Sociological Conceptions of Alcohol and Drug Problems:

2. The Constructionist Viewpoint

The Constructionist Viewpoint: Claimsmaking and Social Definitions

The constructionist viewpoint is a distinctively sociological perspective on social problems. Rooted in the tradition of symbolic interactionist thought, this approach highlights the importance of interactional processes and shared meanings in the social definition of problems like "drug abuse" or "binge drinking." Constructionist research is primarily concerned with the process of claimsmaking—"the activities of individuals or groups making assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some putative conditions" (Spector and Kitsuse, Constructing Social Problems, 1977, p. 75). This involves the study of political activities, such as speeches, protests, and legislation, the work of journalists in reporting the news, public statements by experts or social movement activists, and other forms of work and communication that define putative (alleged) conditions as threats and crises.

This viewpoint shifts the focus of social problems inquiry away from allegedly harmful conditions. In fact, many constructionists like Spector and Kitsuse argue that the objective nature of conditions is largely irrelevant to the study of claimsmaking activity. As they suggest above, "putative conditions" need not be objectively harmful or even "real" to become socially defined as "problems." Another constructionist, Joel Best (Images of Issues, 1995, p. 7), points out that the focus on claimsmaking raises entirely different questions for social problems research: "What sorts of claims get made? When do claims get made, and what sorts of people make them? What sorts of responses do claims receive, and under what conditions?"

The study of claimsmaking about drug and alcohol problems has been one of the most fruitful areas of constructionist inquiry. In a later section, we will take a close look at Joseph Gusfield's classic historical study of how activists in the Prohibition Movement succeeded in defining alcohol problems as a national crisis at the beginning of the 20th century, culminating in the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Gusfield shows how claimsmaking activity about the evils of alcohol during this "symbolic crusade" was fueled by conflict between rural Protestants versus urban Catholic immigrants.

A number of constructionist researchers have examined dramatic claims about murder, insanity, and the "weed with roots in Hell" that surrounded efforts to control marijuana use in the 1930s. For instance, the poster for a 1936 film at the right depicts marijuana being injected with a hypodermic syringe, thereby reinforcing the definition of marijuana as a dangerous narcotic like heroin. Many of the studies of this particular historical period focus on the activities of Harry J. Anslinger, who might be described as the principal architect of the social construction of the "marihuana problem." Anslinger, Chief of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, worked tirelessly in public appearances, speeches on radio, and magazine articles to define the "killer drug," marijuana, as a menace to American society. We will return later to this important historical episode of claimsmaking about drug problems and Anslinger's role in it.

The constructionist viewpoint can also be illustrated with more recent episodes of claimsmaking which have defined a variety of substances and drug-related practices as serious public problems. During the early 1970s President Richard Nixon's administration launched the first "War on Drugs" and targeted heroin as Public Enemy #1 in media campaigns, legislative initiatives, and other claimsmaking activities. This effort to define the heroin problem as a national crisis demanding an aggressive response by law enforcement had an immediate impact on federal drug control policy as well as on public conceptions of drug-related deviance.

The massive changes in drug control policy initiated during this period included passage of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which established a system of "schedules" classifying regulated substances according to their "potential for abuse" and medical uses. This legal classification system, which is currently administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), defined LSD and marijuana as dangerous, Schedule I substances along with heroin. Several federal agencies were also created during the Nixon years to fight the War on Drugs, including the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which, as we will see later, continues to play an important part in the social construction of drug problems.

Some striking evidence of the impact of this initial phase in the War on Drugs on public definitions of drug problems comes from a study conducted in 1972 by Peter Rossi and his associates. These researchers asked a sample of adult residents of Baltimore, Maryland to rate the seriousness of 140 illegal acts on a scale ranging from 9 (most serious) to 1 (least serious).  After calculating an average (i.e., mean) rating for each crime, Rossi and his associates ranked all 140 offenses according to their overall perceived seriousness.  The table below shows selected segments of this ranking that include drug- and alcohol-related offenses (adapted from Rossi et al., 1974: 228-229).

First, it is immediately apparent that heroin-related crimes were viewed as extraordinarily serious forms of deviant behavior by the Baltimore respondents.  Selling heroin ranks virtually at the top of this list of offenses (#3), with an average seriousness rating of 8.293. As you look down the rankings in this table, you will see that the act of selling heroin is defined as more serious than several forms of premeditated murder (#6 and #7), forcible rape (#4 and #13), and armed robbery (#9, #30, #32, and #35).  Similarly the personal act of using heroin (#28) is ranked ahead of a number of violent interpersonal acts, including beating up a child (#31) and, ironically, two examples of homicide related to alcohol use (#33 and #36).  Clearly, claimsmaking about the problem of heroin during the early 1970s reached a receptive audience in the general public.

The relatively high degree of seriousness that respondents attached to other drug-related acts in 1972 also testifies to the influence of claimsmaking activity during the 1960s and early 1970s defining LSD and marijuana as dangerous drugs. Rossi et al. found that selling LSD (#10) was perceived as more serious than kidnapping for ransom (#12) or assassination of a public official (#15). Even the act of selling marijuana (#49) ranked above father-daughter incest (#50) and causing the death of an employee by neglecting to repair machinery (#51).  

Findings such as these point to the importance of constructionist inquiry into how the social reality of "drug problems" is a product of claimsmaking activity and social definition. It would be impossible to comprehend such intense public reactions to drug-related deviance unless we knew something about the social and political processes that defined these putative conditions as extraordinarily serious problems. In later sections, we will employ the constructionist viewpoint to examine the social foundations of more recent problems, such as the cocaine crisis of 1986 and the continuing epidemic of binge drinking.