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.