Drug and Alcohol Review (1993) 12, 413-421

Beyond Zinberg's 'social setting': a processural view of illicit drug use

DAVID MOORE

School of Psychology, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia Abstract

This artide seeks to go beyond existing understandings of 'social setting', or social context, in the addictions field. Using drug-career data, collected during recent ethnographic research, the fluidity and dynamism of recreational drug-using social scenes are described before introducing a number of anthropological and sociological concepts. These concepts are processural, that is, they seek to describe and analyze social and cultural change. Finally, the theoretical and practical implications of recognizing the diversity and ever-changing nature of recreational drug-using social networks are discussed. [Moore D, Beyond Zinberg's 'social setting': a processural view of illicit drug use. Drug Alcohol Rev 1993; 12:413-421.]

Keywords: illicit drug use, social context, Australia, ethnography.

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the analytical importance of the social context in which drug use takes place. Building on several decades of research [e.g. 1,2], Zinberg explicitly stated in his axiomatic 'drug, set and setting' model that an exclusive focus on drug pharmacology ('drug') and individual psychology ('set') was not sufficient to understand the drug experience without reference to a third interactive component--the 'set- ting' or social context [3]. For Zinberg, setting was 'the influence of the physical and social setting within which use occurs'. By this, Zinberg meant both the immediate social situation in which drug use occurred and the wider beliefs, sanctions and values brought to drug use by particular social groups.

However, as an anthropologist working in the addictions field, it strikes me that this central and complex concept has not been adequately under- stood, particularly if the literature on 'peer groups' is any guide. Setting (or social context) is usually

equated with the actual episode of consumption. What remains less well acknowledged is that any analysis of setting should also include the social and cultural milieu in which the specific incident or situation takes place, a much more daunting but nevertheless necessary task. In this article, I want to introduce a number of anthropological and sociolog- ical conceptualizations of social and cultural process, in particular, the comparatively recent idea that social contexts both influence behaviour such as illicit drug use while, at the same time, are consti- tuted by these behaviours [e.g. 4-7]. Over the last three decades, several publications have reminded those working in the addictions field of the need for social-contextual description [e.g. 3,8-11], and a growing swell of opinion calling for such a paradig- matic shift has found concrete expression in a new journal, Addiction Research. This journal aims 'to provide an outlet for the growing body of theory and related research which sees the nature of "addicted" behaviour of all types as arising from the social

David Moore, Visiting Research Fellow, Addiction Studies Unit, School of Psychology, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth 6001, Western Australia. Correspondence to David Moore.

413

414 David Moore

context within which it takes place ...'. My purpose in this article is to volunteer some processural con- cepts for this new framework.

The article is divided into two main sections. In the first, I set the stage for the later discussion of social and cultural processes by presenting an account of the drug-using career of Lisa (a pseudonym, as are any other personal names used), one of my closest ethnographic drug contacts. In the second, with the details of Lisa's career established, I present some models and con- cepts from urban anthropology and sociology which may help to illuminate some aspects of her life history. However, before detailing Lisa's career, I should outline briefly how I came to know her story.

I met Lisa during ethnographic research amongst a set of young, recreational, illicit drug users in Perth, Western Australia, over an eighteen-month period between 1990 and 1992 [see, e.g., 12]. (By 'recreational', I mean those persons for whom drug use is primarily an expressive and leisure-oriented activity but who may, on occasions, experience difficulties of various kinds resulting from, or exacer- bated by, their drug use.) This participant observation research had been inspired by an anthro- pological interest in Ecstasy (or 'eckie' as it was generally known amongst the set's members) and the associated social scenes but it transpired that in addition to Ecstasy, many of the young drug users I came to know were also consuming amphetamine ('speed'), LSD ('trips') and, to a lesser extent, mari- juana ('mull'), cocaine ('coke') and heroin ('hammer'), as well as the ubiquitous alcohol and tobacco.

O f the numerous people I met during the re- search, I interacted most intensely with approximately 30 drug-using people who were members of heterogeneous, overlapping social net- works. My closest involvement was with a subset of perhaps twenty young men and women and, within this set, a core of 6 people. The identities of the 6 fluctuated throughout the field research period reflecting changes in the personal relationships between members of the network and between various people and me.

The sample of drug users was diverse--drawn from various social classes, residing in various suburbs, with varied drug-using histories, and with varied educational qualifications and employ- ment. Their ages varied from the late-teens to

early thirties but with a clustering in the eighteen to twenty-two years age range. Two male members of the network were married, to women who did not ordinarily involve themselves in the net- work's activities, but most were single, reflecting their relative youth. Almost all were of Australian birth to Anglo-Celtic parents. A few were, or had been, dealing drugs although much of the profit was ploughed back into their own drug use. Some were exclusively heterosexual, a few exclusively gay and some heterosexual but with experience of gay encounters. Two persons had received treat- ment or hospitalization for their drug use. Most were injecting drug users most of the time, but occasionally reverted to other routes of admini- stration such as oral consumption of Ecstasy and LSD.

LisA's cg.T~cr

In 1984, at the age of sixteen, Lisa left secondary school and took a waitressing job in a city hotel. She lived at home with her family and social- ized mainly with friends made through school, work or common neighbourhood ties. During this time, she began smoking 'mull' occasionally in the company of these friends. In 1986, she travelled to Melbourne for an extended working holiday in the company of a school friend, spending eight months there. It was while hitch-hiking across the Nullabor Plain that she first experienced 'speed'. The amphetamine powder was offered by a man who gave her a lift.

Her time in Melbourne was characterized by several residential shifts and the meeting of many different types of people drawn from various inner-city youth scenes and subcultures includ- ing punks, skinheads, mods, and street youth, as well as youths who did not belong to any identifiable subgroup. These people were met in a number of ways--through attending the same leisure venues, sexual relationships, common residence, and friends of friends. Money was scarce during this period and she and her newly- acquired friends made frequent use of available welfare agencies, such as the Red Cross, for food vouchers and other forms of charitable subsidy. She worked at a number of casual jobs (e.g. serving behind a shop counter, working in a fish market) as well as intermittently drawing unemployment benefits. She also spent a considerable amount of

Beyond Zinberg's 'social setting' 415

Figure x. Lisa's Career, z988.

time learning the subtleties of mull and 'hash' con- sumption in the company of others, as well as drinking regularly and often heavily. Her souvenir photographs of the time depict young men and women in varying stages of intoxication (whether by alcohol or mull or both) enjoying themselves at parties, barbecues and private homes.

At the beginning of 1987, she returned to Perth and moved into a shared house with some old school friends. She began socializing (and smoking mull) with her housemates and their friends, most of whom worked in the hospitality and service industries. After a few months, she moved back to her parents' house so she could afford to attend secretarial college and remained there for about 6 months. During this time, she primarily associ- ated with friends met through college, with drinking and smoking mull again being important leisure pursuits. Lisa left college before completing the year-long course to take a sales job and sub- sequently rented a flat with a female friend. While in the flat, she struck up an acquaintanceship with several young men also living in the same block and began smoking mull with them. However, Lisa found managing her relationship with her flatmate difficult, mainly due to their different leisure patterns, and subsequently returned to the parental home.

In early 1988, she resumed her association with the shared-house friends who, in the meantime, had begun using 'chemical drugs', that is, speed and 'trips'. She began snorting speed with this group and also experienced her first episode of injecting the drug---a practice she continued throughout most of her drug-using career. She

spent a great deal of time with this set of people, ultimately moving into the house again. By mid-1988, Lisa was working in a nightclub alongside Glenn, one of her housemates, and social- izing with the other bar staff. After work, several of them would often obtain speed, trips or 'Eckie' (which they had also begun using) and move on to other nightclubs to 'party'. She also had two brief affairs with male nightclub co- workers.

After Lisa had worked in the nightclub for a few months, she left Glenn's house to move into a house with MC (also on the nightclub staff), MC's girl- friend, Mary, and Graham. One night, Graham brought home for a 'one-night stand' a young woman, Kathy, whom he had met in a nightclub. Lisa soon warmed to Kathy's outrageous personality and they became firm friends. Through Kathy, Lisa met Mark and Brendan and, through them, Simone and William, all of whom frequented a gay night- club. She also met Melissa through her nightclub employment and, via her, Vinnie, Jessie, and Michael (see Fig. 1). At this time, then, most of Lisa's friends either worked in the hospitality indus- try or were regular patrons of various nightclub establishments. Drugs came to occupy a central role in most leisure activity as a consequence of the perceived benefits of drug use, a lifestyle oriented around the nocturnal hours, and easy access to drugs.

Towards the end of 1988, Lisa moved in with Kathy, socializing with much the same group of people. In 1989, she moved into a flat with Mark who had begun dealing speed. She began a sexual relationship with Michael and continued to see, and

416 David Moore

use drugs with, Brendan, MC, Vinnie, Melissa, Jessie, William, Mary, Simone and Mark, as well as Michael. (It was at this stage that my research began and I first met Lisa.)

The next residential shift, in 1990, was into a house with another old schoolfriend, Laura, and Vinnie, whom she had met through the nightclub. Frequent visitors to this house included MC, Mark, Jessie, Michael, William, Jane (met through MC), and me, as well as friends of Vinnie's (especially Rick) and patrons and other staff of the nightclub in which Lisa worked. Not all of these people used illicit drugs.

Their stay in this house ended with the expiry of the six-month lease and because of growing friction between the three occupants over heavy drug use [see 13]. Finding herself without a place to live, Lisa took over the lease on Jenine's flat (an ex-girlfriend of MC) even though it was beyond her financial means. For a number of reasons--disagreements over growing drug debts, the forging of new rela- tionships and friendships, new employment, and declining interest in partying--her circle of friends began contracting. Gradually, Lisa lost touch with, or purposefully avoided, MC, Mary, Jenine, Mark, William, Brendan, Jessie, Melissa, Kathy, Laura, Simone and Jane.

She remained in the sometimes stormy relation- ship with Michael, finally moving into a house with him in late 1991. Vinnie began visiting more frequently, to use speed intravenously, often bring- ing Rick with him. Mark renewed contact. MC returned to Perth for a time. Other friends established during past socializing also visited. Some old school friends resumed contact and Laura reappeared occasionally. Jane called by a few times. However, this renascence fizzled out within a few months. The circle again contracted drama- tically until only Lisa, Michael and Vinnie (and occasionally Rick) were left. There were a number of reasons for this: Lisa no longer worked at the nightclub and therefore no longer had the opportunity to keep in frequent contact with a large range of people, she had grown fired of the night- dub scene, and some visitors had grown fired of Michael and Vinnie 'playing the game' of drug use ('ripping people off). Jane did not telephone again after Lisa told her that she and Michael were no longer using drugs.

In 1992, Lisa frequently used speed at home (and, very occasionally, trips, eckie and mull) but

partying no longer held many attractions. More recently, she has been primarily concerned with strengthening her relationship with Michael and uses speed (as does he) and mull only on special occasions, sometimes with Mark and Vinnie. To use her own words, she has 'grown up'.

What are we to make then of Lisa's career? What can it tell us about social setting? And what can it tell us about illicit drug use? Turning to anthropol- ogy and sociology, there are a number of concepts which may be of some use.

Social processes

By 'social processes' I mean the ever-changing arrangement of social relationships between persons and groups within which everyday social life takes place. In modern social settings, the des- cription of such fluid and dynamic social arrange- ments is difficult due to their ephemeral and nebulous nature. The analytical task shifts from an understanding of 'context' to an understanding of its constituent processes.

Lability

The sets of people with whom Lisa associated over these years may be characterized as labile, that is, 'continuity in the arrangement of persons in relation to one another is uncharacteristic and the search for this order of continuity is pointless and unreal' [6]. This means that Lisa formed and re-formed her relationships with different persons and different sets of people at many points over the described period. It is also important to note that while Lisa was busily moving from one set of persons to the next (and sometimes back again), other people she came into contact with also had similar his- tories of fluid and ever-changing association. In differing degrees, all shared a common mode of relatively short-term associations which altered with changes in leisure style (including drug use), employment, sexual partners, and residence.

The labile social scenes in which Lisa moved are amenable to analysis using Mayer's interrelated concepts of 'quasi-group' and 'action-set' [14]. The

Beyond Zinberg's 'social setting' 417

Figure 2. Vinnie as Bridging Weak Tie, 199 o.

action-set comprises those people recruited to a specific task or activity. In Lisa's case, an action- set might consist of three friends who sit down one night with her to smoke marihuana or to inject amphetamine. Observing a number of successive action-sets over time allows the discovery of the slightly larger set of people who are most often recruited to these specific activities. This larger pool is the quasi-group, that is, the total number of associates who might be recruited for specific activities over a period of time. I f a number of people are regularly and frequently recruited to the action-set, it makes sense to speak of the formation of a 'clique', an essential core within the more fluid action-set and quasi-group.

Weak ties

'Weak ties' are those social links which join together various dusters of closer relationships or which span two previously unrelated social networks [15]. For example, at one stage in her career, Lisa socialized with Michael, MC, Mark, Vinnie, and a number of others on a regular and frequent basis. One of these friends, Vinnie, acted as a bridging weak tie between this social network of drug users, and another which consisted of a number of his workmates and their friends, chief amongst them being Rick. Through Rick's membership of another set of drug users, Vinnie was able to secure steady access to someone who dealt high-quality amphetamine (see Fig. 2). Thus, Vinnie formed a bridge between two previously separate small worlds of drug users.

The process of buying drugs often worked on the bridging tie principle. One person within a

particular network might know of a dealing source. He or she may purchase illicit drugs from this source on behalf of a set of drug-using friends. The set of friends may never gain know- ledge of the dealing source but, through the weak tie, are able to secure the services of the dealer. I f there is more than one person within a particular network who has established a tie into another network, this is known as a 'reinforced' weak tie.

There is also a dynamic element to weak ties in that people or groups acquire new ones as they move through various quasi-groups. In addition, they may retain established ties or they may allow them to lapse. For example, on one occasion, Lisa's regular drug dealer was unable to supply am- phetamine and she rang a number of her old contacts. However, the telephone numbers she had were either out-of-date or the person no longer dealt illicit drugs, and she was forced to go to work that night sans amphetamine.

Network foci

In the work of Helms [16], which built on that of Feld [17], the focus of network relationships, that is, the common element, activity, value, or behaviour which bound otherwise disparate people together into a socially cohesive group, was the shared houses in which her subjects lived and the associated lifestyles. At the time of my fieldwork with the set of recreational drug users of which Lisa was a member, their drug use, and in the broader sense their leisure style, was the network focus. The socio- demographic diversity which characterized this network and the attitudinal differences on a range of

418 David Moore

topics--music, favoured nightclubs, and accompany- ing leisure styles, drug(s) of choice, politics, sexualiw--were, to some extent, overcome by the common interest of buying and using illicit drugs. Network focus provides a behavioural anchor for the diverse quasi-group.

Cultural processes

The term 'cultural processes' refers to the ways in which shared understandings are created and transmitted within and between social groups. These processes give meaning to behaviour and, like social processes, are characterized by change as they are invented, transformed, collapsed, and discarded.

Style

The term 'subculture' has a long history in studies of so-called 'deviant' social groups. It is a useful way of thinking about the shared understandings of sets of people who share common interests and patterns of behaviour, and it implies a social and cultural separation from the mainstream society. However, as I have already noted, the members of the social network of which Lisa was a part had very diverse backgrounds and-- th is is the more important point--shared few common under- standings other than those pertaining to the particular focus of network activity, illicit drug use. On subjects such as politics, the importance of money, the intrinsic value of material objects such as cars or designer clothing, sexuality, and a number of other social issues, there was little or no consensus amongst them. Some did not appear particularly impressed with material things, others were; some held conservative political views, others were more radical or apolitical. To some extent this variety was reflected in their membership of other sets of people outside the narrow focus of drug use. Thus, applying the term 'subculture' to this particular network of recreational drug users obscures as much as it reveals, by implying too great a level of consensus.

It makes more sense to speak of 'style'. This term refers to the understandings created and shared by a set of people, within specific social scenes, about a particular activity in which they engage regularly with one another, and which may have relatively tittle impact on their membership of other scenes. In

keeping with the network focus, the set of people with whom I moved shared a particular set of understandings about their drag use, that is, they shared a particular style of drag use. Most were familiar with the idea of 'taxing' drugs (removing a small amount for one's personal consumption before passing it on to the buyer) either as a buyer or a seller, although there were differences in opinion about the desirability of such a practice. What was meant by the term 'junkie' was another oft-discussed theme. Some felt themselves to be junkies, others viewed it as a term of abuse, others felt it did not apply to them. Definitions of the term also changed over time. The point is that within a particular set of people, themes such as taxing and junkie-ness were commonly discussed and accepted as part of 'the way we use drugs'.

One difficulty with such a conceptualization is understanding how such diverse styles might fit together. One way of doing this is to conceive of social life as an ongoing series of negotiations be- tween persons and social groups, played out in particular social scenes.

Negotiated order

The social processes I described earlier help to shape, and in turn are shaped by, the type of cul- tural pattern which a set of people share. Strauss [18] has been much concerned with this particular aspect of human l ife-- the connection between social order or, in our case, social process, and what he calls the 'negotiation' of shared understandings. He argues that social orders (or, in our case, social scenes) are always 'negotiated orders', although there may be other types of interaction which exist side-by-side, such as coercion or manipula- tion. What Strauss means by a negotiated order is this:

[w]hen individuals or groups or organizations of any size work together "to get things done" then agreement is required about such matters as what, how, when, where, and how much. Continued agreement itself may be something to be worked at. Even enemies may have to negotiate, to work together to arrive at their quite discrepant ends. Putting the matter thus suggests that negotiations pertain to the order- ing and articulation of an enormous variety of activities.

Beyond Z inberg's 'social setting' 419

What is clear from such a conceptualization is the idea that the performance of any social activity, in our case illicit drug use, emerges from an ongoing process of negotiation whereby each participant in the social scene contributes, albeit in differing ways and in differing degrees, to the overall outcome. In our case, 'getting things done' refers to the procure- ment and consumption of illicit drugs. Such a view has much in common with the paradigm which sees 'reality' as an ongoing social construction created, sustained and transformed constantly through social interaction [19]. At the same time, it challenges conceptualizations of human behaviour in which social, structural, or psychological factors are viewed as 'determining' particular behavioural outcomes. Such determinisms characterize much of the addic- tions field, for example, in the notion that 'susceptible' people automatically submit to peer group pressure to use alcohol and other drugs.

Concluding remarks

There are several points I would like to reiterate before outlining the possible implications of the processural approach I have set out in this article. First, we can say that Lisa's career highlights the richness and diversity of experience that is so often summarized under the narrow phrase 'the social setting of drug use'. Over a 6 year period, Lisa moved through a number of different social scenes, met new friends and allowed other relationships to lapse, used drugs heavily at times but less so at others, threw herself headlong into the nightclub scene but later grew tired of it, experienced short and long-term sexual relationships, moved from be- ing primarily a marijuana smoker to someone expert in the preparation and injection of several drugs, changed employment many times, and lived in nu- merous residences--sometimes alone, sometimes sharing and, finally, in a de facto relationship.

Looking at this career through the popular peer group lens would perhaps yield statements about her susceptibility to 'peer pressure' or 'influence'. In more sophisticated versions, Lisa would be allowed a de- gree of volition in that there would be some interaction between the desires and decisions of the members of her peer group and her own, before the peer group took a 'negative' turn and she used drugs. Such static approaches to the social context cannot begin to describe or account for the ebb and flow of social life inherent in Lisa's drug-using career.

To deal with this central feature, I introduced a number of concepts which describe and analyse labile groups of people, that is, those who model and re-model their social relationships frequently in the course of their lives. The ongoing interplay between action-set and quasi-group provides a processural tool with which to understand social dynamism. The weak links which bind together disparate clusters of people across social and cultural divides situates the recurring sets within larger social networks. And the concept of network focus describes how a set of people from diverse backgrounds and seemingly hav- ing little else in common, may come together to interact meaningaqally around a particular activity, in this case, illicit drug use.

Reflecting these social processes and, at the same time, constituting them are cultural processes. Style denotes those cultural understandings about particu- lar activities, such as drug use, which people invent, sustain and transform, while maintaining member- ship in other groups and creating cultural understandings relevant to other foci in their lives, for example, work, family, personal relationships, future ambitions. Some of these understandings, implicit in Lisa's story, include the idea that illicit drug use can be a 'game' characterized by manipula- tion and deceit, that some (although not all) women occupy marginal positions within some drug scenes, that desirable levels of drug use, drug(s) of choice, and favoured methods of consumption all alter with one's circumstances and membership of social scenes, and that heavy drug use can contribute to a range of intermittent life difficulties (e.g. periodic unemployment, strained relationships) while at the same time being an expression of these difficulties. The ongoing process by which such understandings are arrived at, and constantly developed, evolved, or discarded, is best understood as one of negotiation.

Social and cultural processes are also linked to- gether in that certain types of social process both reflect and constitute certain types of cultural pro- cess. For example, studies of 'deviant' social groups such as bikies often describe a set of people who, as a result of their rejection of, or rejection by, 'straight society', are intimately linked in complex and bind- ing social relationships with one another and who, as a result, construct secretive cultural forms consisting of such things as specific argot and emphasizing the maintenance of group boundaries. Their social sepa- ration from mainstream society is reflected in and constituted by their construction of an alternative

420 David Moore

cultural system which has few points of similarity with those citizens outside the 'deviant' network. Those who are not considered wholly 'deviant', and whose place in mainstream society is maintained, may accept and share much of mainstream culture but develop specific understandings and meanings only for those aspects of their lives which set them apart from this mainstream, for example, illicit drug u s e .

What are the possible implications of a proces- sural view of illicit drug use? The data I have presented pose questions for policy, theory and prac- tice in the addictions. If the social networks of recreational drug users are characterized by dy- namism and ever-changing relationships, we may need to develop sophisticated understandings of this dynamism and incorporate them into our preventive, treatment and policy responses to drug use and related harm. Adopting a more processural view of drug use may have consequences for the way we understand and respond to such core concepts as 'dependence' [see 13] or the way we plan and imple- ment outreach services. Let me offer two specific illustrations.

First, in terms of prevention, are mass media campaigns (such as the recent 'Speed Catches Up With You') necessarily the best way of encouraging harm minimization? Mass media campaigns, by their very nature, adopt a homogenous view of drug users while the data I have presented speak to their heterogeneity and membership of fluid social scenes. Second, in terms of treatment policy, there were times in Lisa's career, and that of her friends, where some advice on harm mini- mization would have been timely. However, to which agency could she have turned? Certainly not to those geared to providing methadone to heroin-dependent persons nor to those perceived as dealing with 'junkies'. Advice on how to minimize harm is not the traditional stock-in-trade of most addiction agencies.

In the northwest of England, health authorities have responded to recreational drug use, and its associated problems, by establishing 'user-friendly' services such as Lifeline (in Manchester) to provide information and counselling, or by producing infor- mation leaflets and comics couched in culturally-relevant language [20,21]. Could similar schemes work in Australia? If we are serious about harm minimization perhaps the establishment of 'shop-front' drop-in venues could provide another

avenue of access. A complementary option might be flexible outreach programmes which may have a better chance of coping with diversity and dynamism. Furthermore, such schemes might profitably employ outreach workers who already possess inside knowledge of diverse and complex drug-using scenes through their membership of drug-using social networks [see 22].

Finally, looking to the future in addictions theory, we should be striving after two objectives: first, to develop models which conceptualize individual ac- tion as inextricably embedded within complex and diverse social contexts; and second, moving one step further, to understand social contexts as being cre- ated by their constituent processes in endless, ongoing permutation.

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by a grant from the Research into Drug Abuse Programme of the Na- tional Campaign Against Drug Abuse while I was employed by the National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse. I thank Peter d'Abbs, David Hawks and Bill Saunders for their constructive comments on earlier drafts of this article, Jim Mitchell for the network diagrams, the recreational drug users for allowing me to share their social lives and, in particular, Lisa for opening up her life to me with such good humour and patience.

References [1] Becker H. Learning to become a marihuana user. Am

J Sociol 1953;59:235-43. [2] Robins L. A follow-up of Viemam drug users.

Special Action Office Monograph, Series A, No. 1. Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1973.

[3] Zinberg N. Drug, set, and setting. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.

[4] Rosaldo R. Culture and truth. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989.

[5] Sansom B. The camp at Wallaby Cross. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1980.

[6] Sansom B. Processural modellings and aggregate groupings in Northern Australia. In: Holy M, Stutch- lik L, eds. The anthropology of folk models. London: Academic Press, 1981:257-80.

Beyond Zinberg's 'social setting' 421

[7] Vincent J. System and process, 1974-1985. Ann Rev Anthropology 1986;15:99-119.

[8] Pittman DJ, Snyder CR, eds. Society, culture and drinking patterns. New York: Wiley, 1962.

[9] Gossop M. Living with drugs. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1993.

[10] MacAndrew C, Edgerton RB. Drunken comport- ment: a social explanation. Chicago: Aldine, 1969.

[11] Waldorf D, Reinarman C, Murphy S. Cocaine changes: the experience of using and quitting. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991.

[12] Moore D. 'Speeding, ecking and tripping': ethno- graphic notes from a small world of psychostimulant use. In: Burrows D, Flaherty B, MacAvoy M, eds. Psychostimulant use in Australia. Canberra: Aus- tralian Government Publishing Service, 1993:71-90.

[13] Moore D. Deconstructing 'dependence': an ethno- graphic critique of an influential concept. Contemp Drug Prob 1992;19(3):459-90.

[14] Mayer A. The significance of quasi-groups in the study of complex societies. In: Banton M, ed. The social anthropology of complex societies. London: Tavistock Publications, 1966:97-122.

[15] Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. In: Collins R, ed. Sociological the- ory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1983:201-33.

[16] Helms M. 'Keeping it together': the social processes of community among young urban nomads living in shared houses in Perth, Western Australia. Unpub- lished M.A. thesis: Department of Anthropology, University of Western Australia, 1986.

[17] Feld S. The focused organization of social ties. Am J Sociol 1981;86:1015-35.

[18] Strauss A. Negotiations: varieties, contexts, processes and social order. London: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978.

[19] Berger P, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday, 1966.

[20] McDermott P, Matthews A, O'Hare P, Bennett A. Ecstasy in the United Kingdom: recreational drug use and subcultural change. In: Heather N, Wodak A, Nadelmann E, O'Hare P, eds. From faith to science: psychoactive drugs and harm reduction. London: Whurr Publishers, 1993:230-44.

[21] Gilman M. Smack in the eye! In: O'Hare P, New- combe R, Matrhews A, Buning EC, Drucker E, eds. The reduction of drug-related harm. London: Rout- ledge, 1992:137-45.

[22] Moore D. Social controls, harm minimization and interactive outreach: the public health implications of an ethnography of drug use. Aust J Pub Health 1993;17(1):58-67.