on the mount olympus perspective

On the Mount Olympus PerspectiveAuthor(s): Ted GoldbergSource: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1974), pp. 150-161Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4193993 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 15:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ActaSociologica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.191 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:05:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4193993?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ON THE MOUNT OLYMPUS PERSPECTIVE*

Ted Goldberg

University of Uppsala

By concentrating our theorizing to data collected from the "outer perspective" (standing on Mount Olympus), many sociologists have led themselves and each other into a blind alley, resulting in the development of elaborate theoretical schemes to explain behavior which does not exist other than as a facade. This article takes four recent. Scandinavian studies in the field of deviant behavior and uses them to illustrate four basic problems with the Mount Olympus perspective; non-normative assumptions, significant questions, penetrating the surface of ones data, and what could be called academic endogamy. These studies are compared with a study done from the "inner perspective".

Introduction

One of the first decisions which must be made when planning social science research is to choose the perspective from which one wishes to view the subject under study. This decision must be made because the

totality of the subject to be researched is almost always so vast that it is a

practical impossibility to view the entirety. We are, if you will, effec-

tively blind to the whole and therefore must study the parts in an attempt to gain information relative to the whole. Our dilemma is somewhat analogous to the three blind Indians who were trying to describe an elephant. The first who had taken hold on the animals trunk proclaimed that an elephant is long and cylindrical like a tree trunk. The second, feeling along the great beast's tail, declared that the animal was long and

thin, something like a snake. The third, feeling the elephant's ear, was inclined to disagree. An elephant is obviously flat and round, something like a dinner plate.

None of our Indians have been dishonest, and like good scientists they have reported their findings as accurately as possible within the limita- tions of their conceptual structures. However, none of them alone, nor all of them together, have managed to give us a complete or accurate picture of the object under study.

I am not trying to use this analogy to point out the weakness of

scientific inquiry. I simply use this little story to exemplify the first

* The present article is a modified version of a paper first presented at the Nordic research conference at Grenaa, Denmark, 1973.

150



aspect of the concept of perspective. Perspective must give us a mental view of the relation of parts to one another and to the whole. This aspect will be touched upon in this paper but will not be the primary matter of concern.

The second aspect of perspective is the appearance of the object under study with reference to relative position and distance. The distance from which we view our subject matter can be dichotomized by referring to an inner and an outer perspective. Put simply, the latter assumes that the study of man's behavior or conduct is adequate to produce knowledge about social life. The inner perspective assumes that understanding can only be achieved by actively participating in the life of the observed and gaining insight by means of introspection. From my point of view there is no basic contradiction between the inner and outer perspective. Adequate knowledge about social life can be produced by neither one nor the other alone; both should be used in conjunction with one another.'

However, the majority of studies in the sociology of deviant behavior seem to be oriented primarily towards the outer perspective, with a subsequent neglect of the inner perspective. This type of one-sidedness I call the Mount Olympus perspective. On Mount Olympus dwelled the greater gods of Greece. From their vantage point high above the ordinary members of the population in the valley below, the gods did not have to bother themselves with active participation in the social life of those below them, except of course on terms dictated by the gods themselves. Such a perspective was sufficient for the purposes of the gods but is it sufficient for sociology? Or is it as poet Birger Norman says; "The experts have a view from above, but the people see from below. Researchers have a lot of education but little insight. They note everything that takes place, but know nothing of what is happening. Then we get information, but the information is spurious. Information is a view from above, insight is a view from below."

In this paper I do not intend to discuss the methodological advantages of different approaches to social research. Instead I will look at some of the findings gleaned through the Mount Olympus perspective and analyze them in the light of data collected through participant observation research; a method well suited to both the outer and inner perspective. Because my participant observation research concerned drug abuse, I shall limit my discussion to studies which take up this subject. That I only use Scandinavian studies to exemplify my points, is not due to Scandinavians having a monopoly on the use of the Mount Olympus perspective, but because I wish to bring the matter "close to home."

151

I It would take me too far afield to review the vast literature with the sociology of knowledge debating this point. By simply stating my stand- point I do not wish to indicate that the matter is unproblematic. Inter- ested readers can refer to Eriksson, 1972 or Israel, 1972 to name but two.



Assumptions

I would like to make a distinction between two types of assumptions in scientific research. The first can be called normative assumptions, and refer to statements which are accepted as self-evident and not subject to empirical investigation. Included in this category are assumptions as to the metaphysical nature of human beings, the nature of the social order, and the nature of the relationships between man and society.

The question at hand is not whether or not normative assumptions are necessary. I am in agreement with Israel when he states: . . . "all sociological, social psychological and psychological theories are dependent upon normative assumptions about the nature of the phenomena under study." (Israel,1972, p.24)

Becoming cognizant of the normative assumptions upon which we base our arguments is of great importance in the social sciences. Myrdal's discussion of objectivity in social research is based upon this point. "The most fundamental methodological problems facing the social scientist are therefore, what is objectivity, and how can the student obtain objectivity in trying to find out the facts and the causal relationships between the facts? How can a biased view be avoided? More specifically, how can the student of social problems liberate himself from (1) the powerful heritage of earlier writings in his field of inquiry, ordinarily containing normative and teleological notions inherited from past generations and founded upon the metaphysical moral philosophies of natural law and utilitarianism from which all of our social and economic theories have branched off; (2) the influences of the entire cultural, social, economic and political milieu of the society where he lives, works, and earns his living and his status; and (3) the influence stemming from his own personality, as molded not only by traditions and enVironment but also by his individual history, constitution and inclinations?" (Myrdal, 1970, pp. 3-4)

The essence of what Myrdal is trying to convey is that none of us approach our science "tabula rasa". We are to a large extent a product of the surroundings in which we have lived, and the science we produce is therefore also a product of these surroundings. To put the matter in terms of assumptions, the normative assumptions we make in doing our research reflect our backgrounds and experiences.

The importance of being aware of one's normative assumptions and the effects that assumptions can have on results can be easily exemplified by extending the concept of self-fulfilling prophecies. Basically a self- fulfilling prophecy is an assumption (or set of assumptions) which so dominate the approach to the subject under study that our observations can be seen as being merely a reflection of these assumptions. We have, in other words, "assumed" away the problem of validity.

While the question of normative assumptions is essential, it is the second type of assumption, non-normative assumptions, that will be my primary concern in this paper. Non-normative assumptions are state-

152



ments accepted without empirical proof as a basis for reasoning. That which distinguishes non-normative assumptions from normative assumptions is that it is possible to do empirical research on the subject matter of non-normative assumptions. That an assumption rather than an ex post hypothesis is incorporated into ones reasoning reflects a scientific lack rather than a metaphysical dilemma, as is the case with normative assumptions.

In this paper I shall relate the non-normative assumptions we make to the perspective we take. The methodology we use (that is our research design) greatly affects the quantity and quality of data we collect on different aspects of the subject study. The methods we choose reflect the perspective from which we have chosen to do our study.

Whatever methods or perspective we choose, there will always be some sides of the problem about which we will have unsatisfactory information. One way to compensate for this lack of data is to make non- normative assumptions as to what the results of valid research on this area would bring to light. Non-normative assumptions must not be contradictory to known data, and they ought to be a link in the chain of causal explanation for the data one has at hand. However, I want to emphasize that arguments based on valid empirical data are stronger than those based upon non-normative assumptions.

I shall now attempt to exemplify how the perspective taken in a study affects the data one has at hand, which in turn affects what it is one is trying to explain, and leads to the incorporation of non-normative assumptions into one's explanations. By choosing two studies with similar symbolic interactionistic theoretical orientations, but different perspectives, we shall be in a good position to evaluate this process.

Boglind et al's (1973) book on deviant careers is an example of research done from the Mount Olympus perspective. The author's source of data is primarily secondary analysis. This implies neither that there is anything basically wrong with secondary analysis, nor that secondary analysis necessarily leads to the Mount Olympus perspective. That their study is a Mount Olympus study is due to the choice of data to be incorporated into their theoretical analysis. Thus by choosing a research design where they did not collect data from the inner perspective, and by not being sufficiently oriented towards data gleaned from the inner perspective, they fell offer to data collected through the outer perspective. (This is probably due to the fact that such data is by far the most dominant in the sociological litterature.) More specifically, they have gleaned from the sociological litterature on deviance that society by labeling an individual limits his possibilities of interaction. As it is now difficult for him to associate with "respectable" people, he must seek a new interaction structure which he can use to maintain his positive self-image. As symbolic interactionists believe that the self-image is developed and maintained in interaction with others, significant others, the individual will associate with those who will provide him with the

153



responses necessary for the maintenance of his positive self-image. Herein lies the secret of deviant groups.

Boglind et al's research, like all good scholarship, shows internal consistency, originality in making new syntheses, consistent and clear use of theif conceptual framework, explains the data at hand, and can be used as a basis from which predictions can be made. What then is lacking in the research? I suggest that the Mount Olympus perspective has led them to consider too limited data. In order to clarify this limited data, they make a non-normative assumption, which while probably true for people in the academic circles in which we live, is not necessarily true within other groups of people. The non-normative assumption behind Boglind et al's arguement is: (within the framework of society in which he lives) "the individual strives after a self-image, which gives him a positive self-evaluation." (Boglind et al, 1973, p. 54).

This non-normative assumption can be divided into two smaller assumptions. The first is that the individual is a striver in regards to his social surroundings (the source of his self-image according to Symbolic interactionist thought.) This idea of striving is developed further a few pages later when the authors borrow Homan's cost-reward ideas and translate them into interactionistic terms. This leads them to the hypothesis: "The individual chooses to interact with those individuals within his possibility structure, from which he expects to gain an optimal profit, that is the best possible self-evaluation in relation to the costs." (italics theirs) (ibid, p. 56)

The second non-normative assumption which can be' gleaned from their original assumption becomes more clear when we look at the hypothesis quoted above; that is that the individual is interested in having a positive self-evaluation. Note that I quite agree with Boglind et al that for most people in our society, or at least those we as academics are likely to come into deeper contact with in our daily lives, such an assumption is probably valid. But Boglind et al apply their ideas to so called deviants and deviant groups, and thus we must look more closely at such people to see if the assumptions hold for them as well.2 To do this I turn to my own research on a group of drug abusers ("heads") in Stockholm. (Goldberg, 1973)3

After having lived together with the heads for almost a year, I find almost any attempt to positively correlate the word "strive" to members of my group as bordering on the absurd. Far from striving to arrange things to meet one's own needs, there is almost a universal paralysis within the group, in regards to getting things done, expecially when there is pressure from others to do them. At times the mere act of having to wash a dirty shirt becomes an insurmountable barrier which drives the head into total inactivity. (See Goldberg, 1973, p. 50)

There is a universal fear of failure among the members of the group. After a long prior history of failures, heads have developed an inability to organize things and come to decisions because they lack faith in their own abilities to succeed. Thus we find endless talk and a lack of action

154

2 Sten Johansson (1968) found that the concept of "economic man" as commonly used by eco- nomists to explain human behavior, was a useful tool in describing the behavior of economi- cally successful individuals, but did not pertain to less successful people. Israel (1972, p. 61 f) ascribes the creation of the concept "economic man" to a mixture of normative assumptions and factual observations on the behavior of eco- nomists and their closest friends. Homans has translated the concept of "economic man" into his cost- reward theory, which Boglind et al incorporate into their theoretical analysis.

3 Due to lack of space, I will limit myself to brief summaries of my own research findings. Read- ers interested in a more complete analysis and the data upon which the analysis is grounded, are refcrred to the original text.



within the group, plans which are made but rarely executed, and an inability to do anything about the intense boredom which marks everyday life on the scene. That individuals who often cannot strive to arrange for their next meal, and who generally have a fatalistic philosophy towards life, would strive to maximize their profits in interpersonal relationships, must be incongruous.

As for heads attempting to maintain a positive self-evaluation, I found that they do not have a positive self-evaluation to maintain. In fact they have never had a positive self-evaluation in their lives. They have been labeled first by their parents, and later by different representatives for society, and have thus not had the opportunity to develop positive self-evaluations. When one penetrates beneath the slogans and the in-group propaganda which surrounds the scene, one finds that almost all of the older heads are dissatisfied both with themselves and the scene. Although almost all of them would like to change the life they are now leading, few of them manage to do it, because their fears of failure make them unable to strive after a goal, and actively create their own milieu. At best they can try to get the police to arrest them by dealing out in the open, cashing stolen travellers checks with their own passports, talking too much and too loudly before smuggling trips, etc. As one head put it, "I'd like it if I were arrested. It would be a change."

Obviously this kind of data cannot be explained with Boglind et al's non-normative assumptions. In fact just the opposite of their assumption is probably closer to the truth. Due to their never having had a positive self-image, and that their negative self-images have been reinforced so many times through labeling, they have come to believe in their own incompetence. Whenever they attempt to do something they expect to fail. Success in itself is incongruous to their self-images. Thus they are drawn to situations defined by society as failure. By doing so they reconfirm their negative self-images. Deviant groups are born and sustain- ed, not to achieve a positive self-image, but rather to maintain the negative self-image the deviant already has.

Significant Questions

Glaser & Strauss take the position that "theory based on data can usually not be completely refuted by more data or replaced by another theory. Since it is too intimately linked to data, it is destined to last despite its inevitable modification and reformulation." (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 4) In principle I can agree with this statement but it is based upon an assumption which should be made explicit; that is that the data upon which we base our theories is valid. I will not go into a discussion here as to what criteria must be met to establish the validity of data, as it would take me too far afield. I will, however, point out that a great deal of the data sociologists make use of are answers given by respondents to our questions. There is an old expression which says: "if you ask a stupid

155



question, you get a stupid answer." To relate this to the problem of perspective, I am unable to

understand how a researcher who has not come into contact with the inner perspective of his research subjects, can have faith in his ability to ask questions which will be experienced as significant by the people who are to answer them. As long as the sociologist is not acquainted with the subculture of the people he wishes to study he can only ask questions which are significant for his own sub-culture. These questions might be insignificant or even completely absurd in the group under study.

Still another problem arises when we attempt to interpret the data we have collected. If we have not grasped the inner perspective, we will be forced to use our own value system as the basis for the interpretation of another value system. Perhaps the most basic principle of social anthropology is that one must get away from the tyranny of one's own learned perceptions. As Bohannan put it: "There is no more complete way to misunderstand a foreign civilization than to see it in terms of one's own civilization." (Bohannan, 1969, p. 9) Perhaps we sociologists do not consider our research subjects as members of a foreign civilization but as Becker and Geer point out: "Any social group, to the extent that it is a distinctive unit, will have to some degree a culture differing from that of other groups, a somewhat different set of common understandings around which action is organized, and these differences will find expression in a language whose nuances are peculiar to that group and fully understood only by its members . . . We are somewhat in the same position as the anthropologist who must learn a primitive language, with the important difference that, as Icheiser put it, we often do not understand that we do not understand, and are thus likely to make errors in interpreting what is said to us." (Becker & Geer, 1970, p. 134)

To exemplify just how far afield these problems can lead us, we can look

at a study by Herulf which was one of the studies sponsored by Narkoman- vArdskommitt6n in Sweden. One of the very first items in his questionnaire was: Do you smoke? Yes No (Herulf, 1969, p. 38) To those who are uninitiated in drug circles the question is straight-forward enough. It obviously means, do you smoke tobacco. However, among the heads in Stock- holm, the question means, do you smoke haschish. That the question pro- ceeds to ask how many cigarettes per day one smokes, and thus makes it clear that it is tobacco and not haschish the researcher is interested in doesn't help matters. The first part of the question has already been answered. How many went back and changed their answer? How many didn't? How many interpreted the question as meaning hasch to begin with? How many decided that the researcher is a hopeless square who deserves to be fooled thus affecting the way they answered the rest of the questions? How are we to evaluate the validity of the data? Are the theoretical conclusions of the study to be considered grounded in data?

156



Penetrating the Facade

Another major problem with the Mount Olympus perspective is the difficulty one has in penetrating under the surface of the material one is studying. If a researcher does secondary analyzis when he himself has but little personal contact with the people he is studying, it becomes difficult for him to see the inner perspective in the material at hand, even when it is written from the inner perspective, as he has little basis from which to choose what is relevant. He can only choose what seems to agree with his own superficial observations. As his own observations haven't penetrated the surface, there is a risk that those parts of the inner perspective which aren't readily recognizable from his own way of looking at things, will be ignored or even criticized as false.

We can put the matter in another way. To the extent that a group is not following the norms of the society from which the group recruits its members, it is necessary for the group to justify its behavior both for its own members and for members of society. One way of doing this is by neutralization of society's norms, but this neutralization is not 100 % effective and the deviant is still very much influenced by societal norms.

As Sykes & Matza put it when criticizing sub-cultural theories of juvenile delinquency which over-emphasize the differences between the style of life of delinquents and society at large: "The fact that the world of the delinquent is embedded in the larger world of those who conform cannot be overlooked..." (Sykes & Matza, 1957,p. 666) The problem is then to what extent has the deviant group under study really been able to neutralize societal norms? How much of the behavior that the group makes readily observable is a product of sincere conviction and how much is merely an attempt to project an image? These questions are extremely important because if we are satisfied that that which is readily observable can be taken at face value, we shall start to build theories around this data. However, I contend that following such a path can have serious negative consequences, because simply looking at the outer defence mechanisms a group shows the world, can hardly be taken de facto as valid data. All of us should be aware that all that glitters is not gold and everything people say is not a reflection of what they do. As Deutscher put it: "Acting out a relationship is not the same as talking about a relationship. We have known this for a long time and we have known why for a long time, but we proceed as if we did not know." (Deutscher, 1966, p. 234) We must keep in mind that a theory which logically explains invalid data is invalid because it is explaining something that does not exist other than in a superficial way.

To illustrate some of these points I will discuss an article by Nils Christie, "Langhiret livsstil"4 1968. That Christie is aware of some of these problems is obvious, as he points out on the first page of his article: "There is a caste difference between the old man who attempts to analyze the phenomenon and representatives for the (long haired) culture ('Never trust a man over thirty.') This makes entering into the spirit of

157

4 I will call representatives for the "long haired culture" "heads" throughout this discussion. Actually "heads" is a more limited concept than Christie's but "heads" are without a doubt representatives of what Christie is attempting to describe.



the culture difficult and collecting data even more difficult. Empirical research is almost non-existant." (Christie, 1968, p. 123) He then procedes to name a few articles on the subject that have given him impulses but admits that his article is mostly based on diverse reading and some superficial observations. (ibid, p. 123 n) With this methodological introduction and a warning that parts of what he will say are oversimplifications and maybe even somewhat idealized, (ibid, p. 123) and that what he has to say isn't particularly credible (ibid, p. 124) he begins his discussion; only a part of which will be taken up here.

Flower children could have led the sweet life if they had only wanted to. It is not a question of people rejecting a part of our society's basic rewards, which both they and others well know couldn't be acquired. The goal was within reach yet heads have chosen to be anti-consumers.

(ibid, pp. 124-25) While nicely fitting the mythology which has surrounded heads, the

idea of anti-consumers does not gain empirical support. While there are a few anti-consumers to be found on the scene in Stockholm, the majority could not be so classified. While most prefer not to follow the latest Paris fashions or own a house full of fine fumiture, other types of luxury consumption are both common and accepted. For instance owning an expensive stereo system, including tape recorder, radio and hundreds of records is not unusual. Expensive photo equipment, sportscars, and motorcycles are commonplace enough not to raise an eyebrow, to say nothing of riding in taxicabs and spending hundreds of crowns in an evening on entertainment, food and drink. As is easily witnessed in conversations about buying boats, airplanes and other paraphernalia, anti-consumption is not a philosophy but a necessity. When heads have money (for instance when they've been selling drugs) they spend it.5

Christie's second major point is that heads are retreatists (Norwegian "tilbaketrekkere") According to Christie the altogether too obvious differences in standard of living between different people has created a burning political commitment as well as painful contrasts between our ideals and our possibilities of realizing them. This leads to retreatism; rejection of the entire system and to a drift towards alternative values. "Secretary of defence McNamara has presumably created more flower children than all the musicians in the world." (ibid, p. 125) Quoting Kihlbom, Christie concludes that hippies (read heads) reject ultra left-wing politics as being doomed to corruption and see the only chance for the world in having as many as possible "turn in", "turn on" and "drop out." (ibid, p. 126)

In 1968, Timothy Leary was trying to get us to believe that this was the idea behind the heads and their way of life, but unfortunately it wasn't true then and it's not true now. This is part of the propaganda of the scene, the outer defence of the heads, to explain to oneself and the outside world why one is not conforming to societal norms. In reality heads are not conforming because they are unable to do so. Due to a long

158

s It could be argued that the group I studied is atypical, but I don't think this is the case. The drug scene is interna- tional and the heads I studied came from all over the world. They move from the scene in one country to the next and judging by the ease with which they adjust to the scene in Stockholm when they get here, there is every reason to believe that things are pretty much the same else- where. This idea is further supported by my own observations of the scene in Oslo in 1968. 1 was only there for a few days and thus didn't pcnetrate the scene to any depth, but I certainly recognized what was going on and felt very much "at home" in the surroundings.



process of labeling, heads have come to doubt that their own impulses are satisfactory guideposts for their social behavior. As a result they are unable to fulfill the demands made upon adults in our society. The heads know that each attempt to conform will most likely result in failure, leading the head to an even more negative self-image, than he already has. Consequently he has come to fear failure and takes drugs partially to assuage these fears. The drugs are an escape because they assuage the symptoms (fear) but do nothing about the causes of the symptoms (labeling). Drugs must be continuously taken as the fears arise as soon as the chemicals are removed from the blood. The pattern of everyday drug abuse is established.

I shall discuss only two more of Christie's points on the long haired style of life; living for the moment and an introspective orientation towards life. As he points out, we have inherited the protestant ethic with its demands that the individual offer immediate satisfaction for a greater satisfaction in the future. In contrast to this ethic, Christie tells us, heads live for the moment. Introspection and inner experiences are highly valued. People are judged not by their position on the socio-economic scale but by the experiences they have had. For this reason it is hard to rank people as to who's on top and who's on the bottom. Competition is minimalized.

This descriptive part of Christie's article is basically correct but his interpretation as to why this is so, shows that he has not penetrated the surface. He speaks of technical developments which make todays knowledge useless tomorrow and the fear of the bomb leading to an orientation towards living for the moment. I'm sure that many heads on first contact with a researcher would agree with these interpretations, as they are a part of the usual propaganda about the scene. However, there is another possible explanation which fits in better with what I have already said. Because heads do not have faith in their ability to navigate on the rather narrow path acceptable to society, they are afraid to even try. Each day brings new situations which the heads are incapable of handling. As all of their efforts are concentrated upon making it through the most immediate problem there is no energy left over to worry about tomorrow. Thus, for instance, if one is a foreigner without a residence permit, one marries to be able to stay in the country. Eventual future consequences of actions today are more than can be coped with and thus not taken into consideration. The attitude can be best summed up by the following conversation between a head and an ex-head. The latter remarked that he had stopped smoking (hasch) because he couldn't get anything done when he was high. The former replied; "that's what's so nice about shit; you don't have to get anything done when you're high."

Academic Endogamy

In light of the fact that Christie so explicitly stated in the beginning of his article that his pretentions were not very great, it may seem a bit

159



strange that I spend so much time disagreeing with him. One might wonder if I am not attempting to slay a straw man. Although I'm not sure that I like any article in a scientific journal written in the Mount Olympus perspective, I suppose Christie's lack of pretention excuses him.

That I have disagreed with Christie is due to the fact that the Mt. Olympus perspective has a way of growing on itself. That which starts as opinions and guesses for one social scientist easily becomes data to be used as a basis for theorizing for another. Quoting one another we fabricate a fantasy world and then attempt to develop theories to explain it. It is truly a case of the blind leading the blind.

In Ragnar Hauge's book, first published in 1970, we find the following "data." "Even if there are differences between different groups of youths who use cannabis (haschish), there are certain widespread similarities." (Hauge, 1971, p. 65) After giving a brief summary of Christie's article Hauge concludes: "Naturally there are variations from one group to the next, and an attempt to describe drug abuse cultures will be therefore more or less accurate for any single group. But if we look at the little research that has been done on such youth groups in Norway, we find these characteristics: anti-consumption, retreatism, living for the moment, and introspective orientation towards life." (Hauge, 1971, pp. 65-66) Christie's ideas are now presented as facts. No mention of Christie's own reservations are mentioned in Hauge's book. Instead he draws the theoretical conclusion (with the added support of a seven page article by Andun Edwardsen called "Glimt from a Milieu") that: "In this sub-culture the use of cannabis is a means of achieving what the youth feels to be deeper and more real experiences than other more common experiences." (ibid, pp. 66-67) Thus Hauge concludes a sorry chapter in an otherwize interesting and well-written book.

I have not chosen to criticize people on the basis that their work is exceptionally bad. On the contrary, much of what these authors have to say is quite interesting. That just these were chosen is because they have all written about drug abuse from the Mount Olympus perspective, and I feel I have experience from the inner perspective on this subject. Similar objections could be raised against much of the research being done in the field of deviant behavior in Scandinavia. If we are ever to get off the dead end street we are now on, we must incorporate the inner perspective into our research.

For those of us who insist on remaining in the library when studying groups whose way of life greatly differs from our own, we must at least take care to avoid the Mount Olympus perspective by consciously seeking out data on the inner perspective. If we ourselves cannot or will not gather such information first hand, through for instance participant observation research, then we must be sensitive to works which have been written from the inner perspective and do secondary analyses on them as well. This means that we must follow in the tradition of such men as Thomas and Znaniecki and make for greater use of autobiogra-

160



phies, diaries, case histories, journalistic accounts, poetry, fiction and | music. But most important, we need a great deal more field research. I

Bibliography

Becker, H.S. & Geer, B. - "Participant Observation and Interviewing: A Com- parison", in Filstead, W.J., - Qualitative Methodology, Chicago, 1970, p. 133-42.

Boglind, A., Lunden A. & Nasman, E. - Jag; Den Andre, Lund, 1973. Bohannan, P. - Social Anthropology, London, 1969. Christie, N. - "Langh&ret Livsstil", Nordisk Tidskrift For Kriminalvidenskab 56,

1968, pp. 123-36. Deutscher, I. - "Words & Deeds: Social Science & Social Policy", Social Problems

13, 1966, pp. 233-54. Eriksson, B. - Om Den Sociologiska Analysen av Kunskap, Acta Universitatis

Upsaliensis, Uppsala, 1972. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. - The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago, 1967. Goldberg, T. - The Heads of Stockholm, Uppsala, 1973. Hauge, R. - Kriminalitet Som Ungdomsfenomen, Stockholm, 1971. Herulf, B. - "En Undersokning Rorande Narkotikakonsumtion i Stockholms

Skolor, Klass 9, April 1967", in Narkomanvdrdskommitten - Undersokningar, SOU:1969:53, Stockholm, 1969, pp. 13-42.

Israel, J. - Om Konsten Att Lyfta Sig I Hdret Och Behdlla Barnet I Badvattnet, Stockholm, 1972.

Johansson, S. - "Socialpsykologiska synpunkter pi ekonomisk loneteori", Socio- logisk Forskning, 1968, nr. 1-2, pp. 25-28.

Myrdal, G. - Objectivity in Social Research, London, 1970. Sykes, G.M: & Ma tza, D. - "Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delin-

quency", American Sociological Review 22, Dec. 1957, pp. 664-70.

161

5



on the mount olympus perspective

Documents