Transgressing symbolic boundaries of 'recreational' drug use: an ethnographic study among a network of young people who party in the electronic music scene in the Netherlands

(1)

T

RANSGRESSING SYMBOLIC BOUNDARIES

OF

‘

RECREATIONAL

’

DRUG USE

AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY AMONG A NETWORK OF YOUNG

PEOPLE WHO PARTY IN THE ELECTRONIC MUSIC SCENE

IN THE NETHERLANDS

JASMIJN OBISPO

Student number: 12268682

MSc Medical Anthropology & Sociology Supervisor: Dr. Ria Reis

Second reader: Dr. Bregje de Kok 8th _{August 2019, Berlin}

(2)

A

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my gratitude to my supervisor Ria Reis, who provided me with critical and encouraging guidance. Thank you for questioning me and my writing and for providing me with useful tools to sculpt this project.

Thank you to Aleksi Hupli, although circumstances were not in our favour, you were an invaluable anchor to the world of drug studies. Your criticisms encouraged me to

contextualise my findings further and reminded me to take a step back and consider broader drug discourses. I am also very thankful for the introduction you have given me to the world of drug policy campaigning.

I would like to express my eternal gratitude to my friends and family. Your support came in many forms, from last-minute proofreading and suggestions to tasty food, cuddles, warm words of encouragement, cosy rooms to write in and good company. A special thanks to Rosemary, Nina, Barbora, Aoife, Marlene, Georgia, Tina, Maurizia, Raph, Alessandra, my sisters Jamie, Eleonoor and Victoria, and my brother Roan. Also, a big, big thank you to my boyfriend, Remy, who accompanied and supported me throughout this journey with infinite gestures of love and encouragement. You are all truly rays of sunshine that keep me going. The wonderful souls who helped connect me to research participants, you know who you are (I will omit names to protect the anonymity of participants), I appreciate you very much!

Mum, I am thankful for the faith you have in me and the faith you have taught me to have in myself. I could not be more grateful to have such a perceptive, critical, strong and loving being in my life. Likewise, thank you, dad, for your faith in me. Dad, mum and Norbert, your financial support has, furthermore, been invaluable.

Most of all, my sincere gratitude to all my research participants and friends. Thank you, Joseph, Sebastian, Cato, Katja, Emanuel, Bella, Sascha and Noa for your trust in me, for your time and, above all, for your openness. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and feelings about this project, one that would not exist without you.

(5)

ONE:

INTRODUCTION

1. O

VERVIEW

Research on young people’s alcohol and drug use shows that alcohol and drugs are an integral part of partying in the Netherlands (Antenne 2017; Nationale Drugs Monitor 2018; Het Grote Uitgaansonderzoek 2016). In their 2019 report, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) also observe the prevalence of drug use among partygoers in the Netherlands. Substance use has been noted to be particularly prevalent amongst those attending diverse electronic music events (Amsterdams Beleidskader Dance Events 2015), one of the ways it is increasingly incorporated into the “leisure and consumption landscapes” of youth (Duff 2005, 167). The prevalence of drug use observed in the Netherlands is in line with wider trends in the normalisation of drug use within the ‘dance’ and clubbing scene (Duff 2005, 168). The most commonly used ‘party drugs’ in the Netherlands include

ecstasy/MDMA, amphetamines (speed) and cocaine, laughing gas (Nitrous Oxide, N2O), the Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS) 4-FA also referred to as 4-FMP (4-

Fluoroamphetamine) and 2C-B (a psychedelic phenethylamine), ketamine, GHB (Gamma Hydroxybutyrate) and LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide).1, 2_{The various substances each have}

their histories (legally, culturally and so on) both within the Netherlands and beyond, and their popularity has varied over time (Nabben 2010).

This research was inspired observations that noted a distinction between

conceptualisations presented in policy, certain discourses on drug use and my own experience of going out in the electronic music scene in the Netherlands. These reflections led me to question how people who go out in the electronic music scene experience and understand their drug use themselves. Ethnographic research, entailing participant observation and subsequent interviewing, was carried out among a network of young people who party in the

1_{This information is based on the Antenne (2017) report based on drug use in various networks in Amsterdam} and the National Drug Monitor (2018) based on nation-wide research.

2_{All the mentioned substances except ketamine and laughing gas are listed in the Opiumwet (Opium Law), the} Dutch law covering almost all psychotropic substances. Ketamine is covered by the Medicine Act. The Opium Law is described here: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001941/2019-07-19

(6)

electronic music scene in Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam.3 _{My point of departure of}

this analysis is that while the ways of using and associated sensations and experiences do not neatly fit into a dichotomy of ‘unproblematic’ and ‘problematic drug use’, or of ‘recreation’ and ‘addiction’, there are certain boundaries through which individuals position themselves and their practices. These boundaries form the basis of how they understand, experience and orientate themselves towards their drug use. Reflecting on what is made to matter through these boundaries, and how that which matters is transgressed helps establish a deeper understanding of their values, perceptions and practices. Transgressions are understood as practices and events that are considered to fall outside of ‘good’ ‘recreational’ drug use.

For the participants in this study, going out in the electronic music scene is about pleasure and enjoyment, bonding and connecting with others and experiencing the music. Drugs are embedded in the practices and networks of these scenes and are considered to allow for recreation and pleasure. In narrating their use, specific normative notions about how to use in a manner that allows for pleasure and recreation prevail. These normative parameters can be linked with broader understandings of ‘recreational’ drug use. Participants mainly express the desire to maintain obligations such as work and school; in varying degrees, they also

3_{Already whether to refer to something singular or plural reveals the struggle I have with defining the ‘scene’ I} speak of. Firstly, it is not possible to equate the ‘scene’ I study solely with one genre. Employing the notion of electronic music is suiting in that electronic music does not refer to a singular genre but many different genres that use electronic instruments or electronic technologies in the production of music. Nonetheless, the terms electronic music and electronic music scene do not sufficiently present some of the specificities and

commonalities of the field being considered, it also cannot exclude that which I do not speak of. There are often distinguishable commonalities in terms of music preferences, aesthetics, preferred substances, venues and even in the backgrounds or lifestyles of the individuals attending these parties. Relevant music styles include techno, house, electro and ambient where acid house/techno, broken beats, industrial techno, deep house, Detroit techno, Detroit house and ghetto house are examples of subgenres that are not uncommon.

In order to highlight some distinctions and similarities, I refer to a network. Although these individuals do not all know each other, most party at the same venues, have overlapping friendship networks and are engaged with the same music genres or worlds closely entangled with each other through music styles, lifestyles, spaces and artists. I would also like to emphasise that while there is some diversity in terms of the genres and venues, this research does not seek to speak of all scenes that might constitute or relate to the Dutch electronic music scene. Notably, scenes and parties pertaining to genres such as hardstyle, gabber, psytrance/trance, and more

(7)

discuss the significance of emotional wellbeing and the potential influence of their drug use on emotional wellbeing.

The study indicates these parameters establish that which is considered good

recreational drug use and that which transgresses it. These symbolic boundaries reveal some of the values upheld by certain individuals in this scene, further suggesting what matters for them in terms of drug use and wellbeing and how this is made to matter. Importantly, these parameters are not stable but relational and fluid, participants speak of and are seen

transgressing and renegotiating them. Practices and experiences situated within the

boundaries of ‘recreational’ drug use are considered to be reflective of a sense of agency and control. In some cases, transgressions of these boundaries surface, producing more ambiguity and at points concerns in terms of experiences of recreational drug use. This study further looks into how these transgressions come into being and are negotiated to establish a sense of control and agency.

1.1 P

ROBLEM STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES

Stigma surrounding addiction and the implications of this notion on “medical, legal and policy responses” (Brook and Stringer 2005 in Pienaar et al. 2017, 521), also have

implications for perceptions and practices of that which might be called ‘recreational’ drug use. Drug studies often speak of marginalised individuals, focusing on subjects who are in some way or other pathologised. Studying those who are not explicitly marginalised or those whose drug use has not been expressly ‘problematised’ may be valuable in its uncovering of the potential workings of particular discourses, policies, practices and environments in shaping perceptions of and, resultant practices surrounding drug use in general.

Studying such individuals, as opposed to those classified as ‘addicted’ or ‘dependent,’ and therefore acknowledging the role of countless factors beyond volition in determining both an individual’s drug use and ‘functionality,’ might help reconfigure perceptions of drug use in going beyond dichotomisations of ‘controlled’ and ‘uncontrolled’ use. As neoliberal

governments produce an expectation of individuals to govern their behaviour (Dennis 2017; Malins 2004, 2017; Melley 2002; Pereira 2013; Garriot & Raikhel 2015; Holt & Treloar 2008; Weinberg 2013; Wright 2015), such a reconfiguration might alleviate some of the stigma surrounding ‘problematic’ drug use (Souleymanov and Allman 2016). If, as has been

(8)

argued within the field of critical drug studies, problematic and unproblematic drug use do not necessarily operate along such binaries this research might also bring into question the ways in which it is pathologised.

This study is informed by a body of literature reflecting on the role of neoliberal subject formulations in drug discourses. As the focus has been on addicting discourses, it seeks to complement critical drug studies research by problematising understandings of ‘recreational’ drug use. It does not aspire to formulate a novel definition of ‘recreational’ drug use as such but rather denaturalise the binaries along which it operates. Looking at the

experiences and practices of those who party in the electronic music scene in the Netherlands will allow that which is significant in terms of drug use and wellbeing to be examined from a user perspective. Firstly, by situating and outlining the normative parameters of drug use in this scene, it will bring into question perceived transgressions thereof and their renegotiation. Furthermore, it questions how notions associated with problematic and unproblematic drug use might relate to understandings of ‘recreational’ drug use in practice.

The following research questions are addressed:

- In the electronic music scene in the Netherlands, what is made to matter in terms of drug use and wellbeing for young people?

- (How) do understandings of ‘recreational’ drug use play a role in young people's drug use practices and their perceptions thereof?

- How are ‘control’ and ‘agency’ configured within drug use practices in this scene?

Before discussing the methods employed, I will provide some statistical and demographic background information on the users in this scene and some of the most prevalent substances. I will also briefly sketch out a selection of stances on ‘recreational’ drug use expressed in contemporary discourse and policy stances in the Netherlands.

1.3 T

HE

D

UTCH

C

ONTEXT

1.3.1A BRIEF SKETCH OF CURRENT DEMOGRAPHICS ON DRUG USERS AND DRUG PREVALENCE Use of illicit substances appears to be concentrated among young adults aged 15-34

(9)

Bonger Institute, indicate that many of the youth attending electronic music events, especially in clubs, are highly educated, being in or having completed tertiary education, and are from ‘high socio-economic’ backgrounds (Het Grote Uitgaansonderzoek 2016; Antenne 2017).4

As the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction also mention in a methodological note, examining the patterns and trends in “hidden and stigmatised behaviour like drug use is both practically and methodologically challenging” (EMCDDA 2019). I briefly discuss some statistics as an indication of prevalence, however, do not place too much emphasis on them due to this difficulty and the subsequent doubts regarding the validity of data. For 2017, last-year drug use of MDMA/ecstasy consumption is estimated to be 7.8% for 15-34 year-olds and 6.4% for 24-34-year-olds, cocaine 4.3% for 15-24 year-olds and 4.7% for 25-34 year-olds.[2] The last-year drug use rate for amphetamines in 2017 for both 15-24 and 25-34 year-olds was estimated to be 3.9% (EMCDDA 2019). Additionally, this report mentions that there are indications of increased rates of cocaine use among Amsterdam clubgoers (EMDCDDA 2019). Prevalence of GHB in 2017 was cited at 0.4% of the entire population, approximately 50,000 people (Nationale Drugs Monitor 2018). The National Drug Monitor (2018) furthermore mentions that there are signs for an increase in the popularity of laughing gas, ketamine, for recreational purposes. They highlight a clear distinction in the prevalence of ketamine use among the general population of 18 years and older (1.1% ever in their lives) and partying youth and young adults (17.3% ever and 12.3% in the last year) (Nationale Drugs Monitor 2018). A panel study conducted in Amsterdam also suggests ‘mainstreaming,’ implying that ketamine is becoming increasingly available for those who go out in the Netherlands (Nationale Drugs Monitor 2018). Ketamine samples are increasingly being delivered at the Drugs Information and Monitoring System (DIMS) by consumers, and it is thought to be the most prevalent Novel Psychoactive Substance (NPS) after 4-FA (Nationale Drugs Monitor 2018).

4_{Jellinek is a health service provider based in Amsterdam. The organisation provides various forms of treatment} for drug addiction, works in prevention and conducts academic research. For more information, see

(10)

1.3.2DRUG USE DISCOURSE AND DRUG POLICY STANCES

When it comes to youth’s drug use, epidemiology, medicine and psychology have been dominated by pathologising discourses, attributing ‘deviance’ either to environment or personality (Moore 2002, 16). There has been a shift, however, in certain contemporary drug and club studies, which refer to specific ways of using drugs as ‘recreational’ drug use (of. Schipstal, Mishra, Berning & Murray 2016). In the Netherlands, discourse and policy related to drug use frequently refers to the drug use of those attending electronic music events as ‘recreational’ drug use. Opinions on the social, environmental, mental and physical health ramifications of this drug use vary. Certain health service providers such as Jellinek and Brijder do make distinctions between ‘recreational,’ ‘unproblematic’ drug use and ‘problematic’ drug use. 5_{Similarly, popular media outlets such as the NRC and the}

Volkskrant often present notions of ‘recreational’ drug use as distinct from pathological drug use. These conceptualisations are frequently paired with references to the potential harm of drug use and how this may influence the development of problematic drug usage.6

The ‘Amsterdamse beleidskader dance events’ (2015) constitutes the current policy framework for nightlife and festivals in Amsterdam, in which the municipality also

emphasises the cultural and economic importance of this sector. Generally, drug policy in the Netherlands has strived for drug-free parties, seeking to maintain a balance between

preventative and repressive approaches (Amsterdams beleidskader dance events 2015; Antenne 2017; Nationale Drug Monitor 2018).[5] Rather than prioritising zero tolerance, however, prevention is emphasised. With harm reduction, policy strives to minimise health risks that might come about as a consequence of the use of ‘party drugs.’ Here, a conceptual distinction has been made between ‘problematic’ and ‘unproblematic’ (‘recreational’) drug use.

Currently, however, less sympathetic opinions on the drug use of those partying in the electronic music scene have been brought to the fore. In an open letter recently sent to the

5_{Brijder is a health service provider with several locations in North and South Holland. They provide different} forms of support for people struggling with various levels of drug addiction. For more information see: https://www.brijder.nl/wie-we-zijn/missie-en-visie

6_{Contextualising this thesis within wider discourse on recreational drug use in the Netherlands would allow for a} deeper consideration of the values, perceptions and practices of those who go out and use drugs in the

(11)

chair of the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal), Minister Grapperhaus (Minister of Justice and Security) addressed the current state of affairs with regards to the illegal drug market and consumption of synthetic drugs in the Netherlands presenting a clear message: “there is no space for hard drugs in our society” (Grapperhaus 9 July 2019, 5). In this letter, rather than focusing on those selling illicit substances as has been common practice in recent years, a firmer and more punitive approach targeted at individual consumers is called for. Furthermore, the popularity of illicit substances is seen as a result of their widespread availability, health and social risks of illicit substance use being undermined by consumers and, relatedly, a relatively high tolerance towards drugs in the Netherlands. It is believed that the normalisation of drugs among certain populations of society is hugely damaging. Confronting users with and holding them accountable for, what is framed as the harmful ramifications of their drug consumption on society is presented as a means to combat this normalisation. While also briefly mentioning the implications of this consumption on users’ health, the focus is clearly on what is seen as the disruptive workings of these practices on society and the constitutional state. One of the main aspirations is to put in place new jurisdictional instruments and prevention policy in order to change the mentalities of drug users.

1.4 D

ICHOTOMIES OF

(

RECREATIONAL

)

DRUG USE

In doing this research, I encountered a definition of recreational drug use proposed by Jellinek, a health service provider based in Amsterdam, also reiterating neoliberal

expectations to conform and regulate one's behaviour (Rose 1992 in Dennis 2017). Jellinek describes recreational drug use as use that does not impact other aspects of the individual’s daily life such as work, school, hobby’s or contact with family and friends; where the

individual is aware of the ‘risks’ involved; and, that is controlled and takes up little to no time (Jellinek 2016). This drug use is seen as unproblematic and stands in stark contrast to

problematic drug use (Jellinek 2016). Problematic drug use is thought to result in problems related to health, work or school, friends and family, and addiction (Jellinek 2016).

Accordingly, this definition implies a lack of interference of drug use with everyday life. As this definition suggests, drug use not interfering with daily life is understood in terms of an ability to carry out day-to-day responsibilities. Unlike the compulsive, pathologised drug user, it is theorised that the 'healthy' individual's free will enables them to exercise ‘control’ over

(12)

their drug use, resulting in an orderly life (Dennis and Ferrugia 2017: 154; Garriot & Raikhel 2015; Melley 2002; O’Malley & Valverde 2004; Wright, 2015).

Neoliberal formulations of subjectivities have frequently been problematised within critical drug studies and beyond (valentine and Fraser 2008). In Pienaar et al.'s (2017) study of personal accounts of alcohol and other drug (AOD) ‘addiction,’ they highlight how these accounts do not conform to binaries of rationality/irrationality, volition/compulsion and order/chaos. The polarizing notions of contemporary addicting discourses are, furthermore, seen to “produce many of the negative effects typically attributed to the ‘disease of

addiction’” (2017, 520). ‘Recreational’ drug use appears to be entangled in a complicated web of experiences, practices and emotions, which might seem paradoxical, and are

simultaneously perceived, in varying degrees, positively, negatively and ambivalently by these individuals. Pienaar et al. (2017) ask:

“What does it mean to speak of addiction solely as a problem of compulsive AOD use associated with misery and social impairment? How might we better account for both the pleasures and difficulties that can occur with regular drug use, without assuming they are mutually exclusive or simplistically causally linked?” (2017, 529)

Similarly, my experiences have led me to question how such formulations of addiction shape understandings of recreational drug use, both in theory and practice.

The notion that control and, likewise, “loss of control” over one’s drug use “is socially and culturally constituted, rather than natural or inevitable” has become popular in critical drug studies (Pienaar et al. 2017, 520; see also Dennis 2017; Dennis and Farrugia 2017; Duff 2012; Malins 2017; Weinberg 2013). Neoliberal subject formulations, enabled through binaries such as addiction and ‘recreational’ drug use, problematically “connect pleasurable drug use to class privilege -- and problematic drug use to poverty” (valentine & Fraser 2008, 411). Yet understanding drug use solely "in terms of social determinants" silences drug users’ experiences and narrations of why and how they use drugs, which could provide a rich source for alternative understandings to those of science, service providers and drug users' friends (valentine & Fraser 2008, 416). For indeed, there is a grave need to open up this space for “users’ voices to be heard, interpreted, analysed and disputed” (valentine & Fraser 2008, 416). The ways in which concepts of addiction might shape self-understandings in personal accounts of addiction have not been a frequent subject of study (Pienaar et al. 2017); to my

(13)

knowledge, this also applies to the study of how concepts of addiction and ‘recreational’ drug use shape personal understandings and practices of drug use that take place in ‘recreational settings’.

1.5 S

TRUCTURE OF THESIS

The next chapter (Chapter 2) develops my theoretical framework, using a conceptualising framework of symbolic boundaries and, drawing upon critical drug studies, employs material semiotic tools. Chapter 3 introduces the research design and methodology and further

examines the ethics and reflexivity, an essential aspect of drug ethnographies and club studies. Chapters 4 – 7 present the results, analysis and discussion of the study in the form of a metaphorical chronology.

(14)

TWO:

THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK

2. M

ATERIAL SEMIOTICS AND SHIFTING AWAY FROM

‘

THE QUAINT DOGMA OF RATIONAL CHOICE

’

"The paradox is that passion is entirely oriented towards an idea which is not the realization of the self, nor the realisation of an intention, but the inverse: to let oneself be swept away, seized by some thing which passes. This active process of conditioning so that something might arrive is a central theme to passion. The impassioned's small gestures, obsessions, rituals, even if they are very active, are 'meta-gestures': they are aimed at framing or setting up conditions, and not on the mastery or control of what music or drugs make her feel. This mastery would be the negation of the power of these objects" (Gomart and Hennion 1999, 244)

Problematising notions of ‘recreational’ drug use and the related dichotomisation of ‘rational’ versus ‘irrational’, and problematic versus unproblematic drug use requires ontologically and epistemologically reconfiguring drug use. This problematisation is necessary in order to better convey and examine the practices and experiences of those who use drugs. To exemplify, in his exploration of pleasure and drug related behaviours, Duff (2008) emphasises that

“functional explanations fail to describe the distinctly pleasurable elements of these moments – the corporeal and sensory joys that are experienced in and through the enhancement of sociability, closeness or confidence” (384). He further explains:

“[R]ationalist” proclivities are discernible in most contemporary drug policy analyses with their privileging of the importance of “cost-benefit” decision-making and

cognitive reflection, over and above the corporeal, situated experience of the body and its pleasures (see also Malins, 2004). In contrast to these more rationalist accounts, drug use ought to be understood as a complex and heterogeneous assemblage of risks, conscious and unconscious choices and decisions, physical and psychical sensations, affects, corporeal processes, structural and contextual forces (Duff, in press;

Fitzgerald, 1997; Malbon, 1999).” (Duff 2008, 385)

Material semiotic sensibilities provide a useful conceptual framework that will allow for the recognition of both human and non-human entities such as practices, beliefs, “objects, spaces

(15)

and technologies “at work in the event of [alcohol and other drugs] AOD consumption” (Duff 2011, 404), thus aiding in the conceptualisation of the relationality and fluidity of doing drugs. Conversely, framing drug use and the experiences and sensations it can potentiate as resulting from “the action of a free subject” or simply as “an effect of structure” (Gomart and Hennion 1999, 222) renders invisible the complicated power of drugs and harmfully

exaggerates the agency of autonomous subjects. Rationalist ontologies and epistemologies of ‘recreational’ drug use are productive of normative notions of drug use that negate many aspects of drug use and the embodied experiences thereof.

Developments in critical drug studies elucidate how (neo)liberal notions of reason and freedom that constitute understandings of subjectivities (Garriott and Raikhell 2015;

O’Malley and Valverde 2004) are not just present in academic research on drug use but also constitute the ways in which certain individuals think about their drug use. In employing this conceptual framework, the analysis can move beyond ‘the quaint dogma of rational choice’ (Demant 2009 in Duff 2012, 155), while nonetheless allowing for individualist ontologies and epistemologies of recreational drug use in perceptions of young people who go out in the electronic music scene to be examined.

Importantly, these epistemologies and ontologies (re-)produced in academic research, can be seen to perpetuate such understandings of drug taking practices beyond the sphere of academia (Aldridge et al. 2011, 223 in Shiner and Winstock 2015, 253). Moore and Measham (2012) stress the significance of recognising that we as researchers “contribute to the

performative and material constitution of drugs as particular kinds of agents and particular kinds of problems” and thus that “our research outputs have agentic materiality” (583).7

2.1 S

YMBOLIC BOUNDARIES OF

‘

RECREATIONAL

’

DRUG USE

The symbolic boundaries of ‘recreational’ drug use initially emerged as concept in the interview process. It became evident that there were clear normative forces at work in the construction of perceptions, feelings and subjectivities. To exemplify, participants spoke of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ways of using drugs. As these boundaries are more ambiguous in practice,

7_{These conceptualisations draw upon the work of Latour (2005) and Law (2004a), who move away from the} notion of an ‘active subject’ who autonomously determines social contexts to emphasise the significant role of “spaces, objects and actants” therein (Duff 2012, 146).

(16)

the analysis further operationalises the concept to reflect on configurations of control and agency in practice. The framework of symbolic boundaries allows the ways in which drug use is negotiated and navigated by participants to be examined. Lamont and Molnár (2002) describe “symbolic boundaries” as “conceptual distinctions” that enable actors to categorise “people, objects and practices, […] time and space” (168). Copes (2016) further explains:

They allow us to separate people into groups and then generate feelings of similarity and status, while also allowing us to put others in the out-group to create social

distance from them – contributing to formation of categories representing the symbolic other. By creating dichotomies such as “man” versus “woman,” “powerful” versus “weak,” and “functional” versus “dysfunctional,” people can identify with one group, distance themselves from the other, and claim a position in a particular moral space (Hitlin, 2007). The symbolic boundaries separating these groups provide a great deal

of information for understanding how individuals […] how they orient to situations.

(194 - 195)

They thus help in the establishment of agreed upon definitions of reality and also the contestation thereof (Lamont and Molnár 2002). Legitimising certain forms of behaviour or contributing to a sense of agency and control. Significantly, boundaries enable those partaking in what might be deemed stigmatizing behaviours to establish distance between themselves and the stigmatised (Copes 2016, 207).

This analysis refers to boundaries as ‘symbolic’ in order to highlight the ways meaning is subjectively produced by and connotatively upheld in drug use practices. To exemplify, using drugs ‘once’ a week, cannot be understood as objectively meaningful but is meaningful in its association with notions related to recreational drug use and various

spatialities.8_{Even what it means to take drugs ‘once’ a week can be understood as symbolic;}

it does not infer taking one pill or doing one vial of something but usually relates to a session of drug use that is undisturbed by one’s going to bed and can range from 1 minute to more than 24 hours. Framing these boundaries as symbolic does not imply they are without explicit signifiers or concrete ramifications. Nonetheless, it remains essential to consider meaning as

8_{The terms spatiality is used to conceptualise that meaning is formed and reformed through and in geography,} space and place.

(17)

interwoven with significance that manifests beyond objective specificities in order to understand values and practices.

2.2 D

IMENSIONS OF SYMBOLIC BOUNDARY CONSTRUCTION

Symbolic boundaries are a useful framework to consider how the research participants define and redefine the ‘goods’ and the ‘bads’ of their drug use; therefore, illuminating some of the values they hold and importantly how these are produced and negotiated within specific contexts. Copes (2016) speaks of dimensions along which symbolic boundaries are produced. In deliberating these dimensions, I can also examine the ‘external’ factors that help to produce and reproduce them; allowing me to consider how these boundaries produce meaning and shape and reshape what is made to matter. The analysis identifies dimensions similar to Copes (2016) but, due to the contextual differences and distinctive intentions of my study, the focus differs at points. I consider 6 interrelated dimensions: 1) maintaining obligations (e.g. work and studies), 2) motivations for use (e.g. ‘recreation’, ‘catharsis’, ‘escapism’), 3) emotional wellbeing, 4) type of drugs, 5) ways of using, 6) (spatio)temporalities of use. I employ the notion of (spatio)temporality to refer to entities, practices, beliefs that are in part shaped and rendered meaningful through time, time frames, and further conceptions and understandings of time. Here, ‘spatio’ indicates that conceptions of various temporalities can further be constituted by spatial features, such as a specific type of venue.

Copes (2016) focusses on the identities of drug users that are produced and maintained through ‘boundary work’. In her analysis she presents boundary work along the outlined dimensions as a means by which one identity can be affirmed over another, such as that of the ‘functional’ drug user as opposed to the ‘dysfunctional’ addict. Boundary work is presented then as a means of avoiding stigmatisation. Although less stigmatised individuals, who perceive their practices as conforming to that which is ‘normal’, acceptable or legitimate, will less explicitly engage in boundary work, their perceptions and practices can be seen to

express certain values, beliefs and, perhaps, also notions of self, constitutive of symbolic boundaries. Rather than considering identity, my focus will therefore be on the values and norms and the contextualisation thereof – for example, how certain ways of taking drugs come to be considered as ‘good’ or ‘bad. Participants who view themselves as having transgressed or transgressing boundaries may appear more actively engaged in (explicit) boundary work; this can be seen as a means of legitimising practices and establishing a sense of control and agency.

(18)

In order to problematise ontological and epistemological premises of ‘recreational’ drug use it is essential to not only reflect on how these boundaries reside in narratives

presented in interviews but also how they relate to drug taking practices. For while values and beliefs (outlined by symbolic boundaries and related identities – e.g. functional drug user) shape subjectivities to a certain extent, boundaries appear to be transgressed and reconfigured. At points in my research narrations and drug use practices do not conform to notions of functionality, rationality, volition or control. I will look at how participants negotiate the more chaotic, ‘sensual’, emotional or ‘irrational’ aspects or ways of ‘doing drugs’ in order to

maintain a sense of control, autonomy and, relatedly, agency. Or how this sense of control, autonomy and agency may be lost, in other words, when the transgression of boundaries is perceived as irreconcilable.

T

HREE

:

R

ESEARCH

M

ETHODOLOGY

3. D

RUG ETHNOGRAPHY

This research employed ethnographic methods in order to gain a more profound

understanding of what matters in terms of drug use and wellbeing for young people who go out in the electronic music scene and to reflect on “the fluidity” of drug use and its meanings (Hardon & Hymans 2014, 749). The necessity to spend time in the field with participants and building rapport and trust with them makes ethnography especially suited for an exploration of stigmatised, illegal, or ‘hidden’ practices, which might be hard to access (Green 2013). For this reason, ethnographic methods have been considered especially apt for research on illicit drug use (Bourgois 2002).

3.1 P

ARTICIPANTS

Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. To introduce my research, I wrote a small explanation of what it entailed and what participating would entail in Dutch and English. Recruitment mostly took place through contacting friends involved in the scene via Facebook messenger and WhatsApp, asking them if they knew anyone who would potentially be interested in participating and could put me in contact with them. Although the snowball method did work, initially it took a little while to recruit participants. I noticed that I somewhat took for granted the willingness or capacity of those I approached to, in turn,

(19)

actively approach their friends. Quite some of the people I approached also expressed interest in participating themselves but generally I explained I would rather not research my direct friends. I felt that it would be too difficult to establish a necessary ‘distance’ from them and that I was too familiar with their histories. In two cases, however, I felt this proximity and familiarity could be navigated and would not cause any hinderance. Several friends actively approached people and facilitated their participation. I think this was effective because they know me well, meaning they could not only tell their friends about my research but also say a little about who I am as a person and my involvement with the electronic music scene. I think this, along with having mutual friends, was helpful in establishing some kind of trust

necessary for people to be willing to let me join them partying. In some cases, I phoned potential participants so they could ask any further questions they might have, the rest of the communication was through WhatsApp and Facebook.

The 8 participants were between the ages of 21 and 30 at the start of the fieldwork period, they are currently all based in largest Dutch cities, Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam, have various nationalities and were raised both in the Netherlands and beyond (mostly in European countries). Four identify as male, three as female and one as non-binary. Currently, most participants are working, studying or a combination of the two, one

participant recently became unemployed. Interviews were conducted in Dutch and English. A more elaborate description of participants is given in chapter 4 of this thesis.

This research considers young people in the Netherlands, who use drugs in relation but not necessarily limited to partying in the electronic music scene, and who have other

commitments in their everyday lives, such as employment and studies. I choose to focus on ‘young people’ who party in the electronic music scene mostly because of observations I have made in my environment of the drug taking practices of individuals, and the interplay thereof with other practices. These individuals are often approximately between 18 and 30 years. However, I intentionally did not place strict confines on the age bracket when recruiting participants.

I wanted to focus on people who have been using drugs for various (‘shorter’ or ‘longer’) periods. Temporalities in terms of, for example, frequency of use, duration that drugs have been used in their lifetimes, and how the drug use fits in with or relates to other temporalities and time schedules, are an interesting site for analysis. These temporalities play a significant role in definitions and perceptions of drug use. Although the frequency with which individuals take drugs did not determine whether or not they could participate,

(20)

use and, therefore, have ramifications for their willingness or perceived ‘suitability’ to participate.

Furthermore, I attempt not to impose any definition of ‘recreational’ drug use as I want to uncover the “fluid functions and meanings of drug use” for my participants (Hardon & Hymans 2014, 749). This entails not placing any restrictions on requirements about what drugs are used. The analysis takes a “bio-social” approach, viewing drugs as having effects because of 1) “their pharmacological properties,” 2) the socio-cultural signification and representation of certain meanings related to the drugs and 3) due to context (Hardon & Hymans 2014, 750). Relatedly, the meaning of drug using practices is not situated in the pharmacological properties of the substances but in the relation of the properties with the socio-cultural contexts in which practices unfold.

3.2 M

ETHODS

&

STUDY LOCATION

Fieldwork took place from mid-February to the end of April. Participant observation was conducted with 8 participants at approximately 10 different venues in The Hague, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, other than one ‘illegal’ rave in an old morgue and a festival in a park, all other locations were clubs. Besides these more official party locations, I also spent time with some participants at houses, bars and cafes for pre- and afterparties and gatherings. I spent time in a party setting with all participants at least on one occasion but with most this was more

frequent. With 6 participants I conducted planned participant observation. As the other two participants generally do not take drugs, I spent time with them while conducting fieldwork with other participants. As a research method, participant observation proved especially useful for building rapport and trust with my research participants. Not only was this helpful for observation purposes but also for the subsequent interviews I conducted.

After the participant observation, at a later date, I conducted in-depth interviews, mostly lasting an hour. These were conducted in Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam at the homes of participants, in cafés, in a park and at radio stations. I prepared some open questions before each interview, generally taking subjects brought up by participants or observed during participant observation as a starting point. The interview was partially led by participants themselves, in all interview’s questions related to past drug use, drug preferences, the types of parties and venues they attended and friendships. The subjects of changing

(21)

attitudes and relationships with drugs and drug use pertaining to phases and parents also came up frequently.

Another aspect of my fieldwork has been communicating with participants over WhatsApp and Facebook messenger. I have consulted these messages as a means of supplementing my data. Online I also looked at Facebook Events of the parties I attended, observing the descriptions, posts and images. Lastly, in order to contextualise certain values, understandings and practices I also consulted dominant narratives and definitions of

(‘recreational’) drug use in relation to partying. This was in part done by considering drug policy in the Netherlands, both at a national and municipal level, and door policies at clubs.

3.3 A

NALYSIS

Data was coded using Atlas,ti (version 8.4). A preliminary list of codes was established from key themes emerging from the initial data and some themes pertaining to my research

question. These codes were refined throughout the fieldwork period, especially when adapting the theoretical framework. They included: ‘pleasure/recreation’, ‘frequency/timing of use’, ‘choice of substances’ and ‘work/school/responsibilities’. I also considered how participants describe certain events or actions as arising, examining the ways in which they situated and framed the agency of various entities beyond themselves in descriptions of events or actions.

I am fluent in Dutch and English, the two languages required for this research. Besides allowing me to communicate with many party-goers in the Netherlands, Dutch allowed me to consider policy documents and discourse on the subject of drug use in the Netherlands. As the electronic music scene does not limit itself to the borders of this nation-state, however, with DJs/producers and party-goers coming from around the globe, English was also useful for communicating with participants and other individuals in the scene.

3.4 O

BSTACLES AND LIMITATIONS

Due to the limited time frame of this research project, I decided to stop recruiting after having recruited 8 participants. Participant observation with each of the participants proved to be very time intensive and was already providing significant information. Nonetheless, there are some limitations in terms of the study population. Firstly, it is evident that participants all implicitly or explicitly feel comfortable or willing to be identified, to some extent, as

(22)

cases where people were reluctant or tentatively agreed to participate because of being busy with work or their studies. They often stated not wanting to, or being uncertain about whether they would, go out and use drugs for these reasons. The presumption that ‘heavier’ or more ‘regular’ substance users were more suited to my research also arose when consulting individuals during the recruitment period. This would seem to be a product of notions that explicitly ‘problematic’ drug use is more noteworthy or significant to study. In part, these factors resulted in the study population mostly consisting of frequent drug users, who commonly go out to party weekly (certainly more than monthly, sometimes more than

weekly) and use drugs when they go out.9_{While two participants currently abstain from using}

both alcohol and drugs, this study contains no individuals who do use drugs and alcohol in this setting but less frequently, for example once every 6 months. Participant’s main preferred substances included ketamine, cocaine, speed and GHB, which further reveal distinctions of this study population and the ‘general’ population of party-going drug users considered in studies such as the National Drug Monitor (2018), in which ecstasy/MDMA is identified as most prevalent. Evidently, this study does not aspire to be representative of the entire party-going, drug using population of the Netherlands.

Although this study does present certain ‘quantifiable’ norms regarding drug use such as ideal dosages, frequencies of use and combinations of substances, it does not quantify actual practices. While this could perhaps provide insightful information about discrepancies between normative ideals and actual practices, I choose not to do so. Firstly, I noted that participants would sometimes be unable to accurately recount this information but more so because such inquiries could be experienced as invasive or moralising and therefore disrupt qualitative explorations. I therefore prioritised letting participants share these aspects on their own accord and framed them as attitudes, norms and perceptions rather than as reflective of objective practices. Here I also note that this analysis doesn’t address drug use of participants that occurs outside of the context of partying.

Duration of drug taking careers, whether participants have been using for longer or shorter periods of time, is briefly mentioned as being significant in understanding changing boundary configurations but could not be studied further within the scope of this thesis. Examining the concept of boundaries of drug use in relation to gender could also have proved useful. Certainly, the harassment of women by men and both the absence and appearance of 9_{When referring to participants using when they go out, I do not aim to suggest that their use of drugs is limited} to going out, all participants have also used outside of this context.

(23)

gendered identities during fieldwork raised important questions about the role of gender in drug taking practices and perceptions. Sexuality was also not explored. When it comes to intoxication, notions of sexuality and sensuality can be a complex and deep site for reflection as questions regarding pleasure, boundaries and consent arise.

Finally, this study does not seek to further stigmatise or pathologise frequent drug users who party in the electronic music scene but instead hopes to elucidate some of the underlying mechanisms that play into the construction and transgression of boundaries.

3.5 R

EFLEXIVITY

“The point is that both insider and outsider identification is partial, flexible,

negotiated, with a range of positive and negative impliations for the research process. Moreover, objectivity and neutrality in clubland is illusory, not least because clubbers form views about the researchers' presence: as social researchers we are operating within, will influence and are influenced by the social world within which we operate.” (Measham and Moore 2016, 37)

In line with Measham and Moore (2016), this thesis considers insider knowledge invaluable to club studies. It, furthermore, seems evident that rendering the employment of this

knowledge and reflexivity more open and explicit would be beneficial to this field.

Nonetheless, as the authors acknowledge, the illicit status of many substances and activities, the pharmacological properties of the substances and their complicated social status render this a complicated matter. This section presents an attempt at a more open reflexivity through, and within the confines of, my positions as both graduate student at the University of

Amsterdam and active participant in the nightlife scene being studied. I start by posing the question, what does it mean to be an insider and to practice insider research in our late modern/post-structural world (Measham and Moore 2016)? This paper certainly

conceptualises identities as fluid, unstable and the development as identities as individualised. Yet, as Measham and Moore highlight, while it might not be possible or desirable to claim “absolute proximity,” people can be partially bound by distinct “tastes values and/or activities” (Hodkinson 2005 p. 135 in Measham and Moore 2016, 33).

In this light, I could be considered a member or insider of the ‘culture’ or ‘scene’ I am researching. Having gone out in the electronic music scene for the last eight years, I have

(24)

friends and acquaintances who go out (and take drugs), produce music and DJ, work in clubs and organise events (often enacting multiple roles); I have experience with all the substances mentioned in this research; and I am familiar with the music, a lot of the venues, and the many routines and rituals of going out in the scene I study. My age and mutual friends with participants also frame me as being a ‘peer’. Methodological positions such as ‘anthropology at home’, ‘autoethnography’ and insider research come to mind, I will reflect on how my ‘insiderness’ took shape in my research.

This study aimed to pursue the “nature of member values and beliefs” (Anderson 2006, 389). Due to the limited time available for this research, an awareness of ‘insider

meanings’ proved very useful in terms of entering the field. It helped me establish preliminary questions and research methods and prepared me for navigating the field. Subsequently, cultural knowledge pertaining to the venues, music, substances and other rituals aided in establishing connections with potential participants and further helped build rapport and trust with participants. During research it became evident that sharing some of my own

experiences, especially when asked by participants, helped establish a sense of ‘sameness’. This feeling resulted in participants feeling more comfortable with my presence and sharing their experiences and thoughts with me. The cultural knowledge I am endowed with also meant that, in some ways, data was more readily ‘available’. Specifically, I argue that the sensorial and embodied experiences of partying and drugs become more meaningful through my own experiences with substances in relation to these contexts. This is not to say that substances work the same way in and on different bodies, however having experiences with substances in certain contexts can allow for an understanding of the potential sensations and states potentiated through them. Additionally, an awareness of the relevance of examining these substances and their workings not only in terms of their pharmacological properties but also in relation to context helped me frame the practices and experiences with drugs and partying as relational and fluid.

3.5.1NEGOTIATING MY ‘INSIDERNESS’

My methodology could be considered autoethnographic, perhaps leaning more towards the analytic variant thereof, in the sense that my own experiences and identifications have shaped some of the parameters of the study and the analysis. I do not frame it as such as my focus is

(25)

not on understanding my own experiences and practices. It does come with what are,

conceivably, some the advantages of ‘autoethnography’. Firstly, in terms of my position as a self-aware participant who, unlike a conventional ‘group member’, may not take an expressly “abstract or introspective” stance regarding the dialogues and practices (Anderson 2006, 382). Recognising my familiarity with the world I was researching, I strived for awareness of my connection to the research situation and of the effects I have upon it (Davis 1999, 7 in Anderson 2006, 382). Importantly this raised the question of how I was, as a member,

involved in the construction of meaning in and through my research and how to articulate this. During participant observation, this awareness of my own engagement with the scene and experiences meant I initially struggled to balance both my position as ‘observer’ and ‘member’ or as ‘researcher’ and ‘friend’. In attempting to become an observer, in this world so familiar to me, I felt reluctant in my position as ‘member’. Recognising my influence on the research situations meant that being expected to participate in making decisions, for example regarding which room to go to or whether or not to buy drinks, initially made me feel overwhelmed and uncomfortable. Accepting the tension I felt between my role as member and observer and not worrying too much helped me feel more comfortable in the field. It also meant I became more comfortable part-taking in decisions; I would simply reflect on my decisions and how they played into the night. Kane (1998) characterises the conflict between interacting with ‘research subjects’ on both a personal and professional level and the blurring that occurs between them as “productive turmoil” (149 in Measham and Moore 2016, 37). The emotionality experienced in the field and in research relationships consequently helped me gain a more profound understanding of the research field and my role as researcher.

I am unsure of how much I distanced “myself from my own world” (Reis 1998, 301), as this proved extremely challenging and did not necessarily seem useful. Reminding myself of my research questions, taking time away from conducting fieldwork and not recruiting more participants also helped me conduct more focussed participant observation.

This, moreover, prevented me from slipping entirely into the role of ‘member’ and helped sustain note-taking (Anderson 2006). An awareness of my emotions, in part through introspection, and participants’ feelings, through resonance, helped strike a balance between distance and proximity to my participants and the field as required per situation. I kept a journal throughout the fieldwork period for such reflections.

Initially I had decided to completely abstain from drinking or taking other drugs while conducting fieldwork because I thought this could compromise my ability to be sufficiently present while researching. I realised from the outset of fieldwork that complete abstention

(26)

would at moments establish too great of a distance between participants and myself and have the potential to make participants feel uncomfortable. I discussed this at length with two participants post participant observation, one informed me that they felt slightly judged initially. To exemplify, when a participant stated they were going to get a round of beers I hesitated at first, when noting that I would be the only one not joining in, I realised saying yes might make the participant feel more at ease with my presence. At other moments I decided to drink non-alcoholic beverages, which sometimes also resulted in participants deciding to change their order and join in with my drink of choice. Being completely inebriated would certainly compromise my abilities to conduct research and was therefore avoided. Similarly to being asked to drink a beer, in isolated occasions I went in on offers to use other substances. This led to me moments of being on the ‘journey’ of the night out more intimately, joining participants to the toilet or other spaces and closely experiencing them using and also resulted in greater rapport and trust. Finally, this use was not necessarily rationally calculated in advance but happened more sporadically, in relation to the situations and interactions. With other participants it did not feel that using would improve fieldwork relations, for example because they already knew me.

Overall, while I am not pursuing an autoethnography, neither do I speak of an alien ‘other’. It could be argued that this partial affiliation and visibility both in my research and analysis has negative ramifications in terms of representation. Potentially an autoethnographic account of this subject matter could help overcoming the ‘othering’ and specific issues of representation in academic studies of drug users, potentiating a sense of “humanness” in the research (Denshire 2013, 5). Nonetheless, I hope that by expressing my involvement and experiences in this scene I avoid perpetuating such ‘othering’.

3.6 E

THICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Informed consent is an ongoing process, initially entailing an explanation of my research. Speaking of consent perhaps becomes challenging when it comes to observations made or things disclosed while participants are high/drunk. Participants were informed that they could always indicate if there were things they explicitly wished for me to exclude from my

analysis, or if they at any point want to withdraw from the study. I tried to find a way of feeding back my analysis to participants in the research process, however, due to time restraints this was only successful with two participants.

(27)

While participants have agreed to being involved in this project, often my interactions with them extended beyond explicit participant observation sessions and interviews. I would sometimes see participants when out, at times also while I was with other participants; in conversation friends would also speak about participants and their partying and drug use to me. This meant that sometimes discrepancies in what respondents shared and what others shared about them surfaced. At other points participants themselves would share different versions of the same story depending on the setting (e.g. in terms of tone of voice, attitude, or the sequence of events recounted). As I cannot unknow or ‘un-see’ things, in order to

preserve integrity and consent I do not explicitly include descriptions or quotes from outside pre-arranged participant observation and interviews. For this reason, I also refrain from explicitly describing aspects of drug use that were not shared within the parameters of an interview in relation to individual participants.

In striving for anonymity and confidentiality I further attempt to protect my participants, not solely in light of the legal status of the substances they consume. I asked participants to choose pseudonyms and employed these from the outset of the writing phase. Anonymity is an issue as most of my participants are embedded in the same/overlapping social networks, and several of my participants are friends with each other. Venues have also been anonymised. They might be recognisable for those who are familiar with this scene, I was selective with quotations in an attempt to circumvent this. Data was stored in a folder on a laptop and backed-up on a password protected external hard drive.

The potential risks involved in the consumption of alcohol and other drugs and the illegality of the majority of substances should also be briefly mentioned as these issues render participants vulnerable in several ways. As I was studying boundary transgressions, it was also important to see how participants constructed their own boundaries both in practice and in interviews. Nonetheless, before commencing fieldwork I did consider the potential need to intervene. Judgements of someone’s state are often extremely subjective, I would base any decision to intervene on my own experiences with and knowledge pertaining to substances and partying. During participant observation there was never a moment in which I felt that participants exhibited extremely harmful or dangerous behaviour, this meant that I did not intervene. While the substances mentioned in this research are classified as ‘hard drugs’ and are illegal under the Opiumwet, carrying ‘small’ quantities of drugs for personal use is not likely to be sanctioned heavily in most circumstances. Drug policies at the clubs vary from venue to venue and their enforcement is also dependent on the security staff and/or company.

(28)

Regulations are in place both for the safety of club visitors but also as a means to avoid legal sanctions including closure.

F

OUR

:

R

ESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4. I

NTRODUCTION

For participants of this study, going out in the electronic music scene is about experiencing the music, it’s about self-expression or dancing freely, it’s about being and bonding with people and experiencing a sense of connectedness, or turning into oneself and one’s body, in various ways it’s about transcending or escaping the everyday, the mundane, and

experiencing something somewhat otherworldly or out of the ordinary, it’s about the atmosphere; the lighting, sound system, venue and fellow party-goers all co-shaping this. Drugs are inextricably tied up with the spaces, places, practices and social networks that co-constitute this scene. While it cannot simply be said that going out is ‘about using drugs’, using, being high, tripping and ‘getting fucked up’ are aspects that form the experiences had through and in these scenes.10_{Although perhaps to a lesser extent and perhaps in a different}

way, this is also the case for those involved in these scenes who do not drink or take substances as drugs are ever-present in these scenes in the Netherlands.

Some participants initially recount their drug use mostly in terms of recreation, fun, and/or to matter-of-factly view it as a part of the electronic music scene, or as a functional aspect of their partying (e.g. to keep going). For most participants, however, drug use is embedded in a complicated web of interrelated factors. Participants refer to the significance of their mood, emotional wellbeing, and everyday life responsibilities and circumstances in relation to their partying and drug use. The perceived effects of the drugs in the moment, during nights out, and these effects affect their everyday lives are recurrently understood in relation to these aspects.

10_{‘Tripping’ is an adjective used to refer to being under the influence of drugs. ‘Getting fucked up’ can imply} getting intoxicated on drugs and/or alcohol. It can be used to describe states of intoxication that are desired and/or experienced positively but also undesired states of intoxication (e.g. I was so ‘fucked (up)’ it was great/awful).

(29)

The research identified clear norms and values that play into understandings of drug use in relation to partying. In narrating their use, specific normative notions pertaining to how to use in a manner that allows for pleasure and recreation prevail. Respondents speak of drug use as being within the parameters of that which is ‘good,’ for ‘recreation,’ ‘healthy,’ or acceptable, or that which transgresses the ‘good’ and ‘recreational.’ I have identified several dimensions along which these notions are established and re-established by participants: maintaining obligations, motivations for use, emotional wellbeing/mental health, types of drugs, ways of using and the (spatio)temporalities of drug use. These parameters can be linked with wider understandings of ‘recreational’ drug use. In many cases, participants transgress the boundaries of what they consider ‘good’ ‘recreational’ drug use.

Using data from the interviews and participant observation, this analysis will first discuss the drugs that are commonly used by participants. This will entail considering understandings of the sociopharmacological properties of the substances and the related intentions for using them. The side-effects and comedowns described by participants in relation to specific substances will also be discussed. After this section, I consider the logics that may play into the manifestation of a night out, looking at the various intentions for going out, intentions for not going out or taking breaks from using drugs and partying. The third section highlights the coming together and playing out of the ‘event.’ Going out, the location, the timing, the drugs being used – these are not manifestations of thought through detailed plans, the actualisation of going out to party and after-party entails a lot of spontaneity and the working together of many entities beyond the individual. This chapter further examines how practices and becomings considered as transgressions are conceived and how agency is configured in transgressions. In this symbolic chronology of the processes and experiences of going out, the materiality – such as the substances and the places, perceptions and some embodied experiences will be examined. By looking at some of the elements of partying, this thesis addresses what might matter in terms of drug use and wellbeing, how this comes to matter, how these understandings do and do not play into practices and, relatedly, how transgressions of that which is considered ‘good’ ‘recreational’ drug use are negotiated.

4.1 P

ARTICIPANTS AND PATTERNS OF DRUG USE

Research participants were aged between 21 and 30 years during the fieldwork period and live in Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam. The majority had an undergraduate degree (n = 5)

(30)

some of whom were completing further education, the rest had started but did not complete or were completing an undergraduate degree (n = 3). All were studying full-time, working or both. 7 participants lived in shared accommodation (n = 6 with house mates, n = 1 with a partner), one participant temporarily lived with their parents.

While all had somewhat different histories with alcohol and other drugs, their drug use was initially incorporated into their lifestyles through partying in the electronic music scene. Participants have experience with alcohol (all), cannabis (all), ecstasy/MDMA (3,4-Methyl enedioxymethamphetamine) (all), ketamine (all), cocaine (all), speed (all), 2C-B (4-broom-2,5-dimethoxyfenethylamine, a psychedelic phenylethylamine) (n = 7), LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) (n = 6), GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate) (n = 5), several other substances previously used but less discussed in this research include marijuana, nitrous oxide (laughing gas), amyl nitrate (poppers), 4-FA (4-Fluormethamphetamine), magic mushrooms

(psilocybin), truffles (sclerotia of psilocybin mushrooms) and some prescription medications. All actively using participants have been taking drugs for over one year, most of them

between 3 - 9 years. The other two participants identified as ‘non-users’, generally abstaining from use of alcohol and other drugs.

During the course of my fieldwork ketamine was the most popular ‘party’ substance used by participants, other frequently used substances included alcohol, speed, cocaine, GHB and to a lesser extent ecstasy/MDMA. They are all polydrug users, meaning they use various substances (including alcohol) in combination with each other. Spaces in which drugs were commonly used included private homes and clubs but also outdoor spaces such as parks or forests (for example, during festivals). Participant observation usually started at the party venue, in a bar or café, or in a participant’s home. The use of alcohol often commenced well before entering the venue at dinners, ‘drinks’ or preparties with friends and, not uncommonly, was subsequently followed by cocaine or speed. Sometimes drug use commenced on the toilet of a venue just after having entered the venue. Participants used drugs they brought with them themselves but also used substances their friends had with them. On two occasions they attempted to source additional substances at the venue. Club nights finished around 5 – 7 AM, these were sometimes followed by after parties at private homes or at commercial venues. During participant observation, I attended three after parties at private homes and went to a café for breakfast after attending a club night club. The three after parties were all very

different in terms of atmosphere and cannot be summarised. Nonetheless, all entailed drinking tea, smoking joints, eating fruits, listening to music, and a lot of conversation. The

Transgressing symbolic boundaries of 'recreational' drug use: an ethnographic study among a network of young people who party in the electronic music scene in the Netherlands

T

RANSGRESSING SYMBOLIC BOUNDARIES

OF

‘

RECREATIONAL

’

DRUG USE

AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY AMONG A NETWORK OF YOUNG

PEOPLE WHO PARTY IN THE ELECTRONIC MUSIC SCENE

IN THE NETHERLANDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ONE:

INTRODUCTION

1.

O

1.1

P

1.3

T

D

C

1.4

D

(

)

1.5

S

TWO:

THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK

2.

M

‘

’

2.1

S

‘

’

2.2

D

T

HREE

:

R

ESEARCH

M

ETHODOLOGY

3.

D

3.1

P

3.2

M

&

3.3

A

3.4

O

3.5

R

3.6

E

F

OUR

:

R

ESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.

I

4.1

P