Alcohol is a complex substance that impacts upon society in a more profound way than any other substance. As a result of this, many psychological approaches have been used in an attempt to explain how some individuals can drink alcohol in moderation whereas others become “problem drinkers” or alcoholics. The impact of alcoholism on the individual, their friends and family, and society at large is extremely large. This essay looks at how different theorists have attempted to explain why some drinkers can consume alcohol without resorting to excess, whereas others tend to consume alcohol in a way that is dangerous both to themselves and to others around them.
Firstly, the biological psychological argument argues that certain individuals with alcoholic tendencies are born with certain genes which predispose them to addiction. Freberg (121) argues that if an individual was born into an alcoholic family, then that individual is 300% more likely to become an alcoholic him / herself. The cure to this process would involve abstinence since an individual is biologically predisposed to alcoholism. As Finigrette (52) points out, “The rate of alcoholism among the adoptees who had an alcoholic biological parent was 3.6 times greater than that among the adoptees whose biological parents were not alcoholics.” It is therefore easy to conclude from this that alcoholism is carried to some extent down through the genes. In this case, abstinence-based policies tend to be used because the biological and genetic origin of the alcoholism makes it an incurable disease.
Excessive alcohol consumption also has a permanent impact on the functioning of the brain, making many scholars in alcoholism lead to the conclusion that once these brain functions have been impaired, it is extremely difficult to become non-alcoholic: Winn (50) notes that although the effects on the brain are not well understood, it does have a “generalized effect on neuronal membranes” Alcohol also has a permanent effect on neurotransmitter activity, suggesting that alcoholism has a psychiatric basis. As such, advocates for psychiatric approaches to alcoholism tend to stress abstinence- and recovery based approaches.
Of course, prevention-based methods do not necessarily lead to this conclusion. Simply because a correlation between two events occur does not mean that one affects the other directly. Goodwin (164) conducted an experiment with adopted and non-adopted sons of alcoholics, and reached the conclusion that the difference between the two figures was not “statistically significant.” However, the “severity of the parent's alcoholism [] was positively related to alcoholism in the offspring” (Goodwin 164). What this suggests is that biological predispositions may have less importance than an early psychiatric and psychological exposure to the drug.
The psychiatric model of alcoholism places the blame for a child developing alcoholic tendencies upon the parents and their own behavior surrounding the child. This method of recovery tends to look at family issues for cures to alcoholism, since alcoholism is generally seen as something inherited by an alcoholic environment. Since the child during his or her developmental years comes to associate all of the pleasurable effects of alcohol on the drug rather than the company itself, the psychiatric model looks at how that child begins to see alcohol as a necessary part of his or her life.
The problem with an approach which solely uses data to reach conclusions about alcoholics is that it does not place priority upon the other more complex cultural and social factors which may have a more important role in determining a child's propensity to become alcoholic in later life. The concern with psychiatric and psychological models of thinking is that too much concern is given to both the individual whose alcoholic behavior has control mechanism. The family unit who has allowed that alcoholic to develop and prosper in that environment depends upon social factors.
It is important to note that the very definition of an alcoholic is extremely variable and differs between cultures. As Wilcox (6) notes, “one of the most problematic aspects of alcohol research relies upon the ability to describe alcoholism in such a way that everyone can agree." Wilcox (6) notes that the different approaches taken to deal with alcoholism in society often use radically different definitions when defining the term itself.
Rational choice theory argues that individuals choose to become alcoholics because they prefer to be that way inclined. Indeed, if alcohol did not provide a positive experience for users, then alcoholism would not be unlikely to be a problematic feature of society, since it would not provide the requisite pleasure. Rational choice theorists argue that it is possible to cure an alcoholic by giving an alcoholic a rational series of choices - which is whether to drink or not.
Finally, learning and socialization theories stress that individuals develop associations through “situational and cognitive” factors (Leonard and Blane 112). Here, the focus is on how society creates a situation in which a person's immediate environment, exposure to advertising and friends who are able to drink in moderation normalise and internalize thoughts about these substances. In a positive learning environment, alcoholics can be socialized into moderating their alcohol consumption without having to appropriate a disease model where biology is the central factor, or to deal with childhood issues. In fact, the socialization model allows an alcoholic to moderate their drinking and live a functioning life without enduring the stigmas of alcoholism itself.
Works Cited
Fingarette, Herbert. Heavy Drinking. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Print.
Freberg, Laura. Discovering Biological Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print.
Goodwin, Donald W. "Drinking Problems In Adopted And Nonadopted Sons Of Alcoholics". Arch Gen Psychiatry 31.2 (1974): 164. Web.
Leonard, Kenneth E, and Howard T Blane. Psychological Theories Of Drinking And Alcoholism. New York: Guilford Press, 1999. Print.
Wilcox, Danny M. Alcoholic Thinking. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998. Print.
Winn, Philip. Dictionary Of Biological Psychology. London: Routledge, 2001. Print.
3/22/16
Should Pornography Be Legal?
The issue of pornography and its legality is controversial for a variety of sociological and psychological reasons. Firstly, the effects of social regulation of pornography has had mixed effects – many advocates of liberalizing pornography argue that to make pornography illegal would only drive pornography underground. Legalization should therefore be seen in terms of harm reduction, because it allows individuals working in the sex trade the opportunity to be covered by the legal apparatuses that, if pornography were made illegal, would not cover their interests within existing legal parameters (Livescience.com).
Defenders of pornography tend to argue that nobody is harmed in the production of pornography. Also, economically, the consensual relationship of pornography reduce the harms inevitably caused by prostitution and pornography (Spector 422).
The legality of pornography and prostitution also poses threats on control grounds. Although libertarians argue that legalization of prostitution should equate to the freedom of a human being over control over his or her body, legalization can also post significant threats to how pornography and prostitution operates on a day-to-day level. As Maschke (79) argues, the licensing scheme restricts “prostitutes mobility”, but also restricts many aspects of prostitutes and pornographers private lives. As Maschke (79) argues, “Prostitutes are dependent on their employers at the bawdy houses and may be victims of abuse by police or other officials who have the power to grant or revoke their permits” (79). In other words, even though the legalization of prostitution from a liberal point of view may have good intentions because they support the rights of sex workers and allow them to work in safe environments, the legalization of prostitution and pornography may serve to legalize the work of their exploiters as well. Many workers in the sex trade do not operate on these grounds and could only use their new-found legitimacy to further exploit the workers under which the sex workers operate.
The mainstreamining of pornography through the internet may also lead to other factors that legitimate pornographic behaviours in general. Although the ubiquity of pornography in contemporary life has undoubtedly had an impact on the way in which people treat pornographic actors and actresses, the evidence to suggest that this has led to an increase in rates of sex crime in general is dubious to say the least. Kimmel (114) argues that, in fact, “the legalization of pornography in Denmark was actually accompanied by a reduction in the number of reports in sex crimes.” However, Kimmel (144) notes that this is not necessarily related to the legalization of pornography, but to a “variety of other social factors”, including “greater political and social participation for women, and a generally increasing liberal social policy perspective.”
Perhaps most tellingly, the use of a more liberal social policy which included the liberalization of pornography also included a more general social policy that sought to increase a more inclusive relationship with women in society in general. As Kimmel (144) notes, this policy perspective led to
“child molestation decreasing by 80%; of 100% percent of offenses reported before legalization, about 20 are reported now. This seems to be a real reduction, not merely a result of changes in the willingness of children or parents to call the police.”
Of course, the effects of pornography have also been argued to have a deleterious effect on the impact of children and adolescents who have been exposed to pornography on a largely unprecedented level. However, in spite of the scare-stories surrounding pornography exposure to children and adolescents, many of the scientific documentation suggests that there does not exist a great deal of correlation between pornography exposure and actual acting out of violent acts against women. Indeed, the increasingly aggressive nature of internet pornography has had little to no effect on the ways in which male users of pornography have treated women than previous forms of non-violent pornography. Pornography does, however, increase male-female aggression, but only to a limited extent.
Malamuth (35) argues that “nonpornographic films that portrayed aggression against women were found to increase the levels of males' aggression against female victims, although to a lesser degree than aggressive-pornographic themes.”
Overall, the issue concerning the legality of pornography depends to a large extent upon whether it is possible to do so in our present world. The variety of pornography in our present world way make the argument about banning pornography outright impossible to enact. Furthermore, when pornography is banned outright, the victims of pornography could even be forced underground into situations where consent is considerably more difficult to ascertain.
Works Cited
Kimmel, Michael S. The Gender Of Desire. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2005. Print.
Malamuth, Neil M, and Edward I Donnerstein. Pornography And Sexual Aggression. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1984. Print.
Maschke, Karen J. Pornography, Sex Work, And Hate Speech. New York: Garland Pub., 1997. Print.
Spector, Timothy. The Prehistory Of Sex. New York: Bantam Books, 1996. Print.
"The History Of Pornography No More Prudish Than The Present". LiveScience.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.
