Lunds University – Faculty of Social Sciences March 18, 2016 2016 SOCB 29 – Managing Sustain ability, Society and Collective Behaviour – Take home… [600379]

Lunds University – Faculty of Social Sciences
March 18, 2016

2016

SOCB 29 – Managing Sustain ability, Society and Collective
Behaviour
– Take home exam – Sub-Course 1 –

Student: [anonimizat]: 2981

2
Introduction
In this paper I will talk about smoking and specifically, about the trials to forbid
smoking in restaurants and clubs in Romania, after a club in Bucharest burned down. This
event is related to social constructionism because in this given case individuals managed to
change a paradigm in the bottom up way, while fighting th e conflict of interests that
pressured state institutions in a top -down manner. When I discuss paradigm s, I am referring
to the amount of realizations in one big domain, accepted by the scientific community,
according to the Romanian sociologist, Catalin Z amfir (1998). In this case, the social changes
occurred after a big tragedy – some say this is the biggest tragedy Romania faced after the
change of regime in 1989.

Theoretical background
Social construction of reality , as Dillon (2014) puts it, is human made and
experienced, therefore is dynamic and always developing. In other words, individuals create
the objective reality that we all live in based on their experience and on how they perceive the
social facts. Dillon sets an example in her book : the economy is an objective reality, external
to the individuals. In order to be internalized, the individuals can refer to it as the income they
make or how much they are spending on goods.
Moreover, Berger ( 1966 ) explains that the objective r eality is external to the
individuals and they have to internalize it. The institutions are creating roles and individuals
play these roles in order to integrate in the society. Berger argues that when you internalize
the role, the world becomes subjective . Basically, in order for a problem to be a problem, it
needs to be recognized as one.
Discourse s, as defined by Hannigan (2006) , represent a set of story lines that allow us
to interpret reality and give it multiple significations. Individuals need to do that in order to
give meaning to something, to take action or to find alternative routes to their problems. This
can be related to the discussed issue. To sum it up, within the social reality, we have different
frames that can guide us in order to understa nd the society.
A social fact , as defined by Emile Durkheim (1895 ), represents any way that an
individual’s actions may be cons trained by an external pressure . The constraint is necessary
because it symbolizes how a person integrates in the society. A social fact is not imposed on
the individual, but there is no other possibility – for example, we know for sure that you have
to pay for the groceries with money an d not with other goods. A person does not recognize

3
the social facts until they are against him or his will. In this given scenario, smoking is a
social fact.
Analyzing the influence wives have on their husbands’ smoking habits, Sophie
Langenski öld (2005 ) notices that the chances of quitting increase by 24% if the wife quits
smoking. In addition , there are differences between families who have smoking and non –
smoking wives. According to the research, husbands with non -smoking wives are wealthier,
have in average more education and a bigger income. The research also mentions the fact that
if the husbands are less cash constrained they are less likely to quit smoking. To sum it up,
smoking is a social fact because peers influence if one person is smoking or not. There are
multiple conditions that need to be fulfilled, such as money or the relationship between the
individuals, but the act of smoking usually it is not done alone and it represents a habit.
It is important to consider a Romanian view on smoking as a social fact , as the
situation occurred in Romania. In a Romanian research article, Rughinis (2014) talks about
how the exposure to passive smoking declined from 2009 to 2012, according to the available
data from Eurobarometers. The purpose of the research was to see the relationship between
the number of cigarettes smoked daily and the beliefs and concerns regarding passive
smoking. Most of the peopl e interviewed do not smoke at home or in their cars – this
tendency is increasing if in the household there are children – and this is why the smoking
opportunities are rare. According to the study, although people are aware of the dangers of
passive smoki ng, they enable a defending process which allows them to not feel guilty about
this issue. These results are predictable: because smoking is seen as a source of pleasure and
a way to organize your day, it is defended and not seen as a bad habit.

Linking t heory with reality
Given these theoretical notions, I will now proceed to link them to the events that
made Romanians protest against smoking in clubs, although half of Romanians, according to
the World Bank data , smoke.
Firstly, I would like to mention that smoking was allowed everywhere in Romania: on
the streets, in clubs, in restaurants. According to the World Bank data, 40% of the males over
15 years old smoke . A law issued in 2004 said that smoking is allowed in clos ed public
places only if there is a special room that has a proper ventilation system, ashtrays and fire
extinguishers. In other words, each venue needed to have t wo places: one for smokers and
one for non -smokers. As a big majority of the Romanian populat ion is smoking, most of the
venues decided to make only a smokers area, as it was more expensive to have two. So far,

4
there was only a matter of disagreement within the frame – the owners had to decide if they
are making two separate areas although it will be more costly or if they are m aking only one
and decide if it i s for smokers or non -smokers.
The venue owners saw a possibility to interpret the law in their favor; therefore they
decided to make rooms for smokers only. This kind of problem can be seen a s a
disagreement in terms of discourse, because it is a conflict within the same frame – what
owners should do regarding the law. It became a controversy , as in a conflict between
separate frames , when there was a public debate in Romania if smoking should be allowed in
restaurants or not. There were a lot of people who agreed with the non -smoking policy, yet
they were the minority, as the smokers already had some privileges.
The changes started t o occur in March, 2015, when the Senate approved a law that
said that smoking is forbidden in public areas, such as hospitals, schools and state
institutions. In other words, no restaurants, pubs or bars were harmed and smokers were still
allowed to smoke inside the venues. To give a proper example, if someone was preparing for
a night out he or she would have to shower twice: once before and once after, as the
ventilation sy stem in most of the clubs was not suitable for the place and t hey could not
handle so much smoke. The ir clothes , hair, and skin would all smell strongly of tobacco.
After this law was created, discussions were launched among the civil society about
its effectiveness. Everyone concluded that the law was useless and did not serve the major
interest – that of forbidding smoking in all public areas , including restaurants, pubs and bars .
The story changes in October 2015. A horrible tragedy takes place in a club in
Bucharest, called Colectiv. 63 people died at a concert , havin g been burned a live after a small
firework set on fire a pillar covered in sponge. After investigations, it is said that it took only
one minute and one second for the whole club to burn down. To this day, no people have
been found guilty for the tragedy , although the guilt was divided between many state
institutions for giving the club authorization to run although it was not up to safety standards .
For instance, the capacity of the club was for 60 people only, yet at the concert there were
about 300 individuals . The club was supposed to have fire extinguishers inside, yet they were
missing, and so on.
As argued in the Jasanoff ( 2007 ) article, reflexive modernization says that the risks of
modernity can affect everyone, no matter the ir status. The given example is 9/11, where more
than 3000 people died, no matter their social class, job, ethnicity or religion. The same thing
happened at the Colectiv tragedy, on a smaller scale. Architects, prospective students,

5
musicians from all social classes died a ll together. It is debated that these risks equalize the
existent classes in the modern society.

Top-down versus bottom -up
After this tragedy, the Romanian government resigned because of the street protests
and a lot of activism was initiated. One of the issues was tackling the smoking problem. This
problem was not necessarily related to the tragedy that took place in the club, but it was
triggered by it. Here we have an example of a grass -root system : street protests are taking
down a government and then a lot of campaigns are launched trying to protect the civil
society. A small coalition called “Romania is breathing” tried to convince the Senate why
they should ban smoking in closed public spaces. After three months of fighting against
tobacco companies and parliamentarians’ self -interests , they managed to pass the law, after it
was taken off the discussion board many times. The pressure coming from the civil society
also helped accelerate the process, as well as from important figures in the Romanian me dia
that joined the cause.
Hannigan (2006) discusses in his book the term social arena , which was first defined
by Renn (1992) in the book Social theories of risk . The concept refers to the social actors
who are directing their claims regarding politics to the decision -makers , hoping that they will
take action and change the course of events. As Renn puts it, there are multiple stages, such
as mass media, juridical or administrative. Related to the Colectiv tragedy, the civil society
had a very strong opi nion which was shared through mass media and from there to the
decision -makers, in this case, the state institutions. Checkups were made regarding the
bureaucratic process: how were the contracts signed, were they valid, were they covering
every issu e the club might have and so on . As problems were discovered, the government
started to implement new standards on safety , and important political actors started to resign
because the tragedy happened in spite of the fact that it had been given authorization . This is
the best example of a bottom up perspective, because ordinary citizens put pressure on the
people who could actually change something. Basically, this action is based on transferring
the problem to the people who have authority to act – doctors, poli ticians, fire workers and
other professionals.
Another idea that should be considered is the following: should the civil society have
a huge impact on the political decisions that are made? As Jasanoff ( 2007 ) was discussing in
her article, the emphasis s hould not be put on whether the public – in this case the civil
society – should have a saying in all the decisions that are made, but how you can involve

6
them more in order for the interaction between the state institutions and the individuals to be
meani ngful and fruitful.
Right now the progress is at a fast pace in Romania – the government is listening to
the people and they ar e struggling to be transparent. R ecently , the Romanian government has
launched a website where they write where money comes from and on what projects they are
spending the state budget. This might sound redundant for a well -developed society, but for
the Romanian society this is a big step. This represents an alternative governance system: the
civil society is protesting, telling t he state institutions what they want and coming up with
ideas on how to do it – from there it is the state’s problem on how the ideas can be
implemented. In this specific case, the civil society asked for justice. This is a loaded term
and cannot be define d in one or two explicit examples and therefore finding a solution can be
difficult when the terms are not defined precisely. But when the civil society asked for venues
where the smoking was not allowed, initiatives were taken. Although there were bureauc ratic
problems, impediments and pressures coming from tobacco companies (a top -down
governance system in this case), the transparency was more important in order to ensure the
people that their problems can have a solution in the democratic state.
It is s tated in Jasanoff’s paper that if a problem is not described in a correct way – it
can be too narrow, too broad or it may not touch the core of the issue – the solution cannot be
correct either. This is why the way one frames a problem is a big deal and should be given the
importance that it needs. Furthermore, the participation from the people should not be
neglected as it is the core part of a healthy democratic system.
Coming back to the law, the aftermath of forbidding smoking is not as tragic as some
actors might say. It is believed that the incomes will drop for a bit in the venues, but then they
will come back to normal. The executive president of the venue owners from the Old Town
of Bucharest said that according to the United States’ example, the turnover of the venues
increased by 8 to 10% since the law regarding smoking passed.
I have discussed a little about the top down system, as well as the bottom up system,
the latter of which encloses the emergent, alternative or grass root system because t here is a
thin line between them and they interconnect with each other. Now I will come back to the
top down system because political figures are trying to change the smoking law as we speak.
The law is supposed to start being applied on the 1 7th of March. On the 14th of March a
deputy said that he will initiate a new law as the one that will be applicable starting the 17th of
March is, as he puts it, “shady”. Basically, the deputy Daniel Fenechiu said that the
restrictions imposed by the law are extremely strict and he wants to introduce a regulation

7
that allows for venue owners to create new smoking places where people can do activities
related to the act of smoking, respectively to have a coffee or to drink tea. Then, he wants to
redefine the definition of closed public space to the following one: place that is surrounded
from all the sides by walls. Right now, the definit ion of a closed public space is a place
surrounded by at least 2 walls. Another comment that he made was that this law resembles
the prohibition law from the United States. Besides the fact that the independent deputy
wants to abolish the law completely with some regulations, this is an example of a top down
decision. He did not consult the civil society or any other institution, but he believes that this
law project is a good initiative for all the people, not to mention the tobacco companies.

Conclusion s and discussions
To conclude this paper, I would like to go over the topics I have debated. Firstly, I
have talked about social constructionism and how the smoking problem in Romania was not
even a problem until a fire that emerged in a club. Given this t ragedy, multiple measures were
taken and a lot of voices wanted to be heard, each and every one of them being convinced
that they are right. I have presented the main ideas about discourses, how from disagreements
regarding the law people moved on to contr oversies related to this particular problem.
Furthermore, I have discussed social facts and how smoking can be categorized as one, citing
the research made by Sophie Langenski öld regarding the smoking habits of husbands in two
different conditions: when t heir wives were smokers as well and when they were not.
Moreover, I have brought up a study in Romania regarding smoking habits and how they tend
to vanish if people do not have the time or the place to light a cigarette.
Secondly, I exposed two different systems – top down and bottom up – and
comparing the results: the bottom up perspective is less likely to happen according to my
case. Something really important with a big impact must happen in order for the civil society
to react. For example, strikes t hat led to revolutions and the fall of communism started from
the ordinary people. This perspective, although less likely to happen, is the most effective
one, as it can change a whole system and can form new ways of thinking and acting. The top
down syste m is more likely to happen and it is less efficient because most of the times the
decisions are not taken according to people’s wishes. Besides, corruption coming from
decision makers’ self -interest is a big impediment in achieving results.
Last but not least, r egarding the smoking issue , as long as having a cigarette is a rare
opportunity – according to the Romanian researchers – people tend to smoke less and less

8
and passive smoking is finally seen as a problem due to the events that triggered these
changes.
The discussion points that can be made after this paper are broad and can go in many
directions, but the focus should be put on the following ones: will smoking be prohibited in
closed public spaces for good, without interventions from deputies or tobacco companies?
Will this measure be effective in the Romanian society? Furthermore, will this
implementation discourage people to smoke and following this train of thought – will the
smoking rate decrease in Romania? And, the most important thing, will the voice of the civil
society be considered every time a problem occurs or was it just the impact of the tragedy
that pressured the decision makers to listen to the social actors and take action?

9

Bibliography
 Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality . Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday.
 Dillon, M. (2010). Introduction to sociological theory . Chichester, U.K.: Wiley –
Blackwell.
 Durkheim, E. and Berthelot, J. (1988). Les Règles de la m éthode sociologique . [Paris]:
Flammarion.
 Hannigan, J. (1995). Environmental sociology . London: Routledge.
 Jasanoff, S. (2007). Technologies of humility. Nature , 450(7166), pp.33 -33.
 Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (1992). Social theories of risk . Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
 Langenski öld, S. (2005). Peer influence on smoking: causation or correlation? .
Stockholm: Economic Research Institute (EFI), Stockholm School of Economics.
 Rughinis, C. and Rughinis, R. (2014). Influence of daily smoking frequency on
passive smo king behaviors and beliefs: implications for self -tracking practices and
mobile applications. Revista de cercetare [i interven]ie social \, [online] 44. Available
at: http://www.rcis.ro [Accessed 14 Mar. 2016].
 Zamfir, C. and Vl ăsceanu, L. (1993). Dicționar de sociologie . Bucure ști: Editura
Babel.

Links to the Romanian news:
 http://legeaz.net/legea -349-2002/art -3
 http://www.digi24.ro/Stiri/Digi24/24+Minute/Despre+legea+antifumat+cu+Octav+D
ura+presedinte+ACCIB
 http://www.digi24.ro/Stiri/Digi24/Actualitate/Stiri/Propunere+de+modificare+a+legii
+fumatului+cu+trei+zile+inainte+d

Image: Lunds University winwater.se

A documentary about the tragedy that occurred in Colectiv can be found here: