Thanks to Mjolinir in the comments to this piece, I am drawn to another BBC article about boozing.
I really don’t see why anthropologists feel they have to travel to unpronounceable corners of the world in order to study strange tribal cultures with bizarre beliefs and mysterious customs, when in fact the weirdest and most puzzling tribe of all is right here on our doorstep. I am of course talking about my own native culture – the British.
And if you want examples of bizarre beliefs and weird customs, you need look no further than our attitude to drinking and our drinking habits. Pick up any newspaper and you will read that we are a nation of loutish binge-drinkers – that we drink too much, too young, too fast – and that it makes us violent, promiscuous, anti-social and generally obnoxious.
Clearly, we Brits do have a bit of a problem with alcohol, but why?
Firstly, the last; we don’t have a problem with alcohol. The consumption of alcohol in this country has been steadily declining in recent years. And, it is not the British who have a problem, but some British people who do. Indeed, a very small minority of people. Some people think that alcohol will do wonderful things to them as Fox points out:
The problem is that we Brits believe that alcohol has magical powers – that it causes us to shed our inhibitions and become aggressive, promiscuous, disorderly and even violent.
However, as she says, this is simply not correct – although we are at cross purposes in our apparent agreement. Most people merely like a tipple because they enjoy it. So, no anthropological study needed really, is there?
I would also argue that if you want bizarre beliefs and customs, it ain’t the drinkers one should be looking at, but the bossy authoritarian prohibitionists of the temperance movement who propagate this strange idea that we are all rolling about in the gutters pissed out of our tiny minds and need the benevolent hand of the state to pick us up, dust us down and put our lives straight. Oh, and stop us having any more like the naughty little children that we are.
That said, Kate Fox then goes on to argue that behaviours are not caused by alcohol per se – which is a refreshing change – but that they are driven by cultural norms, which is why, she argues, that the French don’t roll around in the gutter following a bottle of wine.
While there are indeed cultural differences surrounding alcohol consumption, I would still argue that these cultural norms do not result in the majority behaving badly. The majority enjoy a bevy or two in convivial company and then go home. Or, if they are home, enjoy a glass or two of wine with their meal and no one is harmed.
But, then, the reality of the majority doesn’t make for a provocative headline, does it? And, the idea that most people aren’t constantly pissed out of their skulls and fighting in the streets tends to undermine the need for government to fund fake charities like Drinkaware, doesn’t it?
Fox then goes on to prick the balloon of the alcohol control movement:
The drinkaware website, for example, warns young people that a mere three pints of beer (ie a perfectly normal evening out) “can lead to anti-social, aggressive and violent behaviour”, that “you might start saying things you don’t mean and behaving out of character”, that alcohol is implicated in a high percentage of sexual offences and street crimes, and that the morning after “you may wonder what you did the night before”.
Well, yes, a neat bull’s eye there.This is exactly what the temperance lobby have been doing and it is arguable that this is exactly what they have planned all along. After all, if you keep drip-feeding a lie it will eventually take root in the consciousness. It’s useful lie and one that is trotted out unthinkingly by people who refer to binge drinking without the thought ever having passed the filter of their grey matter. So much has it become a part of the culture – as Fox points out – that it has indeed become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Fox’s solution is a poke in the eye for the anti movement, though:
I would like to see a complete change of focus, with all alcohol-education and awareness campaigns designed specifically to challenge these beliefs – to get across the message that a) alcohol does not cause disinhibition (aggressive, sexual or otherwise) and that b) even when you are drunk, you are in control of and have total responsibility for your actions and behaviour.
So, while Fox still believes that alcohol is dangerous, this is an interesting development and one that I suspect will have the likes of Drinkaware up in arms.
Mind you, I’d like to see that anthropological study of the nanny state puritans though. The report should make interesting reading…
Everything she said about the way we glamourise alcohol makes perfect sense, and it’s damning of the temperance industry since she is – in effect – saying that they are exacerbating irresponsible drinking behaviour.
Of course, they won’t tackle her points, instead they’ll dismiss her as a big alcohol paid stooge. In fact, someone in the comments has started already … in a barely legible way. And the BBC were very eager to place such a comment on its ‘editor’s picks’.
It is an interesting article and one with conclusions I would love to belive. However, the reality simply is not the case.
Firstly I would question the “experiments”. I would like to understand more about the conditions and the data as the way they have been presented seems quite bizarre.
Secondly, I can only imagine that Kate has never been drunk before as she seems unable to seperate “normal” sober behaviour from “drunk” behaviour, other than not speaking clearly, having short term memory issues and reduced reaction times! This is so far from the reality.
Personally, i am not a big drinker at all, even when i was a student! However, my family are italian so I was brought up in an environment where alcohol is like water. Having been educated in the UK where most of my peers where British, the drinking culture is evident. However, to say that perception has created it is simply untrue. I dont like to get drunk, but i have been drunk many times before. I have also tried a variety of other things including caffine – so i would consider my view on the effects of different substances to be good. I dont for example like to drink too much coffee as i dont like the rapid heart rate it gives me – this is the caffine. Alcohol, without any doubt in my mind, changes your rationale in the sense that you would do or say something you may not normally do – otherwise known as losing your inhibitions. I could easily prove it on myself. I have no preconceived ideas that because i have had a drink i now have an excuse for doing something i would otherwise not do – it makes no sense.
In the countries Kate lists as being “integrated” drinking cultures, they still have similar issues where many road accidents are caused by drink drivers, where many altercations and acts of violence and vandalism are significantly more evident when those involved have been drinking.
So, as much as I like the thought of changing the drinking culture, which i agree should be worked on in the UK, I totally disagree that the effects of alcohol are not what they are claimed to be.
PS: I would welcome being part of any test to see the effect of alcohol on behaviour – if you are given an alcohol placebo you surely know if you have had a drink or not??? UNless you are someone who has never had alcohol before…..
I wondered about that bit. I can tell if there is alcohol present – you can taste it and feel it as it hits your gut.
That said, I always found beer disgusting to taste, so my experience is confined pretty much to cider, wine and some spirits before I gave up.
I was amazed at this article, on the BBC of all places! I think she is probably absolutely correct, the artificial social expectation of poor behaviour actually drives the behavior not the alcohol. And indeed that is a peculiarly british problem with alcohol, the way it is perceived.
The notion that social acceptability rather than alcohol causes bad behaviour is bending the truth I feel.
Alcohol does impair your judgement about what is socially acceptable or not. Normally law-abiding, polite citizens being rowdy after drink is not a sign of social decay. It’s a sign of people drinking too much or too fast. Simple as that.
The coffee analogy is garbage. People would end up with stimulant related conditions that would have to be treated if they binged on coffee instead of alcohol. It wouldn’t cause a similar effect to alcohol at all. We’d have lots of people being a bit hyper and manic yes, but I doubt they’d go for p@ss in the street.
Firstly, the last; we don’t have a problem with alcohol.
I do – I can’t afford it any more. Dying for a malt.
As per a comment on the BBC site, Kate is actually a PR professional paid by alcohol companies – something to bear in mind.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15265317?postId=110537326#comment_110537326
See my previous comments on CAMRA beer-festivals, and the difference between football and rugby crowds, when “drink taken” ….
Will – it doesn’t really matter, does it? The prohibitionists are all paid for by their own side. This would just balance it out, wouldn’t it?
I used to drink non alcoholic cider if I was driving. I stopped doing this after a night when I drank 4 or 5 bottles and felt too drunk to drive, also woke with a crippling headache the next morning.
I assume it was chemicals in the stuff and my expectations..