Madde Kullanım Deneyiminde İlişkisel Bir Aktör Olarak Mekanın Anlamının İncelenmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırma madde kullanım deneyimlerinde mekanların, bireyler için neden ve nasıl anlamlı hale geldiğini anlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Fenomenolojik tipte nitel desenle tasarlanan bu çalışma kapsamında madde kullanım deneyimi nedeniyle Manisa Arındırma Merkezi’nde tedavi görmekte olan 20 katılımcıyla derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiş, edinilen bilgiler içerik analizi tekniği ile ilişkisel mekan anlayışı çerçevesinde analiz edilmiştir. Bulgu: Bulgular mekanların madde kullanımını elverişli ya da elverişsiz kılan bazı dinamiklerin mevcudiyetini ortaya koymaktadır. Kullanıma elverişli mekanlarda güvensizlik, gizlilik, aidiyet ve baskı unsurları öne çıkarken; maddeyi bırakmaya ilişkin dinamikler tedavi mekanlarındaki yatay ilişkiler, esnek kurallar, ortak deneyimler ve rutin kurma pratikleriyle ilişkilenmektedir. Sonuç: Araştırma madde kullanımına ilişkin tercihler, etkileşimler, sınırlar, eylemler hakkında derinlemesine bilgi sağlayarak madde bağımlılığıyla mücadelede sosyal politikalara katkı sunma potansiyeli taşımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mekan
• Madde bağımlılığı
• İlişkisellik

Examining the Meaning of Space as a Relational Actor in Drug Use Experience

Abstract

Objective: This research aims to understand how and why places become meaningful for individuals in substance use experiences. Method: Within the scope of this study, which was designed with a phenomenological qualitative design, in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 participants who were being treated in Manisa Decontamination Centre due to substance use experience, and the information obtained was analysed within the framework of relational space understanding with content analysis technique. Results: The findings reveal the existence of certain dynamics that make spaces conducive or unfavorable for substance use. While elements of insecurity, secrecy, belonging and pressure are prominent in spaces conducive to use, spatial dynamics related to substance withdrawal are associated with horizontal relations, flexible rules, shared experiences and routine-building practices in treatment spaces. Conclusion: The research has the potential to contribute to social policies in the fight against substance abuse by providing in-depth information on preferences, interactions, boundaries and actions related to substance use.

Keywords

• Space
• Drug Addiction
• Relationality

Kaynakça

1. Matto HC, Cleaveland CL. A social-spatial lens to examine poverty, violence, and addiction. J Soc Work Pract Addict 2016; 16(1-2): 7-23.
2. Rogowski S. Social work with children and families: challenges and possibilities in the neo-liberal world. Br J Soc Work 2012; 42(5): 921-940.
3. Löw M. The constitution of space: The structuration of spaces through the simultaneity of effect and perception. Eur J Soc Theory 2008; 11(1): 25-49.
4. Brotherhood A. Interpreted space’as a mediator between physical environment and situated substance use: outline of a socio-spatial theory for substance use prevention. Drugs (Abingdon Engl) 2023; 30(1): 42-54.
5. Cooper H. Medical theories of opiate addiction's aetiology and their relationship to addicts’ perceived social position in the United States an historical analysis. Int J Drug Policy 2004; 15(5): 435-445.
6. Moore D, Dietze P. Enabling environments and the reduction of drug-related harm: re-framing Australian policy and practice. Drug Alcohol Rev 2005; 24(3): 275-284.
7. Dilkes-Frayne E, Duff C. Tendencies and trajectories: the production of subjectivity in an event of drug consumption. Environ Plan D 2017; 35(5): 951-967.
8. Cooper HLF, Tempalski B. Integrating place into research on drug use, drug users’ health, and drug policy. Int J Drug Policy 2014; 25(3): 503-507.

9. Gomart E. Surprised by methadone: in praise of drug substitution treatment in a French clinic. Body Soc 2004; 10(2-3): 85-119.
10. Duff C. Towards a theory of drug use contexts: space, embodiment and practice. Addict Res Theory 2007; 15(5): 503-519.
11. Jayne M, Valentine G, Holloway SL. Emotional, embodied and affective geographies of alcohol, drinking and drunkenness. Trans Inst Br Geogr 2010; 35(4): 540-554.
12. Rhodes T. Risk environments and drug harms: a social science for harm reduction approach. Int J Drug Policy 2009; 20(3): 193-201.
13. Böhling F. Crowded contexts: on the affective dynamics of alcohol and other drug use in nightlife spaces. Contemp Drug Probl 2014; 41(3): 361-392.
14. Decorte T. Drug users’ perceptions of ‘controlled’and ‘uncontrolled’use. Int J Drug Policy 2001; 12(4): 297-320.
15. Duff C. Drug use as a ‘practice of the self’: Is there any place for an ‘ethics of moderation’in contemporary drug policy? Int J Drug Policy 2004; 15(5-6): 385-393.
16. Thrift N. Spatial Formations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
17. Thrift N. Non-Representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. London, UK: Routledge, 2007.
18. Fuller MG, Löw M. Introduction: An invitation to spatial sociology. Curr Sociol 2017; 65(4): 469-491.
19. Katz J. Start here: social ontology and research strategy. Theor Criminol 2002; 6(3): 255-278.
20. Durkheim E, Swain J. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology. New York: Macmillan, 1926.
21. Harvey D. Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. Newyork: Verso, 2006.
22. Massey D. For Space. Thousand Okas, CA: Sage, 2005.
23. Lefebvre H. Gündelik Hayatın Eleştirisi II, Ergüden I (Çeviren). İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık, 2019.
24. Simmel G, David F, Featherstone M. Simmel On Culture: Selected Writings. London: Sage, 1997.
25. Lefebvre H. Mekanın Üretimi, Ergüden I (Çeviren). İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık, 2020.
26. Smith C. Addiction, Modernity and the City: A Users’ Guide to Urban Space. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis, 2016.
27. Soja E. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. New York: Verso, 1989.
28. Löw M. The Sociology of Space: Materiality, Social Structures and Action. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2016.
29. Low S. Spatializing Culture: The Ethnography of Space and Place. London, UK: Routledge, 2016.
30. Dilkes-Frayne E. Tracing the event of drug use: Context and the coproduction of a night out on MDMA. Contemp Drug Probl 2014; 41(3): 445-479.
31. Merleau Ponty, M. Algının Fenomenolojisi, Sarıkartal E, Hacımuratoğlu E (Çevirenler). İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları, 2017.
32. Bourdieu P. Ayrım: Beğeni Yargısının Toplumsal Eleştirisi, Fırat D, Berkkurt G (Çevirenler). Ankara: Nika Yayınları, 2021.
33. Shields R. Spatial Questions: Cultural Topologies And Social Spatialisation. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage, 2013.
34. Foucault M. Güvenlik Toprak Nüfus, Taylan F (Çeviren). 3. Baskı. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2019.
35. Latour B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford Universıty Press, 2007.
36. Deleuze G, Guattari F. A Thousand Plateus Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Massumi B (Çeviren). London: Minnesota Press, 1987.
37. Shudak NJ. Phenomenology. Frey BB, (editor). Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2018: 1247-1249.
38. Moustakas C. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
39. Yıldırım A, Şimşek H. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, 11. Baskı, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2018.
40. Osborne T, Rose N. Spatial phenomenotechnics: making space with Charles Booth and Patrick Geddes. Environ Plan D 2004; 22(2): 209-228.
41. Neuman WL. Toplumsal Araştırma Yöntemleri, Özge S, (Çeviren) İstanbul: Yayınodası Yayıncılık, 2011.
42. Patton M. Nitel Araştırma ve Değerlendirme Yöntemleri, Bütün M, Demir S (Çevirenler). Ankara: Pegem Akademi, 2018.
43. Duff C. Enabling places and enabling resources: New directions for harm reduction research and practice. Drug Alcohol Rev 2010; 29(3): 337-344.
44. Simpson M. The relationship between drug use and crime: a puzzle inside an enigma. Int J Drug Policy 2003; 14(4): 307-319.
45. Soja E. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1996.
46. Soja E. Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Cambridge: Blackwell, 2002
47. Ford JM, Beveridge AA. Varieties of substance use and visible drug problems: ındividual and neighborhood factors. J Drug Issues 2006; 36(2): 377-392.
48. Jacopson JO. Do drug treatment facilities increase clients’ exposure to potential neighborhood-level triggers for relapse? A small-area assessment of a large, public treatment system. J Urban Health 2006; 83(1): 150-161.
49. Harrell A, Peterson GE. Drugs, Crime, and Social Isolation: Barriers to Urban Opportunity. Washington: The Urban Insitute Press, 1992.
50. Pearson G, Gilman M. Drug epidemics in space and time: local diversity subcultures and social exclusion. Strang J, Gossop M (editors.) Heroin Addiction and the British System. London, UK: Routledge, 2005: 115-134
51. Wacquant L. Kent Paryaları: İleri Marjinalliğin Karşılaştırmalı Sosyolojisi, Doğan M (Çeviren). 2. Baskı, İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi, 2015.
52. Pedersen W, Bakken A. Urban landscapes of adolescent substance use. Acta Sociol 2016; 59(2): 131-150.
53. Draus PL, Roddy, JK, Greenwald M. A hell of a life: addiction and marginality in post-industrial Detroit. Soc Cult Geogr 2010; 11(7): 663-680.
54. Kugu N, Akyüz G, Ersan E, Doğan O. Sanayi bölgesinde çalışan çıraklarda madde kullanımı ve etkileyen etkenlerin araştırılması. Anadolu Psikiyatri Derg 2000; 1(1): 19-25.
55. Ögel K, Tamar D, Evren C, Çakmak D. Uçucu madde kullanımının yaygınlığı: çok merkezli bir araştırmanın verilerinin değerlendirilmesi. Anadolu Psikiyatri Derg 2000; 1(4): 220-224.
56. Fraser S. The chronotope of the queue: Methadone maintenance treatment and the production of time, space and subjects. Int J Drug Policy 2006; 17(3): 192-202.
57. Goffman E. Günlük Yaşamda Benliğin Sunumu, Cezar B (Çeviren). 4. Baskı, İstanbul: Metis, 2021.
58. Goffman E. Damga: Örselenmiş Kimliğin İdare Edilişi Üzerine Notlar, Geniş Ş, Ünsaldı L, Ağırnaslı S (Çevirenler). 4. Baskı, Ankara: Heretik, 2019.
59. Becker H. Hariciler (Outsiders): Bir Sapkınlık Sosyolojisi Çalışması, Geniş Ş, Ünsaldı L (Çevirenler). 5. Baskı, Ankara: Heretik, 2021.
60. Rhodes T, Lilly R, Fernández C, et.al. Risk factors associated with drug use: the importance of ‘risk environment’. Drugs (Abingdon Engl) 2003; 10(4): 303-329.
61. Lopez V, Jurik N, Gilliard-Matthews S. Gender sexuality power and drug acquisition strategies among adolescent girls who use meth. Fem Criminol 2009; 4(3): 226-251.
62. Sallmann J. Going hand-in-hand: connections between women's prostitution and substance use. J Soc Work Pract Addict 2010; 10(2): 115-138.
63. Tuchman E. Women and addiction: the importance of gender issues in substance abuse research. J Addict Dis 2010; 29(2): 127-138.
64. Theall KP, Sterk CE, Elifson KW. Perceived neighborhood fear and drug use among young adults. Am J Health Behav 2009; 33(4): 353-365.
65. Ayres T. Substance use in the night-time economy: deviant leisure? Raymen T, Smith O (editors). Deviant Leisure: Criminological Perspectives on Leisure and Harm. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019: 135-160.
66. Pennay A, Jenkinson R, Quinn B, et.al. Investigating differences between drugs used in the Australian night-time economy: demographics, substance use, and harm. Subst Use Misuse 2017; 52(1): 71-81
67. Dovey K, Fitzgerald J, Choi Y. Safety becomes danger: dilemmas of drug-use in public space. Health Place 2001; 7(4), 319-331.
68. Butler J. İktidarın Psişik Yaşamı: Tabiyet Üzerine Teoriler, Tütüncü F (Çeviren). 2. Baskı, İstanbul: Ayrıntı, 2015: 107-132.
69. Hitzler R. The pursuit of “ecstasy” at techno-events. J Drug Issues 2002; 32(2): 459-466.
70. Kavanaugh PR, Anderson TL. Solidarity and drug use in the electronic dance music scene. Sociol Q 2008; 49(1): 181-208.
71. Maffesoli M. The Shadow of Dionysus: A Contribution to the Sociology of the Orgy. New York: Suny Press, 1993.
72. Canetti E. Kitle ve İktidar, Aygen G (Çeviren). 3. Baskı, İstanbul: Ayrıntı, 2006.
73. Malbon B. Clubbing: Dancing, Ecstasy, Vitality. London, UK: Routledge, 1999.
74. Malbon B. The dancer from the dance: the musical and dancing crowds of clubbing. Butler M (editor). Electronica, Dance and Club Music. 2nd ed. London, UK: Routledge, 2016: 487-526.
75. Tutenges S. Stirring up effervescence: an ethnographic study of youth at a nightlife resort. Leis Stud 2013; 32(3): 233-248.
76. Tan QH. Flirtatious geographies: clubs as spaces for the performance of affective heterosexualities. Gend Place Cult 2013; 20(6): 718-736.
77. Fitzgerald J. Framing Drug Use: Bodies, Space, Economy and Crime. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
78. Brenner N, Elden S. Henri Lefebvre on state, space, territory. Int Polit Sociol 2009; 3(4): 353-377.
79. Kolind T, Duke K. Drugs in prisons: Exploring use, control, treatment and policy. Drugs (Abingdon Engl) 2016; 23(2): 89-92.
80. Vest BM, Brady LA, Brimmer MJ, et. al. Variations in risk and motivations for substance use over the course of military service. Subst Use Misuse 2021; 56 (4): 559-566.
81. Bullock T. Changing levels of drug use before, during and after imprisonment. Ramsay M (editor). Prisoners Drug Use And Treatment: Seven Research Studies. London, UK: Home Office Research Study, 2003: 23-48.
82. Mjåland K. A culture of sharing: drug exchange in a Norwegian prison. Punishm Soc 2014; 16(3): 336-352.
83. Goffman E. Characteristic of total instutions. In Symposium on Preventive and Social Psychiatry. WashingtonDC, 1957: 43-93.
84. Gojani D, Ahmeti P. Designing of center for treatment and rehabilitation from drug and alcohol addiction. University for Business and Technology International Conference, 2020: 336.
85. Kanu BC. Integration of Biophilic Design Principles in Drug Rehabilitation Centres Kano Nigeria. Master Thesis. Kano: Federal University of Tecnology, Department of Architecture, 2021.
86. Evered KT, Evered EÖ. “Not just eliminating the mosquito but draining the swamp” critical geopolitics of Turkish Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction and Turkey's approach to illicit drugs. Int J Drug Policy 2016; 33: 6-14.