Thursday, May 6, 2010

On Alcohol and Human Nature

Last night, I attended Sigma Nu's formal, a night traditionally filled with copious amounts of dancing and debauchery. Though I can't say that I was present last year to have a yardstick with which to measure, the night seemed to be more tame than usual; the people, more lucid. Perhaps this was due to the proximity of the night to final exams, but could it have been something else? This morning, my brother Derek suggested that perhaps the alcohol being served to us was not really alcohol. While I still remain skeptical that this was the case, the idea is interesting. It certainly would not be the first time that the placebo effect has been examined via psychological experiments. Although I cannot be bothered to dig up the articles detailing this experiment, it is certainly known that people "act drunkenly" when they genuinely believe that their drink is alcoholic (even though it is not). In fact, as Derek elaborated, this phenomenon happens at bars all the time, when bartenders serve overly-intoxicated individuals virgin drinks in order to appease their desire for alcohol without facilitating alcohol poisoning.

At first glance, this phenomenon does not seem to be very novel or exciting. Anecdotal evidence would've suggested what the psychological experiments proved. However, if we examine this phenomenon as a feature of human nature, the resulting thoughts are rather disturbing.

Let's begin with alcohol and the reason why we drink it in the first place. Discounting more marginal cases of unhealthy drinking, most people seem to imbibe with the idea of "social lubrication" in mind, seeing alcohol as a magic tonic that can loosen up those uptight New Yorker tendencies (which are not limited to New Yorkers). In many ways, this is true, and the observed effects of alcohol (again, in isolated psychological experiments) confirm our belief that being moderately intoxicated does often loosen us up to a certain degree.

What is troubling is that people are able to successfully achieve this effect without the actual alcohol, which is what the phenomenon of fake drunkenness shows us. If we all walk into a party expecting a certain behavior and environment of socially lubricated drunkenness, and if we truly believe that there is some external force responsible for this, we will act accordingly. If we realize this, and that we can achieve all of the (positive, at least) effects of intoxication without the actual alcohol, then why do we feel the need to consume alcohol? Are we not collectively intelligent enough to decide to do away with alcohol so we can avoid all of the negative side effects? Why is it so necessary for us to have alcohol as a scapegoat for our actions? It is as if drunkenness is a free pass to act outside of social norms.

My answer as to why we cannot do this is because alcohol has become so "fetishized," in the Marxist sense. Alcohol is imbued with so much cultural meaning and significance that we cannot abolish it without doing away with our cultural identity. For many teens, alcohol represents a rite of passage. For adults, alcohol is symbol of social life. Unfortunately, it seems like our more spiritual concerns of looking cool and fitting in will override the minor problems of vomit and liver cancer for now...

[NOTE: I am not trying to take a moral stance against alcohol. I am simply trying to point out the illogical and irrational nature of our alcohol consumption.]

8 comments:

  1. How is this about human nature? It is more about psychology and sociology. Alcohol, you're right, is a cultural symbol that we accept as real much like every other construction like identity and preference.

    ReplyDelete
  2. but people really can't achieve the effects of social lubrication by knowingly eliminating alcohol. because then the placebo effect wouldn't work. the whole point is that you have to believe you're actually drinking alcohol. marx's commodity fetishization is an interesting explanation, but i don't think it's is the complete answer.

    i think an interesting point the placebo effect suggests it's within the realm of possibility that all the alcohol you've ever consumed in your life hasn't actually been alcohol, because the perceived effects are identical if you believe it's alcohol. this probably has something to do with what descartes says about sense-perception and what we actually know about the world and stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To Anonymous: You're right, this post is not very aptly named. I had a sort of a different idea when I began from where I ended up... The connection I intended to make to human nature is that this situation kind of shows us how irrational we can be in the name of social acceptance, etc.

    To Tony: Yes, I realize that part of the game is believing that we are drinking alcohol. What I'm suggesting is that we all consciously come together and acknowledge that it's the belief of drinking alcohol that gives the effect, and that it can be achieved without actually imbibing, we wouldn't have to deal with alcohol's negative consequences. For example, set up a party where it is acknowledged that no one drinks, but that everyone has a "social license" to act as if they were. Of course, I am doubting the feasibility of such a proposal, which is part of the connection with "human nature." It seems to be out of our nature to do something like that. I'm trying to point out that our nature of not allowing the previously situation to occur conflicts with our rational nature.

    ReplyDelete
  4. get off your pedestal and go have a drink

    ReplyDelete
  5. Um, the second anonymous person should get off his own high horse and realize that he is doing exactly what he is accusing Kevin of doing- judging people unjustly. Just relax, dude, and grow some balls. Because commenting negatively anonymously is pretty weak.

    ReplyDelete
  6. oh ok right. i mean, again, i think it's an interesting and fine connection. but even without this fetishization, a wider understanding of the placebo effect still wouldn't lead to the success of the "socially licensed" scenario you described

    ReplyDelete
  7. and i think the title of the post is fine. psychology is more or less the study of human nature. sociology can be read as how human nature gets expressed in and reacts to groups

    ReplyDelete
  8. on negative commenters: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/04/21/truth-about-comments

    ReplyDelete