture. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.; 1973.

55. Sutter A. The world of the righteous dope fiend. Issues Criminol 1966; 196: 177–222.

56. Preble E., Casey J. Taking care of business: the heroin user’s life on the street. Int J Addict 1969; 4: 1–24.

57. Friedman S., Des Jarlais D., Sothern J. AIDS health educa- tion for intravenous drug users. Health Educ Q 1986; 13: 383–93.

58. Carlson R., Siegal H. A., Falck R. Qualitative research methods in drug and AIDS prevention research: an over- view. In: Lambert E., Ashery R., Needle R., editors. Quali- tative Methods in Drug Abuse and HIV Research. NIDA Research Monograph 157; NIH Pub. no. 95–4025. Wash- ington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1995, p. 6–26.

59. Singer M., Weeks M. The Hartford model of AIDS practice/ research. In: Trickett E., Pequegnat W., editors. Community Interventions and AIDS. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005, p. 153–75.

60. Sterk C., Elifson K. Qualitative methods in the drug abuse field. In: Sloboda Z., editor. Epidemiology of Drug Abuse. New York: Springer; 2005, p. 133–44.

Anthropology and addiction 1753

61. Grund J.-P., Nico A., Kaplan C. Needle sharing in the Netherlands: an ethnographic analysis. Am J Public Health 1991; 81: 1602–7.

62. Agar M. Ripping and Running: A Formal Ethnography of Urban Heroin Addicts. New York: Seminar; 1973.

63. Spradley J. You Owe Yourself A Drunk: An Ethnography of Urban Nomads. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press; 1970.

64. Sterk C. Fast Lives: Women Who Use Crack Cocaine. Philadel- phia: Temple University Press; 1999.

65. Page J. B. Streetside drug use among Cuban drug users in Miami, Florida. In: Glick R., Moore J., editors. Drug Use in Hispanic Communities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1990, p. 169–91.

66. Biernacki P. Pathways from Heroin Addiction: Recovery Without Treatment. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1986.

67. Bourgois P., Schonberg J. Righteous Dopefiend. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2009.

68. Carlson R. Ethnography and applied substance misuse research: anthropological and cross-cultural factors. In: Miller W., Carroll K., editors. Rethinking Substance Abuse: What the Science Shows, and What We Should Do About It. New York: Guilford Press; 2006, p. 201–19.

69. Hoffer L. Junkie business: the evolution and operation of a heroin dealing network. Belmont, CA: Thomson/ Wadsworth; 2006.

70. Gezon L. Drug Effects: Khat in Biocultural and Socioeconomic Perspective. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press; 2012.

71. Liu S. Passage to Manhood: Youth Migration, Heroin and AIDS in Southwestern China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2011.

72. Barbara L. Narcotic addicts’ hustling strategies: creation and manipulation of ambiguity. J Contemp Ethnogr 1990; 18: 388–415.

73. Schensul J., Diamond S., Disch W., Bermudez R., Eiserman J. The diffusion of Ecstasy through urban youth networks. Ethn Subst Abuse 2005; 4: 39–72.

74. Singer M. The Face of Social Suffering: Life History of A Street Drug Addict. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press; 2006.

75. Page J. B., Smith P., Kane N. Shooting galleries, their pro- prietors, and implications for prevention of AIDS. Drugs Soc 1990; 5: 69–85.

76. Stephens R. The Street Addict Role: A Theory of Heroin Addic- tion. New York: State University of New York Press; 1991.

77. Carlson R., Siegel H., Falck R., Guo J. An ethnographic approach to targeted sampling: problems and solutions in AIDS prevention research among injection drug and crack-cocaine users. Hum Organ 1994; 53: 279–86.

78. Singer M. Studying hidden populations. In: Schensul J., LeCompte M., Trotter R., Cromley E., Singer M., editors. Mapping Networks, Spatial Data and Hidden Populations, Book 4. The Ethnographer’s Toolkit, 2nd edn. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press; 2011, p. 125–91.

79. Lex B. Male heroin addicts and their female mates: impact on disorder and recovery. J Subst Abuse 1990; 2: 147–75.

80. Sterk C., Elifson K., German D. Female crack users and their sexual relationships: the role of sex-for-crack exchanges. J Sex Res 2000; 37: 354–60.

81. Taylor A. Women Drug Users: An Ethnography of a Female Injecting Community. London: Oxford University Press; 1993.

82. Valdez A., Kaplan C., Cepeda A. The process of paradoxical autonomy and survival in the heroin careers of Mexican

American women. Contemp Drug Probl 2000; 27: 189– 213.

83. Weeks M., Himmelgreen D., Singer M., Richmond P., Romero-Daza N. Drug use patterns of substance abusing women: implications for treatment providers. Drugs Soc 1998; 13: 35–61.

84. Koester S. The context of risk: ethnographic contributions to the study of drug use and HIV. NIDA Res Monogr 1994; 143: 202–17.

85. Weeks M., Clair S., Borgatti S., Radda K., Schensul J. Social networks of drug users in high-risk sites: finding the connections. AIDS Behav 2002; 62: 193–206.

86. Page J., Salazar J. Use of needles and syringes in Miami and Valencia: observations of high and low availability. Med Anthropol Q 1999; 4: 413–35.

87. Buchanan D., Tooze J., Shaw S., Kinzly M., Heimer R., Singer M. Demographic, HIV risk behavior, and health status characteristics of ‘crack’ cocaine injectors com- pared to other injection drug users in three New England cities. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006; 81: 221–9.

88. Wolf E. Europe and the People without History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1982.

89. Singer M. Toward a political economy of alcoholism: the missing link in the anthropology of drinking. Soc Sci Med 1986; 23: 113–30.

90. Waterston A. Street Addicts in the Political Economy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1993.

91. Stebbins K. Tobacco or health in the Third World: a politi- cal economy perspective with emphasis on Mexico. Int J Health Serv 1987; 17: 523–38.

92. Adler P. Wheeling and Dealing: An Ethnography of an Upper- Level Drug Dealing and Smuggling Community. New York: Columbia University Press; 1993.

93. Curtis R., Wendel T. Toward the development of a typology of illegal drug markets. In: Hough M., Natarajan M., editors. Illegal Drug Markets: From Research to Policy. Monsey, NJ: Criminal Justice Press; 2000, p. 121–52.

94. Sales P., Murphy S. San Francisco’s freelancing ecstasy dealers: towards a sociological understanding of drug markets. J Drug Issues 2007; 37: 919–50.

95. Sterk C., Elifson K. Fluctuating drug markets and HIV risk taking: female drug users and their relationship with drug markets. Med Anthropol 2000; 18: 439–55.

96. Singer M., Mirhej G. The understudied supply side: public policy implications of the illicit drug trade in Hartford, CT. Harv Health Policy Rev 2004; 5: 36–47.

97. Singer M. Drugging the Poor: Legal and Illegal Drug Industries and the Structuring of Social Inequality. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press; 2008.

98. Stebbins K. Going like gangbusters: transnational tobacco companies ‘making a killing’ in South America. Med Anthropol Q 2001; 15: 147–70.

99. Kleinman A., Das V., Lock M. Social Suffering. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1996.

100. Chopp R. The Praxis of Suffering. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis; 1986.

101. Singer M. Introduction to Syndemics: A Systems Approach to Public and Community Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass; 2009.

102. Bulled N., Singer M. Syringe-mediated syndemics. AIDS Behav 2011; 15: 1539–45.

103. Singer M. A dose of drugs, a touch of violence, a case of AIDS: conceptualizing the SAVA syndemic. Free Inq Creat Sociol 1996; 24: 99–110.

1754 Merrill Singer

104. Singer M. A dose of drugs, a touch of violence, a case of AIDS, part 2: further conceptualizing the SAVA syndemic. Free Inq Creat Sociol 2006; 34: 39–51.

105. Stall R., Friedman S., Catania J. Interacting epidemics and gay men’s health: a theory of syndemic production among urban gay men. In: Wolitski R., Stall R., Valdiserri R., editors. Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007, p. 251–74.

106. Stall R., Mills T., Williamson J., Hart T. Association of co-occurring psychosocial health problems and increased vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among urban men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health 2003; 93: 939–42.

107. Singer M. The infectious disease syndemics of crack cocaine. J Equity Health; in press; 2011.

108. Marshall M. Carolina in the Carolines: a survey of patterns and meanings of smoking on a Micronesian island. Med Anthropol Q 2005; 19: 365–82.

109. Rheinberger H.-G. Toward A History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford, CA: Stan- ford University Press; 1997.

110. Deleuze G. Two Regimes of Madness, Revised Edition: Texts and Interviews 1975–1995. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2007.

111. Garcia A. The Pastoral Clinic: Addiction and Dispossession Along the Rio Grande. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2010.

112. Garcia A. The elegic addict: history, chronicity, and the melancholic subject. Cult Anthropol 2008; 23: 718–46.

113. Edberg M., Collins E., Harris M., McLendon H., Santucci P. Patterns of HIV/AIDS, STI, substance abuse and hepatitis risk among selected samples of Latino and African- American youth in Washington, DC. J Youth Stud 2009; 12: 685–709.

114. Bourgois P., Prince B., Moss A. The everyday violence of hepatitis C among young women who inject drugs in San Francisco. Hum Organ 2004; 63: 253–64.

115. Koester S., Hoffer L. Indirect sharing: additional HIV risks associated with drug injection. AIDS Public Policy J 1994; 9: 100–5.

116. Kane S., Mason T. AIDS and criminal justice. Annu Rev Anthropol 2001; 30: 457–79.

117. Finlinson A., Colon H., Robles R., Deren S., Soto López M. and Muñoz. Access to sterile syringes by injecting drug users in Puerto Rico. Hum Organ 1999; 58: 201–12.

118. Gamella J. The spread of intravenous drug use and AIDS in a neighborhood in Spain. Med Anthropol Q 1994; 8: 131–60.

119. Trotter R., Bowen A., Potter M. Network models for HIV outreach and prevention programs for drug users. In: Needle R., Coyle L., Genser G., Trotter R., editors. Social Networks, Drug Abuse, and HIV Transmission. NIDA Research Monograph 151. NIH Pub. no. 95–3889. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1995, p. 144–80.

120. Trotter R., Singer S. Rapid assessment strategies for public health: promise and problems. In: Trickett E., Pequegnat W., editors. Community Interventions and AIDS. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005, p. 130–53.

121. Page J. B., Chitwood D., Smith P., Kane N., McBride D. Intravenous drug abuse and HIV infection in Miami. Med Anthropol Q 1990; 4: 56–71.

122. Singer M., Eiserman J. Twilight’s last gleaning: rapid assessment of late night HIV risk in Hartford, CT. In: Bowser B., Quimby E., Singer M., editors. Communities Assessing Their AIDS Epidemics: Results of the Rapid Assess- ment of HIV/AIDS in Eleven U.S. Cities. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books; 2007, p. 193–208.

123. Grund J.-P., Stern L., Kaplan C., Adrianns N., Druger E. Drug use contexts and HIV-consequences: the effect of drug policy on patterns of everyday drug use in Rotterdam and the Bronx. Br J Addict 1992; 87: 381–92.

124. Rhodes T., Singer M., Bourgois P., Friedman S., Strathdee S. The social structural production of HIV risk among injecting drug users. Soc Sci Med 2005; 61: 1026–44.

125. Moore D. Social controls, harm minimisation and interac- tive outreach: the public health implications of an ethnog- raphy of drug use. Aust NZ J Public Health 1993; 17: 58–67.

126. Maher L. Don’t leave us this way: ethnography and injec- tion drug use in the age of AIDS. Int J Drug Policy 2002; 13: 311–25.

127. Grund J.-P., Kaplan C., Adriaans N. Needle sharing in the Netherlands: an ethnographic analysis. Am J Public Health 1991; 81: 1602–7.

128. Prussing E. ‘White Man’s Water’ the Politics of Sobriety in a Native American Community. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press; 2011.

129. Benson P. Tobacco Capitalism: Growers, Migrant Workers, and the Changing Face of a Global Industry. Princeton, NJ: Prin- ceton University Press; 2012.

130. Martin A., Stenner P. Talking about drug use: what are we (and our participants) doing in qualitative research? Int J Drug Policy 2004; 15: 395–405.

131. Singer M., Erickson P. As the future explodes into the present: emergent issues and the tomorrow of medical anthropology. In: Singer M., Erickson P., editors. A Com- panion to Medical Anthropology. San Francisco: Wiley; 2011, p. 515–32.

132. Glasser I. Anthropology of Addictions and Recovery. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press; 2012.

133. Kaplan C. Drug craving and drug use in the daily lives of heroin addicts. In: deVries M., editor. The Experience of Psychopathology: Investigating Mental Disorders in Their Natural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992, p. 193–218.

134. Mcllwaine C., Moser C. Drugs, alcohol and community tolerance: an urban ethnography from Colombia and Guatemala. Environ Urban 2004; 16: 49–62.

135. Aceijas C., Stimson G., Hickman M., Rhodes T. Global overview of injecting drug use and HIV infection among injecting drug users. AIDS 2004; 18: 2295– 303.

136. Singer E., Schensul J. Negotiating ecstasy risk, reward, and control: a qualitative analysis of drug management patterns among ecstasy-using urban young adults. Subst Use Misuse 2011; 46: 1675–89.

Anthropology and addiction 1755