Why is Alcoholism Deviant?

To understand why Alcoholism is considered deviant it is first important to note that the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual for Mental Illness does not recognize Alcoholism as a true mental illness. In fact, the DSM defines both alcohol abuse and alcohol dependance with no mention of Alcoholism which proves that the term is a social construction (Baldwin Research Institute). Science and history show that alcoholism as a disease is nothing more than speculation and the misrepresentation of the term in the media is hurting the very people it was intended to help. As stated in the class blog, we are convinced that people who drink too much are sick. Why is that? Do we truly believe that or are we just that easily manipulated by what we see in the media. It is common knowledge that alcoholism treatment programs are a multimillion dollar industry. We as society fall victim to the marketing of the term and idea of "alcoholism" while different organizations and individuals become rich off the very same concept.

The fact that Alcoholism or even alcohol consumption in general is a social construction is pin pointed through different events in history. For example, prior to prohibition drinking alcohol was not considered deviant, during prohibition, it was considered deviant and after the constitutions was amended, it was no longer considered deviant again. Another example is drinking age which use to be 21 in some states and 18 in other states. This meant that if you were between 18 and 21, you were considered deviant in some states but not in others. In today's society, if you have a glass of wine with dinner you are considered classy, if you have a bottle of wine, you are considered an alcoholic. Likewise, if two guys get together and share a six pack of beers, they are considered hard "real men," if two ladies do the same thing, they are considered trashy. All of this can be explained through Travis Hirschi's control theory. The theory outlines that deviant behavior is present in everyone but only some will actually go through with the behavior while others will not. The deciding factor  is the individuals bond to society. In the case of alcoholism, the deviant behavior depends on what is considered alcoholism in that point in time (Thio, Calhoun &Conyers)

In today's society, Alcoholism is considered a disease which automatically makes it  deviant but how do you define alcoholism. Most health care professionals do not even believe in Alcoholism as a true disease so then why are there so many treatment programs.



The video above is a perfect example of how Alcoholim is a social construction. The question remains, why is the consumption of alcohol considered deviant? In my opinion, the real question should not be why is drinking considered deviant but rather, why has the media made drinking seem deviant. There are a number of different answers including, the ability to make profit off of the idea of an illness, social control and scaring the public in order to manipulate their thoughts and opinions in a way that favors alcoholism as a disease. At the end of the day, society will be influenced by media above all else so no matter how many health care providers disagree with the disease aspect of alcohol consumption, society will be marketed the concept and different organizations will continue to profit from that marketing.

References

Book: Readings in Deviant Behavior

Youtube Video: Alcoholism is not a Disease

Article: The Never-ending Debate: The Legal Drinking Age in the U.S.

Article: Alcoholim: A Disease of Speculation

Word Count: 597

Film Review: Generation Rx

The main thesis of Generation Rx is that mind altering drugs prescribed to America's youth is done so not because there is a clear defined problem in those receiving the drugs but because the youth are an untapped profit mechanism. according to the film, the only mental imbalance that has been found it youth are the ones that were caused by the chemicals in the pills they were prescribed. Society has a defined ideals in how children should act and if they don't fit within those ideals, they are identified as individuals who may have problems. Doctors and Psychiatrists take advantage of a parents desire to have "normal" children and make unreal amounts of money on these youth.

The documentary had many points supporting this thesis. It stressed on many occasions that the points it was making were facts and not opinions. Some of the most compelling arguments were that these drugs that are giving to youth were not designed for their age group. Children are constantly growing and changing so the documentary made a good point in saying, "how do we know how they are suppose to be if they are altered from a very young age?" other arguments include the fact that there has been a %400 increase in prescriptions for some of these medications. Lastly, there is a lack of scientific creditability in prescribing to youth. There has been no conclusive research that shows improvement.

The thesis of this film relates to class because these are the children that are labeled deviant from a very young age and they grow older with that label and the stigma fallows them around. They are diagnosed depressed at a young age, prescribed medication which disables their brain and inhibits them to develop coping skills, they are then diagnosed with other disorders such as bipolar disorder due to the chemicals in the drugs and are trapped in a downwards spiral to nowhere. The deviant children of elementary school grow up to be the defiant youth of high school and then everyone is shocked when school shootings and traumatic events occur with these youth being the ones responsible.

The most convincing argument is that %100 percent of the FDA panel members of mood altering drugs have financial ties to the drug companies. These are the individuals who are responsible for approving the drugs and approving who gets the use the drugs. If that isn't convincing then I don't know what is.

The least convincing is that the documentary is very bias. Drugs do help some people and the documentary leaves us with the perception that doctors are just freely prescribing drugs with absolutely no regard for the patient.

The documentary stated that the FDA is well aware of all the above statements and goes to great lengths to hide it. It would be interesting to do a survey of these FDA panel members and try to figure out the justifications they have in their minds to why it should be okay to prescribe these medications to youth. No one wants to view themselves as causing harm to children so I'm sure that every single panel member has created narratives as to why doctors should have the ability to prescribe mood altering drugs to youth. I think it is safe to say that none of them will say that it is because they are making money off it.

Film Review: Tough Guise

1.The main thesis of this film is that men feel like they need to be violent, masculine and tough to be considered real men. They need to hate women, gays, and anything feminine to prove to themselves and the rest of society that they have what it takes to be a man. Also, the main point is that men in today's society put up a "tough guise" front which emphasizes phyiscal strength and gaining the respect of others through violence. 

2.The best example of how the thesis is backed up is in the beginning minutes of the film when a group of men are interviewed and asked to describe in one word what a real man is, here is what they said: "tough, physical, strong, independent, powerful, respected, intimidating, rugged, athletic, muscular." Similarly, the men were asked what you get called if you don't meet these standards and they said: "pussy, soft, queer, emotional, girly, whimp, fag." Its clear from these interviews that men in today's society have a clear understanding of how they should be acting and know exactly how they will be viewed if they don't act that way. 

3. In the book, "Readings in Deviant Behavior" there is an entire section devoted to physical violence. According to the book, most physical violence crimes are committed by men and according to the movie this violence is the direct result of societies social construction of "real men" needing to be tough and in control. The piece, " What Triggers School Shootings?" highlights the homophobic bullying that goes on in most high schools and states that 97% of highs school aged students reported hearing homophobic remarks from their peers. This film relates to the class because the image of hyper-masculinity that the media tries to sell us is impossible to imitate but men in society are not real men unless they try to mirror what they see in the media. 

4.The points that I find most convincing the ones about violence and though men in the media. For example, the size of GI Joe action figures has increased dramatically since the 50's, in fact when blown up to scale, their biceps are larger than any realistic size. It just goes to show you how much this society values size. I found the video clip " Height and the Perception of Success" very interesting because it proved a few different points that "Tough Guise" is trying to convey. It shows that society views size as a symbol of success. 

5. The points I found least convincing were the ones made about movies, music and video games. Although I agree that movies, music and video games contribute to the problem, I don't think they are as pertinent as the film makes them to be. My main basis in thinking this is that there are violent movies, music and video games in other cultures and societies as well and they are not as male centered or violent as our society. 

6. It is clear that masculinity is very prevalent in society. It is also clear that men know exactly what it takes to be a "real man" in today's society. It would be interesting to study how early on in life boys start constructing what a "real man" is. I would design a cross sectional study of boys ages 5-12 and survey them about what it takes to be "man." The boys will be administered the same survey and will be evaluated based on how prevalent the idea of masculinity is in their thought process.