Assignment 10

Mohammad and Fristvold used a research style very unique to ethnographic studies in their book, Dorm Room Dealers.  In this type of study, the researchers study the group of people in question by following them for months, even years, and taking careful note of all of the events, social relationships, and customs that the target population experiences.  Of course, before having such an intimate glimpse into the culture, the researchers must work to create a relationship of trust with the subject.  In the case of Mohammad and Fritsvold, it was necessary to find dealers who would share their practices.  Finding these drug dealers was easier than expected, and was done by using their experience, intuition, and by word of mouth from other students (page 18).  Then, once they had identified a few dealers by themselves, the researchers were introduced to other drug dealers by their current subjects, a phenomenon known as the “reverse snowball effect” (page 19).  Some dealers even volunteered their stories to the researchers (page 19).  After gaining a population to study, the researchers would normally have tried to gain the trust of the subjects.  In this case, however, most of the dealers seemed quite happy to provide their story (page 19), although promises of anonymity (page 9) and having well-known research assistants within the community (page 9) helped gain the trust of any remaining uneasy participants.  The researchers also tried to interview university officials and university law enforcement officers (page 10) to get the opinions of those trying to enforce anti-drug laws.  Most of the interviewees were quite helpful, although a few proved difficult to secure for an interview (page 10).  When collecting data, the researchers abided by Patricia Adler’s “peripheral membership,” which means that though the researchers would observe all activity of their subjects, the researchers would not participate in any of the key cultural activities, such as illegally selling drugs (page 9).  In terms of data analysis, the researchers approached the data using Robert Merton’s post factum interpretation, which meant that they were not trying to test a theory, but were merely trying to use the data to examine social patterns and dynamics to determine objective information (page 10).  Overall, the authors used all of these methods and processes to gather the data that created Dorm Room Dealers.

            When I think of a drug dealer, I think that my mental picture is pretty stereotypical.  I think of a thug from an impoverished minority group, perhaps in a gang, with lots of jewels and guns.  He is part of a larger drug dealing group, is uneducated, and uses drug dealing as his primary source of income.  A lot of violence is included in his drug trade, and the people that he sells to are poor addicts as well.

            In many ways, my stereotypical view of a drug dealer is disproved.  First of all, my demographics are basically wrong; most of the drug dealers and buyers in this book are white, middle to upper class, and educated (page 2).  These students, called the “anti-targets” (page 2), are definitely not what people expect from drug dealers.  However, this exposes a darker side of the War on Drugs: minorities (especially blacks) and the poor are stereotypical scapegoats for the sale of drugs and are disproportionately incarcerated than whites (page 126).  Meanwhile, the rich white students in this book have blatantly obvious illegal sales, yet have no fear of being punished (page 135).  This is because not only do they not fill the stereotype of a typical drug dealer, but also have parents whose pockets give the university and university police much to gain monetarily as long as the dealers stay out of jail (page 56).  The buyers are also not expected “druggies,” but are instead just regular students.

            The students also don’t deal because they need the money.  Indeed, most of the dealers in the book come from very well-off families that provide most, if not all, of their living expenses.  Instead they sell for various other reasons.  They could sell to make money to support their own drug habit (page 42).  They could sell drugs to have extra spending money, to spend on luxuries such as travelling or car rims (page 46).  The dealers sometimes sell to take advantage of opportunity, such as when other dealers are told to shut down their sales (page 47).  They may also want to feel socially influential (page 51), or even just want a thrill (page 53).  Regardless, the dealers in Dorm Room Dealers have many reasons to sell drugs, but none of which involve needing the money to make a living, which would be expected of a “stereotypical” drug dealer.

The stereotypical drug dealer

            Also, I would expect a drug trade to be quick, tense, and perhaps even violent.  However, this is definitely not the case in Dorm Room Dealers.  In fact, drug deals are often quite relaxed, “friendly-like”, and drawn out, sometimes even lasing up to an hour (page 25).  The deals are often private, such as in the dealer’s home.  This, and the fact that dealers tended to only sell to acquaintances, allow for a much more relaxed atmosphere (page 26).  Interestingly, there is also quite a bit of ritual during the marijuana-buying process.  The purchaser is often allowed to sample the marijuana before purchase, and after purchase, sits around with the dealer and chats (page 25).  Then, the buyer smokes some of the marijuana they just bought, often offering the dealer the first hit (page 25).  It is such a cultural norm that violating any part of this ritual creates an atmosphere of mistrust between the two parties, often dissolving any business relationship that the two may share (page 26).  This elaborate custom in the culture shows that it is much more developed than quick, impersonal interactions that are often expected of stereotypical drug deals.  Also, there is a stark lack of violence in in college drug trade, which is perhaps because of a large clientele and consistent drug demand (page 144).  This is definitely different from what is expected from a drug trade: weapons, violence, and perhaps even murder.

            In conclusion, Dorm Room Dealers blows the stereotype of who a drug dealer is out of the water.  The stereotype is often an impoverished, violent thug, which could have not been more the polar opposite of the wealthy white college-age students who were were actually the drug dealers studied in this book.  This stark reality teaches a great lesson: stereotypes don’t always hold true, and so society should stop acting like it.