Social
Science and Medicine 53:189-198, 2001.
INTOXICATION
AND BAD BEHAVIOUR:
UNDERSTANDING
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN THE LINK
Robin
Room
Centre
for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs
Stockholm
University
Stockholm,
Sweden
ABSTRACT
Research
developments since the appearance of MacAndrew and Edgerton's landmark
volume, Drunken Comportment (1969), are summarized. The challenge of moving
beyond the book is to understand what lies behind cultural variations in
drunken comportment. Four specific
factors in variations in drunken comportment are discussed. (1) A common contrast is between
"wet" societies, where drinking is banalized and everyday, and
"dry" societies, where alcohol is set apart as a special
commodity. Problems with this contrast
are discussed, and the need for cross-cultural studies comparing expectancies
from intoxication. (2) There is a need
to study variations in the definition of intoxication as a "time out"
state. In some societies, intoxication is likened to possession by spirits; a
rationalistic version of this can be found in Canadian court decisions viewing
extreme intoxication as potentially "akin to automatism". (3) If bad behaviour is a foreseeable consequence
of drinking, why do some societies nevertheless not hold the drinker
responsible? In Anglo-American and
similar societies, drunkenness has some excuse value, but it is not a very good
excuse. Compromises like this seem to be
found also in other cultures. (4)
Pseudointoxication is fairly widespread, and seems to mark social situations
where alcohol has enhanced excuse value.
It appears to be a stratagem of the weaker side across cultural
boundaries, and of the young where age-grading favours older groups. Concerning the possibility of cultural changes
in drunken comportment, it is argued that there are historical examples, but
such a shift requires a substantial social change.
KEYWORDS:
intoxication, violence, drunken comportment, disinhibition, alcohol
expectancies
INTOXICATION
AND BAD BEHAVIOUR:
UNDERSTANDING
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN THE LINK
In the three decades since MacAndrew
and Edgerton's Drunken Comportment (1969) was published, it has had a
substantial and continuing influence.
Its thesis is arguably the best-recognized conceptual contribution from
the ethnographic literature to alcohol studies in general.
Drunken Comportment's main
argument is straightforward. While
drunkenness everywhere makes people clumsy, its effects in terms of bad
behaviour -- what the authors term "drunken changes-for-the-worse" --
differ greatly from society to society, and for that matter in a given society
from one context to another, and sometimes from one era to another. In recent terminology, MacAndrew and
Edgerton's argument is that drunken comportment is culturally constructed or
determined, rather than pharmacologically determined.
Along with this main argument come
some corollaries. Drunken comportment is
conceptualized as a "time out" from normal sober behaviour, but there
is always a "within limits" clause operating for drunken behaviour. The implication is that each society has a
separate set of norms controlling drunken behaviour, existing alongside the
norms controlling sober behaviour. In
this circumstance, drunkenness can serve as an excuse for behaviour which would
have been inexcusable if the actor were sober.
Developments
since Drunken Comportment
In the intervening years since
publication, there have been a few extensions of MacAndrew and Edgerton's
arguments. For instance, Drunken
Comportment made some reference to instances of feigning drunkenness among
American Indians (pp. 152-156): where drunkenness excuses bad behaviour, it is
argued, there is evidence in the ethnographic record of malefactors pretending
to be drunk. Marshall (1983:190-198)
gave a number of further instances of this from Oceania and elsewhere, and
emphasized that where there are advantages in doing so, those who wish to
invoke the excuse will often take special care to advertise that they are
"drunk".
But the arguments in Drunken
Comportment have not often been critically scrutinized. In his review of theories of drinking and
sociability, Partanen (1991:232) notes that, despite their disclaimers,
MacAndrew and Edgerton's arguments come "perilously close" to a
simplistic sociocultural functionalism.
Partanen notes that Drunken Comportment neglects the significance
of drinking as social interaction, in his view taking "a rather shallow,
individual-centred view of drinking".
While MacAndrew and Edgerton disavow a narrow instrumental
interpretation of drunkenness -- that people only get drunk to get away with
otherwise inexcusable behaviour -- they offer little other explanation for its
occurrence.
In 1981, a conference was held
which, it was remarked, "might be viewed as a festschrift for
MacAndrew and Edgerton's book on Drunken Comportment" (Room and
Collins, 1983:205). Those of us who
organized the meeting had wanted to demonstrate the potential explanatory power
of social science in alcohol studies -- that the contributions of social
science were not limited to description or demography. As we contemplated topics which might make this
point, the most compelling choice was drinking and disinhibition, the terrain
which MacAndrew and Edgerton's book had done so much to open up.
The conference brought together a
number of converging lines of research which undercut a crude pharmacological
interpretation of drunken comportment and favoured an interpretation in terms
of cultural construction. Apart from an
update on evidence from the ethnographic record (Marshall, 1983), participants
brought together data and perspectives from a number of fields, including
experimental psychology, historical studies, survey research, cultural studies,
legal studies, philosophy and biology.
Besides the evidence from ethnography, perhaps the strongest evidence
came from experimental psychology, with
the results of "balanced placebo" design studies showing a generally
stronger effect on behaviour of expectancy than of actual alcohol ingestion
(Lang, 1983), and from American history, with the proposition that the
attribution of bad behaviour to drunkenness was an invention of the 19th
century rather than a permanent feature of the culture (Levine, 1983).
There have been a number of
developments in our understanding of the link between drinking and bad
behaviour in the 15 years since the conference was held (Graham et al.,
1998). Evidence from time-series
analyses and from studies of "natural experiments" in varying alcohol
availability has shown clearly that, in populations as a whole, the level of
drinking is often causally related to rates of serious violence against others
(Room, 1983; Lenke, 1990; Cook and Moore, 1993) and of suicide (Norström,
1995). Such findings are not in conflict
with MacAndrew and Edgerton's propositions, of course, but they do underline
that, while the link between drinking and bad behaviour may be culturally
constructed, this does not make it any less lethal in its consequences. As the sociological dictum notes, things that
are believed real are real in their consequences (Thomas and Thomas, 1928:572).
In experimental psychology, the
limits of the balanced placebo design have become more apparent -- in
particular, there has been recognition of the limitations imposed by the fact
that it can only deal with relatively small amounts of drinking, because the
deceptions it requires work only at that level.
Expectancy is still recognized as an important factor, but other designs
for studying the link between drinking and aggressive behaviour have come to
the fore. Taylor (1996) summarizes these
studies as showing that alcohol has been
observed to be a potent antecedent of physical aggression. The results demonstrated, furthermore, that
aggressive responding was related to the quantity of alcohol ingested,... that
alcohol-induced aggression can be altered by cues which prompt self-reflection,
that dispositional factors can modify the instigating effects of alcohol, and
that other drugs [nicotine, amphetamine or a beta-blocker] can reduce the
impact of alcohol on aggressive behavior.
In
tandem with the burgeoning experimental literature have come new conceptual
formulations of the link between alcohol and aggression. The challenge has been to establish an effect
of intoxication that only sometimes "kicks in", that explains how the
relation between intoxication and violence can be, as MacAndrew and Edgerton
put it (p. 37), a matter of "now you see it, now you don't". Steele and Josephs (1990) use the concept of
"alcohol myopia" to describe experimentally-established general effects
of drinking on cognition: "alcohol intoxication consistently restricts the
range of cues that we can perceive in a situation;... and reduces our ability
to process and extract meaning from cues and information we do
perceive." In particular,
intoxication tends to restrict our attention to the most salient and immediate
cues in the situation, at the expense of more distal ones.
As Steele and Josephs note, this
does not always result in bad behaviour.
Where it does matter, in their formulation, is when the distal cues
conflict with the immediate ones.
As far as drunken comportment is concerned, alcohol need not be a
direct cause, a releaser of special alcohol reactivities (the devil's potion),
or an inconsequential concomitant of drinking expectancy effects, but can
affect social behaviour by blocking inhibition conflict, that is, by freeing
motivated responses from inhibiting cues.
Intoxication
is thus likely to cause "drunken excess ... whenever salient cues provoke
a person to do something that[,] if he were sober, remoter cues and thoughts
would pressure him to inhibit" (Steele and Josephs, 1990:926).
Though this formulation arises from
a psychological tradition, the end result resembles formulations from other
disciplinary traditions, such as the social control tradition in
sociology. The idea that drunkenness
releases impulses by inhibiting attention to distal consequences, such as
eventual penalties for bad behaviour, is close to a traditional conception of
alcohol as disinhibiting in the presence of social controls. A formulation in such terms can be found, for
instance, in Parker's (1995:34-44) discussion of "selective
disinhibition".
Viewed from the perspective of
MacAndrew and Edgerton's analysis, the experimental psychology literature has a
notable Achilles' heel: its research subjects are overwhelmingly drawn from a
very narrow band of the spectrum of human sociocultural variation -- by and
large, from the proverbial college sophomores of North America. MacAndrew and Edgerton's emphasis on the
variability across cultures in drunken comportment poses the challenge to the
psychological literature to demonstrate that the mechanisms it is illuminating
are not specific to a particular culture, but operate more generally across
cultures.
Drunken
Comportment and North America
Conversely, it may be asked where
general North American culture would appear in MacAndrew and Edgerton's
spectrum of drunken comportment. This
turns out to be a question with no easy answer, even though the book in some
ways belongs to the grand tradition of ethnographic volumes overtly about the
far-away and strange but also implicitly arguing about matters much closer to
home. While the authors talk of "a
series of infinite gradations in the degree of ‘disinhibition’ that is
manifested in drunken comportment" (p. 17), the basic argument of Drunken
Comportment is made by contrast -- a contrast between cultures where
drunkenness is reported to produce great changes in behaviour and five cultures
where it is reported that demeanour does not change much at all (pp.
19-36). For the cultures where there is
a pattern of "drunken changes-for-the-worse", the changes are
described in terms of "time out" from the normal rules of
behaviour. The term “time out” reflects
the functionalist flavour, both at individual and collective levels, of the
book’s interpretations of rules of behaviour for drunkenness.
Little interpretation is offered for
one of the five societies which serve as examples where "drunken
changes-for-the-worse" do not occur -- the Camba. [Pernanen (1976:417)
later suggested the "very ritualized sequence of drinking" described
for the Camba as a possible explanation for the absence of violence.] All of the other four cultures are
characterized by MacAndrew and Edgerton in terms of norms of heavy control of
individual behaviour and suppression of interpersonal impulses, with the norms
operating both for drunkenness and sobriety.
The heavy social controls are characterized as functional for the
society's situation, but little explanation is offered for the lack of
differentiation between drunken and sober behaviour. In fact, the rhetoric of the argument,
tilting contrary to the presumed expectations of the reader, is pitched against
a psychodynamic functional explanation for drunken comportment: that one might
have expected a "field day in releasing pent-up hostility" (p. 29).
MacAndrew and Edgerton thus leave
the reader more with a dichotomy than with a gradation: there are some
societies where drunken comportment does not differ from sober comportment, and
these are contrasted with many societies where drunken and sober comportment
does differ. Among the latter societies,
the particular bad behaviours they report do appear to differ in their
extremity, but little is offered in the way of a scale of gradation or theory
of why this might be so.
At the very end of the text,
MacAndrew and Edgerton do turn to the question of where societies like the
United States fit into their picture.
But whereas the normative and behavioural picture they have offered for "relatively
small and homogenous societies" is sharp and clear, the picture now turns
remarkably fuzzy:
Our society lacks a clear and consistent position regarding the scope
of the excuse and is thus neither clear nor consistent in its
teachings.... Thus, although we all know
that in our society the state of drunkenness carries with it "an increased
freedom to be one's other self", the limits are vague and only
sporadically enforced, and hence what (if anything) the plea of drunkenness
will excuse in any specific case is similarly indeterminant. In such a situation,... what people actually
do when they are drunk will vary enormously. (p. 172)
This
position seems somewhat problematic. The
authors have previously spent a chapter arguing, under the subheading of
"the sway of time and circumstance", that what people actually do
when they are drunk varies everywhere, even when the rules are clear. Their discussion of the excuse value of
alcohol (pp. 149-162) makes clear that in relatively small and homogenous
societies, too, there is often great variation in whether the drunkenness
excuse is honoured. On the other hand,
with all its limitations, the experimental psychological literature seems to
produce fairly consistent findings among its subjects all over North
America. It is in fact not at all
certain whether the rules on drunken comportment and the drunkenness excuse are
less clear in general American culture than in smaller and more homogenous
societies.
Factors
in Variation in Drunken Comportment
MacAndrew and Edgerton are concerned
to establish the fact and range of variation in drunken comportment, but their
book offers little guidance on what features in a society are linked to
particular patterns of drunken comportment.
This paper offers some speculations and hypotheses in this direction.
Drunken comportment and
"wet" and "dry" societies: Alcohol clearly holds a different cultural
position in different societies. One
dimension of this variation is between what have been described as
"wet" and "dry" societies (Room, 1989). Although the distinction can be made more
generally, it has often been stereotypically described in terms of the
difference between northern European "beer or spirit cultures" and
southern European "wine cultures".
At the "dry" end of this contrast, alcohol is held apart from
everyday life as a special commodity for special contexts; drinking has
traditionally been sporadic, often at festivals or weekends, with a high
proportion of drinking occasions involving intoxication. At the "wet" end of the contrast,
drinking is a part of everyday life (at least for men), and frequently
accompanies meals. While an Italian farm
labourer, for instance, may get a substantial share of his caloric intake from
wine, overtly intoxicated behaviour is rare, in part because of the tolerance
built up by a regular consumer, but also because daily familiarity tends to
result in a cultural banalization of a drug's psychopharmacological properties.
This contrast of "wet" and
"dry" cultures is not without problems (Room and Mäkelä,
forthcoming). Mäkelä (1983) has
suggested that behind such contrasts lie a range of different use-values of
alcohol, including as a nutrient and as an intoxicant, which are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. In recent years,
too, there has been some convergence in levels of drinking in Europe; drinking
has become a more regular activity in recent decades in the "dryer"
countries north of the Baltic, and alcohol consumption levels have risen there
while the levels in southern Europe have been falling. However, there has not been much apparent
convergence in the cultural positioning of alcohol, though southern European
cultures seem to worry these days about youthful beer-drinking in cafes in
terms that resemble the concerns about drunken comportment of "dryer"
societies.
In a more global perspective, it is
clear that the northern European countries are by no means at the extreme in
cultural "dryness". Comparing
what might be seen as the "dryer" sites in the recent WHO Cross-Cultural
Applicability Research study, it seemed to the study team that the extremely
restrictive norms surrounding drinking in Kannada-speaking Bangalore in India
contrasted with the more Dionysiac connotations of intoxication in Seoul, South
Korea or among Navajo in Arizona (Room et al., 1996).
There has long been a hypothesis
latent in the alcohol literature that drinking plays a stronger causal role in
violence in "dryer" than in "wetter" cultures (see, for
example, Christie, 1965). Lenke (1990)
set out to test this specifically, comparing time-series analyses of the
influence of levels of consumption on rates of homicide in Sweden and in
France. He did find a lower influence in
France, supporting the idea that drinking is more causally related to violence
in "dryer" than in "wetter" cultures. Norström (1995) found a similar difference in
time-series analyses of the influence on alcohol consumption levels on suicide. On the other hand, again, the results of such
analyses do not always fit the hypothesis: for homicide, Norström (1988) did
not find a significant effect in either "wetter" Denmark or
"dryer" Finland, while for suicide similarly strong effects have been
found for "wetter" Hungary and "dryer" Sweden (Norström,
1995).
There are only a few studies which
compare expectancies that intoxication will lead to aggression in different
cultures (Christiansen and Teahan, 1987; Teahan, 1987, 1988; Lindman and Lang,
1994). The broadest-ranging of these
(Lindman and Lang, 1994) has limited generalizability, since data was collected
from a convenience sample of about 100 university students in each
participating society. The results of
the study were equivocal with respect to the "wet"/"dry"
distinction. Mean expectancies of
aggression were higher in the Finnish and U.S. students than in the French or
Italian students. But, on the other
hand, the highest mean expectancies of aggression were for the Spanish
students. On measures of expectancy of
boisterousness and attention seeking, Spanish, Italian and U.S. students scored
higher than students from the five other societies. Students from Spain, Italy and Panama were
less likely than students from the other societies to think that people should
be held responsible for their behaviour while intoxicated.
Lindman and Lang's study points the
way to a clear research opportunity. The
kind of experimental psychological studies and expectancy studies of alcohol's
role in aggression which have been undertaken primarily in North America need
to be repeated in other cultures, strategically chosen. The results of Lindman and Lang's study
suggest that we may have some surprises along the way.
Further questions for exploration in
the context of the "wet"/"dry" contrast are the
sociocultural mechanisms which support the cultural framing of drunken
comportment, and how the framing becomes internalized for the individual
drinker. Our attention will be directed
to one end of the spectrum or the other according to whether we are convinced
by the arguments that the causal relation between drinking and violence is not
solely a matter of cultural construction.
If there is such a relation at a transcultural physiological or psychic
level, it might be fruitful to focus attention on the mechanisms by which
"wetter" cultures suppress the relation. To what extent, for instance, is it shameful
for an Italian workingman to show any effects of alcohol -- either on physical
coordination or on comportment -- no matter how much he has had to drink? Is the suppression of the relation between
drinking and violence in wine cultures specific to wine as the culturally banal
form of alcohol, or does it apply also to beer and spirits? When and under what circumstances do criminal
courts in wine-drinking southern Europe take intoxication into account as a
defence against or mitigation of responsibility for criminal violence? (We know from William Taylor's study that
Spanish crown courts in 18th-century Mexico were willing to accept drunkenness
as excusing violence for Indian defendants -- Taylor, 1979:104-105.)
Intoxication and possession. MacAndrew and Edgerton's description of the
different cultural expectations of intoxicated comportment is in terms of the
phrase, "time out". At about
the same time, Sherri Cavan (1966) was using the same phrase to describe the
cultural position of and rules of behaviour in American taverns. "Time out" is a phrase from the
world of games and sports describing a period when normal play is suspended;
the Opies (1959) point out that in children's but not in adult games in the
English-speaking world, there is also a concept of a personal time out, while
play for others continues. MacAndrew and
Edgerton use the "time out" concept primarily to refer to expectations
about fiesta drinking and other occasions of collective intoxication. But their discussions of the drunkenness
excuse suggest that they would extend the concept to cover also a personal
time-out for the solitary drinker, such as the executioner whom the Iroquois
used to get drunk so that he would not be blamed for causing a death (p. 151).
As MacAndrew and Edgerton use the
term, in a drunken "time out" the same or a different game continues,
but it follows a different set of rules -- referred to by MacAndrew and
Edgerton as the "within limits clause". In this, an intoxicated "time out"
as they conceptualize it differs from the usual "time out" in games
and sports. The book is evocative rather
than specific about the nature of rules of drunken comportment, and about the
circumstances in which they are accepted by the sober as well as the
intoxicated.
Drawing on the experience of our own
cultures (see Leigh, 1985), we may suspect that there is in fact often a
gradient of expectations about drunken behaviour, so that it may be misleading
to think in terms of a culture having a single set of norms covering a single
well-defined "time out" state (see Wild et al. 1998 for a first test
of this). A few drinks may provide a
license for taking small liberties with everyday norms, but would not be regarded
as covering the eventuality of a vicious assault. On the other hand, if a vicious assault has
occurred, extreme intoxication may be invoked causally as a way of
understanding the otherwise inexplicable.
These comments reflect recent
experience in Canada with the successful use of an intoxication defense for
aggravated sexual and other assaults.
The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the defense could be used where
the perpetrator was so drunk he was in a state "akin to automatism",
and accepted as evidence pointing to such a state that the perpetrator could
not remember what had happened while he was intoxicated. The decision made no sense scientifically
(Kalant, 1996) and proved to be culturally and politically unacceptable (Room,
1996), but it illuminates one aspect of what the "time out" state can
mean.
European cultures have had a
fascination since the Enlightenment with the idea of the automaton: the person
behaving in ways detached from his or her will or control. It would be hard indeed to live through a
childhood in North America without being steeped in the lore of zombies,
vampires, and the like. Adults in the
culture may not officially believe in spirit possession, and may have no
relevant personal experience, but they are likely to know the rules for dealing
with a vampire if they ever encounter one.
This fascination at the level of
popular culture continues, at the level of myth and fantasy, pre-Enlightenment
official beliefs in the reality of possession by evil spirits. In the new rationalistic and secularized age,
intoxication offered a naturalistic equivalent of spirit possession as an
explanation of evildoing and tragic outcomes.
Temperance-era language often made the equation explicitly, talking of
the drink "taking" the drinker and of "Demon Rum". In Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Stevenson offered
the paradigm of a naturalistic model of possession, where a draught of a potion
turns a normal human into a monster (see Roizen 1977).
Faced with a conflict of legal
principles in a case involving a sexual assault which was baffling and
incomprehensible in normative terms (the victim was 65 years old and
wheelchair-bound; the perpetrator was 72), courts like the Canadian Supreme
Court have adopted a kind of possession model in ruling that extreme
drunkenness could be a defense -- if the defendant could show that his
drunkenness had put him in a state "akin to automatism".
It is clear from the ethnographic
record that other cultures, too, have at least partially conflated concepts of drunken comportment
with concepts of possession, as MacAndrew and Edgerton imply (p. 168). As Theodore Schwartz notes about possession
beliefs, "classically, the body is possessed by an animate being other
than the soul of the owner. In such
cultures alcohol verges on being thought of as a powerful psychoactive
substance that can assume control over the body. In this respect drunkenness may be akin to
trance." (Schwartz, 1982:399) But
while expectations about possession are used to interpret otherwise uninterpretable
drunken comportment, the drunkenness is not necessarily seen as a literal case
of spirit possession. "As an
additive alcohol is like a generalized form of mana or power rather than
a specific being as in animistic possession" (Schwartz, 1982:399). Thus, discussing Mount Hagen in the Papua
New Guinea highlands, Andrew Strathern notes that
in the case of ‘crazy’ behaviour, kinsfolk try to find out its reasons
and to put it to right by corrective action, including almost invariably a
sacrifice to the ghosts or a ritual to expel a wild spirit from the person's noman
[mind or will].... Drunken behaviour, by
contrast, does not lead to such action.
The reason is clear: it is the beer which is seen as the agency
involved, not the ancestral spirits, and although a drunk person may express
thoughts and perform actions which were in the noman, it is not the
prompting of the spirits which ordinarily makes him do so. (Strathern,
1982:145)
It would be interesting and
illuminating to have a fuller explication from the ethnographic record of the
relation between cultural models for possession and cultural models for drunken
comportment. As the Canadian Supreme
Court decision has shown, the discussion may well have some relevance to
industrialized societies. It seems that
a model of drunken comportment as akin to possession is usually a model for
explaining extreme and otherwise uninterpretable drunken behaviour, viewed in
isolation rather than as part of collective behaviour. Consider Strathern's list of drunken
behaviours by young men in Mount Hagen which were seen as ‘crazy’:
They lie on the ground, screaming and kicking; they reveal their
genitals and roll in the mud; they attack their father; corner all their wives
and beat them up; they attempt to throw each other into rivers while travelling
across bridges in the back of a truck.... (Strathern, 1982:144)
While
such behaviours may well be patterned, they probably exceed the
"within-limits clause" for the culture, just as sexual assault on a
65-year-old partially paralyzed woman exceeds any "within-limits
clause" in Canadian culture. Some
behaviour is beyond any cultural normative limits. And often drunkenness is invoked as an
explanation of such behaviour, although in most cultural situations it is at most
a partial excuse for the essentially inexcusable.
There is a need, thus, to move
beyond a model of norms for comportment which posits just two levels, sober and
drunken. Behind the phrases about
"time out" and the "within-limits clause" in each culture,
it may be suspected, lie a complex series of nuances about expectations about
drunkenness beforehand, and about interpretations of drunken events in
hindsight. And drunkenness is also often
invoked to interpret behaviour which lies outside any limits in the culture. It
is time to begin a more detailed mapping of these normative contours, not only
within cultures but comparatively between them.
The problem of responsibility for
the foreseeable. If drunkenness is
known to lead to bad behaviour, why is this not taken into account in cultural
norms, so that the drunkenness is avoided or at least its harmful consequences
are forestalled? This fundamental set of
questions should be asked of the ethnographic record on each culture where
there is evidence of drunken "changes-for-the-worse".
The possible answers are
multiple. Some societies -- the United
States among them -- have followed through the logic of these questions in
heroic fashion. The changes for the worse
in the “drunkard’s progress” were the core teaching material of the early
American temperance movement. When there
was a decline in the numbers of drinkers reformed by such educational efforts,
the movement turned to prohibition as a more radical effort to eliminate
drunken “changes-for-the-worse”. With
the repeal of prohibition, the U.S. retreated to a policy of what would today
be called harm reduction: alcohol was made available, but with marketing
restrictions intended to limit the harm from it.
There is likely to be considerable
cultural variation in the causal logic which links drinking to bad events. Consider, for instance, the causal logic
invoked by a Tlingit spokesman for a death from alcohol poisoning at a funeral. His clan, demanding damages from the clan
giving the funeral,
reasoned that if [the dead person] had not attended the funeral he
would not have been sad; and if he had not been sad he would not have drunk
whiskey; and if he would not have drunk whiskey he would not have died. (quoted
in Lemert, 1954:354)
There
will also be cultural variation in whether and how much it is expected that the
possibility of bad events will be foreseen and prevented.
Nevertheless, it is clear from the
ethnographic record that small societies as well as large often foresee trouble
around drinking, and that various efforts are made to prevent it. Concerning the Urubu of northern Brazil,
MacAndrew and Edgerton note that
since the Urubu “know” that they lose their self-control when they are
drunk, they seldom attend feasts with people with whom they have
quarrelled.... Doing injury to one's own
tribesman is scarcely proper, and ... since one “loses control” when he is
drunk, the outcome might be tragic. (p. 58)
Similarly,
at Tanna in Vanuatu, “men choose drinking partners carefully. The person they punch should be someone with
whom they have no serious dispute.... If
a previous and serious dispute separates two men, they usually are careful not
to drink together” (Lindstrom, 1982:432)
In Chuave in the Papua New Guinea Highlands, “exhortations to drink
peacefully and the presence of peace officers at ceremonies both indicate an
acute awareness that when drinking occurs, the potential for quarrels, disputes
and violence is great” (Warry, 1982:97).
And among the Tarahumaras of Mexico, people were “enjoined to keep their
children away from the drinking area lest they ‘learn things beyond their stage
of development’” (MacAndrew and Edgerton, 1969:93).
“Changes for the worse” with
drunkenness are thus clearly foreseeable and often foreseen. It would seem a simple next step for a
culture to hold those who drink and get drunk despite this knowledge
accountable for the consequences.
But we may suspect that many
societies find themselves caught in the fundamental dilemma that our own societies
have. On the one hand, in the British
common law tradition, it is a fundamental principle that drunkenness is no
excuse for bad behaviour. On the other
hand, it is an even more fundamental principle that there must be not only a
criminal act but also a criminal intent -- a guilty mind -- if a person is to
be guilty of a crime. In British
common-law countries, the courts have struggled for two centuries with how to
reconcile these principles, once it is recognized that intoxication can affect
the capacity to form a criminal intent.
One legal solution, developed
originally for crimes involving homicide, has been to find the person guilty
not of murder but of a “lesser included” offense with a lower level of
punishment. There is evidence in MacAndrew
and Edgerton (pp. 90, 156-159) and elsewhere in the ethnographic record that
this has been a solution in many cultures: offenses committed while drunk are
not completely excused; but there is, as Canadian feminists have put it, a
“discount for drunkenness” (Room, 1996).
For other offenses, including
assault and rape, courts in the British common-law tradition have tried to hold
to the principle that drunkenness is no excuse.
Until fairly recently, the settled solution to the dilemma concerning
intent was to hold that the guilty intent is established by the choice to take
the first drink. This solution may have
seemed tenable at the highpoint of temperance influence, but modern courts have
had increasing difficulty with it. As
the prevailing opinion of the Canadian Supreme Court put it, “a person
intending to drink cannot be said to be intending to commit a sexual assault”
(Room, 1996). It was this reasoning
which sent the Court off in search of a tightly-restricted way around the
dilemma, a search which ended with the concept of “drunken automatism”.
The public furore caused by the
Court's decision was remarkable. In the
aftermath of the decision, it became crystal clear that the normative cultural
position in Canada was that drunkenness should never excuse violence, and
particularly sexual violence. All
parties in Parliament supported a new law establishing a “standard of
reasonable care that Canadians owe to each other” and declaring intoxicated
violence to be a breach of this standard (Room, 1996). A recent law review article argues that the
pendulum has also been swinging back in the U.S. toward a “policy of
accountability for acts while intoxicated” (Keiter, 1997).
Given the cultural foreknowledge
about intoxication's role in violence, it is likely that the argument will be
made in many cultures that an experienced drinker should have known he was
likely to be out of control when intoxicated, and should thus have taken
precautions ahead of time. It seems, in
fact, that in many societies and circumstances where drunkenness has some
excuse-value, it is not a very good excuse, and may be used only when no better
excuse is available (Room, 1984; Paglia and Room, 1998). Even among heavy drinkers in the U.S., use of
the excuse may lower the drinker's status and brand him as an “incompetent
drinker” (Gusfield, 1996). As Strathern
noted concerning Mount Hagen, “the drunken role does not enable a man to gain
any public respect. Insofar as it advertises a kind of licence to behave, it
also indicates a failure to behave centrally” (Strathern, 1982:146).
The implications of pretended
intoxication. Both MacAndrew and
Edgerton (1969:152-156) and Marshall (1983) have cited many instances from
Oceania and North America of ostensive “pseudointoxication”, where drunkenness
is feigned to take advantage of the excuse thus offered. Evidence of pseudointoxication might be
hypothesized as serving as a marker of cultures and cultural situations where
drunkenness has particularly good value as an excuse.
If we examine the reported instances
of pseudointoxication, they seem to arise particularly in two
circumstances. One is at cultural
boundaries, in the context of interactions between people from very different
cultures. At such boundaries, the
expectations and attributions about drunken behaviour take on an added
dimension: each side in the interaction has expectations, whether well-founded
or not, about drunken comportment in the alien culture. Further, each side builds up some knowledge
of what is expected of them by the other in this regard, and drunken
comportment becomes to some extent a performance for the benefit of the other
culture (Stivers, 1976; Lurie, 1971). In
this circumstance, the boundaries of drunken comportment may come to be set
more by the expectations of the alien culture than by internal cultural
dynamics. The pseudointoxication seems
to have been reported more commonly for those on the less powerful side in the
interaction.
The other circumstance in which
ostensive pseudointoxication seems to arise is among young men in an age-graded
hierarchical society. The contrast
between young men's ostensive drunkenness, and often pseudointoxication, and
middle-aged men's much quieter drinking has been made by Marshall (1979) for
Chuuk in Micronesia and Walter (1982) for the Lau Islands in Fiji. Walter notes that the drinking parties in
the Lau Islands, which get noisier as the night goes on, are mostly confined to
young men and boys. He adds that “the
status of young men of the village was never high”, and that they still “occupy
very minor roles in any regular ritual activities”, while the role of warrior
formerly available to them “with all its prestige accoutrements and excitements
has gone” (Walter, 1982:435).
In both these instances, pseudointoxication
appears to be a recourse of the relatively powerless. While intoxication can be a tool for either
the powerful or the powerless in situations of domination (Morgan, 1983), for
the powerful it is perhaps most useful when exerting power would have
questionable legitimacy (Room, 1980), while for the powerless it offers the
opportunity for ambiguous challenges to the status quo, challenges which can
always be nullified in case of a strong reaction by falling back on the
drunkenness excuse.
Can
drunken comportment in a culture be changed?
How readily can cultural
expectations about drunken comportment be changed? The answer is likely to be “not readily”,
that expectations about the effects of drinking are tied to relatively
impervious cultural features. From this
perspective, experiments by clinical psychologists in changing heavy drinker's
expectancies about the effects of drinking are probably taking on a more
difficult task than simply getting them to stop or cut down their drinking.
Yet there are clearly historical
instances in which a culture's expectations about drunken comportment have
changed. MacAndrew and Edgerton
(1969:37-53) discuss in some detail three such instances of change: the Papago
in Arizona, the Tahitian islands, and the Bantu in South Africa. It is notable that all three instances
concern cultures which underwent major social transition, including
subordination to a dominant European culture.
On this evidence, a change in cultural understandings about drunken
comportment is possible, but it may require circumstances of far-reaching
social change.
A few years ago, I looked at the
related question of whether examples could be found in recent decades of a
“dry” society -- one with a history of disruptive behaviour while drinking --
becoming “wetter” in the sense both of drinking becoming more a part of
everyday life and of disruptive behaviour while drinking declining (Room,
1992). While there are many societies
where consumption levels have risen and drinking has become more a part of
everyday life, it is hard to find an example where problem rates had declined
at the same time, though there are a couple of examples of such societies where
the rate of problems per litre of alcohol appears to have declined. From this, it seems unlikely that we will
find good evidence in a European-style society in modern times of the kind of
shift in cultural expectations about drunken comportment reported historically
for the Papago, Tahitians, and the Bantu.
Nor is there clear evidence from anywhere of how such a shift might be
made by intention, rather than as a byproduct of intensive social change.
Perhaps
the North American experience in recent decades with drinking and driving
offers some relevant clues on what might be involved. There is little doubt that the last half
century has seen a substantial redefinition of drinking-driving from a minor
“folk crime” (Gusfield, 1981) to a serious matter; being caught
drinking-driving is probably now more likely to elicit scorn than sympathy. A variety of strategies and decades of effort
went into this change. The mix of
strategies included moral advocacy campaigns by such groups as Mothers Against
Drunk Driving, changes in criminal laws and driving regulations, public
education campaigns, and mandatory treatment or reeducation of
drinking-drivers. At least as broad and
intense a range of efforts would presumably be required to make a substantial
change in cultural expectations about drunken comportment.
There are, indeed, some signs of
change in North American cultural expectations about intoxication and
violence. As we have noted, recent legal
and legislative decisions both in the U.S. (Keiter, 1997) and Canada (Room,
1996) have tended to follow popular sentiment that intoxication is no excuse
for bad behaviour. Canadian feminist
groups in particular insisted on the unacceptability of any legal formula which
allowed for a “discount for drunkenness” in criminal sentencing. The cultural latitude for drunken “time-out”
behaviour may well be narrowing.
Conclusion
Drunken Comportment is a landmark study, which has been instrumental in changing our ideas
about the nature of the relation between intoxication and bad behaviour. Its influence has been wide; its primary
message, that drunken comportment varies from one culture to another, is well
recognized even by researchers who usually worry little about cultural
matters. But there has been relatively
little development in thinking beyond the message that variation exists. We need a better understanding of the
dimensions of cultural variation in drunken comportment, and of what factors
underlie and affect the variations. From
a practical perspective, the most crucial issue is the conditions under which a
culture's expectations about drunken comportment may change. Addressing such issues will help to fulfill
the promise of MacAndrew and Edgerton's work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks
are due to Dwight Heath, Barbara Leigh, Klaus Mäkelä and Cam Wild for helpful
comments. Revised from a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Anthropological Association, San Francisco, November 20-24, 1996, at which time
the author was at the Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto, Canada (now a
division of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health).
REFERENCES
Cavan, S. (1966) Liquor License: An Ethnography of
Bar Bahavior. Aldine, Chicago.
Christianson, B.A. and Teahan, J.E. (1987)
Cross-cultural comparisons of Irish and American adolescent drinking practices
and beliefs, Journal of Studies on Alcohol 48:558-562.
Christie, N. (1965) Scandinavian experience in
legislation and control. In: National Conference on Legal Issues in
Alcoholism and Alcohol Usage, pp. 101-122.
Boston University Law-Medicine Institute, Boston.
Cook, P.J. and Moore, M.J. (1993) Economic
perspectives on reducing alcohol-related violence. In: S. Martin, ed., Alcohol
and Interpersonal Violence: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, pp.
193-212. US Department of Health and
Human Services, NIAAA Research Monograph No. 24, Rockville, MD.
Critchlow, B. (1985) The blame in the bottle:
attributions about drunken behavior, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 11:258-274.
Graham, K., Leonard, K.E., Room, R., Wild, T.C.,
Pihl, R.O., Bois, C., and Single, E. (1998) Current directions in research on
understanding and preventing intoxicated aggression, Addiction
93:659-676.
Gusfield, J.R. (1981) The Culture of Public
Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. University of Chicago Press, Chicago &
London.
Gusfield, J.R. (1996) Contested Meanings: The
Construction of Alcohol Problems. University of Wisconsin Press; Madison.
Kalant, H. (1996) Intoxicated automatism: legal
concept vs. scientific evidence, Contemporary Drug Problems 23:631-648.
Keiter, M. (1997) Just say no excuse: the rise and
fall of the intoxication defense, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
87:482-520.
Lang, A.R. (1983) Drinking and disinhibition:
contributions from psychological research. In: R. Room and G. Collins, eds., Alcohol
and Disinhibition: Nature and Meaning of the Link, pp. 48-90. US Department
of Health and Human Services, NIAAA Research Monograph No. 12, Rockville, MD.
Lemert, E.M. (1954) Alcohol and the Northwest
Coast Indians, University of California Publications in Culture and
Society, vol. 2(6), pp. 303-406.
Lenke, L. (1990) Alcohol and Criminal Violence --
Time Series Analyses in a Comparative Perspective. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.
Levine, H.G. (1983) The good creature of God and
Demon Rum: colonial American and 19th century ideas about alcohol, crime, and
accidents. In: R. Room and G. Collins, eds., Alcohol and Disinhibition:
Nature and Meaning of the Link, pp. 111-161. US Department of Health and
Human Services, NIAAA Research Monograph No. 12, Rockville, MD.
Lindman, R.E. and Lang, A.R. (1994) The
alcohol-aggression stereotype: a cross-cultural comparison of beliefs, International
Journal of the Addictions 29:1-13.
Lindstrom, M. (1982) "Grog blong yumi":
alcohol and kava on Tanna, Vanuatu. In:
M. Marshall, ed., Through a Glass Darkly: Beer and Modernization in Papua
New Guinea, pp. 421-432. Institute
for Applied Social and Economic Research, Monograph 18, Boroko, PNG.
Lurie, N.O. (1971) The world's oldest ongoing protest
demonstration: North American Indian drinking patterns, Pacific Historical
Review 40:311-332.
MacAndrew, C. and Edgerton, R. (1969) Drunken
Comportment: A Social Explanation.
Aldine, Chicago.
Mäkelä, K. (1983) The uses of alcohol and their
cultural regulation, Acta Sociologica 26:21-31..
Marshall, M. (1979) Weekend Warriors: Alcohol in a
Micronesian Culture. Mayfield. Palo Alto, CA.
Marshall, M. (1983) “Four hundred rabbits”: an
anthropological view of ethanol as a disinhibitor. In: R. Room and G. Collins,
eds., Alcohol and Disinhibition: Nature and Meaning of the Link, pp.
186-204. US Department of Health and Human Services, NIAAA Research Monograph
No. 12, Rockville, MD.
Morgan, P. (1983) Alcohol, disinhibition, and
domination: a conceptual analysis. In:
R. Room and G. Collins, eds., Alcohol and Disinhibition: Nature and Meaning
of the Link, pp. 405-420. US
Department of Health and Human Services, NIAAA Research Monograph No. 12,
Rockville, MD.
Norström, T. (1988) Alcohol and suicide in Scandinavia,
British Journal of Addiction 83:553-559.
Norström, T. (1995) Alcohol and suicide: a
comparative analysis of France and Sweden, Addiction 90:1463-1469.
Opie, I. and P. (1959) The Lore and Language of
Schoolchildren. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Paglia, A. and Room, R. (1998) Alcohol and
aggression: general population views about causation and responsibility, Journal
of Substance Abuse 10:199-216.
Parker, R.N. (1995) Alcohol and Homicide: A Deadly
Combination of Two American Traditions.
State University of New York Press, Albany.
Partanen, J. (1991) Sociability and Intoxication:
Alcohol and Drinking in Kenya, Africa, and the Modern World. Finnish
Foundation for Alcohol Studies, Volume 39, Helsinki.
Pernanen, K. (1976) Alcohol and crimes of violence,
pp. 351-444 in: B. Kissin and H. Begleiter, eds., The Biology of Alcoholism:
IV. Social Aspects of Alcoholism, pp. 351-444. Plenum, New York
& London.
Roizen, R. (1977) Barriers to Alcoholism Treatment. Alcohol Research Group, Report F145;
Berkeley, CA.
Room, R. (1980) Alcohol as an instrument of intimate
domination. Presented at the annual
meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, New York, New York,
August.
Room, R. (1983) Alcohol and crime: behavioral
aspects. In: S. Kadish, ed., Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, vol. 1,
pp. 35-44. New York: Free Press.
Room, R. (1984) How good an excuse is
drunkenness? Seminar presentation at the
Institute of Law, University of Helsinki, May 10. Alcohol Research Group,
publication E153, Berkeley, CA.
Room, R. (1989) Responses to alcohol-related problems
in an international perspective: characterizing and explaining cultural wetness
and dryness. Presented at an
international conference, "La ricerca Italiana sulle bevande alcoliche nel
confronto internazionale", San Stefano Belbo, Italy. Alcohol Research
Group, publication E293, Berkeley, CA. On the web at
http://www.bks.no/response.htm
Room, R. (1992) The impossible dream? -- routes to
reducing alcohol problems in a temperance culture, Journal of Substance
Abuse 4:91-106.
Room, R. (1996) Drinking, violence, gender and causal
attribution: a Canadian case study in science, law and policy, Contemporary
Drug Problems 23:649-686.
Room, R. and Collins, G., eds. (1983) Alcohol and
Disinhibition: Nature and Meaning of the Link. US Department of Health and
Human Services, NIAAA Research Monograph No. 12, Rockville, MD.
Room, R. Janca, A., Bennett, L.A., Schmidt, L. and
Sartorius, N., with others (1996) WHO
cross-cultural applicability research on diagnosis and assessment of substance
use disorders: an overview of methods and selected results, Addiction
91:199-220.
Room, R. and Mäkelä, K. (forthcoming) Typologies of
the cultural position of drinking, Journal of Studies on Alcohol.
Schwartz, T. (1982) Alcohol use in Manus villages.
In: M. Marshall, ed., Through a Glass Darkly: Beer and Modernization in
Papua New Guinea, pp. 391-403.Institute for Applied Social and Economic
Research, Monograph 18, Boroko, PNG.
Steele, C.M. and Josephs, R.A. (1990) Alcohol myopia:
its prized and dangerous effects, American Psychologist 45:921-933.
Stivers, R. (1976) A Hair of the Dog: Irish
Drinking and American Stereotype.
Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park & London.
Strathern, A. (1982) The scraping gift: alcohol
consumption in Mount Hagen. In: M. Marshall, ed., Through a Glass Darkly:
Beer and Modernization in Papua New Guinea, pp. 139-153. Institute for Applied Social and Economic
Research, Monograph 18, Boroko, PNG.
Taylor, S. (1996) Experimental investigation of
alcohol-instigated aggression, presented at a conference on Intoxication and
Aggressive Behaviour: Understanding and Preventing Alcohol-Related Violence,
Toronto, October.
Taylor, W.B. (1979) Drinking, Homicide and
Rebellion in Colonial Mexican Villages. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA.
Teahan, J.E. (1987) Alcohol expectancies, values, and
drinking of Irish and U.S. collegians, International Journal of the
Addictions 22:621-638.
Teahan, J.E. (1988) Alcohol expectancies of Irish and
Canadian alcoholics, International Journal of the Addictions
23:1057-1070.
Thomas, W.I. and D.S. (1928) The Child in America:
Behavior Problems and Programs. A.A. Knopf, New York.
Walter, M.A.H.B. (1982) Drink and be merry for
tomorrow we preach: alcohol and the male menopause in Fiji. In: M. Marshall,
ed., Through a Glass Darkly: Beer and Modernization in Papua New Guinea,
pp. 433-436. Institute for Applied
Social and Economic Research, Monograph 18, Boroko, PNG.
Warry, W. (1982) "Bia" and
"bisnis": the use of beer in Chuave ceremonies. In: M. Marshall, ed.,
Through a Glass Darkly: Beer and Modernization in Papua New Guinea, pp.
83-103. Institute for Applied Social and Economic Research, Monograph 18,
Boroko, PNG.
Wild, T.C., Graham, K. and Rehm, J. (1998) Blame and
punishment for intoxicated aggression: when is the perpetrator culpable? Addiction
93:677-687.