SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

1

The Role of Subculture Theory in the Treatment and Correction of Addiction and
Drug Related Crime

A THESIS Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Graduate Studies and
Research of California University of Pennsylvania in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

by
Desiree M Birdseye

Research Advisor, Dr. Elizabeth Larsen
California, Pennsylvania
2013

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

2

CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
CALIFORNIA, PA

THESIS APPROVAL

Social Science, Applied Criminology Concentration

We hereby approve the Thesis of

Desiree Birdseye
Candidate for the degree of Master of Arts

Date

Faculty

________

_________________________________________

________

_________________________________________

________

_________________________________________

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

3

Dedication
I dedicate this thesis to my husband, William Birdseye, who supported this
research through patience, a way of life supporting its ideas, and my freedom to
always study what I want to for learning and bettering myself.

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

4

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank all of the professors in the applied criminology program at
California University of Pennsylvania for their work and guidance over the two
years I was their student.
I wish to thank Dr. Elizabeth Larsen for her excellent advice and work with
me on this research.
I wish to thank Dr. Emily Sweitzer for teaching me not only about crime but
also about qualitative research in this program and for agreeing to be on this
committee.
I would thank Dr. John Cencich for teaching me criminology, how it is
applied to investigative work and also for his guidance especially on how to write
well when he gave it.

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

5

Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 6
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 7
Review of Related Literature ................................................................................ 9
The Crime and Addiction Relationship ....................................................... 9
Definitions of Addiction ............................................................................ 11
The Debate on Explanatory Causes of Addiction .................................... 12
The Criminal Justice System’s Approach to Addiction ............................. 13
The Medical Community and Addiction Treatment .................................. 14
Sociological Discussions of Addiction ...................................................... 15
Definitions of Subculture and Subculture Theory ..................................... 16
Arguments for and Against Subculture Theory ........................................ 17
The Drug Related Subculture Concept .................................................... 18
Drug Related Identity Change and Cultural Identity ................................. 19
Application of Sociological Concepts to Addiction Treatment .................. 20
Application of Subculture Theory to Addiction Treatment ........................ 21
Method ............................................................................................................... 24
Results ............................................................................................................... 28
Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 32
References ......................................................................................................... 35
Appendix A: Questionnaire ................................................................................. 39
Appendix B: Participant Consent Letter .............................................................. 41
Appendix C: IRB Approval Letter ........................................................................ 42

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

6

Abstract
Drug related subcultures can cause or exacerbate addiction and drug
related crime. This study surveyed drug and alcohol clinic supervisors on their
opinions of the causes of addiction, the role of drug related subcultures in the
addiction disease process and crime related to it, and how subculture theory can
aid in treatment through asking how to approach the subcultures issue in
treatment and programming. It used an open-ended questionnaire and the
results indicated that subculture, based on opinions of professionals in the field,
does in fact exacerbate addiction, and the application of subculture theory is
helpful in treatment. Respondents’ answers to the questions are explained
qualitatively, and a concluding discussion connects grounded theory to the data.

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

7

Introduction
Few people, educated or not, would question whether or not addiction and
crime have a relationship. This thesis began in rehabilitative spirit with my
sincere desire to learn how to help those ill with addiction. Later, it evolved into
a theoretical discussion and a defense of the usefulness of a criminological
concept that is referred to sociologically as subculture. Last, it is a researched
application of subculture theory to solving the problem of addiction and how to
treat it.
Definition is often said to be the beginning to solving any problem. I would
also acknowledge that it is not unusual to apply a theory to explaining or solving
a problem. It is not unique to prefer an argument in analysis of sides of a
theoretical debate. Surely, many academic discussions accomplish these tasks
in one way or another. What is different in this thesis is the method of application
and manner of preference.
Criminology has long been informed by psychologists and sociologists to
be sure. After all these years of learning, it is appropriate to suggest that
criminology is able to inform psychology in return. It is also desirable and
practical for this to take place in the form of theoretical discussion concerning
how best to do so. Similarly, psychologists have long studied the police and the

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

8

criminal justice system. It is likewise beneficial in this research for a
criminological academic effort to study psychological professionals, in this case,
addiction counselors and their opinions of subculture as it relates to the causes
and presence of addiction and the correction of it. This thesis is, to some extent,
a meeting place of criminology and psychology.

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

9

Review of Related Literature
The crime and addiction relationship and how it is approached can be
summarized through discussing this relationship in terms of statistical realities,
medicinal approaches and issues, criminal justice answers, and sociological
discussion. Further, this thesis is about subculture and addiction, subculture and
how it has thus far been addressed, and areas that warrant additional
examination can also be seen in the literature.
The Crime and Addiction Relationship
In one recent analysis of prison inmates, Sims (2005) found that 57
percent of state inmates and 47 percent of federal inmates reported using drugs
in the month prior to their arrests. Further, she cites that 75 percent of all prison
inmates can be classified as drug involved offenders. The relationship between
drug abuse and criminality is unmistakable. Drugs impair judgment and create
criminal environments.
Wilson (2002) describes the relationship between drugs and crime when
he says, “illegal drugs contribute to crime by causing some people to steal in
order to buy them and other people to use force or bribery to maintain their
control over the supply” (p. 744). Whether one feels addiction leads to crime or
crime leads to addiction, a relationship exists not limited to the illegal nature of

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

10

drug use itself but also to the behaviors and lifestyles that accompany the
addicted condition. Adler, Mueller, and Laufer (2007) advise that property crimes
and violence are often associated with the drug-crime relationship, and they
explain that drug abuse and criminality stem from the same biological,
sociological and psychological factors. Addiction should be viewed as a
criminological as well as psychological problem.
Criminology is not alone in recognition of the drug-crime relationship. The
American Psychiatric Association (APA) describes for example opioid abuse in
terms of the reality that “legal difficulties may arise as a result of behavior while
intoxicated with opioids or because an individual has resorted to illegal sources
of supply (p. 271). The APA also notes that substance abuse of all types “can be
associated with violent or aggressive behavior” (p. 207).
Drug abuse and criminality are linked in a number of ways. Boyum,
Caulkins and Kleinman (2011) classify drug related crime into three categories.
First they discuss psychopharmacologic crime defining it as crimes committed
while under the influence of drugs. Second, systemic crime is crime related to
illegal drug markets, often violent. Third, economic-compulsive crime is crime
that emerges from addicts’ need to buy drugs.
The direct relationship between drugs and crime makes treating addiction
itself as imperative as enforcement of drug laws. To examine how to do so, it is
necessary to understand not only this relationship but also addictive pathology,
cause, treatment and related crime correction on a number of levels including
medicinal, legal and social remedies. The social solutions are the focus of this

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

11

paper but the medical and law enforcement issues can be examined to
understand how and why sociological understanding becomes also important.
Definitions of Addiction
Some consensus exists in the bulk of the literature on the matter of how to
define addiction. There are criminological, medical, and social definitions and
this review will consider them in this order. Typically, as Erickson (2007)
concludes, addiction is “a compulsive, pathological, impaired control over drug
use, leading to an inability to stop using drugs in spite of adverse consequences”
(p. 17). In similar theme, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (2000) defines addiction as “a
maladaptive pattern of substance use, leading to clinically significant impairment
or distress” (p. 197). Many modern approaches to addiction tend to favor these
ideas of addiction, which involve an involuntary loss of control over one’s own
behaviors.
Some recent definitions can be seen to consider addiction as originating
from multiple causes while still viewing it as a disease. The National Institute on
Drug Abuse (2013) defines addiction as a “multi-determined, maladaptive way of
coping with life problems that often becomes habitual and leads to a progressive
deterioration in life circumstance” and tells us that addiction is a “disease in its
own right” (p. 1).
Adrian (2003) gives us an encompassing definition of addiction in her
research as “a state of periodic or chronic intoxication produced by the repeated
consumption of a drug. Characteristics include compulsion, physical

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

12

dependence, dosage increasing tendency and effect detrimental to the individual
and society” (p. 1415). It is indeed true as she indicates that addiction affects not
only the person but also those around them, and it is useful to realize drug abuse
is a social ill as well.
The Debate on Explanatory Causes of Addiction
The questions that surround addiction can be seen as two-fold: First,
speculation regarding its classification as a disease, and second, determination
regarding its causes. Espejo (2011) includes in his book opposing viewpoints on
the matter that include four common definitions on the issue. First, addiction is a
brain disease. Second, addiction is a chronic disorder. Third, addiction is not a
disease (but rather a chosen behavior). Last, addiction is due to environmental
factors.
Many writers tell us these are the commonly held beliefs as to what
causes addiction. Sims (2005) similarly highlights the theories with respect to
considering correctional clients. Biological theory purports a predisposition to
addiction. Psychological theory considers variables such as low self-efficacy and
poor coping skills. Sociological theory considers concerns such as negative role
models during development, weak bonds to societal institutions, and family
interaction promoting addictive behavior.
Some scholars question if addiction is indeed involuntary or if it is to be
considered intentional deviance. Others emphasize social factors as primarily
responsible. For example, when discussing adolescent substance abuse
particularly, Milkman and Wanberg (2005) explain, “the role of social influence in

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

13

the etiology of adolescent substance abuse has been identified as central” (p.69).
The debate is extensive in the literature and only summarized here before turning
to relevant approaches to treatment.
The Criminal Justice System’s Approaches to Addiction Treatment
Treatment theory can be seen as related to causal factors. How a social
institution defines a social problem assists in demonstrating addiction is indeed a
social problem. Such definitions may also affect how social institutions go about
solving or controlling issues surrounding addiction. Wilson (2002) recommends
two strategic factors for responding to the drug problem, reducing demand and
reducing supply.
Law enforcement plays an important role in solving the crime and
addiction problem. Multi-agency partnerships and community policing show
promise according to some research as more effective than traditional policing
(Mazerolle, 2006). The New York Commission on Drugs and the Courts (2000)
found that addiction treatment is the key to reducing crime and that programs
that embrace this finding are most effective.
Many researchers agree that the best solution to drug related crime is
successful addiction treatment. Boyum et al., (2011) tell us that reducing crime is
unequivocally related to reducing drug abuse, and we would do well to study
effectiveness of drug treatment programs in a quest to solve the problem (p.
384). Drug courts have grown in number in the past twenty years (Stinchcomb,
2010). His study demonstrates that drug courts and the treatment they
administer in a spirit of “therapeutic jurisprudence” yield better results than

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

14

punishment efforts to correct drug offenders that have traditionally been used in
the past. It can be appropriately argued that in fact drug treatment and drug law
enforcement are not opposing goals in the solution to the drug problem, not at all.
Quite the contrary, one without the other would be less effective indeed.
Criminal justice programs that recognize such a multifaceted approach
have become more common in recent years and more numerous in varied
approaches (New York Commission on Drugs and the Courts, 2000). This is
evident in the literature where comparative studies involving comparing them to
traditional enforcement practices, are becoming more numerous as well. Prison
drug abuse treatment programs, community based treatment, other forms of
residential treatment, and juvenile drug treatment facilities are all efforts of the
criminal justice system aimed at treating and correcting drug related crime (Sims,
2005).
The Medical Community and Addiction Treatment
The medical community sees addiction as a disease, one to be treated
with various types of medications or therapies. Addiction treatment is becoming a
more specialized field in the medical community, but the premise remains the
same. Addiction is a disease. Yet, this field is evolving at a rapid pace (Scott,
2000).
Erickson (2007) explains that twelve step programs are common in
treatment of addiction in methadone clinics in treatment of opiate addicts. Half
way houses, detoxification units, outpatient psychotherapy, medical remedy by
doctors, and inpatient hospitalization are all among the medicinal approaches to

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

15

treating addiction and its effects on addicts from both physiological and
psychological perspectives.
Sociological Discussions of Addiction
Sociological theorists on addiction are far outnumbered by medical and
psychological considerations on the subject, but some relevant insight can be
found in the literature. Two articles by sociologists on addiction are particularly
relevant to this discussion.
First, Adrian (2003) developed a micro (individual) and macro (society)
interaction in considering addiction in cautioning us “addiction is an individual
behavior that has a social effect” (p. 1388). She summarizes the main
sociological theories of structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic
interactionism and how they can be used to understand addiction.
With regard to structural functionalism, she mentions Durkheim and tells
us the anomie condition is to blame. Anomie is defined by her as a sociological
condition that occurs when shared views of appropriate rules and behavior break
down. Anomie, as she explains, causes a state of weak or nonexistent norms.
Thus from this structural view, addiction is how some cope with anomie (Adrian,
2003).
Conflict theory examines disproportionate social control of deviance. Most
suited to the thesis in this study is the symbolic interactionist perspective. As
described by Adrian (2003), the deviance is learned like any other behavior
which provides a basis for her regarding the need for a macro-micro model when
considering addiction socially. She suggests further that we may therein “better

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

16

understand social, cultural, and structural drivers of addictive behaviors as they
condition and interact with individual socioeconomic and demographics of a
population as well as intrapsychic factors of the persons making up that
population” (p. 1414).
Weinberg (2011) more recently insisted addiction is not wisely construed
as only a biological condition and that we must consider addicts’ “wider social
lives.” (p. 299). Weinberg reviews for us historical sociological perspectives
related to addiction examples. This includes that of Merton who was of the view
that addicts represent a retreatist adaptation in their criminality. He notes the
work of Cloward and Ohlin who suggest addicts represent a double failure in that
they fail to achieve by legitimate or illegitimate means. He also reviews a
concept known as normative ambivalence theory which is a result of conflicting
normative orientations to drug use.
Weinberg tells us the main sociological debate on addiction is in
answering whether it is involuntary or intentionally deviant. In any case, and
leading to the thesis topic, Weinberg appreciates descriptions of drug cultures,
the social settings of drug activity and the self-identities of drug users. He tells
us rational choice theory is not credible in relation to addiction and that addiction
is culture bound. Last he stresses addiction is not “merely biological
determinism” (p. 307).
Definitions of Subculture and Subculture Theory
Tibbets and Hemmens (2010) in their criminology textbook tell us that
subcultural criminology sees subcultures as groups of individuals with different

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

17

norms than conventional values. To criminology having its roots in sociology,
culture is an important issue. Culture can be defined in more ways than one as
can subculture. Farley (1990) in his sociology textbook tells us culture is shared
in terms of knowledge and beliefs, language, values, ideology and social norms
which are behavioral expectations. He then defines subculture as “a set of
cultural characteristics shared among a group within a society that are distinct in
some ways from the larger culture within which the group exists” (p. 102).
Farley tells us there are two types of deviance. The first is primary which
relates to social, cultural, psychological situations. Secondary deviance evolves
out of an offender’s self-concept. Addiction and its related crime would be well
considered on both primary and secondary levels in this manner. Addicts need
help with many psychological and social issues.
As to whether drug-related subculture is a form of deviant subculture,
Gelder (2005) tells us that subcultures are positioned precariously in relation to
property, labor, class, and the law. Cohen (1955) tells us in his theory of
subcultures that the crucial condition for the emergence of new cultural forms is
“the existence, in effective interaction with one another, of a number of actors
with similar problems of adjustment” (p. 54). Irwin (1970) defines subculture as a
social world and an explicit lifestyle. Further, he sees subculture as an action
system.
Arguments for and Against Subculture Theory
Notwithstanding the support of sociologists and other subcultural theorists
discussed already and drug related subcultures discussed later in this review,

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

18

arguments against subculture theory exist. The most obvious arguments against
subculture theory come from fields other than sociology, but some sociological
arguments against its utility also exist.
According to Gelder (2007), the sociologist Jenks believes that subculture
theory ignores the big picture of society itself (p. 31). In examination of Jenks
(2005) directly, he does not use the term subcultural theory, but says that by,
“having a strong sense of together we can begin to understand and account for
what is outside, at the margins or defies the consensus” and that we need to
confirm “the human experience is the constant experience of limits” (p. 144).
According to Manning (2007), critiques of subcultural theory can be
numerous. Examples of arguments against this theoretical framework are that it
overlooks empirical research on popular cultures with regard to drug use; it
exaggerates the extent to which behavior is determined by social structures; and
it exaggerates the difference between the criminal and the law abiding individual
from sociological perspectives. Yet he reminds us subcultural theory is important
as it invites researchers to think seriously about the relationship between drug
consumption and social practices. Drug related crime lends itself to
consideration of subculture as related to drugs and the behaviors surrounding the
use of them.
The Drug-Related Subculture Concept
Based on the review of the literature thus far, there is support for the
theory that drug related subcultures exist. Other scholars corroborate such a
position. McHugh et al., (2012) discuss the role of a perceived belongingness to

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

19

a drug subculture with regard to opiate dependent patients. They explain, “illicit
drug use frequently occurs in a context of a drug subculture characterized by
social ties with other drug users, feelings of excitement and effectiveness
deriving from illicit activities, and alienation from mainstream society” (p. 1).
Golub, et al. (2005) discuss the relationship between subcultural evolution
and illicit drug use. They define a drug subculture as “an inter-related cluster of
cultural elements associated with the consumption of an illicit drug in social
settings” (p. 219).
Cohen and Short (1958) long ago described one type of a delinquent
subculture as being drug related. Smeja and Rojek (1986) tell us that drug
involvement is “intensely social behavior,” and as such, it lends itself to
subcultural existence.
Drug Related Identity Change and Cultural Identity Theory
Some promising more recent sociological theory on addiction rests on the
ideas of identity, which involves drug related identity and cultural identity.
Anderson (1998) explains two themes in her theory of drug related identity
change. First, is motivation and the second is opportunity. With the second, she
purports that drug subcultures provide important opportunities for drug related
identity change in that they offer deviant or alternative identities. These
opportunities are defined as the availability of drugs, drug-related friends, and a
drug lifestyle within a non-normative social context.
Interestingly, the micro (individual) and macro (environmental)
sociological spheres are both considered in the cultural identity theory of drug

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

20

abuse. Social identity in regard to subculture is taken up as well by Gelder
(2005).
Application of Sociological Concepts to Addiction Treatment
Berger and Luckman (1966) stated “human reality is socially constructed
reality” (p. 189). While the literature does not specify the application of
sociological theory to addiction treatment, it is important to consider sociological
theory applicability as well as explanatorily as Scott cautions us that thus far,
“treatment practices in addictions have not typically conceptualized from
research findings” (p. 210).
Studies on counseling topics with addicts discuss social issues as strongly
linked to positive outcomes in terms of issues such as friendships (Joe, et al.,
2009). Supportive counseling is stated to yield more positive outcomes for
patients than punitive. It is reasonable to offer support on social issues as well
as medical problems in treatment and correctional settings.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (2013) stresses the importance of
“staying away from negative people, places and things” and recommends
counseling topic themes such as managing high risk social situations and
responding to social pressures (p. 3). One recommended social solution found
with many addiction remedies is additional or exclusive participation in self-help
groups, which provide a social remedy for a social ill.
Adrian (2003) tells us that addiction counseling has a therapeutic effect
partially due to the fact that counseling has “an element of social intervention” (p.

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

21

1387). Annis et al., (1996) discusses relapse prevention as a critical component
of treatment and social factors including antecedents to using drugs are
important in this area of counseling.
Understanding the social realities, relationships, influences, opportunities,
hardships, social traumas, every day social lives and internalized social norms of
addicts is useful in treatment. It can help partially guide counseling theories and
should influence criminal justice policies. Social realities exist on individual as
well as group levels and drug related subculture should be considered in
determining treatments and policies not only in planning but also implementation.
Application of Subcultural Theory Specifically to Addiction Treatment
Tibbets and Hemmens (2010) tell us that criminal justice approaches to
deviant subculture can prove to be “ironic.” For example, people in high drug
crime neighborhoods live in more fear and do not get involved with law
enforcement than people in neighborhoods without drug crime problems, while
studies show community- based intervention is the most effective (p. 393). They
recommend programs that help negate anti-social cultural norms with high- risk
youth and anti- aggression training programs. It becomes apparent that
subculture theory is most often used as descriptive and suggestions for its
application to solving crime or treating illness are very few. Addicts are affected
by drug related subcultures and frequently enter treatment programs after having
just come out or experience relapse while still participating in the programs.
At a minimum, subculture theory lends understanding to supporting the
research of sociologists. At best, it shows the problem facing many addicts and

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

22

how being a part of a drug related subculture affects sense of self, social
relationships, and thinking. Subculture theory can be considered not only in
individual treatments but also in group treatment settings.
It may seem impractical to apply a criminological theory to a treatment as
opposed to an investigation, prosecution, or policy. But if we know drug related
subculture affects feelings of identity, addictive behaviors, evolution of addiction,
escalation of crime due to addiction, lack of conformity with society, and deviance
however it is defined, we know a person needs to be treated not only
psychologically but also socially, and that the social component of treatment
should consider and respond to drug related subcultures.
Based on a review of the literature, this research sought to ascertain how
subculture theory could aid in addiction treatment and programming.
Accordingly, the following discussion of this study’s method and results and
ensuing conclusions support the further examination of drug related subculture
realities and also the possibilities for applying subculture theory to treatment of
addiction and correction of drug related crime.
An open-ended survey was selected due to the theoretical and practical
discussion that comes with professional opinion surveys on this issue. It is
certainly useful to study the lives of addicts, treatments by studying patients
themselves or outcomes or relapse rates of individual programs, or even to study
them comparatively. This study goes further by undertaking a survey of drug and
alcohol treatment supervisors and evaluating how their responses are related to
many of the questions and issues presented in this literature review. Direct,

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

open-ended questions in a survey questionnaire, through qualitative analysis,
and through an inclusive method and conclusive recommendations based on
professional opinions were used. There is no competitiveness, deception,
experimentation or treatment applied in this research.

23

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

24

Method
Participants
The participants in this study were recruited from the 2011 National
Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs published online by
the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. Copies of this directory are available
from the web link http://oas.samhsa.gov.
As the mailings were addressed “Attention Director or Supervisor,” the
participants were in supervisory positions at the clinics selected for mailing of the
approved questionnaire, response envelope and cover letter. It is reasonable to
assume that the individuals addressed completed the questionnaires but
realistically due to the study’s anonymity, other employees could have done so. It
is most likely the supervisors who completed the returned surveys. I assert that
other professionals in the field (other employees at the clinics) would provide
equally useful and valid data to this study.
Five hundred surveys were sent out. Fifty-three were returned as having
had undeliverable addresses, and 103 completed surveys came back for a
response rate of 23 percent. The respondents varied greatly according to years

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

25

working in addiction treatment and highest educational degree earned. The
following two tables represent the distribution of the two attributes:

Educational Level

Number

High School Diploma
Some College
Associates Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree
Doctorate Degree
Doctor of Nursing Practice
Medical Doctor
Unreported Attribute
Total

1
1
4
13
68
8
1
2
5
103

Years Working in Field
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26 or more
Unreported attribute
Total

Number
15
21
11
11
23
20
2
103

Regarding participant characteristics, only education and years of
experience in addiction treatment were solicited. The questionnaire did not ask
for any personal demographic information from participants and did not ask for
name or other personal identifying information. The participants were thereby
assured anonymity and threats to the internal validity of the study were
minimized.
Procedure

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

26

After seeking and receiving Institutional Review Board approval from
California University of Pennsylvania, five hundred questionnaires, return
envelopes and cover letters were mailed out to randomly selected clinics to the
attention of supervisors/directors from the directory. Random selection was
based upon selecting one or two potential subjects from each page of listings for
each state. Ten were sent to each of 50 states of the United States, totaling the
500. Methadone clinics, private practices, halfway houses, detoxification units,
and full service clinics were all included in the selection process. Preference was
not given to any one particular modality of treatment. It is suggested that this
sampling method allowed for the process of addiction treatment to be studied
from various perspectives for better understanding and inclusive results. A
postage paid return envelope was provided for anonymous response.
Responses were analyzed qualitatively in searching for similar themes
with regard to content for the purposes of answering the study’s research
questions. The results section of this study explains similarities in answers in this
manner to the questions posed to participants. Reliability was not tested, as this
is a descriptive study seeking valid, qualitative opinion, and as such, not
measuring variables quantitatively.
Questionnaire
This research used a questionnaire to study drug and alcohol clinic
supervisor opinions regarding some of the issues of subculture as these relate to
addiction and drug related crime. An open-ended question format was used
asking four questions as follows of participants:

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

27

1. In your opinion, is addiction best explained as a result of social,
psychological or biological factors?
2. Subculture is defined as a set of cultural characteristics shared among a
group within a society that are distinct in some ways from the larger
culture within which the group exists. In your opinion, what role does
subculture have in the development of addiction, addictive behaviors and
crime?
3. In your opinion, how should treatment programs approach the issue of
drug related subcultures in their programming?
4. In your opinion, can an understanding of drug related subculture and its
application to treatment of addiction increase positive outcomes for
patients?
It is possible that the wording of some questions (1 and 4) allowed for
yes/no answers as well as invitation for detailed responses. The results section
of this study contains explanations for the answers to the questions in terms of
common themes. The section on conclusions explains how the participants’
responses to the questionnaires relates to the original research questions and
concerns.

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

28

Results
Question #1: In your opinion, is addiction best explained as a result of
social, psychological or biological factors?
This question resulted in varied answers, but certain common themes
emerged. More than half of the respondents stated that addiction is a
combination of social, psychological and biological factors. The relative
importance and chronological occurrence of these factors varied. Some
respondents explained that addictions begin as a social ill and becomes a
biological illness later or alternatively, one has a biological predisposition that
later becomes a psychological, social illness.. Some respondents used the
phrase “biopsychosocial disease” to explain addiction. Others simply stated,
“yes” in response to this question.
Of those that did not state a combination of factors and emphasized only
one cause as the explanation for addiction, biology was emphasized rather than
social causes. Atypical responses included two of the three causal relationships
for emphasis, and in instance, the respondent stated only “biological and social”
and two stated “biological and psychological” reasons for their explanations.

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

29

Question #2: Subculture is defined as a set of cultural characteristics
shared among a group within a society that are distinct in some ways from
larger culture with in which the group exits. In your opinion, what role
does subculture have in the development of addiction, addictive behaviors
and crime?
The second question asked about the role of subculture in addiction
development and drug related crime. Two types of answers were found in the
majority of responses:
1. To state that what is expected (norms), beliefs and actions, and ethics
are different within a drug related subculture. 2. Emphasizing that the
socialization, availability of drugs and reinforcement of addictive behaviors
present in subculture are culprit in the addiction process. These responses seem
to agree that subculture promotes addiction and drug related crime, and positive
socialization is therefore lacking.
Some participants interpreted the definition of the term subculture to
include family relationships, especially those with traumatic history. Some
emphasized socioeconomic class as being related to subculture and drugs.
Isolated comments to this question were that it is has biological not social
origins and is not a social illness, that it does not cause addiction but has a role,
which depends on the person and context. Other related comments included the
idea that crime increases due to drug related subculture, that crime does not
cause addiction but addiction causes crime, and that crime is learned while
addiction is not. Others provided uncertain responses, left the item blank, or

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

30

stated that addiction affects everyone and is not subcultural. One respondent
stated, “addiction itself is a subculture.” The issue of the need for multicultural
sensitivity was raised in the responses to this question as well.
Question #3: In your opinion, how should treatment programs approach the
issue of drug related subcultures in their programming?
Three common themes arose in answers to the third question. First,
answers emphasized the recommendations and concerns for cultural
competence and diversity trainings of staff and creation of culturally competent
policies in addiction treatment. Second, treatment should in some manner
address and discuss subculture in treatment specifically. Answers in this second
regard contained ideas such as learning to recognize, explore, talk about,
respect, or eliminate the subculture. Third, treatment should change addicts’
subcultures and create new social relationships. This theme provided contained
recommendations to “create a counter culture,” learn different norms and values,
invite family or church, embrace Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous,
help addicts to find assistance, help addicts to escape drug related subcultures,
or encourage clients in treatment to make new relationships.
Isolated comments can be mentioned with this question as well. For
example, some respondents stated that addiction is not due to subculture, that
we should create prevention programs, drug dealers should not be placed in the
same treatment groups with addicts, that it “takes time” to treat all three causes
of addiction, simply answering with the word “carefully,” creating guidelines in
treatment for acceptable behavior, simply stating yes or need to include

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

31

subculture in the treatment programs, recommending that relevant education
start in school years, and that treatment should be “broadened” to include
subcultures.
Question #4: In your opinion, can an understanding of drug related
subculture and its application to treatment of addiction increase positive
outcomes for patients?
Nearly all participants responded affirmatively to the final question as to
whether or not understanding subculture and applying it to treatment can
increase positive outcomes for addicts. There were many ways in which the
responses were formulated but very few disagreed with the premise of the
question. Some respondents emphasized how positive outcomes would come
about in preventing relapse and in understanding triggers.
Some of the respondents emphasized the importance of the addicts not
returning to the subcultures after treatment. Recommendations that programs be
built on clients’ specific needs and not to “talk down” to addicts were made by at
least two participants. The word “yes,” though, was written in many of the
answers to this question. One respondent explained, “positive outcomes happen
as readiness to change increases.”
Individual unrepeated comments in the data included responding that
subculture is of little relevance, understanding alone will not stop it, stated simply
no, or as one participant stated, “it is only one piece of the puzzle.” Three of the
clients who are social workers emphasized the importance of “meeting the client
where they are at.”

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

32

Conclusions
Conceptual mapping of the subculture concept and the theories of
addiction is a precedent to studying further how to approach subculture in
addiction treatment. Such a process demonstrates that the issue does in fact
need to be addressed, provides insight into how it should be addressed, and
assists in formulating a good starting point for investigation of how to improve the
mental health and social deviance of addicts. As shown in this study, some
elements of addiction treatment might be debated, but agreement can be found
in many places as well. It is in the context of such relevant consensus that this
research rests.
It is evident from the 103 respondents’ contributions to this study that drug
related subculture is not only a valid criminological concept, but also a serious
problem. If many of the respondents feel drug related subcultures can be defined
as those having norms and ethics contrary to mainstream society, that of deviant
socialization and those involving the availability of drugs and addicted lifestyles,
then it is an important consideration in treatment planning. While differences
existed in responses on what causes addiction, there was little disagreement as
to whether addressing subculture would improve outcomes for patients. Indeed,
virtually all respondents were of this view. The detailed responses of how to go
about addressing it from the research participants are acknowledged and

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

33

appreciated even though this writing focused on emerging dominant themes in
answers to the questionnaires’ questions.
I claim the following correctional and treatment findings based on the results
of this study as being supported by the survey responses of drug and alcohol
clinic supervisors:
1. Subculture contributes to the development and exacerbation of addiction.
2. Addiction is a biological, psychological, and social disease, and its
remedies should involve strategies addressing all three causal factors.
3. Drug-related subculture should not be underemphasized, and it should be
addressed in treatment and correction of addicted persons.
4. Addressing drug related subcultures should be done directly while creating
other non-deviant social opportunities with clients.
5. To help prevent relapse, former involvement in drug related subculture
should be explored, and relapse prevention should include prevention of
involvement in similar social situations.
6. Cultural sensitivity is important to addiction treatment professionals.
Every study has its strengths and limitations. First, the scope of this study
is to gather and analyze the perspectives of drug addiction clinic supervisors on
the role played by subculture in drug addiction. The results of the research
provide and inform direction for future investigation. Subsequent research may
want to consider querying similar groups of professionals on topics such as
crimes or how they are committed in connection with the drug and crime
relationship. Second, ideas on how to incorporate subculture theory into therapy

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

34

were more suggestive generally than instructive specifically. This opens up a
new focus of investigation. Last, an understanding of correcting criminality as
part of the addiction treatment process, as either incidental or as an additional
component in treatment, was not directly answered as it went beyond the scope
of this project. Here too, the results of this research provide guidance for further
investigation.
In conclusion, recommendations for future studies as a result of this
research might be to examine how the respondents in this study would “explore”
subculture including treatment, techniques, and relevant ethical considerations.
It may also be useful to study what theoretical orientations of therapists lend
themselves to what opinions on addiction treatment. Last, further inquiry relating
to the timing of socially themed remedy in treatment versus when to focus on
more internal, individual psychological coping skills would also be helpful.

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

35

References
Adler, F., Mueller, G., & Laufer, W. (2007). Criminology and the criminal justice
system. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Adrian, M. (2003). How can sociological theory help our understanding of
addictions? Substance Use and Misuse, 38(10), 1385-1423.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
Anderson, T. & Mott, J. (1998). Drug-related identity change: Theoretical
development and empirical assessment. Journal of Drug Issues, 28(2),
299-328.
Annis, H., Schober, R., & Kelly, E. (1996). Matching addiction outpatient
counseling to client readiness for change: The role of structured relapse
prevention counseling. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology,
4(1), 37-45.
Berger, P. & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York,
NY: Anchor Books.
Boyum, D., Caulkins, J. &Kleiman, M. (2011). Drugs, crime and public policy. In
J. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 368-410).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. (1955). A general theory of subcultures. In K. Gelder (Ed.), The

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

36

subcultures reader (pp. 50-59). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cohen, A. & Short, J. (1958). Research in delinquent subcultures. Journal of
Social Issues, 14(3), 20-37. Abstract retrieved from National Criminal
Justice Reference Service. http://www.ncjrs.gov
Erickson, C. (2007). The science of addiction. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &
Co.
Espejio, R. (Ed.). (2011). Chemical dependency. New York, NY:
Greenhaven Press.
Farley, J. (1990). Sociology. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gelder, K. (2007). Subcultures: Cultural histories and social practice. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Golup, A., Johnson, B., & Dunlap, E. (2005). Subcultural evolution and illicit drug
use. Addiction Research and Theory, 13(3), 217-229.
Irwin, J. (1970). Notes on the status of the concept subculture. In K. Gelder
(Ed.), The subcultures reader (pp.73-77). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jenks, C. (2005). Subculture: The fragmentation of the social. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Joe, G., Simpson, D., & Rowan-Szal, G. (2009). Interaction of counseling
Rapport and topics discussed in sessions with methadone treatment
clients. Substance Use and Misuse, 44, 3-17. doi:
10.1080/10826080802525876
Manning, P. (2007). Drugs and popular culture. United Kingdom: Willan

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

Publishing.
Mazerolle, L., Rombouts, S. & Soole, D. (2006). Street-level drug law
enforcement: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 2, 409-435. doi: 10.1007/s11292-006-9017-6
Moshier, S., McHugh, K., Caulkins, A., Hearon, B., Rosellini, A., Weitzman,
M., & Otto, M. (2012). The role of perceived belongingness to a drug
subculture among opioid-dependent patients. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 26(4), 812-820. Abstract retrieved from PsycArticles
Database. http://psycnet.apa.org
Milkman, H. & Wanberg, K. (2005). Criminal conduct and substance abuse
treatment for adolescents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (2013). Description of addiction counseling
approach. Archives. Retrieved from
http://archives.drugabuse.gov/ADAC/ADAC7.html
New York Commission on Drugs and the Courts. (2000). Confronting the cycle
addiction and recidivism. Retrieved from
www.nycourts.gov/reports/addictionrecidivism.shtml
Scott, C. (2000). Ethical issues in addiction counseling. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 43(4), 209-214.
Sims, B. (Ed.). (2005). Substance abuse treatment with correctional clients.
Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
Smeja, C. & Rojek, D. (1986). Youthful drug use and drug subcultures.

37

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

38

International Journal of Addictions, 9, 1031-1050. Abstract retrieved from
PubMed. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3793308
Stinchcomb, J. (2010). Drug courts: Conceptual foundation, empirical findings
and policy implications. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 17(2),
148-167.
Tibbets, S. & Hemmens, C. (2010). Criminological theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Weinberg, D. (2011). Sociological perspectives on addiction. Sociology
Compass, 5(4), 298-310.
Wilson, J. (2002). Crime and public policy. In S. Tibbetts & C. Hemmens (Eds.),
Criminological theory (pp. 736-750). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

39

Appendix A: Questionnaire
Student Research Questionnaire
Your Highest Degree Earned: _____________________
Number of Years working in Addiction Treatment: ______________________
Please answer as briefly or as in as much detail as you wish the following four questions
and return this page in the pre-addressed envelope provided. Thank you.
1. In your opinion, is addiction best explained as a result of social, psychological or
biological factors?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
________________________
2. Subculture is defined as a set of cultural characteristics shared among a group
within a society that are distinct in some ways from larger culture with in which
the group exists. In your opinion, what role does subculture have in the
development of addiction, addictive behaviors and crime?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
________________________
3. In your opinion, how should treatment programs approach the issue of drug
related subcultures in their programming?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

40

__________________________________________________________________
________________________
4. In your opinion, can an understanding of drug related subculture and its
application to treatment of addiction increase positive outcomes for patients?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
________________________

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

41

Appendix B: Participant Consent Letter

BIR8531@calu.edu
February 19, 2013
Dear Sir or Mam,
My name is Desiree Birdseye. I am graduate student of social science, applied criminology at
California University of PA. I am conducting research on culture as it relates to addiction and I
am seeking the opinions of addiction treatment professionals in my research.
I have enclosed a brief questionnaire, and I would appreciate your completion of it in the
enclosed postage paid envelope. Participation is voluntary. Your responses will be anonymous
and confidential. Participation may be discontinued at any time without penalty and all data will
be discarded. There is no risk exceeding that of normal daily living. Return of this survey
constitutes consent to use the data.
The results will be housed at the California University of PA in a locked cabinet in the Law,
Justice and Society Department.
This research is approved by the California University of PA Institutional Review Board effective
2/15/2013 and expires 2/16/2014. My faculty adviser’s name is Dr. Elizabeth Larsen and she can
be reached at 724-938-4149 if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Desiree Birdseye

SUBCULTURE AND ADDICTION

42

IRB Approval Letter Information
The Institutional Review Board of California University of PA approved of
this study with revisions and stipulations to the original proposal and their
approval is available for review, if requested, of the faculty.