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