EXPLAINING THE UNEXPLAINABLE:
THE EXPERIENCE OF PSYCHEDELIC DRUG USERS AND
ITS EFFECTS ON THE USERS´ SENSE OF SELF-IMAGE IN
BERLIN
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science
in Medical Anthropology and Sociology
Submitted by Silja Janina Müller Student number: 11766883
University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences
August 8th, 2018 Berlin, Germany
Content Acknowledgements 1 Abstract 2 Introduction 3 1. Research Context 7 1.1 Psychedelic Drugs 7 1.2 History of Psychedelics 9 2. Theoretical Framework 12 2.1 Turner: Liminality 12
2.2 Scheper-Hughes and Lock: The Mindful Body 14
2.3 Merging Both Theories 15
3. Methodology 16 3.1 Research Location 16 3.2 Socio-demographic Profile 17 3.3 Research Methodology 18 3.4 Data Analysis 24 3.5 Ethical Considerations 25 4. Findings 26
4.1 Context of Psychedelic Drug Use 26
4.1.1 Setting 27
4.1.2 Motives and Intentions 29
4.2 Effects of Psychedelic Drugs 33
4.2.1 Effects Regarding the Individual Body-Self 33 4.2.1.1 Self-love, Self-acceptance & Self-knowledge 33 4.2.1.2 Inner Healing: Fears, Insecurities & Negative Emotions 35
4.2.1.4 More Positive Outlook on Life 40
4.2.2 Effects Regarding the Social Body 42
4.2.2.1 Trust 42
4.2.2.2 Social Behavior and Social Skills 43
4.2.2.3 Bonding and Change of Relationships 44
4.2.3 Effects Regarding the Spiritual Body 46
4.2.3.1 Connectedness to Nature 47
4.2.3.2 Spirituality 48
4.3. The Sense-Making Process of Psychedelic Experience: Explanatory Models 51
4.3.1 Biochemistry 51
4.3.2 Agency 52
4.3.3 Catharsis 54
4.3.4 Connectedness and Spirituality 58
5. Theoretical Discussion: Psychedelic Experiences as Liminal Phase 59
6. Conclusion 61
References 69
Annexes
Annex 1: Informed Consent - German I
Annex 2: Informed Consent - English Translation II
Annex 3: Research Instrument: Interview questions German III Annex 4: Research Instrument: Interview questions - English Translation IV
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank each one of my respondents for participating in this research. Without them, this Thesis would not have been possible. Each of their stories moved and inspired me and I was deeply touched by how openly they disclosed intimate topics towards me - a stranger - talking about their fears, insecurities, pains, but also their joys, motivations and worldviews.
I also want to thank my supervisor for offering to help me with this thesis. Since I first did not find a supervisor with knowledge on my specific topic, I am very thankful he was willing to take on this task, despite him being involved in various own projects.
Abstract
Contemporary psychedelic research has mostly elicited psychedelic use in psychotherapeutic and clinical settings. This study aims to complement the existing body of literature by eliciting psychedelic drug use in “natural” settings by healthy adults and show the variety of effects experienced this way. This Master Thesis portrays psychedelic drug experiences from an emic perspective, exploring individual users´ experiences. I conducted a qualitative study to enquire how people experience psychedelic drugs and how this affects the users´ sense of self-image in a culture without culturally rooted frameworks and explanatory models.
For this purpose, I interviewed 12 informants with psychedelic experiences living in Berlin, Germany, using a semi-structured approach. Additionally, the respondents were asked to fulfil a creative task in which they presented their explanatory models regarding psychedelic drugs. These findings have been analyzed using elements from Grounded Theory combined with thematic content analysis. Scheper-Hughes´ and Lock´s concept of “The Mindful Body” as well as Victor Turner´s notion of liminality both served as theoretical framework to structure and explain the results while maintaining an emic approach which highlights the interpretation and experience of the users themselves.
The findings of this Thesis confirm the importance of set and setting when taking psychedelic drugs, as they strongly shape the experience. The perceived controllability of the situation in which psychedelics were consumed played a major role for the informants´ psychedelic experience.
This research further shows how manifold and complex the effects of psychedelic drugs are, being highly subjective and individual. My informants reported various effects, which have been subgrouped under: 1) effects regarding the individual body-self, 2) the social body and what I name 3) the spiritual body. It further emphasizes the importance of qualitative studies in psychedelic research, as they are able to capture not only individual effects and their specific meaning to the drug users but also the sense-making process of psychedelic experiences. Since so far, little is known about how exactly psychedelics evoke transformative changes in people, future research might benefit from also taking the users´ explanatory models into account.
Introduction
“(…) if it only advances deep enough, it inevitably leads to the inexplicable, primal ground of the universe: the wonder, the mystery of the divine—in the microcosm of the atom, in the macrocosm of the spiral nebula; in the seeds of plants, in the body and soul of people.” Albert Hofman (1980), discoverer of LSD
When reading online forums, academic studies or talking to people face to face, I found that many people describe psychedelic experiences as being one of the most profound, intimate, memorable or transformative experiences of their whole life. One study conducted by Griffiths et al. (2006) concludes that 67% of the volunteers who ingested psilocybin in the course of the study counted that experience as one of the five most meaningful events in their life, in some cases being as important as events such as the birth of their first child. Being one of the first studies published on this topic after the 1960s and 1970s, these results were rather ground-breaking.
Yet, consuming psychedelics stays a rather marginalized social phenomenon in most cultures, with many people being misinformed or not informed about their effects, and only having a vague imagination of how psychedelic drugs affect the mind and body. Often, there are a lot of prejudices and negative images attached to psychedelic drug use, such as images of addiction or people developing mental disorders due to psychedelics.
I focussed on psychedelic drugs since they differ to a significant extent from other drug classes such as stimulants or narcotics. The first and most apparent difference is what is described as the consciousness-expanding effect of psychedelics (Carhart-Harris et al. 2017; Baker 2005; Grob 2002). This makes their use quite unique, as they enable individuals to access their subconscious or unconscious mind. Hence, they also tend to be used for reasons of self-experience, healing or spiritual interest and not only for pure recreational use. Furthermore, as opposed to most other drugs, psychedelic drugs pose no known physical risk to the body and a very low risk regarding mental health (Johnson, Richards & Griffiths 2008), only being dangerous for people with a predisposition towards psychoses (Johansen & Krebs 2015). So far, there is no evidence that psychedelic drugs cause physical
damage or neurotoxicity (Griffiths et al. 2008). The exact mechanisms of psychedelic drugs will be explained in the following chapter.
Nowadays, only a few cultural and ethnic groups such as South American cultures with shamanic traditions offer a cultural framework and specific guidelines for the purposeful use of psychedelic drugs. This includes recommendations for setting, purpose and occasion (Viveiros de Castro 2007; Labate & Feeny 2011; Jauregui et al. 2011; Dobkin de Rios & Grob 2005). These cultures also provide explanatory models with which the experiences can be explained, valued and framed within. However, this is not the case anymore for most other cultures across the globe, especially for more industrialized nations.
Given this cultural situation, I wanted to know how and why people take psychedelic drugs and how these experiences shape the users in cultures such as Germany, which not only lacks explanatory models and frameworks but even marginalizes and stigmatizes psychedelic drug use. This is for example visible in media reports covering negative sensational stories about psychedelic drug use rather than presenting information and facts. Furthermore, commonly held opinions, witnessed by myself as well as my social world, usually judge psychedelic drug consumption negatively.
In the recent decade, psychedelic research has experienced a huge scientific revival and interest. A multitude of studies is available, showing that psychedelics bring about positive long-term behavioral and personality changes such as enhanced empathy, sociality, self-compassion, mindfulness, heightened mood or altruistic social effects (Bouso et al. 2015; Lebedev et al. 2016; Dolder et al. 2016; Sampedro et al. 2017; Griffiths et al. 2008) and are capable of evoking significant spiritual and mystical experiences (Griffiths et al. 2011, 2008, 2006; MacLean et al. 2012; Millière 2017). Furthermore, psychedelics given in specific psychotherapeutic settings have been shown to be effective in treating depression, anxiety, substance dependence and other mental health issues (Ross et al. 2016; Mahapatra 2017; Loizaga-Velder & Verres 2014; Nichols 2017; Nour 2015; Johnson 2017; Nichols 2017; Liechti et al. 2017; Gasser et al. 2015; Hendricks et al. 2015). Even though their exact mechanisms are not yet known, many researchers further investigated the influence of psychedelics on the brain (Viol et al. 2017; Tagliazucchi et al. 2014; 2016; Roseman et al. 2016; Palhano-Fontes et al. 2015; Muhtukumaraswamy et al. 2013; Martin & Nichols 2016; Carhart-Harris et al. 2012; 2014; 2016) and on the users’ sense of self (Millière 2017; Letheby & Gerrans 2017; Lebedev et al. 2015).
However, the vast majority of published psychedelic research has followed a quantitative study design. To date, the existing body of literature offers only few qualitative research, which can incorporate the users´ subjective perspective and what they deem important (Belser et al. 2017; Nielson et al. 2018; Noorani 2018). Even though quantitative studies are just as important, I aimed to complement the picture of psychedelic research by listening to the users´ voices. If increased mindfulness or self-compassion are tested with an a priori hypothesis, or people rate their mystical experiences on a questionnaire, it does give an impression of what psychedelics do. But a user might individually value another effect as more important and life-changing. Also, the same ratings on scales and questionnaires might mean something else for each person who filled it in.
Thus, I was particularly interested in how psychedelic drug users in Berlin frame their psychedelic experiences individually. My overarching research question was
How do people experience psychedelic drugs and how does this affect the users´ sense of self-image in a culture without culturally rooted frameworks and explanatory models?
To answer this, I further posed following sub questions:
1. In which settings and with which motives and intentions do people consume psychedelics? 2. What effects did the users experience through psychedelics?
3. How do the users explain and value, thus make sense of their psychedelic experiences?
I was further interested in how people take, value and explain psychedelics in their “natural" habitat, outside of therapeutic or clinical settings. Since set and setting are known to largely determine the course of psychedelic experiences, those psychedelic experiences taking place in clinical and psychotherapeutic settings can differ greatly from psychedelic drug use in home settings, in nature or at festivals.
So far, non-problematic drug use is an under researched topic. Even though in nearly all societies drugs1 are prohibited, global drug reports show drugs are still consumed regularly in most societies. Contrary to negative media images however, most global drug use is considered non-problematic (UN World Drug Report 2017).
1 Here, I refer to drugs other than alcohol
With this research, I hope to portray psychedelic drug use done in safe settings, harming neither the user themselves nor their surroundings in any way. I argue that most harms which are related to drugs can be minimized by drug education rather than prohibition of substances.
I believe that studying psychedelic experiences can offer valuable information on socioculturally rooted values, concepts and beliefs, such as those of the body, mind and soul and their interrelatedness, cosmologies and worldviews, explanatory models of healing and illness as well as concepts of the self and its relation to the social world around. I argue in line with Scheper-Hughes and Lock (1987: 28ff.), who emphasize the importance of studying emotions in intense experiences such as illness, madness, disability and death, to which I add psychedelic experiences as a further intense human experience:
“It is sometimes during the experience of sickness, as in moments of deep trance or sexual transport, that mind and body, self and other become one. Analyses of these events offer a key to understanding the mindful body, as well as the self, social body, and body politic.” (ibid.: 29).
Inspired by this, I wanted to give people who take psychedelic drugs a voice and an opportunity to share their stories.
Content
Firstly, the research context will be presented, explaining what psychedelic drugs are and how they work in the body and mind, as well as presenting a short account of psychedelic drug use in human history.
In the second chapter, the theoretical framework will be elicited, in which I draw upon Victor Turner´s concept of liminality in ritual processes and combine it with Scheper-Hughes´ and Lock´s idea of the mindful body, consisting of three levels of the body each person inhabits.
In chapter three the methodology used in this research will be presented. I describe the research location, Berlin, as well as the socio-demographic details of my informants and then explain which methodology I used and why as well as how I analyzed the data I gathered.
In chapter four, my empirical results will be presented in three parts. The first part describes in which settings my informants consumed psychedelic drugs and which motives and intentions they had. I elicit what helped them navigate through difficult situations and how their motives and intentions changed over time. The following part deals with the effects my respondents had experienced through psychedelic drugs, differentiating between effects perceived on the level of the individual body-self, on the level of the social body as well as what I name the spiritual body. I then place these findings in relation to findings of other studies. In the next section, I analyze the sense-making process of psychedelic experiences and describe which explanatory models my informants held on how psychedelic drugs induce transformative effects in the users.
In chapter five, these findings will be theoretically framed within Victor Turner´s concept of liminality. I compare liminality in ritual processes to liminal phases in psychedelic experiences and suggest how it can be used to explain the cathartic, healing and transformative effect psychedelics often induce. The last chapter concludes and discusses the findings and makes recommendations on what kind of future research would be useful in the field of psychedelic research, especially from a medical anthropology and sociology perspective.
1. Research Context
In the next chapter, I will briefly explain what psychedelics are, what their mental and physical effects can be and how they have been used in human history until today. Due to the limited frame of this research, I will only be able to touch upon this briefly. For more in-depth information, Ben Sessa´s (2012) “Psychedelic Renaissance” as well as Rucker et al.´s (2017) article “Psychiatry & the Psychedelic Drugs” might be useful.
1.1 Psychedelic Drugs
Psychedelic drugs refer to psychoactive substances that alter and expand consciousness. They are also commonly referred to as “psychotomimetics” - meaning mimicking psychosis, “hallucinogens” - provoking hallucinations, or “entheogens” - evoking the divine or god within (Hendricks et al. 2015; Baker 2005; Metzner 2004; Ott 1996; Grinspoon & Bakalar 1979; Ruck et al. 1979). While
psychotomimetics and entheogens already imply a judgement, the term hallucinogens is misleading, as psychedelics do not cause hallucinations in the classical sense, but so-called pseudo-hallucinations. Psychedelics or psychedelic substances seems to be the most neutral and appropriate term which is why it will be used in this research. This term has first been introduced in 1956 by the author Aldous Huxley and psychiatrist Humphry Osmond to describe the experience he had made with LSD (Huxley, Palmer & Horowitz 1977). Osmond invented the term in a letter addressed to Aldous Huxley, stating “To fathom hell or soar angelic, just take a pinch of psychedelic” (ibid.: 104). Etymologically, “psychedelic" derives from the Greek words psyché (soul, mind) and dêlos (clear, manifest), thus meaning mind-manifesting.
From a pharmacological view, psychedelic drugs are alkaloids and can be divided into two classes: tryptamines and phenethylamines (Johnson, Richards & Griffiths 2008). Among the former are psilocybin, the active agent in so-called magic mushrooms or truffles, LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide), which is synthetic and produced in laboratory settings, as well as DMT (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine), the compound in Ayahuasca and other psychoactive plants. Although DMT naturally occurs in certain plants, it is also available as an extracted, reduced form which is usually smoked in a specific pipe. The latter group for example includes mescaline, a component of the Peyote cactus.
Although many other substances such as MDMA (3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine), 2-CB (4-Brom-2,5-dimethoxyphenylethylamin), Ketamine or anticholinergic agents such as atropine also have psychedelic aspects and are thus sometimes referred to as psychedelics, they are not included in this research. Their mechanisms and effects are different from the classical psychedelics listed above and pharmacologically speaking, they belong to other substance groups (Johnson, Richards & Griffiths 2008, 604; Nichols et al. 2004). Another reason why they are not included in this research is that they carry other risks for body and mind, such as a higher risk for addiction as well negative physical and/or mental effects (Hendricks et al. 2015).
The effects of the classical psychedelics are primarily meditated by serotonin 5-HT2 receptor agonists (López-Giménez & González-Maeso 2018; Johnson, Richards & Griffiths 2008; González-Maeso, et al. 2007; Nichols 2004; Scruggs et al. 2000; Aghajanian & Marek 1999; Nelson et al. 1999; Glennon et al. 1984). The physical and psychological effects of psychedelics are numerous and depend on the substance, the dosage, one´s surrounding and environmental factors (setting) as well as the user´s
physical and mental constitution, expectancies and as his or her individual reaction (set) (Preller & Vollenweider 2018; Letheby 2015; Sessa 2012; Johnson, Richards & Griffiths 2008; Nichols 2004; Grinspoon & Bakalar, 1979; Leary 1961).
For these reasons, psychedelic experiences are rather ineffable, highly subjective and unique. However, people commonly experience various perceptual changes such as olfactory, auditory and tactile distortions, synesthesia, an altered sense of time and space, seeing a great variety of closed- and open-eye visual illusions, mostly comprised of complex, vivid, moving geometrical and
kaleidoscopic patterns as well as various images of all kinds, such as landscapes, animals, human and non-human beings, all in a multitude of fluorescent and intensified colors (Preller & Vollenweider 2018; Jauregui et al. 2011; McKenna 2004; Holman 2010; Pahnke & Richards 1967; Johnson, Richards & Griffiths 2008).
Further, emotional and mental effects ranging from positive to negative extremes (even within minutes) are often mentioned, such as bliss, euphoria, dysphoria, depersonalization, confusion, panic, being in a dreamlike state, difficulty thinking and expressing thoughts, general enhancement of feelings, radically altered perception of self and surroundings, feeling of merging with surrounding and mystical experiences (Preller & Vollenweider 2018; Letheby 2015; Holman 2010; Dobkin de Rios and Rumrrill 2008; Nichols 2004; Johnson, Richards & Griffiths 2008; Isbell et al. 1959). Somatic symptoms are rather unimpressive and subtle and further depend on the kind of psychedelic drug consumed, Ayahuasca being the psychedelic that usually provokes the strongest somatic effects. These may be weakness, blurred vision, dilated pupils, a sensation of dizziness and heaviness of the body, mild increase in blood pressure and heart rate, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea (Yaden et al. 2017; Jauregui et. al 2011; Griffiths et al. 2006; McKenna 2004; Passie, et al., 2000; Strassman & Qualls 1994; Hollister, 1961; Isbell et al. 1959).
1.2 History of Psychedelics
The use of psychedelic drugs for religious, spiritual and sacramental purposes in Africa, South America and North America can be traced back to ancient times (Letheby 2015; Johnson, Richards & Griffiths 2008; Grob 2002; Ruck et al. 1979). Indigenous use of psychoactive plants was restricted to rituals and ceremonies following specific rules and guidelines, mostly for healing as well as
divination purposes (Johnson, Richards & Griffiths 2008; Weil 2004; Grob 2002; Schultes, Hofmann & Rätsch 2001).
Among the cultural groups whose use of psychoactive plants is well-documented are the Aztec shamans (Schultes & Hofmann 1979; Ott & Bigwood 1978), various ancient Asian groups using the psychoactive drink "soma” (Wasson & Ingalls 1971), Native Americans using peyote during
sacramental ceremonies (Stewart 1989; Diaz 1977) and indigenous groups in South America ingesting Ayahuasca in shamanic rituals and ethnomedicine - who continue doing so until today (Tupper 2006; Dobkin de Rios & Grob 2005; McKenna 2004; Brabec de Mori 2011; Schultes & Hofmann 1979, Dobkin de Rios 1971). Ayahuasca is also part of rituals of the two global religious movements Santo Daime and União do Vegetal (UDV), the former founded in the early 1930s, the latter in the 1960s in Brazil (Labate & Feeny 2011). The use of Ayahuasca during their ceremonies is granted in some countries, such as the United States and Brazil.
In Western culture, psychedelics have played a rather minor role until the 1940s, when Albert Hofmann discovered LSD and at the same time, starting in World War II, the CIA and its predecessors as well as the German National Socialists launched experiments, hoping to find a "truth-serum" and substance to control the mind and interrogate people (Letheby 2015, 174; Moreno 2016; Lee & Shlain 1986). However, the exact opposite happened to be true as people under the influence of psychedelics tend to be less predictive and controllable than under other circumstances. Parallel to these unsuccessful military and secret service experiments, an era of clinical research on the effects of psychedelics was on the rise, starting in the 1950s, reaching its peak in the 1960s and early 1970s (Moreno 2016; Lee & Shlain 1986; Stevens 1988; Grinspoon & Bakalar 1979; Grob et al., 1998; Strassman 2001; Nichols 2004). During that time, a multitude of studies have been published regarding treatment of alcohol or substance dependent people with psychedelics (Smart et al. 1966; Hollister et al. 1969; Ludwig et al. 1969; Kurland et al. 1971; Savage & McCabe 1973),
accompaniment of psychotherapy with psychedelics (Abramson 1963, 1963; Crochet, Sandison & Walk 1963; Mogar & Aldrich 1969; Rhead 1977) or the comparison of psychedelic states with psychosis (Hoch et al., 1953; Hoffer & Callbeck 1960; Leuner 1962; Kuramochi & Takahashi 1964). Furthermore, so-called psycholytic as well as psychedelic therapy have been extensively studied and practiced by various therapists, with Stanislav Grof being one of the most prominent researchers (Kurland et al. 1969; Pahnke et al. 1969; Richards et al. 1972; Grof et al. 1973; Kurland et al. 1973; Grof & Halifax 1977; Richards et al. 1977; Grof 1980; Richards 1980; Kurland 1985). However,
studies of that time lacked control groups and thus did not meet the golden standard criteria valid today.
At the same time, recreational use of psychedelics had increased, particularly during the global counterculture movement of the 1960s and early 1970s. Concomitant with the advocacy of nontraditional or unconventional, anti-establishment and alternative values and beliefs of the so-called hippies was the wide-spread and public use of psychoactive substances, especially that of LSD (Johnson, Richards & Griffiths 2008: 606; Letheby 2015; Baker 2005; Lee & Shlain 1992; Grob 2002). The public excessive use of psychedelics soon started to gain a lot of negative media coverage and initiated a great controversy. Consequently, Albert Hofmann, the discoverer of LSD who formerly emphasized its potential, now worried about the potential misuse and referred to it as “my problem child” (Hofmann 1980).
Also in the 1960s, Timothy Leary who was leading experiments at Harvard regarding psychedelics was involved in a scandal due to allegedly ethically questionable procedures in his experiments, leading to him being expelled from his university (Moreno 2016: 112f.; Letheby 2015). Accusations against other researchers followed. This shed a negative light on psychedelic research and
marginalized it greatly.
These incidents together with media-led controversy around psychedelics finally resulted in
prohibition of these drugs in the United States under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act (Johnson, Richards & Griffiths et al. 2008: 606; Letheby 2015: 175; Baker 2005). Research was no longer funded but marginalized, which is why scientific interest in psychedelics decreased dramatically. Only in more recent decades, psychedelic research has undergone a huge revival, with many organizations and research teams all over the world researching their (potentially therapeutic) effects (Ross et al. 2016; Mahapatra 2017; Loizaga-Velder & Verres 2014; Nichols 2017; Nour 2015; Johnson 2017; Nichols 2017; Liechti et al. 2017; Gasser et al. 2015; Hendricks et al. 2015) as well as their mechanism of action in the brain (Viol et al. 2017; Tagliazucchi et al. 2014; 2016; Roseman et al. 2016; Palhano-Fontes et al. 2015; Muhtukumaraswamy et al. 2013; Martin & Nichols 2016; Carhart-Harris et al. 2012; 2014; 2016) and the users sense of self (Millière 2017; Letheby & Gerrans 2017; Lebedev et al. 2015).
In this research, I aimed to add a medical anthropology and sociology approach to this existing body of literature. Thus, I used theoretical frameworks that allow for incorporating the psychedelic drug user´s subjective experience, leading to an emic approach rather than an etic one.
2. Theoretical Framework
The finding of my research will be theoretically framed within Victor Turner´s (1969) notion of liminality, combined with Scheper-Hughes´ and Lock´s (1987) concept of “The Mindful Body”. Additionally, they will be compared to current findings of psychedelic research conducted in various disciplines, such as psychiatry, psychology, philosophy and neurosciences.
2.1 Victor Turner: Liminality
In “The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure” Victor Turner (1969) extended Arnold van Gennep´s (1999) theory of the three stages of a ritual, namely: separation, liminality and
reaggregation. According to Turner (1969), certain human phenomena can be explained with this concept, such as rituals in archaic societies or revolutions in industrialized societies. However, Turner´s elaborations on liminality are not only useful for analyzing macro-level phenomena, but also human experiences on an individual micro-level.
Turner (1969) argues that certain human events and social processes entail the same three stages, the first being the stage of separating oneself from the current social order. The subsequent stage is the one Turner focussed on in his work: the liminal phase. He further distinguishes between liminal and liminoid, with the former referring to events that are inevitable, such as puberty, whereas the latter refers to unsolicitous experiences to which the category of psychedelic experiences would belong. However, both in the liminal and the liminoid phase, individuals find themselves in an in-between-state with social norms, values and restrictions being abrogated (Turner 1969: 95):
“Liminal entities are neither here nor there; they are betwixt and between the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremonial.”
They reside in a symbolic space of anti-structure, one could even say floating in an anarchic chaos which paradoxically threatens the social order in some way, but also enables the maintenance of
order when the person in the liminal or liminoid phase finally returns to the social order. On returning, they begin the phase of reaggregation, embodying a new self which complies with social norms again.
Turner (1969) conceptualizes two contrasting models as being fundamental to every society, constituting the basic human condition: structure and anti-structure or communitas. They are interdependent, one needing the other to exist. While social structure refers to those parts of a society that are of hierarchical, “norm-governed, institutionalized, abstract nature” (ibid.: 126) and can be understood as pragmatic cognitive model for classification and rational thinking of the world, communitas is the exact opposite: unstructured, spontaneous and full of symbols and metaphors. Communitas is the social force in which philosophy, art, myths, religion or the other-worldly thrive, it:
“(…) breaks in through the interstices of structure, in liminality; at the edges of structure, in marginality; and from beneath structure, in inferiority. It is almost everywhere held to be sacred or ´holy`, possibly because it transgresses or dissolves the norms that govern structured and institutionalized relationships.” (Ibid.: 128).”
However, both concepts cannot be fully separated but exist in hybridization and constant merging with each another (ibid.: 126). As Turner (1969: 97) states:
“(…) each individual´s life experience contains alternating exposure to structure and communitas, and to states and transitions.”
Thus, social life and personal life are a continual dialogue between structure and anti-structure and both are essential for maintaining social order. Rituals are central to societies, as they restore and reaffirm the structured order (Turner 1969).
Inspired by Turner´s idea of structure and anti-structure, I argue that an individual can be seen as a micro-level social system within the social system at large, going through the phases of separation, liminality and reaggregation not only as a social being connected to the outer world, but also as an individual being connected to one´s inner world. In the same way that societies strive to be healthy
and balanced in order to survive, individuals in that society tend to pursue mental and physical health as well, in order to maintain the balance of one´s internal body-mind-system.
I argue that these elements can be applied to psychedelic drug experiences. Psychedelic experiences, too, can serve as tool to balance one´s inner body-mind-system, their phases resembling the phases of separation, liminality and reaggregation. This will be further elaborated upon in chapter 5, “Theoretical Discussion”.
2.2 Scheper-Hughes and Lock: The Mindful Body
In addition to Turner´s concepts of liminality, structure and anti-structure, Scheper-Hughes and Lock´s (1987) concept of “The Mindful Body” is useful to analyze psychedelic experiences. The authors differentiate three bodies which each person inhabits.
The first kind of body is the “individual body-self” (ibid.: 7), referring to the experience of one´s own personal body. The understanding of the self is deeply social and cultural, with the idea of one bounded individual self – as is the most common perception in Western societies – being rather exceptional, given the many different forms of selves in other cultures.
The authors strongly argue for finally overcoming the reductionist and simplistic Cartesian dichotomy of body and mind as separate entities which until now dominated the biomedical
discourse. Even though psychology and anthropology have both tried to dissolve this opposition of body and mind, they still have not succeeded, as Scheper-Hughes and Lock (ibid.: 10 et seq.). state. The social body is the second body that one inhabits, referring to the “body as symbol” for thinking about the world (Scheper-Hughes and Lock 1987: 19 et seqq.). The social body reflects social norms, values and ideas, such as those on kinship, health or illness. It is once again a rather Western
assumption to view the body as separated from its environment. Scheper-Hughes and Lock (1987) vividly illustrate how in other sociocultural groups the symbolic social body exceeds the boundaries of the physical body. Here, the body merges with the natural and the supernatural.
In more industrialized, Western societies, the body is commonly equated with machines and the non-natural. For Scheper-Hughes and Lock, precisely these machine metaphors, the disconnectedness of the body from its sociocultural, natural or supernatural meaning as well as the fragmentation of the
body (as is visible in the Cartesian mind-body-dichotomy) are the reasons why pathological self- and body alienation are “so common to our civilization, as expressed in the schizophrenias, anorexias, and bulimias, or the addictions, obsessions and fetishisms of ´modern` life in the postindustrialized world” (Scheper-Hughes and Lock 1987: 21 et seq.).
Thirdly, the body politic illustrates how power and authority are exerted over bodies:
“Cultures are disciplines that provide codes and social scripts for the domestication of the individual body in conformity to the needs of the social and political order” (ibid.: 26).”
2.3 Merging Both Theories
Keeping these three bodies in mind, in my research I aimed to frame the effects of psychedelics within the three levels of the body. Effects can be reported on the level of the individual body-self: this would be perceptible effects related to one´s individual biography and personality, such as increased self-love or self-compassion. Other effects happen on the level of the social body; thus, they involve the individual in relation to the social world around them. This could for example be apparent in changes of social relationships through a mutual psychedelic experience or changes in the (social) role an individual holds.
I replaced the third level introduced by Scheper-Hughes and Lock, the body politic, with what I name the spiritual body. The spiritual body includes how a person relates to phenomena they experienced through psychedelic experiences that exceed the personal as well as social aspect of oneself. This could be how an individual relates to nature, beliefs in spiritual cosmologies and beliefs regarding mystical and otherworldly phenomena. This level is highly subjective and places the individual within a larger context. I created this category in response to the narratives of my informants.
Merging these two adapted theories offers a multidimensional theoretical framework which facilitates the deconstruction of the complexity of psychedelic experiences, while still leaving room for the subjective explanations and statements of my informants. Thus, it enables an etic and emic view at
the same time, not aiming to explain or value the effects themselves but frame them within structuring theoretical concepts.
3. Methodology
In the following section, following sequences will be elicited: research location, demographic details of informants, research methodology and reflection on methodology, data analysis and ethical considerations.
3.1 Research Location
I conducted my research in Berlin, Germany, as for various reasons this location was ideal for my purposes. Since my research topic touched upon highly complex, intellectually challenging and intimate experiences of individuals, I considered it important to let potential informants speak in their own native language. Due to their complex effects and the fact that they evoke a different state of consciousness, psychedelic experiences tend to be rather ineffable by nature and can hardly be truly captured and communicated with words.
This is why I deemed it especially important that the accounts and narratives which were given by my informants should be as rich and as close to the experience as possible. This might have not been the case if my informants would have had to express themselves in a foreign language. I hoped to
minimize the risk of misunderstandings and searching for words or potential lack of the right words. Communicating in German further allowed me to pay closer attention to nonverbal communication and to understand underlying cultural beliefs and norms as I grew up within that culture.
Since I only speak German and English fluently enough to gather the necessary information for my research, I chose to only interview people whose mother tongue was either German or English. For practical reasons, I finally chose Berlin as my research site since I supposed that there would be the biggest group of potential informants fitting my research.
Another criterion for choosing Berlin was that conducting research in my own cultural group facilitated the data collection. Given the time-restricted frame of this research, I did not need much time adapting to the place and culture.
Another practical reason for choosing Berlin was that the community of people interested in and taking psychedelics is quite large. There are various groups and organizations such as The German Psychedelic Society, various “Psychedelic Meetups” in the Smartphone Application Meetups and a group called Ayahuasca International Berlin. They all offer information and organize open meetings for people who are interested in psychedelics.
Researching drug use is quite challenging as it is a rather stigmatized and marginal activity. However, in Germany, even though psychedelic drugs are illegal, governmental institutions mostly turn a blind eye to the use of psychedelic substances if this is done in a specific social setting and under specific conditions. Mostly, no interference takes place if firstly, no harm is done to any individual and secondly, it does not hinder people’s functioning in society and in their personal lives. This made conducting my research and finding informants easier than if it had been done in a country where it is fully prohibited or more strongly prosecuted.
One last important consideration around doing my research in Germany was that it is a country with rather strict norms and rules regarding behavior in social settings. However, there are no culturally rooted rituals, traditions or explanatory models for the use of psychedelics, as is the case for other cultural settings, such as some South American ethnic groups who openly incorporate Ayahuasca into their cultural life. Hence, I found it especially interesting to find out how psychedelic drug users individually perceive and value their experience and what explanatory models they use for
themselves.
3.2 Socio-demographic Profile
I interviewed twelve people during my research. Nine informants lived in the city of Berlin, one woman in a village close to Berlin and two women in Stuttgart, South Germany. For the most part of their life, they have all been raised in Germany and were German native speakers, even though some shared other nationalities, one woman being Hungarian, another half German half Thai, and one man being half Austrian half German. The gender distribution was 4 men to 8 women.
My respondents were in an age range between 20 and 52, with the majority of nine people being in their late twenties or early thirties. Nine had already finished studying and were working, two of my informants were still studying and one was in between studying and working, as she received a training as a psychotherapist.
All my informants also had experience with drugs other than psychedelics. This was mostly Cannabis and MDMA. All had also taken the classic psychedelic drugs (LSD, magic mushrooms or truffles, Ayahuasca, Peyote or DMT) more than once.
3.3 Research Methodology
My research took place from 1st of March until the 30th of April 2018. Although I practiced participant observation, I did not use that part of the data for my research. The data which I used was collected by doing a literature study, conducting interviews and by giving my informants a creative task which will be elaborated upon in the following chapter. I coded the interview transcripts and the documents I received for the creative task by hand. I carried out this coding during the fieldwork period.
Literature study
Before starting my research, I did a thorough literature study on psychedelics and their effects. This gave me a deeper understanding of the substances and their various effects on the human body and mind.
Sampling
I contacted organizations that are involved in educational work or conduct research in the field of psychedelic drugs. I received the consent of an organization called eclipse e.V. to use their email distributor which reaches all their members. These would be people interested in (psychedelic) drugs. Each year, eclipse e.V. initiates various projects regarding drug education and information, such as safer drug use and risk minimization (Eclipse 2018). They also offer mental care and support for people having bad trips at festivals or parties by providing a team of people experienced with drug use and risk minimization.
After sending an e-mail with a short introduction and calling for participants for my research, I received multiple replies from people interested in being interviewed. I also approached
acquaintances in Berlin and asked them if they would know potential participants. I got in contact with two of my participants this way. After conducting my first interviews, I practiced snowball sampling since my informants gave me the contact information of friends that were also interested in being interviewed.
The response was quicker and richer than I had expected, which enabled me to select the people to suit my purposes, as is good practice in social research (Loizaga-Velder & Verres 2014: 65; Green & Thorogood 2014: 120f.). I selected the people following certain criteria. They must have taken psychedelic drugs more than once and exclusively (i.e. not mixed with other drugs), they currently are not diagnosed with psychological disorders and they were able to reflect on their psychedelic
experience. Interviews
Researching psychedelic experiences differs quite a bit from researching other social phenomena and poses unique challenges. Psychedelic experiences are not observable from the outside and only happen within the person and their consciousness or subconsciousness. For this reason, participant observation is no option for collecting data on what happens inside a person. Particular brain
activities of people under the influence of psychedelics can be measured or scanned (Viol et al. 2017; Martin & Nichols 2016; Tagliazucchi et al. 2016; Lebedev et al. 2015; Carhart-Harris et al. 2014), but without the voice of the participants, I argue that these differences can not sufficiently deliver information about the experience itself.
I was interested in the subjective perspective of the users themselves. I aimed to find out how they experience psychedelics, how the psychedelic states affected them and how they explain the effects of psychedelics. Following Wengraf (2001: 9f.) my research interest was capturing subjective experiences, hence presenting an emic perspective.
Although I conducted 15 interviews with durations of between 35 and 90 minutes, I only used 12 for my data analysis. The three interviews that I excluded from my analysis did not provide the
information I was looking for. I was interested only in classic psychedelic drug use. However, one of the three interviewees had only had experiences of psychedelics combined with other drug classes while the other did not have experiences with classic psychedelic drug use but research drugs that have psychedelic components. In order to compare the experiences, I excluded these interviews from my data analysis. The third interview I did not include was due to miscommunications which I unfortunately could not solve during the interview. The responds I received did not answer my questions which is why I could not analyze the interview. All other interviews have all been audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim by me. I only translated quotes I used as well as categories I produced while coding from German to English.
Conducting in-depth-interviews was the most suitable and reliable method to collect the required data. My interviews were semi-structured, which means that I asked my informants a certain set of open-ended questions that I had thought of and formulated beforehand, as recommended in different literature (Morse 2012; Warren 2002; Wengraf 2001; Merton, Fiske & Kendall 1990). The questions have been carefully selected to guide the respondent through a process from answering more general questions to answering more personal and intimate ones during the course of the interview. The questions I asked partly overlapped each other, so that they asked something similar but were put into other words. That way, I hoped to triangulate data, to enrich and enhance what I gathered.
Thus, most parts of the interviews were easily comparable as they contained the same set of questions and related answers. Only a small number of questions arose from a particular answer from my respondents, leading to about 20% of each interview´s content being unstructured. I developed those additional questions spontaneously and unscripted during the course of the interview.
I interrupted only minimally and assumed a listening mode rather than being involved much in a conversation. This approach is usually suggested when conducting narrative and unstructured interviews (Morse 2002; Green & Thorogood 2014), but also suited my research topic. I intervened only if something was unclear to me or if I wanted to gather more and deeper information on a particular topic. I sometimes summed up my informants´ answers in topic groups and overarching themes in order to make sure I had understood and interpreted correctly what my informant wanted to convey. I used this technique to make sure that I kept my focus strongly on the interpretation of my informant and less my own one. Green and Thorogood (2014: 227f.) suggest this technique in order to maximize validity, stating that this is especially important for an emic view which I intended to conduct. This further supports the constructivist perspective, common in qualitative research, assuming the respondent as being actively involved in the process of sense-making (Holstein & Gubrium 1995; Whitley & Crawford 2005). Since my main research topic was the sense-making of psychedelic experience by individual users, I tried to take in an emic viewpoint as much as possible, trying to let my informants speak through me rather than impose my own perspective on them. Following this goal, I also highly encouraged my informants to freely associate and interpret the questions I asked and the answers they wished to give in their own way. That means, I did not help them interpret specific questions I asked or words I used, but rather let them choose their very own
understanding and let them associate what felt relevant and trenchant to them. For example, I consciously asked questions such as “Can you remember psychedelic experiences that to you have been especially intense or important?”. Often, I got asked what important or intense meant in this context, but I encouraged my respondents to decide by themselves what it meant to them. I was interested in the first themes and the stories or narratives that spontaneously came to their mind rather than providing strict or narrow guidelines, or limiting themes and questions.
Inspired by Kleinman´s (1988) idea of illness narratives, I aimed to collect “healing” or
“transformation narratives” regarding psychedelics, focussing not on explanatory models of illness, but rather on explanatory models of psychedelic experiences and their effects on people. As Kaplan-Myrth (2007) states, narratives do not only tell stories but also help people to make sense of their experiences. The author argues that “narrativization” “acts as a reflexive, therapeutic, and even a transformative mechanism for people who have experienced illness” (Kaplan-Myrth 2007: 1268). By hearing the psychedelic narratives of my informants, I hoped to evoke the reflexive sense-making process for the psychedelic experiences which they had undergone. During and after my interviews I observed this to be the case, as the majority of my informants stated, without me asking for it, that talking to me about their psychedelic experiences made them gain a deeper understanding of things in retrospect and enabled them to reflect more deeply and think of questions they had never thought of before.
Following these principles, I used elements of a narrative interview approach to guide some of my interview questions. The McGill Illness Narrative Interview (MINI) was a suitable interview guide which I adapted accordingly. The MINI leaves some unstructured questions in order to support the informants´ own story-telling process (which is socioculturally influenced), but also contains
structured parts in order to make data comparable (Groleau, Young and Kirmayer 2006). However, only one set of questions of the MINI was relevant for my specific research. These questions focus on asking informants about changes they experienced through their illness (ibid.: 691). In my case, I adapted this guideline to ask about the transformative effects of my informants´ psychedelic
experiences.
One of the strengths of the MINI, according to the authors, lies in its ability to “capture personal knowledge and experience in its complexity, allowing for the internal contradictions and
inconsistencies often present in everyday life” (Groleau, Young and Kirmayer 2006: 679). I deemed this especially important for interview questions in which I asked for perceptions of the user´s
psychedelic experience and what effects this experience evoked. Since psychedelic experiences overrule the conscious mind, experiences almost always contain contradictory and inconsistent parts or explanations.
Creative Task
Besides the in-depth interviews, I also asked my informants to fulfill a creative task in which they could choose their own method of communication. The information I aimed to collect this way was about how they explained the effects of psychedelics, hence to know their very own explanatory models of psychedelics and their mechanisms. In the first three interviews, I included this question but I soon realized that my informants had not yet reflected at all on that question and so they found it very difficult to answer. Thus, I left out the question in the following interviews but asked my informants if they could think about the question and then choose a method of communicating their answer to me that felt most comfortable and practical to them. This could be voice messages, written texts in emails, phone calls or personal face-to-face communication. Two respondents replied
through voice message, one respondent chose the face-to-face communication and one a phone call, the others sent me texts by email.
Reflection on research methodology
I did not encounter many obstacles but rather slight changes in my research interests during my fieldwork period. At first, I also wished to research the setting in which people take psychedelic drugs. I chose ceremonial Ayahuasca sessions offered in Berlin as location to collect data on the setting by doing participant observation. In these sessions, which usually last from one to three days, people ingest Ayahuasca under the guidance of an experienced shaman who mostly comes from an ethnic group that has long-standing shamanic Ayahuasca traditions. Although the consumption of psychedelics is legal under German law, possessing them is not. This gives them a semi-legal status, which is why Ayahuasca sessions are announced publicly, however only in secured spaces like certain closed Facebook groups. Before I arrived in Berlin for my fieldwork, I was in contact with a team of organizers of Ayahuasca sessions in Berlin which I found via one of such Facebook groups, offering general information on Ayahuasca. The two organizers gave me the permission to participate in one session as an observer for the first hours in order to find potential informants and to make field notes.
However, after having conducted my first interviews, my focus shifted from being interested in the observable specifics of the setting to a deeper interest in the feeling and description of my
informants regarding the setting, thus shifting from an etic to a more emic perspective. Although I did participate in an Ayahuasca session for the first three hours, I did not use the
collected data in my research. Psychedelic experiences last several hours and are not at all observable from the outside. Even more, observations from the outside could be misleading, since unlike in normal conscious states, one cannot equate and interpret the behavior and appearance of people under the influence of psychedelics with that of sober people. For example, a person could be staring at a wall for a long time without moving, which under normal circumstances could be interpreted as thinking deeply or being bored. However, people on a psychedelic experience could be seeing images that will never be disclosed to the researcher by observation. Furthermore, communication is
difficult under the influence of psychedelics, as is rational thinking. Thus, aiming to collect usable information in that very moment proves rather difficult. Many people feel vulnerable under the influence of psychedelics, and see it as an intimate experience, which is why a researcher being in the same room could also lead to a change of their psychedelic state.
I did not encounter problems with building a trusting relationship with my informants. They all disclosed intimate and personal information very fast and rather easily, even talking about traumatic experiences, their fears and insecurities. I suppose sharing a similar age range with most of my informants as well as the same cultural background and an interest in psychedelic drugs helped my informants to trust me. Letting them choose a safe and comfortable place to be interviewed presumably reinforced this effect. However, I am aware that there still can be information that has not been said and that my informants filtered the information they disclosed. They only talked about experiences that they felt comfortable sharing. As they voluntarily reacted to a call for being
interviewed for a piece of research, they were already willing to talk about their experiences. People who had very negative experiences might not have answered to my call, as they would feel less comfortable about sharing those experiences.
I am also aware that by translating quotes and codes from German into English, there is a risk of meaning being changed or lost during the process. However, I translated by staying very close to the original quote and only translated quotes I used or codes, not the whole transcripts. I believe that translating quotes and codes enabled me to reflect even deeper on the topic and be more creative and exact in finding the right codes for theme groups.
3.4 Data Analysis
For data analysis, I used thematic content analysis and incorporated elements from Glaser & Strauss´s (2006) grounded theory. Green and Thorogood (2014: 239) state that since grounded theory requires theoretical saturation, this is often not possible due to time constraints or practical issues. This also applied to my research. However, reaching theoretical saturation was not my goal. Since I wished to portray the diversity and complexity of psychedelic experiences, this was already achieved by collecting data from 12 informants. Thus, I did not use a full grounded theory approach - which would include theoretical saturation as a key feature - but borrowed elements from it. As recommended by Glaser and Strauss (2006), I already started the phase of open coding while I was conducting the interviews. At this point, as stated by the authors, the generated codes and concepts do not have to be correct. They guided my process of theory building and helped me reflect the data not only after collection, but already during the process. Glaser and Strauss see theory as a process and “(…) as an ever-developing entity, not as a perfected product” (ibid.: 31). This is particularly relevant for studies on social processes, as social life is constantly changing and dynamic.
During the process of interviewing and transcribing, I simultaneously composed conceptual categories from the data I had, and constantly compared them to emerging ones. As Glaser and Strauss (2006: 36f.) suggest, concepts can be taken from existing theories, but the main focus should lie on generating concepts from the collected data. Then again, the emergent categories and
conceptualizations can be compared to the existing theory. I followed these principles of constant comparative analysis during my research which also led to changes in my research questions and adaption and evolution of the theoretical frameworks that I had chosen beforehand.
To complement my analysis, I also used thematic content analysis to organize and analyze my data (Green & Thorogood 2014: 209-215). I subdivided the data into themes and sub themes and applied codes to recurrent or key themes. In the end, I combined the codes that shared similar
characteristics. However, as the authors state, to move “beyond the emic summaries and typologies of participants, more techniques are needed”, which is why I complemented it by using grounded theory elements.
In contrast to grounded theory, the focus of thematic content analysis is not the construction of theory or finding relationships between different concepts and categories. Therefore, borrowing
elements form grounded theory was a useful addition to my research. It enabled me to use an already-known theoretical concept while fully incorporating the emic perspective of my informants, constantly challenging and changing the underlying theoretical concepts. As a result, I used theories as a rough guideline to structure my findings, but adapted the theory in favor of the empirical evidence I found, instead of fitting the data into a pre-existing theory. Thus, my approach was more inductive than deductive, although of course every research relies on combining inductive and deductive elements (Green & Thorogood 2014: 205).
3.5 Ethical Considerations
During my research, all interviewees were informed thoroughly about my research interest and their particular role in contributing to the research. I made sure they knew how I was going to use their information and asked them via informed consent if I may use their data, after anonymizing details like their name or other things that could reveal them. I informed them that they could withdraw at any given moment and that I would ask for additional permission in case I would use a direct quote from the interview. All participants agreed and fortunately, none withdrew their consent. All of them participated voluntarily and did not receive any compensation for their participation. All names of informants used in this thesis are pseudonyms.
Before starting the interview, I informed my respondents that they could decide how and if they wanted to answer my questions and to what extent they could do so. I stated that in case there are topics that were sensitive or they did not want to touch upon, they should tell me straight away. I deemed this especially important since psychedelic experiences can contain strong emotions, both negative and positive, as well as very intimate moments which a person might not want to share. Also, psychedelics can provoke the resurgence of traumatic events and other highly sensitive and personal issues. Three of my informants talked to me about traumatic events, but in a way they felt comfortable with. I never pushed my informants to answer, and intervened minimally, letting them decide by themselves how much they wished to share with me. Additionally, I paid close attention to nonverbal communication in order to make sure they felt truly comfortable and safe throughout the whole process of being interviewed. I asked them throughout the interview if they felt comfortable sharing specific information with me. Fortunately, particularly the informants that opened up and disclosed very sensitive or intimate topics reassured me after the interview that they felt very
comfortable and talking to me about these topics further had even contributed to making sense of their experiences.
As suggested by Green & Thorogood (2014: 77f.), I wanted the environment in which the interview takes place to be as comfortable and safe as possible for my informants. I also wanted to exclude potential confounding factors such as other people that might be close. The ideal setting depends very much on the research topic and the method used. Talking about sensitive and very personal topics, as was the case for my research, requires a lot of privacy and maximum comfortability for the person being interviewed. Respondents generally feel more empowered in their own home and thus open up more easily (Green & Thorogood 2014: 77). Keeping this in mind, I let my informants choose the exact place where they wished to be interviewed, in order to maximize their feeling of safety and protection. Therefore, all interviews took place in my apartment or the apartment of the respondent.
4. Findings
In the following sections, my empirical findings will be presented. These are divided into three overarching groups: the context of psychedelic drug use (including set and setting), the effects of psychedelic drugs on my informants (including effects related to one´s individual body-self, to one´s social body and to one´s spiritual body) as well as my informants explanatory models and sense-making regarding psychedelic drugs (drawing upon the concepts of biochemistry, agency, catharsis and connectedness and spirituality).
4.1 Context of Psychedelic Drug Use
In order to answer the research question of how people value and make sense of their psychedelic experiences, I deemed it important to understand the context in which psychedelics had been taken. Set - referring to the user’s mindset and current mood - and setting - referring to environmental factors such as aesthetics of the environment, music or light – have been shown to be important factors that significantly influence the course of psychedelic experiences (Fadiman 2011; Johnson, Richards & Griffiths 2008; Leary 1961).Thus, I first wanted to understand under what circumstances and for which motives and intentions my informants had taken psychedelics.
4.1.1 Setting
The settings in which my informants used psychedelics varied greatly. However, most used them either in their own home or the home of friends or people they knew well, followed by nature and festival settings and lastly, in clubs or at parties. Psychedelic experiences in clubs, parties and festivals have been reported as the most difficult to navigate, as the environment is less controllable, leading to more unforeseen situations. Lara, a 25-year-old who had tried psychedelics not only in home settings, but also at festivals and parties, told me:
“There was one LSD trip and one mushroom trip that I haven’t talked about so far. But both were, both were not really great, they were in a club, but outside. They were a bit strange, not really bad though. But also not really good. I think there is not much to say about them except that on these trips I always got the desire to seclude myself, sit somewhere in a corner cuddled in a blanket with someone. And then I always crawled away until I felt better again. And retrospectively, I never had the feeling that these trips were of particular significance.” The more secluded and controllable the setting was, the more meaningful and intense the psychedelic experience has been reported by my informants. Instead of focussing on external factors such as navigating social situations or trying to find a calmer, more secluded space, or different music when at festivals, my informants could focus on introspection and their individual thoughts and emotional processes.
All respondents usually took psychedelic drugs only with people they knew and trusted well. Only when they did so at parties or festivals were there people present who did not belong to their group of close acquaintances. Some of my informants emphasized that they felt more comfortable being with people who were also under the influence of psychedelics, since they anticipate less judgment from those people. Sophie, who had mostly taken psychedelics with close friends stated:
“I don´t like that [being under psychedelic influence with people who are sober, N/A], I always feel, I think that’s a very personal issue, I feel a bit strange, strange to external people, because I don’t want to be judged. And I can only be like that with people who are also on it.”
Fear of being judged and feeling vulnerable in a psychedelic state was a common theme among my informants, mentioned by half of the study group. They felt more vulnerable than in their usual conscious state, hence the reason they took psychedelics only in private settings or on festivals where “there is a more accepting environment” regarding drugs in general, as Eric stated.
Except for the three informants who tried psychedelics at festivals or parties for the first time, all had prepared themselves for the very first psychedelic experience, producing a setting as comfortable as possible. When asked what they prepared and paid attention to, a majority of ten identified preparing music as the most important factor; together with light; being around people who they feel
connected with; being in a comfortable and pleasant environment such as somewhere in a calm, natural setting or at home with blankets, having food and drinks ready etc. They all answered that they felt safe and comfortable but were nevertheless nervous about the upcoming experience since they did not know what to expect exactly. This nervousness did never fully cease even after several psychedelic experiences, as will be elaborated on in the next section. Eric described the endeavor of taking psychedelics as getting to know the “psychedelic self”:
“Well, the body reacts totally crazy and suddenly you don’t know, if you are tired, or not, if you need to go to the toilet or not. That is like getting to know a new self. (…) Only with time you start to gain more confidence in your psychedelic self and that it somehow always finds a solution even if it doesn’t feel like it in that moment.”
In difficult moments, my informants reported various strategies that facilitated the experience. The topics were very similar, centering around secluding oneself in a calm, safe place without many people; having a trustful and emotionally close person near who keeps body contact, listens or talks; walking at the fresh air; and lastly, being wrapped in blankets. What all informants agreed on is that the most important strategy was not to fight the feelings and situation, but to accept them, observe without judgement and remember that it was only temporary and will pass. Rob, for example mentioned how he coped with an emotionally difficult, painful phase during a psychedelic state as it reminded him of a psychedelic experience that had left him traumatized for a while:
“It was a fight to relax myself, of course, it wasn´t easy. And back then, fortunately, my ex-girlfriend, I could lay my head in her lap, but she didn´t do anything else except for just being
there, and that helped me so much to relax. Alone, without her, maybe I wouldn´t have made it and by panicking maybe I would have been traumatized all over again or something else could have happened, I really don´t know.”
Most of my informants had developed strategies for coping with difficult situations, based on their personal experience in other psychedelic trips. Eric for example had prepared a specific music playlist and found it helpful to be alone with closed eyes and listening to this music via earphones. About half of my informants also preferred turning inwardly when difficult situations occurred, being quite alone in those moments. The others found it more helpful to communicate with a person or change factors in the environment around them, thus practicing a coping mechanism that concentrated more on outer factors. However, no clear line can be drawn between these coping strategies, as depending on the specific feeling that they were dealing with, my informants changed between inward and outward coping mechanisms.
4.1.2 Motives and Intentions
For all informants except for one, the motive of trying psychedelics for the first time had clearly been pure curiosity or interest in other states of consciousness. Linda described her motive differently from the others. She took psychedelics without previously informing herself much, without preparation, and in settings with a lot of uncontrollable factors, such as public bars and a festival. Her motivation was less intrinsic and rather stemmed from group dynamics or peer pressure at those particular moments, thus she presumably trusted her friends more than herself:
“I must admit, I tried LSD because I thought all people always rave about it and like it so much. I must say, I am a person that is a control freak. I find it difficult to let go of control. (…) And the first time I just tried it because all of our friends group had taken it and my boyfriend was with me. And I thought, right now actually everything is cool. (…) With LSD I always, I always wanted it to stop. It was too long and too exhausting.”
Without knowing what would happen, she felt uncomfortable with the physical and mental effects evoked by the psychedelic experience. She felt even more uncomfortable due to being in a situation where she couldn’t control factors around her such as the people, music and the environment itself.
