MASARYK UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Social Studies
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Magda Frišaufová
‘I know what I’m doing’
Agency in Narratives of Women who Have Experience
with Long-term Drug Use
Doctoral Thesis
Supervisor: prof. PhDr. Libor Musil, CSc.
Brno 2015
2
I hereby declare that I am responsible for the contents of this dissertation, which
was written by me with the use of the cited references.
Magda Frišaufová
May 12, 2015, Brno
3
Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................6
Introduction............................................................................................................................7
1 Theoretical Framework........................................................................................................9
1.1 Why Gender Matters in Drug Use .................................................................................9
1.1.1 Gender ...................................................................................................................9
1.1.2 A Postmodern Feminist Perspective .....................................................................10
1.1.3 Research on Women and Drug Use ......................................................................11
1.1.3.1 Emphasis on Structural Constraints ...............................................................11
1.1.3.2 Emphasis on Individual Agency ....................................................................12
1.1.3.3 The Victim – Rebel Dichotomy .....................................................................12
1.1.4 Women Who Have Experience with Long-term Drug Use as a Target Group of
This Thesis ...................................................................................................................14
1.1.5 Conclusion...........................................................................................................16
1.2 Agency in Interaction with Social Structure and Environment.....................................17
1.2.1 Agency.................................................................................................................17
1.2.2 Social Structure and Environment ........................................................................18
1.2.2.1 Social Structure and Intersectionality.............................................................19
1.2.2.2 Subjects in the Social Environment................................................................20
1.2.3 Agency in Interaction with Social Structure..........................................................21
1.3 The Social Work Context............................................................................................23
1.3.1 The Environmental Perspective............................................................................23
1.3.1.1 The Crisis of Knowledge and Crisis of Identity .............................................24
1.3.1.2 Different Views on Social Work....................................................................25
1.3.2 Critical Social Work Theory.................................................................................26
1.3.2.1 Empowerment and Critical Reflection ...........................................................27
2 Methodology .....................................................................................................................30
2.1 Qualitative Research Strategy .....................................................................................30
2.2 Research Techniques ..................................................................................................31
2.2.1 Interviews ............................................................................................................31
2.2.2 Focus groups........................................................................................................32
2.2.3 Informed Consent and Confidentiality..................................................................32
2.3 Sample selection .........................................................................................................33
2.4 Operationalisation.......................................................................................................35
2.5 Narrative Approach.....................................................................................................37
2.5.1 Agency and Narrative Discourse ..........................................................................37
2.5.2 Narratives as Data................................................................................................38
2.5.3 Approaches to Narrative Analysis ........................................................................39
2.5.3.1 Thematic Analysis.........................................................................................39
2.5.3.2 Dialogic/Performance Analysis .....................................................................40
2.5.4 Validity................................................................................................................41
2.5.4.1 Validity of Stories Told by the Participants....................................................41
2.5.4.2 Validity of the Analysis.................................................................................42
2.6 Reflection on the Research Context.............................................................................43
2.6.1 The Place and Presence of Other People...............................................................43
2.6.2 Keeping Contact with Participants........................................................................43
2.6.3 Financial Incentive...............................................................................................43
2.6.4 Reflection on the Context of Individual Interviews...............................................44
4
2.6.5 Reflection on the Context of the Focus Groups.....................................................46
2.6.6 Positioning Myself as the Researcher ...................................................................47
2.6.7 Limits of the Variability of the Sample.................................................................48
3 Narrative Data Analysis and Interpretation ........................................................................50
3.1 Context of the Research Environment .........................................................................50
3.1.1 Methamphetamine / Pervitin.................................................................................50
3.1.2 The Czech Welfare System and Services for Drug Users......................................51
3.2 Drug Use ....................................................................................................................52
3.2.1 Reasons for Drug Use ..........................................................................................52
3.2.1.1 Weight Loss – Being on a ‘White Diet’ .........................................................52
3.2.1.2 To (Be a) Rebel and Experience Extremes.....................................................53
3.2.1.3 Exhausting Care of Children and Household..................................................54
3.2.1.4 Drugs as Anti-depressant...............................................................................57
3.2.1.5 Binging Using as an ‘Emotional Pain-Killer’.................................................58
3.2.1.6 Initiation into Intravenous Drug Use..............................................................63
3.2.1.7 Drug Use as a Pleasurable and Joyful Experience ..........................................64
3.2.2 Reasons for Abstinence ........................................................................................65
3.2.2.1 Avoiding Contact with Other Drug Users ......................................................66
3.2.2.2 Desire for a ‘Normal Life’.............................................................................67
3.2.3 Health Care and Harm Reduction Strategies.........................................................68
3.2.3.1 Problems with Veins and Infectious Diseases ................................................68
3.2.3.2 The Risk of Using Overly High Doses of Meth..............................................70
3.2.3.3 Other Harm Reduction Strategies ..................................................................71
3.2.4 The Complexity of the Drug Economy.................................................................72
3.2.4.1 Meth Manufacturing......................................................................................72
3.2.4.2 The Price of Drugs ‘For Free’........................................................................73
3.2.4.3 Sexual Services in Exchange for Drugs .........................................................75
3.2.4.4 Drug Dealing.................................................................................................77
3.3 Motherhood ................................................................................................................80
3.3.1 Unplanned Pregnancy ..........................................................................................81
3.3.1.1 Considering Abortion ....................................................................................81
3.3.1.2 Decision to Keep the Child............................................................................84
3.3.2 Negotiating ‘Normal’ and ‘Good Enough’ Motherhood........................................85
3.3.2.1 The ‘Drug User-Mother’ Ambiguity..............................................................85
3.3.2.2 The ‘Good Enough’ Mother...........................................................................91
3.3.2.3 The Role of Partners, Friends and Family ......................................................97
3.3.3 Kindergarten and School as Support in Parental Roles..........................................99
3.3.3.1 Kindergarten .................................................................................................99
3.3.3.2 School.........................................................................................................100
3.4 Housing ....................................................................................................................102
3.4.1 Insecure Housing Conditions and Exposure to Violence.....................................103
3.4.1.1 Insecure Living in the Garden Colony Shacks..............................................103
3.4.1.2 Insecure Housing and Domestic Violence....................................................107
3.4.1.3 Lack of Security and Safety.........................................................................108
3.4.2 Drifting between Asylum Homes and Hostels ....................................................109
3.4.2.1 Pros and Cons of Life in Asylums for Mothers and Children .......................109
3.4.2.2 Vicious Circle of Life in Asylum Homes .....................................................112
3.4.2.3 Transition to a Hostel ..................................................................................114
3.4.3 Family as a Support in Housing Trajectories ......................................................117
3.4.3.1 Extended Family as a Network of Places to Stay .........................................118
5
3.4.3.2 Immediate Family as Support in Housing Transition ...................................118
3.4.3.3 Stable Relationship as Support for Stable Housing Conditions.....................119
3.5 Experiences with Violence........................................................................................121
3.5.1 Domestic Violence and the Failure of Professional Support................................121
3.5.2 Relation between Violence and Homelessness....................................................125
3.5.3 Aggression and Resistance towards Violence .....................................................127
4 Discussion.......................................................................................................................129
4.1 Important Subjects in the Social Environment...........................................................129
4.2 Forms of Agency ......................................................................................................130
4.3 Narrative Discourses and Interdiscursivity ................................................................134
5 Implications for the Social Work Practice ........................................................................138
5.1 Sources of Knowledge and Power Relations .............................................................138
5.2 Empowering Social Work Practice............................................................................140
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................143
References..........................................................................................................................144
Abstract..............................................................................................................................150
Abstrakt..............................................................................................................................151
Name Index........................................................................................................................152
6
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank several people who were of important support and inspiration during my
work on this thesis; especially, my teacher and supervisor Libor Musil, for his support and
belief that ‘I knew what I was doing’ and for being ready to discuss all my doubts and questions
I was not sure about.
Thanks also go to my friends and colleagues from the university and practice for their
inspiration and interest in what I was doing. It was a very important source of motivation. The
support from the workers at the drop-in centre who helped me to establish the crucial contacts
at the beginning of my empirical research was especially important.
Thanks also to my friend Camille for peer support and the exciting academic as well as
simple conversations about everything we are both so deeply interested in.
My thanks belong to Šárka Roušavá for her work on proofreading the whole text.
I also would like to appreciate the support of Masaryk University and Faculty of Social
Studies, for granting me several internships through which I could travel abroad. The possibility
of spending part of my studies in Sweden enriched me with important experience and inspired
me to think about the thesis topic from different perspectives. It also allowed me to establish
important contacts without which this thesis would look very different and would not have been
such an explorative journey for me. My thanks belong particularly to Tina Mattsson for the
inspiration at the very beginning of my research. Her comments on my first drafts supported
the first steps towards developing the framework of the thesis.
I am very grateful to my family for their support, patience and humour, with which they
helped me remember that things are not always as serious as they seem to be.
I also want to express my deep gratitude to the nature and overwhelming beauty of the
mountains of Lapland, where I gained distance and the energy needed for my work.
Most importantly, I would like to express my deep respect and thanks to all the
participants for the possibility to learn from them and gain new perspectives for my life.
7
Introduction
Storytelling is ‘a vital human strategy for sustaining a sense of agency in the face of
disempowering circumstances. To reconstitute events in a story is no longer to live those events
in passivity, but to actively rework them, both in dialogue with others and within one´s own
imagination. [… S]torytelling gives us a sense that though we do not exactly determine the
course of our lives we at least have a hand in defining their meaning’ (Jackson 2002: 15-16).
Female drug users as a specific group have been in the focus of social science research
for several decades. Much has been written about their specific situation, especially concerning
their unequal gender position, higher stigmatization, or harder access to treatment or social
services. On the other hand, not that much attention has been given to their strategies of
resistance, or dealing with problems they encounter in their everyday lives. Therefore, the aim
of the thesis is to focus on women who have experience with drug use themselves to gain deeper
understanding not only of the challenges they face, but also the strengths and agency that they
use to influence and take control over their lives, negotiate their needs and interests with the
world around them. By focusing on agency, I do not deny the marginalization and inequalities
which female drug users encounter in various forms. In my approach, the structural and
individual dimensions are seen as equally important and inseparably bound together through
mutual interaction. This is also important to avoid too strong an emphasis on the structural
constraints or the role of individual agency. As has already been discussed by other scholars
(e.g. Anderson 2008; Denton 2001; Maher 1997; Sandberg and Grundetjern 2012), such a
dichotomous perception often portrays female drug users as either rather powerless victims of
oppression, or as volitional agents unrestricted by structural limitations. This view not only fails
to provide a complete picture of the life situations surrounding female drug users, but may also
contribute to the further stigmatisation and disempowerment of these women.
In this thesis, I critically reflect on this dichotomous tendency in social science research
and suggest a theoretical framework through which the exercise of agency is researched in
interaction with social structure. This enables an understanding of the life situations of female
drug users in a broader context and prevents the further contributing to the dichotomous view
of either victim or agent.
The main research question is: ‘How do women who have experience with long-term
drug use exercise agency in their narratives about interaction with important subjects in
their social environment?’
The basic theoretical framework of the thesis is grounded in postmodern feminism,
through which I understand the life situation of women drug users as significantly influenced
by their gender, but at the same time, the gendered characteristics of their situation are not taken
for granted but rather a subject of what needs to be understood. Therefore, women are not seen
as automatically subordinated or oppressed; the focus is rather on the structure of power
relations which are seen as both oppressive as well as supportive.
In the empirical part of the thesis, based on the qualitative interviews and focus groups
with women who have experience with long-term drug use, I focus on their individual point of
view. By employing the narrative approach for data analysis and interpretation, I discuss how
they exercise their agency in their narratives about interaction with important subjects in their
social environment. Based on the data analysis, I identify important subjects and themes in the
narratives and interpret how they are described as a source of support and/or oppression. This
8
approach allows me to understand various ways in which agency is exercised in the narratives
but also in interaction within the research context.
The qualitative interviews and narrative approach to data analysis and interpretation
allowed me to identify themes and relations which the research participants regarded as
important, but also to gain deeper understanding of the meaning they have for them as sources
of support or constraint, and how they negotiate these meanings with their surroundings. This
is also what inspired me for the title of the thesis. In various ways participants explained that
things did not always develop the way they planned or wanted, but at the same time they gained
an understanding of the course of events and could act upon them.
This understanding of life situations is what I found to also be important for social work
practice. The aim of this thesis is to gain deeper understanding of the living situation of women
who have experience with long-term drug use from their perspective and within the broad set
of roles in which they talk about themselves. Therefore, they were not primarily perceived as a
clients of social work or other institutional help. On the other hand, the research findings bring
implications for social work practice and their discussion creates an important part of the thesis.
The thesis is divided into five main parts. In the first part I introduce a theoretical
framework which grounds the topic of the thesis into postmodern feminism and critical social
work theory. On the basis of the critical reflection of social science research on female drug
use, I provide a broadened definition of agency and social structure and their interaction. In this
part I also define the target group of the thesis as particularly women who have experience with
long-term use of methamphetamines.
In the second part, I describe the methodology of the empirical research, including the
research technique of repeated, in-depth interviews and focus groups, narrative approach to data
analysis and interpretation and provide reflection of the research context.
In the third part of the thesis I provide narrative analysis and interpretation of the data
divided into four main chapters based on the most relevant themes: drug use, motherhood,
housing and experiences with violence.
In the fourth part of the thesis, I provide a discussion of the research findings and answer
the research question.
In the fifth part of the thesis, I discuss implications that the framework suggested in the
thesis and research findings have for social work in practice.
9
1 Theoretical Framework
The aim of this thesis is to answer the main research question ‘How do women who have
experience with long-term drug use exercise agency in their narratives about interaction
with important subjects in their social environment?’
In this chapter, I will introduce the main theoretical concepts used in the thesis.
In the first chapter (1.1), I define the concept of gender and the postmodern feminist
perspective, followed by a brief overview of the social science research on the topic of women’s
drug use and a definition of the target group of this thesis.
In the second chapter (1.2), I discuss the concepts of agency and social structure and
introduce the framework through which agency will be conceptualized in its interaction with
social structure.
In the third chapter (1.3), I will place the topic of this thesis into the context of social
work, particularly critical social work theory.
The concept of narrativity, which is an important part of the research question, will be
discussed in the second, methodological, part of the thesis as an approach to data analysis and
interpretation.
1.1 Why Gender Matters in Drug Use
In the first subchapter (1.1.1), I address the question of why it is important to focus on gender
while researching drug use and explain how the concept of gender is understood in this thesis.
In the second subchapter (1.1.2), I place the gender approach in the context of postmodern
feminism. In the third subchapter (1.1.3), I discuss the social science research on female drug
use and introduce two main approaches which we can identify in this field. One puts emphasis
on the structural constraints and the second focuses on individual agency. In this subchapter, I
also discuss the weak points of these two approaches; because of this, female drug users tend
to be perceived through a ‘victim - rebel’ dichotomy. In the fourth subchapter (1.1.4), I define
the target group of this thesis and discuss the criteria for its selection. In the last subchapter
(1.1.5), I summarize the main concepts and show how they will be used in this thesis.
1.1.1 Gender
As the target group of my thesis are women who have experience with drug use, firstly I need
to answer the question why gender actually matters. Why is it necessary or important to look at
drug use from a gender perspective?
The main reason for taking gender into account is that it creates the basis of social
organization and division in society. Therefore, if we want to understand society or particular
social phenomena, it is also important to understand the role that gender plays in it.
Gender, contrary to sex, which refers to the biological distinction between men and
women, is in this thesis seen as a socially constructed category which enables me to analyse the
roles that men and particularly women play in the context of drug use.
However, to see ‘gender as a crucial concept we run the risk to overemphasise the
differences between women and men. Looking for the gender differences is by itself based on
gender stereotypes and the emphasis on them reproduce another gender differences.’ (Palm
2007: 20). Therefore, similarities between men and women, as well as the great differences
within one gender category, need to be considered.
10
It is also important to take into account the intersection of gender and other structural
characteristics such as ethnicity, age, or class, not to perceive the experience as essentially
feminine. Therefore, for my analysis I also employ the concept of intersectionality. This will
be discussed in more detail in chapter 1.2.2.1.
Focusing on drug use from a gender perspective creates the basis for a gender-sensitive
approach which can be employed in policy-making, research and social work practice.
Contrary to the rather common assumption that gender-sensitive or gender-specific
practice consider only the specific needs of women (Carter 2002), I regard gender-sensitivity
as taking into account both women and men. However, in this thesis I focus only on the specific
situation of women who use drugs. I made this selective choice in order to be able to focus on
a wide variety of issues and explore their situation in more depth1
.
1.1.2 A Postmodern Feminist Perspective
Feminist thinking includes a wide variety of theories or approaches, which all have gender
inequality at the centre of attention. However, what they see as the crucial causes or reasons for
the inequalities, as well as how gender equality should be reached, can differ substantially.
Various feminist theories can even sharply contradict each other in what they see as the reasons
and solutions of inequality (e.g. the differences between liberal, socialist and radical feminism).
For this reason, it is more appropriate to speak about feminisms in the plural, or feminist
theories, rather than a single feminism.
This thesis is grounded in postmodern feminism, which does not see gender as a static
concept based on essential categories of femininity and masculinity. From the postmodern
feminist point of view, gender comes into existence through the way people perform it (Butler
1999). Therefore, when focusing on gender, my aim is not to claim what gender ‘is’ or even
what it ‘should be’ in the context of drug use, but to explore how gender relations are
constructed and reproduced through interactions in the everyday lives of women who use drugs.
Postmodernism brings to feminist thinking the claim for the deconstruction of the binary
categories of men and women. The call for deconstruction does not mean to simply deny the
role that these categories play in the organization of the society, but to reflect the limits of
thinking within this oppositional duality. Deconstruction is about calling the concepts into
question and opening a wider discussion which also allows the recognition of differences within
one category, rather than negating it (Ramazanoğlu and Holland 2002).
By focusing on how ideas about masculinity and femininity are constructed and operate
in relation to each other, postmodern feminism also avoids simplistic theorising based on clearcut
notions of oppressors and victims (Trinder 2000). Furthermore, the reason why I place
women in the centre of this thesis does not stem from an assumption that women who use drugs
are more oppressed, discriminated or vulnerable than their male counterparts. The aim is to gain
a deeper understanding of the gendering processes which take place in drug use, as well as in
the research concerning drug use or social work theory and practice.
This stance will also be taken while concluding recommendations for practice. The aim
is not to define universal and rigid recommendations for gender sensitive social work, but rather
to create a basis for critical reflection of how gender is constructed and reproduced also through
the practice of social work.
1
At the same time, I admit that a comparison of specific female and male situations might also bring interesting
new insights. There are issues and situations which are specific for male drug users which are also insufficiently
addressed by research, or existing services for drug users (e.g. work with men as perpetrators as well as victims of
violence, male parental roles, father’ s rights, etc.).
11
Postmodern feminist theory is closely related with concepts of narrativity, identity and
power, which all have roots in postmodern thinking. These concepts also play an important role
in this thesis and will be elaborated in the upcoming chapters concerning social work (1.3) and
narrative approaches (2.5).
1.1.3 Research on Women and Drug Use
From the introduction of gender and feminist theories which create the conceptual basis of this
thesis, in this chapter I shift the attention to the theoretical background concerning women and
drug use2
.
Focus on female drug users as a specific group which needs to be reflected in theory as
well as practice concerning drug use has been identified since the early 1970s. At that time,
several pioneer works criticizing the gender-blind approach were written. Those books, written
mainly by sociologists and criminologists, pointed to the relation between dependency on drugs
and the unequal position of women in society and the higher stigmatisation or influence of drug
use on parenting (e.g. Carter 1997, 2002; Ettorre 1992, 2007; Inciardi et al. 1993; Stocco 2000,
2002).
Later in the 1990s, the gender-sensitive perspective was broadened to issues such as
‘new drugs’, health issues including higher risks of sexually transmitted diseases, violence,
victimization, or involvement in the sex-business (Anderson 2008).
The later were also more practice-oriented, with a clear aim to conclude
recommendations for gender-sensitive drug policy (e.g. Stocco 2000, 2002; EMCDDA 2000,
2005, 2006). It was broadly ‘accepted that understanding gender differences in drug-related
behaviours is a critical requirement for developing effective responses’ (EMCDDA 2006: 21),
because women encounter a higher threshold in access to treatment or social services.
1.1.3.1 Emphasis on Structural Constraints
The pioneer works concerned with the lack of attention to the specific situation of female drug
users placed great emphasis on the structural level of the problem. This approach needs to be
seen in its historical context, since the emphasis on structural constraints which female drug
users encounter was a response to the positivist medical discourse that dominated drug research
and policy well into the historical past. Contrary to the medical approach, maintained especially
by psychiatrists and the ‘disease model of addiction’, the structural approach describes drug use
as a social problem rather than an individual failing. The focus is on the political, cultural and
economic contexts of drug use. Gender is understood as a crucial characteristic of social
organization, and thus female drug use is directly linked to women’s position in society. For
instance, Ettorre (1992) maintains that it is important to recognise that women are socialised
into dependency more easily and more often than men. She argues that, for women,
‘dependency’ stands not only for ‘addiction’, but also for ‘subordination’. Having a
‘dependency as addiction’ is socially unacceptable, especially when it interferes with women’s
stereotypical social roles, such as housewife, worker, mother, daughter, or girlfriend;
nevertheless, ‘dependency as subordination’ aligns with stereotypical gender norms and can
even be a desirable state for women to assume as a core form of identity. Furthermore, since
‘carer’ is a common role assigned to the woman since other people are also dependent on her
(e.g. children, the elderly, a partner), a complex system of dependency is created, not only in
2
This chapter is based on an article published by the author of the thesis in the journal Czech and Slovak Social
Work (Frišaufová 2014).
12
the public sphere but within private life as well (Stocco 2000, 2002).
The structural inequality arising from gendered relations is further exacerbated by the
double standards that exist for men and women. Various authors point out that because drug
use in many ways contradicts what is seen as the social ideal of feminine behaviour, negative
moral judgements and stereotypes are more likely in the case of drug-using women than in the
cases of men (e.g. Ettorre 1992; Stocco 2000, 2002; Vobořil 2002). The negative stereotypes
are especially associated with what may be seen as ‘typical female domains’ such as morals,
sexuality and the ability to care for themselves and others (Ettorre 1992). If women do not fulfil
the expectations arising from these roles, they are often stigmatised far more severely than their
male counterparts. These stereotypes generate even more punitive responses, both socially and
legally, when women use drugs during pregnancy (Baker and Carson 1999; Carter 1997, 2002;
Friedman and Alicea 1995, 2001; Klee 2002; Young 1994). Such negative stereotypes lead to
women being described as aggressive and manipulative, acting without feelings and emotions,
or suppressing those feelings for the sake of obtaining drugs, or being sexually promiscuous. In
their personal life they are seen as lonely, unhappy, lacking self-confidence, or destructive.
Their femininity is depicted as ‘misplaced’, ‘rejected’, or ‘insufficient’ (Carter 1997, 2002;
Ettorre 1992; Inciardi et al. 1993; Klee 2002; Lalander 2003; Maher 1997).
Although this overview of the issues discussed in social science research related to
female drug use is far from exhaustive, it lends insight into the structural context which has
broadened the focus from the previous, solely individual approach.
1.1.3.2 Emphasis on Individual Agency
However, the research accounts that concentrate on the structural dimensions of women’s drug
use have been criticised for not allowing sufficient space for the individual capacity to act. Thus,
there are scholars who criticise the overestimation of the role of social structure and centre their
research upon the role of individual agency. For example, doubt has been cast upon the
uncritical acceptance of direct linkages between childhood abuse, or experiences with other
forms of violence and involvement in law-breaking, and drug use. Criticism has also been
directed at the linkages between female dependency on men and drug use, cast in the light of a
highly stereotypical view of women’s involvement in the drug world (Maher 1997).
Some authors take a rather challenging opposing position: that female drug use may be
interpreted as a form of resistance or rebellion to social pressure and stereotypical gender
expectations (e.g. Friedman and Alicea 1995, 2001; Baskin and Sommers 2008). Contrary to
claims that women are becoming drug users through relationships with men in particular, they
propose women’s use of illicit drugs as a possible indicator of rising gender equality. Scholars
interpret drug use as a denial of the passive role and an adoption of a more independent and
rebellious lifestyle (e.g. Measham 2002).
From this viewpoint, the rising participation of women in the drug economy and the
greater association with violent behaviour have been described as resulting from increasing
emancipation of women throughout society.
1.1.3.3 The Victim – Rebel Dichotomy
I regard the contribution of scholars who put strong emphasis on the structural dimension as
crucial for understanding the gender aspects of drug use. If the gender-sensitive approach is not
to be reduced to a simple division between women and men drug users, based essentially on
their sex rather than gender, we need to include the structural dimension to the analysis. It
allows us to understand the dynamics through which the specific situations for male and female
drug users are constructed and reproduced.
13
However, to look at the life situation of women who use drugs only through the
structural dimension provides an incomplete view, since we can recognize the tendency to
reduce the structure to restrictions and not reflect structural sources of support. There is also a
lack of discussion about what strategies the female drug users employ to cope with problems
they encounter. Structural approaches were quite successful in contesting what Anderson
(2008) calls the ‘pathological narrative’ about female drug users, based on the idea that drug
use is an individual failure. On the other hand, stress on structural inequalities and restrictions
supports the ‘narrative of powerlessness’, in which female drug users are depicted as victims of
oppressive constraints in society.
If the approach which emphasizes the oppressing force of social structure transpires into
social work or other helping professions, it might contribute to practices which do not recognize
available structural resources (e.g. the role of various informal networks) or fail to support and
encourage a client’s individual agency. Such over-emphasis may also be deterministic, focusing
only on situations involving dysfunction, dependence, powerlessness, exploitation and
victimization. In the context of social work, it may be assumed that clients who are perceived
as victims may consequently appear to be more legitimate recipients of help than clients who
are perceived as strong agents. Professional workers may therefore expect that their clients may
deliberately choose to identify with or play the role of victim in order to gain better access to
institutional help, social benefits or other resources. When it comes to issues such as drug
dealing, involvement in sex work, or the use of violence, it may also be easier or more
acceptable for social workers to interpret such issues as a result of social pressure rather than a
deliberate choice on the part of the client.
Explaining drug use from the perspective of structural constraints may provide
significant advantages for the people involved. For social workers, it may be a possible solution
to dilemmas concerning legitimate and illegitimate recipients of help. For clients, the role of
victim may facilitate better access to institutional help. However, this approach may still
contribute to the further stigmatisation of drug users, since it fails to empower them, blocking
attempts to achieve equal positions within society, to becoming responsible and capable of
taking control of their own lives.
Paradoxically, an approach which aimed to free women who use drugs from the
pathological stigma can contribute to their victimization in another way.
Due to the potentially victimizing effect of the approaches which stresses the structural
oppression, I regard the understanding of female drug use which acknowledges individual
capacities as paths to resistance to structural constraints as very important. However, even this
approach is not without its drawbacks. If the view of the female drug user, on the other hand, is
not placed within a broader social context, it may contribute to perceptions of women as
volitional agents unrestricted by structural limitations. To see agency as exercised only through
active resistance does not provide a complete understanding of women’s capacities to deal with
the problems they encounter.
This approach may support the image of women drug users as the so-called ‘new violent
female criminals’, or ‘troublesome girls’ (Jackson and Tinkler 2007; Hudson 2008; Maher
1997; Worrall 2008) and explain their behaviour in a context which, contrary to the previous
‘seen as the victim’ scenario, overendows women with agency and free will not appropriate to
the actual structural conditions.
Seeing the situation of female drug users only through agency exercised by active
resistance to oppressive circumstances can support the image of female drug user as a kind of
‘villain’, ‘rebel’, or rational agent only seeking ways to maximise deviant or criminal
opportunities and self-interest. When this approach translates into the practice of social work
or other helping professions, it can contribute to the view of clients as ‘addicts by choice’, who
14
use drugs for their own pleasure, without caring about the possible negative consequences for
themselves and others. Thus structural context is often un-reflected or underestimated. Social
workers and other professionals who perceive female drug users in the role of ‘villains’ or
‘rebels’ may denigrate or blame clients for being aggressive and inconsiderate to others, which
especially in the case of women is seen as problematic or inappropriate behaviour. From this
standpoint, women may not be seen as legitimate recipients of help, and institutional support
might therefore be withheld. As Anderson points out,
Showing women’s power and agency in illegal endeavours will diminish sympathy for assisting them in
securing better lives. To their credit, ‘powerlessness and pathology’ frameworks have succeeded in
elevating academic attention to women and in rising support and resources for them (2008: 3).
If agency is only seen as active resistance without understanding the broader context, social
workers might also find themselves in a dilemma: how to support and engage with resistance,
because such behaviour might be perceived as encouraging their clients in deviant or illegal
behaviour. An example might be found in the situation where a social worker wants to support
a client’s ability to finance housing, herself and her family, but does not agree with the illegal
source of money which might been gained through drug dealing, prostitution or theft, for
instance.
In this chapter, I gave a brief overview of the social science research on female drug
use. I also identified two approaches which we can recognize when critically reading the
scientific accounts of female drug use: one that emphasizes the role of social structure and the
second, which puts emphasis on individual agency. I have also discussed the weak points of
these approaches, since they offer an incomplete or even stigmatizing view on the life situation
of women who use drugs. Particularly unsettling is the negative impact that these two
approaches can have when they translate into practice in social work or other helping
professions. I identified the risk of further stigmatization, which not only reinforces negative
stereotypes, but may also seriously restrict the benefits that female drug users might otherwise
acquire from institutional help, or even prevent them from seeking such help. Consequently, a
paradoxical situation emerges in which a group of clients with specific needs, such as pregnant
women, is also the subgroup that most often drops out of contact with professionals.
1.1.4 Women Who Have Experience with Long-term Drug
Use as a Target Group of This Thesis
Drug use includes a wide variety of substances as well as using practices. To define the target
group of this thesis, I use the concept of ‘problem drug use’ used by EMCDDA3
. ‘Problem drug
users’ are defined as injecting drug users and/or the long-term/regular users of opioids and/or
amphetamine-type drugs and/or cocaine (EMCDDA 2009a)4
. In my empirical research I focus
only on ‘problem users’ of amphetamine-type drugs. Which in the context of the Czech
Republic, where the empirical research was conducted, is concerning particularly users of
methamphetamine/pervitin5
, which is the most common, or almost exclusive amphetamine-type
drug. The number of cocaine users is in the Czech Republic very low (Mravčík et al. 2013).
3
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addictions.
4
„The number of problem drug users in the Czech Republic in 2012 was estimated to be approximately 41,300
(the central estimate), of whom 30,700 were pervitin (methamphetamine) users, 4,300 were heroin users, and 6,300
were buprenorphine users.” (Mravčík et al. 2013: 48).
5
Pervitin is the Czech name for methamphetamine. The shortened name for methamphetamine is meth, which will
be also used in this thesis.
15
This exact definition of target group will be relevant particularly in the empirical part,
because it indicates the criteria by which the research participants were chosen. The literature
on drug use, which I employ especially in the theoretical part of the thesis, usually regards users
of all illicit drugs (including, for instance, heroin, cocaine, or crack cocaine).
The target group of this thesis is defined as long-term female users of
methamphetamines. While selecting the participants for the empirical research, another
important criterion was that they be ‘active’ users, meaning that by the first interview, they
were users of methamphetamines, and were not, for instance, abstaining for a longer period of
time (several months), or seriously considering total abstinence from methamphetamines.
There were two main reasons why I focused ‘only’ on active (rather than former) users
of methamphetamines. Both these reasons are based on experience from a pilot study conducted
before the actual empirical research.
Firstly, after conducting several pilot interviews with women who had experience with
either long-term use of methamphetamine or heroin, I realized that their life situations differed
quite substantially. The differences were related to different pharmacological effects (i.e.
stimulating effect of methamphetamine in contrast to the sedating effect of heroin), but also to
the patterns of use6
. Finally, there was a crucial difference connected to the sources and prices
of the drugs. For methamphetamine was more typical manufacturing in low-volume, easily
movable cooking labs and distribution through informal networks. That is in contrast to the
high prices for low quality heroin obtained from street dealers. For this reason, there was also
a grave difference in the amounts of money that the users were spending in order to finance
their drug use.
Secondly, after one interview with a former amphetamine user, I realized that if I wanted
to gain a deep understanding about the interactions typical for the situation of active drug use,
it would be more valid to talk only to active users rather than to people who were ‘looking back’
at the times when they used drugs7
. Thus, it was essential to interview participants who were
currently ‘living the interactions’.
Based on this experience from pilot interviews, I decided that in order to gain an indepth
understanding of specific life situation, it is advisable to use some more criteria then only
illicit drug use. Therefore I decided to focus specifically on ‘problem users’ of
methamphetamines.
Because I employ the definition of ‘problem drug use’, I could refer to the target group
as, for example, problem drug users or female/women drug users, as it is common in most of
the social science literature on this topic. However, I prefer to use the term ‘women who have
experience with (long-term) drug use’, since I find it less stigmatizing, not reducing the women
solely to drug users. I prefer to mention drug use as a part of their experience, but not necessarily
as a crucial characteristic. Throughout the thesis, the term is used as a synonym,
interchangeably with female drug user, or woman drug user.
6
For methamphetamine use, it was more typical to binge by using for several days with several days or even weeks
of breaks afterwards. This is in contrast to the everyday, regular use of heroin, which is also related to physical
dependence and withdrawal symptoms, which starts as early as several hours after use.
7
Interviewing recovering drug users would have presented some obstacles. First, it might be difficult for them to
recall past events. Secondly, the narratives about drug use would be biased by the current situation where the
interviewee identifies more with abstaining rather than with her former practice of using drugs.
16
1.1.5 Conclusion
In this chapter, based on relevant literature, I have explained the relevance of gender and the
postmodern feminist perspective in the research of drug use. I have also given a brief overview
of and critical reflection on the social science accounts on the topic of female drug use. In the
last chapter, I have provided an exact definition of the target group of the thesis.
In chapter about the social science research on female drug use, I have identified two
approaches which by their emphasis either on structural constraints or individual agency might
support the images of female drug users as either rather powerless victims of outer
circumstances, or volitional agents, some kind of rebels who are not restricted by any structural
limitations. I also critically discussed how this dichotomous perception can contribute to their
further stigmatization.
Therefore, in this thesis, it was very important for me to prevent from contributing to
these potentially stigmatizing approaches by depicting the involvement of women in the illicit
drug world through either the powerless or the pathological narratives. This is where the
postmodern feminist perspective is very useful. It allows me closer examination of the
narratives about female drug users as they are constructed through the social science research.
Furthermore, drawing attention to the women drug users themselves enables me to understand
how they construct their life situation, what they see as problems, challenges, opportunities,
sources of support, etc. As Fawcett (2000) explains, postmodern feminism rejects the
modernist, universalistic and essential conception of self, but at the same time moves away
from merely seeing the subject as constructed by the discourse. It endows the subject with
agency, because there is also space for resistance within the discourse. Women are positioned
in the discourse of drug use, but at the same time they have the capacity to position themselves
within this discourse. Thus, the subjects are not only ‘being constructed, but also constructing.’
As with anyone, the life situation of women who use drugs includes a whole spectrum
of relations, experiences and desires. In the following chapter 1.2, I suggest a framework which
allows me to gain a deeper understanding into how female drug users exercise agency in their
everyday life, but at the same time enabling them to exercise agency through constructing their
own narratives about their life. This framework provides a definition of agency which is
conceptualized through interaction with the social structure and social environment. The
framework which conceptualizes the exercise of agency through narration will be offered in the
Methodological part in the chapter about Narrative Approach.
The postmodern feminist perspective, by deconstructing the stereotypical images about
women who use drugs, can contribute to challenging the stigmatizing and victimizing
processes, also present in social work, and can make the practice empowering and emancipatory
(Crinall 1999). This topic will be discussed in the third chapter about social work (1.3).
17
1.2 Agency in Interaction with Social Structure and
Environment
As was already discussed above, the limited view on structure as mainly restrictive and agency
as exercised only through active resistance towards oppression contributes to an incomplete and
dichotomous view on a life situation. To avoid this shortcoming, in this chapter, I suggest some
broadened definitions of agency (subchapter 1.2.1) and social structure. I also introduce the
concepts of intersectionality and social environment (subchapter 1.2.2), which are both useful
tools for understanding the interaction of agency and social structure, which is explained in the
last subchapter (1.2.3)8
.
1.2.1 Agency
Researchers seeking to understand the exercise of agency have to address the difficult task of
how to define it in a way that includes all the various and often paradoxical or contradictory
forms in which agency can be exercised. In this chapter, I suggest a broadened definition.
A number of authors agree that agency can be defined as the individual, socio-culturallymediated
capacity to act; that is used to overcome the structural constraints that operate upon
social action (e.g. Ahearn 2001; Giddens 1984; McNay 2000, 2004; Sewell 1992). However, it
is important to understand structural conditions not only in terms of oppression, but also as a
potentially enabling source of support and resources. Agency therefore needs to be defined also
as the capacity to act in order to use the sources to the benefit of self and/or others (Anderson
2008). Agency is thus seen as exercised not only in situations in which individuals encounter
structural constraints and are acting against them, but also in cases in which female drug users
use structural resources to their benefit. The capacity to act includes the ability to intervene, as
well as any decision to refrain from intervention. Therefore, agency can be present in action, as
well as in any choice for ‘non-acting’.
However, it must be borne in mind that an important precondition for the exercise of
agency is what Giddens terms the ‘ability to act differently’. This means that the individual
‘could, at any phase in a given sequence of conduct, have acted differently. Whatever happened
would not have happened if that individual had not intervened.’ (1984: 9).
There is also an overly narrow view on agency, which sees it as exercised only through
active resistance to oppression. This view is common, for example, in some feminist theory
(Ahearn 2001; Frank 2006) where the scholars construct images of women as powerful agents
in opposition to the female victim images. While it is possible to understand the reasons for the
approach, which equates ‘agency with resistance, agency should not be reduced to it.
Oppositional agency is only one of many forms of agency.’ (Ahearn 2001: 115).
Agency also should not be perceived in dichotomous terms as something that one has
or does not have, but rather to a degree to which a person is able to determine the course of
his/her social action (compare with power as defined, for example, by Anderson 2008, or
Dominelli 2002). Therefore, the presence of oppression does not mean a total absence of
agency; conversely, the exercise of agency does not mean the absence of oppression. One is not
defined by the absence of the other. Mahoney (1994) elucidates this view through the example
of domestic violence, where staying in the relationship with the perpetrator is seen as identical
with victimisation and continued oppression, contrary to leaving, which is seen as the right
solution and an expression of agency. The ability to leave becomes something like a test of
8
This chapter is based on an article published by the author of the thesis in the journal Czech and Slovak Social
Work (Frišaufová 2014).
18
agency. Nevertheless, such a view does not take into account the resistance to violence and
oppression which may also be expressed in continuing the relationship (seemingly ‘nonacting’).
Agency may well be reflected in efforts to find a solution and address the problems,
not merely in fulfilling the expectation to leave.
Definitions of agency that include not only acting against constraints but also the ability
to employ structural resources to one’s benefit allows me to understand the seemingly
paradoxical ways in which agency is exercised. For instance, situations in which people who
are assumed to be negatively influenced by stigmatising discourse might act in ways that
actually reproduce these negative stereotypes. This can be illustrated on the example of drug
users emphasising their dependency in order to reach institutional help or benefits.
Furthermore, aligning agency with structure implicitly rejects the simplistic definition
of agency that equates it with free will and rational choice. Agency is shaped by the individual
as well as by social, cultural, spatial and historical contexts.
It follows that the definition of agency is not a static and fixed concept; the ways in
which it is exercised in the life of the individuals cannot be defined as universal for all women.
While it is also not possible to state that something is equally oppressing or empowering to
entire homogenous groups, there remains an acute need for scholars to contextualise the
experiences of particular individuals or groups of people.
For example, ‘playing the victim role’ or allowing oneself to be placed into a powerless
position may be seen, in some situations, as an important indicator of agency. For example,
such positions may result in benefits when negotiating child custody or seeking clemency in
court. On the other hand, involvement in important activities (e.g. drug dealing) does not
automatically imply an exercise of agency. This issue has also been discussed in the context of
women’s involvement in sex work. For example, Maher (1997) in her research into female drug
users in Brooklyn reports that in order to maintain a sense of dignity, self-respect and protection
from exploitation, most of the women were able, to some extent, to define limits in relation to
sexual conduct, discriminate among clients and between sex acts, and negotiate the price and
the duration of the transaction. However, Maher (1997) also points out that this should not lead
us to a false perception of agency in which any activity is seen as equality, or presence as
synonymous with participation (see also Inciardi et al. 1993). As Scheper-Hughes states, ‘Here
we must be careful not to mistake existence for resistance and, in so doing, to romanticize
human suffering.’ (1992: 533).
1.2.2 Social Structure and Environment
In the research question, I ask about agency exercised in interaction with important subjects of
social environment. However, as was already discussed, in order to avoid an incomplete
perception of a life situation reduced solely to the individual dimension, agency needs to be
placed into a wider structural context. Therefore, in my framework, I give equally important
attention to the structural context. However, it is also important not describe agency and social
structure in a separate manner, but to understand them through their mutual interaction. The
structural level may be perceived as rather abstract, and difficult to relate to everyday life.
Therefore, I suggest its operationalization through interaction with subjects in the social
environment. The concept of intersectionality also allows us to understand the role that
structural categories such as gender, class, or ethnicity play in various contexts and the lives of
people. Therefore, in my research question, I focus on the exercise of agency through
interaction with important subjects in the social environment and in my analysis and
interpretation I also employ the intersectionality approach.
19
In the first subchapter, I discuss the definition of social structure and introduce the
intersectionality approach. In the second subchapter, I explain how I define subjects in the social
environment.
1.2.2.1 Social Structure and Intersectionality
The concept of social structure refers to how people in society are ‘categorised according to
social divisions such as class and gender’ (Thompson 2006: 21). These divisions consequently
play an ‘important role in the distribution of power, status and opportunities’ (Thompson 2006:
21). It is crucial to the understanding of the dynamics of interaction between individual and
structure; that structure is not only seen as restrictive, but that it also has supporting, enabling,
and/or empowering potential. Therefore, for example, Giddens (1984) refers to structure as a
set of rules and resources.
It is also important that structure restricts or enables people differentially (Sewell 1992).
The occupancy of various social positions characterized by gender, class, education, ethnicity,
occupation, age, sexual orientation, and other categories of identification restrict or enable
access to different resources and possibilities of action. Like agency, structure is not static, a
fixed idea, and needs to be seen in the context of individual life experiences.
The various positions that people occupy within social structures can be grasped through
the concept of intersectionality, which takes into account the multiple grounds of identity and
the way in which they are constructed in the social world (Crenshaw 1991). It stresses how
‘subjectivity is constituted by mutually reinforcing vectors of race, gender, class, and sexuality’
(Nash 2008: 2) and other axes of social distinctions or dimensions of life situations. Using
domestic violence as an example, Crenshaw (1991) demonstrates that it is necessary to reflect
not only upon the gendered character of the problem, but also its intersection with other
categories (e.g. race and class). For example, battered women of one ethnic background
experience a situation in different ways from women who do not share the same ethnic
backgrounds; therefore, the possibilities of help for these women may also be very limited if
different intersectional obstacles are not taken into account. The concept of intersectionality
allows us to ‘capture inequality and oppression within groups of women, and not only among
women and men’ (Mattsson 2014: 10).
This approach enables us to analyse both the individual life situations of women who
have experience with drug use and a variety of structural characteristics, thus preventing
oversimplification and generalisation of gendered relations. In researching the situation of
female drug users, I consider it very important to take into account the intersection of class,
ethnicity9
, age and sexual orientation; however, the list of characteristics may be intrinsically
unlimited and is always dependent on individualised context and situations. Furthermore, the
categories that play crucial roles cannot be taken for granted. In accordance with Crenshaw
(1991), black women might be described as ‘multiple burdened’, but there is a risk of
overestimating the negative impact of these categories while at the same time other important
categories or influences, such as sexuality, age, or individual dispositions, which in a particular
situation play more important roles, may be overlooked. As Staunæs and Søndergaard explain,
‘in empirical contexts there actually are situations where a sociocultural category like gender is
surpassed by other categories, for example ethnicity. ‘Surpassed’ does not mean that ‘gender’
9
In the context of the Czech Republic, I find it more appropriate to use the term ‘ethnicity’ rather than ‘race’. The
direct equivalent to the English word ‘race’ in the Czech language is largely used in the sense of ‘breed’ and has
strong negative connotations with Nazism (Kolářová 2009). ‘Ethnicity’ is a commonly-used term when referring
to Roma people, who also constitute a significant proportion of drug users in the Czech Republic (Mravčík et al.
2013).
20
doesn´t mean anything at all, but it means that other categories might be more pivotal.’ (Staunæs
and Søndergaard 2011: 51).
Furthermore, the intersection of social categories not only reinforces disadvantages or
oppression, but may destabilize or neutralize their influence or reinforce the structural sources
of support (Staunæs 2003; Staunæs and Søndergaard 2011; Lykke 2010).
Staunæs (2003) argues that it is important to understand that categories such as ethnicity
or gender are not special minority issues. Powerful, privileged people are part of the gender or
class structures as well. Who occupies the majority/minority, non/privileged, non/powerful
position is not fixed, but varies and changes in space and time. However restrictive the
conditions might be, the position is negotiated through interaction.
1.2.2.2 Subjects in the Social Environment
The social environment can be defined as the context in which a person is living and interacting
with other subjects. I use the definition of social environment which puts emphasis on the
interaction as an ongoing mutual process through which both the person and the environment
are changing. The interaction is shaped by interpretations of experiences and expectations that
the person has gained from the environment and vice versa. Thus, the social environment is not
perceived as something that exists independently from the person, their experience and
interaction (Musil 2013a). Kemp also defines ‘environment as an active social process, rather
than just a fixed backdrop for human relationships. It follows, then, that environments both
reflect and construct power relations and that they do so at multiple levels’ (2001: 14).
Firstly, I would like to point out that the term social environment is not perceived here
as essentially different from the term social structure; they are used interchangeably. On the
other hand, the reason why I use the term social environment as a complement to social structure
is that in my approach, it refers to a different level of interactions. Through the concept of social
environment, I identify the subjects with which the female drug users are in direct interaction
with. These subjects can be individuals (e.g. partners, friends, acquaintances) as well as
institutions (e.g. Employment Office, hospitals, or social services). In my analysis, I focus on
interactions with institutions (e.g. drop-in centre, Child Welfare Office), but also how these
interactions happen through relations with people who represent them (e.g. particular workers).
For instance, interaction with an institution might be perceived as repressive or supportive based
on the rules and services provided by the institution, or they may be repressive or supportive
based on the interaction with the particular worker or representative.
The interaction with subjects in social environments can be illustrated using an example
of a mother in contact with a Child Welfare institution. The mother is in interaction with the
Child Welfare institutions, for instance, through its rules, which she tries to follow; she is also
in interaction with a particular social worker from the institution who represents sources of
support and certain expectations of the institution, in addition to her own.
At the same time, there is also the intersectional level through which I analyse how
structural characteristics operate in particular situations. Through this perspective, the
interaction between mother and Child Welfare social worker is influenced by their gender,
class, ethnicity, etc. and the stereotypes they ascribe to these categories. For instance, the
mother can be perceived by the worker as incompetent due to her ethnicity or low social class.
However, she can be also perceived as competent due to her age and experience of already
having some children. Similarly, the mother perceives the social worker in the context of
structural characteristics. For instance, she might perceive a young, childless social worker as
incompetent to work in a Child Welfare institution.
As was already pointed out, the terms social structure and social environment can be
perceived as synonyms and I use them interchangeably. However, as a more detailed definition,
21
I suggest that social structure is more an umbrella term for all levels in which the interactions
take place. Therefore, they include the subjects of the social environment, which are individuals
and institutions, as well as the level in which the relations of power operate on the basis of
structural characteristics such as gender, class, and ethnicity.
As follows from the discussion in this subchapter, the term interaction is crucial.
Therefore in the following chapter, I conclude how agency and structure are conceptualised
through their interaction.
1.2.3 Agency in Interaction with Social Structure
Contemporary social science scholars, while writing about agency are almost in total agreement
that agency and social structure need to be seen in mutual interaction. They highlight the
importance of intersubjectivity and social interaction as crucial components of agentic
processes, depicting agency as always in a dialogical process with structural context (Emirbayer
and Mische 1998). They are also very critical about too much emphasis on one or the other. At
the same time, to conceptualise the interaction is not a simple task.
An important discussion about the relation between social and cultural structures of
society and human action can be identified in Bourdieu’s theory of practice (1977). Bourdieu
is also against the separation of agency and structure and this reservation is expressed in a
critique of the division between subjectivism and objectivism (Bourdieu 1977, Bourdieu and
Wacquant 1992).
Bourdieu describes the main problem of objectivism is that it is concerned only with
social structures and disregards the issue of agency. Subjectivism, on the other hand, reduces
the social world to representations of actors. ‘If social action is to be properly understood, then
it is important to analyse the representations that actors have of the world and the way these
inform action and interaction. Such representations cannot be deduced from social structures.’
(McNay 2004: 183).
Giddens is another of the crucial figures in the debate about agency and structure. His
‘theory of structuration’ already in its name indicates that structure is regarded as a process, not
as a steady state. ‘The basic domain of study of the social sciences, according to the theory of
structuration, is neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of
societal totality, but social practices ordered across space and time.’ (Giddens 1984: 2). Giddens
(1984) also points out that structure is both constraining but also supporting, or, as was already
discussed, a set of rules and resources.
In this chapter, I have discussed how the overly narrow definition of agency and social
structure as well as the lack of attention to their interaction lead to a dichotomous perception of
the life situation of female drug users. In this dichotomous perception, they tend to be depicted
as rather powerless victims of structural oppressions or as volitional agents. Therefore, I have
suggested a broadened definition of social structure and agency which facilitates in the
understanding of their interaction.
I have defined agency as the capacity to act to overcome structural constraints, as well
as the capacity to use structural resources and support to the benefit of self and/or others. Social
structure is defined as not only restricting and oppressing, but as enabling and empowering.
Thus, agency and structural conditions are inseparably bound and in constant interaction. The
exercise of agency is shaped by and at the same time shapes social structure, and vice versa.
Furthermore, the concept of intersectionality enables the analysis of the intersection of
the various social categories in order to understand their influence, whether individuals occupy
dis/advantaged, non/privileged, or majority/minority positions. The operationalisation of social
structure through the concept of subjects and social environment allows me to explore structure
22
through interactions on the level of interactions between individuals and institutions.
The interaction between subjects and social environments is defined as an ongoing
active process where both the individuals and the environment are changing and influencing
each other. This is very important in the context of social work. The emphasis on complexity
and the indirect participants of the interactions creates a basis for the definition of the role of
social worker and identity of social work as profession (Musil 2013b). Practice where the social
worker focuses on interactions and works with all subjects who are involved is an important
precondition for social change, which is one of the aims of social work. This topic will be
discussed further in the following chapter.
23
1.3 The Social Work Context
It is important to point out that the main research question of this thesis concerns the living
situation of women who have experience with long-term drug use. This means that they are not
necessarily perceived as clients of social work. The main aim of the thesis is to understand and
explore the situation from the point of view of the women, in the wide variety of roles which
they describe themselves. Since all the research participants were in contact with social workers
from various institutions, an important part of their narratives also concern their experiences as
clients of social work. However the aim was to gain a deeper understanding of their whole life
situation.
The reason for excluding the implications for social work from the main research
question was not because I think it is not relevant. In my opinion, the findings of the thesis have
very interesting and important implications for social work practice. Therefore, I do not
perceive this chapter about social work, and later the recommendations, as a minor topic within
the whole thesis. However, I find it very important to clarify that the aim was not to explore the
life situation in direct relation to social work. This stance has allowed me to deal more easily
with the judgements and moral dilemmas that were coming into play when listening to reports
about, for instance, illegal violent activities. This is not to say that it prevented me from
perceiving the ethical issues or confrontations with moral judgements and prejudices. Focusing
on deep understanding, rather than thinking about interventions or my own assumptions about
how social work with women who use drugs should or should not look like, helped me be more
open to the participants’ own views and interpretations.
At the same time, the division between my own research and the social work context is
to some extent illusory. As will be explained in this chapter, I set the topic of the thesis in an
environmental perspective and a critical social work framework, for which the interaction
between individuals and social environment is crucial. Thus it is possible to see this chapter and
the following recommendations for social work as an extension of agency – structuring the
discussion into another context. The employed social work theories also put emphasis on
sources of knowledge which come from the social work clients themselves. Clients’
participation in the decision-making process about social work interventions was in accord with
the whole approach of the thesis.
In the first chapter (1.3.1), I introduce the environmental perspective, which allows me
to explain how the topic of my thesis is related to the social work context. Through a discussion
of the crisis of knowledge and crisis of identity, and different views on social work, I explain
why I placed my approach within the transformative social work theories – particularly critical
social work theory, which will be introduced in the second chapter (1.3.2).
1.3.1 The Environmental Perspective
The environmental perspective, which focuses on the interaction between individuals and their
social environment, can be seen as an essential feature of social work (Kemp 2001). For
instance, Payne defines professional social work as ‘[a] service and practice using social and
psychological sciences in interpersonal interactions with people, especially from deprived
social groups and experiencing practical and emotional difficulties in social relationships.’
(2006: 5).
On the basis of this definition, it is possible to clearly define social work in light of other
disciplines and helping professions. For instance, doctors, nurses, psychologists and teachers
work with individuals, but do not aim for social change. On the other hand, professions such as
politicians, economists, or journalists do strive for social change, but do not work with
24
individuals (Payne 2006). Contrary to these professions, social work connects personal help
with social change. It aims at social transformation and individual improvement through
interpersonal relationships (Payne 2006).
At the same time, social workers’ primary focus on interaction does not mean that the
understanding of the individual as well as the structural level of the problem is not important.
It is rather the opposite, since the social worker needs to have a good understanding of both.
However, the problems in interactions are at the centre of the interventions.
When talking about interventions and problems, we also need to consider that these do
not exist as objective entities. Social work theories and approaches differ substantially
depending on what they see as the source of knowledge about the problems in the interactions,
and who they regard as competent and entitled to define what the problem is and what an
appropriate form of intervention is10
.
These are topics closely related to power and power relations and are critically reflected,
for instance, in the postmodern feminist perspective, as a part of the discussion on the crisis of
knowledge and crisis of identity in social work (Rossiter 2000).
When it comes to the subjects of interventions, Payne states that social work ‘balances
three objectives: maintaining social order and providing social welfare services effectively,
helping people attain personal fulfilment and power over their lives and stimulating social
change’ (Payne 2006: 5). We can clearly see that social work is defined as a profession which
works with clients as well as other subjects in the social environment. However, the practice of
social work is quite variable, depending on who social workers define as clients, how much
they work with the social environment, and what they perceive as social change. This is
reflected in different views on social work as defined by Payne (2005).
In the following two subchapters, I will briefly discuss the crisis of knowledge and
identity and different views on social work in order to place the perspective I employ in this
thesis in the context of social work theory.
1.3.1.1 The Crisis of Knowledge and Crisis of Identity
Postmodern thinking has brought into social work an important critique related to the sources
of knowledge and exercise of power.
It has raised some crucial questions: Where does the knowledge in social work come
from? Which authorities define what the source of social work’s professional knowledge is?
What are their interests? Who benefits from it and who does not? What are the limits of this
knowledge? These have contributed to what is called the crisis of knowledge in social work
(Rossiter 2000).
The crisis of knowledge questioned the assumed sources of understanding of clients’
lives and the definitions of problems; it turned attention to the clients themselves as an
important source of knowledge. ‘In these ways, clients gain power over their own feelings and
way of life’ (Payne 2005: 9). The client has been recognized as an important source of
knowledge about his/her own situation, as the one who can teach the worker about it, not only
the other way round.
That approach taken in my thesis can be seen as a contribution to the effort to gain
knowledge for social work from the perspective of the clients or potential clients themselves.
By this I do not claim that the knowledge produced in my thesis is a direct representation of the
participants’ experiences or opinions. I remain critical about the idea of ‘giving voice’ to
10
This discussion is important, for instance, in the context of participatory approaches, which are based on
supporting clients’ increased participation in decision-making as well as the whole design of the service provided
by social workers.
25
marginalized people through, for instance, academic research. The research findings are the
product of a researcher’s, not participants’, interpretations of the situations. The data are also
heavily influenced by the context in which they were generated, through interaction between
researcher and participants. On the other hand, the thesis brings insight to the life situation
mediated by women who have experience with drug use themselves, therefore creating a source
of knowledge.
The crisis of knowledge is closely related to the crisis of social work identity, which can
be defined through the notion that it ‘cast[s] doubts on social work’s historical assumption about
the innocence of providing help’ (Rossiter 2000: 24). It drives attention to power relations
which are part of all social work interventions. Power is present in the administration of help
itself, for instance, by defining the rules and conditions (e.g. only clients who are abstaining
from drugs are eligible for the service). But power is also present in the language used in
defining the problems and aims of the interventions. In this way, social workers exercise power,
for instance, when they reduce the complex life situation of their client to the label ‘addict’.
Such a label indicates that what is defined as the client’s problem is drug addiction and very
likely the solution would be treatment and abstinence from drugs, which cause the addiction.
This label basically excludes other dimensions and characteristics of the person (e.g. survivor
of domestic violence, parent, employee). Therefore, when talking about the target group of the
thesis, I prefer to use the term ‘women who have experience with drug use’, rather than ‘drug
users’, which reduces their life experience to merely one dimension.
However, the critical perspective, brought into social work through postmodern
thinking, does not mean that the desired stage is to create practice which is free of power
relations. Power can be seen as repressive, but also as a constructive force, as Dominelli (2002)
points out: power is not only exercised ‘over’ someone (e.g. social worker over client). Power
also means ‘power to’, which indicates the capacity to do things or take action, or we can
recognise power ‘of’ which emanates from collective action.
We can see how closely related power is to agency, thus it is not something which should
be diminished. It is rather the power structures which need to be critically reflected upon, so
one is aware of how they operate in the practice of social work and what impact they have on
the interventions or relations between workers and clients.
1.3.1.2 Different Views on Social Work
Payne recognizes three views on social work. Firstly, he distinguishes therapeutic views, which
can be characterized ‘as seeking the best possible well-being for individuals, groups and
communities in society, by promoting and facilitating growth and self-fulfilment.’ (Payne 2006:
10). It is expressed through the focus on interaction between client and worker as a way in
which they also modify each other’s views and understanding of the situation.
Secondly, transformational views on social work aim ‘to develop cooperation and
mutual support in society so that the most oppressed and disadvantaged people can gain power
over their own lives. It facilitates this by empowering people to take part in a process of learning
and cooperation’ (Payne 2006: 11). Transformational views aim to identify social relations that
‘cause people’s problems, and make social changes so that the problems do not arise’ (Payne
2006:12). These views are similar to what are also called emancipatory approaches (e.g. Pease
and Fook 1999), where social justice is seen as one of the most important values.
Thirdly, in social order views, ‘social work [is] an aspect of welfare services to
individuals in societies. It meets individual’s needs and improves services of which it is part,
so that social work and the services can operate more effectively. [… S]ocial work as
maintaining the social order and social fabric of society, and maintain people during any period
26
of difficulties that they may be experiencing, so that they may revolve stability again.’ (Payne
2006: 12). The help is provided so that people ‘will fit in with general social expectations better’
(Payne 2006: 12).
While referring to Payne’s different views on social work, I place the approach of this
thesis into the transformative views. However, it is not possible, nor the purpose here, to
identify an approach as strictly belonging to one view. In practice, the approaches usually lie
between the different views. However, it was important to ascribe it as most related to the
transformative views. All views on social work aim for social change and empowerment, but
for the transformative views, as well as my approach, they are central. This strong emphasis on
social change is related to the critique of social work in giving too much attention to individuals,
their problems and abilities to fulfil the expectations of the environment. This lack of attention
to the structural context leads to practice which might make ‘clients responsible for problems
which have social origins’ (Payne 2005: 233). Such a practice is not only ineffective, but also
contributes to clients’ further victimisation (Payne 2005, Rossiter 2000).
The critique is also based on the opinion that if social workers do not aim their
interventions towards the subjects in their social environment, they solely make the clients ‘fit’
or ‘adjust to the present social order, rather than question and fight against undesirable features
of contemporary society’ (Payne 2005: 233). Such a focus only on the individual level is
basically in contradiction to wider social change, thus social workers fail to fulfil one of the
main aims of social work. A discussion on this situation in the Czech Republic is provided by
Janebová (2012), or Šveřepa (2008).
In the context of social work with women who have experience with drug use, we can
recognize the tendency to individualize their problems (e.g. by making them responsible for the
drug use without seeing the wider structural consequences of their situation). Thus people who
are using drugs are sometimes seen as some kind of ‘addicts by choice’, who can at any given
time make decisions and completely change their situation. This view is clearly visible in the
case of pregnant women, who by social workers (as well as other subjects), are expected to quit
their drug use from one day to the next, simply based on the fact that they may be pregnant, for
instance. The social dimension as to why they are using drugs is not taken into account (e.g.
bad housing conditions, demanding work, drug use as a coping strategy in difficult situations).
As was explained in this chapter, a critical view on the source of knowledge in social
work, power relations, social change and empowerment are crucial topics in my approach.
These topics are also central for critical social work, therefore, I use them as a part of the main
theoretical background of my thesis.
1.3.2 Critical Social Work Theory
Critical theory is important theoretical background of the thesis for its emphasis on social
change and empowerment. This perspective, which strongly emphasises social change needs to
be seen in a wider historical perspective. Critical social work scholars criticise traditional social
work tendency to assume ‘individual culpability for the difficult personal and social
circumstances faced by clients of the welfare state’ (Healy 2000: 3). In their view, the lack of
understanding of the structural dimension of clients’ problems leads to maintaining and
reinforcing oppression and inequality. This happens if social work interventions are aimed only
to strengthening clients’ abilities to cope with expectations and demands from the environment,
but does not enforce the need for change on the side of the environment.
Therefore, critical social work is strongly preoccupied with structural analysis of the
clients’ situation. It refuses to take current social order for granted and is also actively looking
for social change (Payne 2005). A critical approach develops ‘a consciousness which is able to
27
imagine the transformability of current arrangements’ (Fook 1999: 201), thus we can see it in
sharp contrast to traditional or positivist approaches, which ‘foster alienation, or the experience
of being distanced from the capacity to change the situation’ (Fook 1999: 201).
Critical social work incorporated feminist, anti-discrimination and anti-oppressive
perspectives (Thompson 2006), structural social work, as well as postmodern and construction
ideas (Healy 2014; Payne 2005; Pease and Fook 1999). It contains important elements of radical
social work (Payne 2005) and is based on the principle ‘that the aim of social work should be
to empower less powerful people and groups’ (Pease and Fook 1999: 8). Therefore,
emancipatory practice and the empowerment of clients to question and change existing power
relations are crucial features of the critical approach.
Empowerment is one of the central concepts for critical social work, however, it is also
rather problematic, since it is understood in many various ways. In the following subchapter, I
provide a brief discussion of several different definitions and conclude how the concept of
empowerment is understood in this thesis.
1.3.2.1 Empowerment and Critical Reflection
‘Empowerment is like democracy: everyone is for it, but rarely do people mean the same thing
by it’ (Young 1994: 48).
As is indicated in the quote by Young (1994) and is echoed by Adams, empowerment
‘does not correspond to a single existing social work method, although it can be shown to have
links with all of them’ (2003: 5). The concept can be understood in different ways.
One way is to see ‘empowerment as a psychological quality.’ From this point of view,
individuals are inherently autonomous and self-determining, therefore, empowerment is ‘a
psychological quality that provides individuals with the feeling that they can control the
direction of their lives’ (Pollack 2000: 76). Social work practice is then aimed at enhancing a
client’s feelings of self-worth, self-control, autonomy and confidence (Pollack 2000, Young
1994).
Another way of understanding this is to see ‘empowerment as a social change’, thus as
a part of social dimension. Individuals are seen as ‘empowered through sharing experiences,
raising consciousness, collective action and advocacy’ (Pollack 2000: 76). Equal distribution
of material resources, legislative, policy, organizational changes (Pollack 2000) and the
‘development of a sense of collective influence over the social conditions of one's life’ (Young
1994: 48) are seen as crucial. Empowerment is here grounded in the tradition of ‘mutual aid,
self-help and, more recently, movements of liberation, rights and social activism’ (Adams 2003:
5).
The third way of understanding it is as the ‘empowerment as social work method’,
therefore, as a set of practitioner skills. This is ‘the desired outcome or product of a social
service intervention’ (Pollack 2000: 76).
Pollack (2000) offers definitions of empowerment which equate it either with the
individual (empowerment as a psychological quality), or social (empowerment as social
change) dimension. It is also suggested that empowerment can be defined as a social work
method. Consistently with the approach of this thesis, which sees individual agency as bound
together with social structure, also in the definition of empowerment I suggest including both
the individual and social dimensions. Therefore, I do not see these two definitions as mutually
exclusive but as complementary. I define empowerment as an individual psychological quality
28
that provides the feeling that one can control the direction of his/her life, but also the
development of a sense of collective influence over the social conditions of one's life.
In accordance with Adams, I am critical about seeing empowerment as a social work
method. As Adams argues, it is problematic if empowerment is perceived as something ‘which
is done to you’ (2003: 15), that it is the professional who empowers the client. Or as Payne puts
it, ‘[p]ower might not be given to people, they must be helped to take it for themselves’ (Payne
2005: 296). Social workers are in a kind of double-edged position, where they work as the
mediators between clients and society. In this position, workers might exercise care but also
control, thus leading to empowerment but also potential oppression of the clients (Thompson
2006).
It is also important to bear in mind that one person’s empowerment may be another
person’s disempowerment (Fook 2002). This can happen unintentionally, but also as a part of
a deliberate exercise of power. For example, clients can exercise agency, but not in the way the
worker sees as appropriate, therefore, acting against it (e.g. it can be perceived as socially
unacceptable when women express anger, aggression, or use violence).
A critical perspective thus places strong emphasis on the analysis of complex webs of
power relations in society. For many feminist scholars, particularly the unequal distribution of
power between women and men is important. However, Dominelli (2002) points out that power
is distributed at a number of different levels and variety of power relations, which can exist not
only between men and women but among women themselves. The same argument creates the
core basis of the intersectionality approach (Mattsson 2014). Crinall gives a very illustrative
example when she writes about female social work clients who claim that the feminist
movement has nothing to offer them, or that it makes them to feel even worse and less adequate,
because they cannot ‘identify with independent, well-paid, educated, childless, politically
astute, powerful image they carried of feminist’ (1999: 73). The social workers had everything
the clients wanted and needed: ‘a job, a home, money, an education and power (over the young
women)’ (1999: 73). Crinall’s example contests the idea that if ‘women work with or for other
women,’ it automatically means feminist or gender-sensitive social work practice. However,
this topic is important for the whole of social work practice, through which social workers
exercise power over the clients.
As we can see, empowerment concerns clients as well as workers, who can crucially
support as well as restrict power. As I have already argued, I do not see empowerment as a
specific method or technique of social work which can be simply ‘implemented’ in practice. At
the same time, it is something that is the desired result of social work intervention. To which
extent empowerment is a result of social work intervention depends also on the ability of social
workers to reflect how their own ‘actions and interpretations, social and cultural background
and personal history, emotional aspects of experience, and personally held assumptions and
values influencing the situation’ (Fook 1999: 199).
In this critical approach, critical reflection11
develops which can be a useful tool for
social workers to examine and understand how they might be maintaining or reinforcing
oppression and inequality. It allows the social worker to become aware of the sources of
discrimination in a wider social context, but also in their own practice.
11
Fook points out that it is important to distinguish critical social work, or the critical approach to the reflective
approach, which is ‘based on a questioning of the usefulness of traditional approach to knowledge-building for
professionals, since traditional approaches seem to result in a disjuncture between the “theory’ and the ‘practice”
of professionals (1999: 200). But it does not necessarily aim at social change. However, contrary to Fook,
Thompson and Thompson define critical reflective practice, which includes both, challenging traditional
knowledge-building and positivism, as well as aims to social change. As they say, every truly reflective practice
is also critical practice (2008).
29
Mattsson (2014) comments that the critical approach is theorizing about rather general
structures of power, which might be for the practice of social work sometimes rather abstract
concepts. Mattsson argues for the use of intersectionality, which can make the understanding
of the oppressive structures more explicit. ‘Intersectionality is a usable approach for critical
social work since it highlights gender, sexuality, class and race, and makes it possible to
understand and problematize the unequal relation between the social worker and the client in a
complex way’ (2014: 12).
Also in my thesis, I employ the concept of intersectionality not only to better understand
the structural characteristics influencing the exercise of agency, but also when suggesting
recommendations for social work with women drug users.
30
2 Methodology
In the first chapter (2.1) of the methodological part of the thesis, I will explain the use of
qualitative research strategy and the implication it has for the selection of research techniques
as well as the approach to data analysis and interpretation.
In the second chapter (2.2), I introduce particular research techniques through which the
data has been generated. It consists of unstructured repeated interviews and focus groups.
In the third chapter (2.3), I describe purposive and snowball sampling as the methods of
sample selection, as well as providing an overview of some general characteristics of the
selected sample of participants.
Fourth chapter (2.4) provides the operationalization of the research question, which will
be answered on the basis of six partial research questions that were derived from the theoretical
framework of the thesis.
In the fifth chapter (2.5), I introduce the narrative approach and discuss how it will be
used for data analysis and interpretation. I also consider its implications for the validity of the
research.
In the sixth chapter (2.6), I provide a description and critical reflection on the research
context, identifying the strong parts as well as the limits of the research.
2.1 Qualitative Research Strategy
Silverman (1997) recognises two main ‘schools of social science’: positivism and interpretative
social science. Positivism employs the concept of social facts and is based on testing
correlations between variables (quantitative hypothesis testing). As an opposite, we can see
interpretative social science, which uses the concepts of social construction and meaning and is
more ‘concerned with observation and description and, at best, generating hypotheses’
(Silverman 1997: 21).
The goal of this thesis is not to test any hypothesis concerning whether the female drug
users use or do not use their agency, but to gain a deep understanding of how they exercise the
agency in their interaction with the social environment. Therefore, the primary issue will be to
generate data which provide an authentic insight into participants’ experiences (Silverman
1997). The main way to achieve this will be unstructured, in-depth interviews and focus groups.
In my research, I will employ qualitative strategy, which is based on inductive
principles. This means that, contrary to the deductive principles, the researcher begins with as
few perceptions as possible, to allow the theory to emerge from the data (O’Reilly 2009).
However the inductive – deductive division can be seen as illusionary to some extent. I started
the research already with a theoretical framework based on literature review, but also practical
experience which I gained as a social worker with drug users. The research is thus not a linear
process which has lead me from one point to another, but an integral on-going process where
its parts are overlapping, or even running concurrently. This is what O’Reilly (2009) calls the
‘iterative-inductive approach’. Research ‘moves back and forth iteratively between theory
and analysis, data and interpretation’ (O’Reilly 2009: 105) 12
.
12
According to Ezzy (In O’Reilly 2009: 105), ‘all data are theory driven. The point is not to pretend they are not,
or force the data into theory. Rather the researcher should enter into an ongoing simultaneous process of deduction
and induction, of theory building, testing and rebuilding.’ This approach can also be called ‘dialectical’ or
‘abduction’.
31
Qualitative research strategy refers to the way how data will be interpreted, rather than
only to the nature of the data. As Konopásek (1997) states, we do not work with qualitative
data, but we work with data qualitatively.
The methodology of this thesis is grounded in social constructionism and the
interpretivist paradigm through which the data are seen as generated, or constructed through
the interaction between researcher and participants. Following this, ‘the social context of the
interview is intrinsic to understanding any data that are obtained’ (Silverman 1997: 94).
The basic approach to data interpretation will be narrative analysis, which refers to a
diverse set of methods, a ‘family’ of interpretive approaches (Riessman 2008). It offers a useful
analytical tool to interpret the data in the context of interviews through which they were
generated.
2.2 Research Techniques
Maher (1997) points out that if we want to research the exercise of agency and at the same time
avoid simplification of victims or villains, ‘we must get close enough to see.’ She claims that
the majority of stereotypical simplifications ‘which dominate the literature stem in part from a
reliance on the methods’ (1997: 201), which lack a temporal frame and observation. In order to
gain deeper insight, she recommends using interviews which are repeated over time, since ‘the
one-time interview misses the changing and fluid nature of relations’ (Maher 1997: 201).
For reasons well expressed by Mahler (1997), my research employs the technique of
repeated, unstructured interviews. This technique has allowed me a deep understanding of the
research problem, also in the context of various changes happening over a longer time period.
I also conducted several focus groups, which served as an important supplementary
technique to the individual interviews. The context of group discussion brought more profound
understanding of some of the themes mentioned in the individual interviews.
In the following two subchapters, I will explain how I used the interviews and focus
groups in the research. In subchapter 2.6, I discuss and critically reflect of the context of the
interviews and focus groups.
2.2.1 Interviews
The basic method through which data was generated consisted of unstructured in-depth
interviews repeated several times over one year (February 2013 – February 2014).
Open-ended questions were used to encourage the participants to talk about their life,
experiences and events currently happening in their lives, but not necessarily connected to their
drug use. This was to allow participants’ own themes and issues to emerge. The goal of the
interview was to generate detailed accounts of the participants’ life situations, rather than just
brief answers or general statements to my specific questions (Riessman 2008).
The interviews were unstructured in that I did not have any preliminary plan or list with
topics and questions which needed to be answered. The only intention was to create a space
where the participants could feel comfortable to talk about anything they wanted, rather than
feel forced or expected to speak about a topic brought up by me. In this way, the interviews
were structured by the context of the interview (e.g. presence of other people) and topics that
the participants spoke about. Sometimes I asked questions to better understand the situations or
topics that the participants were describing.
The interviews were also repeated several times over one year. This was to gain a temporal
framework for the data and was also very important for gaining a good rapport between me and
the participants.
32
2.2.2 Focus groups
Morgan defines focus groups ‘as a research technique that collects data through group
interaction on a topic determined by the researcher. In essence, it is the researcher’s interest that
provides the focus, whereas the data themselves come from the group interaction’ (1997:6).
Similar to the individual interviews, I kept the focus groups rather unstructured and let
the participants discuss whatever topics they wanted. This unstructured and rather informal
character of the meetings was to a great extent what lead to the specific situation that inspired
me to choose the focus group as another research technique.
The first reason to organize a focus group was that some of the participants were actually
friends. Although the closeness of their friendships was changing over time, the first occasion
occurred after one of the interviews when the interviewee and I met two other participants and
talked for a while. Since the discussion became quite lively, I asked if they would like to meet
like that again – all four of us as a group. All agreed, so for the next meeting I invited all three
participants together. Prior to this meeting, I asked each of them individually if they would
agree to meet with the other two. So the impulse to conduct focus groups was a spontaneous
response to the situation where all three participants were close friends (and also living in the
same garden colony).
In total I conducted four focus groups, with four different participants (three times there
were three participants and once there were two participants). The focus groups all took place
within two months, when the participants were in close contact and therefore it was also easy
to organize the meeting.
Although I told the other participants that I was conducting group interviews, they were
not interested in participating in them. One participant actually strictly refused the idea of taking
part in a group interview. She stated that it was because she had a new-born child and did not
want to talk about her situation (including using drugs) in front of other people. For her it was
a serious matter of confidentiality.
After some contact with participants (e.g. phone call, email) and the interview or focus
group, I made notes about it in my research diary: the date and place of the interview, who was
present and plans for future meetings.
2.2.3 Informed Consent and Confidentiality
All research participants were informed about the purpose of the interviews and focus groups.
If they were interested, I gave them more information about my thesis and research topic.
Participants were also informed about the confidentiality of all the information and that
they would be written about in anonymized form. No real names of people or places were used
in the thesis, nor any other information which could disclose the participants’ identity.
All interviews and focus groups were audio recorded. And all participants gave
informed consent with the audio recording and use of the data for my thesis. All the other people
(except children) who were present at the interviews were informed about the purpose of the
meeting and the audio recording.
All interviews and focus groups were conducted in Czech language and for the purpose
of this thesis translated by the researcher.
33
2.3 Sample selection
My research does not aim to be ‘representative’ in terms of statistic covering of the whole
population. The intention was to use a sample selection which allowed me to generate data that
would be good, although not exhaustive representation of the phenomena.
For the sample selection, I used purposive and snowball sampling. Purposive
sampling aims to fulfil two key purposes. One is to ‘ensure that all criteria of relevance are
included. A second key purpose is to access a diverse sample […]. It is fairly common, for
example, to ensure a sample includes the criteria of gender, age, ethnicity, and social class
background’ (O’Reilly 2009: 197). Therefore, on the basis of purposive sampling, I chose
participants who represented given criteria. The first criterion was that they were women (or
identified with female gender); the second was that they were long-term users of
methamphetamines13
. It was not relevant whether the women were using or had experience with
other substances (e.g. alcohol, opiates). The third criterion was to ensure variability of the
sample; therefore, there was the inclusion of a woman who is identified with Roma ethnicity,
since Roma people represent a substantial part of drug users in the Czech Republic.
However, there was one more step in the purposive sampling prior to the selection of
the participants: the purposive selection of the organization through which I contacted the first
three participants. In order to get in touch with the target group of long-term users of
methamphetamines, I contacted workers from a non-governmental organization which is the
only provider of services for drug users in the city where the research was conducted. The
workers agreed that I could come to the drop-in centre and ask some of their clients if they
wanted to participate in the research. When I visited the centre, the workers helped me to get in
contact with some of the female clients who fulfilled the criterion of being a long-term user of
methamphetamines. This lead to contact with my first three participants.
Since there were no Roma women visiting the drop-in centre, I contacted an
organization which provides social services in a socially marginalized area where there are
Roma people and people who use drugs. Through this organization I contacted one participant.
I got in touch with three more participants using snowball sampling. When using this
technique, researcher asks participants who are already involved in the research to nominate
some other participants. This way the sample selection starts with one or few participants and
through their networks are recruited other participants who fulfil the given criteria of sample
selection (Harnoll et al. 1997). Snowball sampling technique is very useful particularly in
situation when potential participant are part of ‘hard to reach populations’ such as users of illicit
drugs and therefore the researcher would have difficulties to contact them directly.
To support the snowball effect, I distributed leaflets to participants I was already in
touch with. The leaflet included my contact details, information that I am conducting interviews
with women who have experience using methamphetamine and that I would pay 70 CZK for
each interview.
Although the purposive sampling at the drop-in centre and snowball sampling through
the participants did not include other criteria than gender and experience with
methamphetamines, the total sample was quite variable with regards to age, housing situation,
family and childcare situation, as well as the age of drug use initiation or class/education level
(for details see Table 1). The criterion of variability with regards to ethnicity was fulfilled
through purposive sampling in another organization.
13
Related to the definition of ‘problem drug user’, which I give in chapter 1.1.4, particularly, that means
injecting and/or long-term users of methamphetamines.
34
In total I was in contact with 7 participants and conducted 21 interviews. With 4
participants I also conducted 4 focus groups; three times the groups involved 3 participants
and once there were 2 participants.
Table 1. Basic demographic data and information about the number of interviews
Partici
pant14
Number of
interviews +
focus groups
Ag
e
Primary
drug
/ use
Education Housing situation
(February 2013February
2014)
Children
1 3 41 meth /
i15
.v.
Elementar
y school
Family members’ flats none
2 3 40 meth / i.v. Secondary
school
Hostel, apartment 2 - not in
custody
1 - new-born
3 2 + 3 27 meth / i.v. Secondary
school
Garden shack, friend’s
apartment
1 – not in
custody
4 3 + 3 33 meth / i.v. Secondary
school
Garden shack, asylum
home for mothers,
hostel, apartment
3 – not in
custody
1 – new-born
5 4 25 meth / i.v. Secondary
school
Garden shack, hostel 1 – not in
custody
pregnant
6 2 + 1 45 meth / i.v. Elementar
y school
Asylum home for
mothers, garden shack,
apartment, hostel
3 – not in
custody
2 – in custody
7 4 + 4 25 meth / i.v. Secondary
school
Apartment, garden
shack, friends’
apartments
none
14
In the empirical part of the thesis, I refer to participants using pseudonyms. In this table, which presents an
overview of demographic data, I do not indicate the participants’ names to secure anonymity.
15
i.v. refers to intravenous drug use.
35
2.4 Operationalisation
The main research question of the thesis is:
‘How do women who have experience with long-term drug use16
exercise agency in their
narratives about interaction with important subjects in their social environment?’
The main research question will be answered on the basis of six partial research
questions which are based on the theoretical conceptualization of agency and its interaction
with social structure.
The main research techniques were unstructured, repeated in-depth interviews, which
were used to create space where participants could choose which themes and interactions with
the subjects they wanted to talk about. Therefore, at the beginning of the interview, participants
were asked only general questions such as: Can you tell me something about yourself, about
your plans for today, the next few days, how you are doing?
At the repeated interviews the conversation usually started with talking about what had
happened since we met last. The focus groups started with this discussion since I had met all
the participants before.
The partial research questions and main research question will be answered based on
thematic and dialogic/performance narrative analysis of transcribed records from the interviews
and focus groups which contain participants’ autonomous and spontaneous narratives about
their interaction with subjects in the social environment.
More detailed information about thematic and dialogic/performance analysis and how
they are used to answer the partial research question is given in chapter (X.Y).
1. Which are the main themes in female drug users’ narratives about
interaction with important subjects in their social environment?
This question will be answered through the thematic analysis of transcribed records from the
interviews and focus groups which contain the participants’ narratives about their interaction
with subjects in the social environment.
2. Which are the important subjects in female drug users’ narratives about
interaction with the social environment?
This question will be answered through the dialogic/performance analysis of transcribed
records from the interviews and focus groups by identifying all the people and institutions that
are mentioned in participants’ narratives about their interaction with the social environment.
The criterion for the person or institution to be defined as important is that they have
been mentioned as a subject in the interaction.
3. How do the important subjects work as a source of constraint and/or
support in female drug users’ narratives about their interaction with the social
environment?
This question will be answered through the dialogic/performance analysis of transcribed
records from the interviews and focus groups through interpretation if the important subject
was described as a source of constraint and/or support in the participants’ narratives about their
interaction with the social environment.
16
The term ‘women who have experience with long-term drug use’, which is in the main research question used
to define the target group of the thesis, is replaced by the term ‘female drug user’ in the formulation of the partial
research questions. This is to make the term shorter; the terms are used interchangeably.
36
4. How do female drug users exercise agency in their narratives about their
interaction with important subjects in their social environment?
This question will be answered through the dialogic/performance analysis of transcribed
records from the interviews and focus groups by interpreting how the participants were using
the sources to their benefit and/or to overcome constraints in their narratives about their
interaction with the social environment.
5. How do female drug users exercise agency through constructing narratives
about their interaction with important subjects in their social environment?
This question will be answered through the dialogic/performance analysis of transcribed
records from the interviews and focus groups by interpreting how participants exercise agency
through constructing their narratives in the interview context.
6. How do female drug users exercise agency in their narratives about their
interaction with social structure?
This question will be answered through the dialogic/performance analysis of transcribed
records from the interviews and focus groups by reflecting the influence of structural
characteristics (e.g. gender, ethnicity, class, education, age) on the exercise of agency in the
participants’ narratives about their interaction with the social environment.
In the following chapter, I provide more detailed descriptions and explanations of how
the partial research questions and main research question are answered, based on the narrative
approach to the data analysis and interpretation.
37
2.5 Narrative Approach
For data analysis and interpretation, I use the narrative approach in this thesis, because it allows
me to gain a good understanding of the research problem.
Narrative theory has its roots in postmodern and constructionist stands; therefore, the
research data are not seen as objective representations or straightforward reports on
participants’ experiences or reality. Neither are the data seen as something that the researcher
‘finds’ or ‘collects’, but they are representations constructed or generated through mutual
interaction between the researcher and participants. Therefore, the context of the research and
role of the researcher need to be reflected, creating part of the data interpretation and analysis.
As Riessman points out, ‘[b]y our interviewing and transcription practices, we play a
major part in constituting the narrative data that we then analyse. Through our presence, and
listening and questioning in particular ways, we critically shape the stories participants choose
to tell’ (2008: 50)17
.
I see the narrative approach as very useful, particularly for understanding the exercise
of agency. By focusing on the content of the data, I can analyse how agency is exercised in the
participants’ narratives about their interactions with subjects. At the same time, by attention to
the research context, through the analysis of why and how the particular incidents are storied,
for whom the story was constructed and for what purpose, I recognize that agency is also
exercised through the construction of the story (Riessman 2008).
The agency exercised in interactions with subjects in social environment has been
conceptualized in the theoretical part of the thesis. In the following subchapter, I will elaborate
on the conceptualisation of agency exercised through constructing the narrative in certain ways
during the interview process. I refer to this exercise of agency as narrative discourse or narrative
identity18
.
It is important to point out that my aim is not to divide the agency exercised in the
narratives from the agency exercised through the narrative construction as two separate
concepts. They are only different dimensions of the concept of agency. Because what is the
content of the narrative is also part of the performance of the narrative. Participants choose, for
instance. which themes they will discuss, which parts of the stories they will present and which
they will silence, and how they position themselves in the stories. Therefore, both levels of
agency need to be analysed comprehensively.
2.5.1 Agency and Narrative Discourse
Discourse refers to the ways in which people make meaning of and construct the world around
them through language they use to communicate about it (Fook 2002).
Contrary to the concept of ideology, for instance, the analysis of discourse endows
people with agency. They are not seen as simply being divided between those who are
dominated and those who are subordinated, but as active agents who construct their identities
through language within and through social relations.
17
Riessman (2008) uses an analogy to photography, which is also not a ‘real picture of reality’, but reflects the
author’s views and conceptions about what is important – by focusing on something, or leaving something out.
18
Narrative discourse is closely related to narrative identity, since through storytelling individuals and groups
construct their identities. Yuval-Davis (2006) develops the point: ‘Identities are narratives, stories people tell
themselves and others about who they are (and who they are not). But the identity is fluid, always producing itself
through the combined processes of being and becoming, belonging and longing to belong. This duality is often
reflected in narratives of identity’ (in Riessman 2008: 8).
38
To analyse the exercise of agency through narrative discourse thus requires close
attention to language and how it is used in narrative performance. Besides language, it is also
the wider context in which the communication takes place that requires attention. The context
shapes the way individuals see themselves, their places in society and how they participate in
the social arrangements in which they live (Fook 2002)19
.
Thus in narrative discourse, agency is exercised through the language we use depending
on who we are speaking to and how we want our story to be understood. Depending on our
assumptions about what will be the acceptable, desired or appreciated description of our role in
the story, we position ourselves in it. For instance, a narrative about involvement in a fight can
be described through the position of someone who was attacked and victimized; through
someone who was attacked, but grateful to have survived; as well as through the position of
someone who is proud to have managed to defend themselves. These different descriptions of
the same situation allow us to recognize various narrative discourses. Through the close analysis
of the language used and the context in which the story is told, we can interpret one description
as a victim narrative and understand that it was told this way to provoke sympathy or gain
support. The other descriptions can be interpreted as survivor narratives and recognised as being
told to gain respect or amazement.
In this thesis, the narrative approach is used to analyse the exercise of agency as it is
described in the participants’ narratives about their interactions with important subjects (e.g.
the participant describes her response to a violent situation). The narrative approach is also used
to analyse how agency is exercised through performing the narrative in the context of the
interview (e.g. the participant explaining to the researcher that she is a victim / survivor /
perpetrator of the violence). Nevertheless, the wider structural context will be taken into
account (e.g. why the female participant describes herself as dominant / submissive in a fight
with a man).
These two dimensions of agency are related to the thematic and dialogic/performative
approaches to narrative analysis, which are described in subchapter 2.5.3. Firstly, I will explain
how narratives are defined as data in my research.
2.5.2 Narratives as Data
The source of data in my research are interviews and focus groups with women who have
experience with long-term drug use. The data are participants’ narratives about interactions with
their social environments generated in interaction during the interview. In my analysis, I will
interpret how they exercise agency in the narratives, as well as through the narrative
performance of the research context. Therefore, the data are not only the narratives and their
content, but also the context in which these narratives are performed.
The term ‘narrative’ is used in various situations and carries many meanings. Also social
scientists do not provide a simple and clear definition, since even the authors using the narrative
theory and methodology can differ substantially in what they define as ‘narrative’.
19
A crucial component through which discourse operates is ‘language, the actual words and the forms in which
we use them to communicate […]. The way we talk about phenomena, and the choices which this implies about
their nature and relative importance, is crucial in determining how we see, understand, act upon and construct our
situations and experiences. The point that many postmodern thinkers make about language, of course, is that the
labels we select determine what is emphasised, give importance, recognised, included or silenced’ (Fook 2002:
64).
39
For instance, Gubrium and Holstein use the term narrative ‘to refer to spates of talk that
are taken to describe or explain matters of concern to participants’ (2009: xviii).
In my thesis, I define narrative as a segment of talk which is defined by temporality
(something happens in time) and causality (when one thing happened, it caused something else
to happen), or what Riessman (2008) describes as contingency – the consequential linking of
events or ideas. My definition of narrative does not limit its length, since it is something that
differs substantially. The size of the narratives ranged from lengthy detailed descriptions of
complicated events to rather short announcements about events or changes in life. What also
differed was the form of the narrative: some were in a form of long monologue accounts; others
were cut into sometimes unfinished sentences with long pauses. Other narratives were scattered
through the interview, or told several times during more interviews.
The size and form of the narratives also differed depending on the theme, situation and
particular participant (i.e. some participants gave rather brief and others rather long descriptions
of events).
Although I was working with the narrative as a segment of talk – a quote from the
interview, in the interpretation, I took into account the whole context of the interview as well
as the context of previous interviews with the participant. Therefore, the fact that a participant
repeated the same narrative, or that the same situation was described through different
narratives was an important part of the interpretation.
Interpreting the narrative with regard to the context, therefore, means that a similar
narrative could be interpreted differently based on who said it and when.
Such a complex approach to narratives also has important implications for the validity
of the analysis. This issue is discussed in more detail in chapter 2.5.4.
The word narrative is often used as a synonym to the word ‘story’. In this thesis, I use
the term ‘story’ and ‘narrative’ interchangeably.
2.5.3 Approaches to Narrative Analysis
For data interpretation, I use two approaches to narrative analysis as described by Riessman
(2008): thematic and dialogic/performative analyses. Riessman (2008) talks about these
approaches as different methods of analysis. In my thesis, I use them as two levels of analysis.
Firstly, I used thematic analysis to identify the main themes in the participants’ narratives.
Secondly, I used the performative approach to analyse how agency is exercised in narratives
about the participants’ interaction with important subjects and also in their interaction with me
as a researcher.
All the interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and then transcribed; the data
analysis was based on the transcriptions and notes made in the research diary.
2.5.3.1 Thematic Analysis
Firstly, I have employed the thematic analysis of the data. With the use of Atlas.ti, a programme
for qualitative data analysis, I coded the themes which I identified in the narratives. Through
various codes, I labelled the thematic content of the narrative, depending on the situations,
problems and experiences that the participants were describing. Or as Riessman puts it, I was
focusing ‘on the “told” – the informant’s reports of events and experiences, rather than aspects
of “the telling”’ (2008: 54).
Some of these themes create the particular chapters of the empirical part of the thesis.
In deciding whether a theme would become one of the chapters, an important criterion was
40
distribution – how often the theme was discussed by the participants and how many participants
discussed the theme. When looking at the data from the perspective of the distribution of
particular themes, I identified some topics as highly relevant for the participants; this means
they were discussed repeatedly and by all (or almost all) the participants20
.
These main themes were drug use, motherhood, housing and violence, which became
the chapters of the empirical part of the thesis. However, there were also themes which were
relevant only to some participants, or were not discussed very intensively. These are part of the
main chapters in the sections where they were relevant (e.g. the topic of involvement in
prostitution, which was not very dominant, but was mentioned by some participants in relation
to drug use, as well as violence or sources of money are, therefore, discussed in these chapters).
However, there were also themes which were not included in the empirical part at all, usually
due to not enough data related to the topic.
The thematic analysis allows me to answer the first partial research question:
1. What are the main themes in female drug users’ narratives about their interaction
with important subjects in their social environment?
2.5.3.2 Dialogic/Performance Analysis
At the second level of data analysis, I have employed dialogic/performance analysis. As
Riessman (2008) describes, dialogic/performance analysis looks at the ‘what’ and ‘how’ as well
as the ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘why’ told the narrative.
Contrary to the thematic level of the analysis, where I focused only on ‘what’ the content
of the narrative was, at performance level I focused on the exercise of agency in the participants’
interactions with important subjects in their social environment, as well as the exercise of
agency in their interaction with me as a researcher during the interview / the narrative discourse.
In order to understand the interaction between the participant and environment, I
identified the important subjects (people and institutions) and interpreted whether they work as
a source of support, or constraint and oppression in the narrative (partial research question 2
and 3). This allowed me to recognize the exercise of agency, which is defined as the ability to
use the sources to one’s own benefit and/or to overcome constraints and oppression (partial
research question 4). Furthermore, I analysed how participants exercised agency in the research
context, focusing on the language they used and how they positioned themselves in the
narratives (partial research question 5).
The narrative approach and particularly dialogic/performance analysis, allow me to look
at the narratives as social artefacts that say much about the speakers and their experience, their
interaction during the interview, as well as the wider social context. Thus, the analysis can focus
not only on how the narratives were constructed through the interview, but it can also uncover
how it is constructed in response to the structures of power such as gender, ethnicity and class.
Although the participants themselves might ‘neutralize’ the structural conditions, or take the
inequalities for granted, it is the researcher who includes in the interpretation how the narrative
can be influenced by the structural conditions. The wider social context is also taken into
account through reflecting on how agency is exercised in the participants’ interaction with
social structure represented by characteristics such as gender, class, or age (partial research
question 6).
20
Typically, one narrative was told several times during the repeated interviews with the participant, or the
participant would refer to the experience repeatedly in various narratives (e.g. ‘the time when I lost custody of my
children’).
41
On the basis of dialogic/performance analysis, I answer the following five partial
research questions.
2. Which are the important subjects in female drug users’ narratives about their
interaction with the social environment?
3. How do the important subjects work as a source of constraint and/or support in
the female drug users’ narratives about their interaction with the social
environment?
4. How do female drug users exercise agency in their narratives about their
interaction with important subjects in the social environment?
5. How do female drug users exercise agency through constructing narratives about
their interaction with important subjects in their social environment?
6. How do female drug users exercise agency in their narratives about their
interaction with social structure?
2.5.4 Validity
Two important topics which need to be discussed as a part of the methodology and framework
for data analysis and interpretation are validity and reliability of the data.
Reliability can be defined as ‘the degree of consistency with which instances are
assigned to the same category by different observers or by the same observer on different
occasions’ (Hammersley in: Silverman 1997: 145). However, reliability is due to the qualitative
character of the study not of primary focus.
As Silverman writes, ‘work becomes scientific by adopting methods of study
appropriate to its subject matter’ (Silverman 1997: 144). Thus, the study is scientific to the
extent that it uses appropriate methods and is rigorous and critical in handling the data
(Silverman 1997).
To understand the life situation of female drug users from their perspective, the
unstructured in-depth repeated interviews with the drug users themselves seem to be the
appropriate method which allowed me to generate data which does not show high reliability,
but the main concern is their high validity.
Riessman recognizes two levels of validity: ‘the story told by a research participant and
the validity of the analysis, or the story told by the researcher’ (2008: 184).
In the following two subchapters, I will comment on both of them in relation to my
research.
2.5.4.1 Validity of Stories Told by the Participants
One might argue that by also interviewing other subjects (e.g. family members, workers from
drug services), I could gain an important insight into this type of life situation, although their
stories might be quite different from those of the drug users themselves. However, it is
important to point out that validity is not seen here as ‘objective truth’, or ‘objective
representation’ of the phenomena. The interviews are not seen as true or false reports on reality.
The narratives are always situated in a context and are representations constructed through the
interview, being adjusted depending on the relationship or setting between the interviewee and
interviewer.
During the interviews and later during the data analysis, there were situations and
themes where I could doubt the truthfulness of the narratives. This concerned, for instance, the
topic of involvement in the sex-business and the exchange of sexual services for drugs. The
participants mentioned that this was rather common behaviour of many women on the drug
42
scene, but something they would never do themselves. There was a similar situation when
talking about other women who left their child alone with other drug users. They talked about
it as something they personally would never do, but mentioned other women who did it. These
were sometimes women I was also interviewing and hearing the same stories from about the
others. Looking at this situation from the positivist point of view, it might seem important to
deal with the issue of which women were telling the truth or lying. However, as Sandberg
(2010) argues, from the narrative perspective it is not important whether the stories are true or
false, but what kind of image the participants construct of themselves through these narratives.
Looking at my data from this perspective, it is not crucial whether the described events really
happened in that particular way, or not. Nevertheless, I could learn that, for instance, for women
to describe themselves as getting involved in violent behaviour can be a source of high status,
respectability and security within the drug scene. On the other hand, being caught committing
a petty crime such as shoplifting is seen as a sign of not being very smart. Likewise, exchanging
sexual services for drugs or other resources is not acceptable, highly stigmatizing, or can be
interpreted as not having the drug use ‘under control’, since the person is ‘willing to do anything
for it’.
2.5.4.2 Validity of the Analysis
As Riessman states, ‘narratives do not speak for themselves, offering a window into an
“essential self”. When used for the research purposes, they require close interpretation’ (2008:
3).
As was already discussed, in the research we do not gain access ‘to another’s
unmediated experience, we have instead materials that were constructed by socially situated
individuals from a perspective and for an audience, issues made vivid in interview situations’
(Riessman 2008: 23). Therefore, the basic principle for the validity of the analysis is to provide
a description of the context in which the narratives have been produced and a discussion about
their own position and influence on the process. The description of the context along with
reflection on my influence and the limits will be provided in the next chapter, 2.6.
Another principle that is important for the validity of the analysis is to be clear about
the process of interpretation. Therefore, in chapter 2.5.3 I described how I employed narrative
approaches to data analysis. In the empirical part, as a part of the interpretation, I use direct
quotes of participants’ narratives to make clear what data I base my interpretations on. Where
relevant, I also provide information about the particular interview situation, so the reader can
better understand the context of the narrative production.
43
2.6 Reflection on the Research Context
In this chapter, I provide a description and discussion of the research context. I start with
descriptions of locations where the interviews took place and ways in which I kept contact with
the participants over the one year period. I also discuss the role of the financial incentive. In the
second half of this subchapter, I critically reflect on the context of the interviews and focus
groups, as well as the limits of the variability of the sample. All this information allows me to
identify strong parts as well as the limits of the research.
2.6.1 The Place and Presence of Other People
The interview participants’ children, partners, or friends were present as some of the sessions.
The presence of other people was always the decision of the participants. Either the participant
had children with her, or they were present because we were conducting the interview at her
place; likewise for partners or friends. When some participants asked if other people could be
present, I told them that it was up to them to decide; if they felt comfortable with it, I would not
be against it.
Concerning the place where the interviews took place, one interview took place at a
hostel, one in a pub and 6 at the apartment of the participant. All the other interviews (i.e. the 4
focus groups) took place in a room of the drop-in centre. It is in a separate building and no
employees were present at the interviews. The place where the interviews took place was
chosen by the participant. If they did not prefer another place, we met at the room of the dropin
centre.
2.6.2 Keeping Contact with Participants
At the end of the first interview, I told each participant that my aim was to conduct repeated
interviews and asked if she was interested in meeting again. All of the participants agreed and
we discussed ways to get in contact again. In all cases it was up to me to contact the participants;
some of them preferred email, others gave me their telephone number and one suggested that I
get in touch through the employees of the drop-in centre. Over the duration of the research,
there were other means of contact: email, cell phone and letter/message left at the drop-in centre.
A few times it was also the participants who contacted me first and ask if it was time to meet
for another interview.
In some cases, we had to arrange the meetings several times. In one case, it took us
almost three months to meet.
2.6.3 Financial Incentive
Each participant received a financial incentive of 70 CZK21
per interview. When planning the
interview, I informed the participants that if they wanted to receive the financial incentive, I
preferred them to have at least one hour of free time for the interview. It was not necessary to
keep exactly to this length of interview; the purpose was that if we met, we would have an
21
Approximately 2.5€. The amount of money per interview is similar to the average hourly pay for non-qualified
work.
44
allotted amount of time to spend together (e.g. so that they did not leave after 15 minutes). A
few interviews lasted less than an hour (50 minutes); some much longer – from 1.5 to 2 hours.
At the end of the interview, I paid the participants in cash. One participant refused to be
paid for the interview and suggested that instead of money, I bring something for her new-born
baby in the value of 70 CZK (so I brought her baby food).
Because I was offering participants the financial incentive, I felt more comfortable
asking them to spend a certain amount of time at the interview. I perceived it as a good way to
express that I respected them and the time they decided to spend with me to share their
experiences.
Although for a few participants the financial incentive was an obvious reason to contact
me for the first time, several of them mentioned that the money was not important motivation
for them to meet again. Some of them mentioned that it was interesting for them to do the
repeated interviews. It is also clear that the financial motivation was not very strong, since the
amount paid is equal to a pack of cigarettes, for instance. I would rather say that it played an
important role before the meeting, when some of the participants were deciding whether to
come to the meeting at all, or give preference to other activities. At that moment, the financial
incentive could have been an important motivation.
There is also the question about whether it is appropriate or even ethical to pay research
participants money for their participation. This issue is discussed especially with regards to
paying participants who use drugs, because of the assumption that they will buy drugs with this
money (Bell, Salomon 2011). I personally do not perceive that paying participants for their
participation in the research as unethical. Their participation in the research had high value for
me and the financial incentive is a value which I could offer in return. I regard it as their personal
decision and right to decide how to spend the money.
2.6.4 Reflection on the Context of Individual Interviews
As was explained earlier, I planned the interviews unstructured, to create an atmosphere
where participants’ own themes could emerge. Keeping the interviews unstructured turned out
to be quite easy. Most of the participants did not have a problem to start talking without me
asking too many questions, especially in the case of repeated interviews where they often started
looking back on what happened since our last meeting.
However, during the first few interviews, where I felt there was a good rapport
established between me and the participant, I sometimes tried to ask some more structured
questions in order to explore some topics which had not been mentioned. For instance, to learn
more about the subjects in their environment, I asked if they were in contact with anyone who
does not use drugs, or if they knew someone who is involved in prostitution. It was a very
interesting experience to learn that by asking these questions I actually never got any
comprehensive answers: they usually just said ‘no’, ‘I do not know’, or simply turned the
discussion to a different topic. However, it was in the repeated interviews where I was able to
find answers to some of these questions. For instance, one participant answered that there are
no people around her who do not use drugs. Later she was talking about an important
relationship with her neighbour, who was not using drugs.
After this experience, I kept the interviews unstructured and the main intention was to
make the interview a pleasant and safe encounter where the participants could feel comfortable
to talk about anything they wanted and at the same time did not feel that they were expected to
talk about particular topics or ‘serious issues’. When I asked questions, they were usually
45
general to start the interview, or to find out what they meant when they used a special word or
expression (e.g. toxic bond).
This experience is well illustrated by what Riessman writes about the technique of
unstructured interviews:
Creating possibilities in research interviews for extended narration requires investigators to give up control, which
can generate anxiety. Although we have particular pathways we want to cover related to the substantive and
theoretical foci of our studies, narrative interviewing necessitates following participants down their trails. Giving
up the control of a fixed interview format – “methods” designed for “efficiency” – encourages greater equality
(and uncertainty) in the conversation. Encouraging participants to speak in their own ways can, at times, shift
power in interviews, although relations of power are never equal, the disparity can be diminished. Genuine
discoveries about a phenomenon can come from power-sharing. (2008: 24)
As I already mentioned, it was not only the unstructured character of the interviews, but
also the technique of repeated interviews which allowed me to gain deeper understanding, but
also explore a wide variety of topics. These both have strong implications for the validity of the
data. Some of the themes were repeatedly discussed and it was interesting to see how the
situation and narratives about it changed over time.
The repeated interviews also allowed me to explore a wider variety of topics; this was
due to the rapport I gained over time22
. For instance, during interviews with one participant, the
discussion developed from a general discussion about violence to narratives about one’s own
experience with domestic violence in later interviews. On the other hand, there were some
experiences which the participants were very reluctant to discuss and this did not change over
time. This particularly concerned the topic of involvement in the sex-business and exchange of
sexual services for drugs. When participants did mention this issue, they expressed their
disrespect or even disgust of those people who are involved in this. Therefore, I suppose that
even if some of them had experience with it, due to the high stigma, it would have been much
more complicated for them to disclose this information, rather than speaking about their
experience with violence, for instance. The possibility of meeting the participants repeatedly
allowed me to ask questions about something from the previous interview which I realised I
had not understood well.
Another reason for keeping the interviews unstructured, especially at the beginning, was
to prevent the narratives from being too biased by my questions about topics which might not
be important for the participants; they would discuss them because I had brought them up.
However, it is clear that this aim can be fulfilled only to some extent, since all narratives are
somehow biased, based on context, assumptions and expectations that people have when
interacting with each other. Thus, the discussion is rather about reflecting on the character of
the bias.
Although I intentionally avoided questions about drug use when talking about my
research, I did not stress that I do interviews only with women, to avoid the bias that I am
interested only in ‘women-specific issues’ or drug use. However, there were limits to this
intention, since the participants knew that I was interested in people who have experience with
methamphetamine use. It was clear as some of them were contacted through services for drug
users. Therefore, participants might have been more likely to talk about drug-related issues, as
they expected that it is what I was interested in. On the other hand, the narratives concerning
drug use were not very dominant in the interviews.
Another source of bias might be that since I contacted some of the participants through
a drop-in centre and some of the interviews took place in a room which, although spatially
isolated, belonged to the drop-in centre. Because of this, participants might have been confused
about our roles and perceived me as one of the drop-in centre workers. They may also have
22
With some research participants, I met 5 times over the course of one year.
46
been worried that I would disclose some information to the workers. I tried to prevent this bias
by clearly stating that I was not related to the drop-in centre workers and all the information
would be confidential.
2.6.5 Reflection on the Context of the Focus Groups
In my research, focus groups were used as a supplementary technique to the interviews. As
Morgan states, focus groups in combination with qualitative interviews contribute with
‘something unique to the researcher’s understanding of the phenomenon under study’ (1997:
3). It has an important advantage in providing access to data that are not obtained easily through
individual interviews or participant observation, for instance. In this subchapter, I will discuss
the limits and benefits of focus groups as they were used in my research.
Firstly, it is important to reflect that the fact that the participants knew each other quite
well is a factor which makes the situation slightly different from what could be perceived as a
typical focus group setting. This situation had its benefits and limits. The advantage of
friendship was that probably without the close connections between the participants, it might
not have been possible to organize the meeting. Furthermore, the participants spent quite a lot
of time together and all of them had done individual interviews with me previously. Therefore,
at the focus group they spontaneously started to discuss what they were doing or what they had
been doing in the last few days or weeks. A few times someone wanted reassurance about
whether their discussion about daily matters (e.g. gossip, jokes) was what I was interested in. I
confirmed that I was not focusing on any specific issue and that their discussion was interesting.
Like the individual interviews, the focus groups were quite unstructured.
Focus groups served as a supplementary technique to the interviews in a way that they
did not bring up any specifically new topic. On the other hand, through the group discussion of
the topics, I gained a deeper understanding of them. For instance, there was a very intense
discussion about overdosing when participants were sharing and comparing their own
experiences and opinions.
Although the atmosphere during the focus groups was rather laid-back and informal, I
suppose that there were issues that the participants did not feel comfortable talking about in
front of others, even if they were very important to them. For instance, the friendship between
them could have limited the extent to which they would express disagreement or different
opinions from the others. Despite this limit, the focus groups brought abundant and valuable
data, especially concerning a deeper understanding of previously discussed themes.
Morgan points out another limit to the situation when the interviewed people are not
strangers to each other, but acquaintances. As a problematic situation, he states that although
acquaintances can be more ready to be involved in discussion, ‘this is often due to their ability
to rely on the kind of taken-for-granted assumptions that are exactly what the researcher is
trying to investigate’ (1997: 37). I partially prevented this problem by being openly interested
in all the various aspects of the participants’ lives. Assuming that I had no experience with
methamphetamine use or homelessness, they took the position of someone who could explain
everything to me in detail, so I could understand better.
It is possible to conclude that an important characteristic of the conducted focus groups
was that it allowed me to understand the themes more profoundly through the interaction of the
participants among each other. Such discussions could not be created in the one-to-one
interviews. This situation also happened several times during the interview when some other
people came in or were present. Many times they were children, but sometimes they were
friends or partners who joined us for a while. In this way, a male friend, for instance, who came
in and started to talk about a break-up with his girlfriend, was an important trigger to what was
47
almost an argument between him and the participant. In this discussion, she was describing her
experiences with break-ups and her opinions about partnership.
Therefore, even some of the interviews had the character of focus group. However, if
the people had not been present the whole time and were not defined as (potential) participants,
I did not regard the situation as a focus group.
2.6.6 Positioning Myself as the Researcher
When reflecting my role and influence as the research in the context and interactions through
which the narratives had been produced, intersectionality might be a useful concept.
Intersectionality allows me to identify the various characteristics which were at play in
my contact with the participants. As was discussed in the chapter about intersectionality, I
perceive the intersection of various social characteristics as a source of disadvantage as well as
benefits, this being highly dependent on the context. Therefore, I also discuss the intersection
of my characteristics as a possible source of advantage as well as disadvantage. I point this out
to define my stance against the idea that as a researcher, or ‘outsider’ of the participants’ life,
my presence can ‘contaminate the field’. The idea that the participants would speak differently
to me from what they would ‘normally’ do assumes that there is something like a ‘normal’ or
‘natural environment’ for then that would be different from the research context. I do not deny
that through the specific research setting, I had access to some narratives, but not others. I also
agree that the narratives are ‘adjusted’ to the research context, but as they would be in many
other contexts. Thus, being aware of the context and my role is essential in understanding the
narratives and, at the same time, avoiding presenting them as true representations, or selfevident
reports on reality, or facts about the participants’ behaviour. I wanted to avoid
presenting my interpretations without indicating which narratives they were based on, or
silencing the context in which they were generated.
While conducting my research, I can describe myself as coming to the field as white,
middle class, highly educated, woman, without children, living in a big city, and perhaps I do
not fulfil the stereotype about drug user either.
When it comes to ethnicity, I identify as white, and I am a Czech citizen. This would
probably be the same for other participants, except for the one Slovak citizen and the one who
identified with Roma ethnicity. This did not create any evident obstacle in communication, with
either of them. When I did not understand a Slovak or Roma word, I simply asked about the
meaning, as with the other participants, since I was in the position of a person who would not
be familiar with the slang, particularly the drug slang. This relates to the role of me not being
experienced with the use of methamphetamines. I was asked about my experience by several
participants. In some way, this was similar to questions by some participants about whether I
have children. Acknowledging that I did not have experience with meth or motherhood created
several occasions where the participants took the stance of the ‘experienced, knowledgeable
person’ and through their narratives they explained to me what it was all about. This was quite
convenient for the purpose of the research.
This situation was similar in regards to the role of class. This had a twofold effect. The
first was related to my education; as a doctoral student, I am perceived as highly educated. On
occasion this created a problem for me – how to explain to the participants what it means that I
am doing ‘research’. With regard to informed consent, it was not always easy for me to give a
good explanation of what I would do with the data.
On the other hand, several participants felt appreciated by my research interest in their
situation. This was especially so when I was making the effort to meet them repeatedly. The
48
participants might have also felt appreciated because I was offering them a financial incentive
for the interviews. However, the situation with money was also a strong reminder of my
privilege, especially when the participants were describing their struggle with having no money
at all; to the extent that they cannot, for instance, buy a bus ticket to get home.
I also reflected on the fact that I have lived in a big city almost my whole life. Once
time, a participant pointed this out to show me that I cannot understand what kind of shame she
experiences when she goes back to the village where her family lives and literally everyone
knows that she is using drugs. This participant’s comment can be interpreted also as aimed
towards my lack of experience with drug use and thus not understanding the shame related to
drug use.
Last but not least, it was important that we all were identified with female gender. This
also needs to be critically discussed here as to what this commonality means. I think that it has
played an important role in feeling some level of comfort to talk about personal things,
especially those related to discussions about romantic or sexual partners. For instance, when
talking about their partners, some participants used expressions such as ‘you know what I
mean’, indicating that as a women of similar age I share similar experience. This created a good
rapport between us, although, on the other hand, it may have been limiting in that some
assumptions could have been taken for granted and not discussed further.
Another role which I brought with me to the field concerns my experience as a social
worker. When participants were asking me about the reasons why I am interested in them, I
could refer to my previous experience as an outreach worker with drug users. I believe that this
experience was beneficial when the participants were relating to the topic of drug use. As a
former worker of a needle-exchange programme, it was easier to have a non-judgemental
attitude towards intravenous use, and drug use in general.
2.6.7 Limits of the Variability of the Sample
If we consider the estimated number of ‘problem users’ of methamphetamine in the Czech
Republic (i.e. 30,700) and that the estimate that a ‘quarter of people who have developed serious
problems related to illegal drug use are women’ (EMCDDA 2009b: 3), then we can calculate
that there could be about 8000 women on the Czech drug scene who fall into the target group
of my thesis (i.e. women who have experience with long term methamphetamine use). In the
Words of EMCDDA (2009b) definition, they are female problem users of amphetamine-type
drugs.
However, the exact numbers of drug users in the general population are not very
important, since the aim was not to create a representative sample. I use these numbers only to
illustrate approximately how many women fall into the target group to indicate some of the
limits of variability of my sample selection.
Once more, it is important to note that the aim of the sample selection was not to be
representative and therefore the limits of the sample selection are not seen as necessarily
negative. The aim was to create a sample which allows a deep understanding of the research
topic. By commenting on some general characteristics of the sample selection, I believe I can
shed some light on who was not included in the sample.
Through describing the common characteristics of the sample, I want to indicate how
the findings are related to some specific group of women who are part of a larger group of
women who have experience with long-term methamphetamine use.
As I have stated in the chapter about sample selection, the sample was rather variable
with regards to age, housing situation, family and childcare situation, as well as the age of drug
use initiation.
49
On the other hand, although the housing situations were rather variable, based on the
ETHOS typology of homelessness (FEANTSA 2013), all the participants fall into the category
of being homeless. I was not in contact with very young or with older women; the age range
was 20 years (25-45). Another important characteristic of the sample is closely related to the
snowball technique. Since the initial contact was through a drop-in centre and further contact
through the snowball sample of the friends of the drop-in centre clients. All the participants
were in some contact with a harm reduction programme for drug users (i.e. either a drop-in
centre or outreach programme). Some of them were also in intense contact with other
institutions such as the Employment Office or asylum for mothers and children. None of the
participants have a legal or stable source of income.
Based on these common characteristics, I want to point out that women from the
‘middle’ or ‘upper’ class, for instance, were not represented. Neither were women with stable
employment or higher than secondary level education. Women living in secure and stable
housing conditions were not part of the sample, as was the case with those who are not in contact
with harm reduction or other social services. Finally, there were no women who had lived
outside of a big city for a longer time.
50
3 Narrative Data Analysis and
Interpretation
In this chapter I discuss the main themes which have been identified in the narrative data
analysis. It is important to note that it was not the aim, nor was it possible to cover all the themes
which were identified in the thematic analysis in this part of the thesis. I have chosen only the
themes which I have identified as the most relevant. That means they were the most often
discussed as well as discussed by all (or almost all) of the participants. The themes are drug
use (chapter 3.2), motherhood (chapter 3.3), housing (chapter 3.4) and experiences with
violence (chapter 3.5).
Although the narrative analysis is presented through these themes, it does not mean that
the narratives were simply fragmented into thematic segments. Each narrative interpretation is
also placed into the individual context specific to the participant who was telling the narrative.
Each thematic chapter also provides identification of the important subjects in the participant’s
environment and a detailed discussion of the interactions. For that reason, I also do not provide
separate chapters about particular important subjects in the social environment (e.g. partners,
or institutions), but the role of the subjects is discussed within the context of each theme.
Alongside my interpretation of the narratives, I also use quotes23
from the participants’
narratives so the reader can see my interpretation along with the original narrative.
In the following, the first chapter (3.1), I provide a brief introduction of the research
environment.
The conclusion and discussion of the main findings of the data analysis presented in this
chapter are provided in the subsequent chapter 4. Discussion.
3.1 Context of the Research Environment
In order to allow a better understanding of the data and their interpretation, I provide some brief
information related to the research environment.
The research has been conducted in the Czech Republic, particularly in one city, which
due to anonymity is referred to by the pseudonym ‘Město’.
Firstly, I provide some basic information on methamphetamine and the context of its
use in the Czech Republic. Secondly, I provide a brief summary of the types of social services
aimed at the target group of ‘problem drug users’. There is also some basic information about
the Czech welfare system that is relevant to the research.
3.1.1 Methamphetamine / Pervitin
Methamphetamine belongs to a group of amphetamine-type synthetic stimulants, which are
used for both medical and recreational purposes. Amphetamines are ‘approved in several
countries to treat a variety of disorders, including attention-deficit hyperactive disorder
23
Direct quotes of participants’ narratives are in italics and each quote starts with the capital letter which
indicates the name of the participant. M stands for the researcher. Pauses in the speech are indicated by dots.
Exclamation marks indicate participants’ emphasis on the word or sentence. An interrupted quotation is
indicated by this mark […].
51
(ADHD), narcolepsy, and obesity.’ (Hart et al.: 5). For its stimulating and euphoria evoking
effects, it is also used recreationally.
Methamphetamine (meth) can be fairly easily made from several precursors, the most
important of which is the over-the-counter medication containing pseudoephedrine (Hart et al.).
Meth is most often manufactured in low-volume, in cooking labs which can be located
in flats, as well as garden shacks or even outdoors. It is important for those who make it to move
the meth production to places where it does not attract attention, as it gives off a rather
characteristic chemical smell which is produced during the manufacturing process.
In the Czech Republic there is also large-volume production of meth, which is then sold
and distributed in large amounts. However, for the context of this research, only the low-volume
production is relevant; that is where the drug is manufactured by a few people and used by them
or distributed through informal networks. This homemade production also influences the
quality, which largely depends on the skills and experience of the person manufacturing the
drug. The average price per gram of pervitin is estimated at around 49 € / 1220 CZK (Mravčík
et al. 2013).
3.1.2 The Czech Welfare System and Services for Drug
Users
The Czech social welfare system provides comprehensive assistance to people in material need.
The basic social benefits which can be provided in the situation of material need are an
allowance for living, a housing supplement, or extraordinary immediate assistance. The benefits
are distributed thorough regional offices of the Employment Office. Besides these benefits, this
office is responsible for distribution of state social support allowances. Those are especially
child, housing and parental allowances. A decisive part of entitlements to state social support
benefits includes, in particular, income from employment and income from other benefits.
Unemployed people are also entitled to unemployment support benefits if they meet the
basic conditions, that is, over the previous three years they were employed for at least twelve
months, or performed another gainful activity constituting the basic obligation to pay social
insurance.
However, during the time of the research, none of the participants fulfilled the criteria
to be entitled to unemployment support benefits. However, most of them were entitled to some
other above-listed social benefit. The entitlement for these benefits requires registration and
active cooperation with the Employment Office. That means especially attendance at regular
meetings and a declaration of important documents. The basic document is a valid identification
card. In the case of the entitlement for housing benefits, the recipient must also have a
permanent address and legal contract at the place of dwelling (MPSV, [online]).
In the whole Czech Republic there is an extensive network of low-threshold harmreduction
services for people who use drugs. Harm-reduction services comprise of drop-in
centres and outreach programmes. In 2012 there was a stable number of 103 harm-reduction
services in the whole Czech Republic (Mravčík et al. 2013). The programmes provide
counselling, HIV and hepatitis testing, needle and syringe exchange and other health and social
services.
52
3.2 Drug Use
In this chapter, I discuss the interactions in which the exercise of agency is related to drug use.
The whole chapter is divided into four main chapters.
In the first two chapters, discuss the narratives in which participants describe agency as
exercised through drug use. In the first chapter (3.2.1), I discuss various reasons for drug use.
These reasons are weight loss (subchapter 3.2.1.1), rebellion against social expectations
(3.2.1.2), need to gain energy for demanding child and household care (3.2.1.3), depressions
(3.2.1.4) and emotional distress in crisis situations (3.2.1.5). I describe the context of their
initiation into drug use and intravenous use (3.2.1.6) and the narratives in which drug use is
explained as an important source of pleasure and pleasant experiences.
In the second chapter, I present the participants’ reasons for abstinence (3.2.2), such as
the need to avoid the company of other drug users (3.2.2.1) and the desire to lead a ‘normal life’
(3.2.2.2).
In the third and fourth chapters, I provide a discussion of the narratives in which
participants describe their agency as exercised through activities which are closely related to
drug use. In the third chapter (3.2.3), I focus on various health care and harm reduction
strategies; for instance, the prevention of infectious diseases and problems with veins in relation
to intravenous use (3.2.3.1) and the risk of using overly high doses of meth (3.2.3.2).
In the fourth chapter (3.2.4), I discuss topics related to the complexity of the drug
economy (3.2.4). These are especially the manufacturing of meth (3.2.4.1), the context of
receiving drugs ‘for free’ (3.2.4.2), the exchange of sexual services for drugs (3.2.4.3) and drug
dealing (3.2.4.4).
3.2.1 Reasons for Drug Use
In this chapter, I analyse narratives in which agency is exercised in direct relation to drug use.
These reasons are related to the initiation to the drug use as well as reasons for continuing using
drugs.
3.2.1.1 Weight Loss – Being on a ‘White Diet’
Several participants mentioned the relation between meth use and weight loss. For instance,
when Diana talks about this topic she distances herself from the fact that she would be using
meth with this intention. Nevertheless, she describes it as a common idea of women who use
meth, for weight loss.
D: Everyone is always thinking yeah, a few times you get high and immediately you lose weight
[…] Also Petra, she also goes yeeeeah, I also want to lose weight. I have to do drugs! [laughing]
Aurelia describes that for her the weight loss was actually the main reason why she
started to use meth. In her story she connects it to a situation when she was 22 years old and
was troubled by not being ‘slim enough’.
A: I say it’s OK [laughing]! ... I lost weight. In three months I had 50 or 55 kilos! [proudly]
She describes that the only problem she perceived was that she did not know what to
say when other people were asking her how she managed to lose so much weight is such a short
time.
A: Hey! How did you?!!! Ehm [proudly], I’m on a white diet! I eat only bread! I didn’t know
what to say [laughing].
Weight loss as an important reason why women get involved in drugs is discussed rather
extensively in literature concerned with women and drug use (e.g. Carbone-Lopez et al. 2012;
Ettorre 1992, 2007; Stocco et al. 2000). This is also related to eating disorders (i.e. anorexia
53
nervosa and bulimia) as one of the dual diagnoses typical for women drug users (e.g. Mravčík
et al. 2003; Vobořil 2003). From Aurelia’s narrative it is not clear whether there were any
important subjects in her environment who made her perceive herself as overweight. However,
when looking at the situation from a structural perspective, a slim body is the desired female
body image in contemporary western society. Thus we can identify certain social expectations
of women which are related to intense care about their physical appearance and fulfilling beauty
standards by dieting and weight control. In this context, it is understandable that by some
women meth can be perceived as a suitable means to weight loss. Yet in the 1960s,
amphetamines were legally prescribed as anti-depressants and drugs supporting weight loss
(Ettorre 1992).
3.2.1.2 To (Be a) Rebel and Experience Extremes
Diana’s narratives about the reasons for drug use also contained a description of her life prior
to drug use. She describes this life as content, characterized by financial and material security,
which she was enjoying but later rejected. In Diana’s narrative, drug use is described as
rebellion against her family and siblings, who were ‘nice ordinary people’. Part of her interest
in drugs she describes also as a desire to experience new things and extreme situations.
D: Well, I also had a beautiful life! I had everything I wanted! ...a car!! When I was 18, I was
the only one who was going to school by car! I was driving; I had a motorbike. I had everything!
Simply a perfect life! Well! [laughing], when you think about it, you ask yourself: what was
missing that I started with drugs?! But I found out that I was not missing anything. I was just
bored from seeing my three siblings, being those nice, ordinary, decent people and behaving
just as was expected from them! I was bored of being on the line, the line which also divides if
you are perceived as a good or bad person!! I simply liked to do other things! And … experience
some extremes, you know!
This narrative about being a rebel against family expectations is similar to what CarbonLopez
(et al. 2012) calls ‘the freedom seekers’. Desire for freedom was part of Diana’s story;
however, it is also important to notice that in Diana’s narration, the reasons for her initiation
were not depicted as seeking ‘freedom from something’, but rather freedom to try new and
extreme things. So we can see that Diana’s rebellious narrative discourse is characterized by a
strong emphasis on her agency to do what she wants and not caring about what others expect
of her. The rebellious discourse is strengthened by pointing out that she was ‘not missing
anything’ in the family, but anyways refused the comforting material support and parted from
it.
Diana also uses the rebellious narrative discourse when depicting other interactions with
various subjects in her environment. For instance, in her narrative about her initiation into drug
use, she depicts how she managed to ‘get what she wanted’.
Besides the three above-mentioned siblings, there was also Diana’s older brother who
was using heroin. Diana describes how she made him initiate her into drug use.
D: When I came to him with the demand that he gives it to me for the first time, my brother
became completely furious, like no way. […] and after he slapped me, I told him OK! I will ask
somewhere else! And immediately he started to think, where and who would give me some shit.
And then he backed down and gave it to me himself! […] He simply realised that I was right
.....That if I asked someone else, outside… he knew how this could end up. Who knows what
they would sell to me. God knows what I would get.
Several times, Diana strongly emphasized that she wants ‘to use forever’, or that
‘nothing can stop her’. Once, when I asked what would be her idea about the ideal future, she
replied:
D: I see myself as an old granny, shaking, feeding pigeons in the park! But shaking because of
54
being high! [laughing]
The rebellious discourse is used also in a narrative in which she manifests her will to
use drugs despite the health problems she was encountering. Diana describes that when she had
to visit emergency at the hospital with serious vein inflammation, the doctors commented that
she would probably have to stop, because her veins cannot take the drugs anymore, but she
replied: Well, I still have my other arm and my neck, don’ t I?!
This story made it clear to me that unless it was impossible to use, she would not quit.
D: If it doesn’t gets me down on my knees, like health-wise, like I will be on my deathbed, but
anyways I will jump out of the bed, I won´t get scared! And I will never stop!
The narratives represent Diana’s interaction with various subjects from her environment
and situations in which the subjects were setting some limits or constraints to what she wanted
to do. When depicting these situations, Diana uses the rebellious narrative discourse to
emphasise her will to use drugs and her ability to impose this will against the resistance or
limitations of her surroundings. As it was in the situation when her brother was refusing to
initiate her into drug use, or when the doctors were pointing to some health limitations of her
drug use. Through the narrative performance, it was important for Diana to demonstrate that
she would continue in use drugs, because that is what she wants (e.g. ‘to experience extremes’).
And that is what she will do, despite what other people think or might do against it.
It is possible to read Diana’s narratives as a demonstration of her will to use drugs and
rebellion against her family and social expectations that she become ‘a nice ordinary person’.
But the rebellious narrative discourse can also be interpreted as a strategy to gain respect for
herself and her decisions. In the interaction with her brother, doctors and even me, Diana
demonstrates that she is an autonomous person, ready to pursue her goals. Those in her
surroundings may try to understand her, but they should not try to change her (i.e. they should
respect her in what she says and does). This understanding of the exercise of agency goes
beyond the simple interpretation of agency as exercised through drug use. In other words, the
agency is in the narrative discourse exercised through being a rebel not because ‘I use drugs,
but because I use drugs despite what other people think, do or say’. Therefore I see it as a claim
to be respected in the decision to use drugs, as well as in other decisions and behaviour.
3.2.1.3 Exhausting Care of Children and Household
Laura links her beginnings of drug use to the situation when she needed to gain more energy to
be able to take care of three small children and the household. Until she was 25 years old, she
and her husband were working in top management positions in a multinational company.
However, after their three daughters were born, she stayed at home on parental leave and her
husband continued working. As she describes, he was still very busy and often traveling abroad.
During our interviews, there were several times when Laura described the demanding work she
was doing at home. Although she described enjoying being a mother and spending time with
the children, it was also demanding and exhausting to manage taking care of the three children
and household.
L: And he was at work ... 20 hours per day! ..And me with three kids ... that’s a strain!!! So I
was not doing anything else!!
Laura describes how she got in contact with meth through other mothers who she knew
from the children’s playground close to the place where she was living.
L: I was quite taken by surprise when they started to discuss it at the children’s playground
[laughing]. So like this!! That’s like how I got to it […] from the mothers I was meeting at the
kindergarten [laughing]. Really, she was my neighbour from the next building! […]. She also
had three children .. and I asked her: Tell me! How do you manage??!! …You see??! So she
advised me [laughing] how she did it!!
55
According to Laura, it is actually quite common that mothers who are at home with
children use some substances to cope with the demanding work related to child and household
care.
L: Well, it is strange, but most mums ... who have more than two kids ... going actively to work
and their husband too ... well, even if they do not go, they simply do this!! […] I know plenty
of women like this! [… ] Plenty of them do it, well, because, it’s about… you are simply tired!!!
And then you manage all the work, you use it !!! because of the things around, but simply to
manage the work!!.. Anyways, early in the morning you go to lie down!! But in the morning you
do not feel that tired! In the morning you have coffee, a cold shower and you don’t feel tired!!!!
And all the work is done, for the whole next day!!! Simply, you have time to be with the kids!
And in the evening you go to bed at the same time as them, so you catch up on your sleep! So
it’s do-able!!
Laura started to use meth by snorting, along with other mothers. She explains how it
was helping her manage her care of the children and housework.
L: It was always when I was deadly tired!!! Deadly tired! And did not know what to do!!... It’s
ten in the evening, ‘mother shift’ is over and now you see a huge pile of work in front of you
[…] Or I was using, sometimes, when the kids were ill! ... That was the worst! My husband was
at work, the kids were ill, so the first three or four days you can manage things .. When you
have to take one to the kindergarten, in the morning, then you have to pick her up;, the second
you carry the whole day in your arms, because she has fever… right!! You also have her in
your arms the whole night! And the third day you can’t manage anymore!! So the third day …
you kill it with this. ... and then you can make it again!
From Laura’s narrative about her beginnings and reasons for using drugs, it is possible
to interpret the drug use as an exercise of agency. She said that it allowed her to deal with the
constraints represented by the demanding work of looking after her three children and
household, for which she was alone, since her husband was not sharing these duties with her.
Laura describes that meth was important for her, because it gave her energy to do work
during the long day and night ‘shifts’ and manage the care of her children. But another important
characteristic of meth which she points out is that it was quite easy to hide that she was using a
substance. She demonstrates this by comparing meth to alcohol. Laura expresses her opinion
that many women who face the demanding task of being alone on parental leave with children
deal with it, for instance, by drinking alcohol. But as Laura comments, ‘it is not pleasant to see
a drunken mother’. Therefore she preferred meth, because it was easier to hide its use. She
explains that the whole time she was taking care of her children and using meth, no one,
including her husband, knew about it.
L: I was functioning completely normally! No one, absolutely no one!!! could recognize that I
was snorting!!
M: Even your husband?
L: No one!!!!!!
M: He didn’t know?
L: No one!!!! Never!!! [… ] No one in my surroundings knew about it!! Not the neighbours!!!!
Not at work!!! No one ever saw a junkie at our place!! Nothing!!
It was very important for her that no one knows about it, so she explains the discipline
that she had so as to keep it secret.
L: I was going to go to bed!! With the kids! You see!! ... Really, like such self-discipline. Well,
you learn self-discipline with meth! I would lie down with the girls, sing to them… lie down for
an hour or so!! I was lying with them till they fell asleep!! And after they were sleeping, not
before [!!], it was time to do something. My husband was used to, that in the night, for two or
three hours, I’m cleaning, or I’m simply relaxing! ... Or I drive to the supermarket, do the
shopping, and then I went to lie down. .... He did not know when I went to lie down, back in the
56
bedroom, you know?! It was around half past four and I was lying next to him in bed! …
Although it was just a while ago that I had come there [laughing].
M: And it was not strange to him, that you had so much energy?
L: No!! No!!! Because I’ve always been like that!! ... I have plenty of energy!
The only people who knew about it were the other women with who she was using.
Laura describes other strategies of keeping it secret from the children, or other people who were
not supposed to know about it.
L: We had a small storeroom [in the flat] there was a washing machine!!! .. Me and another
mum, the one from the neighbouring building, I was, we were doing lines24
, so that no one could
see it! So you make your line on the washing machine [laughing]!! And so that no one can
recognize it, there were also some detergents, so when Lucie came, like … she always did, and
especially when there was someone at home!! ‘Excuse me, can I borrow some detergent from
you [!!!!],or something, simply some detergent?’ [laughing] Because I had it […] on the
washing machine, on a mirror [laughing]… the lines [laughing]… you see [laughing]. So I
took one [laughing], she took the second and we had to take turns being in that room, you know
[laughing]. So the kids weren’t left unattended. And especially when there was a third lady with
us, who was not snorting or anything! So we had to take turns in the room with detergents.
Each of us took some detergent, like [laughing] Yeeaaaaah! Mums knows some tricks
[laughing]!
In the narratives about the meth use and keeping it secret, Laura does not describe her
husband as a source of support. He might be an important source of financial support by keeping
up the demands of his job, but not as a support when she felt exhausted from her work at home.
Instead, Laura describes the other mothers as the source of support, and their use of meth. So
as was already mentioned, the exercise of agency can be seen in the drug use which allowed
her to fulfil her duties. But agency can also be recognized in the discipline and control which
she was taking over the drug use.
It is interesting to notice how Laura twists the stereotype of female drug user. In relation
to women drug use, scholars discuss the existence and effects of double standards which are set
for men and women (e.g. Ettorre 1992; Stocco 2000, 2002; Vobořil 2002). Since drug use in
many ways contradicts what is seen as the social ideal of feminine behaviour, the negative
moral judgements and stereotypes are more likely in the case of drug-using women than men.
For instance, in situations where drunkenness can define a ‘real man’, for women this does not
apply. Ettorre (1992) argues that women are expected to be under control, including drinking
or drug use. They are expected not to get drunk, or at least not in public spaces. Because of the
double standards, women who use drugs are stigmatized to a greater extent than their male
counterparts. This is also described as double stigmatization; firstly, for being a drug user and,
secondly, for failing in the roles traditionally ascribed to the female gender. The negative
stereotypes become even more punitive when women who use drugs have children, because
they are presumed to be incapable of fulfilling the mother role (Carter 1997, 2002; Friedman
and Alicea 1995). Of what we can understand from the narratives, Laura does not fulfil the
stereotype of female drug user: she is not failing in her role of carer or homemaker as a
consequence of the drug use. The opposite is true, since in her narratives she explains that using
meth allows her to perform all these demanding roles, including household chores like cleaning,
cooking, shopping and child care; she also enjoys the time spent with her children. She presents
herself as a competent, responsible, disciplined and perfect mother.
At the same time, recognizing that she does not fulfil the negative stereotype about drug
user does not mean that we should deny the structural constraints, or ignore the fact that she is
still affected by the stereotypes. For instance, it is possible to recognize agency exercised
24
Referring to a line of meth, prepared to be used by snorting.
57
through control and self-discipline, which she develops in order to hide her drug use. At the
same time, it is important to place this behaviour in the context of social expectations. Laura is
aware that as a mother she is expected to not use any substances, or at least not in a way that is
visible in public, or that interferes with her caring role –‘It is not pleasant to see a drunken
mother’. Furthermore, she keeps it secret not only from the public, but also from her closest
surroundings, which consists of people who do not offer support to deal with the demands.
Interpreting meth use as an exercise of agency needs to be seen in the wider social
context. Laura does not exercise agency through meth use, because it simply makes her a better
mother or housewife; she exercises agency by meth use, because it helps her to fulfil her mother
role and household duties, despite the constraints represented by the lack of support in these
activities. In her narrative discourse, she exercise agency by pointing out that despite the
demanding and difficult situation, she has managed to find a way to deal with it. At the same
time, it reveals what she perceives as the social expectations of her as a woman, wife and
mother. These expectations are not questioned in anyway.
3.2.1.4 Drugs as Anti-depressant
Sara describes her initiation into drug use as quite late. Prior to that, she was married and raised
three children. She came in contact with meth after her divorce. When she speaks about her
motivations and reasons to start using drugs, she says she was ‘always somehow interested in
drugs’ and that she is ‘exactly the kind of person who would, sooner or later, start with drugs
anyways’. Being ‘that kind of person’ is for her connected with the fact that she had a lot of
personal problems, already at vocational school.
S: I had so many troubles with myself, really a lot, so I’m surprised that I actually finished the
vocational training! And that I fell into drugs so late! .... Everything has some meaning!
Sara explains that since her childhood, she suffered from depressions; in the past, she
had also been hospitalized several times in a psychiatric hospital and treated with depression.
When she started to use meth, she says that all the heavy and dark moods which she was
experiencing before disappeared.
S: I am a person who suffers from depression and things like that! Like if life has some meaning!
And since I was small, like eight years old, I thought about killing myself, because, if there is
any meaning in life, and if it is like this or that .. you know, and now I don’t have any…
depressions! And that is really important for me! I am the most content, since I’ve been using.
It’ s basically the most content period, because it dissolved those horrible states!
She describes meth as bringing her psychological relief, because it helped her to ‘think
less’.
S: Well, to me… everyone was telling me that I think… too much! ... So I stopped thinking! Like,
those nagging, serious, dark thoughts, they … like, I stopped thinking!
The encounter with meth was an important change in Sara’s life, since, as she explained,
she felt great relief from her psychological strains, which she had been experiencing almost her
whole life. But Sara also reflected on other changes in her life: she describes that together with
meth use, her living standards deteriorated. When we met for the first time, she was living with
her partner and a new-born child in one small room in a hostel. Nonetheless, when she describes
their bad housing situation, she claims that she is well aware of it, but that it is ‘worth it’,
because to feel psychologically better is the most important thing for her.
S: Sorry, but it really is worth it!! .. Like it’s really ... it’s the states when … you go to sleep …
and you are falling asleep with depressions ... and in the morning you wake up with the same
... and the life is really about nothing! Like, when I was talking with someone, somewhere,
things like why we live, and if it has some meaning, and whether to kill myself or not. Then
everyone would tell me: ‘You think too much! Like, don’t think … so much, OK?!’ ... So now, I
58
don’t have those thoughts anymore and that’s really important for me! For me, it really doesn’t
matter if I’m living or not living in a hostel! What matters to me is to be content, with myself!
And that’s what I am now!!!
Sara explains that meth use helped her to tackle severe depressions, which is a very
important change in her life. I interpret drug use as an exercise of agency, because meth is
described as a source which brought benefit to Sara’s life.
To place this narrative into a broader structural context, it is important to notice that
Sara refers to her housing situation. She states that she is well aware that living in a hostel room,
especially with a new-born child, is not perceived as good. It was perceived as problematic by
the doctors of the maternity hospital before they released her, as well as by Child Welfare
workers. It is possible to interpret, as she is aware, that it is perceived as stigmatizing in the
wider social context, since living in a hostel is related to very low social status. This might also
be relevant in that prior to her drug use, Sara was living, as she describes, ‘in a normal family,
with a husband, house and children’. So her living standards have deteriorated compared to her
previous living standard. What I see as an important exercise of agency is well expressed in her
comment: ‘Sorry, but it’s really worth it!’ She states that despite the fact that some people do
look down on her, she continues doing it, because the most important thing is to feel good and
‘content with herself’, which is what meth brings her.
The structural context of this narrative can also be discussed in the context of selfmedication
(i.e. use of drugs as a relief from health problems of various kind), which is in the
case of many women described as very common, especially in relation to legally obtained drugs
like alcohol or tranquillizers. Inciardi et al. (1993) comment that the more legal the drug, the
more likely it will be used by women, due to the double stigma connected to female illicit drug
use.
Sara’s narrative discourse expresses the attitude that she will continue using meth
despite what others think about it. This is related to the stigma of living in a hostel; nevertheless.
But can be also interpreted in context of expectations that to deal with depressions she should
use legal drugs such as antidepressants.
3.2.1.5 Binging Using as an ‘Emotional Pain-Killer’
In the previous subchapter, I have discussed narratives in which meth was used to deal with
long-term depression, as something that helped, in Sara’s words, to ‘supress thinking’ and
improve her mood. In this chapter, I discuss situations in which meth is also used as a means of
self-medication, although the narratives are related to serious life events, crises or ‘rock bottom’
experiences. ‘Rock bottom’ experience is a term used, for instance, by McInosh and
McKeganey (2000) to refer to situations which have the character of a crisis, but also of turning
points at which important decisions are made.
This chapter presents narratives about two cases in which the participants lost the
custody of their children. This also meant, that they were denied the possibility to be in any
contact with them. One of the cases is a crisis situation connected to the break-up with a partner.
In these crisis situations, meth is described as an ‘emotional pain killer’. Therefore selfmedication
with meth does not have the character of making the mood better, but rather of
‘cutting off’ emotions and thinking.
In the previous chapter about various trajectories into drug use initiation, I discussed
Laura’s narratives, which were related to intensive childcare and household management. After
several years of marriage and being on parental leave, Laura was going through a divorce
initiated by her husband. Laura explains that this was due to her husband’s long-term love affair
with a colleague from work and their decision to start living together. Due to a serious chronic
illness, Laura lost custody of all three children, who started to live with their father and his new
59
partner. Laura describes the day when her husband moved away their daughters as the start of
a long binge using period. The binge use period meant daily use of high doses of meth, lasting
for several months in a row. Laura describes herself as resuming the binge use when her
daughters had birthdays, because every time she was reminded of being denied contact with
them, she felt depressed.
L: So I gave the daughters to him, and from then on I don’t remember anything at all!!
Absolutely nothing !!! […]and then only the intensive care unit, twice ... so it’s crazy ... ..Once
I realised I’m using like half a gram per day ....six lines, seven!! Intravenously right, ...but I
wanted it!!!
Laura explains that the binge use of meth helped her ‘cut off painful emotions’, and that
she was using it in a self-destructive way. This in her narratives was related to the feelings that
‘nothing mattered to her anymore and she lost the sense of life’.
L: It was total destruction!! I also lost interest in completely everything during that time!!
Nothing mattered to me! Whether I paid the rent, whether I should eat something - at that time
completely everything lost sense!!! Completely, really everything like even getting dressed in
the morning, you know?! .... It meant absolutely nothing to me!! Why I should take care of how
I look, or go somewhere,… or listen to someone!!!
M: So it was that the meth cut off the emotions, the thinking?
L: Yes!! Exactly!!! Otherwise, I would have drowned in depression!! Completely in everything!
It would not have mattered to me!
Laura also said that later she continued with the daily use of meth, and also in high
doses, but that it started to help her to function and manage everyday duties. She describes how
using meth did not mean ‘escaping’ anymore.
L: It was not about wanting to escape somewhere, like from something, or to my own world!
Definitely not!! When I was shooting-up myself, I was functioning normally, because I did not
have to think about anything!!! … Like I was normally taking care of my everyday things,
normally! But on incredible doses!!! […] So I …. at least got dressed ... went shopping, like,
or was interested in someone … or something.
Here we can see when talking about a crisis situation, Laura describes the use of meth
as a ‘pain killer’ or ‘escape’ from painful emotions and thoughts. After the crisis, the description
of meth is closer to Sara’s description of meth as ‘anti-depressant’, as something that helps her
function better, manage everyday duties and ‘suppress thinking’.
Besides the use of meth in relation to psychological problems, Laura describes her use
of meth as self-medication in relation to her physical health problems. Due to her problems with
immune system deficiency, she was suffering, besides other symptoms, from chronic fatigue,
therefore meth was perceived as an important source of energy.
To place the narrative into a wider social context, we can see that Laura describes
emotional pain caused by her surroundings: namely, her former husband, who got their children
into his custody and was not supportive in allowing any further contact between Laura and their
daughters. Laura was also facing physical health problems, especially fatigue. When describing
this situation, Laura very often uses the expression ‘nothing mattered to me’, which is possible
to read as complete apathy. Furthermore, she could not see anything, or anyone in her
surroundings who could help or support her in what she was going through. The only source of
support in the narrative she describes is the meth, which allowed her to get through the worst
period by ‘cutting off’ or numbing the painful emotions. Later, she states that it helped her to
‘function’, to manage her everyday duties. Here I interpret the agency as being exercised in the
narrative by emphasizing that in the situation when nothing ‘mattered to her’, she was taking
something which, at least in that moment, felt like support. Without judging whether it was
good or bad, Laura explains the important role that meth had for her in the times when she was
going through serious crisis.
60
Through the narrative discourse in interaction with me, Laura exercised her agency by
pointing out that she managed to do something for herself despite the desperate situation. This
is well illustrated by her comment ‘I wanted it!!!’ She reports that as a consequence of the binge
use, she ended up at the intensive care unit twice. Nevertheless, she stressed to me that despite
this negative effect, the binge use was something she wanted, something that was her intention.
Similar to Laura, Petra went through a crisis in relation to the loss of the custody of her
daughter.
P: From that the moment they took her away from me, half of me is not alive anymore […] It is
simply like something has died in me […]It’s horrible what I will say, but I was almost ready
to jump! It really did not matter to me! In that moment, like, I can’t take it anymore.
For five years, Petra actually abstained from using illegal drugs when she was living in
a different city. After she returned to Město, where she started to meet old friends and
acquaintances with who she used to use and manufacture drugs, she gradually started to use
again. However, the breaking point that she says drove her to return to intensive drug use was
related to her divorce and the loss of the custody of her daughter. When she parted from her
husband, their daughter stayed with him and he and his family prevented Petra from contacting
her. Also in her case, the binge using was connected to everyday intravenous use of high doses.
P: After five years I simply fell into it again!! .. It was because they took my little girl from me!
So it didn’t matter to me anymore! ... So immediately and everything! Like a gram per day, a
gram and a half! It really didn’t matter to me! Nothing mattered!! Nothing!! The longest break
I would have was three days and then I had to do it again!
She describes the situation in the same words as Laura, ‘nothing mattered to me
anymore’, ‘I had no reason to live, or at least live decently’. Also for Laura, one of the hardest
times came when her daughter had a birthday but she could not get in contact with her.
P: For instance, when my daughter had a birthday, […] they did not let her even talk to me on
the phone! They did not let me to see her! They did not let her visit my grandpa! .. .I didn’t know
anything about her!! So I said ‘enough!!!!!! … fuck it!!! I can’t take it anymore!!! I don’t care
!!! I don’t care one bit!!’
In Petra’s case, the situation had a different development. After some period of binge
use of meth, she realized she was ‘only escaping’, literally escaping from the garden colony
shack where she was living with other people. She says she could not stand the situation
anymore, including the meth use. She also could not stand the other drug users around her,
because this was a strong reminder of how much her whole life was deteriorating.
P: I was escaping from the shack, for three, four days […] either high or not high. It didn’t
matter!! ... I just had to escape to have peace from these people.
Petra was experiencing what McIntosh and McKeganey (2000) describe as the ‘rock
bottom’ experience: a serious existential crisis, but at a moment of making an important
decision. Petra explains that it was a very important experience when she realized that she had
nowhere to escape anymore; that the only reason for using was to escape from reality – the
reality that she had lost her daughter. It was this realization that led her to abstinence from meth.
P: Then I slowly started to realize that I have nowhere to escape anymore!!! […] Like, I have
nowhere to escape from reality. .... So I stopped doing drugs. […] I realized that I really wanted
to escape! Escape from the reality that they had taken my daughter away! .... And I was …
somewhere!! In deep shit! So again I fell into something … I should not have done that!!
In Petra’s narrative, the ‘rock bottom’ experience is not described as leading to a clearcut
decision to quit taking drugs from one day to the next. Rather, she describes that she was
slowly realizing that actually she had no craving to use. Repeatedly, she experienced that she
did not feel good after taking it and that it did not help her with her problems anymore, not even
as an ‘emotional pain killer’.
61
She describes that she was experiencing situations which she had never experienced
before, such as being offered drugs, but refusing them. Similarly, she was no longer enjoying
the company of other drug users.
P: Sure, I will take some and be in even bigger shit than I am now!!!!! […] That happened to
me for the very first time in my life!!! Never in my life did I take ten minutes to decide if I would
take it or not!! I simply knew that if I took it, I would feel even worse!! Mood-wise, I felt disgust.
I felt like everyone was sucking energy out of me. ... Hey, I don’t want it!! […] I used to use it
for fun, for the initial rush! Like, enjoy it! Not to get depressed even more than I already am! I
will take it and you will pull me down into even worse depressions! You will simply make it
worse! … So I threw it away and said, ‘That’s enough! I can’t take it anymore!! It’s not what
it used to be.’
Similarly to Laura, Petra also describes periods of binge using related to the loss of
custody of and contact with her daughter. In her narrative she also describes the unbearable
emotional pain caused especially by her former husband and his family, who were not allowing
her to be in contact with her daughter. Petra stated that she also used drugs as a means of support
for herself, because it allowed her to suppress the overwhelmingly painful emotions, or escape
from them. In her case, the crisis was also a kind of ‘rock bottom’ experience through which
she realized that the drugs die not serve as the same support for her anymore. In this situation,
her surroundings, particularly the other drug users, played an important role, because she
realized she did not want to be in their company, or feel any support from them. In Petra’s
narrative, agency is exercised through the active refusal of drug use, when it did not bring her
relief anymore. The refusal was further expressed towards her surroundings, the other drug
users, to whom she was telling that she was not going to use with them anymore. Agency is
also expressed in Petra’s emphasis on the fact that she was able to refuse drugs, despite the fact
that they were all around her. This was something she had never done before, and now it would
support her in abstinence. The narrative discourse is expressed through showing the ability to
‘refuse what is not doing me good’, or ‘having the capacity to decide and control what I want
and what I do not want’.
Similarly to Laura and Petra, Diana also describes her period of binge use as related to
self-destruction, or as she called it ‘self-destructive binging’.
In Diana’s case, the trigger for binge use was a break up. After repeated violent attacks
from her partner, Diana escaped from their apartment and was staying in various places in
garden colony shacks, or random flats with other drug users. Meth was usually manufactured
in these places, which meant almost continuous access to drugs, but also a concentration of
many people. These insecure housing conditions were also characterized by constant fear that
her partner would find her and try to convince her to return, and beat her again. This happened
several times and Diana returned several times to their apartment. But after experiencing more
violence, she escaped again. In Diana’s narratives, the binge use was not related only to the
violent break-up, but also to an argument and parting from her best friend, Petra. It was to Petra
in her garden shack where Diana first went when she was fleeing from her partner. For some
time, she was living with her, but then they had some serious arguments after which they
stopped talking to each other for several months. Diana explains that it was horrible to
experience two of the closest people having ‘failed her’ at the same time, leaving her with
nowhere to go, no one to ‘lean on’. What happened after this ‘ultimate experience of failure’
Diana describes in her narratives as ‘declaring war against everyone’, or a ‘policy of evil little
brat’, or ‘no mercy policy’. Diana describes herself as being selfish and caring only about her
interests, which enabled her to indulge in intensive drug use at the expense of other people. This
meant that she was playing various tricks on other people in order to obtain drugs. She
concludes that this ‘policy’ was successful, because she stopped feeling hurt by other people
and could fully indulge in binge use, which ‘cut off’ her emotions as well as her perception of
62
the problems.
In Diana’s case, the binge using also meant everyday intravenous use of meth, lasting
for a period of several months. As she described in one of our interviews, she interrupts the
binge use only with short periods of rest, at which time she sleeps, smokes marijuana and eats
a lot, to gain back some weight.
D: Now it has been two weeks of only food and weed! No meth!! So now I look good! I wish
you could have seen me two weeks ago! [indicating how skinny she is] Well, it is also about
nerves!! I was doing it in self-destructive style …. A self-destructive binge.
When Diana talks about the binge as self-destructive, she refers to it as something
pleasant, as something she completely devoted herself to. It was related to her desire to
experience extremes, which she mentions in relation to her drug use initiation.
The motive of ‘cutting off emotions and thoughts’ and ‘escaping from reality’ through
drug use is demonstrated also in Diana’s narrative about the situation when she learned that her
grandfather had died. She received an email from her family, informing her about the death and
funeral of her grandfather. Unfortunately, she read the email several weeks later, so she deeply
regretted missing the funeral. What made the situation worse was her own lack of
communication: her family blamed her in the following emails for being insensitive and selfish.
She describes the binge use as an escape from this emotionally overwhelming situation.
D: There were simply too many bad things happening in too short a time for me… and my head
couldn’t take it all in, you know!! So I always flee to drugs ... and I always get high… but it’s
quite fun..........pathetic, but so what! .... I just laugh about it, because I can’t even imagine
anymore being normal. Sober. And then my head starts to spin around it! Ahhh! ….. and then I
can’t take it anymore [laughing] and I have to fly away again [laughing].
In Diana’s narratives about binge using periods, the surroundings are described as
problematic and unsupportive in various ways. Firstly, she describes oppression from her
partner in the form of domestic violence. Even when she tries to escape the situation, she
describes another lack of support from her best friend. Although Diana receives some support
from other people, in that she can stay with them in garden shacks or flats, it is very insecure
housing and she is still exposed to the potential violence of her partner. Despite the oppression
and lack of support, it is possible to recognize agency when Diana is protecting herself from
the violence by escaping from her partner, and also by constantly moving and searching for a
place where she could stay and be safe. I met Diana for an interview and focus groups several
times when she was having the binge use period. Often she was on the move from one place to
another; once she was also seriously beaten after being attacked by her partner. The situation
was also overwhelming for me, since I vividly perceived the oppression that Diana was
encountering. Nevertheless, the more Diana was describing various forms of oppression, the
more she was using the narrative discourse through which she was positioning herself as a
survivor, not a victim of the violence and hardships that she was going through. When she
describes the ‘no mercy selfish policy’, which according to her was successful, in the narrative
performance she demonstrates her ability to adapt to the harsh circumstances. Since no one had
any mercy on her, she decided to return the attitude, therefore, she would also take advantage
of other people (e.g. by securing supplies of drugs for herself, at the expense of other people).
To interpret this behaviour as an important exercise of agency is to not judge whether this
strategy is ‘successful’ or not, nor is it to relativize the oppression and harm that Diana was
experiencing. The ‘selfish and no mercy policy’ is also presented as a response or act of revenge
rather than having her own initial strategy. It is important to look at the agency exercised
through Diana’s survival narrative discourse. When presenting the stories, Diana claims to be
seen as a survivor – a person with agency, not a victim. This can be linked to the intention to
provoke respect and understanding rather than pity but also simple condemnation of her
behaviour.
63
3.2.1.6 Initiation into Intravenous Drug Use
In the case of Aurelia and Laura, a crisis situation was also related to the initiation into
intravenous drug use25
, something that they described as the next step towards more intense and
intensive drug use.
Aurelia describes a situation where she and her partner had nowhere to live and no
money. She describes this as a hard and desperate situation when she asked her partner to initiate
her into i.v. use. Till that time she was only snorting, but her partner was already an i.v. user.
When said that her partner was opposed to it and did not want her to start with i.v. use, but in
the end she convinced him.
Laura’s partner was also an i.v. user. She describes a situation where it was a time close
to her children’s birthdays and shortly before Christmas. She was sinking into depression and
begged her partner to do something to help her not to think about or feel the emotional pain.
She said that she even put it as a threat, that if he did not help her, she would commit suicide.
Her partner called her ex-husband and tried to arrange a possibility for her to see her daughters,
but he did not succeed. In this crisis situation, the partner agreed to initiate her into i.v. use.
Laura reports that it helped her calm down and in two days she felt much better. Therefore, after
those two days her partner was again strongly opposed to her continuing using meth
intravenously.
The reason why both Laura and Aurelia asked to be initiated into intravenous use was
because of the expectation that meth administered this way has a stronger effect than when
snorted, therefore having a stronger effect as a ‘pain killer’. These narratives provide insight to
a situation which has already been discussed: the relation between a crisis situation and the
desire to use meth, which seems to be the only support. Although it is possible to identify
Aurelia and Laura’s partners as important subjects in their environment, both participants
describe them as a source of support, but in direct relation with meth administration.
Nonetheless, the reason why I mention this situation again is that it contradicts the
common assumption about women’s involvement in drug use, which we can know from the
literature on this topic.
The commonly discussed assumption is that women are more likely to be introduced to
drug use by their romantic or sexual partner (e.g. Ettorre 1992; Inciardi et al.; Lalander 2003).
According to some authors, this introduction is related to a certain level of pressure from the
partners. For instance, for Ettorre (1992) the initiation is directly linked to the dominance and
oppression of women by their male counterparts. However, there are also authors who question
this direct linkage, which denies women’s agency and regards this simplification as a
stereotypical perception of women as only passive (e.g. Maher 1997; Carbone-Lopez et al.
2012).
In my research, the participants talked about the men, more experienced drug users, who
initiated them to i.v. use. Besides Aurelia and Laura, Diana’s initiation narrative told of a
situation where her brother injected her for the first time. However, what these initiation
narratives have in common is that all three participants describe that they pressured the men,
not the other way around. The participants describe their exercise of agency by making various
threats (e.g. threatening to ask strangers rather than the brother, threatening to commit suicide),
thus they had to overcome the resistance of the men and convince them to initiate them.
In the following narratives about going through crisis situations, the participants
describe how they exercised agency by taking drugs as an available source of support, which
helped them deal with emotional distress and trauma. Some participant add the narrative about
i.v. initiation, in which they express that although drugs were an available resource to them,
they deliberately chose more intensive intravenous use, which was not as ‘available’ to them
25
The term ‘i.v.’ stands for intravenous use.
64
since they needed someone to initiate them. Thus we can recognize a strong emphasis on the
exercise of agency in these narratives. The participants describe not only using available
resources to their benefit, but also overcoming constraints represented by their partners, or
brother, in order to get what they wanted. These narratives also represent the narrative discourse
of the interaction with me, through which the participants emphasized their deliberate decision
to use drugs and their readiness to overcome obstacles to achieve this goal. None of the
participants mentioned any ‘peer pressure’ applied to them to start with their i.v. use or get
involved in drugs to ‘fit in’ a group. It is important to notice that in their interaction with me,
the participants’ narrative discourse about their initiation stressed the exercise of agency and
refusal of the passive role. This can be seen in sharp contrast with the traditional assumptions
about the context of women’s involvement in drug use. These assumptions about women’s
passive role are also challenged by Diana’s narrative, where she describes how she was initiated
into i.v. use by a younger man.
This difference in the findings does not mean that, contrary to the authors who describe
women’s role in the initiation of drug use as more passive, I claim that they are active. This
would preserve the ‘victim-agent’ dichotomy. In my view, it is more important to see it as a
reflection of the research context. The interaction between me and the participants created a
space where the ‘active’ or ‘strong-agent’ narratives could be told. This is not to judge whether
these narratives are true or false, especially if they were, for instance, told in a way to impress
me. What I find more interesting about them is that they were presented this way that the ‘strong
agent’ narrative discourse was recognized as legitimate. To present oneself as an active agent
of initiation can be an acceptable, favoured or even desired image, but not a stigmatizing one.
Such research contexts then influence the research accounts, therefore, it is important to bear in
mind that it is not only the behaviour of the participants, but also the research context which
might cause different findings.
3.2.1.7 Drug Use as a Pleasurable and Joyful Experience
Diana describes that what she likes most about using meth is getting ‘into a different sphere, to
some distant places’. This experience is connected to ‘tripping alone’, so she does not pay
attention to others and is not bothered by them; she just enjoys herself. Aurelia also has
experience with using meth alone, even as a means to fall asleep. She explains that when she
takes meth, she feels like her body and mind can relax, and from that state slowly falls asleep.
Diana describes that she really likes to enjoy drugs in the company of other people.
Laura describes the good times she experienced with her female friends with whom she was
living in the same garden colony, and manufacturing and using drugs together. She describes
for instance, that they would get dressed up, which could take several hours when under the
influence of drugs, and then ‘go out’. This usually meant adventurous trips in the surroundings
of the gardening colony, for instance, discovering new empty garden shacks, or possibly trips
to parts of Město where none of them had ever been before.
L: Or we went exploring. For example, we would choose a destination ... like, for example,
where we knew that there are abandoned houses, or gardens – large ones, or parts of the city
which we had not explored yet. So we had it as a discovery trip! And so we went to discover!
...That was cool!
She continued to describe that when they got back home from these adventure trips, they
were usually all dirty from mud, etc., but what was important was the feeling of group
belonging, that they were not planning anything. Things happened spontaneously in very joyful
mood.
Aurelia also describes the fact that for many years she used with a group of friends and
it was fun and enjoyable to do drugs together. She states, ‘I enjoy it in the way that it should
65
be’, meaning in good spirits and without having any worries.
The pleasant experiences of drugs are also connected to sexuality. Several participants
mentioned that having sexual intercourse on drugs is one of the most important reasons to do
it. For instance, Iveta said that one of the things she misses when she is not using meth is the
way she was using it with her partner.
L: I miss it. I will say it like it is, simply, that I miss using it together with a guy!! Go outside
‘to nature’, as we used to go!! Simply for a stroll to chat a little, then eat something, and then
have sex!!! ... Because Marek has sex only when he is coming down [laughing].
Laura also describes her relation to a lover with who she was meeting occasionally, only
for sex. They used meth together and had many hours of intercourse.
Aurelia talked about the effect of meth on enhanced sexual activity and endurance.
During our interviews, she told several stories in which she offered meth to a man who she
wanted to have sex with. In these stories, she always pictures herself as sexually very active
and very lustful. She expresses how sex is important to her, also as the basis of a good
relationship.
In these narratives, participants describe a very important aspect of drug use, the times
when they can really enjoy it in a pleasant atmosphere and with joyful feelings. As we can
recognize from the narratives, the setting of such an enjoyable experience is very important.
These narratives were closely related to narratives about friendship, group belonging and
relationships with a partner.
As Svensson (2000) demonstrates on example from his own research, to gain a deeper
understanding of drug use, we need to stop asking questions such as ‘Why do people not give
up drugs?’ Instead, we need to focus more on why people actually continue to use drugs.
Svensson (2000) argues that in order to understand why someone uses drugs, it is important to
focus on everyday lives, rather than the pathology or deficits. In my research, taking this point
of view allowed me to recognize important positive aspects of the life connected to drug use.
The narratives are not only about marginalization, solitude and hardships. The participants in
the narratives describe a complex web of relations which are also supportive and bring joy,
pleasure and some ‘lightness’ to their everyday lives. Acquaintances, friends and partners are
important subjects in the narratives and the interaction with them is described in the narrative
discourse of strong group belonging and bonds with partners.
The narratives about the pleasurable context of drug use are very important for a
complex understanding of agency. It allows me to see agency as exercised through drug use not
only to overcome or escape problems, but also to enjoy a pleasant time with other people. In
these narratives both the drug and the people were described as an important source of benefit.
3.2.2 Reasons for Abstinence
During the one year when I was conducting the interviews, some participants were also going
through periods when they were either abstaining, or considerably reducing their drug use. The
length of these periods was different, as were the reasons for it. In some cases, it was more
about gaining more control over the use; in other cases, it was a decision to quit completely.
The intensity of drug use was closely related to housing conditions and pregnancy, or care of
new-born babies, therefore, I also discuss the topic of reduced drug use in other chapters. In
this subchapter, I present the narratives of Petra and Iveta, who were at some point decided for
total abstinence from methamphetamine.
66
3.2.2.1 Avoiding Contact with Other Drug Users
As was already mentioned, after a period of binge using, Petra realized that drugs do not help
her feel good anymore and she started to encounter unpleasant feelings and depressions even
when intoxicated. These uncomfortable experiences were in her narratives closely also
connected to the people she was using the drugs with. They became something of a mirror for
her, showing her the down sides of life on drugs. She said that suddenly she saw that everyone
was interested only in drugs and she did not feel any support when she felt miserable.
P: When I saw the people around, how ravenous they were! […] I wondered, ‘did I also look
like that?! Was I also like that?! Maybe yes!! ...For sure I was like this, in some way.’ So I
thought to myself, ‘this is really disgusting!!’
This realization lead her to avoid contact with drug users, but also the places where the
drugs were produced and distributed, because part of this uncomfortable feeling was that she
was being constantly contacted by people who were trying to obtain drugs from her.
P: This guy who was here, that’s the one who really fucked me up!! ..Within ten minutes! Five
minutes!! He would contact me seven times even at the drop-in centre!! .... Asking me to give it
to him! To give him some! .... Because I had given him something before ... During this short
time, he managed to fuck me up completely!! ...I tell to myself: ‘I know why I’m looking at it
now, whether I want to use it or not!’
During that time, Petra was living in a garden colony shack. Therefore, the decision to
avoid drug users and places where drugs were manufactured and distributed was inevitably
connected with the need to move somewhere else. Living at a place which everyone knew, she
could not avoid contact with them. Petra moved to a friend’s flat and was abstaining from meth
for about three months. She said that during this period, she tried to use meth again once. Partly
she regrets this ‘slip’, but at the same time she explains that it was useful for her. It showed her
that she was still not enjoying it and feels bad. So this experience actually strengthened her
decision to abstain.
Even after she moved out from the garden shack, she would meet other drug users and
faced some pressure to use with them. However, she said that since she lost interest in drugs,
which did not bring her any positive effect, it was quite easy to insist on abstinence.
P: Several times someone askedme: ‘ Do you want some? I have some!’
And I said, ‘No,.... I don’t want any!’
‘You don’t wanna???!!!
‘I don’t! I don’t want it! Because I know how it would end up!! I don’t want it!! .. I’d better
buy some food, cigarettes …. so it’s not tempting me!!! […] As it was before .. like when I saw
it I went: ‘Gimme, gimme!’ .... But now, they prepare it in front of me; they shoot it.
And I say, ‘So what? Is it good?
He: ‘Yeah! Great!
Me: ‘OK, can we go now?
He:’ Wait a sec!!!
Me: ‘[bored] OK, I will give you 10 more minutes.’
This narrative of abstinence shows the interaction between Petra and her surroundings,
which is described as ‘ravenous’ and making pressure on her to use drugs, or at least deal drugs,
thus being part of the drug business. It is also possible to see Petra as exercising agency through
resistance towards the pressure and refusal of the drugs, because they do not bring any benefit.
It is also possible to interpret the moving to the flat as an important exercise of agency. Since
through this she wanted to protect herself from contact with people she did not want to meet.
67
3.2.2.2 Desire for a ‘Normal Life’
In Iveta’s case the decision for abstinence was in her narratives closely related to what she was
describing as having a ‘normal life’. Her idea about the ‘normal life’ was connected to living
with her partner in stable housing, having a job and children. Iveta also explained that she was
optimistic about the possible development towards this idea.
I: Yeah! It’s getting better! Well, I think we still have a chance in our life. That we are not so
affected yet that we wouldn’t be able to live normally!! Going to work! Having kids, maybe! I
think it’s not a problem.
This desire for a ‘normal life’ got even stronger when Iveta got pregnant and started
planning a life for the child with her partner. But she had talked about the ‘normal life’ before,
describing it as a part of her personal development, or maturing, and focusing on other things,
which she might not have appreciated as a teenager.
I: Maybe the brain develops somehow... to some stage, I don’t know, like that it becomes
normal. Like that the brain ... like that it’s intelligent finally?! .. And people should ask
themselves, like what it gives and what it takes. And then, simply, I don’t know. For instance, I
like to play table tennis, you know?! I simply like other things to do, you know?! Like, before I
was thinking, hmmm, today we will watch TV again!! In the evening and now?! What I would
give for the possibility to do it, you know?! Now I would be happy to do it again! So I don’t
know, but I think it is a development, in time.
She also explains that in her view to be part of society and lead a ‘normal life’, it is
important not to have a criminal record, especially because it causes problems when searching
for a job. In one narrative, she said that she realized that most of her friends, including female
friends, were in prison, that is, with a criminal record.
I: So I told myself, ‘I never want to end up like this! And I managed!!! .. I think it is not going
down! But I’m approaching the system ...or something like this, something normal, […] but it’s
really cruel, because everywhere they ask you about your criminal record! It’s not possible to
erase it, just like that!
To approach this dream of having a ‘normal life’, Iveta and her partner started to
organize many things in their life. They started to be in contact with several institutions to apply
for new identification cards, they registered at the Employment Office to receive housing
benefits, etc. While trying to be more organized, Iveta states that they also needed to quit using
drugs, because these two activities did not go together. As she and her partner explain, on drugs,
time passes without noticing it and it is not good to talk to officials after lacking sleep for several
days.
I: You know what?... It’s difficult to solve problems when you are on it! .. Like when you get
high, things don’t get done any faster.
Partner: You postpone everything!
I: Everything is postponed.
Partner: And it gets worse!
I: And before you wake up from it…
Partner: You have another dose!
I: […] We just had three days like that [laughing], or I don’t know, a week?! ... It was simply
a week-long binge! ...Then we had a pause for three days ... and then again ....so ... I don’t
know. You see, I didn’t want to go to the Employment Office, like when you are tweaking!!!!
Like it’s difficult to talk to them ... and they also talk to you differently.
When I met Iveta again, after half a year, she reported that she was enjoying the positive
outcomes of abstinence, because she felt that she had her life more under control and was more
organized. She explained that it meant especially coming for arranged meetings and keeping
promises. When she was 15 minutes late for our meeting, she apologized and explained what
had happened to her. She said it was important for her that I do not get the impression that she
68
is ‘stuck again somewhere’. Because now she is not ‘getting stuck’ like other people on drugs
who ‘call you to say that they will come in 10 minutes, but then never show up’. It was important
for her to distance herself from that behaviour, which she sees as typical for drug users.
During our interviews, Iveta was continuously describing her progress towards her goal
of having a ‘normal life’, which is where I see her agency as being exercised very strongly. She
and her partner plan to organize stable housing and a job for themselves. Later, when Iveta was
pregnant, her desire for secure stable living conditions and an income got even stronger.
It is interesting to notice that in Iveta’s narratives, agency is expressed through her effort
to reach her goals and abstinence is described as a kind of ‘side effect’, which came along with
the changes necessary to achieve the goal. Iveta did not describe the need to declare or explain
her abstinence to other drug users in her surroundings. She described her surroundings as a
source of support, represented by the Employment Office and social benefits, and her agency
was an activity to use these resources to her benefit. Where she exercised her agency to distance
herself from drug users was in interaction with me and the ‘normal society’ to which she wants
to belong. Again, it was not through declaring abstinence, but by explaining why she was late
for our meeting, because she does not want me to connect it with the behaviour of a ‘typical
drug user’, avoiding a criminal record was a priority, because that would mean long-lasting
stigma in society.
3.2.3 Health Care and Harm Reduction Strategies
One of the topics mentioned by several participants related to drug use was the care about one’s
own health and various harm reduction26
strategies related to it.
In this chapter, I present harm reduction strategies related to drug use. In the first
subchapter, there is prevention of infectious diseases and problems with veins. The second
chapter deals with the risk of using overly high doses of meth. The third chapter summarizes
other harm reduction strategies which are not directly related to i.v. use.
3.2.3.1 Problems with Veins and Infectious Diseases
The main problems related to intravenous drug use can be seen in health problems related to
veins (such as inflammation and abscesses), the transmission of infectious diseases such as HIV
or hepatitis, and a higher risk of overdose. In separated chapter I discuss the difference between
overdose and the risk of using too high dose of meth.
Iveta describes that it is very important for her to use all the harm reduction material she
can get at the drop-in centre. Thus, it is not only the use of clean needles, but also disinfection,
sterile water etc. Iveta points out that taking care of her veins is an inseparable part of i.v. use.
Something it ‘pays off’ since due to this care she did not encounter any serious problems with
her veins.
M: When you were injecting, did you always try to have clean…?
I: My own! Sure! .. Of course! ..... Well, here you have no problem going to the exchange27
!!
If you can, you take the dirty ones and go to the exchange! ... It’s free! So what more can people
expect?! ....You can take disinfection, water, everything! […] You also have to think about
26
‘Harm reduction refers to policies, programmes and practices that aim to reduce the harms associated with the
use of drugs for people unable or unwilling to stop. The defining features are focus on the prevention of harm,
rather than the prevention of the drug use itself, and the focus on people who continue to use drugs.’ (IHRA 2010:
1).
27
‘Exchange’ participants refer to a harm reduction needle exchange program provided either by a drop-in centre
or outreach programme.
69
yourself a bit, when you use! And don’t shoot up after everyone! You know?! I always took care
of myself!
Not all participants described the use of harm reduction material and care practice about
their health as something very important. Nevertheless, all of them mentioned that they were in
contact with a drop-in centre or outreach program in order to use the needle exchange service.
Most of the participants also mentioned that they use the possibility of HIV and hepatitis testing
in the centre or in the outreach program. This contact with the harm reduction services is an
important source of support. It offers clean needles, syringes and other harm reduction material
free of charge, therefore, enabling or supporting drug users’ agency exercised through care for
their health.
Aurelia also mentions that an important source of support for her is that she can use the
harm reduction service through the outreach workers who come to the part of the city where
she lives. She would not go to the drop-in centre, because she wants to use only the needle
exchange program and testing, but not more intensive contact. This is expressed in her narrative
in her comment that in the drop-in centre they ‘help’ people, but she wants ‘only exchange’.
M: Do you go somewhere for a needle exchange? Are you in contact
A: Not like in contact, or like this. I just go to exchange[…]
M: Do you know the drop-in?
A: Yes, I’ve been there! But .... I was there just for exchange […] I don’t know, the drop-in,
there they help, don’t they? They help those….
However, the needle exchange is not always done directly through the harm reduction
services. Friends and other drug users are important sources of support. Several participants
mentioned that it is common to exchange big amounts of needles and distribute them to the
people who use together. So the agency exercised through looking after one’s own health is
supported by the harm reduction service, as well as by other people who exchange the needles
and distribute them in wider networks. For instance, it is done in situations where they do not
have time to visit the service, or do not want to go there for other reasons, such as pregnancy
or fear of stigma.
Diana describes the drop-in centre as an important support of her healthcare after a
worker from the centre accompanied her to the hospital. She said that she had vein
inflammation. Since it was obvious that it was from drug use and the fact that she does not pay
health insurance, she was afraid that she would be refused at the hospital, even though it was
an emergency situation. She reports that the doctors agreed to give her emergency care since
she came there with a social worker. The reason why Diana was afraid of a negative response
from the doctors was due to her previous experience, when she was refused help at the hospital.
D: The doctor simply looked at my arm and then stated that it was my own fault, because he
saw the needle marks. So he told me to think about myself and that he had more urgent patients
than me.
Contrary to Diana, Iveta had a very positive experience with a doctor. Iveta stated that
she realized she had a bad rash on her skin and was scared that it was scabies. Therefore, despite
the fact that it was Friday afternoon, she went to a dermatology clinic to get help. She describes
the doctor and nurse as being very kind to her and that it was possible to openly acknowledge
that she was a drug user, because the doctor was not judgemental; she expressed understanding
about the fact that she was probably homeless.
I: So, the doctor looked at it and said, ‘It has been there for a long time. Obviously, you are
living in some unsatisfactory conditions, maybe on the street. But I don’t blame you for that or
something! You use drugs, don’t you?’
I said yes, and that I take it intravenously and that I use rather often, sometimes every day
[…]She prescribed antibiotics for me, and a cream that simply healed it.
As follows from the discussed narratives, taking care of one’s health is one of the most
70
important exercises of agency. It can be identified through visiting harm reduction services in
order to have access to clean needles and other material. It is also through seeking health care
in cases of emergency as, for instance, with vein inflammation or infectious skin disease. The
important subjects in the surroundings can be an important support in this, such as the harm
reduction service person in offering the needle exchange and accompanying the client to the
hospital. Hospitals and medical staff can serve as an important source of support, or, conversely,
can crucially hinder the care of the drug user’s health. In Diana’s narrative, we can recognize
agency being exercised through the care of her own health and her effort in seeking help, as
well as in not giving up after the first refusal she encountered, but going to the drop-in centre
and using the possibility of assistance of the workers.
3.2.3.2 The Risk of Using Overly High Doses of Meth
Another important topic related to drug use was the risk of using overly high doses of meth. At
this point, it is important to explain that the use of overly high doses of meth relates to a specific
term, used by almost all participant to refer to a situation in which a person uses a higher dose
of meth than usual, or than planned, with the effect being perceived as too strong. The term
used by participants can be translated into English as an ‘over-kick’28
and the meaning is related
but different from overdose. Although it implies that using too high a dose leads to an overdose,
the meaning of the term ‘over-kick’ does not refer to serious, life-threatening health problems.
The effect of ‘over-kick’ relates rather to an effect which is perceived as too strong and therefore
unpleasant. In the interviews, the use of too high a dose was mentioned basically in two main
contexts: either in relation to the initiation to intravenous use, or as something done on purpose
in relation to sexual violence.
The use of too high a dose in relation to initiation means that someone who is
experienced with intravenous drug use injects someone else for the first time. This situation is
described for instance by Diana. She reports that too high a dose of meth can be used by
accident, usually because the person injecting the other person cannot estimate the right amount
of drug. Diana describes her experience from both sides: she was injected with too high a dose
of meth by accident by her brother when he initiated her into drug use, and she also once injected
too high a dose to a girl she was initiating.
Diana describes two strategies she uses to prevent the administration of too high a dose.
Firstly, she regards it as crucial to learn how to inject oneself, to avoid the need to ask other
people to inject her. Secondly, her rule is also that she refuses to inject other people, to avoid
the situation of administering too high a dose to someone else. Finally, she says that injecting
others is best avoided, as administering drugs to someone else is a more serious criminal offence
than the distribution of drugs. Hence, she does not want to take this risk. Aurelia described an
incident where she refused to inject other people, because she had been in prison in relation to
this kind of offence.
At one focus group, Diana, Petra and Laura discussed the administration of too high a
dose as something which can also be done on purpose by someone to take advantage of someone
else. They described it as a situation of typically a man in possession of drugs administering a
drug intravenously to a woman. Through this activity he injects too high a dose of meth on
purpose to have sex with her. At the same time, they all agreed that to become involved in this
activity is silly and naïve from the perspective of the woman. In this discussion, their narrative
discourse was intended to show me that this could not happen to them, because they are
experienced, able to predict such situations and avoid them. On the other hand, they mentioned
28
In Czech the term used by the participants was ‘překopnutí’.
71
that the act of injecting each other can also be a part of sexual foreplay, which creates a ‘toxic
bond’ between two people and that it is an activity they like to get involved in.
In giving these seemingly contradictory descriptions of what it means when one person
injects another (‘toxic bond’ vs. administration of too high a dose to someone else in order to
take advantage of them), they exercise their agency through narrative discourse which
demonstrates how important it is to be ‘experienced and smart’. They concluded that because
they are ‘experienced and smart’, they carefully choose who they use with. Furthermore, they
are always ready to inject themselves, so there is no need to ask someone else. If they allowed
someone else to inject them, it would be someone they knew, so they could better predict what
would happen. These strategies allow them to prevent or lower the risk of using too high a dose.
These narratives about the risk of being injected with too high a dose on purpose by
male drug users can be related to what has already been discussed about the dominance and
oppression of women users by male users, be it dealers, pimps, friends or partners (e.g.; Denton
2001; Ettorre 1992; Inciardi et al. 193; Maher 1997). However, it is important to note that both
Aurelia and Diana tell stories in which they were the ones who initiated a man into i.v. use.
Diana even describes a case whereby she injected a higher dose to a man in order to have control
and manipulate him. Diana described how she enjoyed playing with a man who was younger
than her and how he was overwhelmed by that experience with her.
D: I got that 22-year-old, who till then had only snorted, to start to shoot up [in an amused
tone]!! ....... I told him: ‘I will fuck you up within a few days!!! […] Well, in the very beginning,
I tried to protect him from it, but by the end of the day, he fell into my claws......He was a kind
of filter for me!! Like, I felt really fucked up, so I told myself, ‘I will go for him to see that he is
fucked up as well [laughing]?! And suddenly I felt better [laughing]!!! […] I knew I would
over-kick him [laughing]... but I didn’t let him go to the forest or anywhere. I got him high for
myself so I was with him the whole time! […]I was really mean to him, putting him down […]
and in bed he must have felt really humiliated [laughing] […]
He said: ‘I feel like a little misused whore!!!!’
I said: ‘Well, that’s what you are!!!’ [laughing]
Diana’s friend Vít, who joined our interview for a while, shares his experience. He was
initiated to intravenous use by an older, more experienced female friend who convinced him to
take it although he was rather hesitant.
In the above-mentioned narrative in interaction with me, Diana described her agency in
the form of power which she was exercising over a younger and less experienced man. She also
explained that she was putting the man down and humiliating him not to be the only one who
feels bad. I found it important to place this story in the wider context of Diana’s experiences
and narratives. Prior to the time when Diana told me this story, she was describing experiences
of severe physical violence and humiliation from her former partner. In the previous story,
Diana presents herself as a perpetrator of violence. Therefore, placing it in the context of
previous narratives about victimization, it is possible to interpret this one as a narrative
discourse through which Diana rejects being only in the position of someone who is victimized,
but emphasises that she can also do harm to other people. Through this she denies the passive
victimized position.
3.2.3.3 Other Harm Reduction Strategies
Besides the harm reduction strategies directly related to the risks of intravenous use, the
participants described some other strategies they used to reduce the harm of drug use.
Diana stated that she buys drugs only from people she knows, or actually only from
people with whom she has some level of trust. This strategy concerns not only obtaining good
quality drugs, because the quality of meth can be very variable, but avoiding dangerous
72
substances, which can be mixed to the drugs and lead to serious health problems.
D: I would never buy something from someone, Like, in the city, anymore. Because it really
doesn’t pay off. […] Like the young guy who came and was showing me the stuff, and I could
see the white Paralen29
in it and I tell him, ‘you can be happy if it is only Paralen!’ ... Junkies,
you know junkies, even here at the drop-in, rip each other off. They know they will meet each
other here again, but still sell each other junk!
Laura describes her harm reduction strategies for meth use as relating to taking care of
herself. Although the intoxication on methamphetamine lasts for several hours, it is common to
use more doses after another. So the intoxication can last for days. Therefore, Laura explains
that she learned, in order to prevent health problems, to remember to drink plenty of fluids
regularly (e.g. water), to force herself to eat before, but also during the intoxication, and to get
enough sleep afterwards.
L: When I use, I keep in mind that I have to drink a lot!! That I have to eat a lot before!! Like,
the beginnings were hard. […]But I’ve learnt! […] And nowadays, even before I’m going to
take something, I drink! I eat something! I eat some fruit! And after that I can!!!! After that I
go, ok?! But not before I do this! And then I can take, because I know that the body has enough
supplies for eight or ten hours! […] I guess if I didn’t have these rules, it would be bad,....but I
… never use more than two days anyways! Simply no! And then I go to sleep! ..Because I know
… like, the third day ….. what a mess you have in your head!! [laughing]
Similar to the risk of using too high a dose, other harm reduction strategies were
intensively discussed at the focus groups. The participants shared and explained the rules and
strategies they use to prevent harm related to drug use. The exercise of agency in these
narratives can be interpreted as the ability to take care of oneself, but also to learn from one’s
own or other’s bad experiences and develop strategies to prevent serious health problems.
3.2.4 The Complexity of the Drug Economy
Another topic closely related to drug use is the drug economy, the means through which drugs
are obtained. The participants basically described two main ways of how they obtain drugs for
their own use. The first way is related to the production of meth, which mainly meant they were
manufacturing it themselves, usually with other people. The other way is obtaining it from
friends, acquaintances, other drug users they know, without directly participating in the
manufacturing. These two ways are, however, closely interrelated since they are part of the
complex relations within the drug economy. The complexity of relations is described by the
participants as, for instance, a situation where they get some drugs for free from a friend at one
moment, but this is actually related to the fact that in the past, the person contributed to
manufacturing by some chemical precursors, money etc. It is important to note that the
complexity of the drug economy is much wider than will be discussed in this chapter, as it might
involve, for instance, smuggling, selling the drugs in large amounts, or various ways through
which chemical precursors are obtained. The drug economy is also related to other criminal
activities such as car theft. However, I address only the themes which were discussed by the
participants, without trying to provide an overview of the whole complexity of the drug
economy.
3.2.4.1 Meth Manufacturing
As was already mentioned, meth manufacturing is a kind of collective activity to which people
29
These white pills are similar to aspirin. Ground into a powder they can be used to dilute meth to earn more
money on selling it.
73
who are involved contribute with various tasks. There might be one person responsible for the
whole manufacturing process (referred to as the ‘cook’), and others who contribute, for instance,
by obtaining the chemical precursors necessary for production.
The participants often talked about other people as being those who are responsible for
the drug production: the ‘cooks’. These were usually friends, acquaintances or their partners.
However, most of them mentioned that they are experienced in meth manufacturing as well.
Four of them talked about active participation in manufacturing recently. This participation
ranged from being the ‘cook’ to contributing with some precursors, or assisting during
production.
As was discussed at one of the focus groups, the complexity of the drug economy and
meth manufacturing is characterized not only by the role one plays in the process, but also the
quality of the drug that one is able to produce. Since the quality is variable and highly dependent
on the skills and experience one has with the manufacturing, it is also a source of status and
reputation within the drug scene. This status belongs especially to the ‘cook’, but can be
transferred also to the romantic partner or good friend of that person.
For instance, Diana describes her ‘affair’ with the younger man she first initiated into
intravenous use and then manufactured meth with him. She clearly assigns her role as the one
who produces the drug and the man as someone who was doing lower status activities such as
shoplifting to obtain money for precursors.
D: Well, he was running with me for some time; he was shoplifting. And you know, I had money
from him [laughing]. He was buying boxes30
and I was cooking the stuff, like we were highall
the time! […] And I can tell you, I was cooking up excellent stuff!
As was already mentioned in the context with initiation, by occupying the status of drug
manufacturer and exercising power over male users, Diana challenges some assumptions about
the role of women in the drug economy. Most of the participants presented a similar story to
Diana’s. In these narratives they were exercising their agency by depicting themselves as
experienced and independent. When necessary, they could produce meth for themselves and
did not have to rely on other people, particularly men who were sometimes asking them for
unacceptable things in return, as will be discussed in the following chapter.
On the other hand, in several cases, the main drug manufacturer was a partner. Diana
and Petra state that although they can both manufacture it themselves, the fact that their former
partners were producing high quality meth was sometimes a reason to return to them, or at least
keep good relations with them.
3.2.4.2 The Price of Drugs ‘For Free’
The drug economy in the participants’ narratives was characterized especially by the
complexity of relations and transactions within the drug scene which allowed access to drugs.
Some participants often stated that they ‘get drugs for free’, but this narrative usually included
explanations of what exactly ‘free’ means.
For instance, Diana’s narrative about giving drugs for free to her best friend revealed
that, at the same time, it does not mean it is free from expectations of getting some drugs in
return in future.
D: Well, I was always giving her stuff for free. We always got her high! ....... After all that she
asks me: ‘And when did you give me something last?
And I tell her: ‘You little bitch!!’ ...Well, some junkies are like that, like when you give, they
take, but from their side, you can never expect anything, not even if they have plenty.
30
‘Boxes’ refer to boxes of medication which contain pseudoephedrine. It is one of the precursors for
methamphetamine production and is available over the counter.
74
Another of Diana’s narratives is related to ‘getting drugs for free’ from people who were
helping her when she was leaving her violent partner and had nowhere to live. These people
offered her a place to stay and supplied her with abundant drug consumption, in relation to the
crisis situation she was going through. In her narrative about the situation, Diana values the free
drug supply as an important source of support.
D: They saw me at my worst, in my craziest states! And they started with uninterrupted meth
supply! And did not want anything from me! You see?!!! Like they treated me really nicely!!!
And they helped me …… really!! They were the only ones who helped me right at that moment!!!
By offering me at least the escape! That they were giving me means to get high […] And I didn’t
pay for it [laughing] […] Like, these people, when they saw me in this disastrous state, they did
not want anything from me! No demands! No hassles!
However, this narrative continues with the explanation that Diana could offer something
in return. Although she usually does not have money, when she gets hold of drugs or precursors,
she shares them with those people. She explains that this behaviour contributes to building
relationships based on trust, which create the basis for giving someone ‘free’ drugs, because
one can trust that they will get something in return later.
D: But most of them know I don’t have money to pay for it…. But when I have something good,
I always share it with them .... I simply give them back something! .......... Like when I get hold
of some chemicals [precursors], they get the chemicals, ...... or when I have some meth, I come
and get them high! […] If they are worth it!!!! If the people are worth it, you know what I
mean? Like they treated me well, or they helped me, then yes! […] And then you see how they
change their view about you! They say to themselves: ‘OK! She didn’t have to come with
something but…’… Like, sometimes they are really astonished!!!! Like that they didn’t expect
it!
Once when I gave Diana the 70 CZK for the interview, she commented that it was great
that she could bring the money to some people who had helped her previously. Although it was
a small amount, she said it would be important to show that she was willing to share when she
has something. Similar transactions were described with food and marijuana.
From another of Diana’s narratives, it followed that another way to ‘pay back’ for drugs
is based on her social capital. She described a story in which she was staying in a flat with more
people and getting drugs for free from them. In return, she was protecting them from a debt
collector. Because she was a good friend of the debt collector, the others had a vested interest
in having her stay in the flat. The means to keep her there was to offer her drugs for free.
D: I only show up there and they […] if there is some meth, first of all, they get me high,
because … it seems to me that they want to get me on their side, you know what I mean?
[…]There is a guy who comes there every now and then and puts pressure on them.. I can say,
he’s actually one of my good friends!! … He likes me!!! And I like him! … And they owe him
something, so when he is goes there to ask for it […] they can’t do anything about it. They
always give him everything he asks for […] But the fact that I was there now maybe saved them
as he did not take the TV.
As was discussed, the offers of ‘drugs for free’ are usually not free of the expectations
of something in return; at least not when these offers are repeated or long-term. It is evident
that repayment can be made with more than just money. The payment can also be postponed,
but that requires relations based on trust and a previous positive experience. The possibility to
get drugs and other advantages such as housing ‘for free’ is also based on one’s social status
and social capital. These complex transactions may concern an exchange of sexual services in
return for drugs or other benefits. This topic will be discussed in the following subchapter.
75
3.2.4.3 Sexual Services in Exchange for Drugs
Another expectation which can be included in the offer of drugs ‘for free’ is the expectation of
sexual services in return. Petra talks about this practice as something that is rather common
among drug users, but expresses her strong disagreement with it.
P: I hate it! To sleep with someone for drugs! These are things which … I never liked and never
will!!! I will never think it’s OK!!!
In another interview Petra again expressed her strong disagreement with this practice.
However, it was in the context of a situation where her flat-mate was expecting sex from her
for drugs and the possibility to live at his place. She expressed anger towards him and the
attitude that she would never agree with such a transaction.
P: Well, he is making some claims on me!! Horrible, it is! ..... I have never misused anyone!! I
never slept with anyone for drugs!!! I never lived with someone because he had drugs!!! First
of all, I can make it myself!! Second, I find it really disgusting when someone sleeps with
someone for… one line… I hate it!!!
Petra also tells two stories in which she describes herself as someone who ‘saved’ other
girls from doing it.
P: I also saved a few friends from it, or …. I went somewhere with them, where they were
expected to do it … and they didn’t do it, because I was there! ...Everyone knows this about me
that I don’t approve of it!! I don’t like it!!
In the following narrative, Petra explains that the way she prevented her friend from
being involved in an exchange of sex for drugs was that she talked about it with her, but also
with the man who was demanding the sexual services.
P: Once we came to the friend’s flat, he immediately abused the girl who was with me! And I
say: ‘No way!!! I don’t like that! She’s my friend. Leave her alone!!! All right!!’... Not that he
abused her, but he wanted her to turn a trick for him and so on! And I say no way! That’s not
why we are here!!!
It is an important question, whether such a situation could be interpreted and labelled as
prostitution. If we define prostitution, or involvement in the sex-business as not only the
exchange of sexual services for money, but also for housing, food, clothing, drugs or other
material goods (Maher 1997), we can interpret all the relations described by Petra as
prostitution. When considering that the customers of the sexual services are not necessarily
strangers or anonymous people, but very often acquaintances or friends (Inciardi et al. 1993), it
is another argument to look at this transaction as prostitution.
On the other hand, none of the participants used the term prostitution for the activity
which was somehow concerning them personally. We can see Petra naming the fact that the
man was expecting prostitution (‘turning tricks for him’), but this was concerning the situation
of her friend, not Petra personally. The common way to name such transactions was to refer to
them as ‘to sleep with someone for drugs’. To become involved in these transactions, especially
when it concerned friends, was not regarded as prostitution or involvement in the sex-business.
This might be a valid reason not to label it as prostitution.
Another serious argument against labelling this activity as prostitution is that this term
can be perceived as stigmatizing and evoking negative stereotypes, particularly when talking
about ‘prostitutes’. Therefore, some scholars as well as practitioners suggest using the term ‘sex
work’ and ‘sex worker’, or ‘person involved in the sex-business’. These are perceived as nonjudgemental
terms which are often preferred by the people involved. This is especially because
they highlight labour and income generation and recognise consent and agency exercised
through the decision to participate in the sex-business (Ditmore 2013).
I agree that probably one of the reasons why the participants did not refer to these
activities as prostitution was that this term has a negative connotation. Therefore, they did not
want to label something they or their friends might have had personal experience with. This
76
would bring the stigma of the word onto themselves.
However, I think it is also important to notice that when participants talked about the
exchange of sexual services for drugs, they also distanced themselves from it, for instance, by
claims that it is rather common, but they never do it; or they expressed disrespect to the women
who are involved in it.
It is interesting to look at it from the point of view of agency exercised through the
narratives. The participants stated that sex for drug transactions is rather common, even in their
close surroundings, and there are narratives about their own behaviour which might be
interpreted as sex work. On the other hand, most of the participants used narrative discourse
through which they expressed their disagreement with such transactions strongly distancing
themselves from it. For instance, Petra and Aurelia claim that it is something they would not
tolerate, something that is disgusting for them.
A: It doesn’t matter what people think but you need to have the stomach for it!! .... Really!!!
You have to have the stomach and personality for it!!! Me personally, I’d rather steal a car or
something!! … You know what I mean? …..But not turn tricks.
The terms ‘sex work’ or ‘involvement in the sex-business’ might be seen as more
appropriate since they endow the person involved with agency and consent. Nonetheless, I
decided not to use these terms in my interpretation to label ‘sex for drugs’ transactions described
by the participants. This is because, for instance, Petra and Aurelia were using narrative
discourse in which they were rejecting involvement in this activity as such. It does not matter
what level of agency one might exercise in it.
One exception from the narrative discourse in regards to rejecting sex work as such is
Diana’s point of view. She explains that it is acceptable for her to have sex with someone in
exchange for drugs, but emphasises that it has to be someone who she deliberately chooses and
likes.
D: Well, I know where to go!! Like knowing, OK, this could be fine! […] Like, I know he has
good quality meth and I also know that the guy is also good for, you know what I mean, like we
already had a fling or something like this before.
Contrary to Petra, Aurelia and Laura, Diana says that she does not have a problem with
what is clearly a ‘sex for drugs’ exchange. At the same time, she expresses this attitude in a
way which endows her with strong agency. She indicates that it is she who chooses the man
and suggests that she would probably be interested in having sex with him even without the
drugs. So she places herself in a situation where she has as if nothing to lose and the drugs are
a bonus rather than the only interest. Therefore, Diana’s description of this activity need not be
labelled as sex work. Although she aggress to be involved in a ‘sex for drugs’ transaction, she
distances herself from what might be seen as ‘typical’ sex work – providing sexual services but
not necessarily liking the person.
The discussion about the contexts of drug use in which drugs are offered seemingly ‘for
free’ or in exchange for sexual services will be concluded with a quote by Diana. She defines
her basic rule of creating space for herself in which she can exercise agency through choosing
what she is willing to do in exchange for drugs.
D: That’s always what I make clear at the very first moment!!! When I get the syringe in my
hand I ask: ‘What do you want for it??!!!’ How should I understand it? I always make this
clear!! […]When they say something and I know it’s not gonna work, then I return the stuff […]
I don’t have a problem with this!! ... I go crazy because of how much I want it, but no way!!
In this narrative, Diana presents her agency as exercised by creating a space in which
she can have control over the transactions, but the narrative also implies that those in her
surroundings are prepared to accept her decisions.
77
3.2.4.4 Drug Dealing
An important part of the complexity of relations within the drug economy is drug dealing.
Participants talked about drug dealing within two main contexts. Firstly, it was a topic about
which they could demonstrate their competence and power within the drug scene. Secondly,
drug dealing was mentioned several times as very good, and almost the only way to earn money.
Aurelia told several stories about meth manufacturing and dealing through which she
was demonstrating her ability to produce high quality meth and at the same time have control
over the distribution and selling. Through the narrative performance, Aurelia repeatedly
demonstrated how the position of meth manufacturer and dealer allows her to exercise power
over other people. In these narratives, she distanced herself from other drug users, but explained
strategies through which she gains respect on the drug scene. In one narrative, this was
described through demonstrating her control over the situation, as well as over herself not
craving meth as others do.
A: Like for example, someone comes and asks: ‘You have something?’
And I say: ‘I do, but not for you! You are on the black list!’ [laughing] ... I have no problem
taking 10 grams and throwing it into the sewer! You know, it’s just white powder for me!
Nothing more! It doesn’t have any value! […]And the guy starts to jump around, and me, maybe
after the fifteenth time: ‘I’d rather throw it away than give it to you!’ [laughing] And you see
the guy go nuts!
As another strategy to gain respect on the drug scene, Aurelia describes her involvement
in violence: she can demonstrate that she can defend herself; furthermore, she is not afraid to
attack someone else.
A: Once there was this guy, he did not care that I was a woman!!
He said, ‘You behave like a man, you get it like a man!!’
But I always stand up for myself!! … I think that was the advantage for me [laughing]. Like, I
was down on the ground and say: ‘No way! This can’t be!!’ And I attack him again!!! .. And
this way, I can say, you build respect! You know, like they see that the guy really beats you
down on the ground, but you still don’t give up! You go for it! And then you get the respect!
Like you build it! .. And you need that, especially when you deal with stuff like that [drug
dealing]!
There is, however, more to this story than only the need to build respect and defend
one’s position on the drug scene. This narrative very well reflects the gendered character of the
drug scene. The position of women within the drug economy is the focus of many scholars (e.g.
Denton 2001; Grundetjern and Sandberg 2002; Inciardi et al. 1993; Maher 1997). Some studies
portray women as subordinated and at the periphery of the drug economy. However, more
recent studies challenge this view. Although the drug economy is perceived as male-dominated,
many authors recognize the strategies that women develop to deal with their disadvantaged
position to become successful dealers. Thus, the violent behaviour can be interpreted as an
inseparable part of involvement in the drug economy (e.g. to prevent being robbed of drugs and
money); as Aurelia comments, ‘you need that, especially when you deal with stuff like that’. It
can also be interpreted as one of the strategies that Aurelia uses to build respect for herself on
the drug scene as a woman. She said that it was necessary to behave ‘like a man’; she had to
prove that as a woman she is ‘as good as a man’. She describes in the narrative that when she
occupies the traditionally masculine position: ‘you behave like a man’; she cannot expect
special treatment because she is a woman: ‘you get it like a man’.
Diana also talks about her strategies for successful drug dealing. She describes how she
exercises power over other drug users, but her narrative discourse in this situation is more about
‘being smart’ or ‘tricky’ to be a successful dealer. She described the various tricks she uses to
make the price of the drugs higher. For instance, when she knows that she is the only person
78
who is in possession of drugs somewhere, she can set the price much higher than is common
and people will buy it anyways. She also described a situation where she was intentionally
injecting someone in front of people who did not want to buy drugs from her because of the
high price. As Diana explains, she uses this trick, because she knows it is difficult for buyers to
resist the craving when they see another person using drugs.
Aurelia and Diana also depicted how the possession of drugs gives them power which
they can exercise over other people. In the narrative discourse, the strong power dominance is
expressed by distancing themselves from these people and putting them into a lower position.
In her narratives, Aurelia placed emphasis on the fact that the important subjects in her
environment towards whom she was exercising power were men. Her narrative discourse,
through which she was presenting herself as a violent but respected person was important in
defending her role as a woman in an environment dominated by men. Diana’s narratives about
her involvement in drug dealing did not emphasise whether the transactions were with men or
women. This is similar to what Grundetjern and Sandberg (2002) describe in their research on
female drug dealers. They explain that some female drug users adopt strategies such as
desexualisation, a violent posture, or emotional detachment to become ‘one of the guys’. These
strategies, similar to Aurelia’s violent strategy, are used to show that women can be equal
competition of men in the drug economy. Besides these three, Grundetjern and Sandberg (2002)
also recognize a fourth strategy – service mindedness; this does not compete, or compensate for
the lack of masculinity, but is perceiving the drug-business in a more gender neutral way.
Although Diana’s strategy was not service-mindedness, but rather a strategy of ‘being smart
and tricky’, her narrative discourse does not reflect the gendered roles within the drug economy.
Besides the narratives in which drug dealing has been described as a source of power
and dominance, there were also stories about drug dealing through which participants described
it as a good and sometimes only way to earn money. Therefore, these stories differ quite
substantially in how the participants describe their exercise of agency in them, as well as in the
narrative discourse. Drug production and dealing were presented not as something they
deliberately chose from a variety of options, but rather as the only option left open to them.
Both Petra and Laura mention that they do not want their partners to be involved in meth
manufacturing or dealing. However, at the same time, they see it at some point as the only way
for them to earn money.
P: I don’t know… I want to help him, because I know that he can really work hard, and the
cooking [manufacturing meth] … he also hates it!! .. But how else do you want to earn some
money?! So, like, someone calls him, ‘Will you make some?!’
So he says yes, because there is nothing else he can do! You know what I mean?! He gets his
share from it!! He can sell it, or stuff like that, you know?! And gets money! But he really hates
it!! He wants to have a job! Earn money!! ... Like to have a job and live in a decent place. […]
L: We can have money and everything, but for the price that Marek cooks up the meth, you
see?! Because then people give you everything! Of course! .. Because they want meth! And
that’s like something I don’t want, […] or he can search for a job, but that’s hard. He had a
job for seven years, but lost it!!!
The crucial obstacle mentioned to finding a legal job was a criminal record, because
employers often reject applicants with criminal records for most positions. The criminal record
was mentioned by Aurelia as an obstacle to finding a job, therefore, she states that meth
manufacture, dealing and other criminal activities are the only sources available to her for
earning money.
A: I was doing completely everything. It doesn’t matter if it was flats, cars [burglary and
stealing], and so on. Like a bit of everything! It is necessary! When you are on the street and
the like … they don’t want you in a normal job.
79
Aurelia also expressed anger towards her family, who want money from her, without
understanding that she cannot find a legal job. In her narrative, Aurelia lists sources of money
which she sees as the only ones available to her.
A: They still can’t understand it, that …. I can’t find work!!! I can tell them whatever I want,
but they just don’t get it!
They say: ‘Go get a job!’
Where should I get a job?! I say: ‘You don’t get it?! You are like dummies!’
They make me so angry that I tell them: ‘You want money? Alright, so during the day, I will
babysit your daughter!… In the evening I will ask if I can stand on the corner! If he has five
whores there, I will be the sixth!!! And on top of it all, in the night, if I have time and don’t feel
too tired, I will cook up some meth, so you have enough money!!’
When we look at the narratives from the point of how of how agency is exercised in
them, it is very interesting to see how the topic of drug dealing is represented in two rather
opposing ways. In one way, drug production and drug dealing are described by Aurelia and
Diana as activities they are highly competent in and can exercise power over other people
through them. These are stories told with a ‘strong agent’ narrative discourse. They depict
themselves as being violent and smart, thus successful in the drug economy. However, there
are also narratives about drug production and dealing where the participants put themselves or
their partners in positions of victims of exclusion from legal work. They describe the exclusion
from the labour market as a reason for being involved in drug production and dealing. In these
narratives, the important subjects are represented by the employers, who are perceived as a
source of oppression, because they discriminate against people with criminal records. The other
important sources in the environment are the people who are willing to buy drugs. The
participants describe themselves and their partners as exercising agency through meth
manufacturing, because through this they use to their benefit the only sources which they see
as available to them. The narrative discourse through which these stories are told is about
victimization through exclusion from the legal economy, therefore a necessity to participate in
the illegal one. On the other hand, this narrative discourse can be very useful in showing the
interaction with, for instance, police or social workers. It allows us to position the perpetrator
of the criminal activity as a victim of structural constraints rather than a villain.
However, the stories which are presented in the ‘strong agent’ narrative discourse, do
not indicate that the participants are freed from oppression. They explain how they exercise
agency through being competent, smart female dealers who can also defend themselves.
Nevertheless, these narratives are clearly embedded in an environment which is violent,
unreliable and potentially dangerous. Otherwise, these competences would not be important.
Exercising agency in the interaction with other drug users by selling drugs to them does not
rule out that the participants are not experiencing oppression and discrimination in other spheres
of interaction. This is very visible in Aurelia’s situation. To explain her situation, she uses both
‘victim’ and ‘violent-strong agent’ narrative discourse. This does not mean that one of them is
less valid, but the opposite: it very well illustrates that these are the different dimensions in
which she interacts with various subjects in her environment. These subjects (e.g. male drug
users, family members, potential employees, pimps) represent various sources of support and
oppression.
80
3.3 Motherhood
Except for Aurelia and Diana, all the other participants had experience with motherhood.
Nonetheless, most participant also had experience with losing the custody of their children. For
instance, Hedvika and Iveta, whose children were in the custody of their grandparents, or Sara,
Laura and Petra, whose children were in the custody of their former husbands.
At the same time, several participants were going through intense motherhood
experiences during the year I was meeting with them for the interviews. For instance, there was
Hedvika, who was taking care of two children of preschool age, Laura and Sara, who both had
a new-born baby, and Iveta, who was pregnant.
As follows from the above-mentioned information, motherhood was a very important
and vivid topic for most of the participants. The presence of the children during the interview
resulted in the children somehow being an inseparable part of the narratives. The longitudinal
character of the study allowed me to obtain abundant data concerning the mother role and gain
insight into their important life events, such as getting to know about their pregnancy or having
a new-born baby.
In this chapter, I discuss various topics related to motherhood, capturing different stages
of motherhood, from the moment of getting to know about the pregnancy (chapter 3.3.1) and
having a new-born baby (chapters 3.3.2 and 3.3.3) to the situation of having two pre-school
children (chapter 3.3.4). However, the common theme running through these chapters is the
negotiation of the role of mother.
Becoming a parent can be perceived as a rather challenging period of life for many
women as well as their partners. Except the crucial change that it usually means for the everyday
life, it is challenging also due to the expectations that the social environment has from a woman
who is becoming a mother. Some of these expectations might be related to what by some
scholars is described as the idealisation of motherhood and the stereotype of the perfect mother
(Klee 2002; Baker and Carson 1999).
The critique of the idealisation of motherhood points out that mothers are seen as being
naturally caring, nurturing, self-sacrificing and wise; generally there is a kind of ‘denial that
they may feel any ambivalence about their role’ (Klee 2002: 39), or that they might not want to
become mothers at all.
Concerning the stereotype of ‘perfect mother’, what is questioned, for instance, for
being based on white, middle-class, heterosexual ideas is about the biological mother as natural
and automatically the best carer of the child (Baker and Carson 1999). However, as Klee points
out, the stereotype of perfect mother is ‘one that is impossible to live up to, even in the most
privileged of circumstances. Last but not least, because these expectations are in many ways
conflicting, too demanding and simply unattainable’ (2002: 39). Therefore, it is possible to
perceive the ‘perfect mother’ as an idea that one is being compared with and one that women
compare themselves with, but it is hardly possible to reach.
Some authors point out that the idea of ‘perfect mother’ and what Thompson (2006)
calls the idea of ‘wonderful child’, which concentrates only on the positive aspects of bringing
up children, creates even greater pressure on those mothers who use drugs. Thompson (2006)
states that women with the stigma of being a drug user usually already feel guilty and
incompetent in their care of children. This pressure and feelings of guilt reinforce their fear of
failure and low self-confidence.
However, it is important to point out that doubts about one’s own competence, or rather
readiness to have children or feelings of guilt for possibly harming the child by drug use, were
present in the narratives of some participants, but not very dominant. The participants in their
81
narratives did not compare themselves to the idea of ‘perfect mother’, but rather to the idea of
‘normal mother’, or ‘good enough mother’. These notions about motherhood need to be seen
as socially constructed stereotypes, not objective labels; therefore, it is also not possible to
distinguish a clear-cut difference between the ideas of ‘perfect’, ‘normal’ and ‘good enough’
mother. Since all of them can be expected to be natural carers or better carers than their male
counterparts. The difference and also the meaning of these ideas is constructed through
interaction. In this chapter, I discuss how participants negotiate the meanings of the ideas about
motherhood in interaction with important subjects in their environment. Due to their drug use
and insecure housing situation, participants had to negotiate particularly with institutions such
as the Child Welfare Office, or asylums for mothers and children. The participants describe the
need to convince the workers that they are ‘normal’ or ‘good enough mothers’ to be allowed,
for instance, to move out of institutional housing, or keep custody of their children. In such
situations, when their mothering competences were seriously questioned, the negotiating was
far from aiming to prove that they were ‘perfect’ mothers, but rather ‘good enough’ mothers.
In the following four chapters, I will discuss what participants describe in their
narratives as sources of support and constraint in their mother role and how they exercise their
agency by using the sources to their benefit and deal with the constraints or oppression. I will
also discuss the narrative discourse that the participants use to respond to the expectations of
them as mothers from subjects in their social environment.
3.3.1 Unplanned Pregnancy
To our second interview, Iveta came with the news that she recently found out that she was
pregnant. The pregnancy was not planned and during almost the whole interview Iveta was
considering various reasons for keeping the baby, or having an abortion. In the first subchapter,
I describe the complexity of the situation and the various pressures and expectations Iveta
presented at the interview. In the second subchapter, I discuss the reasons why she decided to
keep the child, which were discussed at an interview a half year later, when Iveta was already
far into her pregnancy.
3.3.1.1 Considering Abortion
In the following paragraphs, I present important subjects which were mentioned in Iveta’s
narratives in which she was considering abortion. She described her interaction with them
mainly by describing the expectations she thought they had of her, or were directly expressing
to her.
Iveta described that the situation was difficult for her, especially because of the pressure to
keep the child that she felt from her partner Ota, who is also the father of the child. Iveta herself
was not decided about whether she wants to keep the child or not, but she felt that Ota was
angry with her, just for considering abortion.
I: Ota is angry with me, you know?! Because I want to give it away!!! But I’m not a hundred
percent sure, I simply don’t know! […] Ota maybe feels bad about it […] and then he gets
angry, or something, but he can’t be angry with me for something like this!
Iveta described that she perceived these expectations to keep the child as a restriction to
her exercising agency. The exercise of agency is represented by the possibility of considering
82
and discussing with her partner all the options, pros and cons of keeping the child or not. Iveta
also said that one of the reasons why she was not sure about keeping the child was that she
perceived Ota’s ideas about parenthood as naïve and unrealistic. She was not sure if she even
wanted to stay with him.
I: For example, he thinks it’s fun! Or he thinks it’s cool when you become a parent! […]His
opinion is that it would be cool. … But you know, I have different experiences with it.
More than the insecurities as such, Ivate explained that she perceived the main constraint
to be the impossibility to discuss these things with her partner openly, to express all her thoughts
and doubts. Being honest about her feelings became a priority.
I: I don’t know. I guess he won’t be super happy about it, […] but I’m not the kind of person
who would not talk about it, who would be silent about it. You know what I mean?! Maybe, I
know, that sometimes it’s really harsh! When I say it as it is. But what should I do?! Should I
lie?! … Or should I not talk about it?!
Another important source of insecurity and doubts was the housing situation of Iveta
and Ota: at that time they were living together in a garden shack. On the other hand, this is also
where Iveta’s partner can be identified as an important source of support. Because they were
both very unsatisfied with their housing situation, they both registered at the Employment
Office to obtain housing benefits. As a result, they managed to find a place in a hostel and were
about to move there.
Another important subject in Iveta’s environment was her good friend Hedvika, who
was described as a source of support in two main ways. Firstly, Iveta expressed great relief
when she described how with Hedvika she could openly talk about considering abortion. She
pointed out that it was important that Hedvika did not expect her to keep the child.
Iveta also described Hedvika as an important source of support because she offered to
help Iveta financially if she decided to have the abortion. Based on the experience of her friends,
Iveta was considering that she would have to pay around 4000 CZK for the abortion, or at least
700 CZK for the medical exam before the abortion. She was facing the problem of not knowing
how to amass such a large amount of money. Hedvika expressed support by assuring Iveta that
if she decided to have the abortion, she would lend her the money, since it was such a crucial
decision that could not wait and it would not be right to keep the baby simply because she
lacked the money for the abortion.
I: Like, if I didn’t have enough money, she would give me some, for sure. […] She said: ‘Iveta!
You know you can count on me!’
Like, that I could count on money from her!
On the other hand, the strong support of Hedvika can also be interpreted as expressing
Hedvika’s expectations to have the abortion. This is expressed, for instance, when Hedvika was
teasing Iveta with the idea that she would be a mother living with the child at the hostel, thus
supporting the idea that Iveta could not provide a good environment for the child.
I: Hedvika asks me: ‘Don’t they mind at the hostel you having a baby there?’
And I say: ‘You are really stupid!! You are crazy!! Hedvika you know very well that I don’t
want to have it !!!’
She says: ‘Well I know, I was just asking!!’
I say: ‘You are really stupid!!’
Hedvika would be an important source of support if Iveta decided to have the abortion; not
only financial support, but also for not judging her for doing it. At the same time, if Iveta
decided to keep the baby, Hedvika would maybe support her doubts about whether being a
competent mother when living in a hostel and using drugs.
When Iveta was discussing her thoughts about keeping the child or having an abortion, her
own perceptions of herself as a mother played an important role. In this context, Iveta expressed
83
a lot of insecurities and doubts, giving several reasons why she thought it would be better to
have the abortion.
The fact that Iveta was using meth played an important role: she perceived it as not right
to have a child when using drugs. She also described herself as someone who is not able to take
care of herself, therefore she should not have children.
This feeling of incompetence was heightened by the fact that partly due to her drug use
she had already lost custody of her daughter. She also did not feel competent as a mother
because she does not pay alimony to her mother, who takes care of Iveta’s daughter. For this
reason, Iveta is not allowed to be in contact with the daughter. For Ievat this is a vivid and
painful problem that reinforces her doubts about herself.
I: I don’t know … I think I can’t make it, to have … a baby. […] It’s such a serious thing.
Although it doesn’t look like. You know, because of [the situation with] my daughter… it’s not
so easy getting up every morning with the thought. I think about it all the time. […] That I
haven’t even resolved one ... and the second one is coming. You know, I don’t want to be like
that. I don’t want to be stupid and bring into this world people who will be unhappy!
Iveta’s situation is represented by various sources of support as well as constraint,
especially in the forms of expectation of what Iveta should or should not do. The situation is
even more difficult since the expectations of important subjects such as her partner or good
friend are contradictory. Iveta described her agency as being restricted especially by her
partner’s expectations that she keep their child and the fact that he is not open to discussing
Iveta’s thoughts and doubts about it. As such, Iveta’s narrative discourse expressed much doubt
and insecurity. This is particularly noticeable when she talked about her own perception of
herself as a mother.
On the other hand, through the discussion of the various expectations that the different
subjects have off her, Iveta became more confident about expressing how she thinks and feels
about it. Over the course of the interviews, her narrative discourse changed from being rather
puzzled by all the expectations and insecurities to being clearer about what she thinks and feels.
I: Because I don’t feel it as right, you know?! Like, it would help me, or make things easier! Or
that something would get better! I absolutely don’t feel it this way! […] The fact that you are
pregnant doesn’t automatically mean you have to deliver it, does it?!
She also changed the narrative discourse in which she was planning what to say to
different subjects about this matter. For instance, she decided that she would talk openly to her
partner about wanting to have an abortion.
I: Like, I’m not gonna lie to him, right?! And I will not do things which I don’t want to.… That
would make things even worse for everyone involved, wouldn’t it?! Like, if I would be saying
‘no, no, no’ and then all of a sudden went there!
Iveta decided to see a gynaecologist. However, when expressing her decision to see the
doctor, she expected the gynaecologist to pressure her, to try to convince her to keep the baby,
so she tried to prepare what to say to her.
I: I’m gonna do it!! [visit the doctor] … I will say, like, simply I can’t. But maybe she will want
me to change my mind?! … But I will simply tell her that I don’t feel like having it!
After this, Iveta stated that she would go directly to the drop-in centre and try to make
an appointment with the doctor.
I: I’ll tell her what’s going on. So maybe she will give me an early date, maybe already next
week, or maybe she will be free already this week! … I have to go thereand solve it! The medical
check-up! […] I have to go there! Magda, you know, I really have to go there!!! So I will go to
the drop-in, ask Adam to help me find the telephone number and call there from the drop-in.
[…] That’s what I’m gonna do! I’ll go and ask Adam! Now! He will help me with it!!
84
In this narrative I identify the drop-in centre as another source of support. Iveta planned
to go there to ask for help to find a contact for the gynaecologist and call there. It was also with
the pregnancy tests that Iveat got for free from the drop-in centre that she discovered she was
pregnant and not just having a delay in her period. She also planned to go there to have a shower
before going to the doctor, since she did not have the facilities to wash at the shack where she
was living.
The subjects in Iveta’s environment were offering support, but it was often not free from
expectations of what Iveta should or should not do about her pregnancy. This in my
interpretation represents constraint since because of this it was difficult for Iveta to discuss all
her ideas and feelings about the situation. However, I see Iveta as exercising her agency during
our interview when she openly expresses what she thinks and feels about the situation and plans
how to communicate her opinion to others (e.g. her partner, gynaecologist). When she decides
to visit the gynaecologist, she exercises agency by identifying the drop-in centre as a possible
source of support and plans to use the support.
3.3.1.2 Decision to Keep the Child
The next time I met with Iveta was a half year later and she was far into her pregnancy. She
explained that she had decided to keep the child, because of the overall improvements in her
life and with her partner, Ota. This was related to approaching their common aim of leading a
‘normal life’. She reported that although they did not see it as a perfect solution, they were
happy to have stable living conditions in a hostel. Ota had found a job in construction; therefore,
they were planning to save money and move to an apartment. Iveta was abstaining from drugs
and looked very satisfied and happy.
From one point of view, this development could be understood as the consequence of
the pregnancy, which served as strong motivation to make important changes. Children
certainly might play an important role in the motivation for changes in life, such as abstinence
from drugs, for both men and women.
What I find interesting in Iveta’s narrative about her pregnancy and decision to keep the
baby is that this decision for change was already made before the pregnancy. Even before
becoming pregnant, Iveta was talking about the ‘desire to have a normal life’. As a part of
fulfilling this aim, she and her partner registered at the Employment Office to obtain money to
move from the garden shack. At the same time, they reduced the intensity of drug use (as
described in the chapter about reasons for abstinence). Iveta explains that the main reason for
the changes to a ‘normal life’ was that she was not enjoying drug use anymore. Nevertheless,
it was also important that she and her partner had a common goal together and a reason to
support each other.
I: I think it has changed because I wanted to change it. […] I was living like that for two or
three years … and I didn’t like it anymore. .. You stop doing the normal things, you know? Like
to take care of yourself and so on. […] Also, Ota didn’t like it anymore, you know?! Like, both
of us!
A crucial factor for Iveta for successfully approaching a ‘normal life’ was the stable
housing. She described it as important security and a stabilising factor.
I: It’s great! You have a bathroom! Heating! You can cook! […] It’s more secure, you know?!
Like when you have your own keys and you can go there. … Even if you don’t have anything to
eat sometimes, but you can always manage somehow, when you live at least a little bit
normally! When you make an effort! And it pays off for everyone! When you make an effort!
There is always a way! And the more you make the effort, the better it goes!
Iveta’s narrative expresses her opinion that the most important factor is one’s own
85
decision and the will to change. In her narratives she described what they were actively doing
to make the change (e.g. applying for social benefits, actively searching for housing). However,
she also expressed their ability to use the resources available to them, such as Ota’s opportunity
to work, or visiting the drop-in centre where the social worker helped them find
accommodation, but also supported them by constantly appreciating their effort.
Thus it is not possible to say whether it was the housing which lead to the work and the
work to abstinence, or whether it was the pregnancy which lead to abstinence and this to
housing, or whether it was just a matter of strong will to change. Instead, we can recognize how
one thing was strengthened by another in a context of the availability of support and resources
in their environment and their ability to use them. As reflected by Anderson, motherhood might
not be the only strong motivation for abstinence, but motherhood identity is what can connect
women drug users ‘into mainstream society and can provide them with a source of
empowerment outside of drugs’ (2008: 27).
3.3.2 Negotiating ‘Normal’ and ‘Good Enough’
Motherhood
In this chapter with two sub-sections, I present the narratives of Sara and Laura, who both had
new-born babies during the time I was conducting interviews with them. There are several
things they had in common with each other and Iveta; for instance, the transition from unstable
to more secure housing conditions and living in a fairly stable relationship with their partners.
Another point they have in common with Iveta is that Sara and Laura were using meth during
pregnancy and after the birth of the child. I will discuss their different views on their drug use
and the various forms of motivation that caused them to either quit using drugs or continue.
Due to the fact that they were all in the mother role and at the same time using drugs,
one could expect that they were confronted with the expectation to quit using drugs since these
two roles conflict or do not align. This expectation of abstinence is related to the idea that the
pregnancy will be strong and sufficient motivation to quit immediately (Anderson 2008; Klee
2002). However, in their narratives the participants do not talk much about the expectations of
quitting using drugs, but rather about the confrontation and questioning of their mothering
competencies. Two possible ways of how to deal with the questioning of mothering
competences and the exercising of agency will be discussed in the following two sub-chapters.
3.3.2.1 The ‘Drug User-Mother’ Ambiguity
When I met Sara for the first time, she had a three month old son, Daniel, and was living with
him and her partner Martin, who she was just about to marry. They were living in a hostel, and
later moved to a rented apartment.
Sara had been using methamphetamine during pregnancy and also after the child was
born. As was already discussed in the chapter about reasons for drug use, Sara was using meth
as a means to overcome depression. Furthermore, she explained that it is an important source
of psychological relaxation which helps her deal with or prevent depression, but also solve the
tension in the relationship with her partner.
S: I relax! Like, not physically, but psychologically I relax! […]The relationship and all the
emotions are difficult for me! So when I use it, I can chill, I can relax! I have peace of mind and
can reset my brain! Without it, I could hardly make it!
These benefits of meth are very important to Sara as she described them as a source of
86
support to feel well and deal with demanding situations and problems, thus functioning well in
the role of mother, or as she says, ‘This is what I believe: content mother, content child!’
However, it was very important for Sara to emphasise that her need for the psychological
relaxation that she attains with meth is not related to her child; on the contrary it concerns her
psychological problems (i.e. the relationship with her partner). As she says, ‘It is not that we
handle the situation [of having a child] better, it is that we handle each other better!’
Her argumentation is interesting to compare to Laura’s, who described her initial
reasons for drug use as a way to deal with the demanding care of children and household. On
the contrary, Sara strongly opposed the idea that the baby would be the reason for her drug use,
but stressed that it was the psychological strain caused by her relationship with her partner.
S: You have to look it like this: Daniel is the one who is the most normal of the three of us! Like,
he behaves like a normal average Six-month-old baby! It’s me and Martin who are not normal!
It’s us who don’t fit in! So when you look at it like this, he has it harder with us, then we do with
him!
Although Sara had these important reasons to continue in her drug use, which were in
her view helping her fulfil the mother role better, she also expressed the fear that the drug use
could be a threat to their parenthood. She explained that she is aware that drug use could have
a negative impact on their child; therefore, she also developed several rules for her drug use
through which she aims to protect the child from any possible negative effects. For instance,
she explained that they always use meth in night when Daniel is asleep.
S: Like the highest peak, when you get really high, when it’s really on, during that time he has
to be sleeping … so he doesn’t see it.
Besides using only during the night, she described the rule that they never go outside
when they are intoxicated, or when she feels tired the day after, so that no one sees her when
she is not completely fit.
S: Like, I don’t go out with Daniel, like, I don’t do it when I don’t feel fit. … Everyone has some
rules for that, and so do I! […] So one rule is that I don’t go out with Daniel when I am high! I
simply do not!!
Another rule concerns the amount of used drugs.
S: You are not high for several days. Like, you have it once in the night and that’s it.
Sara also describes how even during intoxication, she learned to be in ‘constant control’,
or ‘even in the highest point of the intoxication to keep an eye on the baby’. This is something
that she said her partner does not do.
Here I recognize Sara’s agency as exercised through the control she is taking over her
drug use and the situation. She explains that she has decided to use meth, because she identifies
it as an important source of support; however, at the same time, she exercises control over the
amount she uses, as well as the length or type of activities done when intoxicated. Thus, she is
able to fulfil her role of mother.
When Sara was talking about the reasons for drug use as well as the strategies that she
has developed to combine drug use with her mother role in order to protect her child, I saw her
agency as also exercised in the narrative discourse she uses: she explained to me, but potentially
to everyone who would see her drug use as only negative, that she knows very well why she is
doing it. It was important for her to emphasise that there are both positive and negative effects,
but by considering both, she deliberately chooses to use drugs. This is well illustrated in the
following narrative.
S: So, that’s my view on drug use!! Of course, the experts on drugs and abstinence would say
it’s completely stupid! But tell me, how do you know what’s right and what’s wrong?! Like, I
think that everyone should find out for themselves. If someone wants to do it, and it works…and
you can see it works!! We were at a hostel! Now we are here [rented apartment]! ... We can
make it somehow! We pay our rent, everything … And Daniel is taken care of! … So where is
87
the border between what’s right and what’s wrong?! !
It is, however, possible to interpret certain ambiguity that is contained in this narrative.
On the one hand, it is important for Sara to point out that she knows very well why she is using
drugs. On the other hand, there is a strong need to explain or defend this opinion to others. This
narrative discourse is related to the expectations of the subjects in her social environment. In
the following sub-chapter, I will discuss Sara’s narratives about the expectations of several
subjects in her environment and how she responds to them.
Negotiating what ‘Normal Motherhood’ is
In this sub-chapter, I focus on the important subjects in Sara’s environment with whom she was
negotiating her role of mother. These subjects were particularly those at the maternity hospital,
Child Welfare Office, harm reduction services and Employment Office. However, it is
important to point out that in this chapter I am not presenting the interactions with all the
important subjects in Sara’s environment, but focus on those where the double role of drug user
and mother was perceived as somehow problematic, and thus had to be negotiated. These were
also the interactions about which Sara talked the most. However, there were also interactions
with subjects such as Sara’s good friend who was not described as questioning Sara’s mothering
competences, therefore, there was no need to negotiate or defend them.
The subjects in Sara’s social environment who were perceived as the most important
sources of constraint were the doctors in the maternity hospital and the Child Welfare workers.
Sara said that what she found to be the most difficult was that they were critically questioning
her mothering competences. Although Sara did not say whether this was directly expressed by
the subjects themselves, in her narratives she connects their negative and suspicious attitude
towards her as a mother to the fact that they knew that she was using drugs and living in a
hostel.
Sara describes her experience at the maternity hospital as the first situation where she
encountered problems and had to negotiate her competence as a mother. A few days after she
gave birth, when it had been decided that she would be released from hospital, the doctors
decided that she should stay longer, because Daniel had not put on enough weight. Sara tried to
convince them that she knew what to do, because she already had three children and was
experienced. Nevertheless, she described a situation where despite her argumentation, the
doctors overtly doubted her competence.
S: The doctor was trying to convince me that it would end badly!! That he would lose even more
weight!! That he would be dehydrated!! And by the end of the day we would end up in a hospital
again!! […]
And I tell her: ‘If I don’t have [breast] milk, I will buy it! Because I am competent to assess the
situation to the extent that if it is needed, I will buy him milk!’
She says: ‘Well, so far you haven’t been able to assess the situation correctly!!!’ But you know,
the whole thing was about that we had written in our documentation that we are junkies,
homeless, and therefore not able to take care of Daniel!
Sara also commented that she could actually understand that the doctors might have
been worried. However, she described herself as being angry, because they did not value the
experience she has or the knowledge she was demonstrating to them; instead, they judged her
on the basis of her using drugs.
S: Like, on the one hand, I understand it, of course. But I really tried to talk to her in a way that
she could see that I know what to do!!! […] I tried to talk to her in a way … that she could
understand that I’m not stupid! But obviously it didn’t work! […] It seemed to me that she was
talking with me, excuse me, but like with some fucking junkie who has a child and can’t take
care of it! … I was hoping that from the way I was talking to her, she would understand that
maybe I am a fucking junkie, but not so stupid that I wouldn’t know what to do!!
88
The mistrustful behaviour of the doctors at the hospital was contrasted by Sara to the
behaviour of another doctor who came to check the baby after they were released from the
hospital. Sara describes her behaviour as supportive, because she did not imply any negative
stereotype, even though she knew they were using drugs and was visiting them in a hostel room.
S: So the doctor came for the check-up … the same day we were released from the hospital. She
looked at him, weighed him, read the report from the hospital and asked: ‘What was the matter
with them?! Why didn’t they want to release you?! He’s a beautiful, healthy boy! He will put
on some weight, don’t worry!’
And she also had all the information [about the drug use]!!!
Sara explained that because of the problems in the hospital, and the fact that they are
living in the hostel, they are also intensely scrutinized by the Child Welfare Institution.
When Sara later moved with her family from the hostel to a rented apartment, she
described the social workers from Child Welfare continuing to make random unannounced calls
at their home. Sara stated again that she understood that they were coming for regular checks
because it was after the baby was born and they had been living in a hostel. She also stated that
she was never informed about any reason for these control visits; therefore, she started to
perceive them rather as a form of ‘bullying’. Sara explained that she wanted to know the reason
for these visits and was planning to ask the Child Welfare workers about it. In order to be able
to negotiate her rights better, she wanted to learn some information about it in advance.
Therefore, she described that she searched for the information on the internet.
S: I just went online and typed ‘Child Welfare – what they can and cannot do, duties and rights’,
or something like that! There was loads of information, so I read it and found out that they have
to come if they have a suspicion. It was described there what and how it exactly is according to
the law! I learnt it by heart so I could tell them if I needed to!
Sara comments that later when the Child Welfare worker came for a control visit again,
she used this knowledge and asked them to tell her why they had come and that she would like
them to announce the visits in advance, since she would like her husband, the father of the child,
to be present too. Sara concluded that from this time, the workers did not come again.
Both interactions, with the doctors in the hospital and the Child Welfare workers, are
describes in a similar way. Sara identified them as a source of constraint, because she perceived
them as only exercising control over her. In both cases she admitted that she understood that
they had some reasons to do it, but in both cases she explains that what she found oppressive
was the mistrust they expressed towards her and that they did not consider her experience and
knowledge. Therefore, in her interaction with institutions which she perceived as oppressive or
even ‘bullying’, Sara exercised her agency through defending herself as being a competent and
good mother. In her interaction with doctors and workers who were suspicious of her
competences, she pointed out that she had already brought up three children, therefore is an
experienced mother and knows what to do. In contact with the welfare workers, she also
exercised her agency by firstly learning about her rights and then enforcing these rights in
communication with them. Finally, she also exercised her agency by pointing out that she was
not the only parent, therefore her husband, the father of the child, should also be involved in
the interaction. The narrative discourse which Sara uses to explain her position in the situation
is to present herself as experienced and knowledgeable – not only in childcare, but also as a
person who does not want to accept practices which she perceives as intrusive and possibly
even violating her rights.
In this context it is important to notice that Sara points to an example of interaction
which she perceives as supportive: giving an example of the other doctor who was not
questioning her mothering role based on the fact that she is a drug user.
89
Sara described a different negotiation of her role of mother in her interaction with the
drop-in centre. She said that she and her partner were used to going to the drop-in centre for
many years. Furthermore, she explained that they go there not only for needle exchange, but
that it is also an important source of social contacts; she likes to go there just to talk with the
workers who she perceives almost as friends. On the other hand, Sara reported that since she
became pregnant and after the birth of their child, they both stopped using the exchange service
in the drop-in centre and very rarely go there. Although they both continued to use drugs, also
intravenously, she explained that they started to buy needles in a pharmacy, do the exchange
through friends, or use the exchange service in the outreach program. Sara explained that the
reason why she does not want to go there is because she would not feel comfortable to openly
admit that they continue to use drugs when they have the baby.
S: Like, I don’t have any negative experience, but it’s because we have Daniel. Neither of us
wants to go there! Like, to show that we need exchange! When they know that we have Daniel!
Simply we don’t want it like this!!! […] I wouldn’t feel comfortable! I don’t care about what
they think!! But I wouldn’t feel good about it! That’s all!!
In further discussion, Sara considered that it is not that she would feel uncomfortable in
front of the workers, but namely in front of these who she knows better. That is also why they
started to prefer an outreach program which allows them, in their view, more anonymous
contact.
M: And if there were someone you didn’t know?
S: Then it would be ok! That’s right! It’s about the relationship, for sure.
The narratives about interaction with workers from the drop-in centre also relate to the
negotiation of the mother role, or in the case of Sara and her partner the parent – drug user role.
On the other hand, contrary to the interaction with doctors and Child Welfare workers which
Sara described as oppressive, the interaction with drop-in centre workers is described as
uncomfortable but not oppressive. Sara states that the contact is uncomfortable for her, but not
due to some negative behaviour from the workers, but rather her own feelings about the
situation, where she feels confronted with her role of drug user and mother at the same time.
The narrative does not provide enough information to understand whether the
uncomfortable feeling was caused by her perceived expectations that she should be abstaining
because she is a mother, or whether there were other reasons at play. However, it well illustrates
that the expectations and negotiation about them is a mutual process between the person and
subjects in the environment. In her narrative, Sara indicates that she does not feel uncomfortable
because someone would directly confront her with some stigmatizing expectations. Rather, it
is her own perception of a certain clash in her roles which causes the discomfort and leads her
to avoid contact with certain subjects, to avoid the uncomfortable feeling.
The presented examples of interactions between Sara and the subjects in her
environment represented by doctors, Child Welfare workers and drop-in centre workers provide
some insight into the context in which the negotiation about the mother role, drug use and the
bad housing situation happen. I interpret that the interactions are perceived by Sara as
uncomfortable and even oppressive, because they represent the expectations that she is not a
competent mother, which Sara does not agree with; there is also the expectation that she will
abstain from drugs, which she does not want to. On the other hand, Sara exercised agency using
several narrative discourses through which she negotiated her mother role in the context of drug
use.
When describing the interaction with the drop-in centre, Sara reported that she prefers
to silence the drug use, when talking with the workers and also when using different sources of
needle exchange. In this situation it is also possible to perceive that Sara and Martin exercise
90
agency in finding different ways to reach harm reduction services which they need, by
exchanging needles somewhere else, or through other people.
Nevertheless, there are contacts with institutions where Sara cannot silence her drug use,
nor can she simply avoid them. This especially concerns the Child Welfare workers and doctors.
Sara explained that although she does not openly admit to using drugs, she perceives that the
workers and doctors apply their negative stereotypes on her. These are related not only to drug
use, but also living in substandard conditions. In her interactions with these subjects, Sara used
the narrative discourse through which she presents herself as ‘normal’, ‘experienced’ and
‘knowledgeable’.
Normalizing narrative discourse is used in narratives through which Sara pointed out
that in many respects she is a normal mother, or that they are a normal family and do not differ
from ‘average mainstream people’. For instance, Sara discussed that she knows about the higher
risk that children of methamphetamine users can be diagnosed with ADHD syndrome, but she
points out that this can happen to any other family as well.
S: Daniel contradicts all that they say, like, about children of drug users. I know it could have
ended up differently, but there are so many variables at play! Those things, you never know
what’s gonna happen! Like even the baby of macrobiotic, university educated people can have
ADHD! [laughing]
The ‘normality’ was pointed out by Sara when she was stressing that the story she was
telling me was not perceived by her as being in any way specific to someone who uses drugs.
For instance, she described a situation of having arguments with her partner about how to bring
up their child.
S: Sure, when we are at home together for too long a time we have quarrels! … But this,
particularly this, I find to be absolutely normal!! This has nothing to do with the fact of whether
people are junkies or not!!
She also depicts herself as a ‘normal mother’, when explaining that sometimes she is
nervous when the baby is crying for a long time, but comparing it to the experience of any
other ‘mainstream mum’.
S: At the moment you get furious, it gets on your nerves! And the baby is still crying! You feel
like throwing it out of the window, because you can’t stand it anymore! But of course you don’t
do it! You don’t show it, because you know that’s wrong! You just need to learn to deal with it!
… And that’s the same for a person who is OK [not using drugs]! Even the mainstream mum
can’t stand the kids sometimes, you know.
In this narrative, she not only presents herself as ‘the normal mother’, but also contesting
the ideal of ‘perfect mother’. If ‘perfect mother’ is defined as someone who never gets furious
with her kids, then it does not exist. Sara is not trying to compare herself with his ideal, but she
is affirming to be a ‘normal mother’.
Sara’s narrative discourse in which she relates to the ‘normal mother’ also challenges
or redefines the whole idea of what it means to be a ‘normal mother’. For instance, she
challenges what it means to have sufficient material support for the child, by pointing out that
although they do not have much money, they secure for the child everything that is needed.
S: For Daniel, we always have milk and diapers! That’s something we always have! If we didn’t
have money for anything else… even if Martin had to go and collect [scrap] metal [to sell]! We
would have milk and diapers!
Sara also explains that to challenge or redefine the ideal of what it actually means to be
a ‘normal mother’ is for her an important part of argumentation in her interaction with
institutions such as the Child Welfare Office. However, she adds that placing the idea of
‘normal’ mother into a different, wider perspective is important for her personally. It not only
provides her with the confidence that she is good enough, but also helps her appreciate what
she has and feel more satisfied with her situation.
91
S: That’s how I always comfort myself, or defend myself. Like, of course, it could be better, or
different! But if you want to be psychologically ok, you should be satisfied with what you already
have. Because the worst thing is when you have something, but you want something else and
you think something else! Like, if these three things are not in accord, it’s bad. Like, we are
part of the smaller half of humanity who have a good life! Can you imagine the life of more
than fifty percent of people on this Earth? They don’t even have drinkable water. You know
what I mean?! … And for me, you know it’s not just idle talk! I really think this way!
To negotiate her role of mother role, Sara also uses narrative discourse in which she
presents herself as experienced and knowledgeable; for instance, by pointing out her experience
in bringing up three children. This is contained in her narrative about the doctor who does not
mind if Sara comes with Daniel for a vaccination one week later than planned. Sara explains
that she appreciates that the doctor does not judge her as a bad mother because of this; also
because she knows that if there were something serious, Sara would not neglect it.
S: Especially I don’t have to feel like a bad mother, because I’m one week late for a vaccination.
I know it’s not ok, but it’s so much easier for me when I know I don’t have to pretend anything!
… Simply, that’s how it is! Daniel is alright and she knows it! When there is something serious,
I really do take care of it!
Another narrative discourse used by Sara was one in which she was emphasising her
knowledge and ability to find important sources of knowledge if needed.
During our interviews, Sara very often discussed, for instance, various approaches to
bringing up children, or knowledge about the mental development of children. In these
discussions she often referred to respected experts in the field as well as to their books. Several
times Sara also referred to the internet as a very important source of support for her, when it
comes to searching for information. For instance, she described how she was searching for
information about the possible harm of methamphetamine use during pregnancy. She
mentioned several scientific studies on this topic, which she had found and studied in order to
learn more about it. As was already discussed, the internet was also a resource for learning
about her rights as a client of the Child Welfare Office.
3.3.2.2 The ‘Good Enough’ Mother
When I met Laura for the first time, she was pregnant and during that time living with her
partner in random places, usually in a garden shack. When I last met Laura, she was living with
her new-born son Luke and partner Marek in a rented apartment in a village outside of Město.
Laura’s narratives, which will be presented in this chapter, are closely related to both
housing conditions and motherhood. I will describe two housing transitions which she went
through during the time I was meeting with her. Therefore, this section will also be about
housing. However, the reason I decided to put it here is that during the housing transitions, she
was in intense contact with various institutions with which she had to negotiate their trust in her
abilities to take care of the child. In a wider context, this was important negotiation about her
mothering with the stigma of drug use.
Development towards Abstinence related to Child Birth
When I was meeting Laura during her pregnancy, she commented that she continues to use
meth and that this is especially due to the very bad housing conditions she was currently living
in. While pregnant, she was staying with her partner in a garden shack with many other people.
It was common to move from one place to another, or to hear arguments among the people
92
living in those places. She explained that sometimes she was using meth just to relax from such
demanding situations.
L: When I can’t take it anymore, when I feel exhausted, also psychologically! … And when I
just needed to rest and not think about anything.
After Laura gave birth to her son, she quit using drugs. This was mainly due to the fact
that directly from the maternity hospital she went to an asylum for mothers, where she was
under scrutiny of the asylum workers and the Child Welfare workers who organized the stay in
the asylum home as the only chance for Laura not to lose custody of the child.
Despite the surveillance, Laura describes one incident when she was outside of the
asylum for a whole day and used meth; however, she saw it as a rather bad experience, since
she did not enjoy it. When she returned to the asylum, she was also stressed about someone
noticing her intoxication.
After two months she moved with her partner to a small apartment and started to use
meth again. She said that even in this more relaxed setting, she could not enjoy it as she used
to before. This was mainly due to the need to take care of the child.
L: Anyways, you can’t enjoy it! You have to be ready to take care of Luke all the time. […] You
can’t enjoy sex either, because you have to take care of Luke! Or even going for a walk or
something is out of the question, because someone has to be with him, of course! And since at
least one of us has to be with him, the only thing you can do is to do something on your own, at
home. And I’m not interested in that!
This change is interesting in contrast with the previous reasons for meth use. As I have
discussed in the chapter about reasons for drug use, Laura started to use meth to gain energy
when she was exhausted from the demands of taking care of her three daughters and household.
Now she does not feel the need to do it for this reason. She explained that looking after one
small baby who is entirely breastfed is much less demanding. She also now knows that in the
long run it is not possible to escape the tiredness.
L: Back then I had three children! And I did it only because I needed the stamina! […] And
nowadays it’s been quite some time since I’ve used, so I already know that in the long run it
does not help you to have more energy! Sooner or later it gets you! So it’s true, I do not escape
into using it so often anymore.
It is interesting to notice that similar to the narratives of Iveta and Petra about their
reasons and development towards abstinence, Laura also said that it was not based on any strict
decision to quit using drugs. It was more related to the other important changes in her living
situation. It follows from Laura’s narrative that just the fact that she got pregnant was not a
reason to abstain. After the child was born and she moved with her partner into an apartment,
she stated that she did not have a strong urge to use drugs despite the opportunity to use them.
This was partly because she could not enjoy it as she had before and partly because she did not
need it as support to deal with stressful situations; she was living in a fairly comfortable
apartment and looking after one child was not too demanding. So it is possible to look at it from
the point of view that, similar to Iveta, Laura also stopped using drugs as a partial result of
having a baby. However, in both cases, it was not the pregnancy as such which provided the
only reason, but the other changes, particularly the stable housing, which was an important
factor.
Negotiating ‘Good Enough Motherhood’
As was already noted, due to homelessness and drug use, Laura was in the later months of her
pregnancy and after the birth of the baby under the scrutiny of several institutions. This was
namely the Child Welfare Office, the workers of the asylum home for mothers and children,
and doctors. All these subjects played a very important role in Laura’s narratives as sources of
support and constraints, especially in the transitions from one housing facility to another.
93
Laura’s description of the interactions with these subjects is very important in that she emphases
how she had to negotiate and defend her mother role and competences. In the following
paragraphs, I will discuss the interaction with these important subjects and interpret Laura’s
exercise of agency in this context.
Similar to Sara, Laura stated that she understands that the Child Welfare Office has
reasons to get involved in her situation, since her situation prior to the child birth was not good.
However, what Laura saw as very negative about the relation with the Child Welfare Office
was the particular behaviour of Mrs. Novotná, the worker responsible for her case. Firstly,
Laura depicted her as a source of oppression based on the stigmatizing and domineering way
in which Mrs. Novotná communicated with Laura. Secondly, Laura describes her as a source
of constraint to Laura’s effort to acquire standard housing, where she could live with her partner.
Laura described various forms of behaviour of Mrs. Novotná which she found highly
uncomfortable and intrusive. She said that Mrs. Novotná visited the drop-in centre several times
and tried to get information about Laura and her drug use. There was also a time when she
accompanied Laura to her visit of the gynaecologist to get information about Laura’s state of
health directly from the doctor rather than her.
L: She was with me even at the gynaecologist! No kidding! Can you believe it?! … She wanted
to know if I wasn’t lying to her! And if I wasn’t neglecting something! And whether I went for
check-ups regularly!
However, it is important to note that in one way, Laura described the Child Welfare
Office as a source of possible support. This is related to the situation when Mrs. Novotná came
up with the idea that Laura should contact a psychiatrist. Laura described the situation as one
that initially did not sound like too strange or bad an idea. As Laura said, ‘when you consider
what all I’ve been through’, referring to experiences of domestic violence and several suicide
attempts, ‘there was clearly a reason to visit a psychiatrist’. Laura agreed with the idea of
visiting the psychiatrist, not only to fulfil what Mrs. Novotná was asking of her, but also in the
belief that the psychiatrist would help her.
L: I went there because Novotná wanted to be sure that after the baby is born I don’t go mad
or something bad happens! … And I quite agreed with that. I said it’s wise, because even myself,
I didn’t know what’s gonna happen.
However, Laura’s view on the situation changed when she realized that contact with the
psychiatrist, although compulsory, demanded regular visits every three months as a formality
and form of control, rather than as a source of support for her.
This was already expressed in Laura’s description of an argument with Mrs. Novotná
about how the psychiatrist would be chosen. When Laura realized that Mrs. Novotná found the
psychiatrist through a random search on the internet and did not know her, Laura became
opposed to going.
L: I tell her: ‘What do we know about her?! I don’t want to go just to anyone! Especially if
even you don’t know her!’ And I also tell her: ‘I have my doctor, Mrs. Procházková, so if you
want I can visit her! But I definitely don’t want to go to someone who you just randomly found
on the internet!’ […] I also sent her some links which showed that 7 out of 10 people had
complained about her, that she was not interested in the people who come to her. And I tell her:
‘Based on the opinion of this lady, you want to decide if you will let me keep my son or not?!’ I
say no way!
Furthermore, after the first visit to the psychiatrist (suggested by Mrs. Novotná), Laura
said that he felt that the psychiatrist was not interested in her, or in helping her; she was just
doing it out of duty.
L: She never asks how I’m doing. She just writes in the report that I don’t seem to be making
attempts to kill myself. Depressions so far yes. And I don’t seem to be using any addictive
substances or the like. That I seem to be calm and feeling good. She always writes this shit and
94
asks me to come in three months. In 20 minutes it’s done!! Do you understand it?! And this is
the person who gives me the stamp saying that I’m normal and can have my baby!
Laura perceived the behaviour of Mrs. Novotná as oppressive and derogating; she
described an example of this when Mrs. Novotna was treating her unprofessionally in front of
the psychiatrist when she asked Laura to leave the office so that she could talk about her with
the psychiatrist alone.
L: After half an hour, I had to leave the office so that the girls could talk. Novotná asks me if I
can wait in the hall, because she needs to talk to the doctor about what to do next and so on.
However, Laura also described her response to their behaviour.
L: And I asked why?! Are you intending to talk about me! I would also like to be present!
And then she tells me again: ‘But we need to discuss something’.
So I say: ‘OK! So it was not that you were actually asking me! It is not that I have a choice. So
next time, don’t pretend to ask me, just order me to go away! To wait outside for a decision
made by you!’
So that was it. I waited outside! In ten minutes I was allowed to return and they told me that
they decided that I have to come to meet the doctor every three months.
I see Laura exercising her agency in this context, firstly, by making an effort to use the
contact with the Child Welfare Office to her benefit. This is represented by her agreement and
willingness to meet with a professional with whom she could discuss her situation and traumatic
experiences. However, this source turns out not to be available to her, since the meetings are of
only a formal character. Furthermore, Laura describes the Child Welfare worker and the
psychiatrist as a source of oppression, since they do not allow her to participate in a decision,
or even a discussion about the rules or content of the visits with the psychiatrist or Child Welfare
Office. In this context, Laura exercises agency by at least verbally expressing her disagreement
and opinion.
Laura describes a similar experience, characterized by surveillance, control and lack of
support, when she talks about her stay in an asylum for mothers with children.
In an angry tone, Laura described most of the duties she had to do in the asylum home
as only disciplining practices, since she could not see any other point in them. As she also
explained, it was not the activities as such, but their intensity or the impossibility of negotiating
about them. This concerned, for instance, the everyday thorough cleaning of all the rooms, or
compulsory attendance at the free-time activities such as outdoor theatre, even when it was
rainy cold weather and Iveta’s son was only two months old.
However, Laura also describes some more serious reasons why she did not want to stay
in the asylum home. The first reason is related to the negative experiences with living in the
asylum home with other women. Laura told many stories in which she described an unpleasant
atmosphere, because of jealousy, gossiping, arguments, fights, or thefts among the tenants. In
general, Laura pointed out that she did not like to be forced to live with other women and
children who had also experienced traumatic and hard situations, because it was making her
feel even worse and more isolated. The discomfort she described was amplified by the fact that
they were isolated in the country, with very little contact with the outside world or other people.
Furthermore, she did not feel comfortable with the local people, because she felt like the ‘black
sheep from the asylum’.
L: It feels like it is written on my jacket [being from the asylum home]. Although my jacket looks
far better than the jackets of the locals, it’s me who has the stigma.
Another probably most important reason why Laura did not want to stay at the asylum
home was that she was separated from her partner. Already when she was pregnant, she said
she applied for a place in an asylum home. But the big disadvantage she perceived was the fact
95
that if she went there, it would not be possible to be there with Marek.
L: I don’t know what we’re gonna do! I’m on all the waiting lists, but don’t know if they will
accept me. Anyways, at earliest, it would be two months before giving birth, and I want to stay
with Marek, of course!
Marek was present when she gave birth, but a few days after that, Laura was driven back
to the asylum home and they were separated. Laura describes how she suffered from that.
L: From the maternity hospital they drove me here to the asylum home. … Marek was present
during my giving birth, but when they were driving me here I told him not to join us, that it
would be too hard to part with him.
The policy at the asylum was not very open to visitors, including the fathers of the
children or the partners of the women. Because the asylum is in a village where it is actually
rather difficult to commute from Město, it also was not easy for Marek to visit Laura and stay
for a longer time with her and their son, since there were only a few buses a day he could take.
After giving the long account about the constraints that Laura was facing in the asylum,
she concludes that in some way it was an important experience for her, because it meant gaining
very strong motivation to change her situation.
L: Like, those two months really gave me a lot! I can tell you! Like after one week I was going
crazy […] telling myself: ‘This is not bearable! Not bearable!’
M: So it is good that it looks like you don’t have to go there anymore.
L: [In a sad tone] If it goes well, then no.
In some way the situation in the asylum in which she did not want to stay anymore was
a strong reason and impulse to exercise agency through searching for different housing where
she could live with her partner and son as a family and without surveillance. After a few weeks
of searching, Laura found an apartment in the neighbouring village, where they could all move.
However, she said it took more than a month before they could actually move in.
Laura explains that the reason why it took such a long time was that, firstly, she had to
negotiate the moving with all the institutions involved in her living situation. This meant she
had to contact the Employment Office on this matter, because it is responsible for the housing
benefits which would cover the rent. The most notable, negotiation was that of Mrs. Novotná,
the worker from the Child Welfare Office, who was responsible for Laura’s case. The
negotiation about moving from the asylum home to an apartment was another situation in which
Laura described the practices of Mrs. Novotná as oppressive. Laura stated that from the very
beginning, Mrs. Novotná expressed deep mistrust of her and remained opposed to the idea of
Laura moving outside the asylum home.
L: For a month I was communicating with Novotná and all the other institutions! To ensure
that everything happened in the right order: the money, payments and so on! So that no one
could say a word! I was also sending her [Mrs. Novotná] the contract, with list of all the
furnishings of the apartment, so she could see! But nothing! Anyways she told me that I should
not give notice of termination at the asylum! That I should stay there some more months! That
that would be better. But I told her: ‘No way! Don’t count on that!’
However, after more than a month, Laura succeeded in arranging all the
documentation, etc. and in cooperation with a social worker from the Employment Office and
landlord of the apartment, they signed the contract and she could move in.
When talking about negotiating the possibility of moving out from the asylum home,
Laura uses narrative discourse in which she describes herself as someone who had to present
and defend herself as a ‘good enough mother’. ‘Good enough’ in the sense that she would be
allowed to live on her own with her family, without the direct assistance and control of
institutions. This discourse was even more often used when describing the situation after she
moved into the new apartment. Laura did not describe it as the end of a stressful situation, but
96
rather as the beginning of even greater stress. She explained that she perceived that particularly
Mrs. Novotná expects her to fail in living on her own and taking care of her child. Therefore,
Laura felt under pressure to prove that she is ‘good enough’ to overcome the expectations of
failure.
Laura described that after they moved, there were several people coming to check on
her and the situation, namely, a doctor, a worker from the Employment Office, Mrs. Novotná
and another worker from the Child Welfare Office. Laura explained that she became very
nervous and stressed in the expectation of all the visits. In some way, these checks were
perceived as verification of Laura’s abilities to provide a good and safe environment for her
baby, thus a kind of test of her mothering role. She said that she was afraid that if they did not
like something about the apartment or about her, they would see her as failing in the mother
role and force her to move back to the asylum.
In order to do her best to prove that she could provide a sufficient or ‘good enough’
environment for the baby, Laura described how she and her partner were painting the walls in
the apartment. As the worst source of stress Laura described the insecurity she felt about the
condition of the apartment needing to be sufficient to be assessed as ‘good enough’ for living
there with a baby.
L: I didn’t know what I need to have! I was worried she would come and simply say: ‘Not good’!
You know what I mean?! Or that she would tell me that I have neglected something! That would
be crazy! I was so stressed out! The night before the doctor was supposed to come I was puking!
Sick from being so stressed! When she came I was all pale! […] I was so worried that she would
find a mistake! Doesn’t matter what, like a humid wall! Or she could come and say: ‘I don’t
like the stove! Or the heating! Or that the bathroom is too cold! You know what I mean?! Like
she could find anything! And she has the stamp! If she says it is not sufficient for the child, then
that’s it! You can’t do anything about it! […] And I would have to go back to the asylum! It
wouldn’t matter that I’d paid for the rent already!
The same insecurity concerned the things she was supposed to have for the child.
L: What if it’s not gonna be all right?! What if I show her the things I have for the baby and she
tells me it’s not enough? Not enough according to a list which you can’t find anywhere! But
you have to have it! But no one tells you what’s all on the list! But those social workers they
check you according to that list! You know?! So then it’s just up to them, if they think you are
ok, or not!
I would like to contrast this situation in which Laura describes the interaction with the
Child Welfare Office as a source of stress and causing great doubts about herself with a
narrative from a much earlier interview, before the baby was born, in which Laura talks about
herself as a mother of three children.
L: Because as a mother I was always perfect!! I was great and that’s true! Even my husband
was defending me at court when we were divorcing. When it came to motherhood, no one said
a single bad word about me! No drugs, nothing!! Really! I was also enjoying it! […] When my
daughters wanted to bake a cake, we baked a cake! If I didn’t know the recipe, we just found
one on the internet! If we didn’t know something, we went to ask our neighbour, how to prepare
pancakes or something. […] I never tried to brush them off by simply saying that I didn’t know
how to do it, or that I wasn’t interested. […] I would play with them, read to them. I did not try
to get rid of them by making them sit in front of the TV for two hours!
I interpret her ability to exercise agency through the way she convinces those in her
surroundings about her being a good mother, in the strong conviction she has about herself as
a competent or even ‘perfect’ mother. The fact that she is proud of how she brought up her three
daughters is an important resource, which she uses in negotiation. On the other hand, I find it
important to point out how insecure she felt in her mother role when she was under the scrutiny
of the Child Welfare workers and perceived by them with the expectation of failure. The
97
narrative discourse which she uses also expresses her aim of being considered ‘good enough’
by the welfare workers, not necessarily ‘perfect’.
However, Laura stated that despite all the stress, the checks went well and were even a
source of support for her, since she was appreciated by the doctor for creating very good
conditions for her child and taking very good care of him.
L: So when the doctor came, she brought us some Christmas cookies, looked around and said:
‘Oh, it’s absolutely perfect!’ And that I have done a really great job!! And that I should stop
worrying, that there is no reason for that [laughing]! […]She also likes Luke a lot, because he
is fully breastfed. She always says that he is absolutely fine and putting on weight nicely! And,
especially, she says, it’s because, as she can see, I take care of him very well!
She had a similar response from the workers of the Employment and Child Care offices.
L: When they came, one of them went to check the bathroom with me! And she told me that it’s
very nice! Because we painted it blue! And that it is nice and clean! And then she asked me
about the furnishings, so I showed her the dishes and everything we have here. […] And then
she wanted to see the baby’s stuff. Because they want to see that you have it in order: clothes,
diapers, and how many you have. […] And then I ask them: ‘So, how is everything?’
And they say: ‘Don’t worry! We will call Mrs. Novotná and tell her everything is all right here!’
And I say: ‘Ohhhhhh thank you!!’
In these narratives Laura describes not only being recognized as a ‘good enough’
mother, but actually being praised for doing very well. This she describes as a great relief and
important support for her self-confidence. This regained self-esteem is well expressed in what
she said to Mrs. Novotná, who called her to say that she had received positive reports about the
control visits.
L: She says: ‘I hear only good things about you! Everyone is just praising you!’
I say: ‘What did you expect?! What did you expect?! Tell me!’
She says: ‘No, nothing, it’s just good that you managed everything!’
I say: ‘I was just planning to visit you, to show you Luke and so on. But I have been quite busy
now, before Christmas, because the social workers come here almost every day.’
She just says: ‘Ohh, I’d just like to wish you a Merry Christmas! Have a nice time!’
I think myself: ‘Stupid cow! Wanted to rid me of custody even before the baby was born! She
was never any help to us! She never made it easier!’
Due to the initial mistrust and constraints, compared to the praise from the other social
workers and doctor, the compliment from Mrs. Novotná is not seen by Laura as such, but rather
as a sign of her stereotypical judgement.
3.3.2.3 The Role of Partners, Friends and Family
In the previous two sub-chapters, I discussed the negotiation of Sara and Laura with their
surroundings about being ‘normal’ or ‘good enough’ mothers, particularly institutions such as
the Child Welfare Office. As I already mentioned, for these interactions it was characteristic
that Sara and Laura’s mother role was somehow questioned or problematized. That is why its
meaning needed to be negotiated. The discussion of these interactions provided a good
possibility to understand the exercising of agency, especially through various forms of
resistance towards negative stereotypes or oppression. On the other hand, the role of other
subjects in the participant’s environment, such as partners, friends or family members, also
represented important sources of support. It is probable that since these relationships were not
seen as problematic or threatening, they were less talked about. However, I want to focus on
them in this sub-chapter, since participants exercise their agency in these interactions, mainly
by using these important subjects as a source of benefits.
98
Klee (2002) points out that informal sources of help can be a very important form of
social and emotional support, as well as of instrumental support such as practical and financial
help.
Both Sara and Laura, as well as Iveta, who was expecting a child, were living in a stable
relationship with their partner. They all describe their relationships as an important source of
support in their mothering role, although the situation for Sara and Laura was specific: they
both already had three children from a previous marriage. For their partners it was their first
child. This different experience had an impact on their negotiation of their parental roles. Sara,
for instance, reports that she is aware that she has the tendency to behave as the only one who
is right. At the same time, she says she is aware of it and therefore tries to keep in mind to leave
more space to her partner and let him find his way and develop a relationship with their baby.
Laura said that it is very important for her to let fathers develop a strong bond with their
children, which is something she did in her previous marriage and now.
Sara explained that she thinks it might be annoying for her partner when she has the
tendency to explain everything about the care of their child. During the interviews at which her
partner was present, they both agreed that it would be good if they had more people in their
surroundings who they would perceive as good parents and thus learn from. Sara mentioned
that the parents they have in their surroundings do not serve as a source of knowledge,
experience or mutual help. This is either due to their excessive and uncontrolled drug or alcohol
use, or, on the other hand, because they are former drug users who now do not want to have
anything in common with people who use drugs.
Laura described how she misses some support from a wider social network. She
explained that although they managed to make some important steps towards a more stable life,
like moving into an apartment, she still feels vulnerable having to rely only on herself and her
partner.
L: Well, things happen and because we don’t have family around… No network, you know?!
Like people who could help you when you need it, or you could ask for help, or have someone
just to have a coffee with, you know?! So it’s harder!
As was mentioned by Laura, family can be an important source of support. In later
interviews she reports that although she and her partner had not been in contact with their
parents or extended family for many years, they initiated contact with Marek’s mother. Laura
talked about it as a potential source of material support, and as their child’s ‘right to have not
only parents but also grandparents’.
In the case of Sara and her partner, she explained that since the baby was born, Martin’s
parents have been of very important support. This was especially concerning financial help
which allowed them to move from hostel to apartment, and other material support like food
they bring from their farm in the countryside, or household appliances such as a washing
machine.
Sara points out that important subjects in her environment are her friend Monika and
her partner. Because they are not drug users, Sara relates to them as potentially important
support with helping to look after her child. She explained that if she needed to ask someone to
babysit, it would be them, since they are reliable. Sara also explained that she perceives this
friend as a kind of ‘indicator’. Sara describes herself admitting that even if one tries to have
drug use under control, it might happen that things ‘get out of hand’. She trusts that this friend
would tell her if she perceived something was wrong concerning the care of her child. It would
be more acceptable to hear about a problem from this friend than, for instance, from a Child
Welfare worker.
99
3.3.3 Kindergarten and School as Support in Parental Roles
Of all the participants, only Hedvika had in her custody two children, Simon and Tina, who
were of preschool age; Tina later started first grade. This allowed me a good opportunity to gain
some insight in the role that kindergartens and schools played in Hedvika’s life.
3.3.3.1 Kindergarten
Hedvika was talking about the possibility of putting her kids in kindergarten as an important
source of support for several reasons.
The most often mentioned reason was that putting kids in kindergarten brings her some
free time for herself. This she can use for resting, meeting with other people, or running errands.
She adds that the kids themselves like to go there.
However, it was required to pay for their tuition, which was not always easy for
Hedvika. Some months Hedvika simply did not manage to pay the fees, which was why several
times the kids were present at the interviews. Because of the benefits, it has been possible for
her to have both children in kindergarten. Hedvika describes how it was always a priority for
her to pay the fee.
H: So I paid it, but it was from the food money. … So now it’s … But at least I have peace at
home! You know, I had to do it! Because, anyways, they would be at home the whole time! So I
would spend the money anyways! This way they are at least in kindergarten! It’s better, and
they were also looking forward to going there again!
At some point Hedvika found a solution to the financial problems with kindergarten fees
by taking the children to a free kindergarten. It was run by a non-governmental organization
and provided for children from socially excluded areas, mainly Roma kids. Hedvika was very
happy with this solution. Not only was it a great advantage that it was free, but the care and
attention from the teachers was greater than in the standard kindergarten where she had been
going before. She feels that it is important that the teachers prepare the children for school,
because she does not feel very competent in this.
H: Yeah! It’s great there! The best kindergarten I’ve been to! There are four teachers and five
kids! But sometimes there can also be ten or fifteen, but usually there are around five kids! It’s
from eight till twelve o’clock. And they also teach them numbers and letters! Writing and so
on! They really care about them! And it also doesn’t cost much. It’s great there! And they also
like me!
But it is not only about the children: Hedvika also talks about how she feels in relation
to the teachers at the kindergarten, or other parents. In both kindergartens, the standard one
where she was going previously and the free one, she reports having a good relationship with
the teachers. She also appreciated the various activities they were doing with the children. She
expressed that she felt comfortable when she met with other parents there.
What I see as important to add is how the activities in the kindergarten and the good
relations with the teachers served as support of Hedviak’s parental role and as inspiration for
activities she could do with the children. She described that in spring the children went for a
trip to observe flowers in a small natural reserve inside of Město.
H: I didn’t know about those special flowers, but Simon told me about them. That they were
there and that it’s very beautiful! He wants to show them to me, so we went there […] and he
showed them to me. It really was beautiful! […] So we went there more times and spent the
whole day there!
Before Christmas the kindergarten organized a workshop for children and their parents,
100
where they could make some Christmas cookies and decorations.
H: Like, no one knew how to do it [Christmas decorations], but I did because we did it at the
asylum once. So it went well! I think it’s nice, what do you think?! [showing me the Christmas
decoration] I’m really satisfied with it [proudly].
Besides these inspirational activities, Hedvika also describes the situation when one of
the teachers directly influenced her by telling her that it is very important that she comes for a
party that they were preparing for the children. Although Hedvika did not plan to come, after
the teacher asked her, she realized that it was important to come. She also commented that she
actually appreciated that the teacher told her this.
H: She is great! […]Once I did not show up there, or something. I don’t remember what it was,
but they were giving a party for the kids and parents. Later she took me aside and told me that
they would have a party again, for the kids. I told her that I’m gonna skip that. But she told me
that Tina is looking forward to it very much and that she would be very sorry if I don’t come.
So I told her: ‘Ok, I see. I will come’. She said that I should surely come, that it will be great
for Tina! So the teacher pushed me like this a little! Why not?!
M: Is it ok for you that she pushed you like this?
H: Yes! Sure!
3.3.3.2 School
Unlike in kindergarten, where Hedvika did not have to worry about school attendance, the onset
of regular schooling was connected with doubts and insecurities for her. The time for Hedvika’s
daughter to start first grade was drawing near. Because I met Hedvika when Tina was already
going to school, I could compare whether some of the worries were justified.
Although Hedvika expressed insecurity several times about being able to bring the
children to school regularly, it was interesting for me to see the practice afterwards. For
instance, during our meeting, which was at 10 am, Hedvika reported about her morning and
how she managed to do her duties.
H: We overslept in the morning. At a quarter past we got up and one minute to eight we were
at school! So we made it! And half past nine we were at the kindergarten!
M: So in the morning you go from the hostel to the school and then to kindergarten? And then
you have free time?!
H: Yes! Till twelve.
LaterHedvika described how she actually manages to bring her daughter to school
regularly and does not have a problem with too many absences. She explained that it is very
important to avoid too many absences at school not to have problems with the Child Welfare
Office. At the same time, she concluded that so far she does not have a problem with that at all.
Similar to the activities in kindergarten, Hedvika explained that she sees school as very
supportive for her daughter, since it offers many free time activities which she can attend and
also likes very much. It is important that if some of these activities need to be paid, Hedvika
can cover it with social benefits.
H: On Monday she goes to choir, on Tuesday she has English, Wednesday is free. … And on
Tuesday she also has some science class. And on Thursday she goes to singing class. […] And
some of it is for free and some of it is covered by social benefits.
Similar to the activities in kindergarten, these activities of her daughter at school support
Hedvika in her parental role. For instance, when she was deciding whether she would go to the
Christmas party at the drop-in centre, it was a difficult decision, as there was also the Christmas
concert of her daughter’s choir. Hedvika explains that it was more important to go to the concert
because she knows how important it is for her daughter. Similarly, like the teacher in the
kindergarten, the teacher at school reminded Hedvika that it is important to attend these
101
activities. Furthermore, Hedvika said that the teachers communicate with the parents through
email; for instance, they write what the children were doing at school, so the parents can ask
them about it. Hedvika commented that she likes that possibility to communicate with the
teachers.
102
3.4 Housing
According to ETHOS31
typology of homelessness and housing exclusion, ‘there are three
domains which constitute a ‘home’, the absence of which can be taken to delineate
homelessness’ (FEANTSA 2013).
They are the physical, social and legal domains. The physical domain means having an
adequate dwelling (or space) over which a person and his/her family can exercise exclusive
possession. Social domain is characterized by being able to maintain privacy and enjoy
relations. The legal domain is represented by having a legal title to occupation (FEANTSA
2013). Fulfilling these three domains is understood as having a home. Based on the absence of
one or more of the domains, ETHOS recognizes four main concepts which are rooflessness,
houselessness, insecure housing and inadequate housing, all of which represent the absence of
home.
The ETHOS definition of homelessness offers a very good tool for a deep understanding
of the housing situation of people who are living in various forms of insecure and inadequate
housing conditions. In the recognition of the physical, social and legal domains, it includes to
the common perception of homelessness, which is often equated with rooflessness, a much
wider spectrum of living situations. This detailed definition allows me to recognize various
types of homelessness that the participants were experiencing. They experienced rooflessness,
by ‘sleeping rough’ or in abandoned shacks in garden colonies, and houselessness, by living in
women’s shelters, which were usually asylums for mothers and children, or asylums for victims
of domestic violence, or asylum homes which were temporary accommodation for homeless
people. They also experienced insecure housing when living temporarily with friends or family,
which was characterized by lack of legal (sub)tenancy and often with the threat of violence.
They also experienced living in inadequate housing, characterized by hostels. Despite being
originally designed as temporary accommodation (not even as occupational dwellings), due to
inadequacies in social housing policy, hostels have become a rather common accommodation
option for low income families, or people living in socially excluded areas (e.g. Koncepce
2014).
Looking at the housing situation through the perspective of the ETHOS definition
allows me to recognize that all the participant were at least for some time during the one year
of my research experiencing homelessness. Despite the fact that the living situations of
participants were quite different and variable, the majority of them, for most of the time, did
not have a home which would fulfil the physical, social and legal domains.
This serious housing situation indicates that the topic of housing was one of the crucial
characteristics strongly influencing the living situation of the participants and their partners and
children. This was reflected in the fact that the narratives about housing constitute a substantial
part of all the data. It was a topic which concerned every participant; all of them went through
at least one change of accommodation in that one year. In most of the cases, the housing
situation was different almost every time we met. Since there was a total of 25 interviews and
focus groups, there were narratives about almost 20 different housing trajectories. This fact
reveals not only the importance, but the dynamic of the theme.
In the following text, I describe various housing conditions and discuss the reasons and
consequences of the transitions between them, as they were explained by the participants.
Furthermore, I discuss the participants’ exercise of agency in the context of the various forms
of housing, as with the agency exercised in the transitions. These transitions between different
forms of housing were in some cases based on the initiative of the participants, usually to
31
Typology developed by FEANTSA – European federation of organizations working with people who are
homeless.
103
improve their housing situation (e.g. moving from hostel to an apartment). In some other cases,
the transition was rather a result of restrictions or oppression from various subjects in the social
environment (e.g. fleeing from violence). Nonetheless, all the narratives concerning housing
provided a very good opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the participants’ exercise
of agency in the context of dynamic changes in their living conditions.
The exercise of agency in the context of housing is discussed in four main chapters, in
which the various housing situations are based on some common characteristics.
In the first chapter (3.4.1), I discuss the link between insecure housing conditions and
exposure to violence. In the second chapter (3.4.2), I describe housing trajectories for which
there was constant moving between asylum homes for mother and children and hostels. In the
third chapter (3.4.3), I discuss the role of family and relationships as a source of support in
housing transitions and some situations of homelessness. In the fourth chapter (3.4.4), I discuss
the lack of physical, social and/or legal domain as significant characteristics of the participants’
housing situation, therefore, the need to understand their living situation in the context of
homelessness.
3.4.1 Insecure Housing Conditions and Exposure to
Violence
In this chapter I discuss the housing situation of Petra and Diana. They were both living in
rather insecure conditions, often moving between different places, usually garden shacks and
apartments, where they were staying with other people. Another common and very significant
characteristic of their situations is their experience with violence, to which they were exposed
in relation to the housing conditions they were living in. At the same time, I explain that it is
not possible to draw a one way causal link between a homeless situation and violence. The
relations between homelessness and exposure to violence are very dynamic. As is evident in
both situations, fleeing from domestic violence can lead to homelessness, but homelessness can
also lead to further exposure to violence.
3.4.1.1 Insecure Living in the Garden Colony Shacks
When I met Petra for the first interview, she was living in a shack situated in a garden colony.
This form of housing was common for the other participants: Laura, Hedvika, Iveta and Diana
were also at some time living in similar housing conditions.
The garden shacks were usually located in an abandoned part of the gardening colonies,
which were in the centre, or not too far from the central parts of Město. The term shack
represents a small wooden dwelling. The comfort level is variable, depending on whether the
shack is equipped with a small stove, for example, or how remote the source of potable water
is (usually located outside in the garden, but in winter the water source is usually closed). The
comfort also depends on the number of people occupying the space. The housing conditions are
also characterized by a legal status of usually no legal rights to occupy the place. The
participants usually moved there when they found the shack abandoned or easily accessible
(low level of security). Therefore, the participants sometimes relate to the garden shack as a
squat (illegally occupied dwelling), or hut (if it has better facilities). Since the abandoned parts
of the garden colony could be larger, it was also described by the participants as more people
living in the same place, occupying neighbouring shacks and gardens.
This living of more people in one place was in some narratives described as a very
positive part of the living situation, since it allowed them to establish a community kind of
living. At one focus group, Petra, Laura and Diana, who were living at that time in the same
104
garden colony together, describe a division of roles and participation: different people were
responsible for securing and cooking food; others for collecting and chopping wood; carrying
water, etc.
However, parts of the narratives about common living were also complaints about
arguments or even fights which sometimes took place.
L: Like, each of us has some duties, someone is responsible for food, someone for water, this
and that […] But sometimes it’s hard. But I tell myself: ‘You live with three girls, why are you
surprised?!’ […] In the morning Hedvika is terribly moody, so sometimes she’s yelling and is
mean! […] But each of us has something.
The garden colonies are also places where meth manufacturing can take place. As Petra
explains, the meth manufacturing is something that causes a negative aspect of living in a
garden colony, since the possibility of obtaining meth makes more people come to the place;
after using the drugs, they also stay, sometimes for several days.
P: When I was living close to the Park, everyone was coming to me, constantly asking: ‘Do you
have some stuff? Do you have any?! I need to get some!’
This was happening all the time! […] Of course, we know it! Typical junkies never have credit
to call you! It’s better for them to come directly! So, you are constantly bothered by someone
coming to your place.
This presence of other people, once the place become known for its meth manufacturing
also makes the place much less safe, since the flow of people cannot be controlled or effectively
restricted. This concerns personal safety, but also the security of personal belongings which are
stored in the shack.
Petra describes a situation where she returned to her shack after a few days and found
that other people had moved into the place and had damaged or stolen her personal belongings.
P: So, basically, in this shack I had all my belongings from the last two years of my life. […]
Actually, when I look at it like this, I had my whole life there! […] And they threw it all away!
All my stuff! […] I don’t have my shoes! My brand new Nike sneakers! They are so precious to
me! I got them as a birthday present! And fuck, now I don’t have them! I miss my leather jacket
too! And I don’t have any pictures of my daughter!!! …Or pictures of me neither! My
documents, my papers! All gone! Thrown away!
Diana shares a similar experience.
D: I come there and realize my hut had been burgled! But I think to myself: ‘fuck it!!’ … So I
have only a few things left and those I have on me and in the washing machine right now [at
the drop-in centre] [laughing]. […] It’s impossible to guard it, or keep it safe, the hut, you
know?! If I manage to get in, everyone can do it too!
Although Petra mentioned several times that she likes the freedom and living with other
people in the garden colony, she very much minded the presence of too many people which she
could not have under control and the lack of privacy and safety. The fact that she could not
persuade others to obey the rules about cleaning also bothered her.
P: I had a hut!!! … And now it’s just a squat full of rubbish. A few times, when I was cleaning
there I was crying. They didn’t care that I was taking care of the place, cleaning there. So,
sometimes I came back, in an hour … and everything was even more messy than before. […] I
simply don’t want to live in such a mess! I hate mess! Even though I was a squatter, I care
about order and hygiene! Those are my priorities, really!!
This narrative shows that although Petra was exercising her agency related to the ideas
she had about living in the colony, by maintaining and cleaning the place, the disturbance from
other people was so serious and unacceptable for her that she started considering moving
somewhere else, where she could be safe from other people, mainly other drug users.
105
Although Petra was already concerned by the lack of safety for her things, as well as
herself, the last drop which made her leave the place was some physical violence which she
experienced from an acquaintance, who was also a drug dealer, who came to her place to
demanding precursors and drugs.
P: Like, they are really behaving like big bosses. For example, they force people to cook up
meth for them! Or force people to bring them precursors for manufacture, or they take things
which don’t belong to them!! They simply come, take what they want and leave! And if you
don’t give it to them, they beat you up! One of those guys is even capable of killing somebody!
[…] He beat up everyone. He also destroyed my hut! […] He almost killed a guy, or throw an
axe at him, screwdriver, knife. He was chasing him all around the place. A real psycho!
After the violent incident, when the acquaintance also moved to her shack and she could
not do anything about it, Petra described how she left the place and just roamed the streets for
a few days wondering what to do.
P: One day, I simply left the place. […] I was on the street, for two days. … I was just roaming.
… Not on drugs! Clean and thinking! […] I would rather roam for two days in the streets than
be sinking down in that place.
Looking back to this incident, Petra concluded that she can actually be grateful to the
man who occupied her shack, because it was finally the ‘kick’ needed for her to move out of
the place, which she had already been dissatisfied with for a long time.
P: He really pissed me off! […] Like everything was pissing me off!! That’s why I said:
‘Enough!!! …. I can’t take it anymore!’ … And I left! By myself! … From one day to the next!!
[…] But I’m actually grateful to him!! Because of him I moved to the apartment! Because on
the one hand, I needed that kick! Like go away from the place! From the hut!
In this narrative Petra stated that the possibility to exercise her agency in the situation
was very low. She could not control the people who were coming to the place; in the end, it
became impossible to protect herself from the violence. The personal space in her shack was
occupied, so her possibilities to make decisions about this space were restricted; therefore, she
decided to leave. This can be seen as an important exercise of agency, Petra emphasises in her
narrative that it was her decision to leave, to prevent even worse things from happening to her.
After two days of roaming the streets, Petra met a friend who offered to let her move in
to his place. Her friend was a former heroin user, currently living alone in a rented apartment
and regularly going to work. Petra described their initial contract: the friend let her move in to
his place, because he wanted to help her from the hopeless situation she was in. During the first
two interviews, Petra said that she was doing some household chores, like cleaning, shopping
and cooking in return for the possibility to live in the apartment.
But later on, Petra started to complain that the friend redefined their relationship to a
partnership and, because she was living with him, he expected her to have sex with him.
Gradually, he started controlling her – where she was going, or who she was meeting.
P: Now he is pretending to be my boyfriend and he’s making some claims on me! So I don’t like
it there anymore!!! Today I stayed at my friend’s place!! […] And he’s making claims like how
is it possible that I was sleeping somewhere else?! Why did I do it?! […]And he calls me and
says: ‘We will talk about that when you return!’
And I say: ‘What????!!!! Who do you think I am??!! What’s that??!!!’ I like to have a certain
amount of freedom!! And nobody is gonna take it from me!!!
Petra’s main plan was to find a job, in order to earn money to find her own housing. The
friend used his contacts and helped her find a job as a waitress in a restaurant, but Petra said
that she decided to turn down the offer since she realized it would be another way for him to
control her, because he wanted to start work at the same place.
Despite all these things, which Petra described as bad, she talked about it as the only
106
possibility she had at the moment.
P: So I should, not that I have to, but I probably should subordinate to him! Although I was
always against it! Being dependent on someone! But right now I have no other option than to
live with him! .. And subordinate to him a bit!
At the next interview Petra described a situation where her flatmate had locked her up
in the apartment; he also physically attacked her several times. The physical and psychological
violence consisting of threats and humiliation were again the last straw that persuaded Petra to
move out. She made a plan to move out when he was at work and then returned to a garden
shack.
P: He’s gonna go to work today, so I have time to pack my stuff and leave. … because I would
rather live in the hut again and go through all that stuff again! I know I will find a job! Because
I know that I really want it!! I do want it!!! Than to be with him!! … That’s terrible! I’m not in
the mood for that! […]It’s not worth it! To live there and go through what’s happening there!
Fuck that!
Although Petra perceived that her possibility to exercise agency is restricted by the
control and inappropriate expectations of the flatmate, she did negotiate her position, for
instance, by verbally making it clear that he has no right to control her activities or demand
sexual practices from her. She was doing it, because she still perceived it as an important
advantage to live in an apartment. This is similar to the first situation in the garden colony,
when Petra was exercising her agency by searching for options of how to protect herself from
violence. Here also the physical attack is described as the last straw prompting her to move,
despite the fact that it meant moving back to a garden shack. Again, she exercises agency by
stressing that she left the flat in order to protect herself from more violence, based on previous
bad experience with domestic violence.
P: I’ve already experienced that! Before it was even worse than now, but since that time I
promised myself that nobody is gonna do that to me again! […] And you can predict it! Like it
would be enough to leave it like that just a little longer. Like I wouldn’t do anything about it! It
would end up the same way as I already know! … And I don’t want that!!!
Petra’s housing situation was strongly characterized by lack of safety and privacy.
Although some of the people in her surroundings were friends with whom she preferred to live
and were supporting each other (e.g. by sharing duties in community living), there were also
people who she did not want to be in contact with, but could not avoid it. It was also the
interaction with this environment where Petra exercised agency when negotiating the conditions
of living. She described that as insisting on keeping the place clean and maintaining the shack
as her private place. However, gradually it became less and less possible to have control over
the people and use the place, including her shack; thus after experiencing physical violence and
threats, she left. Therefore, the other way how Petra described her exercise of agency is that she
made decisions and moved, using the sources represented by comfortable housing offered by a
friend. However, also at this place she experienced oppression in various forms of violence
from her flatmate. Although she was exercising her agency through negotiating her rights, after
repeated physical attacks, she decided to move again. When describing the difficulties related
to insecure housing conditions and experiences of violence, Petra used narrative discourse in
which she expressed strong decisions and the ability to protect herself from violence, explaining
that safety from violence is the most important priority for her. In the narratives, she describes
herself as victimized by violence, but also as always able to protect herself.
Petra’s narratives illustrate the relation between unstable housing conditions and
experiences of violence. Although she described herself as a strong agent who can move from
one place to another to protect herself from escalating violence, the real possibility to really be
safe from the violence was rather limited. The structural constraints represented by the lack of
107
available safe space were limiting her agency to exercise an escape from the violence. I return
to this topic once more in the chapter about violence, were I discuss why see did not perceive
asylums for victims of domestic violence as a possible source of protection for herself.
3.4.1.2 Insecure Housing and Domestic Violence
Diana’s housing trajectory is also related to domestic violence. During the one year we were in
contact, she was moving between different places, usually garden shacks but also friends’ flats
in an effort to escape from her violent partner.
Initially, Diana was living with her partner in an apartment. He was working in
construction and was earning enough money to cover all the expenses for the rent, as well as to
buy all the supplies for meth manufacture. Diana explained that for this reason they were not
dependent on anybody else and were manufacturing meth basically for their own use or for
close friends.
At the first two interviews, Diana described her life with the partner as comfortable,
although sometimes a bit boring, since she was not very interested or expected to take care of
the household or have a job; neither did she have any hobbies.
However, later Diana also started to talk about control and physical violence from her
partner. At our third meeting, Diana came with dark bruises on her face and a broken nose,
which was the result of a violent attack from her partner just a few days before. After this
incident, Diana left him and moved to a garden shack to stay with her best friend. This she
described as an important source of support, to have a place to stay and a good friend. However,
after a few days they had a serious argument and stopped talking to each other; Diana had to
look for another place to live. Diana said that it was at the drop-in centre where she met a man
who offered her to stay at his place in a garden shack.
D: I had nowhere to go!!! So I went to drop-in … and there I met a guy I knew from before, but
not very well. […] But when he saw me, with all the bruises, you remember?! […] He just
looked at me and had tears in his eyes! […] He told me I looked really fucked up! So what’s
going on?! […] I told him the whole story and that I have nowhere to go,that I don’t know
anyone else. He told me that if anything happens, I can come to him. That till I find another
place, I can stay at his place.
In the time after Diana left her violent partner she started binge drug use and it was a
period of time when she was staying in different places, like garden shacks and apartments
which were usually connected to meth manufacture. Although Diana was staying in all these
different places, in her narratives she referred to the place in the shack offered by the friend
from the drop-in centre as her ‘base’ or ‘safety net’, where she could come whenever she
needed. She often went there to have a rest after several days of binge using.
D: At the same time, I don’t live anywhere at all!! But I always have a place to stay, that’s for
sure! At least at his place I can show up anytime! … That’s guaranteed! […] Just a few days
ago I was there…for three or four days. … I don’t know exactly. I was sleeping the whole time!!
[laughing] […] He just woke me up when the meal was ready and told me to eat something.
It was also important support for her that she could leave her dog there, since he was big
and sometimes mean to other people, so she could not have him with her all the time. Later
Diana explained why she was glad that she had this supportive safety net from the friend, but
at the same time why she did not want to move there. One of the reasons was that the friend
was expecting her to have sex with him when she was staying with him in the shack. Once
Diana described the negotiation about it with him.
D: He also expected that he would get me into bed and that I would be with him. … But very
soon I showed him the way, that there was no way!!! [laughing] … I could do it – sleep with
him – but I know that would hurt him, and he doesn’t deserve it. Because he’s really the only
108
one who helped me. More or less, I can say I actually tried to protect him, so he wouldn’t be
too fucked up from it. […] Take it or leave it! Accept it as it is! [laughing]. He does not like it,
but he has to!! Because that’s my will! So he has to!
Diana explained that she made it clear that she would not get involved in a sexual
relationship with him, also by wording it in a way that actually made it seem like she was
protecting him from herself. She said she did not want to emotionally hurt him by only misusing
his kindness. Another way that Diana clarified the boundaries between them was that she
explained to him that she perceives him as a father figure rather than a partner and that this was
the relationship she expected to have with him. She also started to call him ‘daddy’; he accepted
this role and actually started to perform the father role.
D: So now I stay at random places. Among others, I also stay at my step- father’s place. […]
He even got so familiar with the role that when he saw me with someone somewhere, he said:
‘Hey! You! Who are you?! That’s my girl!’ I was staring at him and thought: OK! […] On one
hand, I’m thinking: ‘Hey man! Take a break! What do you want from me?!’ [laughing] But on
the other hand, I think it’s fine! … I’m making jokes about it all the time. But then he really
stands up for me, like ‘I’m your father!’ and I say all right!! [laughing]
These narratives express how important a source of support this friend was; later called
‘daddy’, since he offered Diana a place to go if she had nowhere else, a place to rest and leave
her dog. However, Diana also describes how she was exercising her agency by using this source
of support and, at the same time, constantly clarifying the boundaries against his initiatives to
shift the friendship to a sexual relationship. This she claims to be one of the reasons why she
did not want to move there completely, but was staying at other places with other people as
well.
For some time she was staying in an apartment with several other people, also drug
users. Diana said that she was living there, because for some time she was involved in some
kind of romantic relationship with the owner of the apartment. He also offered to let her have
her own keys to the apartment and allowed her to stay there without contributing to the rent.
However, the relationship and her stay in the flat did not last very long due to a violent
incident with her former partner. He found out that she was living there and went there to
convince her to return to him. Diana described how they were talking outside the apartment and
then he violently attacked her. No one from inside came to help or defend her, although she is
sure they knew about it. Diana described this as the last straw when she realized she did not
trust the flatmates and did not want to be involved in a romantic relationship with a man who
cannot defend her.
During Diana’s stays in various places, she also returned few times to the flat of her
former partner. This was also mainly to have a rest; she knew it was crucial not to use drugs
together, because the risk of violence would be higher. Diana said that after a few days he
usually started with threats of violence and at that point she left the flat and went to another
place.
D: After two days he tells me: ‘You wanna end up like last time??!! Two black eyes and a scar
under your eyebrow??!!’ I started to cry and tell him: ‘You’re such a dick!’ And I went away!
3.4.1.3 Lack of Security and Safety
Petra and Diana’s narratives about housing conditions and transitions have several things in
common. It is especially the violence they were experiencing: Petra from an acquaintance and
later from her friend and flat mate; Diana from her former partner. For both of them, the
experience of violence was the reason to move away. In both cases, it is possible to identify it
as an important exercise of agency, since they did it in order to protect themselves from the
violence. In both cases, it actually lead to a worsening of housing conditions and failed to
protect them from further exposure to violence; therefore, the need to move again. When
109
analysing the role of important subjects, it is possible to identify the important role of men who
were the source of oppression as perpetrators of the violence. At the same time, it was other
male friends who offered them support in the form of accommodation. However, in both cases,
it turned out that this offer also included the expectation of sexual services in return, which
made the situation for Diana and Petra uncomfortable and was one of the reasons why they did
not stay. It is possible to see that despite the strong agency they were both exercising through
escaping from violence and the effort to find different housing, their situations were
significantly influenced by a serious lack of support from their surroundings (i.e. safe and stable
housing). Safety can be characterized not only as safety from violence, but generally as a safe
place where they can exercise control over people who enter, maintaining privacy and avoiding
contact with drugs, if they decide to do so.
3.4.2 Drifting between Asylum Homes and Hostels
In this chapter I will discuss the narratives of Hedvika, who was living already for several years
with her two children in various asylum homes for mothers and children. During the one year I
was meeting with her, she went through many transitions between several asylum homes and
hostels.
3.4.2.1 Pros and Cons of Life in Asylums for Mothers and Children
Contrary to Laura, who described the living conditions in asylum homes as almost solely
oppressive, Hedvika’s narratives showed both negative and important positive aspects of living
in asylum homes.
Similar to Laura, Hedvika said that what she does not like about life in asylum homes
are the other women who live there. Hedvika described it as difficult, because they are not
people she would choose to live with, but in the asylum home, there is no other option. When
talking about the other tenants, Hedvika used narrative discourse in which she put strong
emphasis on distancing herself from the other women living in the asylum. Besides that fact
that she felt that she did not have anything in common with them, Hedvika also reveals that a
part of the reason she wants to distance herself from them is her mistrust based on previous bad
experience. Therefore, Hedvika did not like to talk too much about herself with the other
women, because she is afraid they could use the information against her in some way, or tell
the staff things which Hedvika wants to keep secret. This is concerning especially the issues
related to drug use. Although Hedvika agrees that some of the people in the asylum probably
know that she uses drugs (meth and marijuana) and drinks alcohol, she explained that not taking
part in conversations helps her keep the information secret and makes it easier to hide if she is
in a state of acute intoxication.
H: So I’m there with the other women! Some of them are really wackos! It’s not possible, or I
don’t know. I’m not able… I don’t know what to talk about with them! […] I don’t have anything
in common with them! […] I don’t like to talk to them. Maybe they are not bad, but I have
nothing to talk about with them. What if I let slip something. They can use it against me!
M: Like, they get to know something about you?
H: Yes, and they are really able to use it against me! I think it could really make a lot of trouble
for me! […] You know, some of them are really … you better watch out.
For the same reasons, she does not like to join the free-time activities organized by the
asylum workers, although sometimes she does them, mainly because of her children, who like
110
to take part.
Like Laura, Hedvika mentioned that she minds the lack of privacy at the asylum home.
Although her partner can come to visits her, they do not have privacy, so cannot be alone
together.
On the other hand, contrary to Laura, Hedvika mentioned several advantages of life in
the asylum home. She mentioned the ‘luxury’ of the facilities as important. Hedvika also stayed
with her children in hostels, which usually meant one room, a shared bathroom and access to
washing machines for a fee. Therefore, in contrast with that experience, the asylum facilities,
which usually offer a room with kitchenette, their own bathroom and free access to a washing
machine, were perceived as ‘real luxury’.
H: It’s great! We have a washing machine finally! Bathroom! Toilet! It’s really great! I have a
washing machine! I washed four huge bags of laundry! Luxury! Pure luxury!
A very important issue concerning life in the asylum is related to the level and type of
control which is exercised over the tenants. Hedvika explains that she sees the control as both
positive and negative.
The negative character of control for her are the rules regarding curfew, that she has to
be back in the hostel by a certain time in the evening, and the rules that forbid being under the
influence of drugs or alcohol. She describes them as sometimes difficult to keep, but admits
that she sometimes finds a way to get around them, or decrease the disciplinary problems. This
means, for instance, to prefer moderate use of meth rather than excessive drinking of alcohol,
because that is more visible and would be perceived as a serious transgression of the rules.
H: I try not to use too much. I really try, and I don’t drink! Of course! Well I do have a small
glass of wine per day, or beer. Beer they don’t mind. And the drugs – they don’t know about it!
You know, they don’t recognize it! But still I try to limit it.
M: So if you are not too much, they don’t recognize it?
H: Then it’s ok. The problem is if I came in wasted! That would be a problem! […] If I come
wasted, it’s a problem, but if I come stoned, they probably won’t make an issue of it.
Another strategy related to the rules which Hedvika sees as restrictive is that during
weekends when she is free to leave the asylum, she spends the time outdoors. She said that
during summer months, when she was allowed to leave for longer periods, she and her children
moved into a tent in a garden colony, where Hedvika’s friends were living. Although Hedvika
was officially living in the asylum home and paying rent there, most of the time she spent living
outdoors, because, as she says, this was offering her more freedom compared to the control in
the asylum home.
M: How is it during the weekends? Can you leave?
H: I can! I can leave even like for two weeks, if I tell them in advance. Actually, when I was
there for the first time, I was hardly there the whole time! It was summer and the whole summer
holidays I was out. I came there only to do laundry, or when I needed to bake some cakes for
the kids or something like that. Otherwise, almost the whole time I was not there! I had a tent
... and we were in the tent [laughing].
However, in the narrative Hedvika described the asylum as a kind of ‘base’ where she
could always go, for instance, to cook or wash. Although, as Hedvika explains, she did not stay
there much of the time, the role of the ‘base’, where she could have all her personal belongings
was very important.
Furthermore, in some narratives Hedvika referred to the asylum as a preferable place to
stay, because she saw some level of control over her as positive, even ‘necessary’. This attitude
is demonstrated in a narrative concerning a situation where Hedvika was considering an
opportunity to move to an apartment. Hedvika expressed worries that if she moved to an
111
apartment she would not be able to handle the situation on her own. As Hedvika explained, this
worry that things will get ‘out of hand’ if she was not under control concern especially financial
matters. She stated that the rent could be covered by the housing benefits, but she feared she
would fail to transfer the benefits to the landlord. This she connects to her previous experiences,
when she spent the housing benefit money in slot machines and created a huge rental debt at
the asylum home. The huge debts were actually the reason she had to move from several asylum
homes, as will be discussed later.
H: You know, I’m absolutely not sure if I wouldn’t do it again [slot machines]. […]I really need
it! To be tamed at the asylum house again. Really start to pay the debt I have. … That’s also
what I told them, because I could get an apartment. For 7000! Immediately! But somehow, I’m
afraid of it. […] and it’s cool like they would pay it all for me [Employment Office with housing
benefits], but somehow I’m afraid of it. Seriously, I really need to be under surveillance for
some time again.
M: What does it mean, the surveillance?
H: I need surveillance from someone [laughing]! I need to get back on track! Where I used to
be!
M: What kind of track were you on?
H: Like, to live a completely normal life! Like, normally pay everything. Well, get high from
time to time. Like, I don’t know, three or four times per month. But not like now. Not like I
would take the money and go gamble.
Hedvika’s ideas about the control she says she wants from the asylum concern especially
financial matters, for someone to help her balance the budget. But this also means having
control over drug use. This she does not equate with abstinence, but with exercising more
control over the intensity of use; for instance, using meth, but moderately so nobody can
recognize it, or not using too often.
Hedvika also mentions as support one social worker from the asylum home who was
according to her very enthusiastic about her work, but also motivating.
H: The social worker at the asylum, she’s a really cool woman! She, like, forces you!! But, like,
she has some personal trick for it or what! Like she really manages to force the person to... at
least try.
For instance, when she got to the problems; when she spent the rent money on the slot
machines, she went to her to talk about it. Although she did not tell her the real reason she did
not have the money, she had enough trust to tell her that she was having financial problems.
Hedvika also explained that she is glad that she did not have to say openly why she did not have
the money. Hedvika also said that the possibility of keeping some things secret was an important
precondition for her to cooperate with the asylum home workers.
H: So, like, I went to talk to her, to tell her what happened. Of course, I did not tell her the
whole thing. I told her that I lost my purse. Not that I spent it on slot machines. Like, they don’t
need to know everything, right?!
M: If you told them that you spent it on slot machines, do you think they wouldn’t accept it?
H: They would! They would! But I don’t want them to know it! […] I don’t know, like I don’t
want to explain things like that to them.
M: Sure.
HP: They would start to be cautious with me! That would be bad! Then I would run away from
there!
M: But you were also talking about some control that you want? How would that look?
H: Well, it’s enough that I’m there, you know! Because then I don’t dare do certain things, you
know.
It is important to note that in the narrative Hedvika identifies just her presence, or living
112
in the asylum home as a source of support to exercise more control over herself. Therefore, the
surveillance or control that Hedvika described as a desired effect of living in an asylum home
can be interpreted as not necessarily exercised by someone over her. It is enough for Hedvika
to live in an environment where there are certain rules which are expected to be kept.
Hedvika’s narratives concerning her life in asylums for mothers and children reveal
several characteristics which she perceives as negative or restrictive, such as some rules through
which the staff of the asylum exercise control over the tenants. At the same time, Hedvika
discusses the positive effects of the rules and controls, which she perceives as helping her gain
more control over her life. This concerns particularly the intensity of drug use and management
of her budget. In this example, the important subjects in the environment were represented by
the asylum home as an institution as well as its workers, the social workers. In this example, it
is evident how a subject from the environment works as a set of rules and resources. In her
narrative discourse Hedvika states that both the rules and resources support her in her exercise
of agency. For instance, she appreciates the material support of the asylum facilities, which she
uses to her advantage and for her children. Hedvika considered the control or assistance of
financial management as an important source of support. On the other hand, the subjects which
are not described as sources of support are the other mothers who live in the asylum home. To
some extent, they may be the reason why Hedvika does not want to get involved in the common
activities organized by the asylum staff.
When talking about the asylum rules, Hedvika uses narrative discourse in which, on the
one hand, she labels the rules as controlling; on the other hand, she positions herself as someone
who actually should be under some level of control or surveillance in order to ‘live a normal
life’. Hedvika also stated that she wants to live the ‘normal life’, which she described as
represented especially by not having debts, paying all her obligations regularly and on time and
avoiding gambling. As a part of the ‘normal life’, however, she also described meth use, but in
controlled way, three or four times per month. In her narrative discourse, Hedvika demonstrates
that her goal of leading a ‘normal life’ is in fairly good accord with the asylum setting. By
‘setting’ I do not refer to the formal rules or expectations of the workers, but rather to what is
‘possible to do there’. This means, for instance, continuing with using meth, but in a moderate
way, so it does not cause the loss of the accommodation. I interpret the asylum home setting as
supporting Hedvika’s exercise of agency, not only by providing sources of support for her and
the children, but through the certain flexibility that allows her to modify the rules to her own
preferences. I interpret Hedvika’s exercise of agency in setting her ‘own rules’ within the
official rules of the asylum home, for instance, by continuing to use meth, but in a more
controlled way, or by continuing living outdoors; but at the same time, using the asylum as an
important supportive ‘base’.
3.4.2.2 Vicious Circle of Life in Asylum Homes
In the forthcoming narratives, Hedvika describes the asylum home as a good or even preferred
place to live. However, the repeated interviews allowed me to capture some fairly dynamic
changes and housing transitions which Hedvika and her two children were going through during
the one year. The reasons and conditions under which the dynamic transitions happened reveal
that life in asylum homes can become, in some cases, something like a vicious circle.
During my research, I met with Hedvika three times; however, I was also in telephone
contact with her several times when we were trying to arrange a meeting. During the year I have
on record that Hedvika was living in an asylum, then moved to a hostel for a month and a half,
then back to an asylum for mothers, then another asylum for mothers, two different apartments
113
and for the last four months of the year she was living back at the hostel. According to these
records, Hedvika moved with her children six times within one year.
These transitions allowed me to gain rich data about the various reasons for the
transitions and the strategies that Hedvika was using when solving the situation of having to
move. In response to the dynamic changes, Hedvika’s opinions about what are preferred and
acceptable forms of housing were changing. Initially, to stay in a hostel for a longer time was
for Hedvika unacceptable. After moving five times, living in a hostel was acceptable, if only
she did not have to move again. The doubts that Hedvika had about living on her own in an
apartment also changed. After changing her place so many times, when living in a hostel,
Hedvika claimed that the only place she was willing to move is an apartment with her own
contract. This was because that she perceived it as the only option which would prevent the
need to move again.
In this subchapter, I discuss some of the conditions and situations that Hedvika presented
as reasons for the necessary housing transitions.
As was already mentioned, only during the one year of my research, Hedvika moved
three times from an asylum home for mother and children to different places, either another
asylum home, hostel, or apartment.
The most often stated reason for moving from the asylum home was that Hedvika had
rental debts, which she did not pay regularly. She said that usually when there was a debt for
rent for several months, she had to move. Hedvika described a kind of ‘chain of debts’, in which
she was often trapped. For instance, she did not pay two rents because she spent the money on
slot machines. When she received housing benefits the following month, she did not pay the
debt, because it was not enough money, so she used it to pay rent on a new place. Therefore,
she had to move and leave unpaid debts in the asylum home.
M: How did it happened that you have ended up at the hostel? Some complications?
H: I’m the complication [laughing]. I gambled the money in slot machines! That’s it!
M: You were at the asylum and then you gambled the money away?
H: Well they kicked me out of the asylum, as I hadn’t paid rent for three months. … I could
have paid the rent for the third month, but I already knew that I could pay the one rent, but I
would not have money to cover the whole debt. Instead I invested the money into moving to a
new place. … These are the complications I face almost all the time.
The transition usually meant moving to another asylum home, but later moving to a
hostel become inevitable. Gradually, it became more and more complicated to move to another
asylum home, since Hedvika had already been at least once in all the asylum homes for mothers
and children in Město and its surroundings. In some of these asylum homes, she had debts on
rent so they did not want to accept her. There is usually a policy that the client can stay in the
asylum for only one year, or one and a half, and it takes some time till they can move there
again.
M: Is the length of your stay at the asylum somehow limited?
H: Yes, for a year … but some people are there longer, one and a half years or even two. After
some time you have to move out,...but after half a year you can return. So you go for half a year
to another asylum home and then you return. But I don’t want this anymore! I want an
apartment!
For the above-mentioned reasons, Hedvika was switching between different asylum
homes and other housing options. Because there was no possibility to move to another asylum
home, Hedvika moved with her children to a hostel. This situation lasted for one and a half
months till Hedvika managed to find a place and move back to an asylum home.
Retrospectively, she was talking about her stay at a hostel as very bad, and a kind of warning
experience, since the living conditions in the hostel were horrible. But she was also very happy
114
that she managed to return to the asylum and solve the situation quite fast.
M: How long did it last, this in-between time?
H: Only one month and a half! […] That was lucky! I managed to return to the asylum pretty
fast [laughing]! Like I’ve been constantly calling them! That I can’t make it at the hostel!
Whether they have something for me, even a place in the crisis centre!
She also mentions that maybe this experience was good for her as a warning that she
has to do something about her life, to prevent this situation from happening again.
M: So it was a kind of slip-up which did not pay off?
H: It was! But maybe it did pay off! Maybe I woke up finally! […] Maybe it will take me half a
year to recover from this experience, but I will make it! I know it!
As Hedvika explained, she needed to ‘pull herself together’, which meant especially to
pay the debts and not create new ones as the only chance to stay at the asylum home.
H: I really have to pay my debts at the asylum! Pull myself together! Seriously! […] But it
seriously means to save every single crown! To pay the debts that I have!
Hedvika said that she also realized that the situation is very serious, because if she does
not pay the debts and creates new ones, she will not have any place to go except a hostel, which
for her is an option to be avoided at all costs.
H: Now I know that if I don’t pay the debts, I have nowhere to go! Except the hostel and that’s
definitely not where I’m going! Never again! That was enough! Totally enough!
However, when I met Hedvika next after several months, she was living in a hostel and
explained that she did not manage to pay the debts, and was moving to another asylum home,
then two different apartments and ended up at the hostel.
Hedvika said that the housing in an apartment was offered to her by an acquaintance.
They agreed on the rent, but did not sign a contract. Immediately after she moved in and paid
the rent, the owner changed the lock and Hedvika and her two children were practically roofless.
P: Then I got an offer to move into an apartment! So I paid the rent – 4000. The apartment was
beautiful! Everything was all right and in the evening I went there and the lock was changed!
So I lost 4000!
To solve this crisis situation Hedvika moved to another apartment, which belonged to a
friend. Again she paid the rent and moved there, but without a contract. She was living there
for some time, but then the friend asked her to pay more money for the rent and when she
refused, he threatened to change the lock and call the Child Welfare Office and announce that
she is roofless with the children. Hedvika explained that after that incident she called the owner
of the hostel to ask if she could move in since it was the only option she saw.
3.4.2.3 Transition to a Hostel
When summarizing all the housing transitions that Hedvika and her children went through, she
concluded that to stay in the ‘hostel is the best’.
H: After the asylum I was living in a hostel, and then in an asylum again, , … then two
apartments, and now I’m back at the hostel! And that’s the best!
M: The hostel is the best?
H: Yes! It’s fine! It’s OK! […] Really! I’m fine with that!
M: Better than the asylums where you were before?
H: I can tell you I’m really fed up with asylums! What are they good for?!
However, this claim needs to be interpreted in the context of all her experiences and
whole development of the situation in which Hedvika was gradually losing housing options. In
the end, the housing in the hostel became most acceptable for her, or even desired, but also the
only option.
115
One of the important reasons why Hedvika accepted staying in the hostel was that she
was exhausted from the constant moving and changes.
H: We’re gonna stay at the hostel! … I’m not gonna think about it again and again! […] I really
don’t care where I’m gonna live anymore! I don’t care! … The only thing I know is that I’m not
gonna move again! No way! […] I’m satisfied here! I’ve simply decided that I’m gonna stay
there till they give me an apartment!
M: I see, well, you were moving all the time, weren’t you?
H: Yes, I was! I’m so tired of it! All the time you have to pack and unpack your things. And
now the kids, also all the time moving with me! I think they are also pretty fed up with it!
Another reason why the hostel became an acceptable place is the relative safety from
eviction that it offers. In the light of Hedvika’s recent experiences with losing quite a large
amount of money for paying rent to acquaintances without contract, thus the legal right to the
apartment, the contract for one month and one room in the hostel was to some extent safe. It
was also very important that Hedvika was allowed to change her permanent address to the
hostel, which is one of the preconditions for receiving housing benefits to cover the rent.
Besides threats, the problem with the rented apartment was that although the owner promised
to allow Hedvika to let her register her permanent address there, it did not happen; therefore,
she could not cover the rent with housing benefits to which she would otherwise be entitled.
H: I gave him 8000! And he promised me that I could have my permanent address there! And
of course, by the end of the day, he did not allow me to put my permanent address there! So the
Employment Office refused to give me housing benefits for it! The money I paid him were my
savings! And again I lost it!
Another aspect which was perceived as security was that the housing benefits were sent
from the Employment Office directly to the owner of the hostel and Hedvika did not get it in
cash. This was different from the asylum, which Hedvika was paying cash with the money she
got from the Employment Office. Therefore it happened several times that she spent it on
something else.
In the narrative where Hedvika describes the ‘hostel as the best’, it is possible to
recognize a shift from the previous narrative discourse. During the first interviews, when she
managed to move from the hostel back to an asylum, she refers to the experience of living in a
hostel as experience which helped her ‘wake up’ and ‘pull herself together’ so as to prevent
herself from ending up there again. During our interview almost one year later, Hedvika talked
about the same hostel as ‘the best place’ and that she is fine with staying there. The reason why
Hedvika at first exercises her agency by depicting the experience of the hostel as a useful and
important ‘wake-up call’, and, then later, as a place from which she is not going to move back
to any asylum are the experiences in between. Hedvika’s options to exercise agency are limited
by more constraints than before. She said that it is not feasible to move to an asylum home,
since there are not many left which would be willing to accept her. Staying there did not prevent
her from ending up in a hostel in the end. On the other hand, experiences with much worse
housing situations (paying money but being moved out, and becoming roofless from one day
to another) also expand the space for exercising agency through the narrative discourse. The
bad experiences with moving to the apartments allowed her to think and talk about the hostel
as actually a good place with regards to the legal contract and the advantage of rent being
covered by housing benefits. This example is a very good illustration of the important role of
context for the narrative interpretation. At some point, Hedvika described the exercise of agency
as important for avoiding returning to the hostel. She did this by using the asylum homes as an
important source of support. However, when the situation changed (e.g. lack of resources,
asylum homes not being available), Hedvika’s ability to secure housing for herself and her
children in the hostel became an important exercise of agency; it is placed into the context of
the structural resources which Hedvika sees as available to her.
116
In the following paragraphs I provide some examples and a discussion of the narrative
discourse which Hedvika uses to exercise agency in relation to the housing conditions in the
hostel.
When Hedvika described the housing conditions in the hostel after living there for the
first time, she used narrative discourse in which she pointed out how horrible and unacceptable
the conditions were. This allowed her to emphasise her ability to move back to the asylum home
shortly after and to stress her decision to do her best to prevent this situation from happening
again.
H: It’s a room of 3x4 meters, not more. … You have one wardrobe, two beds. So you can’t
really move there. My things are always on one big pile. […] And you live there in a constant
mess! It’s so small that it’s basically impossible to clean up. The kids did not have any place to
unpack their toys. Not even a table at which they could sit and eat. So they were eating on a
bucket or a chair, or on the bed. Simply a disaster! It’s a disaster when even your kids have no
place to sit and eat normally!
When Hedvika described the housing conditions in the hostel, after she moved there
second time, it is possible to recognize the difference in her narrative discourse since, instead
of pointing out the negatives, she explains how she exercised her agency by ‘mastering living
in a small space’.
H: I have all my things packed under the bed! I managed to fix a small table and cupboard in
which I have my dishes. … And then I fixed another cupboard where I have more stuff. I also
got a fridge! So it’s fine! You can come for a visit! Well, after I clean there a bit!
Furthermore, as a part of the narratives after the first hostel experience, Hedvika
describes the showers, bathrooms and kitchen as shared by more inhabitants of the hostel. For
an extra fee of 300 CZK, there is access once a week to a common washing machine. She also
explains that having this common washing machine causes problems, because it is usually not
sufficient for her to wash clothes for the three of them only once a week. Another important
disadvantage described by Hedvika is that there is no fridge available at the hostel. This fact is
quite crucial especially when it comes to saving money. When it is not possible to put food in
a fridge, one has to buy food every day in small amounts, which is more expensive than buying
larger amounts which can be rationed for more days. If there are some leftovers from cooked
meals, they are usually thrown away, because they do not last until the next day.
H: There is no fridge! So you can’t buy food not even for two days in advance! You have to buy
food only for the day! And some of it goes off anyways, or they do not finish it, so you constantly
throw away food! So you also throw away money!
After Hedvika moved there for the second time, she pointed out how she managed to
solve the problem with washing by using the washing machines at the drop-in centre. And she
got a fridge from a friend. She also emphasised how the possession of a fridge and access to a
kitchen allows her to save money, because cooking your own food is an important and
convenient way to save money.
In the upcoming narratives, Hedvika uses a different narrative discourse when talking
about the same housing, but at a different time. First, she exercises her agency in the narratives
by pointing out her ability to move away from the place; later, she exercises agency by pointing
out her ability to function well despite the difficult conditions. What I find to be important about
this shift of narrative discourse is that it allows one to see that even conditions which were
initially perceived as completely insufficient and oppressive can still provide some space for
exercising agency. At the same time, this is not to deny or relativize the conditions that were
unsatisfactory and oppressive in many ways, but to understand that even there agency can be
exercised.
117
Referring to the Child Welfare Office is another argument which Hedvika uses to
explain that although the housing conditions at the hostel are not very good, they are sufficient.
Hedvika said that around the year 2003, when she lost custody of her first three children,
it would have been unthinkable to live with them in a hostel; it would clearly have been a reason
to take them from her custody.
M: Was it not possible to stay at a hostel before?
H: No! Only an asylum! Never a hostel!
But now the situation, according to Hedvika, is substantially different. She explained
that it became somehow normal, because everybody in the hostel is there with children.
H: But now, it’s different. … Almost everyone is there with kids! There is actually no one without
kids!
So the fact that the Child Welfare Office does not intervene and more people are living
in hostels is an important argument for her to defend the hostel as an acceptable from of housing.
She strengthens this argument by saying that actually the police and the Child Welfare Office,
including her Child Welfare worker, go for regular checks at the hostel and never find a problem
or comment on her case.
H: There are kind of controls! On all hostels! … Like police and Child Welfare together. … It
was a quarter to eight in the evening and they wanted ID from everyone who was there! There
was the worker with them [from child welfare], who I normally go to, you know. So she actually
could see for herself that I’m fine!
M: So they come and check how you live and so on?
H: Sure … the child welfare, they go there all the time!
These regular checks and no intervention can be interpreted as an important source of
approval from the authorities; although Hedvika is living in substandard conditions, her parental
practice is not questioned. Nor is she in danger of losing custody of her children.
On the other hand, it is important to include the structural context by pointing out that
although Hedvika exercised her agency by pointing out that it is all right for her to live in the
hostel, this narrative is embedded in a context which does not seem to provide her with any
other support. This is also related to Hedvika’s claim that if she does not get an apartment, she
is not going to move anywhere from the hostel. It is not possible to perceive a hostel is the
preferred place to live; nevertheless, it is preferred in the context of only available resources.
The possible lack of understanding of the structural constraints that Hedvika was facing
is expressed in the narrative about the communication with the worker from the Employment
Office who was asking Hedvika if she really wanted to live in the hostel.
H: They knew at the Employment Office that I had already once been living in that hostel and
that I ran away from there [due to the bad housing conditions]. … So when I applied for the
social benefits to pay the hostel again, they called me to come there and asked me if I really
wanted to go there! And I said: ‘Sure! Why wouldn’t I?’
3.4.3 Family as a Support in Housing Trajectories
In this chapter I discuss several narratives in which relations with family, as well as a stable
relationship with partner, were identified as an important source of support in situations of
various forms of homelessness. Extended family was described as an important provider of
short and long-term housing in the case of rooflessness. In the situation of living in an
inadequate form of housing (represented by a hostel), the family was an important source of
support for the transition to a standard form of living.
118
3.4.3.1 Extended Family as a Network of Places to Stay
I met with Aurelia three times, during which time she was in a rather difficult and insecure
housing situation. When I met her for the first and second time, she was living in an apartment
which originally belonged to her parents. They had moved out, because there was an eviction
notice due to a debt on rental payments. Aurelia was living in the apartment, but expecting to
be evicted any moment.
When I met Aurelia for the third time, she was already living somewhere else. After
being evicted from the previous apartment, she moved to a small one-room apartment with her
cousin. However, in addition to her cousin, there were also his two friends and Aurelia’s new
partner living there. So there were basically five people sharing a small room, which was not
bearable in the long term; it was used by Aurelia only as emergency accommodation before she
found an alternative.
During our interview, Aurelia considered several options about how to solve the
situation. In the long-term perspective she was planning to rent an apartment, but at the same
time, she was thinking about strategies for what to do in the moment when she did not want to
live in the small room with so many people anymore. In the narratives she pointed out that she
was not afraid to be roofless ‘on the street’, because she has her family, which always has to
provide her with accommodation. Aurelia also pointed out that the rule of her family is that
they have the duty to help each other, so, for instance, her sister would ‘have to help her even
if she does not want to’.
A: I have places to go!! If I want, I can always go to my sister’s. When I want I will just come
there and go in! And she can’t do anything about it! That’s how it is!
The closeness of family relations and responsibility for family members could also be
interpreted in the context of ethnicity, since Aurelia identified as Roma. However, Aurelia
herself pointed out that she does not see it as specific for Roma.
It was important for Aurelia to emphasise that she has this security represented by family
relations, so she does not have to worry about being roofless. On the other hand, she also
described many family conflicts related to living together. Aurelia did not talk about the family
as being able to provide her with long-term support in housing, but rather as ‘emergency
shelter’.
3.4.3.2 Immediate Family as Support in Housing Transition
Sara’s narrative about her housing situation offers good insight into the transition from hostel
to an apartment with contract. In her story, I identify constraints and needs which were
characteristic not only for her, but for other participants who got into a similar situation.
When I met Sara for the first time, she was living with her husband Martin and their
new-born baby in a hostel. When I visited her after two months, they were living in a two-room
apartment with a contract.
Sara said that they found the flat through an advertisement. Martin called there and
although Sara had many doubts, they were able to rent it quickly.
The rent was 8000 CZK without utilities, which according to Sara is a good price
compared to a hostel, where they were paying 7200 CZK per month for three people in a single
room.
Especially if there are more people living in the room in the hostel, the price for this
substandard form of accommodation can be rather high. Therefore, it seems to be clear that
living in an apartment with a long-term contract for almost the same price is a better option.
However, one of the difficult obstacles, also reported by other participants, of the
119
transition from a substandard form of housing to a rented apartment is that usually it is required
to pay a deposit in the amount of up to 3 month’s rent. In the case of Sara and Martin’s contract,
this meant paying 24,000 CZK at the start to be able to move in to the apartment.
In this situation, Martin’s parents were a crucial source of support, because they paid
the deposit; without this financial help, Sara and Martin would not have been able to pay this
amount. Martin’s parents also helped in buying furnishings for the apartment.
Another crucial source of support was the Employment Office, by providing housing
benefits which represented, along with maternity benefits, a substantial contribution to the
family budget. This made the transition from hostel to apartment a feasible and sustainable
long-term solution.
3.4.3.3 Stable Relationship as Support for Stable Housing Conditions
In this subchapter I identify sources of support in Iveta and Ota’s housing situation. One of the
important sources of support was Ota’s uncle. I also identify as an important source of support
the fact that they were living together in a stable relationship, which as they say, helped them
work together towards their common goal, particularly better housing.
Just to outline Iveta’s housing experiences, I will briefly describe her situation before
she started to live with Ota. Iveta explained that before she met Ota, she was living for around
two years ‘on the street’. To live ‘on the street’ meant she was living in garden colonies, but
she said she does not want to talk about it, because it brings back very bad memories, related to
poor housing conditions and people who were living there and the impossibility to control who
comes to the place.
I: Like here, at the Park, that was a horror! I don’t even wanna think about it! It was something
horrible to sleep in those conditions! At these squats, and the people … You never knew when
and who would come! Simply horrible! I never want to experience it again! To end up like that!
It’s not easy to live on the street!
After a period of living in a garden shack, she met a man at the drop-in centre who
offered her to live in his flat with him. Iveta reported that she did not have to pay for
accommodation. The man had two children, who were in institutional care, but they often spent
weekends or afternoons at his place and Iveta explained that in return for the accommodation,
she helped him look after them. For instance, she helped them do homework, or went shopping
with his teenage daughter. After one year, the man moved out of the flat; therefore Iveta had to
move. Then she moved in to a house with another man. She found this place through other drug
users, because there was more people living in this house and manufacturing meth for him, in
return for the accommodation. During that period, Iveta started to date her current partner, Ota,
and after some time they moved in together to a garden shack which belonged to Ota’s uncle.
Iveta said that they were paying him some small amount of money for the accommodation and
taking care of the garden. The uncle would also go there for regular checks.
I: We were paying the uncle like 2000 per month or so. We hoed the garden, because the uncle
would come to plant some tomatoes there and so on.
This place was different compared to the garden shacks where, for instance, Petra and
Diana were living. There were only the two of them there; they had privacy and it never turned
into a place where more people would be staying or manufacturing meth. However, they did
not want to be living in such bad housing conditions and the topic became even more important
after Iveta got pregnant.
I: Well now in summer, it’s good there. Soon they will switch on the water in the garden colony.
[…] But for sure we will be looking for something else! Because no one wants to live in a shack,
120
right?! It’s too complicated! Also with wood and so on.
When I met Iveta and Ota the next time, they had already found a place at a hostel. It
happened in relation to other changes in their life, namely, registering at the Employment
Office, thus becoming eligible for social benefits.
Ievta and Ota’s narratives about planning the transition from hostel to an apartment were
in many ways similar to Sara and Martin’s situation, as described in the previous subchapter.
Iveta commented that they lack the support of family, or someone who could help them, to pay
the deposit for the rent if they wanted to move to an apartment. This was perceived by them as
the biggest obstacle to their plan to move into standard housing.
As Iveta explained in detail, in a hostel they pay 8000 CZK altogether per month for a
small room; of this, 7000 CZK is covered by housing benefits. They already found several
offers of small apartments for the same money, but were asked to pay rent and deposit in a total
amount of 16,000 CZK. For that reason, they had to turn the offer down. In relation to these
financial expenses, Iveta reported that Ota was considering taking a loan, but she was
convincing him not to do it. Since without a stable income, she does not see how they could
repay it.
121
3.5 Experiences with Violence
In this chapter I discuss narratives which concern the theme of violence. In the first chapter
(3.5.1), I discuss experiences with domestic violence in relation to seeking professional help as
a source of protection from the violence. In the second chapter (3.5.2), I discuss the relation
between experiences of violence and homelessness. In the third chapter (3.5.3), I discuss the
narratives which describe the aggressive behaviour of the participants themselves and how it
relates to their experiences of violence.
3.5.1 Domestic Violence and the Failure of Professional
Support
In this chapter I present the narratives of Laura and Petra, who both experienced domestic
violence. They stated that at some point, as one of the strategies to protect themselves from the
violence, they searched for institutional help. In both cases they describe that the professionals
failed to support them.
After Laura split up with her husband and children, she started to live with her new
partner David, who was also using meth. As was already mentioned, he introduced her to
intravenous use. To understand the context of the situations described in Laura’s narratives
about her relationship with David, it is important to explain that David was part of a larger
group involved in organized crime. The criminal activities mainly involved car theft and
trafficking in stolen cars, as well as fraud and other cons. Laura stated that it was also
characteristic for this group of people to have tight connections, which were partly based on
family relations.
During our interviews, there were several occasions where Laura described her
experience with domestic violence at the hands of David. Once she explained, for instance, that
she was watching a movie depicting domestic violence between partners and that she could not
finish watching it, because it brought back so many vivid memories of the times she was with
David. Talking about the content of the movie, Laura described her own experiences. She
particularly stressed the moments of the movie where the woman, although tormented by her
partner, was begging him on her knees not to leave her alone and to return to her. Despite the
fact that initially she had been a strong independent woman, the man manipulated her to such
an extent that he convinced her of the opposite and she gradually started to believe it. Laura
explained that she fully identified with the woman. Furthermore, she said that in her relationship
with David, she also suffered from social isolation. And that it was difficult to admit to herself
that something like this was happening to her, especially because it was so important for her to
perceive herself as strong and independent.
L: All of a sudden, you realize you have nowhere to go. Because of that person you don’t have
money, people are afraid of you, don’t want to talk to you! Family, friends, it’s all gone!
Because of the life you were leading! And after he beats you up, you don’t want to tell anyone,
because you feel like you don’t want to bother anyone. You don’t want to show that you, such
a brave and strong person, let it get that far!
The psychological and physical violence in the relationship was also related to David’s
involvement in organized crime. Laura explained that, for instance, when somebody was trying
to blackmail David, she was kidnapped and exposed to even more violence from other people.
Furthermore, she described how the threats of violence combined with excessive meth use
contributed to David’s escalating jealousy and paranoid thoughts, which lead to even more
122
violence towards Laura.
L: Because if you are the partner of such a person, you are his weak point! … After they
kidnapped me, he went mad! […] After that I was not even allowed to go shopping on my own.
[…] He said he loves me so much, that he would rather kill me than let …. and then it all went
wrong. I have seven broken ribs, this bone [indicating a place on her scull], scissors stabbed
in my leg … Here I have twelve stitches [indicating her arm]. Twice in the intensive care unit.
… and yes, I was also hanging thirty centimetres above the ground by my necklace. That’s why
I do not wear necklaces since then. […] All that was done by him! It was enough if someone
just passed by! He went crazy with jealousy!
After being exposed to all this violence and constant stress, Laura described how she
attempted to commit suicide.
L: I went to wait for a train, on the train track! … Because I’m not a coward! I’m not gonna
kill myself with pills! That seems to me so degrading! Before that I checked where the train
goes the fastest and what angle they can’t see you from!
At the last moment she changed her mind and got off the train track. She describes this
event as a clear sign that she had to leave her partner.
L: I say, ‘Thank God!’ I went away from the track, sat down and started to cry. Then I told
myself: ‘If it pushed you that far, it’s about time to do something about it!’
Laura said that after the escalating violence and attempted suicide, she managed to
escape from the partner. However, she had no place to go, since everyone she knew also knew
him and was afraid to help her, because of his power. She also mentioned her family, but in the
sense that it was also impossible to go there.
L: Simply no one was talking to me! They did not even want to give me anything to eat! I didn’t
know where to go! […]And I also knew he [David] was searching for me everywhere! I didn’t
know what to do and doubted if I had actually freed myself by leaving him, whether I wasn’t in
even bigger troubles! […]And going to my family was also not possible. Because he was
threatening them as well and really badly! So they are afraid and also don’t care about me at
all.
Laura reported that later David found her and severely beat her up again, but in a public
place and left her there. Laura said that after this incident, she went to a police station and a
crisis centre for victims of domestic violence. However, Laura described this experience as not
helpful in her situation.
L: He met me in a park and beat me so severely. It was horrible… The last thing I remember
was that there were some people around us, but no one did anything!! And I woke up several
hours later on a bench, without my shoes, without my things. No one was around. … Then I
went to a police station and from there to a crisis intervention centre for victims of violence.
[…] But I could stay there for only seven days! […]It’s a huge building, full of psychologists,
psychiatrists and specialists of various kinds who are supposed to be specialized in violence of
various types! […] But during the whole time, there was only one person who came to talk to
me! A psychologist; so we were talking about it a bit. After two and a half hours, he told me:
‘I’m sorry, but I can’t take it anymore. I don’t know what to tell you. I have absolutely no idea
how I could help you!’
M: That was after you told him what happened?
L: Yes! But we were talking only about the events of the last month. I did not get any farther.
And then he tells you this! So what do you want to tell him after that? […] And he was the only
one. Otherwise, in the morning I got breakfast, then lunch and then dinner and that was it! No
one cared!
As Laura explained, the police officers who were responsible for her case knew that she
was somehow related to a group involved in organized crime, therefore, suggested keeping her
in an asylum with a secret address. It was very likely that her partner would search for her to
123
prevent her from revealing information she had about him and his activities. When the police
took her to this asylum, they refused to accept her there, because of her connection to this group
suspected of organized crime. Her presence could be a threat to the other women in the asylum.
L: So the police officer drove me there, but the director of the asylum says: ‘I’m sorry, but we
once had troubles here with these people and we don’t want to risk it again, so we are not going
to accept this lady!’ Can you imagine how I felt??!!! […] So the police officer drove me back
to Město … and released me on the street. … There was no other solution! […] So I ended up
on the street. Without anyone to advise me what to do.
Laura described another experience related to violence and a situation where she felt
failed by the institutions that were supposed to help her, particularly police. She described how
her ex-partner kidnapped her and locked her in a hotel room, where he overdosed her with meth
and raped her. After she escaped, she went directly to a gynaecologist and then a police station
to report that she had been raped. But she described it as useless, since the authorities said they
could not do anything about it, because according to her blood test she was so highly under the
influence of drugs that no one could prove whether she had had the sexual intercourse by
consent or not.
L: The policeman told me to report the rape, or whatever I want, but that there is no evidence.
[…] She said [policewoman]: ‘Your blood tests for drugs are positive, highly positive! …
Obviously you were overdosed and because you don’t remember anything, it’s only indirect
evidence.’
Laura told several narratives about various experiences of violence that she experienced
from her former partner, as well as other people during the times when she was kidnapped.
Some of these stories include her experience with institutions, which she expected would
provide support; however, she explained that she perceives them as failing. That includes
particularly the police, the intervention centre and asylum for victims of domestic violence.
When describing her experiences, Laura also pointed out that there were no other subjects in
her environment to whom she could turn for help, like friends, acquaintances or family. On the
other hand, she also stated that even under such hard oppressive circumstances, she could
exercise agency by escaping from the violence and searching for ways to protect herself from
it. She also exercised agency by announcing to the police that she had been raped. By going to
the gynaecologist, she had hoped to have some evidence against her perpetrator.
When talking about the very harsh experiences of violence, Laura used a narrative
discourse in which she depicted herself as a victim of violence, as well as a victim of the system
which is supposed to help people with experiences with violence; but it failed to help her and
left her without support.
At the same time, since Laura was still sometimes encountering David in Město;
according to her, there was a constant threat that he could attack or kidnap her again. When
talking about the current threat of violence from him, she used a narrative discourse in which
she depicts herself as a survivor. The meaning of survivor is in Laura’s narratives related to not
being afraid of the person anymore, since she has ‘nothing to lose’; and that ‘he cannot do
anything worse to her than what she had already survived’. Laura also claimed that she will not
give him a chance to hurt her again:
L: I would rather kill him than, you know! […] If I have to stand up to him, I will stand up to
him! Of course! I’m not afraid of him! That’s absolutely clear to me! If I meet him, I’m not
gonna run away from him! I never run away in front of him! Because that’s my pride!!!! … I
know he could beat me severely, but anyways! It doesn’t matter! When you look at it like this,
what more could he do than he already did to me?! Greater pain does not exist! There is no
way he can hurt me physically more than he already did! And psychologically? He’s already
done it all to me! There is nothing left! … So I have nothing to be afraid of! He should be afraid!
124
That I am able to stand up to him! Look him in the eye and tell him: ‘You have no way to hurt
me! You have already done everything to me!’
Petra experienced domestic violence from her husband, with whom she was together for
5 years. Petra stated that initially she had decided to tolerate the violence. Because her husband
was Roma, they were living all together with his family and she knew she would have very
difficult access to her daughter if she got divorced from him. Her mother-in-law also pressured
her to stay in the relationship. Nevertheless, when her daughter started to have health problems
related to the violent incidents she was witnessing, it finally caused Petra to decide to split from
her partner.
As one of the solutions of the violent situation, Petra applied to stay in an asylum home
for mothers and children. However, she described her bad experience with them, because it
looked like her situation was not ‘serious enough’: even after more than one and a half years
she was not accepted. Although she was in regular contact with them, she remained on the
waiting list.
P: I’ve had my application there for a year and a half. ... Then the lady called to tell me I’d
have to wait more. So I say to her: ‘You know what? Go to hell!’ I was still living with my
husband andhe was beating me!! Eva [the daughter] was having seizures and things were just
getting worse!! I said I wouldn’t take it anymore!! I want to go to the asylum home! And that
cow [asylum home worker] asks me: ‘What conditions are you living in?’ Bla bla bla bla bla
andnd that other women were worse off, so they had priority, you see?! ...A month later I had
to reapply and say if the situation was better or worse; whether I really need help or not!
After this experience, when despite her effort she was still not accepted to the asylum
when she needed it, Petra concluded that she became bitter and changed her mind about going
to the asylum.
P: You know what, I don’t approve of asylums!! Fuck that!! I’ll rent an apartment!! Like I had
all my life!! .. Forget about these asylums!! I don’t want them!! No asylums!! ... I’ve just given
up on them after having to wait so long! Some of my friends managed to get a place in two
months, three months max!! .... They always got a place in the asylum home!! A year and a
half!! .. Almost two! I waited and waited and I’m still waiting. ... Is this worth it?!!!
Petra was telling this story about the bad experience with asylum home when she was
actually describing that her flatmate started to be violent to her. She was considering going back
to the garden shack where she had been living before, and she wanted to make clear to me that
she was not going to seek help from any asylum, due to her bad experience.
Petra described two ways in which she was resisting violence. When her partner was
physically aggressive towards her, she said that she tried to defend herself, because she used to
train in self-defence as a sport. Unfortunately, she realized she was not very good at it anymore.
M: When he acts aggressively towards you, beats you, can you defend yourself somehow?
P: Yes, I hit him back! … But I don’t know, before I used to be better in it. […]Last time he
grabbed me by the arm. ...... I realized I’m really useless! I’m not at all what I used to be! Like,
before, I’d handle the situation completely differently! So I wouldn’t get it [the beating] as
much as I do now.
The second way she resisted the violence was to verbally defend herself, especially in
the moments when he tried to control her. She explained to him that he has no right to control
her as, for instance, in the following narrative.
P: He says: ‘I’m not keeping you from doing anything! You know?! Just go to your friends!’
I say: ‘You remember that I’m not gonna ask you anything either about whether I can leave or
not! And you are not gonna restrict me! It’s none of your business who I’m meeting or not!
Both Laura and Petra’s narratives about domestic violence have in common the
125
exercising of agency through efforts to leave the violent partner and also turning to institutional
help, which they had identified as a possible source of support. However, they both described
their experience with the asylum homes for victims of violence as failing to support them in
their effort to protect themselves from violence. At the same time, they both used narrative
discourse in which they were pointing out that they resisted the violence both verbally and
physically.
The experience of domestic violence and the impossibility to find shelter in an asylum
home exposed both Laura and Petra to homelessness. This experience, which was common to
other participants, will be discussed in the following chapter.
3.5.2 Relation between Violence and Homelessness
As was already discussed in the chapter on housing in insecure conditions, it was particularly
living in a garden shack, as well as apartments with many other people that were in the
experience of Petra and Diana a source of permanent threat and exposure to violence from the
partner, flat-mate, or other people who were staying at the place. Therefore, it is important to
discuss the experiences of violence in the context of experiences with homelessness.
At the same time, it was not only the situation of homelessness in the form of living in
insecure housing conditions that participants were exposed to violence. It was also the
experience of violence which was the reason why several participants become homeless. This
experience is described, for instance, by Aurelia, who stated that due to domestic violence from
her partner, she escaped from Město and was living for several months at her friend’s place.
Iveta also described experiencing domestic violence from her previous partner with
whom she also has a daughter. She explained that she moved to an asylum home for victims of
domestic violence, and during the whole following year she was actually moving to different
places with her four-year-old daughter. This period of time is also described as a period of
excessive drug use, which lead to the loss of custody of her daughter. In Iveta’s narratives it is
possible to identify the loss of home after escaping from domestic violence as an important
source of insecurity and one of the triggers to worsening the whole situation.
Homelessness in direct relation to escaping from domestic violence was also described
in the narratives of Petra and Laura in the previous chapter. Diana’s experience with loss of
home after fleeing from domestic violence was described in the chapter about housing.
As follows from the content of the narratives which were common to almost all the
participants, the issue of experience with violence and homelessness are closely interrelated in
escalating the negative effects of one another.
Besides the close relation between experiences of violence and homelessness, it is
important to point out another characteristic of the situation in which one is experiencing
violence as described in the participants’ narratives.
It is the relation between the people who are identified as perpetrators and those who
are identified, at least at some point, as sources of support or protection from violence.
What is characteristic for the narratives about fleeing from domestic violence, as
described by Petra and Diana, is that it was the male friends who were initially identified as a
source of support by offering at least temporary accommodation and who were later identified
as potential or real perpetrators of violence.
Petra explained that although already living in insecure housing in a garden shack, she
become roofless when she decided to leave her shack to avoid experiencing escalating violence
from an acquaintance who had moved into the place. In this situation she was offered help in
126
the form of accommodation by a male friend, who later also become a perpetrator of violence
towards her. Thus Petra had to move again in order to stay safe from violence.
Diana, when fleeing from her violent partner, became homeless and was staying in
insecure conditions in garden shacks or at friends’ apartments. She also considered it an
important source of support when a friend offered her accommodation at his garden shack. In
the narrative he was identified as an important source of support by taking care of her dog and
providing a safety ‘net’, where Diana could go when she could not find a place to stay anywhere
else. At the same time, she explained that she did not want to move to his place completely,
because living at the same place with this friend also represented the need for constant
negotiation of her position, especially in term of whether she would have sex with him in
exchange for the provided accommodation. Another friend who provided support by way of
accommodation in his flat was later described as failing to provide protection from violence.
This was related to a narrative where Diana explained that her former partner found her in the
flat, beat her up and none of the male friends who were in the flat helped her or protected her
from the violence.
This deeper understanding of male partners and friends as potential sources of support
and perpetrators of violence is important for the understanding of the dynamic of interactions.
Both Petra and Diana were facing situations where the same person was an important source of
support by providing at least some form of accommodation in comparison to facing
rooflessness; however, at the same time he represented a threat of violence. Although all the
participants claimed that protecting themselves from violence is the highest priority, at the same
time, they were facing situations in which they had to make hard choices.
This is represented, for instance, in Petra’s comment in which she explains that despite
the threat of violence from her flat-mate, she does not plan to leave, because she has nowhere
to go: ‘Right now I have no other option than to live with him! .. And subordinate to him a bit!’
It is also well expressed in Laura’s comment: ‘I didn’t know what to do and doubted if
I had actually freed myself by leaving him, or whether I wasn’t in even bigger trouble’. In this
narrative Laura was doubting whether it was actually a good solution to flee from her violent
partner when she had to face a situation in which she did not have anyone who she could turn
to for help, thus also becoming roofless.
Diana also explained that although her partner was a perpetrator of violence against her
(he was also infamous for his violent behaviour towards other people), he worked to some
extent as protection against violence from other people.
D: When someone tells me that he is gonna take it from me by force [meaning obtaining drugs
from her when she was dealing], I tell him: ‘Do you know my boyfriend?’
And then he says: ‘OK, I see’.
Diana described the aggressive behaviour of her partner as useful in contact with other
people like doctors or employers who did not pay her the money she had earned. So when she
was not able to stand up for her rights, her partner did.
D: I had some part-time jobs, but it was useless, because usually after some time they stopped
paying me or they paid less. But that was in the times when I was not with my boyfriend. That
was in the time when I was living in that garden shack with my friend. You know, as women,
you don’t have much chance. Like, we were not able to negotiate why they didn’t pay us our
money. They always hanged up the phone, or simply didn’t talk to us. If this happened to me
now, my boyfriend is gonna go there and beat the boss’s head against a door and force him to
talk! […] And it really works! Sometimes I feel embarrassed for his behaviour, like people are
looking at you, like she’s here with him! He can be really rude! But on the other hand, it’s good!
… Like you try to be polite, but when they fuck with you, then you also have to change your
style! I can’t do it, but he really can!
127
3.5.3 Aggression and Resistance towards Violence
In this chapter I discuss the narratives in which participants described their own violence.
Basically, the narratives described the use of violence and aggression as a way to get rid of
stress and pressure, as a means to build respect and as a response to the threat of violence.
For instance, Aurelia explained that aggression is a way for her to get rid of stress.
During our interviews she told various stories in which she was starting fights in order to get
rid of stress as well as to gain respect from people in her surroundings.
Laura described situations in which she was using violence or the threat of violence to
gain respect. In a narrative in which she described an incident at the drop-in centre, she stressed
that she was standing up to a man who was verbally aggressive towards her.
L: Someone told me something and it really started me! Because no one will talk to me like
that! So I stand up to it! Immediately! and tell him: ‘OK, come outside! Come and let’s talk
about it like men!!’ the workers were standing there staring at me! [laughing] And I say: ‘Come
on, man!’ […] But then they calmed it down, he packed his stuff and left. But I say: ‘Once again
it’s gonna happen that someone like this guy will raise his voice to me and I can guarantee that
I don’t care if you ban me access here for the rest of my life! I will smash him!’
The importance of building this fearless image of one who is able to defend herself
became more obvious when Aurelia talked about situations related to drug dealing. She
explained that in order to be a successful drug dealer, and to prevent violence or being robbed,
a person needs to build respect in front of other drug users.
A: It took quite a long time to build it. Like, to show them that they cannot mess with me! Like,
to show them that it doesn’t matter if it’s a man, woman, gipsy, or Czech, I will stand up to
them! I won’t let them mess with me!
In Petra’s narratives it is evident how the thread of violence is used to show her readiness
to defend herself against violence if needed. In the following narratives Petra used the threat
against a male acquaintance who often behaves violently and several times even destroyed her
garden shack when she was not at home. Although he came to apologize to her, Petra’s threat
was meant to warn him from doing it again.
P: He came to tell me that he wants to apologize and that he even wanted to send me a postcard
[from prison]! And that he deeply respects me! And that I didn’t deserve it. I tell him: ‘Listen!
You know very well that I’m not afraid of you! Because every time something happens there,
everyone runs away, but I stayed! Because it was my place! And I will stand up for it whatever
happens!
This strategy was described in another narrative where an acquaintance stole her
backpack.
P: I told him that if he is not gonna bring me my backpack I will beat him up! I told him: ‘In
half an hour I expect you to be here with the backpack! You understand?!’ […] In half an hour
and five minutes he was there! With the backpack! Everyone was asking me: ‘How did you
manage that?!’ I said: ‘Well, I’m simply not afraid of him! I tell him what I think!’
In the previous text I discussed narratives which express the ability of self-defence and
some examples when it was used towards other people, mainly against other drug users. The
violence ranged from verbal offences to physical violence or threats of violence. However, there
were also narratives about the ability or readiness to defend-oneself, particularly against sexual
violence from strangers.
Laura described facing a situation in which she feared she could be raped, despite this
fearless behaviour.
L: Once I had to hitch-hike and some guy gave me a ride. When I got in the car, he locked the
128
door!!!! He asks: ‘What if I rape you now?!’
I tell him: ‘Oh cool! I have my period, so it’s gonna be a bit bloody, but if you have a tissue it’s
gonna be ok and we can go straight to it! I haven’t had sex for a long time! So it’s great you
suggest it!’ You can imagine that inside I was shivering with fear! I was thinking to myself, ‘Oh
God, he’s gonna rape me now! Or he’s gonna stab me or something!’ But still I was ready to
say this to him!
Aurelia also explained that in some situations she is afraid of being attacked, or raped,
but that she is prepared to defend herself.
A: When I am going through a park at night, sometimes I have my headphones on, so I do not
hear if there is someone walking behind me! But I sing loudly! But I always have my knife
ready! I would be almost dead with fear if someone knocked me down! But the guy wouldn’t
like to see a pussy again! Do you believe me [laughing]!!??
The previous quotes describing the fear and real dangers of sexual violence form a good
basis for a deeper understanding of experiences with violence. In the first two chapters, I
described situations in which the participants were victims of violence. In this chapter I have
discussed narratives in which the participants described themselves as violent and aggressive
against others. These seemingly separate narratives and narrative discourses are related to each
other, since much of the participants’ violent behaviour was a response or form of resistance to
immediate or previously experienced violence towards them. The aggressive behaviour used to
build respect on a drug scene is a form of resistance towards violence, as the fearless image is
described as an important prevention of violent attacks.
In pointing out the connection between one’s own experiences with victimization and the
use of narrative discourse that presents fearlessness, aggression and the ability of self-defence,
it is interesting to note that this discourse was used by all the participants who talked about their
own experiences with violence. On the other hand, this strategy was not used by Petra and
Diana, who did not mention experiencing violence.
129
4 Discussion
In this part of the thesis, based on the discussion of the main research findings, I provide answers
for the six partial research questions.
The first partial question concerns the main themes in the female drug users’ narratives
about the interaction with important subjects in their social environment. Based on the data
analysis and interpretation, the most relevant themes identified were related to drug use,
motherhood, housing and experiences with violence.
In the first chapter, Important Subjects in Social Environment (4.1), I provide answers to
the following two partial research questions:
2. ‘Which are the important subjects in the female drug users’ narratives about their
interaction with the social environment?’
3. ‘How do the important subjects work as a source of constraint and/or support in the
female drug users’ narratives about their interaction with the social environment?’
In the second chapter, Forms of Agency (4.2), I answer the following partial research
question:
4. ‘How do female drug users exercise agency in their narratives about their interaction
with the important subjects in their social environment?’
In the third chapter, Narrative Discourse and Interdiscursivity (4.3), I provide answers to
the last two partial research questions:
5. ‘How do female drug users exercise agency through constructing narratives about
their interaction with important subjects in their social environment?’
6. ‘How do female drug users exercise agency in their narratives about their
interaction with social structure?’
4.1 Important Subjects in the Social Environment
The important subjects in the participants’ environment which I have identified through the
narrative analysis were particularly partners, friends and acquaintances, of which most but not
all were also meth users, and also children and family members. Several institutions and their
workers were also identified as important subjects: particularly, harm-reduction services
represented by the drop-in centre and outreach programme, the Child Welfare Office, the
Employment Office, the asylum homes for mothers and children, hostels and maternity hospital,
kindergarten and school.
All important subjects were described by the participants as sources of support as well
as constraint or oppression. Whether the subjects were perceived as a source of support or
oppression was dependent on context and changed over time. Partners or male friends were
often perceived as important sources of support for providing housing or protection from
violence, but later they could become perpetrators of violence themselves. Institutions like
asylum homes were at one time perceived as supportive, but later were identified as failing in
providing the expected help. In the following subchapter, I provide a more detailed discussion
on various forms in which agency has been exercised in the interaction with the important
subjects, allowing a better understanding as to how these various subjects work as sources of
support or constraint.
130
4.2 Forms of Agency
In the theoretical framework of this thesis, I suggested as a definition of agency the capacity to
act to overcome structural constraints, as well as the capacity to use structural resources and
support to the benefit of self and/or others. I also provided a definition of social structure
whereby it as not only restricting and oppressing, but also enabling and empowering.
Based on the data analysis, in the following paragraphs I discuss the various forms in
which agency has been exercised in the narratives given by the participants.
Use of Resources to Overcome Constraints
In the narratives in which the participants were talking about the constraints they encountered,
they often described their exercise of agency by identifying various sources of support which
they could use to overcome the constraints. These sources could be represented by emotional
as well as financial or material support. In order to gain a deeper understanding of agency
exercise through using the sources of support, it is important to focus on the interactions with
the subjects who were providing or mediating the support.
In the narratives related to the topic of drug use, methamphetamine was often identified
as a source of support when encountering various constraints. It was identified as an important
source of support, for instance, by a participant who was facing a difficult situation resulting
from the exhaustion she felt from the demanding care of three children and household. In her
situation, one of the important subjects was her husband, who was providing material and
financial support. However, there was a lack of support for managing the household work and
parental role, which were depicted as physically demanding. Other subjects were other mothers
from the participant’s surroundings who initiated her into meth use as a source of energy. These
women became important subjects by providing meth as a support to overcome the constraints
represented by the lack of energy for child care and household management.
Several participants identified meth as an important source of support to overcome
constraints represented by psychological problems of various kinds, such as severe depression;
furthermore, it was a means which allowed relaxation in stressful situations like insecure
housing conditions or quarrels with a partner. Meth was described as a source of support serving
as a kind of ‘emotional painkiller’ or ‘means to escape’ from stressful situations. Meth as an
‘emotional painkiller’ and ‘escape’ was usually described in narratives concerning crisis
situations such as loss of custody of children, or exposure to domestic violence. What was
typical for these narratives was that they depicted situations where the participants did not
recognize any other available sources of support. Often the crisis situation was actually caused
by the failure of the sources of support on which they relied. The important subjects in their
environment through which the meth was obtained were partners, friends and acquaintances.
However, meth was not identified as a source of support only for its pharmacological
effects, but also as a means to earn money, or have access to other material resources. Several
participants spoke about meth manufacturing and dealing as one of the few means available to
them to earn money. Meth manufacturing and selling as a source of financial support was
usually mentioned in the context of structural constraints represented by exclusion from the
legal labour market (e.g. due to a criminal record).
In the narratives, institutions were often identified as an important source of support to
overcome constraints. For instance, doctors, hospitals and drop-in centres were described as
important subjects for providing support, represented by care when the participants encountered
health problems.
However, it is also important to reflect on situations in which the sources of support
were identified but turned out to be unavailable, thus could not be used to overcome the
constraints. Nonetheless, I find it important to identify the exercise of agency through the
131
participants’ ability to identify these sources of support and the subjects who could mediate or
provide it. For this reason, it could then lead to the exercising of agency by enforcing their
claims or rights if the sources were not available to them. This was the case when, despite
serious health problems, medical care in the hospital was denied; nevertheless, the participant
searched for help at the drop-in centre and with the support of workers from there claimed her
rights to health care in the hospital.
The narratives concerning situations where institutional help was not available or denied
concerned experiences with asylum homes for victims of domestic violence. Participants
described situations where they identified the asylum homes as a source of support when they
were exposed to domestic violence; however, the support was denied or failed to fulfil the needs
and expectations of professional help or long-term accommodation.
Another situation in which the identified source of support was not available, as it did
not meet the expectations or needs perceived by the participant, was described in a narrative
about compulsory regular visits to a psychiatrist, which were required by the Child Welfare
Office. Although the contact with the psychiatrist was initially perceived as a potential source
of help to deal with psychological constraints, it did not fulfil this expectation due to the merely
formal character of the meetings.
Another important way through which agency was exercised was the use of knowledge
and skills to overcome or prevent constraints. The participants described, for instance, the
internet as an important source of information which helped them gain or broaden their
knowledge about various topics. One participant described the internet as an important source
of information about topics such as the effects of methamphetamine on a foetus, postpartum
depression and the competences and limits of the Child Welfare Office. This information was
identified as important for making decisions, as well as for negotiating with important subjects
such as doctors of Child Welfare workers. The exercising of agency can also be recognized
through the gaining and developing of skills such as learning how to inject oneself, which was
described as an important skill with regards to safety and harm-reduction. The development of
skills related to meth manufacturing and dealing were described as an important source of
finances, social capital and status, which could be used to gain other benefits such as housing.
Furthermore, there were also narratives where institutions such as the Employment
Office, drop-in centre, or asylum homes were identified as important sources of support by
providing information, social benefits and material support such as clothes or access to facilities
like showers or washing machines.
Use of Resources to the Benefit of Self and/or Others
Similar to the previously defined form of agency, in this case agency is exercised by identifying
sources of support in the social environment, although it is not necessarily connected with using
these sources in order to overcome constraints. As was mentioned in the previous sub-chapter,
I find the exercise of agency through the ability to identify available resources as very
important. It allows one to recognize the exercise of agency in situations which may not be
related to oppressive or restrictive circumstances; however, it is still important because it brings
benefit to oneself or others.
This form of agency is related to the use of meth, for example, but not necessarily to
deal or ‘escape’ from problems as was described in the previous sub-chapter, but as a means to
pleasant and joyful experiences such as enhanced sexual activity, or spending a good time with
friends or partner.
The agency exercised through using resources to one’s own benefit was strongly present
in the narratives about various forms of care about one’s own health and body. In these
narratives, the harm-reduction services were identified as an important source of support, not
necessarily connected to acute problems, but as an important means to the prevention of health
132
problems. The exercise of agency through using the support of harm-reduction services was
strengthened by spatial accessibility and the possibility of using the services anonymously and
free of charge. Another important subject supporting the exercise of agency through care of
one’s own health were also friends, who could also be a source of harm-reduction material.
Another important source of support that was identified was kindergarten and school.
They worked as a source of support by enabling some free time and rest from child care. The
teachers were also described as important subjects who provide inspiration and support in the
exercising of the parental role.
Resistance to Expectations
Another form in which exercise of agency was described in the narratives was through
resistance towards expectations which the participants perceived from the side of important
subjects in their environment, but were related also to the more general social expectations
towards them as women, mothers, or drug users.
In some narratives the drug use itself was presented as a form of rebellion or resistance
towards the expectations of, for instance, family, that one would lead a ‘normal life’. In this
case, drugs represented an adventurous life and the possibility to experience extreme situations,
which were put in contrast to the expected ‘calm, secure and boring normal life’.
Those participants who were taking care of children, especially very young ones, were
exercising agency through negotiation or resistance towards the expectations which were
problematizing the clash of their roles of mother and drug user. These expectations were related
especially to interactions with institutions such as the Child Welfare Office, asylum homes for
mothers and children, as well as the Employment Office or drop-in centre. However, the
expectation about the role of mother differed for each participant and the particular institution,
therefore, the strategies used as resistance also differed.
Several participants described their perception of the Child Welfare workers and doctors
as applying negative stereotypes to them due to their drug use and insecure housing situation,
thus automatically assessing them as incompetent mothers. The participants’ resistance towards
these negative and stigmatizing expectations was expressed, for instance, by pointing out their
knowledge and experience with child care. They also negotiated or redefined what it means to
be a ‘normal’ or ‘good’ mother, for example, by pointing out the higher importance of
emotional support and care which they provide rather than the necessity for material support
in the form of expensive food and toys, etc. At the same time, it is important to note that in the
context of situations where the participants expected to be challenged or stigmatized for being
mothers and drug users, conforming strategies were used in addition to only resisting: that
included remaining quiet about active drug use, or refraining from these interactions.
Agency through resistance towards expectations was also exercised in interactions with
other drug users by, for instance, resisting the use of drugs in times when one had decided to
abstain.
The exercising of agency through resistance was strongly emphasised in the narratives
about situations in which the participants were expected to provide sexual services in exchange
for drugs, accommodation, or other benefits. The resistance was expressed through the rejection
of the commodity which was to be exchanged for the sexual services.
Equally strong resistance was expressed in the narratives concerning experiences with
violence, where agency was described as exercised either through active physical self-defence,
or the verbal enforcement of one’s own rights.
Withdrawing from Interaction
Several narratives describe situations in which agency was exercised through withdrawing from
interactions which were perceived as oppressive and/or not bringing any support or benefit.
133
Agency was exercised in this way in situations like when participants withdraw or
avoided contact with other drug users, because they had decided to quit using meth, or simply
did not feel good in the presence of other drug users. One participant described herself as
refraining from contact with the drop-in centre workers, because she did not feel comfortable
in interactions where she would be asking for harm-reduction services while pregnant and
having a child; for this reason, she started to go to an outreach programme where she felt more
anonymous.
Exercising Control
The exercising of agency in some narratives was related to the exercise of control. The
participant described how they took control over various situations.
The exercise of control was often described in relation to drug use. Participants who
were taking care of babies often depicted various forms of control, as well as self-discipline,
which they learned to exercise to protect the baby from the negative effects of their drug use.
This concerned especially the amount of drug used; thus the intoxication is not too high and
does not last too long. Furthermore, they spoke about using meth only during the night when
the child was asleep. The also mentioned controlling their own behaviour and patterns of drug
use, so that those in the surroundings do not recognize the drug use. This involved not leaving
home when intoxicated and keeping the meth use secret from other tenants of the asylum home
or from the husband/partner. Several participants also mentioned that they prefer to use meth
because they perceive it as easier to hide the intoxication from others, in contrast to substances
like alcohol.
The exercise of control related to drug use also concerned control over the quality of
the drug by obtaining it only from reliable sources, usually people they personally know.
For the participants, a very important form of exercising control was the ability to inject
oneself, so there is no need to depend on someone else. This ability was put in the context of
preventing accidents such as using too high a dose of meth which typically happens by accident,
but also possibly on purpose when person is injected by someone else. Taking too high a dose
is perceived as an unpleasant experience thus better avoided. The administration of too high a
dose was also described as a practice of some men who want to take advantage of women. For
these reasons, the ability to inject oneself was directly related to the exercising of agency
through control over the amount of used drug and, consequently, the state of intoxication.
Another situation in which control was described as an important issue was related to
housing. Particularly unstable housing conditions, such as living in garden colony shacks, or
apartments with many other people, represented situations where the exercising of agency
through control over people invading the living space was highly restricted. This was a serious
problem of personal safety, since several participants described being exposed to violence while
living in such conditions; there were also incidents of as theft and loss of practically all personal
belongings like clothes and personal documents. These situations were described as leading to
a need to search for different housing to gain more control over people entering the living space.
Exercise of Power over Other People / Revenge
Another form of agency is related to the exercise of control, but in the sense of control or power
over other people. This form of agency is to some extent related to the exercise of agency
described through using resources to one’s own benefit. However, in this case the benefits are
gained through taking advantage of other people, by using them as a source of money, drugs,
or other resources. When being involved in these kinds of activities, some participants described
themselves as being selfish, inconsiderate or spoiled. At the same time, this behaviour was
usually set in the context of other oppressive circumstances which forced the participant to act
this way. Therefore, this form of agency can mean a kind of revenge against someone who is a
134
source of oppression.
Agency in the form of exercise of power over other people was sometimes described in
relation to perpetrating violence or humiliating a male friend in order to feel superior. This
narrative was part of a story about an experience of violence and humiliation; therefore, can be
interpreted as an exercise of agency through revenge for the previous victimizing experience.
This from of agency was described in the narratives in connection with drug dealing:
some participants described committing various frauds, or putting pressure on other people
through violence or threats in order to establish respect and to increase profit. In general, this
form of agency was exercised in other situations by forcing one’s will on other people through
the use of threats.
4.3 Narrative Discourses and Interdiscursivity
In this chapter I provide an answer to the fifth and sixth partial research questions which concern
the exercising of agency through constructing the narratives in interaction with me as the
researcher and also their meaning in a wider structural context. This exercise of agency is
referred to as narrative discourse.
When telling the narratives about their interactions with important subjects in their
social environment, the participants used various narrative discourses through which they
positioned themselves in the stories. When the participants exercise their agency through the
narrative discourse, they are in interaction with me as the researcher, but the interaction is
placed in their individual as well as the wider structural context, which needs to be taken into
account when interpreting the narratives.
Throughout the data analysis and interpretation, I have identified narrative discourses in
which the participants presented themselves for example as rebellious, smart, tricky, or selfish
in relation to meth use, manufacturing and dealing. In relation to motherhood, they presented
themselves as experienced and knowledgeable, but also for instance insecure. In relation to
housing, they described themselves also as for instance vulnerable or resigned. They expressed
feelings of victimization and danger as well as aggression when it came to issues of violence.
However, the reason I identify and discuss these discourses is not to use them as a label
for the experience or position of the participant as such. Instead, I find them important to gain
a deeper understanding of the exercise of agency in interaction with social structure, which is
seen as both supportive and oppressive. The important subjects in the participants’ environment
were working as sources of support as well as constraint. The approach, which focuses on the
interaction between agency and structure, has allowed me to identify a wide variety of forms in
which agency can be exercised. It also allows the recognition of the exercising of agency in
oppressive situations as well as identifying the structural characteristics that may limit the
exercise of agency. This approach has been developed to avoid the victim-agent dichotomy
through which people are perceived as either oppressed of free of structural constraints.
When telling the narratives related to drug use, the participants depicted themselves as
strong agents by emphasising that to use meth is their deliberate choice, since it is important as
a source of benefit for them. Meth was thus described as a source of energy, relaxation, pleasure
and joy. At the same time, it is important to understand this narrative discourse in a wider
context. The participants also described using meth to overcome structural constraints, such as
having to deal with bad housing situations, exposure to violence, or requesting childcare when
there was no support from their surroundings. In these contexts, the use of meth as a source of
support is an important exercise of agency; however, it is embedded in a wider structural context
which represents the constraints which the participants had to face. In some narratives meth is
135
described as a deliberately chosen but sometimes also the only option to deal with the
oppressive circumstances.
On the other hand, the emphasis on meth use as a deliberate choice and source of benefits
can be interpreted as a form of resistance to the pathological view of drug use as only negative
or dangerous. In interaction with me, the participants explained the benefits and pleasures
related to drug use and the important positive reasons for its use. The emphasis on their own
deliberate choice might be understood as a form of resistance towards the expectations that
women are seen as more passive and are often introduced or even forced into drug use by men.
The narratives in which participants depicted themselves as experienced, competent or
smart in relation to meth manufacturing and dealing need to be placed into a wider context as
well. This is especially related to the structural constraints, which were also part of some of the
narratives: for instance, the constraints related to participation on the legal labour market.
Furthermore, the narrative discourse emphasising the exercising of control or violence towards
other people needs to be understand in the wider context of the drug economy, where this
behaviour might be an important source of respect providing protection against violence from
other people. It is all the more important for a woman to present herself as dangerous or fearless
in a field dominated by men.
The narrative discourse in which participants present themselves as competent, normal,
good enough or perfect mothers needs to be understood in the context of their role of mother
particularly due to the stigma of their drug use. The poor living conditions of the participants
and their children were one of the main reasons why they had to negotiate that the quality of
care of the children is sufficient.
The themes in which the participants depicted themselves as victimized were related
especially to housing and experiences of violence. These two topics were very closely
interrelated.
It is very important to note that despite the fact that participants described many
narratives in which they were victimized through exposure to violence from their partners,
friends or acquaintances, they use narrative discourse through which they described themselves
as survivors of the violence rather than victims. In many narratives there was strong emphasis
on their resistance to the violence, which was done through self-defence or the verbal
negotiations of one’s rights. There was also stress on one’s own ability to protect oneself from
the violence.
Similarly, when telling the narratives about victimization in relation to insecure housing
or the victimizing practices of the institutions, the participants used narrative discourse through
which they interpreted these oppressive circumstances as strong motivation to find better
housing for themselves where they could be safer and free of violence, control and surveillance.
However, it is also important to point out that despite their effort to secure better quality
and safer housing conditions, most of the participants experienced homelessness. This was not
only being roofless or living in insecure housing conditions, for instance, in the garden colony
shacks, but also by living in inadequate housing conditions provided in hostels. Only two of the
participants were living in rented apartments which provided standard housing conditions. All
the participants (most of them for the whole duration of the research), experienced various
forms of homelessness, as their housing conditions did not fulfil the physical, legal or social
domain that would qualify it as standard housing (ETHOS typology, FEANTSA 2013).
The narrative discourse in which the participants depicted themselves as aggressive and
violent, but independent, need to be understand in the context of experiences with violence,
particularly from their partners, but also friends, often in the role of flat-mates. The emphasis
on the ability to defend oneself could be interpreted in the context of oppression, as the
narratives about the violent behaviour of the participants were usually depicted as a more or
less direct response to violence. At the same time, I find it very important to note that it was
136
important for the participants to be perceived as able to defend themselves and for their pride
and resourcefulness when they were faced with having to confront violent offences.
The narratives presented by the participants challenge various assumptions about female
drug use as it is described by other authors. For instance, the narratives in which the participants
describe how they were demanding something from others, particularly men to be initiated into
drug use, challenge the view of women as rather passive and often forced into drugs by their
partner or under peer pressure (e.g. Ettorre 1992; Inciardi et al. 1993). The narratives also
challenge the idea of being dependent on their partners and/or drug dealers to obtain drugs,
since several participants were actively involved in drug production and dealing themselves.
On the other hand, the active participation of women in the drug economy, has been addressees
also by some scholars (e.g. Anderson 2008; Denton 2001; Grundetjern and Sandberg 2010).
However, the aim of the research was not to identify the position of women drug users
in the drug economy or the wider social context. The aim was to gain deeper understanding of
how women who have experience with long-term drug use exercise their agency. Employing
an approach which defines agency through its interaction with important subjects in their social
environment has allowed me to understand more profoundly the various forms in which agency
is exercised. At the same time, it has allowed me to explore how the exercise of agency is
supported or restricted by the wider structural context.
The focus on not only the exercising of agency in the narratives of the participants, but
also on the narrative discourse that the participants were using to tell their stories has allowed
me to comprehend various dimensions of the experiences described by the participants. This is
what Sandberg (2009) refers to as interdiscursivity, that is, the shifts between different
discourses used by one person depending on who they are speaking to, or which parts of the
story they want to emphasise or silence.
Interdiscursivity, therefore, refers to situations in which, for example, control as
exercised by asylum home workers was in some narratives described as a source of support and
in others a source of oppression. This depended on the actual experience of the participant with
the asylum homes, which was changing over time; it also depended on what purpose it served
in each story. The narrative where control was described as supportive was part of the
explanation of why the participant wanted to stay in the asylum; conversely, the control was
depicted as oppressive in a narrative in which the participant was explaining why she was living
outdoors during the summer. Understanding the variability of narrative discourses through
interdiscursivity was thus useful for recognising how various subjects serve as sources of
support and oppression over time, as well as in relation to what the participant wanted to
emphasise. Therefore, talking about a friend as a source of oppression, because he was
expecting sexual services in exchange for accommodation and, at the same time, as a source of
support by providing drug supplies or taking care of her dog, is not perceived as inconsistency
in the description of the relation to the friend, but as different dimensions of the relationship.
As follows from this analysis, interactions between the individuals and important subjects in
their environment cannot be interpreted as simply either oppressive or supportive. This
understanding of the interactions does not deny the oppressive circumstances, such as exposure
to violence, but provides space for recognising the exercising of agency in the interactions as
well as through the narrative discourse.
I believe that the focus on narrative discourse and interdiscursivity enabled me to avoid
depicting the participants as either ‘villains’ or ‘rebels’ who are over-endowed with agency and
free will, or merely as ‘victims’ of oppressive circumstances. The main aim was to explore the
various dimensions and observe how they changed over time.
137
This theoretical framework and the research findings have important implications for
the practice of social work, which will be discussed in the following chapter.
138
5 Implications for the Social Work Practice
The main research question of the thesis concerns women who have experiences with long-term
drug use. As I have explained in the theoretical framework of this thesis, this means that they
are not necessarily perceived as clients of social work and the implications for social work are
not part of the research question. The aim was to choose a broader perspective which would
allow the exploration of the living situation of women drug users in a wide variety of roles in
which they describe themselves. This approach, which did not focus on the interventions of
social work, but primarily on a deep understanding of the living situations, supported me as a
researcher to explore and be more open to a broader view than I might have been if trying to
frame the situation and experiences into a context of social work practice, or social services
provided for drug users.
At the same time, all the participants, due to their long-term drug use, insecure housing
conditions, or experience with domestic violence, were in contact with various institutions of
social work or other helping professionals. Therefore, to separate the topic from the practice of
social work would be somewhat illusory. Social workers were identified as important subjects
with which the participants were in interaction and played important roles as sources or
mediators of both support and constraint. Therefore, in this chapter I discuss the research
findings and their implications for social work practice.
In the theoretical framework of this thesis I have set the topic in an environmental context
from the perspective of critical social work theory. These are suitable especially because they
regard the interaction between the individual and social environment as crucial, therefore
aligning with the main theoretical approach of the thesis, which is concerned with the exercising
of individual agency in interaction with the subjects in the social environment.
Furthermore, the emphasis of critical social work on the individual as well as the
structural dimension, empowerment and critical reflection is in good accordance with the
grounding of the thesis in postmodern feminism and the narrative approach.
In the first chapter (5.1.), I discuss the findings of the research in relation to the debate
about the crisis of knowledge and crisis of identity of social work. In the second chapter (5.2),
I discuss the implications of the research findings for empowering social work practice.
5.1 Sources of Knowledge and Power Relations
In the chapter about the social work context in the theoretical part of the thesis, I have discussed
the crisis of knowledge and the crisis of identity as important topics which have been brought
into the discussion in social work by postmodern and feminist scholars.
The crisis of knowledge and identity address the issues closely related to the power
structures and power relations in social work practice. The theoretical approach of the thesis as
well as the research findings have important implications for the exercise of power within the
social work context.
What is meant by the claim of a crisis of knowledge is especially the call for critical
examination of what are the sources of knowledge in social work. This does not concern only,
for example, the recognition of sources of knowledge which come from different disciplines
(e.g. psychology, pedagogy, criminology, or medicine), but a critical discussion of the sources
139
of understanding social work clients’ lives and definition of problems (Rossiter 2000; Payne
2005).
In the thesis I have addressed the issue of the source of knowledge by focusing on the
experiences and views of women who use drugs themselves. At the same time, it is important
to point out that the findings of this thesis are my interpretations of the participants’ narratives,
which were also generated in the specific context of research interviews, therefore, cannot be
seen as direct representations of their experiences, nor the whole complexity of their life
situation. On the other hand, the technique of repeated unstructured interviews and focus groups
supported the possibility of gaining a good insight to their life situation.
The approach of the thesis allowed me to explore the themes and subjects in the social
environment that were identified as the most important by the participants themselves;
understanding of agency in their interaction with these subjects allowed me to recognize their
exercising of agency in various forms, thus bringing findings which are relevant also for social
work.
The findings are interesting with regards to the discussion about the source of
knowledge about the clients’ situation and critical reflection of what is seen as a problem and
by whom. As a researcher, I defined the target group as women who have experience with longterm
drug use. Although I deliberately avoided potentially stigmatizing definitions of the target
group (such as ‘addicts’), the drug use was a common characteristic seen as one of the crucial
factors of their living situation. I find it interesting how the approach, which allowed
unstructured discussion and focus on their experiences in a broad context, allowed me to
understand their situation through more characteristics. This was the initial intention, but at the
same time, it was very important to realize through the data analysis that the life situations could
also be defined particularly through experiences with homelessness. In my view, this is not to
add another problematic dimension to their experience, but rather to critically reflect how the
definitions of the problems were made and ascribed to the clients.
Looking at the participants’ living situation through the perspective of the subjects in
their environment which they identify as important, and understanding the reasons why they
are perceived as sources of support and/or constraint allowed me to see that their definition of
problems in the situation was in many ways different from those in their environment,
including, importantly, social workers.
For instance in the participants’ narratives, the meth use was described in various ways
as a source of support. The participants’ used narrative discourse through which they pointed
out their exercise of agency through using meth to overcome structural constraints which they
were encountering; for instance, exhaustion related to demanding childcare, insecure housing
situations, experiences with violence and as a means to deal with depressions and traumatic
experiences. At the same time, the exercise of agency through meth use was sometimes also
described as simply beneficial and not necessarily related to constraints: pleasure and joy were
described in relation to meth use with friends and partners.
Such an understanding is important to see the individual dimension of why someone
uses drugs. Comprehending the various benefits of drug use puts into question the pathological
perception of drug use as only negative or self-destructive. At the same time, the understanding
of the contextual reasons, such as using meth to overcome structural constraints like insecure
housing, lack of support in childcare and exposure to violence, places the individual situation
into the structural dimension. In the social work context, this has serious implications for social
change. Therefore, to understand drug use in the context of, for example, housing, position on
the labour market, or access to childcare facilities does not mean to overload the individual with
more levels of problems, but to point out that there are structural problems which need to be
addressed. In the research findings, this is well illustrated in the experiences with homelessness
140
and violence, which were serious reasons for more intense drug use; in the view of the
participants, these problems were not adequately addressed by the social work institutions.
As also follows from the research findings, crucial changes in housing conditions
influenced also changes in drug use patterns, supported capacity to take care of children, or
supported relationship with a partner.
The application of these findings into the practice of social work does not only challenge
the individualized definition of problems, but also has serious implications for the very practical
dimensions of social work practice. When we look at the structure of how social work services
are provided, it is possible to recognize how they contribute to this individualization of
problems by defining target groups (e.g. drug users, homeless people, people with mental health
problems, or victims of domestic violence). Although the participants usually experienced all
these problems, they were not in contact with an institution which would address these multiple
needs. This inability was also identified by several participants as a source of constraint or at
least as a lack of support. For instance, the accommodation in asylums for mothers and children
does not prevent repeated experiences of homelessness, nor does it provide support for both
parents in their parenting role.
On the other hand, it is important to point out that various institutions were also
identified as important sources of support. The broad definition of agency allowed me to
understand how important subjects served as a source of support even in a context which might
be described as oppressive. This was, for instance, a participant’s experiences from an asylum
home which was in some narratives described as oppressive particularly due to control and
surveillance. In some other narratives, the control was conversely described as a source of
support (e.g. in helping achieve a participant’s aim of more controlled meth and alcohol use).
In another situation, the Child Welfare Office, which was often perceived as a significant source
of constraint due to stigmatizing and controlling practices, was also identified as a potential
source of support. The participant explained that she perceived the cooperation with the
psychiatrist suggested by the Child Welfare worker as a source of help which could address her
psychological problems. On the other hand, this expectation was not fulfilled due to the purely
formal character of the visits.
As in the approach in the previous parts of the thesis, the aim is not to provide conclusions
concerning assumptions about which subjects in the social environment are supportive or
oppressive, victimizing or empowering. The aim of the thesis and the recommendations is to
provide a framework through which the relations between individuals and subjects in the social
environment can be understood through dynamic interactions in which the subjects are a source
of support as well as constraint, and individuals exercise their agency in various ways. For
instance, they use the sources of support to their benefit, but also resist oppression and assert
their own claims on the subjects.
In the following chapter I discuss some recommendations for social work practice which
can support empowerment.
5.2 Empowering Social Work Practice
It is important to point out that I do not understand empowerment as a method but rather as a
desired outcome of social work interventions.
141
I define empowerment as an individual psychological quality that provides the feeling that
one can control the direction of his/her life, as well as the development of a sense of collective
influence over the social conditions of one’s life.
As follows from the definition, empowerment is closely related to the exercising of agency.
In this part I use the findings about the various forms of how agency can be exercised in
interaction with the subjects in the social environment to draw several recommendations for
social work practice which supports clients’ empowerment.
Defining the exercising of agency through narrative discourse, which is used to talk about
interactions, allows one to understand that the way some experience is interpreted, but also
mediated to others, is highly context-dependent. As was described in the previous chapter, with
the use of the concept of interdiscursivity, it is possible to recognize how the same experience
is described in different ways depending on whom the story is told to and how the narrator
wants to position themselves in the story. Therefore, whether drug use is explained through a
narrative discourse of pathology, rebellion or victimization also depends on who it is told to.
Thus we can understand that as researchers, social workers, policemen, or friends, we would
hear the story told in a different way, to some extent. This is also what Svensson (2006) calls
the ‘subversive and adjusted narratives’ to point out that the stories which clients tell social
workers, for instance, are different from those they would tell someone else.
In this context I would argue that every narrative is ‘adjusted’, which need not have a
negative connotation. In my view, this only implies the need to reflect on the context in which
the narrative is told and pay attention to how it is ‘adjusted’. For instance, as the research setting
is characterized by some level of anonymity, I had the opportunity to hear stories which I would
not hear as a social worker and vice versa. By critically reflecting the context in which clients
tell the stories allows me to better understand the stories and provide a possibility to create
space for different stories. Critical reflection must concern own stereotypes, the setting of the
service as well as the limits at the structural level. In my own experience as a social worker and
researcher, it was very interesting to experience and reflect why as a social worker for drug
users I had not heard much about the skills that clients develop and use to earn money or gain
other resources. This was probably to a large extent caused by the illegal character of the
activities. There were some rules of the programme which might have forbidden speaking about
these things and the clients themselves might not have felt comfortable to disclose such
information about themselves. There is also the question of one’s own stereotypes and social
expectations of how one will understand, for instance, women involved in drug production and
dealing. Interpreting the activity through the concept of agency exercised in interaction with
social structure allows one to possibly understand this activity as an exercise of agency through
gaining benefits to overcome constraints related to a disadvantaged position on the labour
market. Similarly, involvement in violent practices can be interpreted as an exercising of agency
through resistance to violence and protection from threats of violence from other people.
Such a view on the exercising of agency can be transformed to empowering social work
practice through recognizing clients not only as a victim, but also an agent; recognizing their
exercise of agency can be transformed into other activities.
A further important reason for empowering social work is that it helps the people
involved understand the structural and political context of their individual problems and
recognize that they are not the only ones experiencing them (Carter, 2002, Thompson, 2006,
Young, 1994). This signifies the important notion that it is not only the client but also society
that needs to change or adjust when problems occur.
One example of such a change may be found in the shifting of attitudes in wider society
towards women who use drugs. Social workers can contribute to this change by challenging
142
negative stereotypes and problematizing the concept of ‘female drug use’ itself. This means
that, first of all, the social workers themselves have to ‘challenge their own assumptions and
expectations of […] what being female means’ (Crinall, 1999: 80). Crinall (1999) also warns
that rigid adherence to any singular, prescribed or defined code for being a woman has the
potential to be strongly oppressive. Therefore social workers also need to critically reflect upon
their own stereotypical assumptions (e.g. a drug using and/or homeless woman cannot be a
competent mother) and support a variety of choices of gender identity.
By describing the life situation of drug using women in a wide variety of relations and
roles and giving examples of individual cases, social workers may call into doubt the taken-forgranted,
often stigmatising assumptions about the ‘typical female drug user’, her ‘typical
problems’, or her ‘typical behaviour’.
The framework suggested in the thesis has practical implications for social work. The
broadened definitions of agency and structure, together with the attention paid to their mutual
interaction, may lead the social worker to ask questions such as: ‘Who are the important people
and institutions with whom the female drug users interact?’ or ‘How do these people and
institutions work as sources of constraint and/or support?’
Asking these questions helps the social worker gain a deeper understanding of the life
situation of women drug users and avoid a purely dichotomous view where the client is seen as
either a powerless victim or volitional agent. It leads us to pay attention to the conditions that
the clients themselves define as oppressive or supportive and to various ways in which agency
is exercised.
143
Conclusion
Based on a critical review of social science research into female drug use, I have identified the
tendency to put emphasis upon either the role of social structure and structural constraints or
the role of individual agency. To avoid further contributing this dichotomous view, in which
women who use drugs tend to be depicted as rather powerless victims of structural oppressions
or as volitional agents, I have suggested theoretical frameworks which broaden the definition
of social structure and agency and place strong emphasis on their mutual interaction.
I have defined agency as the capacity to act to overcome structural constraints, as well
as the capacity to use structural resources and support to the benefit of self and/or others. Social
structure was defined as not only restricting and oppressing, but as enabling and empowering.
Thus, agency and structural conditions are seen as inseparably bound and in constant
interaction. The exercise of agency is shaped by and at the same time shapes social structure,
and vice versa.
This framework was used in empirical research to gain deeper understanding of the
living situation of women who have experience with long-term drug use.
The suggested theoretical framework and narrative analysis and interpretation of data
which was generated through repeated in-depth interviews and focus groups with seven women
who have experience with the long-term use of methamphetamines allows me to answer the
main research question: ‘How do women who have experience with long-term drug use
exercise agency in their narratives about interaction with important subjects in their
social environment?’
Through narrative analysis and interpretation I have identified four themes which were
the most relevant in participants’ narratives. That means they were the most often discussed as
well as discussed by all (or almost all) of the participants. The themes were drug use,
motherhood, housing and experiences with violence.
Furthermore I have identified various forms in which agency was exercised in the
narratives about interactions provided by the participants. Particularly agency was exercised in
the narratives through their ability to identify the available sources of support and use them to
their own benefit and/or the benefit of others and to overcome constraints. Furthermore, through
resistance towards negative or stigmatizing expectations from their social environment, as well
as by withdrawing from interactions when they were not found to be supportive or were
perceived as harmful. Other forms of agency were the exercise of control and the exercise of
power over other people, which can also take the meaning of revenge in relation to oppressive
experiences.
The exercise of agency in the various above-mentioned forms took place in the
interactions with their important subjects, that is, especially partners, friends and acquaintances
(of which most but not all were also meth users), children and family members. Very important
subjects were also various institutions and their workers, particularly, the drop-in centre, asylum
homes, hostels, maternity hospital, the Child Welfare Office and the Employment Office,
school and kindergarten.
All the important subjects were described by the participants as sources of support as
well as constraints. Whether the subjects were perceived as a source of support or oppression
depended on the context and also changed over time.
144
References
Adams, Robert 1996. Social Work and Empowerment. London: Macmillan Press.
Ahearn, Laura M. 2001. Language and Agency. Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 30, pp. 109-
137.
Anderson, Tammy 2008. Dimensions of Women’s Power in the Illicit Drug Economy. In Anderson,
Tammy (ed.), Neither Villain nor Victim: Empowerment and Agency among Women Substance
Abusers. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Baker, Phyllis L., Amy Carson 1999. ‘I Take Care of My Kids’: Mothering Practices of SubstanceAbusing
Women. Gender and Society. Vol. 13, No.3, pp. 347-363.
Baskin, Deborah R., Ira Sommers 2008. Demonstrating a Female-Specific Agency and
Empowerment in Drug Selling. In Anderson, Tammy (ed.), Neither Villain nor Victim:
Empowerment and Agency among Women Substance Abusers. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
Bell, Kirsten, Amy Salmon 2011. What Women Who use Drugs Have to Say about Ethical
Research: Findings of an Explanatory Qualitative Study. Journal of Empirical Research on
Human Research Ethics. pp. 84-98.
Bourdieu, Pierre 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Loïc Wacquant 1992. An invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The
University of Chicago.
Butler, Judith 1990. Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:
Routledge.
Carbone-Lopez, Kristin, Jennifer Gatewood Owens, Jody Miller 2012. Women’s ‘Storylines’ of
Methamphetamine Initiation in the Midwest. Journal of Drug Issues. Vol. 42, No. 3, pp 226-
246.
Carter, S. Carolyn 1997. Ladies Don't: A Historical Perspective on Attitudes Toward Alcoholic
Women. Affilia. Vol. 12, pp. 471-485.
Carter, S. Carolyn 2002. Prenatal Care for Women Who Are Addicted: Implications for GenderSensitive
Practice. Affilia. Vol. 17, pp. 299 – 313.
Crenshaw, Kimberley 1991. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence
against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review. Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 1241-1299.
Crinall Karen 1999. Challenging Victimisation in Practice with young Women. In Pease Bob, Jan
Fook (eds.). Transforming Social Work Practice. Postmodern Critical Perspectives. London:
Routledge.
145
Denton, Barbara 2001. Dealing: Women in the Drug Economy. Sydney: University of New South
Wales Press.
Ditmore, Melissa Hope 2013. When Sex Work and Drug Use Overlap. Considerations for Advocacy
and Practice. London: Harm Reduction International.
Dominelli, Lena 2002. Feminist Social Work Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave.
Emirbayer, Mustafa, Ann Mische 1998. What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 103,
No. 4, pp. 962-1023.
Ettorre, Elizabeth 1992. Women and Substance Use. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ettorre, Elizabeth 2007. Revisioning Women and Drug Use. New York: Palgrave Macmilan.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addictions 2000. Problems Facing Women Drug
Users and their Children. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addictions 2005. Differences in Patterns of Drug
Use between Women and Men. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addictions 2006. A Gender Perspective on Drug
Use and Responding to Drug Problems. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addictions 2009a. An overview of the problem
drug use (PDU) key indicator. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addictions 2009b. Women´s Voices. Experiences
and Perceptions of Women who Face Drug-related Problems in Europe. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
Fawcett, Barbra 2000. Researching Disability: Meanings, Interpretations and Analysis. In Fawcett,
Barbara (ed.). Practice and Research in Social Work. Postmodern Feminist Perspectives,
London: Routledge.
Fook, Jan 1999. Critical reflectivity in education and practice. In: Pease Bob, Jan Fook (eds.),
Transforming Social Work Practice. Postmodern Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Fook, Jan, Bob Pease 1999. Postmodern Critical Theory and Emancipatory Social Work. In Pease
Bob, Jan Fook (eds.), Transforming Social Work Practice. Postmodern Critical Perspectives,
London: Routledge.
Fook, Jan. 2002. Social Work: Critical Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
Frank, Kathrine 2006. Agency. Anthropological Theory. Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 281–302.
Friedman Jennifer, Marixsa Alicea 1995. Women and Heroin. The Path of Resistance and Its
Consequences, Gender and Society. Vol. 9, No.4, pp. 432-449.
Friedman Jennifer, Marixsa Alicea 2001. Surviving Heroin: Interviews with Women in Methadone
Clinics. Gainesville: Univeristy of Florida Press.
146
Frišaufová, Magda 2014. Research Accounts of Female Drug Use and their Implications for Social
Work. Czech and Slovak Social Work. Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 35 – 45.
Fry, C. L., W. Hall, A. Ritter, R. Jenkinson 2006. The Ethics of Paying Drug Users Who Participate
in Research: A Review and Practical Recommendations. Journal of Empirical Research on
Human Research Ethics. Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 21-36.
Giddens, Anthony 1984. The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
Berkley: University of California Press.
Grundetjern, Heidi, Sveinung Sandberg 2012. Dealing with a gendered economy: Female drug
dealers and street capital. European Journal of Criminology. Vol. 9, pp. 621-635.
Gubrium, Jaber. F., James. A. Holstein 2009. Analyzing Narrative Reality. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Hart, L. Carl, Joanne Csete, Don Habibi. Methamphetamine. Facts vs. Fiction and Lessons from the
Crack Hysteria. Open Society Foundation.
Hartnoll, Richard (et al.) 1997. Příručka k provádění výběru metodou sněhové koule (snowball
sampling). Praha: Council of Europe.
Healy, Karen. 2000. Social Work Practices. London: Sage.
Healy, Karen 2014. Social Work Theories in Context: Creating Framework for Practice. New York:
Pelgrave Macmillan.
Hudson, Annie 2008. ‘Troublesome girls’: towards alternative definitions and policies. In Evans,
Karen, Janet Jamieson (eds.). Gender and Crime: A Reader. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Inciardi, James A., Dorothy Lockwood, Anne E. Pottieger 1993. Women and Crack-Cocaine. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
International Harm Reduction Association 2010. What is Harm Reduction? A position statement
from the International Harm Reduction Association. London: IHRA.
Jackson, Carolyn, Penny Tinkler 2007. ‘Ladettes’ and ‘Modern Girls’: ‘Troublesome’ Young
Femininities. The Sociological Review. Vol. 55, pp. 251-272.
Jackson, Michael 2002. The Politics of Storytelling. Violence, Transgression and Intersubjectivity.
Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum press.
Janebová, Radka 2012. O atmosféře strachu v sociální práci. Sociální práce, sociálna práca. Vol.
12, No. 1, pp 38-41.
Kelley, Margaret 2008. Negotiating Gender for Couples in Methadone Maintenance Treatment. In
Anderson, Tammy (ed.), Neither Villain nor Victim: Empowerment and Agency among Women
Substance Abusers. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
147
Kemp, Susan P. 2001. Environment through a Gendered Lens: From Person-in-Environment to
Woman-in-Environment. Affilia. Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 7-30.
Klee, Hilary, Marcia Jackson, Suzan Lewis (eds.) 2002. Drug Misuse and Motherhood, London:
Routledge.
Kolářová, Marta 2009. Na křižovatkách nerovností: gender, třída a rasa/etnicita. Genderonline.
Koncepce sociálního bydlení v ČR. [online]. 2014. Praha: Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí,
Ministerstvo pro místní rozvoj [cit. 3. 11. 2014].
Konopásek, Zdeněk 1997. Co si počít s počítačem v kvalitativním výzkumu. Biograf, Vol. 12, pp.
71-110.
Lalander, Philip 2003. Hooked on Heroin: drugs and drifters in a globalized world. Oxford: Berg.
Lykke, Nina 2010. Feminist studies. A guide to Intersectional Theory, Methodology and Writing.
London: Routlege.
Maher, Lisa 1997. Sexed Work. Gender, Race and resistance in a Brooklyn Drug Market. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Mahoney, R. Martha 1994. Victimization or Oppression? Women’s Lives, Violence, and Agency.
In Fineman, Martha Albertson and Roxanne Mykitiuk (eds). The Public Nature of Private
Violence. New York: Routledge.
Mattsson, Tinna 2014. Intersectionality as a Useful Tool: Anti-Oppressive Social Work and Critical
Reflection. Affilia. Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 8-17.
McIntosh, James, Neil McKeganey 2000. Addicts’ Narratives of Recovery from Drug Use:
Constructing a Non-Addict Identity. Social Science and Medicine. Vol. 50, No. 10, pp. 1501-
1510.
McNay, Lois 2000. Gender and Agency. Reconfiguring the Subject in Feminist and Social Theory.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
McNay, Lois 2004. Agency and Experience: Gender as a Lived Relation. Sociological Review. Vol
52, pp.: 175-190.
Measham, Fiona 2002. ‘Doing Gender’ – ‘Doing Drugs’: Conceptualizing the Gendering of Drugs
Cultures. Contemporary Drug Problems. Vol. 29, pp. 335-373.
Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí. Assistance in Material Need. [online, 02.05.2015]
Accesssible at: http://www.mpsv.cz/en/1608
Morgan, David, L. 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.
Mravčík (et al.) 2003. Výroční zpráva o stavu ve věcech drog v ČR v roce 2002. Praha: Úřad vlády
ČR.
148
Mravčík, Viktor (et al.) 2013. Annual Report: The Czech Republic – 2012 Drug Situation. Prague:
Office of the Government of the Czech Republic.
Musil, Libor 2013a. Interakce. In Matoušek, Oldřich (ed.). Encyklopedie sociální práce. Praha:
Portál.
Musil, Libor 2013b. Sociální prostředí. In Matoušek, Oldřich (ed.). Encyklopedie sociální práce.
Praha: Portál.
Nash, Jennifer C. 2008. “Re-Thinking Intersectionality”. Feminist Review Vol. 89, pp. 1-15.
O’Reilly, Karen 2009. Key Concepts in ethnography. London: Sage.
Palm, Jessica 2007. Women and Men – Same Problems, Different Treatment. International Journal
of Social Welfare. Vol. 16, pp. 18-31.
Payne, Malcolm 2005: Modern Social Work Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Payne, Malcolm 2006. What is Professional Social Work? Bristol: The Policy Press.
Pollack, Shoshana 2000. Reconceptualizing Women’s Agency and Empowerment: Challenges to
Self-Esteem Discourse and Women’s Lawbreaking. Women and Criminal Justice. Vol. 12, No.
1, pp. 75-89
Ramazanoğlu, Caroline, Janet Holland 2002. Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices.
London: Thousand Oaks.
Riessman, Catherine Kohler 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. London: Sage
Publications.
Rossiter, Amy 2000. The postmodern feminist condition. New conditions for social work. In:
Fawcett, Barbara (eds.). Practice and Research in Social Work. Postmodern Feminist
Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Sandberg, Sveinung 2009. Gangster, Victim, or Both? Street Drug Dealers’ Interdiscursive
Construction of Sameness and Difference in Self-Presentations. British Journal of Sociology.
Vol. 60, No. 33, pp. 523-542.
Sandberg, Sveinung. 2010. What Can ‘Lies’ Tell us about Life? Notes towards a Framework of
Narrative Criminology. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 447-465.
Sewell, William H. A 1992. Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American
Journal of Sociology. Vol. 98, No. 1, pp.: 1-29.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy 1992. Death without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil.
Berkley: University of California Press.
Silverman, David 1997. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Texts and
Interaction. London: Sage Publication.
149
Staunæs, Dorthe, Mrie, D. Søndergaard, 2011. Intersectionality – A Theoretical Adjustment, In
Researching differently Handbook for Postgraduate Research in Women's/Gender/Feminist
Studies, (eds). R. Buikema, G. Griffin, & N. Lykke, London, Routledge.
Staunæs, Dorthe 2003. Where Have all the Subjects Gone? Bringing together the Concepts of
Subjectification and Intersectionality. In NORA - Nordic Journal of Women Studies. Vol. 11,
No. 2, pp. 101-110.
Stocco, Paolo (et al.) 2000. Women and Drug abuse in Europe: Gender Identity. Venezia:
IREFREA.
Stocco, Paolo (eds.) 2002. Women and Opiate Addiction: A European Perspective. Valebcia:
IREFREA.
Svensson, Bengt 2000. ‘Speed Freaks, Junkies and Others – with Drug as Companions.’ In:
Greenwood, Gloria, Kathy Robertson (eds.): Understanding and Responding to Drug Use: the
Role of Qualitative Research. MCDDA: Luxemburg.
Svensson, Bengt 2006: Why Do Men and Women Continue to Use Drugs? In: Kappl, Miroslav,
Martin Smutek (eds.). Proměny klienta služeb sociální práce. Gaudeamus: Hradec Králové.
Šveřepa, Milan: 2008. Česká sociální práce obvykle neplní úlohu vyvažujícího elementu mezi
člověkem a společností. In: Sociální práce, Vol. 2, pp. 5-8.
Thompson, Neil 2006. Anti-discriminatory Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Trinder, Liz 2000. Reading the Texts. Postmodern Feminism and the ‘Doing’ of Research. In:
Fawcett, Barbara (ed.), Practice and Research in Social Work. Postmodern Feminist
Perspectives, London: Routledge.
Vobořil, Jindřich 2002. Gender differences - ženy jako zvláštní skupina zasluhující pozornost review
anglicky psané literatury. Adiktologie No. 2, pp. 33-39.
Worrall, Anne 2008. Twisted Sisters, Ladettes, and the New Penology: the Social Construction of
‘Violent Girls’. In Evans, Karen, Janet Jamieson (eds.). Gender and Crime: A Reader.
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Young, Iris Marion 1994. Punishment, Treatment, Empowerment: Three Approaches to Policy for
Pregnant Addicts. Feminist Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 32-57.
150
Abstract
The author of the thesis answers the research question: ‘How do women who have experience
with long-term drug use exercise agency in their narratives about interaction with important
subjects in their social environment?’
In the first part of the thesis, the author provides a theoretical framework which grounds
the topic in postmodern feminism and critical social work theory. Furthermore, the author
suggests a definition of agency and social structure and approach through which agency can be
researched by focusing on the interaction between individuals and subjects in their social
environment.
In the second part of the thesis, the research question is answered through the narrative
analysis of data, which has been generated from repeated in-depth interviews and focus groups
with seven women who have experience with long-term use of methamphetamine. Based on
the data interpretation, the author discusses how the participants exercised their agency in
interaction with important subjects in their environment related to four main themes: drug use,
motherhood, the housing situation and experiences with violence. In the data interpretation, the
author focuses not only on the exercise of agency as it is described by the participants in the
narratives, but also identifies the exercise of agency through the narrative discourse performed
in the interactions during the individual and group interviews. This approach allows to
understand the various forms in which agency is exercised in interaction with social
environment, such as the ability to identify available sources of support and use them to one’s
own benefit and to overcome constraints, resistance to social expectations, withdrawing from
interactions, exercising control and exercise of power over other people.
The author also provides a discussion of the research findings and their implications for
social work practice.
Key words: agency, critical social work, drug use, gender, methamphetamine, narrative
approach
151
Abstrakt
Autorka v práci odpovídá na hlavní výzkumnou otázku „Jak ženy, které mají zkušenost
s dlouhodobým užíváním drog, projevují sílu k jednání ve svých naracích o interakcích
s důležitými subjekty ve svém sociální prostředí?“
Autorka vymezuje teoretický rámec, jenž ukotvuje téma práce v postmoderním
feminismu a kritické sociální práci. Dále autorka vymezuje definici osobní síly k jednání
(agency) a sociální struktury, které ji umožňují zkoumat projevování osobní síly k jednání
v interakcích mezi jednotlivci a důležitými subjekty v jejich sociálním prostředí.
Výzkumnou otázku autorka zodpovídá na základě narativní analýzy opakovaných
hloubkových rozhovorů a fokusních skupin se sedmi ženami, které mají zkušenost
s dlouhodobým užíváním metamfetaminu/pervitinu. Na základě interpretace dat autorka
diskutuje jakým způsobem je projevována síla k jednání v interakcích s důležitými subjekty
prostředí v rámci hlavních témat, kterými jsou užívání drog, mateřství, bydlení a zkušenosti
s násilím. Při interpretaci dat se autorka nezaměřuje pouze na sílu k jednání tak jak je
popisována particpantkami v jednotlivých naracích, ale zaměřuje se i na sílu k jednání tak jak
je projevována skrze narativní diskurz v interakcích během individuálních a skupinových
rozhovorů. Tento přístup umožňuje identifikovat různé způsoby projevu síly k jednání jako je
například schopnost identifikovat zdroje podpory a využívání těchto zdrojů k překonání
problémů, rezistence vůči očekáváním prostředí, vyhýbání se některým interakcím, přebírání
zodpovědnosti a kontroly, vykonávání moci nad jinými lidmi.
Na základě výzkumných zjištění autorka také diskutuje doporučení pro sociální práci.
Klíčová slova: gender, kritická sociální práce, metamfetamin/pervitin, narativní přístup,
síla k jednání/agency, užívání drog,
152
Name Index
Adams, 27, 28
Ahearn, 17
Anderson, 10, 12, 13, 17, 87, 139
Baker, 11, 82
Baskin, 11
Bell, 44
Bourdieu, 21
Butler, 9
Carbone-Lopez, 53, 65
Carter, 9, 10, 11, 57, 144
Crenshaw, 19
Crinall, 16, 28, 144
Denton, 72, 79, 139
Ditmore, 77
Dominelli, 17, 25, 28
Emirbayer, 21
Ettorre, 10, 11, 54, 57, 64, 72, 139
Fawcett, 15
Fook, 26, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38
Frank, 17
Friedman, 11, 57
Giddens, 17, 19, 21
Grundetjern, 79, 80, 139
Gubrium and Holstein, 39
Hart et al., 51
Healy, 27
Hudson, 13
Inciardi, 10, 11, 18, 59, 64, 72, 77, 79, 139
Jackson and Tinkler, 13
Janebová, 26
Kemp, 20, 23
Klee, 11, 82, 87, 100
Konopásek, 31
Lalander, 11, 65
Lykke, 20
Maher, 11, 13, 18, 31, 65, 72, 77, 79
Mahoney, 17
Mattsson, 6, 19, 28, 29
McIntosh and McKeganey, 61
McNay, 17, 21
Measham, 12
Morgan, 32, 46
Mravčík, 14, 19, 51, 54
Musil, 1, 6, 20, 22
Nash, 19
O’Reilly, 30, 33
Palm, 8
Payne, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 141
Pollack, 27, 28
Ramazanoğlu and Holland, 9
Riessman, 31, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45
Rossiter, 24, 25, 26, 141
Sandberg, 42, 79, 80, 139
Scheper-Hughes, 18
Sewell, 17, 19
Silverman, 30, 31, 41
Staunæs and Søndergaard, 20
Stocco, 10, 11, 54, 57
Svensson, 66, 143
Šveřepa, 26
Thompson, 19, 27, 28, 29, 82, 144
Trinder, 9
Vobořil, 11, 54, 57
Worrall, 13
Young, 11, 27, 144