Malcolm Gladwell cracks open a cold one and distills some academic research, as is his wont. This week’s topic: drinking and culture. After discussing the extended example of Bolivians and their norms for drinking 180 proof rum on weekends, he comes to the point that it’s not how much people drink but rather how they drink it that matters.
But wine lovers knew this! Since at least King James and Thomas Jefferson, wine has been seen wine as a drink of moderation, lower in alcohol than spirits and consumed with food. Gladwell cites research from the 1950s that showed that first-generation Italian immigrants in New Haven, CT had very low levels of alcoholism, despite drinking some wine with lunch and dinner. Other immigrant groups and second- and third-generation Italians had different patterns of consumption (less moderation, less with food) and had higher rates of alcoholism.
It’s good to see the topic getting a broad airing–check out the story if you are snowed in somewhere (it’s not available online). Here’s a taste:
The abuse of alcohol has, historically, been thought of as a moral failing. Muslims and Mormons and many kinds of fundamentalist Christians do not drink, because they consider alcohol an invitation to sin. Around the middle of the last century, alcoholism began to be widely considered a disease: it was recognized that some proportion of the population was genetically susceptible to the effects of drinking. Policymakers, meanwhile, have become increasingly interested in using economic and legal tools to control alcohol-related behavior: that’s why the drinking age has been raised from eighteen to twenty-one, why drunk-driving laws have been toughened, and why alcohol is taxed heavily. Today, our approach to the social burden of alcohol is best described as a mixture of all three: we moralize, medicalize, and legalize.
“Drinking Games: How much people drink may matter less than how they drink it.” Malcolm Gladwell, The New Yorker, Feb 15 & 22, 2010. pp. 70 – 76.