Suchergebnisse

My aim is to analyse how the alcohol question and its responses were framed in the formative period in 1885-1913, when the international anti-alcohol conferences were taking shape. How was the alcohol problem framed in terms of current discussions on general themes such as the individual's role in society, the challenges of modernity and the contribution of science in solving a problem that was traditionally seen as a moral issue? The anti-alcohol conferences of 1885-1913 can be seen as an arrangement for the modern state where the temperance movement placed itself in the service of the state and at the same time demanded that it be given some responsibility for the future development. These were years when the nation acted as a point of reference in several questions that were chafing within the modern project: population qualities and the condition of future generations, the notion of citizenship, industrial strength and competitiveness, the role and the strength of the state. That nation which desired industrial competitiveness, an efficient infrastructure and a strong military institution also did well to ally itself with those temperance advocates who met at the transnational anti-alcohol conferences. The nation which had such objectives and wanted to see sober and strong citizens was encouraged also by the progressive forces in the temperance movement to take up a whole host of issues from women's political status to an individual's sex life.

The project has examined drug consumption as a political problem and its ideological undertones. It is shown how drugs and drug consumption often have been subordinate in problem descriptions that have fulfilled other political purposes. Worries about politically radical youth, foreign religions or incomprehensible music have been understood as a drug problem. In the Swedish parliament the drug problem has been described in terms of capitalist class oppression, Americanism or cultural superficiality. Modernity, urbanization and industrialization have also been criticized in the name of the drug problem. In the treatment centres and within the ruling bureaucracy it was also elucidated that the drug problem was an ideological problem. The effective treatment method has been elusive, but the effective method has also played second fiddle in the choice of treatment solutions. Other values have been awarded, such as rural romanticism, Swedishness, solidarity and diligence. Individualism, Americanism and profit making have also been opposed within the ideological treatment sector. At the end of the research period such assessments however became subordinate to an overarching ideological quest to make substance abuse treatment a market among others.

Aim: The aim is to study non-governmental actors' production and use of alcohol policy knowledge in the early 20th and the 21st century respectively, by analyzing their main arguments, knowledge substantiation and their overarching discursive legitimacy. Design: The first impact focuses on prohibitionist-critical actors' engagement against the alcohol ban in the years 1916–1922. The second impact focuses on the Swedish think tank Timbro's engagement in alcohol policy in the years 2012–2020. The analysis of the two empirical cases was based on an open coding strategy with a focus on what type of knowledge claims that were made and how which reasoning was put forward in relation to these. Results: Great similarities are distinguished between the two time periods. Alcohol is an issue of freedom and at the same time a threat of crucial importance for the future society. The arguments are supported by historical, international, media and scientific evidence. The biggest difference lies in the legitimization of the argumentation. In the early 20th century this is rooted in democracy and the will of the people while the arguments of the 21st century are rooted in public health and governmentally sanctioned knowledge. Conclusion: The knowledge processes are explored as matters of political appropriation that takes place through processes of directing and stealing the spotlight. These processes show how the aspiring democracy and the existing public health policy respectively are productive preconditions for what kind of knowledge that can be brought forward. This enables a renegotiation regarding what democracy and public health policy can involve.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Increasingly, efforts to counteract perceived problems in drug treatment at residential rehabilitation centres have come to rely on measures drawing on evidence-based practice (EBP). However, the Swedish media, government inquiries, and international research have identified a number of problems regarding both residential rehabilitation and EBP. This suggests that caution should be exercised when placing expectations on EBP. The aim of this study is to investigate how the responsible authorities have handled increasing demands for EBP with administrative control while facing critical evaluations of their steering and implementation efforts. The study examines the maturation of a widespread treatment ideology, which aims to be based on evidence, in a country known for its restrictive drug policy and its goal of becoming a drug-free society. METHODS: Through a qualitative textual analysis of 17 years (2000–2016) of inquiries, directives, and authority archives we have traced the interplay between problem descriptions, intended goals, and implemented solutions. FINDINGS: The analysis shows that the ambition to provide care and welfare based on EBP is still an ambition. Also, the authorities' control over the care actually provided still leaves room for improvement. Recurring criticism and the empirical material indicate that the expectations have not been met. CONCLUSIONS: We would like to suggest that continued frustration can be traced to the misconception that EBP is the opposite of values and ideology, and hence preferable. As drug treatment strives for scientific credibility to give it legitimacy, some types of "evidence" are preferred above others. We would like to suggest that we need to bring ideology to the fore, and openly discuss our restrictive policy goals and choices of "evidence".