Dear Alan --
I'm sympathetic with your general line, but you veer off-course concerning
the new minimum pricing initiative in Scotland. the best evidence is that a
higher price pushes down the amount of drinking by those who are very heavy
drinkers or addicted at least as much as it pushes down drinking by light
drinkers. The idea that addiction is so strong that of course price will have
no effect is attractive but, on balance, wrong.
As for the place of an alcohol and drug subspecialty in standard academic
disciplines, we are indeed marginal to all -- from sociology and economics to
psychiatry and biology. Literary studies is just one more in this crowd.
Kettil Bruun, an alcohol/drug sociologist, once remarked that this opened great
opportunities for us as researchers -- we could intrude on other disciplines'
territories without them feeling affronted. I myself have taken the
opportunity along the way, for instance, to revisit literary studies (a field I
was in through an MA) to write about the famous generation of
American "literary drunks", and so on, without encountering complaint.
But I recognise this is easier to do if you embark on a career in the "soft
money" grant-writing mode, or can get a "hard-money" research job in the field,
than if you are seeking a teaching job defined around a department's teaching
needs.
Besides the shared stigma with the clients, the problem is that
alcohol/drug problems fall between the cracks of the major professions and
social institutions in western societies.
Robin
On 2009-03-08, at 13:35, Alan Joyce wrote:
>
> Dear Michael & John,
> This marginalisation of 'addiction studies' also impacts on the medical and
> related 'caring professions' with GP's in the UK who work with drug and
> alcohol users frequently incurring the unwarranted disciplinary attentions
of the
> General Medical Council, the odium of their peer's and fellow professionals.
> Sadly the marginalisation of drug and alcohol users is reflected in the
> marginalisation of those who work with them and- script- them.
> In the early 2000's for an all too fleeting, brief and heady period that saw
> the creation of the National Treatment Agency, the recognition of 'service
> user', drug user advocacy and other user/carer groups, it appeared that
health
> and harm reduction would finally be brought in from the cold and form the
> axis around which UK Gov drug and alcohol policy (albeit the alcohol policy
was
> very much an after thought- tacked on late in the day) - would turn.
> Groups such as the 'Substance Misuse Management in General Practice' working
> party started to train, support and create an ethos where drug and alcohol
> treatment formed part of general practice and 'normal' health care. One
could-
> ideally- get ones methadone script from your family GP at the same time as
> getting treatment for other health problems. It looked like users, carer's,
&
> drug and alcohol treatment would finally be released from the ghetto's to
> which they (post Brain 2) had been consigned.
> Sadly & in my view tragically this proved to be a false dawn as drug and
> alcohol policy became increasingly subordinated to the criminal
justice/social
> 'engineering' agenda's of the day as compassion fatigue set in and
politicians
> and rather un-civil servants found- to their surprise- that methadone was no
> panacea for grinding poverty, economic and educational marginalisation,
> teenage pregnancy, rising levels of poly drug(notably crack, cocaine ) and
> alcohol use, homelessness & the blight of post Friedmanite economic theology
that
> persists to this day.
> The multitude were becoming increasingly intoxicated and the spectre of the
> horde becoming truly revolting- as well as increasingly 'repugnant'- stalked
> the ruling caste & all who suckled at the manifold teats of the global
> leviathan.
> Anxiety's about the 'emergent' under class, the benefit prole's, became
> increasingly evident and political, media, social and other commentary from
the
> ruling caste betrayed not only anxieties but a deep loathing- disgust-
hatred-
> for this 'newly discovered' urban poor.(The rural poor were 'discovered' a
> little later).
> The media simulacrum created a land where crime and criminality was
> everywhere- no street-no home- no car- no property- no person- was safe from
the
> avarice of the non working poor.
> Further- the children of this new 'caste' of 'ZEK's were a demon brood-
> muggers, violent, illiterate, druggies, hoodies, knife wielding,
> 'shameless',(currently one of the best UK TV drama's- and one that re-
humanises those who
> have been de-humanised)- they epitomised everything that caused the middle
> classes and all 'decent' people fear, anxiety, loathing & distress. Sadly it
seems
> that Marcuse's maxim - that crime was a form of resistance to colonisation
> by Capital- albeit one without 'class consciousness'- was forgotten.
> What's more in a society where conspicuous consumption (Thorstien Veblan?)
> reigned supreme & celebrity 'culture' was the great levelleras well as the
> lifestyle to which we all should aspire, the 'new' poor wanted it all and
wanted
> it now! Deferred gratification- simply not possible on a minimum
> income-could be dispensed with- 'take what you want-take what you need- &
wait for no
> one' . Need a flash car- why not take one- no need for keys-just a sprung
> centre punch and that BMW is yours for the taking.
> In response to these anxieties a whole raft of legislation was enacted
> against the new 'enemy within'. The Prime Ministers son found drunk,
disheveled &
> disorderly in Trafalgar Square makes headline news but gets a police car
> 'taxi ride' home. A child born of lower parentage could expect no such
tender
> mercy- instead the evil spawn of the new poor could expect a drug test,
an 'Anti
> Social Behaviour Order', Drug Treatment & Testing orders, and the full
> majesty of the law to be applied to every minutiae of their waking,
sleeping,
> lives.
> The children of the Elite- the likes of David Cameron, Oliver Letwin, et-al-
> could run amok in Oxbridge restaurants- buying the acquiescence and
> complicity of the restaurant owners, abused minimum waged staff- etc- with -
> literally- showers of cash as they quaffed champagne, took cocaine, and
prepared for
> a life in politics and power.(Allegedly of course).
> Such behaviour on the part of the ruling elite, of the celebrity culture,
> was hi-jinks and jolly japes- good for a media story or three but no cause
for
> hand wringing, existential angst, or legislative might.
> But as for the children of those living in 'social housing', those whose
> parents, parents were the unemployed of Thatchers brave new Britain, whose
> parents were the children of that generation of the dispossessed, this was a
cause
> for crimminalisation and concern. So we have seen over the past decade the
> 'crimminalisation' of childhood, childhood is a problem to be controlled,
> cajoled, managed, teenagers a threat to be monitored, contained and
constrained,
> clinically and socially pathologised.
> Surplus to the requirements of Globalisation and transnational Capital these
> children of the poor are unwanted- of no value and therefore deemed to be
> valueless- to have no values- amoral- these kids were 'feral' and merited
> treating as such. This much the media pundits, the academic's and their
political
> masters could agree upon- what small comforts the new lumpen prole's could
> enjoy- cheap booze- fags-heroin-cheap cocaine-cannabis- was something 'they'
(
> do I mean the ruling caste or the prole poor?) could not afford nor allow.
> So we have seen the revival of the same old litany & demonology of old- the
> 'Crack Epidemic', the 'Junky Scum', 'The Brew Crew', all are redolent of the
> 'whorey' old mythology of past times- when demon Gin was 'Mothers Ruin' and
> opium just a habit- but one that the ruling caste with their ether kits,
> silver syringes and morphine, afternoon teas for the 'lady's who lunch',
could be
> indulged in but one that spelt peril & ruination for the Victorian poor.
> Berridge and Edwards study of opium use in 19th century England is
illuminating-
> the intrepid investigative reporters who ventured into the 'fenlands' of
East
> Anglia, the public houses of the East End of London where the cheapest beer
> was one potentiated with opium, have an uncanny resemblance to the reportage
> of the 'dirty' habits and 'vices' of the modern day poor.
> Well- that's gone somewhat off topic and I've - in the words of Nietzsche :
> "Forgotten my umbrella"- that is the thrust of what I intended to convey- so
> I'll call it a day- and sign off by sounding my alarm at the folly of the
new
> Scottish Governments policy of Alcohol related Harm Reduction by pricing.
> Why my alarm- the idea- as I understand it- is to link the price of alcohol
> directly to it's 'strength' per UK measure. SO a 500 ml can of 'Carlsberg
> Special Brew' (despite it's association with the poor it is rumoured to have
> been made for Churchill & was a favoured 'tipple' of this well known boozer)-
> which contains 4.5 UK units of alcohol will attract a higher 'levy' than a
500
> ml can of "Carlsberg Lager" which has about 2 UK units per can.
> The theory being that this will compel the urban and rural poor who favour
> strong alcohol and are therefore at greater risk of alcohol related harm to
> modify there alcohol use and induce them to drink weaker & cheaper booze &
> brands.
> Sadly- I fear that such measures will see those most at risk and those
> already alcohol dependent re-prioritise their budgets- with their favourite
tipple
> coming ahead of such trivial needs such as food, heating, rent, energy
> bills, clothing, health, etc.
> As for the 'binge drinking masses' - if they can afford to drink 'out on the
> town & tiles' then they will continue to be able to do so- de-facto- they
> are not the lumpen prole- but those who are relatively privelaged to be in
> waged or even well paid- employment- either that or they are pretty good at
crime
> with the attendant risks 'coming with the job's".
> I'm not aware of any evidence base that suggests pricing per unit will
> reduce alcohol related harm- indeed I suspect it may serve to aggravate it
as the
> cost of booze prohibits expenditure on a decent diet and other things that
in
> themselves serve to reduce the harm of alcohol and/or other drug use.
> Best wishes: Alan Joyce.
> Michael,
> I concur with the wisdom already expressed on this point. What you are
> missing is this: Alcohol and Addiction Studies does NOT share the
respectability
> of what might be called Diversity Studies, the political correctness of
which
> more or less guarantees space at professional conferences and in hiring
> pools. Nor does our field qualify as “Identity Scholarship,” another
approved
> approach. During the heyday of DIONYSOS, the MLA consistently rejected any
> and all proposed panels in A&AS; perhaps it still does. Certainly I would
not
> advise a new PhD in English to come out nakedly and solely in our field. It
> ’s prudent to regard doing A&AS – at least in an English department -- as a
> post-tenure luxury. The reasons for this situation are well worth
> considering, but they are, unfortunately, among those things in academe (and
elsewhere)
> currently filed under “mum’s the word”: not to be spoken of out loud in
> public, candor being potentially hazardous to one’s professional health.
For
> the sake of younger scholars and of our field, I sincerely hope I’ve gone a
> little paranoid in these remarks, that I’ve bleakly overstated the case. I
> welcome contrary testimony.
> John W. Crowley
>
>
> ____________________________________
>
> From: Alcohol and Drugs History Society [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> (mailto:[log in to unmask]) ] On Behalf Of Michael Carolan
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:37 AM
>
>
>
> To: [log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask])
> Subject: Re: literary drinking
>
>
>
>
>
> As a new member of the forum (and, believe it or not, a former student of
> Professor Wedge’s), I appreciate all the recommendations of creative work in
> here. I wanted to share what a veteran professor had to say about the field
in
> a professional recommendation he wrote for me recently after I developed
> addiction studies courses at UMass:
> “Addiction is an area of study not unlike African American studies or Native
> American studies, and possibly all the more relevant not least because it
> not yet an established area of study.”
> As I enter the severely shrunken academic job market, I am left wondering
> why all I see are openings for minority, third world, gay and lesbian
studies
> but none for alcohol, mental illness, and/or addiction? Am I missing
> something?
> With deep respect,
> Michael Carolan
>
>
|
