Characteristics and social representation of ecstasy in Europe - Irefrea

first scientific investigation of this social reality (KOKOREFF, M.; MIGNON, P.: Theproduction of a social problem: drugs and misuse behaviours. France and GreatBritain coping with ecstasy and cannabis users, Report from “L’Institut de Rechercheet d’Information socio-économique”, URA CNRS 1236- University Paris-Dauphine,1994,173 p.).Here we have some of the observations made by this study:“Through this comparison between England and France, on the one hand, and drugand ecstasy use, on the other hand, we observe a rearrangement of drug imaginary thatmakes sense in the social and cultural transformations induced by modernity. Drugseems to be a utopia and a myth, at the same time.Utopia of an “ideal” drug, without physical and psychical dangers, withoutdisturbing social ties, that, on the contrary, would solve the contradictions betweenindividual and community, put a frame to free time through the planning of evasion,comfort, expense in raves and other collective manifestations: that would be ecstasy. Itis from a similar point of view that cannabis consumers have produced a “good drug”that gives pleasure without dangers (“it is not like alcohol or heroin, you remainclean”), can be controlled (“we can leave it whenever we want”, “it gives us thepossibility of not losing the sense of reality”) and cheap.Myth of low classes, and above all of the under-class in need of myths, absorbed byexcesses of modern life and economical crisis and that, however, come to life againthrough images of evil, an absolute virus, a black hole, its demonization in the potentialsocial disorders and illusory enrichment: that is what drug would be.Beyond this conjunction of utopia and myth, it has to be remarked the importance ofthe professionals of the culture in the expansion of ecstasy in England, the specialisedmagazines for adolescents/young adults. They send a double message: they appreciatethe product and describe its social virtues, which means to show it belongs toconsumers; but, at the same time, in a reflective way, they delimit its use and think itwould not be able to escape from the framework of collective morality. This kind oftreatment is impossible to find in France.We also observe a differentiation in the diffusion patterns. The comparison betweenthis two societies leads us to oppose an epidemic and urban pattern of circulation(transversal diffusion to social classes, races, communities) to a hierarchic andcommunitarian pattern of popularisation (there is a big difference between social usesof doping and deviant uses of drug. In the last case, the communitarian dimension ofthe diffusion of uses and products is strong).The spirit of the struggle against drug policy differs. In England, the uses of drugallow the formation of a commitment that, as happens in other European countries,leads to a policy that associates repression, prevention and reinsertion help. In France,on the contrary, we are afraid of the wicked effects of drug treated as a myth and of the“drug-centrism” conception of the social problems that it poses”.131