Previous research has shown that age categories play a vital part in the decision-making processes of counsellors in substance abuse services, yet very little is known about how the meanings of “age” and “substance abuse” are constructed and intertwined. This article aims to provide insights into the dynamic relationship between discourses on age and substance abuse. It explores the narratives of a group of counsellors on age and substance abuse, and looks at the subject positions this intersection produces.
Design
The data material consists of interviews with 23 counsellors working for the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV). The analysis is inspired by discourse psychology and intersectional and poststructuralist approaches.
Findings
Three positions are constructed: “the vulnerable youth”, “the formative youth” and “the agentic adult”. The article illustrates how the subject positions reinforce a “focus on the young ones” discourse. Findings are discussed against the background of the concept of ageism.
Conclusion
The article highlights the significance of examining categories such as “substance abuse” and “age” as dynamic and contextual phenomena. It points out the significance of continually being aware of the influence age categories have in the process of differentiating and categorising substance abusers in social services.
AndersenD. (2007). Stofmisbrugeres behandlingsansvar. Personlige målsætninger i en institutionel kontekst [Drug users' responsibility over treatment. Personal goals in an institutional context]. Delrapport. Socialforskningsinstituttet & Sociologisk institution. Det samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultets Reprocenter. K⊘benhavn.
2.
Arbeidsdepartementet [The Ministry of Labour] (2013). Tildelingsbrev for 2013 [Allocation letter].
3.
Arbeidsdepartementet [The Ministry of Labour] (2012). Prop. 1 S (2012–2013). Proposisjon til Stortinget (forslag til stortingsvedtak) for budsjettåret 2013 [Proposition to the Storting (resolution proposal) for the fiscal year 2013]. Oslo: Departementet.
4.
BlaakildeA. L. (2004). L⊘ber tiden fra Kronos? Om kronologiseringens betydning for forestillinger om alder [Is Kronos losing time? How chronologisation impacts notions of age].Tidsskrift for kulturforskning, 3(1), 67–85.
5.
BrickmanP., RabinowitzV. C., KaruzaJ., CoatesD., CohnE., & KidderL. (1982). Models of helping and coping.American Psychologist, 37(4), 368–384. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.4.368
6.
BuchmannM. C., & KriesiI. (2011). Transition to adulthood in Europe.Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 481–503.
7.
ButlerR. N. (1969). Ageism: Another form of bigotry.The Gerontologist, 9(4 Part 1), 243–246. doi: 10.1093/geront/9.4_Part_1.243
8.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color.Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
9.
DaviesB. (1990). Agency as a form of discursive practice. A classroom scene observed.British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(3), 341–361. doi: 10.2307/1392847
10.
DaviesB., & HarréR. (2001). Positioning: The discursive production of selves.Discourse theory and practice: A reader, 20, 261.
11.
DemantJ., & JärvinenM. (2006). Constructing maturity through alcohol experience: Focus group interviews with teenagers.Addiction Research & Theory, 14(6), 589–602. doi: 10.1080/16066350600691683
12.
EdwardsG. (2009). The trouble with drink: Why ideas matter.Addiction, 105, 797–804.
13.
Fr⊘nesI. (2011). Moderne barndom [Modern childhood]. Oslo: Cappelen Damm akademisk.
14.
HaavindH. (2000). Kj⊘nn og fortolkende metode [Gender and interpretative methods]. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.
15.
HackingI. (1999). The social construction of what?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
HeggliG. (2004). Alderstyranni og dekronologisering [Age tyranny and dechronologisation].Tidsskrift for kulturforskning, 3(1), 5–14.
17.
HellmanM. (2011). Construing and defining the out of control: Addiction in the media 1968–2008.Doctoral dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
18.
Helsedirektoratet (2013). Rapportering frå kommunalt rusarbeid [Reports on substance abuse council work]. IS-8 2012. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet.
19.
HillierS., & BarrowG. M. (2014). Aging, the individual, and society.Cengage Learning.
20.
HydénM. (2000). Forskingsintervjun som relationell praktik. In HaavindH. (Ed.), Kj⊘nn og fortolkende metode [Gender and interpretative methods] (pp. 130–154). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
21.
HydénM. (2014). The teller-focused interview: Interviewing as a relational practice.Qualitative Social Work, 13(6), 795–812. doi: 10.1177/1473325013506247
22.
HålandM. E., LieT., NesvågS., & StevensonB. (2014). Rusmiddelmisbruk i Norge – BrukerPlan-statistikk 2013 [Statistics on substance abuse in Norway]. Stavanger: KORFOR.
23.
IveyD. C., WielingE., & HarrisS. M. (2000). Save the young – the elderly have lived their lives: Ageism in marriage and family therapy.Family Process, 39(2), 163–175.
24.
JärvinenM. (2002). Institutionalised resignation – on the development of the Danish treatment system.Nordisk Alkoholog narkotikatidsskrift (NAT), 19.
25.
JärvinenM., & AndersenD. (2009). The making of the chronic addict.Substance Use & Misuse, 44(6), 865–885.
26.
JärvinenM. (2012). Fra afhængighed til autonomi – at arbeide med stofbrugere. In JärvinenM., & Mik-MeyerN. (Eds.), At skabe en professionel: ansvar og autonomi i velfærdsstaten [To create a client: Institutional identities in social work] (pp. 29–51). K⊘benhavn: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
27.
KarasakiM., FraserS., MooreD., & DietzeP. (2013). The place of volition in addiction: Differing approaches and their implications for policy and service provision.Drug and Alcohol Review, 32, 195–204.
28.
Koski-JännesA., Hirschovits-GerzT., & PennonenM. (2012). Population, professional, and client support for different models of managing addictive behaviors.Substance Use & Misuse, 47(3), 296–308. doi: doi:10.3109/10826084.2011.629708
29.
LeeN. (2001). Childhood and society: Growing up in an age of uncertainty.Buckingham: Open University Press.
30.
LundebergI. R., MjålandK., S⊘vigK. H., NilssenE., & RavnebergB. (2010). Tvang overfor rusmiddelavhengige. Evaluering av Lov om sosiale tjenester §§ 6-2, 6-2a og 6-3 [The use of coercion towards substance abusers. An evaluation of the Social Services Act section 6-2,6-2a, and 6-3]. (Vol. 2). Bergen: Rokkanssenteret.
31.
LægreidP., & RykkjaL. H. (2013). Coordination practice. Coordinating Norwegian welfare: The NAV Reform.COCOPS.
32.
MelbergH. O., HendenE., & GjelsvikO. (2013). Addiction and responsibility: A survey of Opinions.Inquiry, 56(5), 558–570. doi: 10.1080/0020174X.2013.806143
33.
Meld. St. 30 (2011–2012) Se meg! En helhetlig rusmiddelpolitikk. Alkohol – narkotika – doping [A report to the Storting on the management of the Norwegian government's alcohol and drug policy by the Ministry of Health and Care Services].
34.
NAV (2013). Mål- og disponeringsbrev 2013 til fylkene [Aim and allocation letter to the counties].
35.
NesvågS. (1994). Rusmiddelbrukens kulturelle forankring [The cultural foundation of substance use]. In Artikkelsamling [Collection of articles] 1994:2. Oslo: Rusmiddeldirektoratet
36.
NilssenE., & KildalN. (2009). New contractualism in social policy and the Norwegian fight against poverty and social exclusion.Ethics and Social Welfare, 3(3), 303–321. doi: 10.1080/17496530903209550
37.
NorthM. S., & FiskeS. T. (2013). Act your (old) age: Prescriptive, ageist biases over succession, consumption, and identity.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(6), 720–734. doi: 10.1177/0146167213480043
38.
PalmJ. (2003). Moraliskt, medicinskt och socialt problem. Syn på alkohol-och drogproblem bland personal inom Stockholmsläns beroendevård [A problem of moral, medical and social nature. The views on alcohol and drug problems among staff in the addiction treatment in Stockholm County].Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 20(2–3).
39.
PalmJ. (2004). The nature of and responsibility for alcohol and drug problems: Views among treatment staff.Addiction Research & Theory12(5), 413–431.
40.
PalmJ. (2006). Priorities in Swedish alcohol and drug treatment: Policies, staff views, and competing logics.Contemporary Drug Problems, 33(3), 367–398.
41.
RiseJ., Aar⊘L. E., HalkjelsvikT., & KovacV. B. (2014). The distribution and role of causal beliefs, inferences of responsibility, and moral emotions on willingness to help addicts among Norwegian adults.Addiction Research & Theory, 22(2), 117–125. doi:10.3109/16066359.2013.785532
42.
RolandoS., & KatainenA. (2014). Images of alcoholism among adolescents in individualistic and collectivistic geographiesNordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs,31(2), 189–206.
43.
RoomR. (2012). Preventing youthful substance use and harm – Between effectiveness and political wishfulness.Substance Use & Misuse, 47(8/9), 936–943.
44.
RoseN. (1999). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self.London: Free Association Books.
45.
RussellC., DaviesJ. B., & HunterS. C. (2011). Predictors of addiction treatment providers' beliefs in the disease and choice models of addiction.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 40(2), 150–164. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.09.006
46.
SamuelssonE., BlomqvistJ., & ChristophsI. (2013). Addiction and recovery: Perceptions among professionals in the Swedish treatment system.Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 30(1–2), 51–66.
47.
StaunæsD., & S⊘ndergaardD. M. (2006). Intersektionalitet – udsat for teoretisk justering [Intersectionality: theoretical adjustment].Kvinder, kön og forskning, 15(2–3), 43–56.
48.
StaunæsD. (2003). Where have all the subjects gone? Bringing together the concepts of intersectionality and subjectification.NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research11(2), 101–110.
49.
SulkunenP. (2013). Geographies of addiction.Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 30(1–2), 7–12.
50.
S⊘ndergaardD. M. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to empirical analysis.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,15(2), 187–204.
51.
S⊘vigK. H. (2007). Tvang overfor rusmiddelavhengige: sosialtjenesteloven §§ 6-2 til 6-3 [Coercion against pregnant women with substance addiction]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
52.
UlvikO. S. (2005). Barn som relasjonspartnere: Diskurser om det kulturelt adekvate barnet [Children as partners in relationships: Discourses of the culturally adequate child].Kvinder, k⊘n og forskning, 3, 31–41.
53.
UlvikO. S. (2007). Seinmoderne foster-familier: en kulturpsykologisk studie av barn og voksnes fortellinger [Foster families in late modernity: A cultural psychological study of children and adults' narratives]. Doctoral dissertation. Oslo: Unipub.
54.
VilladsenK. (2003). Det sociale arbejde som befrielse. In JärvinenM., & Mik-MeyerN. (Eds.) At skabe en klient [Constructing a client] (pp. 192–226). K⊘benhavn: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
