Features

In Vino Veritas: I'll Drink to That

June 2009

Concerns over binge drinking — the habit of drinking large quantities of alcohol with the intention of getting drunk, usually in company but without the benefit of conversation of any kind — have brought into focus the great difference that exists between virtuous and vicious drinking. Our puritan legacy, which sees pleasure as the doorway to vice, makes it difficult for many people to understand this difference. If alcohol causes drunkenness, they think, then the sole moral question concerns whether you should drink it at all, and if so how much. The idea that the moral question concerns how you drink it, in what company and in what state of mind, is one that is entirely foreign to their way of understanding the human condition. 

This puritan legacy can be seen in many aspects of British and American society. And what is most interesting to the anthropologist is the ease with which puritan outrage can be displaced from one topic to another and the equal ease with which the thing formerly disapproved of can be overnight exonerated from all taint of sin. This has been particularly evident in the case of sex. Our parents and grandparents were concerned — and rightly concerned — that young people should look on sex as a temptation to be resisted. However, they did not see chastity as a preparation for sexual enjoyment: in their eyes it was precisely the enjoyment that was wrong. As a result, they made no real distinction between virtuous and vicious desire. The whole subject was taboo and the only answer to the question of sexual urges was "Don't!" The old idea of chastity as a form of temperance eluded them. Yet what Aristotle said about anger (by way of elucidating the virtue of praotes or "gentleness") applies equally to sex. For Aristotle it is not right to avoid anger absolutely. It is necessary rather to acquire the right habit — in other words, to school oneself into feeling the right amount of anger towards the right person, on the right occasion and for the right length of time.

In just such a way we should define sexual temperance, not as the avoidance of desire, but as the habit of feeling the right desire towards the right object and on the right occasion. That is what true chastity consists in, and it provides one of the deep arguments in favour of marriage or, at least, in favour of the constraint upon sexual appetite that is offered by love, that it makes sexual enjoyment into a personally fulfilling habit.

View Full Article
COMMENTS: 41

COMMENTS

Ex-Cromwellian
June 3rd, 2009
9:06 AM
I suspect that Scruton's article would be greeted with a quizzical look of misunderstand on the continent. For those of us from an Anglo-American background however, this article goes a long way in explaining some important truths. After years of trying to understand the proper role of alcohol (more from a puritanical/prohibitionist side) this article represents a breakthrough in my personal understanding. Thank you Roger.

mike
June 3rd, 2009
11:06 AM
drunks are boring

John Morris
June 3rd, 2009
12:06 PM
An item by Mr. Scruton is always worth reading, saith the one from the colonies. However, the amateur anthropology on display in "Vino Veritas", despite many excellent insights, is not ultimately convincing. Two points: (1) Christianity's transcendence of paganism is not lightly to be dismissed, as is done here under the rubric of "belief vs membership" -- German fascism is the epitome of the modern pagan (and drink-fueled) cult -- and not much to recommend it. (2) My point about paganism leads Point No. 2, which is the curious use of the word "puritan" throughout Mr. Scruton's argument, while at the same time the word "Christian" does not appear. I thought perhaps we were beyond the silly and uninformed "puritan bashing" of the past. Puritans were much more multifarious than is usually portrayed, often generous, curious, progressive and such, along with all the other things that they have been nicely accused of. Mr. Scruton's current demons are not chimerical, but his analysis is befuddled. It is an excellent point that binge drinking is an act of collective solitude and that this phenomenon may be an expression of the idolotry of Self. But to lay this at the feet of imagined puritans is both inaccurate and a calumny on those who both respected the individual conscience and who demanded virtuous civic involvement. On the basis of the above -- that the bete noire of the problem is imaginary -- the argument fails. The question is pressing, the answers still await. John Morris

Luke Lea
June 3rd, 2009
2:06 PM
Puritans were into moderate drinking. See Harriet Beecher Stowe's novels about New England.

steve
June 3rd, 2009
2:06 PM
How the Puritan legacy manifests itself today: In Britain the one thing it's permissible to hate (really it's virtually mandatory) is the BNP.

Barney
June 3rd, 2009
2:06 PM
prigs are more boring

Dan
June 3rd, 2009
2:06 PM
I doubt sentiments toward alcohol, drunks, and drinking cannot be explained by inferences made from personal individual experience. If you prefer a society without any such inhibitions, there is at least one that I know of - Russia. I like to drink myself, but I prefer a little puritanism, thanks. The issue is self-control, which anyone can tell by looking at the enormous number of obese people is not exactly an overly-cultivated virtue in the present society.

Big Ed Dunkel
June 3rd, 2009
2:06 PM
Binge drinking is strictly the jurisdiction of frat boys, soccer hooligans, and Australians. Fire up a bowl of weed instead. Much more interesting things result.

Wesley V. Hromatko,D.Min.
June 3rd, 2009
2:06 PM
The problem is that Puritans weren't puritanical. In colonial New England the Tavern Keeper was an important and responsible public official. It was his duty to watch strangers and cut off offenders when they were immoderate. Moderation was a Puritan virtue.

Richard
June 3rd, 2009
2:06 PM
If Islam would learn to drink alchohol, then as Scruton quotes Omar Khayyam: 'The grape that can with logic absolute The two-and-seventy jarring sects confute' might prove better at fighting terror than our Blackwater goons.

Alistaire
June 3rd, 2009
2:06 PM
I don't drink, and I'm definitely not a puritan. I don't drink because it's unhealthy, kills brain cells and makes me more likely to speak unreasonably. Who even considers public health issues in terms of "sin" these days? How backwards. Stop kids smoking because it kills them, stop them drinking because they'll crash cars, fight and have sex without condoms.

FRANZ ANGST
June 3rd, 2009
3:06 PM
what a dreadful ass this scruton is! a tipppler, a tea drinker, who has never enjoyed a good corgy!

Stephen Kennamer
June 3rd, 2009
3:06 PM
A responsible sex act or the responsible intake of alcohol causes no harm whatsoever. A responsible smoking act damages the smoker's lungs and harms anyone else close enough to breathe the smoke that he exhales. So campaigns against smoking, while they may be clumsy, are not "hysterical." This is a perfectly simple distinction, and yet it pleases conservatives to raise this point again and again, in order to portray liberals as the new puritans who persecute allegedly "harmless" pleasures.

Anonymous
June 3rd, 2009
4:06 PM
I have no problem with alcohol, but it's hardly a necessary precursor to friendship. The UK is one of very few countries where people feel unable to relax without a mind-altering drug.

Ex-Cromwellian
June 3rd, 2009
4:06 PM
How anyone can spend an evening on the High Street of any English market town or city and be neutral on binge drinking is beyond me. I have lived in Russia and to be honest I much prefer the company of Russian drunks to that of British ones. The British are psychologocally incapable of achieving broad-based virtuosity in the realms of alcohol and sex and the Americans have inherited it. Viewing it as the flip side of Puritanism is innovative and rings true.

Anonymous
June 3rd, 2009
4:06 PM
I think some of these comments miss Scruton's point about forsaking friendship and relationships for the "cult of longevity." Scruton isn't denying that smoking is harmful, but that enjoyed in moderation in the company of others to leads to the most truly human aspects of life, relaxed relation and conversation with others. Forsaking this for longevity, Scruton asserts, would be to sublimate a characteristic that makes us different from other animals, to one that is shared with the animals (the drive for survival at any cost). Longevity apart from the life well lived should not be pursued for its own sake.

A Jovial Fool, not a joyful and frivolous fool
June 3rd, 2009
4:06 PM
Long live all good Pantagruelists!

Elbrac
June 3rd, 2009
5:06 PM
John Morris, Nazism was a particularly Puritanical form of paganism combined with a puritanical take on science. Also, despite its anti-semitism and anti-Christianism(and anti-communism), it was modeled on their ideological, moral, or spiritual absolutism. Scruton wasn't blaming particular puritans in history. And, I'm sure he would agree that many historical puritans did much good and were more varied in their thoughts and habits than most of us might think. But, the main reason for their actual practice of diversity was reality's stubborn resistance to all purist agendas. It was the product of pragmatism than idealism. That communism ultimately failed to be purely Marxist has less to do with the designs of Marxism than the reality of human nature. Finally, Scruton is arguing that anti-puritanism is really just another form of puritanism. It rebels against traditional puritanism by completely rejecting old inhibitions and totally embracing new liberties. We tend to associate puritanism with repressiveness, but we often forget that one can be puritanically or puristically out-of-control. One might argue that bacchanalia is the flipside of repressive puritanism. It is 100% this as opposed to 100% that. In this sense, pornograhy and sexual puritanism have something in common. One totally says YES while the other totally says NO. The danger of Nazism wasn't so much its neo-paganism but its racial puritanism, just as the danger of communism was its class puritanism. At any rate, Scruton is calling for moderation in all things. Not pure Christianity, not pure paganism, but a thinking man's appreciation of pleasure and its limits.

Sean
June 3rd, 2009
6:06 PM
What about mixing weed and booze

ekw
June 3rd, 2009
7:06 PM
I have to agree with Mr. Scruton, the anti-smoking campaigns are the most hysterical of virtually any public campaign against anything ever created. It reminds me of the Anti-Sex League in 1984 which sought to abolish sexual desire - and even the orgasm - to be replaced by unblinking loyalty to the Party. To those who said that smoking has no place, that is not entirely true. American Indians used the noxious weed in many of their ceremonies and in pow-wows to cement treaties or alliances. The inhalation of smoke has been - since ancient Greek times - considered a means of bridging the gap between man and god. I don't need to argue here that smoking is deadly when used as it is today, but really, this kind of fundamentalist approach to extinguishing its use is going to backfire just as other, similar threats of dire consequences have eventually been seen as classic authoritarianism and establishmentarianism and have created their own antitheses in acts of rebellion which will invariably bring back smoking as an act of revolt, especially amongst the young.

Anonymous
June 3rd, 2009
7:06 PM
A responsible smoking act doesn't damage anyone's lungs. It takes repeated - presumably irresponsible - smoking to do damage to the smoker's lungs, and some people suffer little damage. And I believe that the only evidence that smoking harms anyone nearby applies only if the 'anyone' has spent many years in the company of said smoker - again, going beyond 'responsible'. I wish fellow non-smokers would stick to facts.

Michael Checchio
June 3rd, 2009
7:06 PM
From potatoes or common corn, I can make a God be born. They gave me a month in the county jail, For pouring God out of a pail Through a coiled copper tube. Is that worse than a virgin's womb? --Robinson Jeffers "Drunken Charley"

Balance
June 3rd, 2009
11:06 PM
If you find cannabis deceives you, it's because your life is a lie. If wine draws honesty out of you, then your social life is a lie as well.

Anonymous
June 4th, 2009
12:06 AM
invoice: Japan Alcohol International?

Joe Descartes
June 4th, 2009
2:06 AM
And yet why is the distinction not taught our children? And to Big Ed - weed indeed, but the preferred method of imbibing here in New Zealand is the joint and one or more are consumed in totality with no regard to quantity. Thus people regularly get too stoned to ...whatever. The wowsers prevent alcohol and drug education meaning that kids learn from their peers - and getting wasted is the norm. Why DON'T we teach our children to consume mind altering substances responsibly?

Sancho
June 4th, 2009
1:06 PM
This was clearly written by someone who doesn't drink socially. How else could he claim, "Buying drinks by round in the pub, for example, has an important role in...controlling the rate of intake and the balance between the inflow of drink and the outflow of words". Rubbish! The round merely ensures that everyone in the group has an economic incentive to stay and get plastered, rather than withdraw early. And you will find, Dunkel, that firing up bowls of weed gives drinking a run for its money in Australia, cheesy national stereotypes notwithstanding.

Anonymous
June 4th, 2009
3:06 PM
Ooh! Don't he go on?

Anthony Mora
June 4th, 2009
4:06 PM
What are you on about, Joe Descartes? Kiwis drink far more than they smoke, dopey. Wine as much as beer nowadays too! I think many of the comments over-'scrutonise' wot Roge has writ. Fun to hic-haec-hoc with though.

hal
June 4th, 2009
4:06 PM
I'm pretty sure you've never smoked any good weed, Professor. You've got it wrong.

Anonymous
June 4th, 2009
7:06 PM
Elbrac, "We tend to associate puritanism with repressiveness, but we often forget that one can be puritanically or puristically out-of-control." Perhaps you're from continental Europe and don't know, but "Puritan" specifically refers to a English religious movement from the period shortly after the Protestant Reformation. The (incorrect) stereotype, which the author persists on using, is stated in his first paragraph: "Our puritan legacy, which sees pleasure as the doorway to vice..." Of course, with respect to actual Puritans, this is inaccurate. In the 20th century, the term "Puritanical" (to rhyme cleverly with "tyrannical") has become somehow associated with the draconian beliefs of the Temperance and Prohibition movements (19th & 20th c), neither of which had anything to do with Puritans or Reformed Christianity at all (and in fact, both movements were opposed by those groups). Nevertheless, to apply the term to Nazis and such is to stretch the term beyond any real meaning, unless the point is bash the straw man stereotype by associating them with a group that is understood as the embodiment of evil. In either case, the point is rather weakly and disingenuously made.

jujul
June 4th, 2009
9:06 PM
huh? scruton concludes on an unsettled and illdefined note. ecstasy and the dionysian bacchanal embrace the contradiction found in the dichotomies scruton uses throughout the essay. it is merely an extension of puritanism to explicate on the "social" aspects of binge drinking. the drunk is an emblem both of bonhomie and self-absorption. drunken rage can be ugly, brutal and anti-social but not all of us act out when intoxicated. the puritan uses the drunk as a cautionary tale of the victory of the devil over the virtuous and scruton appears to accept that argument a priori in reaching his final paragraph. while tipping his hat to the use of intoxicants in religious observance, he seems to argue for some sort of intelectual distinction between acceptable and unacceptable in the degree of intoxication. the analysis remains mired in the puritanical dialectic of good versus evil.

wallywood
June 5th, 2009
12:06 AM
Drinking is COMPLETELY different than smoking! Except for car crashes no one dies of second hand alcohol. Drinking does harm some percent of drinkers, and family and friends are harmmed by those selfish addicts slow suicide. Tobbacco KILLS one third of users is ugly slow painful ways their parents & children & spouses, and friends & co-workers are tortured to see. Alcohol is a food as well as a drug, and as a solvent carries flavor into foods and beverages. Tobbacco has no redeeming value except for addictive drug and insecticide poison. There is no other poison, besides tobbacco which is not regulatred, let alone illegal, only because of the tax money addicts "voluntarily" provide. for flavor in an ing

Dr. J. Boost
June 5th, 2009
5:06 AM
"Wer niemals einen Rausch gehabt, der ist kein braver Mann" - who never has been really drunk is not a really good man (or woman, I'd say). An old German proverb just as good as the Romans. What has to be distinguished is is drinking and binging: One is reasonably controlled (yet free) -the other dangerous (and unfree). Think of the French Fête du Village: everybody is happily tipsy and gay (NO - not that! - the true gay). And take Britain after a football match: total chaos. They couldn't have those fêtes without mass murder. QED. Sex? As long as joy -I mean real joy, not just frenzy and 'flipping out' - is there for both, it can't be wrong. The danger lies in excess - and here, I'm afraid, we are in a phase comparable to the dcline of Old Rome in orgies and total libertinage. In other words: the USA are in decline not just because of lousy Presidents but also a moral disaster, due to a false "liberation". And smoking? It's bad - we know. But most joys carry a certain risk - it's part of the joy, whether bungy-jumping or cycling, or mountaineering. And we need somethings that take us off the daily stress. Well, that's what Puritans don't have - refuse to know. Hitler was one of these: no drink, no smoke, no meat, no sex. But had he drunk his pint, smoked his pipe, had a good steak, and a shared night in bed - millions would have been better of - or even alive. QED.

Peter Thomson
June 5th, 2009
6:06 AM
Hitler was never boring.

Bootface
June 5th, 2009
6:06 AM
John Morris and Elbrac, give the thesaurus a break. Your use of jargon only shows us you can use this jargon. You don't have to be an expert to understand these issues. Alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine are part of the panolpy of ways we choose to experience our time here. We are as wise to censor the young on each topic as we would advise them how to cross a road, but few of us then follow the advice to look left, then right, then left, and try only to cross at pedestrian crossings. I no longer swim with waterwings, or wait one hour after food. Am I immoral? If indulgence is immoral, as someone suggested for all fat people, would you advise a spartan existence as being nicer for you and those around you? That seems a tad utopian. As for the "toxic" effect of these substances on others, and society in general, you have only to meet someone with a personality disorder to see the toxic effect they can have. And in my experience, toxic people are as likely to be "straight" as not. Live wide, not long.

Anonymous
June 5th, 2009
8:06 AM
The custom of buying "rounds" in British pubs has exactly the opposite effect of that proposed by Scruton: A moderate drinker in a party of 10 is 'forced' to consume 10 pints, and to fork out for 10 drinks. Buying 'rounds' is a nasty British habit leading to excess.

Medium Dave
June 5th, 2009
8:06 AM
Big Ed Dunkel says: Binge drinking is strictly the jurisdiction of frat boys, soccer hooligans, and Australians. Big Ed doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

Anonymous
June 5th, 2009
10:06 AM
A good point about the use of wine in Holy Communion: how much better if, rather than a sip of God-awful sherry, we all got plastered at the alter rail.

PL
June 5th, 2009
12:06 PM
As several have pointed out, Puritanism, in the historical sense, was not "puritanical" -- or at least not necessarily or often so. What the modern and the historical senses have in common -- and what therefore explains the use of the same word for both phenomena -- is that both "puritans" and "Puritans" are sticklers for cut-and-dried rules. The Puritans of the 16th and 17th centuries believed that God had spoken directly to man in the words of the Bible, and therefore what was right and wrong in government and morality, as well as religious practice, was all spelled out there, in need only of wise and learned interpretation (the best of them were by no means simplistic fundamentalists). Their bête noire, as has been said, was bishops not beer. The infâme was the whole established system of ecclesiastical polity, which, in their view, had stifled God's word under an overlay of the whims and wishes of sinful men. The modern "puritan" also believes in the existence of plain rules which spell out exactly how men and women ought to behave, and their view is always simplistic (in the modern sense, "puritan" is only used pejoratively). Smoking harms and can kill you. Harming and killing yourself are wrong. Therefore you must not smoke. Case closed. The two kinds of "puritans" are quite different. The one thing they have in common is that neither can tolerate moral uncertainty. uncertainty.

Anonymous
June 5th, 2009
7:06 PM
two points: The average 'puritian' man drank about 3-6 quarts of beer a day - albiet one with a lower alcohol content. Cromwell called beer a gift from God. The puritians abhorred drunkenness which there is no moral uncertainty about in the bible. Considering the enormous cost to society and the obvious damaging effects on the body (not to mention sowing the seeds of addiction) i don't really see much of a case for drunkenness. The causes of temporance might also be genetic - southern european countries tend to not have a problem with alcoholism as much as northern ones.

Anonymous
June 5th, 2009
7:06 PM
"Our puritan legacy, which sees pleasure as the doorway to vice, " This too, is utterly wrong. Its actually the other way around, Puritians - and many modern Christians - see sin as blocking a greater joy that comes out of a relationship with God. Imagine you were in Agra and scheduled to see the sunrise at the Taj Mahal the next day (and your tour bus left in the afternoon) - the 'sin' of a nights drinking would be clouding that expericence by missing it - or by making you so ill you couldn't enjoy it.

POST A COMMENT

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.