著者

白松 賢

出版者

日本教育社会学会

雑誌

教育社会学研究 (ISSN:03873145)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.74, pp.189-207, 2004-05-20 (Released:2011-03-18)

参考文献数

22

被引用文献数

5

---

Recently, many people have come to categorize “drugs” as deviance or a socialproblem. “Drugs” have been categorized in the public “drug” discourse by therhetoric of endangerment, unreason, and with “atrocity tales.” On the otherhand, how is the “drug” discourse concerned with the interpretive activities ofdrug users, which are carried out locally?This paper discusses the relationship between the public “drug” discourseand the interpretive activities carried out in locally-managed interactive practicesby the members. Specifically, using category-analyzed ethnography, thispaper describes the process through which magic mushrooms have been categorizedas a non- “drug” in the members' interactive practice: “what are magicmushrooms?” Therefore this paper argues about the type of interpretiveresources that the public discourse has used in the process.The following conclusions are reached:(1) Through the interaction betweenthe people who consider the ingestion of magic mushrooms to be a “criminal act” or “drug” use, and those who dislike the former, users have categorized magicmushrooms as non- “drug” by using categories such as “legal” and “natural.”(2) In everyday discourse, by placing more importance on their experiences than onthe public discourse, the users use the public discourse and “atrocity tales” asinterpretive resources in order to categorize.(3) Although the categories of “natural” versus “chemical” entails the risk of being disproved, this possibility, which might have shaken the beliefs and local knowledge, has been moved asideby resolve and self-preservation work, using explanations such as these werecases when magic mushrooms were used improperly.Finally, the author cites the methodological possibility of category-analyzedethnography. For example, there is a lengthy discussion of the experiences of agroup of magic mushroom users showing how the “drug” discourse combineswith members' folklore into “local cultures.” Further arguments are needed byconducting various fieldwork focusing on the everyday discourse of users.