Search

The paper analyses the self-presentations of three convicted drunk drivers: two women and one man. It applies symbolic interaction theory to analyze how the interviewees account of themselves and their driving under the influence (DUI) convictions. The analysis shows how uncontrolled and unpredictable features of the data generating process impacts on the interviewees’ self-presentations. One interviewee, a 28-year-old man, uses his dog and tattoos to close-in on his problem with alcohol consumption. Another interviewee, a 61-year-old woman, uses legitimate cultural scripts of being a responsible woman to neutralize the fact that she has been drunk driving frequently for many years. The third interviewee, a 40-year-old woman, refuses to conceive herself as a drunk driver. Rather than taking responsibility for her DUI-conviction, she tries to relieve herself in the interview by blaming her DUI on her social surroundings. The paper demonstrates how qualitative interviews are sometimes unpredictable and dependent on diverse feelings and reactions and how drunk drivers, generally conceived as moral offenders, need intelligible, normative social positions to relate to their DUI.

Contemporary research often relates driving under the influence (DUI) to alcohol addiction and young drunk drivers, in particular, to social deviance. Based on qualitative interviews with 25 convicted drunk drivers, this article studies the relationship between drinking and DUI. The article focuses on three different categories of drunk drivers. In the first, drunk drivers consider addiction to be the main cause of DUI. In the second, they position themselves within subcultural groups often engaged in using illicit drugs, alcohol, and DUI. Both of these categories agree with conceptions of DUI as resulting from alcoholism or social deviance. However, the interviews also revealed a third type of relationship between drinking and DUI. Interviewees in this third category rejected the other two relationships by dissociating themselves from alcoholism and social deviance. Instead, they described themselves and their relationship between drinking and DUI as normal. The article thus concludes that while some drunk drivers view themselves in line with popular conceptions of DUI, others distance themselves from these associations so as to present themselves as normal.

Aim This article explores how young Danish drunk (and drug) drivers relate to the risk of driving under the influence (DUI). Design The study is based on qualitative interviews with 25 convicted drunk drivers who in 2010 participated in mandatory alcohol and traffic safety courses. The analysis follows Stephen Lyng's concept of “edgework”, focusing on volitional risk taking and its effect on the acting individual's self-identity. Results Drawing on the interviewees' accounts of being arrested for drunk driving, the analysis discusses three different categories of young drunk drivers. Those in the first category view a DUI arrest as a loss of control and a reminder of the risk of DUI. Those in the second present DUI as a reaction to what they perceive as untenable social demands. Those in the third see loss of control - such as causing a traffic accident - as the ultimate way of claiming control over their lives. Conclusion The study shows that young drunk drivers have different associations with DUI-related risks. The more constrained they feel in relation to society, the more likely it is that they will divorce negative experiences related to DUI such as being arrested or causing a traffic accident.

The paper analyses risk behaviour as described by a group of convicted drink-drivers. Risk assessment is seen as a part of a complicated process reflecting moral values in specific socio-cultural settings and within a specific framework of time. The respondents' retrospective accounts of their drink-driving are interpreted as part of moral identity negotiations, focusing on four dimensions: drink-driving as non-voluntary behaviour, drink-driving as strategic behaviour, drink-driving and control, and drink-driving and 'normalcy'. Central to these negotiations is the fact that many respondents come from social environments (be that friend groups or workmate groups) where drink-driving is common and that they therefore do not regard--or did not regard--drink-driving as deviant behaviour.