As I took my morning hits of caffeine and news, I came across another of those dismal articles pontificating – with repressed prudishness – on the evils of alcohol. In this Guardian piece, building upon reams of prim articles and proper research, we are told that Canadian scientists have recently determined that it is just as healthy to be teetotal as it is to be a moderate drinker.
Between the lines, the message seems to be that the only reason to drink alcohol would be to prolong one’s life: since this preserving effect is unsubstantiated, we should simply stop drinking.
This moralising is reinforced by people who parade their absteemiousness as if everyone else should be absteemious too. Let me parade my moderate drinking…
Three important provisos
Please don’t misconstrue what I am saying: some people have a genuine dependency problem with alcohol, and should steer clear. It is difficult for them to do so, and admirable that they can.
It is also important to recognize that there should be stringent rules about operating machinery, driving, etc… if one has drunk any alcohol.
And some people don’t like or want alcohol: fair enough, I can’t argue with that!
But these provisos have nothing to do with the majority of moderate drinkers, who – yes – may overindulge from time to time, but who are not dependent on the stuff, who enjoy it, and who imbibe responsibly (e.g. designated drivers; at the cottage; arrange for a taxi back home; walk…).
The many benefits of alcohol
So, with these provisos in mind, it should be recognized that alcohol has many benefits, which have nothing to do with maybe prolonging one’s joyless life by a few months.
First, of course, is taste. Decent wine, good scotch, fine tequila, subtle beers – all taste wonderful, and can be enjoyed for their own sake. This is good thing : unless one equates tastelesness with virtue, then enjoying alcoholic beverages should be valued in-and-of itself.
Second, and as importantly, is the relaxation that alcohol procures. Why not wind down, and enjoy a summer evening (or, for that matter, a bitter winter night) with a substance that enhances it (or takes the edge off)?
Some people take an evening swim (but there is danger of drowning). Others go for a jog (but could get run over or have a heart attack). Others avoid alcohol (but drink fruit juice – oh! the sugar – and eat chips – oh! the salt and fat).
Of course, clever people jog, take a quick swim, recover with orange juice and salty snacks, and then settle down for a beer.
Third is the disinhibiting effect of alcohol. An excellent book that goes over this in detail is Drunk: How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization.
In this book Professor Edward Slingerhand (thankfully a Canadian – not all Canadians advocate prim teetotalism) documents the ways in which the disinhibiting effects of alcohol have been of civilizational advantage, encouraging creative and innovative ideas, weakening social boundaries, enhancing socialisation between initially distant people, and creating bonding experiences that lead to team-building and constructive outcomes.
Please note that Professor Slingerhand is well aware of the deleterious effects of too much alcohol on a regular basis, and is also well aware that some people struggle with alcohol.
It should be possible, however, to entertain two apparently conflicting ideas simultaneously:
- for many people and in many situations alcohol has multiple benefits, even if maximizing longevity is not one of them (there is little evidence that moderate drinking significantly reduces longevity: it just doesn’t seem to enhance it).
- for some people, alcohol creates dependency, enhances violence and is a bad thing. These people should be helped to stay away from it, and respected for doing so. There should be no pressure to drink – the marketing of very low and no-alcohol drinks, and increasing acceptance of people’s choices with respect to alcohol, are positive social changes.
Alcohol, innovation and research: Canada’s dismal research councils
The third argument for alcohol is an important one, one that Canadian research councils should take note of. In Canada – the source of many prim statements and rules about drinking – spending any research money on alcohol is prohibited1.
This is paradoxical since our research councils spend millions of dollars trying to enhance networking and innovation.
I am not advocating publically subsidized drink-fests: but Canada’s research policies prohibit even an after-work beer with colleagues (say $20 of alcohol per person on a hospitality bill), an investment that would prolong the work day and allow new ideas to fuse: such teetotalism is counter-productive, moralistic and embarrassing when colleagues from less repressed countries are ‘welcomed’.
Canada’s teetotal policies imply that it is suspicious and counter-productive for researchers to relax, reduce inhibitions, and discuss crazy ideas (some of which lead to innovation and breakthroughs) whilst bonding with visiting scholars.
After-work drinks are of course possible – in practice, especially with foreign guests unaware of Canada’s prudishness, Canadian researchers end up inviting colleagues out on their own dime.
Where do Canadian research agencies think that new ideas, taboo-breaking research, and strong networking emerge from?
Board meetings?
- Extract from the SSHRC web page relating to grant monery: “Networking activities: In the case of Strategic Grants and Joint Initiatives, costs related to networking activities may be charged to the grant. These costs may include travel and subsistence, purchase of facsimile or other telecommunication tools, hiring of network co-ordinators, food and drink (excluding alcoholic beverages) for research meetings or workshops, etc.” ↩︎
Richard Shearmur 