Erich Goode

Multiple Drug Use among Marijuana Smokers

Knowledge of the process through which an individual progresses from the use of a relatively mild and almost innocuous herb as a “recreational” drug, to the sometimes frequent use of drugs which have at least the potential for damaging the body and the psyche, is patchy and conflicting. An adequate explanation of this movement simply does not exist. In light of these empirical and theoretical lacunae, we wish to offer an exploratory delineation of the use of other drugs by marijuana smokers. Although our data are too incomplete and fragmentary to yield a perspective firm and coherent enough to be called a “theory” of multiple drug use, we can, nonetheless, construct some tentative generalizations and hypotheses which should clarify and shed light on some dim corners of the field.

The fat admirer

This paper describes a neglected social phenomenon: men who are erotically and romantically attracted to fat women in part because they are obese. Fifteen formal interviews were held with “fat admirers,” as well as numerous informal interviews with many more. In addition, the authors have been participants in a “fat” civil rights organization (the National Association to Aid Fat Americans), which serves as a site for fat admirers and obese women to meet and socialize with one another. At least three dimensions distinguish different types of fat admirers—closet” versus “overt,” “exclusive” versus “preferential,” and “mountain men” versus “middle‐of‐the‐roaders. The authors also explore the impact of stigma emanating from conventional society on the sexual life of the fat admirer and the fat woman. Lastly, the role that exchange and social bargaining‐following some basic tenets of exchange theory—play in the sexual exploitation of some fat women is elaborated.

moral panics and disproportionality: the case of LSD use in the sixties

Critics of the moral panic dismiss this extremely useful, often-cited, and durable concept on the basis of inapplicable criteria. Drawing on the example of LSD use in the sixties, these critics mistakenly assume that the disaster analogy is apt, insisting that the threat to society, and societys responses, be very much like victims trapped in a burning building. In addition to the fact that the introduction of a new and potentially harmful drug into a society does not entail an on-the-spot threat or reaction, the natural disaster does not typically involve a folk devil or deviant. But the supposed threat of LSD use did entail sensitization, stereotyping, exaggeration, the rush to judgment, sensational anecdotes, and bogus claims. The moral panic notion continues to illuminate social processes and deserves to remain in the sociologists conceptual tool-box.

Cigarette Smoking and Drug Use on a College Campus

The role played by marijuana in “precipitating” or “potentiating” the use of the more dangerous illegal drugs, particularly heroin, has received fairly detailed attention (Ball, Chambers and Ball, 1968; Glaser, Inciardi and Babst, 1969; Robins and Murphy, 1967). Although the marijuana-to-heroin equation could mean many different things empirically, probably the clearest generalization verifying the drug “progression” hypothesis would be that, on a statistical, or actuarial, basis, the marijuana user is significantly more likely to try and use heroin, as well as any other illegal dangerous drug, than is true of his peer who has never experimented with marijuana (Whitehead, 1970; Russell, 1970; Josephson, 1971; Chambers, 1971). This is especially true of the regular and frequent marijuana user; the more that one smokes marijuana, the greater is the likelihood that one will try and use any and all illegal drugs, including heroin (Goode, 1969, 1970, 1971; McGlothlin, et al., 1970; Hochman and Brill, 1971; Mir...

Correlates and Accompaniments of Promiscuous Sex among Male Homosexuals

Until the past decade or thereabouts the psychoanalytic perspective has dominated writings on homosexuality. This almost inevitably entailed a concentration on the search for its etiological origins (Weinberg and Williams, 1974, pp. 3--4). As a consequence, the issue of the nature of the various styles of homosexual expression has been relatively neglected. An exploration of the disconcerting variability (Tripp, 1975, p. 133) of homosexual lifestyles is an extremely recent topic among researchers. Too often in the past homosexuality has been conceived of as a uniform entity: its contrasts with heterosexuality were exaggerated and similarities within homosexuality were overemphasized. Variation in modes of homosexual expression cries out for empirical attention (Bell and Weinberg, 1978, pp. 21--25). It is our intention in this paper to undertake an empirical exploration of some accompaniments of one dimension of homosexual behavior--having sexual experiences with a large number of partners. Far from asserting that this is characteristic of many or most homosexual men, we seek to differentiate them and understand to what extent the lives of men at the upper end of this continuum are intertwined with other, typically negatively regarded aspects of sexual life.

sex with informants as deviant behavior: an account and commentary

Engaging in sex with informants in social research is regarded as deviant; hence, it is rarely admitted in print. The author argues that such behavior is likely to influence what the researcher sees, how conclusions are reached, and what is written about. He summarizes what has been discussed on the issue of sexual self-disclosure and indicates how his own intimate relations with informants on three projects may have shaped his vision and conclusions. Sex with informants both provides benefits and poses risks; some of them are discussed as well. In addition, ethical issues are raised and discussed. Some possible reasons are advanced as to why reticence tends to be the rule in ethnographic sexual experiences.

Deviance, norms, and social reaction

The author suggests a scheme that attempts to resolve some of the conceptual problems and dilemmas that Meier argues persist in the sociology of deviant behavior. He proposes that a distinction be made not only between the normative and the reactive perspectives toward deviance, but also between “hard” and “soft” varieties of the reactive perspective. The normative perspective has limitations and drawbacks—as does a liberal (or “hard) reading of reactive theory. The “soft” variety of the reactive perspective attempts to surmount these limitations and drawbacks.

Heterosexual and homosexual activity among gay males

Abstract A total of 150 adult self‐professed homosexual men, age 20 to 40, living in three locales‐Manhattan, Suffolk County, (N.Y.), and Minneapolis‐were interviewed, in part to determine their heterosexual and homosexual activities. About two‐thirds (65%) said they had experienced intercourse with a woman at least once, but only 6% had done so in the year prior to the survey. The respondents with heterosexual experience (especially with several women) were more homosexually active currently than were those without it. This pattern holds true even when residence, age, bargoing, and education are controlled. The authors speculate that “action seeking” and sexual desirability account for the observed relationships. Even prior to taking on a homosexual identity, some men are more sexually active and seek out sexual “action” and are, in addition, sought out sexually. In a heterosexual sphere their activities will be heterosexual, but in a homosexual sphere their activities will be homosexual.

IDEOLOGICAL FACTORS IN THE MARIJUANA CONTROVERSY

At least as far back in the past as the Ancient Greeks, two competing epistemologies have vied for philosophical dominance. One of these broad streams has been labeled, variously, “idealism,” “subjectivism,” phenomenology, and, more recently, existentialism. The other has been called “realism,” “objectivism,” “naturalism,” and positivism. These terms are to some degree unfortunate and misleading, as I shall argue. And there are, naturally, great variations within each philosophical stream. And yet, using each as a means of prying open the marijuana controversy may very well produce some fruit. Both of these epistemologies are based on a metaphysic-essential and unprovable first principles concerning the ultimate nature of existence itself. More important. the acceptance of one or the other yields up to its practitioner radically different observations and conclusions regarding the real world. Both restrict the range of possible observations that may be made. The two philosophies have not been equally successful in winning converts. Mainstream opinion within behavioral, medical, and scientific fraternities have been, and continue to be, guided overwhelmingly by positivism. Moreover, the lay public adheres to a brand of positivism. Positivism is an elitist philosophy. Although it contains the axiom, “the facts speak for themselves.” empirical reality speaks a language only the trained are capable of understanding, at least at the levels of abstractions that are necessary for discovering novel findings today. Communications describing reality, then, first move outward, from the scientist to his colleagues, and then downward, to the scientist’s students and to the public. (Subjectivism, on the other hand, is a romantic and “grass roots” philosophy-to each man, his own reality.) Thus, an important component generally lacking in scientists’ conceptions of themselves and their work is the sociological nexus between them and the public. Anyone who has made a public statement containing some complexity and subtlety on an important subject can only be dismayed when he reads or hears a public rendition of that statement; not only has it been simplified, but it, typically, has been distorted as well. But in a sense each scientist receives the audience he deserves. It would be naive to label the public version of his statement simply a distortion. It also answers a public need, a hunger, if you will, for specific kinds of findings. The public translates the scientist’s statement into a language it can grasp. And this translation is a reality in its own right. Thus, an important implication of this tension between elitism and romanticism is that, in any attempt to understand the perspective and the proclamations of scientists on topical subjects such as marijuana use, it would be delusive to examine only scientists. To miss their articulation with the lay public would be to miss the point entirely. Scientists, of course, have their own values and standards regarding what is respectable scientific work. In that sense, the opinions of the public and of scientific popularizers are of no consequence. But much of the public is neither capable nor interested in making the fine distinctions scientists make, especially between respectable scholarly work and nonsense. It is, therefore, important to examine the impact, as well as the genesis, of nonsense, as well as work regarded as valid