I’ve just recently had an academic article published that tries to go beyond my previous work on the carnivalesque to argue that this is a useful concept not only to make sense of drinkers’ behaviour, or the government’s understanding of ‘problem’ drinking, but also producers’ approach to trying to sell the idea of drinking in a particular way.
The only thing is – and I don’t want to turn this into a classic academic moan about the delay in getting academic articles published* – that I wonder whether this neat argument now holds. Of course you should all head to the website and read the paper (or email me for a copy), but this idea that we were all excited by (and/or concerned by) carnivalesque drinking possibly held true in 2008-09, when these ideas were first running round my head. It’s not so clear that it’s accurate in 2015.
In the past year or so, I’ve been thinking about the parallels with 100 years ago. Why aren’t certain policies seriously considered – notably the sort of control introduced by the CCB during World War One? I had been thinking about this in terms of neoliberalism, but then books by Rob Duncan and Henry Yeomans have prompted further thoughts of this kind.
I gave a seminar presentation trying to draw out parallels between the policy and pub positions of now and 100 years ago, and I think it’s worth noting that in both periods, policymakers have been concerned by vertical drinking, people drinking without food and determined drunkenness. Parallels can certainly be drawn between the ‘improved pubs’ of the interwar period and the Wetherspoons and similar today – indeed David Gutzke has done precisely this in his latest book.
In a nutshell, whether you’re reading Gutzke, Yeomans or Duncan, the parallels are immediately apparent: what’s defined as ‘respectable’ drinking for both policymakers and brewers/pubcos looks much the same in 2015 as 1915, and isn’t defined by quantity consumed as much as controlled (middle-class) domesticity. For all that today’s public health campaigners are concerned by the quantities of alcohol that people consume at home, domestic drinking continues to struggle to enter the policy debate as a key issue, except where it amounts to ‘pre-loading’.
True, one can be a little more sceptical of pubco motives (and I am). The same company will operate one bar that embodies the ideals of ‘respectable’ drinking, and another that takes advantage of the cultural capital and respectability it has earned.
|The sign outside the Mitchells & Butler's venue in Bournemouth 60 Million Postcards|
|Picture from the website of the Mitchells & Butler's venue in Bournemouth Brasshouse|
Despite this, though, we do seem to be genuinely beyond a period in which expansion and the explicit promotion of the carnivalesque is deemed acceptable or desirable for venues and alcohol producers. It just doesn’t seem to be a wise business strategy. This may owe something to the youth market being more ‘sober’ than to some idea of public acceptability, but nevertheless it suggests a different public policy environment.
I don’t know of a comprehensive analysis of the shift in motifs and approaches of alcohol advertising over the past 20 years, but there must be something out there. Certainly there’s a difference between the Bacardi cat, Smirnoff nightlife and WKD, when compared with more recent campaigns by Thatchers or Strongbow (or maybe this even more recent one). The first three suggest clubbing and the carnivalesque, playing with accepted roles and normal vision. The latter ones are more about a legitimate reward for a job well done: time with friends and family.
But perhaps this says more about the differences in marketing for spirits and RTDs compared to cider and wine? I don’t know, but it’s at least worth thinking about: are we living in a post-carnival world? And even if the newer Bacardi strapline is ‘untameable’, which sounds pretty Dionysian, the feel is quite different from that cat or Vinnie Jones a decade ago.
I’ve written before about how alcohol needn’t always be a big political issue, and how there needn’t be an adversarial relationship between industry and public health campaigners. This was what happened after WW1: alcohol wasn’t a significant political issue and that was partly down to the industry continuing to operate while the broad aspirations of campaigners were met. The carnivalesque is a concept that makes sense of the somewhat adversarial policy debate. Perhaps, with falling rates of consumption today, ‘binge’ drinking possibly going out of fashion, and an industry that seems more interested in selling domesticity and friendship, the carnivalesque is yesterday’s news.
*Though this one did take over 18 months from first submission, and quite possibly won’t be in print for another year.