Binge drinking today: Learning lessons from the past

Abstract

Binge drinking is a matter of current social, media and political concern. Within the current debates binge drinking is sometimes portrayed as a recent phenomenon, but in fact it has a history and concern about binge drinking is not new. This paper sets the phenomenon in its historical context by examining how the nature and definition of binge drinking has changed over time. Aims: The overall aim is to draw lessons for policy through the interaction of social science and historical perspectives. Methods: A literature review was conducted and a workshop brought together researchers, policy makers and practitioners to consider current perceptions of binge drinking, current responses and possible future approaches. Findings: From this study it is evident that that the meaning ascribed to the term ‘binge drinking’ has changed over time but further research is required to establish quite how and why this shift came about. Parallels can be drawn between the current concerns about ‘binge drinking’ and those about the ‘gin craze’ of the eighteenth century: they are both focused on public drunkenness, urban locations and women's drinking and the media has played a pivotal role in shaping the response to the ‘crisis’.

Notes

Notes

¹ A report of the proceedings of the workshop, Addressing binge drinking: challenges and opportunities, was submitted to the AERC and distributed to the workshop participants. It is available at www.aerc.org.uk.

[1] The exact time period has been variously defined, for example, Nicholls (2003, p. 127) suggests it was between 1720 and 1770 and Warner argues that the dates 1720–1751 are ‘arbitrary at best’ but that they coincide with how contemporaries perceived events (Warner, 2003, p. 4).

[2] Wechsler and colleagues were not the first to use this 5 drinks in a row definition, it was drawn from the Monitoring the Future study, an annual national study of American school and college students conducted by the University of Michigan (see, for example, Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1991), although they did refine it to take account of gender differences—the 5/4 measure (see Wechsler, Moeykens, Davenport, Castillo, & Hansen, 1995, for discussion).