Posts
I've long admired Maureen. Ambitious Brew is a truly ambitious book, and a great piece of history, full of quirky anecdotes and succinct and thoughtful analysis. She beautifully captures the many characters along for beer's ride through American industry and our psyche, while never losing sight of the larger narrative. My respect grew last spring when I e-mailed her, on a whim, asking for an interview for a column I was working on. She got back within hours, and we had a great chat. She couldn't have been more helpful or accommodating.
Here's a snippet of our discussion:
If you haven't already, check out her blog at MaureenOgle.com/blog.
Q: In an interview on the Ambitious Brew website, you mention that parents, and society, ingrain in children an idea that alcohol is bad, which leads children, once older, to "mismanage" their drinking? Do you believe that's the root cause of the dangerous drinking in the U.S.?
M: I absolutely believe that adults demonize alcohol, and then pass on that message to children. And, yes, that's the root of "dangerous drinking," in this society or any other.
Science does seem to have demonstrated that some people are genetically wired with an allergy to alcohol and that's what it appears to be: their bodies experience a hostile chemical reaction to alcohol, much the way people do who are allergic to bee stings or milk. Other people are wired for excess, whether it's shopping, drinking, or whatever; they seem to lack control mechanisms.
But most of us can tolerate alcohol and know when we've had enough. Except kids. They need to be taught -- but they can only learn that message if they first learn that alcohol should be treated with respect, that it's a normal part of human existence and has been for at least ten thousand years and probably longer.
The demonization message leads to irrational behavior, like binge drinking and teenagers slugging down as much as they can: they've been taught that alcohol is dangerous and forbidden and so of course they're going to want to engage in the forbidden. That's what adolescents do!
Similarly, the campaign against drinking while pregnant is just as irrational. If alcohol were harmful to fetuses, the human race would have died out thousands of years ago. Becuase until about a 150 years ago, everyone drank alcohol every day (adults and children) because it was the safest way to hydrate the body (there wasn't any safe drinking water). And in many parts of the world, it's still true. So if alcohol were harmful, humans wouldn't have survived. But that rational notion has become obliterated by the irrational message that all alcohol is always evil.
Q: What would you say to critics who say that teaching children to drink at a young age is bad because alcohol, even in moderation, could lead to dangerous decision making and is part of an unhealthy lifestyle?
M: I don't think anyone advocates teaching children to drink at a young age. What sensible advocate is teaching children that alcohol is a normal part of the human experience. There's a big difference between those two things!
Also, where is the evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol "could lead to dangerous decision making"? I doubt there is any evidence! Again, part of the problem -- indeed, most of the problem -- is that prohibitionists are making the leap from alcohol to evil: if you drink, you are therefore making bad choices, living an unhealthy lifestyle, and being inebriated. There's no logical connection. Some people "abuse" alcohol. But not everyone who drinks abuses it.
Q: Do you think the growing popularity of craft beer, aided by websites like BeerAdvocate and the respect of food and wine writers like Eric Asimov of the NYT, could help transform America's drinking culture?
M: Good question! And the answer is: I doubt it. The Times, for example, has had a wine columnist since at least the 1970s, and probably earlier. And our drinking culture is the same as it's been for more than a century. Part of the problem is that people like Asimov and the Alstroms are preaching to the converted: adults who already understand that alcohol is part of human culture and not necessarily evil. The people who need to be reached are kids, not adults.
Q: I read a blog post from Nov. 2006 in which you write that the "neo-prohibition" movement rarely misses a chance to attack to the alcohol industry. Do you think any of their attacks are well-founded?
M: Another good question. The argument is that alcohol manufacturers target their advertising and message at young impressionable kids (with things like the cute A-Busch frogs and Spuds McKenzie and spring break promos). Same argument is made about cigarette manufacturers with things like Joe Camel.
The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much solid evidence that a) the advertisers are specifically targeting kids ("Hey guys, let's write an ad campaign about beer that will appeal to ten-year-olds!"). If advertising seems juvenile, it's because we infantalize drinking. We don't treat drinking and alcohol as serious subjects worthy of our respect. And b) there's not much evidence that kids actually respond to the ads. There were a ton of studies about this in the 1970s and 1980s, and no one could find evidence that kids were seeing ads and then trying ot go buy cigarettes or booze, or that, once they were of legal age, they sought out brands whose ads they'd seen as children.
Q: In that same post, you write that groups like MADD are part of the problem, not the solution. Could you expand on that thought a bit?
M: MADD is a huge part of the "drinking problem." They're the single most important source of the "let's demonize alcohol" campaign. Tthey try to "protect" children and to infantalize adults, and they promote alcohol as a dangerous, evil substance. Both messages simply exacerbate the problem that kids get this message and so pursue the forbdden and then they grow up and repeat the cycle with their own kids.
Q: Many say that underage drinking is a sort of rite of passage. You go to college and lose control, so the mantra goes. How difficult would it be to change that line of thinking? Do you think it's even possible?
M: Well, it's sure not possible to change the message in college! It's too late by then. The average freshman arrives at college fully indoctrinated into the "disrespect and demonize alcohol" message. I think it's a total waste of money for colleges to mount this Just Say No-type campaigns. It's never going to work.
As for underage drinking being a rite of passage -- well, that's the problem, isn't it? Teenagers absolutely will pursue the forbidden. Teach kids a different message and we'll end up with a different attitude and a different result.
Q: I've talked with a number of health officials who say that teaching college students of the dangers of drinking is the only way to combat underage drinking, which is linked to about 5,000 deaths annually. Do you think there's a more effective way to curb what clearly looks like a real problem?
M: It's simply too late at the college level. Total waste of money. As for that annual death statistic, let me guess: it's from MADD, right? MADD regularly and routinely and knowingly distorts any and all stats related to alcohol. It's part of their method, just as it was for the Anti-Saloon League a century ago. Indeed, the people at MADD are scarey because they've learned the lessons of the past!
So first step is: figure out what the "real problem" is. Second, persuade states to rethink their alcohol education programs, which are mostly mis-education programs, in K-12. But of course that would be tough. MADD is well-organized, and it's very, very hard to step up and say anything positive about alcohol. The ASL knew that back in the 1890s. It's much easier to define a problem and then launch a campaign against it, than it is to run a campaign in favor of what has already been defined by the opposition as a problem.
It's unfortunate that the focus is on "binge" drinking and "underage" drinking and on college students. Because all that does is obscure the deeper issue of adults' destructive attitudes and the way in which we Americans demonize alcohol and infantalize drinking. Those are the real problems. "Problem drinking" in colleges is simply a symptom.
No comments:
Post a Comment