Instead, given that I've been thinking about the history of alcohol policy a lot lately, I thought I'd post an academc piece I wrote on a quiet afternoon at work 3 years ago, and so far haven't found a home for. It's a bit short to be a proper social policy academic article, but I haven't had the time or inclination to work it up into something more significant. If anyone has any comments or thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
“They’re buggering off with the bloody port-wine!” Binge drinking as a 21st-century phenomenon
The term ‘binge’ refers to a problematic form of drinking,
rather than an attractive one, as Mass Observation noted in 1943 (p.342). However, there is little clarity regarding
what the term means in current discussions, beyond the general sense that it is
new, and worrying.
The most striking discussions of binge drinking are in the
media, both in newspapers and on TV. Ladette to Lady and Booze Britain are prime examples on the TV, while headlines such as
“Binge Britain’s Night of Shame” are common in newsprint. In these discussions, ‘binge’ drinkers are
generally understood to be young people who drink large quantities of alcohol
in city centres before behaving in out of the ordinary ways considered
unacceptable – perhaps anti-socially or even criminally.
The same picture emerges from an analysis of government
approaches to alcohol policy. ‘Binge’
drinking is a term that has been deliberately used by both the Labour and
Coalition governments, and although quantity of alcohol consumed is often
employed as a proxy, the key concern appears to be the altered state of norms
that accompany such drinking, which is characterised by a particular approach:
drinking to get drunk.
There has been a recently growing corpus of academic
research on the topic of ‘binge’ drinking, which generally shares the focus on
motivation in defining the phenomenon, stressing that this drinking to get
drunk is a new development. Quite what
new features are of interest varies, but the contrast is drawn with a period –
usually understood to have included the 20th century prior to the
1980s – when ‘traditional’ drinking, a masculine, working-class culture centred
on local community pubs, was the dominant form of public drinking (Gofton 1990). In this environment, it is argued,
intoxication was incidental to drinkers’ motivations, and drinking interactions
formed part of a larger congery of social practices, including work, family,
locality and other forms of leisure. In these nostalgic academic accounts,
the focus of research tends to be current young people’s drinking practices and
their wider lives. The historical
comparison, though central to the argument that something is new and
distinctive about ‘binge’ drinking, is often discussed only in passing, however.
The conception that ‘binge’ drinking is a new phenomenon is
questionable on two levels. First, and
most obviously, does it exist at all – and if so, what does it mean in
practice? The burgeoning body of
academic research referred to above suggests that many young people – though
certainly not all, even of those who drink in city centres at weekends – often
understand themselves to be drinking to get drunk and many consider unusual
behaviour to be a desirable feature of a night out – even something that should
be actively sought out. Although it
remains the case, as it was in 1943, that drinkers tend not to describe their
practices as a ‘binge’, this academic picture has notable similarities with
that painted by government and the media – though also considerable
complexities (Griffin et al. 2009;
Haydock 2009; Hollands 2002).
The second problem with these academic accounts, however, is
that they claim that such practices are new. As I suggested, exactly what is considered
new varies. In Measham and Brain’s (2005) account, for example,
‘determined drunkenness’ (a deliberate, almost calculating attempt to get
drunk) is the key feature of the ‘culture of intoxication’. In Hall and Winlow’s (2006) account, it is the broader
friendship groupings, which are now the necessary means to the end of going
out, rather than the drinking being the means to the end of spending time with
one’s friends and cementing these relationships as was apparently the case in
‘traditional’ drinking.
Much research – including these two prominent examples –
notes the importance of the wider environment to the emergence of this ‘culture
of intoxication’. Most obviously,
licensing laws have changed, but alongside this there have been changes in the
design of venues, the drinks available (and their prices) and the marketing of
these products. The role of the
1980s/1990s ‘rave’ culture in prompting this approach from the alcohol industry
is often noted.
That there have been changes in the regulatory and broader
environment regarding alcohol in the UK is undeniable, and it is certainly
plausible that certain of these factors will influence drinking behaviour. The affordability of alcohol, the licensing
laws and the design of venues may all be important factors in affecting
drinking cultures – and indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, government might be
well-advised to think more broadly about the policy options open to it.
Nevertheless, to address the broader point first, it is not
at all clear that friendship groupings and their relationship to consumption of
alcohol have changed fundamentally over the past 100 to 150 years. To begin with, it is unclear when this
apparent golden age of pub friendship should be placed. By the 1930s there is no question that, in
“Worktown” at least, many drinkers felt the age of community pubs had passed,
and the number that had closed was certainly notable.
It has been suggested that the tax changes introduced with
the First World War fundamentally altered the nature of pub drinking, changing
the affordability of alcohol, along with the more restrictive licensing
laws. This suggests that, if anything,
any heyday of the British pub and ‘traditional’ drinking would be prior to this
period. On the other hand, in the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, at the time when the Victorian and
Edwardian pubs described by Hayward and Hobbs (2007) were springing up, there was
concern that the influx of labour into cities had destroyed traditional rural
forms of community, and there was considerable movement of people in search of
work within an economy constantly in flux.
The stable communities, dominated by and centred around a single large
employer, of Nottingham with its Raleigh factory* and “Ashton” as described in Coal is Our Life (Dennis et al. 1969), were always the
exception. It is hard to believe in the
face of the evidence that the majority of lives – particularly for those
without security of income or residence, the working class – were at any point
stable and predictable in the way that the vision of the ‘traditional’ pub
seems to convey.
In terms of how these relationships compare to today’s, if
all that is meant by the idea of community is the ‘congeries of interests’ and
‘social experiences’ described by EP Thompson (1968: 939), then it is hard to argue
that these have disappeared. As I have
argued elsewhere (Haydock 2010), class distinctions and
communities, cemented by cultural practices, are alive and well within the
night-time economy (see also Hollands 2002), and indeed the work of Hall
and Winlow themselves is filled with acknowledgements of the importance of
class in determining people’s social options and the prevalence of cultural
distinctions within the night-time economy.
However, the argument of change is deeper than this; it is
about the instrumental nature of friendship within today’s economy. Hall and Winlow argue that today’s young
people know less about each other than their predecessors did, and interact
primarily through signifiers of consumption rather than production, with
long-term relationships through work no longer being commonplace. Although, as I have suggested, there is an
element of nostalgia to these claims – friendships in the past were deeper and
today’s social interactions are a “theatrical simulation of traditional forms
of communality” (Winlow and Hall 2006:
186)
– my aim here is not claim whether one form of social interaction or friendship
is better, or to be longed for; I simply wish to consider whether or not two
such different forms can realistically be posited. Fellow drinkers in the pub, whether in the
1930s or the 1880s, did not necessarily work for the same company or in the
same trade. The community that existed
and can be understood in terms of class was cemented through shared situations
and practices, rather than strictly shared occupations or workplaces
themselves, and such shared backgrounds are common amongst groups of drinkers
today. Moreover, although debates abound
regarding the changing nature of work and leisure time in industrial and
advanced deindustrialised economies, a holistic view of relationships,
friendships and class as expounded by EP Thompson or Pierre Bourdieu (1984), for example, acknowledges
the importance of practices that can broadly be considered consumption
throughout, at the very least, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Of course, it could be argued that the nature of communities
and the centrality of production relations meant that leisure in the pub was
not so separated from work as it is today, in a ‘binge’ drinking culture where
the aim is understood to be getting ‘annihilated’ (Griffin et al. 2009) – away from everyday relations
and relationships, especially those related to work and family. As Winlow and Hall (2009), following the pop song and
the advertisement for the lager Carling, put it, drinkers are ‘living for the
weekend’. The paying of wages might be
cited as one prime example of the way in which pub life was tied to work. It cannot be denied that this practice at the
very least has died out, more or less, but the apparently new opposition
between drinking and work relates to the second, broader point of what is new
regarding ‘binge’ drinking: drinkers’ motivations. Do current ‘binge’ drinkers approach alcohol
in a fundamentally different way to those from the past?
The historical work on drinking cultures in Britain is
perhaps surprisingly thin, when considering the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. Brian Harrison’s (1971) landmark study, despite its
broad title – Drink and the Victorians
– analysed the Temperance movement specifically, while more recently John Greenaway
(2003) has analysed political
discussions of alcohol since 1830, and James Nicholls (2009) has looked at broader public
discourses surrounding alcohol and drunkenness.
There is much less material considering how those who were actually
engaged in the apparently problematic drinking thought of alcohol and
themselves. There are excellent
historical sources, of a variety of types, that refer to alcohol consumption,
but these have not been synthesised, and there is no identifiable single
source. As with issues of the carnival
and carnivalesque more broadly, it is difficult to access accounts from drinkers
themselves rather than observers (see Easton et al. 1988;
Stallybrass and White 1986).
However, this material from observers is valuable. Although government states that one of the
key features of ‘binge’ drinking is that those involved drink to get drunk,
such drinking is also defined by its consequences; not only health damage, but
more notably behaviour. This behaviour
is understood to be out-of-control, violent, irrational and dangerous to both
the drinker and others. This sort of
behaviour, and the idea that alcohol offers ‘time out’ from normal everyday
requirements, is not confined to twenty-first century Britain (see, for example,
MacAndrew and Edgerton 1970). A cursory
read of The Pub and the People will reveal
that such ‘breakdown’, festival or carnivalesque behaviour was certainly not
unknown to “Worktowners”. If the
concerns with ‘binge’ drinking are sex, violence, irrationality, public
disorder and incapability due to alcohol, Christmas Eve in the late 1930s
before World War II can illustrate these as well as any Saturday night in a
city centre in 2011.
Therefore, I strongly challenge the assumption that ‘binge’
drinking is a new phenomenon. While the
economy may be organised along different lines from the late-nineteenth or
early-twentieth centuries, and the design of pubs, licensing laws and alcohol
advertising may all have changed, it is highly questionable that young people’s
approach to alcohol is fundamentally altered, or that their formation of
friendships is conducted on a different basis.
Further, more detailed research would be required to assess nineteenth-
and twentieth-century drinking cultures in more detail, but at first sight at
least it seems that the appreciation of ‘fuddled joy’ (Smith 1983) of drinking alcohol and the
temporary ‘breakdown’ (Mass Observation 1943) offered by weekend nights out
in the pub, accompanied by music and hot fast food, with the possibility of
sex, are not new.
*I'm referring here to Alan Sillitoe's brilliant novel Saturday Night, Sunday Morning, from which Rob Hollands' Friday Night, Saturday Night takes its name (I assume!).
"In a litter of broken glass and bottles, a woman sits by herself, being noisily sick" made me think of these two famous photos (though neither of them features a women actually being sick)
Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Nice, R.,
Trans. London: Routledge.
Dennis, N.,
Henriques, F., and Slaughter, C., 1969. Coal
is our Life: An analysis of a Yorkshire mining community. London:
Tavistock.
Easton, S.,
Howkins, A., Laing, S., Merricks, L., and Walker, H., 1988. Disorder and Discipline: Popular Culture
from 1550 to the Present. Aldershot: Temple Smith.
Gofton, L.,
1990. On the Town; Drink and the 'New Lawlessness'. Youth and Policy, 29, 33-39.
Greenaway,
J., 2003. Drink and British Politics
since 1830: AStudy in Policy-Making. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Griffin, C.,
Bengry-Howell, A., Hackley, C., Mistral, W., and Szmigin, I., 2009. 'Every Time
I Do It I Annihilate Myself': Loss of (Self-)Consciousness and Loss of Memory
in Young People's Drinking Narratives. Sociology,
43 (3), 457-476.
Harrison, B.,
1971. Drink and the Victorians: The
Temperance Question in England, 1815-1872. London: Faber and Faber.
Haydock, W.,
2009. Gender, Class and 'Binge' Drinking:
An ethnography of drinkers in Bournemouth's night-time economy. Thesis (PhD). Bournemouth University, Poole.
Haydock, W.,
2010. "Everything is different": Drinking and Distinction in Bournemouth. In: Wellard, I., and Weed, M. eds. Wellbeing, Health and Leisure.
Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association, 67-84.
Hayward, K.,
and Hobbs, D., 2007. Beyond the binge in "booze Britain": market-led
liminalization and the spectacle of binge drinking. The British Journal of Sociology, 58 (3), 437-456.
Hollands, R.,
2002. Divisions in the Dark: Youth Cultures, Transitions and Segemented
Consumption Spaces in the Night-Time Economy. Journal of Youth Studies, 5 (2), 153-171.
MacAndrew,
C., and Edgerton, R. B., 1970. Drunken
Comportment: A Social Explanation. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.
Mass
Observation. 1943. The Pub and the
People: A Worktown Study. London: Faber and Faber.
Measham, F.,
and Brain, K., 2005. "Binge" drinking, British alcohol policy and the
new culture of intoxication. Crime,
Media, Culture, 1 (3), 262-283.
Nicholls, J.,
2009. The Politics of Alcohol: a History
of the Drink Question in England. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Smith, M. A.,
1983. Social usages of the public drinking house: changing aspects of class and
leisure. The British Journal of
Sociology, XXXIV (3), 367-385.
Stallybrass,
P., and White, A., 1986. The Politics and
Poetics of Transgression. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Thompson, E.
P., 1968. The Making of the English
Working Class. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Winlow, S.,
and Hall, S., 2006. Violent Night: Urban
Leisure and Contemporary Culture. Oxford: Berg.
Winlow, S.,
and Hall, S., 2009. Living for the weekend: Youth identities in northeast
England. Ethnography, 10 (1), 91-113.
No comments:
Post a Comment