The Complexity of Alcohol Consumption

The complexity of society is something to be appreciated; too often we attempt to simplify the things around us to mere cause and effect relationships. We see something seemingly troubling and try to find an exact cause so as to reduce its difficulty when, in actual fact, life is inherently more complicated. We are guilty of this on numerous societal levels: this is certainly true at the political level, a powerful example of which can be seen in David Cameron’s endeavour to raise the tax on alcohol.

Cameron’s ‘idea’ is to lower access to alcohol by upping the prices, in doing so he wants to increase the general health of society. Former GP – and current Tory MP, of course – Sarah Wollaston does us the favour of simplifying things further, claiming that “…when alcohol is too cheap, more people die”. That isn’t even cause and effect, just another tactically used correlation. Just so you know, there is also a correlation between certain nationalities and the propensity to be eaten by lions. Think about it.

Anyway, back to Cameron’s logic. The cause here is alcohol intake and the effect is ill-health. Perhaps this is an over-simplification… or perhaps not – it does seem to be the premise at the heart of his argument (though the usual party-political strategies have to be accounted for). Having it written down in front of us like this (cause: alcohol, effect: ill-health), I feel, does a lot to highlight the obvious oversights. The whole simplification thesis appears to be a throwback to a certain type of mechanically-underpinned science that excludes as many variables as possible to reach a ‘definitive’ outcome, and thus fails, in many cases, to sympathise with the actual diversity of a given situation. Cameron’s argument is a case in point. It seems ignorant of the multitude of complicating factors, most of which can be exposed by posing some broad questions – the most powerful of which is simply: why?

Why is alcohol such a big seller? Can we really attribute the success of the alcohol market to its low price? Why might individuals ‘resort’ to heavy drinking? Why is it considered ‘resorting’ in the first place? Is heavy drinking really a problem exclusive to the poorer parts of society (where a tax increase would remedy the problem)? These are just some of the questions we could put forth – some of which are evident in others’ critiques of the proposed tax. In essence we could – if not should – look to the answers of these questions as the underlying basis of potential preventative measures and as a way of understanding excessive alcohol consumption.

There is not the scope here to unpack the mountain of issues making up this contentious debate. In fact, in highlighting the blatant complexity of this topic, we could argue there are few places where the scope can even be realised, let alone discussed. However, the first step of attempting to deal with such an issue is surely to ask such questions and recognise its complexity, instead of simply thinking mono-causally and charging more for the increasingly demonised alcohol consumption. Acting on simplified ideas will only serve to marginalise and divide. As an aside, the simplistic idea that raising tax on alcohol will reduce consumption is yet another absurdity: will those wanting alcohol – and, what is more likely, those ‘driven’ to it – not just skimp on other commodities to afford it (food, bills, child support)? Or maybe even decide against paying full-stop? These are just a few of a substantial number of outcomes.

The idea of raising tax on alcohol is but one of many examples of this simplified – cause and effect – thinking. Keep an eye out for it. Furthermore, consider how it demonstrates the need to be critical of all governmental policy – not in an anti-establishment way, but from a vantage point that allows constructive commentary based on a situation’s inherent complexity.

Why Initial Access to Research Journals is Only Half the Problem

Recent debates over access to scientific journals and similar academic resources appear to signify yet another inequality at large within our society. Upon using these supposed vehicles of knowledge it becomes apparent that the barriers associated with finding or purchasing that access is only the first in a long line of obstacles.  Another notable, and in my mind substantial, obstacle is that of the language employed for conveying this ‘knowledge’. It seems half of the problem is getting through the door but this is soon followed by the other half: understanding the ‘intellectual gibberish’ that awaits.

For those of us who strongly believe that academic institutions should be there to question and critique both general and specific ‘goings on’ in society – in an attempt to provide constructive pressure on those who make ‘big’ decisions for society’s sake – accessibility, or lack thereof, is the latest in the long line of inequalities. On the rare occasion that access is available to those not affiliated with an academic institution, it is likely to be an effort in vein due to the nature of the language used. Too many of the books and articles that I have had to read could have been either half or twice the length. While some could have been reduced in size by avoiding unnecessarily long words and by simply clarifying passages, others could be lengthened to incorporate explanations allowing full understanding. I would argue that there is a balance or compromise that needs to be reached in order to make ideas accessible for the maximum number whilst conveying in an articulate manner the intricacy of the idea. This phenomenon is easily transposed into status, class – and to that end, power – issues. To elaborate we can use the ideas of French anthropologist, Pierre Bourdieu.

Bourdieu was, in part, concerned with the way that social classes attempt to maintain a distinction from one another. Simply put, the lifestyles and practices of one class will be intentionally different from another to reproduce that divide. A useful, and related, example of this can be seen in the media resources we engage with: in Britain some of us will read the tabloids while others will read the broadsheets (this is clearly simplified for ease of expression). Without being too analytical of this, it is clear that the choice becomes symbolic. It is often observed that those who read the broadsheets will mock the simplicity of the tabloids for its ‘trashy’ writing and use of sensationalist arguments. On the other side of the coin, readers of broadsheets are seen as ‘stuffy’ and ‘white-collar’ (these ideas of cultural participation in terms of newspaper readership are discussed in detail by Chan and Goldthorpe*). Newspaper readership is used as a vehicle for distinction and each side of the divide may be empowered by their choice. We can now translate this application to educational journals and resources.

Initial access to these resources, despite being predominantly funded by public money, is restricted to those affiliated with an institution of education that pay private companies for the service. Those with access will likely be on one side of that class/status divide. The lack of access that I refer to specifically, that of access to language, is also restricted to this side, and can also be seen in the previous example of newspaper readership. By writing in a certain way academics have the capacity to empower themselves and marginalize others, thus limiting the potential distribution of their own work and strongly maintaining a distinction between groups.

I feel this is largely evident in the work that I come across daily, as someone affiliated with an education institution, and that balance or compromise (to reach as many as possible without impacting upon the content ) rarely seems to be considered. This represents a problem either with academia and education as a whole or my contention of what academia, particularly in universities, should stand for. If academics are writing for the academic community – and perhaps one or two other settings, though rarely so – then the idea of academia for society’s sake is lost. Perhaps in arguing for this cause I am misguided and muddled with utopian thinking, but it is an argument I’ll endeavour to prolong – I guess it’s that or cutting my educational affiliation.

 

*Chan, T. W., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (2007). Social status and newspaper readership. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1095-1134.

Social Immobility

A recent article from the Associated Press (Mutler, 19/06/12) highlights the level of dishonesty within Romanian academia, with the new Prime Minister, Victor Ponta, accused of plagiarism in his doctoral thesis. Apparently, this is indicative of a corrupt academic system emerging after the fall of communism and the rise of free market reforms. Stelian Tanase, a Romanian political analyst, explains that "people with ambition, money and influence have been buying doctorates for the last 20 years". This interests me: I shall explain why, but first some background is needed.

A friend of mine is an aspiring academic. They have a first class degree in their field coupled with a Master's degree for which they received a distinction. Their undergraduate degree was at a fairly new, and not very well respected, university while their postgraduate degree was at a university ranked in the top fifteen in the UK. Financially, they have never had more money than is necessary to scrape by with. A fairly hefty student loan coupled with a career development loan has paid for their education up to now; repayments for both will kick in later this year. Scary times, indeed. What makes it scarier is that they have few prospects. Their goal is to complete a doctorate and become a lecturer/researcher but with the cuts to education there is little to no funding available. Therefore, from a 'get-by' job, they sit on the bottom rung, once again, and watch as the rich kids wave in jest from the top of the ladder. As you may be able to tell, and as I have mentioned, this interests me.
 

So Tanase describes a situation where people buy their way to what is seen as a 'fashionable title' of Doctor. Let me get this straight: education is saved for those with the 'backing' to 'warrant' it, and this is considered "cheating"? Is that not exactly what happens in this country? With an immaculate record in higher education, top of almost every class they have been in, my friend has no access to funding. I'm not bragging about my social networks, I'm raging - and deservedly so. This is forced social immobility. There is no possible way to obtain a respectable doctorate, despite being told by numerous academic staff that they are a talented individual within their field. While others purchase their way to the top in three years, it will take my friend, as it will others, perhaps five to ten years to force a path. As implied, this is by no means an isolated case, there are surely tens of thousands of people in this position. This begs an additional, slightly eye opening, question: what are we missing out on if such a huge volume of potential is missed or overlooked?

Could it be possible that the powerful of the country are trying to maintain an historic divide by restricting access, as much as possible, away from the majority and into the hands of their 'own'? This is not a novel argument and I think it's a very convincing one. If you doubt it, look at the emerging paradox: if a valued opinion is an educated one, and those with the power can afford the education, then how does the valued opinion not become a biased one. The real distinction between the so called 'cheating' in Romania and the situation in the UK is that they, the Romanians, are at least trying to hide it. The obliviousness of people in the UK to this, despite the obviousness, is worrying. In Bourdieusian terms, this 'reproduction' highlights subordination in order to maintain distinction. Mutler, of the Associated Press, argues that university credentials have been used in Romania to climb the social ladder. I put forth a separate argument, if simply to stimulate dialogue: that university credentials are used to dampen the ladder, to make it too slippery for those pesky lower classes to climb. 

Beggars on the Underground

"There are beggars and buskers operating on this train - do not encourage them by supporting them". Oh and while you're at it, you see that little old lady that keeps smiling at you when you look up? Give her a good ol' kick and take her purse. It's a 'dog-eat-dog world' out there, every man or beaten up little old lady for themselves. After all, beggars and buskers only want money to score crack, buy beer and generally make others feel bad; they don't want shelter, safety and hot food... one moment, I think we've taken a wrong turn somewhere here.

So these guys, these often homeless and almost certainly penniless guys, they're the outlaws? They're the ones to be spat at? Interesting that... and those heroic individuals urging us to not help desperate individuals in need must be the good guys! Its difficult to know what stand to take here. If I were to say 'up yours, London Underground' and give this beggar sniffing at my shoe a fiver then I would likely be shunned along with my new friend; but if I were to ignore him, or her of course, entirely then I would be with the soulless majority. And therein lies the problem... the soulless majority.

Maybe soulless is a bit extreme... in most cases anyway. But if this is the way we are running our city society then what help is there for the bottom rung. I know that 'animal instinct is survival of the fittest' and all that crap but aren't we, through having higher learnt than unlearnt behaviour, supposed to have evolved into a social species with a sense of... what's that word... community? And that is exactly it. Community. The antithesis to, well, what we seem to live in now! 

Next time you see, or are approached by, a homeless person, beggar or busker, try talking to them. I mean, think about it, how fascinating do you think their story is? Probably more so than your own. Most will be willing to engage and most will be friendly. If you find yourself worrying 'but what will all these others around me think?', then don't worry too much, you can always cheer yourself up by tripping up that gentle old man getting on the train and pinching his walking stick.

Those who wish to do more than simply talk to struggling members of our community visit:
http://www.centrepointroom.org.uk/

Death Counts - Controversial Perspective

I couldn't for a moment argue against the vast volume of tributes for the recently fallen British soldiers in Afghanistan, in fact I feel for the families and friends as much as the next morally-guided individual. However, maintaining that same moral attitude, perhaps a few words ought to be said for the thousands upon thousands of Afghans and Iraqis who have prematurely lost their lives in the space of ten years.

The Afghan population was the first subjected to a functional revenge motive of the corporate sponsored American government (and its 'wannabe big-time' allies) after that tragic day in September 2001. The airstrike bombardment initiated on the 7 October 2001 began a period of catastrophic civilian death rate with The Guardian estimating 20,000 dead in 2002. In the airstrikes many Taliban bases were destroyed and presumably many Taliban supporters were killed, this is all well and good (job done if you believe so) but what about those unfortunate innocent men, women and children who happened to get caught up in the devastation, and let's not play it down, it can only be described as utter inescapable devastation, where is the justice in that? And where is the logic? Angering the irrelevant population surely only makes them relevant. This was an example being made NOT a tactical conflict strategy.

Corporate greed is possibly to blame for the advance on Iraq - clear evidence of which is in the 'surprising' lack of WMD sites (for which international war-criminals have not yet, metaphorically or not, been hung for). Estimated civilian deaths in Iraq reached 100,000 since 2003, with wikileaks information perhaps pushing that higher (Iraqbodycount.org, March 2012). A number of that size may seem hard to visualise in terms of people, but you count up to 100,000 and imagine each number being a person you have once known as a body - perhaps some perspective can be achieved.

Can these individuals that lose family, friends, work, the ability to eat and feed their remaining family - everything - through the actions of the 'allied forces' be blamed for wanting to join an insurgency? That is for each individual to decide, but maybe look at the facts first. This commentary is not littered with statistics to make up anyone's mind - that is the responsibility of each person. If that responsibility is ignored and we don't consider the views of others then we can only be viewed ourselves as irresponsibly informed, as ignorant.

It is not, and cannot be, an 'eye for an eye' in a conflict waged and regulated, for dubious reasons, by individuals across the world sat comfortably at home in their armchairs watching their power play out on CNN, Fox News and the BBC. Despite this, we would do (and the media do) history an atrocious injustice by not demonstrating the multi-faceted dimensions in progress. Furthermore, a simple, clearly needed, reminder that despite all prejudices one might have, we all share characteristics that make us a collective.

Perhaps as a point of departure this can lead to an investigation into the simple question: what gives us the right? As a British citizen who feels fairly useless with regard to the shit state of it all; of all the corporate, governmental, mediatized, propaganda-infused lies, I just hope that those who are suffering know that there are some of us on their side and we can together hope that the powerful scaremongers of the West get what they deserve.