Sex, booze and affirmative consent on campus 2

by Stefanie Lefebvre

(This is part of a series posts from students in Sociology of Drink. I credit authors my name when they have given me permission to do so.)

Yes means yes.  From a sober perspective it seems easy enough to understand, but add a little alcohol and the lines begin to blur.  In response to sexual misconduct complaints, universities are implementing affirmative consent policies, designed to protect students from sexual predators, but do they protect students fairly?

This is the question that I asked of 10 Texas Christian University (TCU) students (5 male, 5 female):  Are university affirmative consent policies effective at protecting both male and female students in a fair, just and unbiased manner?  

Their responses were divided, but all of the responses showed some confusion and ambivalence about the issue.  The male students did not feel the policies protected them fairly, while the female students did feel the policies were fair, unbiased and just, although they all agreed consent must be a clear “yes” from both parties involved.

From the female perspective, they felt that men were more aggressive and advantageous when drinking.  The women interviewed said that men, in general, had power and control on their side, which put women at a disadvantage.  “Women need someone to protect them and that’s what campus policies help do.” said one female student. 

On the other hand, the male students interviewed had a different perspective.  They felt as though the policy, while intended to protect all students, is in reality, gender biased.  They told stories similar to Jane and John’s story in the article “How Drunk Is Too Drunk to Have Sex?” by Amanda Hess.  They expressed fear in having sex with any women who has had even one drink for fear she’ll have remorse or regrets the next day and then turn them in for something they believed to be consensual. 

Furthermore, males felt that they were unfairly being held to a higher standard than women and that women, who at times are more sexually assertive, were less likely to receive equal repercussions.   Some believed this is due to a societal double standard, wherein women who have casual sex are seen as sluts and men as studs.  Because of these labels, women are more likely to have regrets post casual and consensual sex than men.  The male students believed that negative social stigma’s increased feelings of post-sex regrets more so for women than men, which in-turn leads more women to file complaints than men.

But when does regret equal rape?  Both men and women agreed that regret doesn’t equal rape but consensual sex lines are very grey.   Additionally, most of the men I spoke with felt that having policies are all well and good but did not feel it was appropriate for universities to adjudicate sexual misconduct cases.  As one male student said, “Universities are not police or judiciary experts.  And yet they feel it is just to expel a student based on the words of another without due process.  Whatever happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’?” 

I have to say that I agree with him.  All students deserve to be protected and for those accused, they too deserve the opportunity to have experts hear and try their case, not amateur university employees.  In this regard, it is my opinion that the current system is gender-biased and universities should follow constitutional due process. 

Sex, booze and affirmative consent on campus 1

by Anonymous

(This is part of a series of short posts from students in Sociology of Drink. I credit the authors by name when they have given me permission to do so.)

In the article “College Women: Stop Getting Drunk,” author Emily Yoffee decries the practice of women drinking in the manner of their male counterparts as an increasingly dangerous practice that is largely to blame for the enormous incidence of campus sexual assaults. She writes that this is a necessary message which not often heard, likely because her counterparts are afraid of being accused of blaming the victim, a standpoint villainized across pop and media culture.

Yoffe’s argument is that while the fault ultimately lies with the assailant, it is the responsibility of the potential victim to prevent such assaults by not incapacitating herself to the extent where rape becomes a more present possibility.

In fact, Yoffe’s attempt to shift the responsibility to women extends beyond this article. In 2014’s “The College Rape Overcorrection” Yoffe argues that the procedures which are being enacted in response to this crisis are fundamentally flawed in that they, in fact, victimize the otherwise well-meaning men whose only fault is blundering around with their pants down after one too many. The undertone in Yoffe’s writings is that this all goes too far, and we cannot expect men to hold the brunt of the blame when an incident occurs when the woman who chose to drink to a certain level of intoxication is perhaps equally at fault.

Unsurprisingly, there has been enormous backlash from her most recent article as well as its predecessors which essentially pigeonhole Yoffe as the antichrist of modern feminism.

While I do not agree with her writings in whole, I do believe there to be a kernel of truth in what she says. I believe at the core of her words is the assertion that women should assume the first line of responsibility when it comes to preventing sexual assault. While the perpetrators, be it men or women, of any given assault should be the ones ultimately prosecuted, I don’t see it as victim-blaming to encourage women to take measures to protect themselves.

However, as Yoffe and others have argued both for and against, the gray area is where we see the real issues of consent come into the light. When alcohol mixes with hormones and contact ensues, that’s when the questions of affirmative consent is the most important. In fact, as discussed across the readings for this week, affirmative consent is a hot-button topic right now and the question of whether or not some policies go too far is very much worth discussing.

For example, the University of Minnesota’s policy on affirmative consent states that consent may not be obtained if either party is “incapacitated” due to drugs or alcohol. It is clear that this leads to an enormously hazy gray area which is a nightmare to address in the legal system. How do we define incapacitated? To what extent is such a thing measured? If the line between “sober enough” and “too drunk” to consent to sex were to be objectively based on BAC, from where would we measure? Consider impaired driving laws. The legal limit is .08 BAC. Just a hair under and you’re off the hook, just a hair over and you face a litany of very harsh consequences. So if we were to use BAC to determine ability to consent, would the same rules apply? Would the difference of .005 be the difference between a felony sex crime and…nothing at all?

I do believe that affirmative consent is grounded in very real and very important ideals, and that the concept is important and viable. However, if we are to really embrace this practice moving forward, there needs to be more clear and concise guidelines. Without them, we will continue to see these messes of cases drag through the legal system without bringing the proper course of action to any involved parties.

The Irony of Pete Brown's "Neo-Prohibitionist" Series

(This is part of a series of short analytic blogs from students in Sociology of Drink. I credit the authors by name when they have given me permission to do so.)

By Scott Nelson

In Pete Brown’s blog series, “Answering the Neo-Prohibitionists,” there are elements which can be very useful in helping media consumers cut through the anti-drink rhetoric and recognize the true motive behind the content.  However, Brown himself is guilty of doing the same thing which he criticizes his opposition of doing.  The term “neo-prohibitionist” is the greatest example of this.  This is a loaded term, designed to entice his readership into a combative mentality which villainizes his opposition.  Ironically, his methods do little more to support his cause than those of the contrary.

Pete Brown seems particularly concerned with The Daily Mail, and Alcohol Concern.  These are examples of the so-called “neo-prohibitionists.” The following lays out the ten proposed policies of 

The Alcohol Concern organization in the UK (from alcoholconcern.org.uk):

• A minimum price of at least 50p per unit of alcohol 
• A phased ban on alcohol sponsorship of sports, music and cultural events
• Alcohol advertising content should be restricted to promoting just factual information
• Public health should be introduced as a statutory licensing objective
• The sale of alcohol in shops should be restricted 
• At least one-third of every alcohol product label should be given over to an evidence-based health warning specified by an independent regulatory body.
• The tax on every alcohol product should be proportionate 
• The legal limit for blood alcohol concentration for drivers should be reduced
• All health and social care professionals should be trained to routinely provide early identification and brief alcohol advice to their clients.
• Access levels to specialist alcohol treatment should be increased from 6% to 15%

One might consider these policies unreasonable, but the fact of the matter is nowhere is the organization asking for legal prohibition.  For Brown to use this term is to invoke the radicalism of the United States Prohibition movement of the early twentieth century.  This is a misrepresentation for the sake of inciting a certain kind of reaction.  Namely, a combative reaction.  Fair enough, except Brown is criticizing these organizations and publications for doing exactly the same thing: misrepresenting statistics and using scare-tactics.  This, then, is a contradiction which does not serve his argument well.

In his 2/20/2014 blog, “6 ways to spot if anti-drink stories are trying to mislead you,” Brown does a good job breaking down the components of a scare-piece, pointing out ways in which statistics can be skewed or outright lie by omission, and the way in which language can frame the message in a misleading manner.  "Use of language is an immediate giveaway as to whether the piece is impartial or not,” he writes.  Agreed.  But he will then turn around and use language in a way which has the same effect (even if he is doing it a little differently).  In his 11/20/13 blog on Sir Ian Gilmore and Alcohol Concern, he uses language tactics from the very start to frame his message, calling the Daily Mail “hateful, and fear-mongering.”  This are strong, divisive words.  He does the same thing, less eloquently, in his 4/20/2011 piece, “Britain still refusing to drink itself to death – despite media insisting it.”  The opening line is “A few weeks ago various shitty newspapers picked up on the shocking rise in binge drinking among women.”  To call his opposition “shitty” immediately discredits him, even if he’s right.  It makes him sound juvenile and emotional, which means anything following that statement is suspect to partisanship, something of which he himself is very suspect.  Again, he is doing himself a disservice. 

But perhaps it is not his fault, entirely.  In this day in age we expect news coverage and opinion pieces to be exciting and entertaining.  Take American politics and the news media for example.  We see increasingly more partisan bickering and extremism because this is what news consumers want.  A thoughtful conversation between two moderates on either side of the isle lacks action.  We’d rather see seven idiots screaming at each other.  That’s fun.  So maybe Brown is just trying to give his audience what they want.  The problem is he seems to be interested in an honest discourse.  In his 3/22/2012 piece he asks, “So what is it that makes poor drinkers in the north more likely to drink themselves to death than affluent drinkers in the south, who on average drink more?  Oh, that's too hard.  That might involve addressing the societal, cultural and economic problems that are the REAL reasons some people drink harmfully” (From If you really care about the rise in liver disease, read this).  His sarcasm points to his true desire; that being an honest look at alcohol’s role in society. 

The term “neo-prohibitionist” is not only exaggerated and combative, but entirely antithetical to Brown’s point.  If he seeks honesty, and thoughtful discourse, he is going about in the wrong way.  This term and some of the other language he uses makes it seem as though he is more interested in a spitting contest.  To his chagrin, putting this type of material into the world will likely only result in more of the same from his opposition. 

Questions:

• Am I wrong?  Are Brown’s argumentative tactics inherently different from those of the anti-drink organizations and publications?  If so, how?
• Is Brown right to use such combative tactics? Is it too idealistic to imagine an honest discourse, free of exaggeratory rhetoric, which is aimed to flesh out the truth of the role of alcohol in society?
• If “neo-prohibitionist” is indeed an exaggerated term, what would be a more fitting term to characterize the anti-drink groups and why?

Quality, Tradition and Masculinity in Beer Ads

(This is part of a series of short analytic blogs by students in the Sociology of Drink. I credit students by name when they have given me permission to do so.)

By Abigail Kiefer

When looking at the role of alcohol advertising in today’s culture, there are consistent messages that are conveyed in a variety of contexts.  I chose to examine television commercials of a few of the most popular beer brands in the United States: Budweiser, Miller Lite, Coors Light, and Bud Light, and how they relate to gender.  Although there are differences in how these companies approach their advertising strategies, each of them emphasize at one point high quality, whether through the brewing process or types of ingredients. Throughout each commercial, it is clear that beer is a social drink, that is meant to be consumed with friends and peers in a relaxed and fun setting.  Other typical “American” values such as hard-working, freedom and tolerance had an undertone in each of my selected advertisements as well.  When looking at the role of women in these ads, it was clear that women do not play a key role, and they are featured only with a group of men, never alone. I believe that goes back to the ideology that beer is a “man's” drink, and advertising against that would be contrary to popular opinion.

The advertisement for Budweiser begins with images of the brewing process-showing a man’s hand holding some barley and showing images of a brewery plant.  As the ad progresses, bold words emphasize how Budweiser is the only beer that is Beechwood-aged since 1876, with images that evoke a quality, wholesome beer that has been around for almost a century.  It then uses the phrase “The people who drink our beer are people who like to drink beer.”  During the brief period these words appear, they share the screen with groups of men that are toasting saying “cheers” and drinking their beers in different types of bars looking happy and relaxed. When looking at this advertisement for Budweiser, I noticed that consistently throughout the ad, women are never seen drinking a beer or showing intent to drink a beer.  Instead, they are waitresses serving men beer or just opening beer.  Also, women are never seen being involved in the brewing process of the beer.  Although it may appear to be “gender neutral” at first, it is clear that there a masculine undertones throughout the advertisement.  Besides the fact the women are rarely seen, this ad also uses words that evoke masculine thoughts that suppress feminine associations,  such as “Let them sip their pumpkin peach ale.” Along with the images and clips that are shown with the video as well as the music playing throughout, this ad shows that this beer is for people who deserve “beer that is brewed the hard way” and that seemingly excludes women.

The next advertisement that I analyzed was for Bud Light Lime,  which was promoted for summer 2015.  In this ad, women are featured as equally as men, and both men and women are seen lounging in their own personal pools (it was a “bring your own pool” party).  One thing I noticed,  when browsing through all the ads by Bud Light, is that women will only be shown with men, there are no shots of just women.  There are shots of only men,  and men with women, but never women alone. Also, each time women are featured, they are either relaxing with the men in a party setting (like this advertisement), or they are doing more of a masculine activity, such as participating in aggressive contact sports or in a sports bar. There are never women shown doing more feminine activities.  This commercial also did not mention the history, tradition, or quality of the beer itself, and I think that is because this beer is targeted for a younger audience who aren’t as interested in the craftsmanship or process of the beer itself, they are just looking for a light, refreshing, summer beer.

The third advertisement that I analyzed was for Miller Lite, featuring a new bottle.  In this ad, there is only one woman, and she is with a group of men at a bar.  She is briefly shown, and then the commercial goes to just the actors hands doing a “cheers” towards the end of the commercial in which a woman briefly appears.  Also, when employees are featured in the commercial, they are exclusively men and it is a man narrating the commercial, not a woman.  Other points to note in the commercial are the “tradition” aspect of the beer, and the long history of Miller.  The commercial ends with the classic catchphrase “It’s Miller Time.”  The commercial itself is about the return of the classic “Steinie” bottle, which invokes feelings of nostalgia and tradition.

The final advertisement that I chose to analyze was for Coors Light.  This ad is about the quality of the beer and the tradition of how it is made.  This advertisement compares the process of making Coors Light to that of a mountain, and how a mountain uses the “cold” to sift and refresh everything.  Although there are no actual people shown in this advertisement, I did notice that the narrator of this commercial was once again a man. In fact, when looking through the other Coors Light ads, I noticed that there weren’t any women narrating the commercials.  

One of the things I thought of during the analysis of these advertisements relates back to the Corzine reading and that was “Changes in consumption patterns, Schudson concludes, are rooted in social, cultural and political changes that advertising responds to, but rarely creates.” That had me wonder, do advertisements reflect society or is society impacted largely by what the advertisements showcase as “normal” or “successful?”  I think that it is a mixture of both, not an either/or situation.  I think when looking at beer and gender roles in advertising, the dynamics of gender and alcohol are influenced by other factors, such as the opinions of family, friends, and peers.   I also think, however, that advertising is a proponent in the maintenance of those ideas, and continues to instill gender norms in the minds of citizens today.  Without advertising to those family members, friends and peers, how would those specific ideas about gender norms exist?

Links:

Budweiser ad

Bud Light Lime

Miller Lite

Coors Light

British Binge Drinking: Policy or Culture? (by Andrea Gortze)

(This is part of a series of short analyses by students in the Sociology of Drink class at the University of Minnesota. Authors are credited by name when they have allowed me to do so.)

The readings this week deal primarily with patterns of heavy drinking in different circumstances around the world. I will engage primarily with the Hayward and Hobbs reading, “Beyond the binge in ‘booze Britain’: market-led liminalization and the spectacle of binge drinking,” which ties binge drinking in Britain to the NTE, or "Night Time Economy," a new facet of the post-industrial economy that emerged from a policy introduced in 2003 which removed regulations dictating closing times for bars. 

If the authors are correct, the 2003 Licensing Act had led to a massive increase in binge drinking in Britain. This act amended the licensing process for establishments serving alcohol, enabling them to get licensed to stay open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in some cases. They attribute this policy to an increase in crime and heavy drinking, especially among young people. There are positives to the NTE, the piece mentions that it generates an additional 7 billion pounds for the British government, but Hayward and Hobbs conceive this as insufficient justification for the social ills it creates, saying “the NTE [is] a criminogenic zone that … negatively [impacts] upon their (the Labour Party’s) own crime and social order targets.”

I argue that this is an insufficient examination of binge drinking in the UK, as it fails to account for the “northern European drinking culture” that we discussed earlier in the semester. Hayward and Hobbs say that “the NTE has had a transformative influence upon British cities,” but seem to undermine their own argument in several places. They cite examples of Victorian and Edwardian concern over massive drinking, and acknowledge that such behavior was much more strictly regulated at the time, and bring up the fact that in the mid-twentieth century there was also a great deal of concern over levels of alcohol consumption in the UK, though the regulations they find fault with weren’t introduced until the end of the twentieth century and beginning of the twenty first. Neither of these cases is addressed at all by their theory that the NTE created by the 2003 Licensing Act caused a binge drinking culture of crime and hedonism. 

It is my experience that within a northern European drinking culture, which the United States and the United Kingdom are both examples of, binge drinking is always the default among young people, and changes to liquor laws have very little effect on this. For example, in the state of Minnesota, there are continually discussions about changing the state’s “Blue Laws,” and this discussion never seems to center around organizing a movement of college students who want easier access to alcohol.

Alcohol consumption patterns are deeply rooted in culture, and are not as easy to alter as the authors of this piece seem to believe. It stretches the imagination to say that people will be more likely to binge drink simply because bars are open later. These laws may affect when and where people drink, but the authors do not sufficiently support the case that they also affect how people drink. Seeing as their argument is based in the social ills that come from elevated rates of binge drinking as a result of this law, they do not provide sufficient support that there is a true elevation in the tendency of British youth, or anyone else, for that matter, towards drinking in excess under an NTE economy. They cite a variety of scholarly sources, but it is hard to access their voracity without a detailed account of methodology, results, level of statistical confidence, etc, and they do not do independent research for themselves. While they may have a case that is able to circumvent the concerns listed above, they do not argue it in a sufficiently detailed way to convince a critical reader.

That said, there are some questions we should consider: 

• Under what circumstances, and with what  could a similar policy (of round the clock liquor sales) be adopted in the United States? In a city like Minneapolis, would the effects be much different from what Hayward and Hobbs describe? 
• How did this law affect drinking in private residences? For example, were house parties or incidents of “pre-gaming” at houses decreased because of the easier access to liquor in public places?
• It is not terribly common in my experience in the United States for people to leave a bar or club after closing and go back to someone’s house or apartment to continue drinking for long periods of time, but is that the case among other people’s social groups? How common was this in the UK before and after this law went into effect?
• What is the degree of public support for this policy today? If its consequences are truly so bad, is there a great deal of public disapproval? Is there any chance of it being repealed?

Socializing in Drinking Places

(This is part of a series of short student essays on Sociology of Drink. I will attribute posts by name when students have given me permission to do so.)

by Amber Johnson

As I am trying to put my thoughts into words I look around at my surroundings. I am sitting in a coffee house, surrounded by individuals who are buried in their own works. The loud coffee machines drown out most of the noise, but during those brief moments of silence I hear pages turning, keyboards clicking and the faint sound of music coming from the person’s headphones next to me. Besides three girls who are chatting over lattes in the back of the coffee shop, everyone else seems pretty engrossed in their own worlds. I want to explore the different places we encounter socializing and drink. We have all experienced places were civil societies meet to discuss the weather versus the places people go to get drunk and explore social boundaries. The question is how can we tell the difference between the different places? What is to keep a drunk person from entering the coffee house I am currently sitting in (besides the fact that they do not serve alcohol) and keep a person looking to read their book with a beverage out of a bar on Friday night? We have all heard that saying “there is a time and a place for that” usually followed by “and it is not here.” Well I think that very saying can be applied to understanding the different places where one goes to drink alone versus where one goes to drink to socialize.

There are many cues that indicate that this a place where people go to be alone. There is the silence, although not as silent as a library, there is not the normal chatter you hear at a restaurant or bar. People are on their electronics or have their heads buried in a book. Many have chosen to put in headphones to drown out the rest of the world surrounding them. This is not a private establishment and there are no signs that say “please, no talking.” So why is there not more socializing between the coffee house costumers? Would people be annoyed if I started going up to them and asking them about their day right now? I saw the perfect opportunity to test this theory out when I noticed a girl from one of my classes sitting alone at a table. She was sipping on a hot beverage and reading something on her laptop. As I approached her table I also noticed she had her headphones in. It took me a few tries to get her attention, but when she finally noticed me she took out her headphones and turned her attention to me. I proceeded to ask how she was doing and if she felt ready for our upcoming test. After a few minutes of small talk I could feel our conversation beginning to dwindle. I decided to explain this memo I was working on and asked her about how she felt about me interrupting her studying. She said she had never really thought of a coffee house as being a quiet place, but now that I had presented it in that way she agreed that she mostly went to coffee houses in order to get away from distractions in her own house and focus on her homework. She was not bothered by the fact that I came up to talk to her and small talk is completely acceptable; however, as soon as I left she put her headphones right back in her ears and immediately dove back into her laptop.

This was my recent experience in a coffee house on campus in the early afternoon. However, depending on the location and the time of the day the atmosphere in a coffee house could vary. We learn in our readings how coffee and tea drinkers are a community of individuals. That it is true that many people like to enjoy their hot beverage with a book or newspaper, yet I know many people who enjoy “getting to know someone over a cup of coffee.” Just recently at work, a co-worker was asking me about the best place to meet someone he had just recently started talking to on Tinder. Another co-worker suggested dinner. I suggested a coffee house. My reasoning was because this was basically a blind date with someone he met on an app. A dinner date is more sophisticated, whereas a coffee date is more laid back. Coffee houses are also a great place to catch up with some friends, just like the three girls who I saw chatting in the back corner. However, this could still be interpreted as individuality. The girls are chatting in the corner or the couple is holding hands with their heads bent close together, but are they really being social? A stranger still would not feel comfortable approaching them. Based on my previous knowledge, the readings and my current observations I have come to the conclusion that coffee houses are a place for individual preference. Although, there are some practices of socializing in coffee houses, many find restaurants and bars to be more accommodating to the "outgoing." You wouldn’t find someone raising a toast or buying a round of coffees for strangers. Most likely you will find people enjoying their individual time and space.

On the opposite end of the socializing spectrum are bars. Saturday night I went out with some friends to Wild Bills in Blaine. Most of my bar experiences had been in college bars, so it was fun to try some place with a little bit of a different (and slightly older) crowd. The bar took up most of the space with a few tables on the outskirts and a large open floor for dancing and mingling. My friends and I went straight for the bar first where we stood to order our drinks. My one friend was closest to the bartender and she ordered the first round without asking. Once we were handed our drinks we moved out of the way towards the open floor. Wolfgang Shivelbusch mentions how the function of the bar has changed over time and over space. The bar was created to separate the workers from the customers. Its main function in Germany and France is to only serve liquor, and not be a place to sit down. However, the longer the bars, like in England and the United States, the more likely you are to find people sitting at a bar. The rule of thumb being that the longer the bar the more regulars you will see. Wild Bills had a pretty long bar, however it also had a pretty large crowd. For this reason most people were buying drinks and leaving the bar to find another place to enjoy it.

Another important thing I noticed at Wild Bills was that, like my friend, many people were buying rounds. Later in the evening, we had a group of people come up and ask to sit at our table with us. Could you imagine if this happened at a restaurant? People would be very offended and annoyed, yet in a bar setting it was normal. We begin to converse with these complete strangers and one of them even went up and bought the next round. To an extent, this was a very nice concept because we never had to fight the large crowd at the bar. However, when it was finally my turn to buy the round I spent way more money in one round then I planned to spend all night. I felt just like the guy in our readings who had to leave the bar to go home and get more money. The guys had insisted on letting them get the round again, but I knew how much money they had already spent on my friends and me so I felt obligated to return the favor. It was interesting to read these stories last week and then go to the bar and actually experience them. I never really noticed before just how often people buy rounds for one another. Now that I have been paying attention I realize my friends do it a lot. It seems like a strange concept, why doesn’t everyone just pay for their own? I think Schivelbusch hits it on the money when he talks about it being a socializing thing. When someone comes to your house, what is one of the first things you ask? “Can I get you something to drink?” It is the perfect opening line for every generation, age, gender, race ect. If you want to start a conversation with someone, what better peace offering then offering to buy them a drink. We have already learned that over the centuries drinking has been a way for people to create social bonds. In our first week of class we were all assigned to write memos about alcohol use in our families. Most of the stories had to deal with how alcohol created or strengthened relationships in families. Some were about how parents met over a glass of wine, others were memories about having their first drink with their father.

Drinking is used in many different ways. Saturday night, alcoholic drinks were used by some girls who went out to the bar for a good time and to meet new people. Today, a hot beverage is consumed by one of those very same girls to stay focused and finish her homework. Like places, certain drinks are more acceptable by society during certain times and in certain places. While drinking a cup of coffee on the morning train is completely acceptable, drinking a shot of tequila is not. There are always certain cues to look for when entering a place. People who have their heads bent low over their computers with headphones in are least likely to want to be interrupted, even if you have the nicest intentions. While people at a bar are more likely to sit right next you and engage in conversation, it is a place where people go to be sociable.

Confessions of a Liquor Store Employee

(This is part of a series of short, exploratory class writing from students at the University of Minnesota enrolled studying the Sociology of Drink. Some authors wanted their names used, others preferred to be anonymous for public posts.)

by Jacqueline Hess

For the last year I have worked in a liquor store that specializes in craft beer in South Minneapolis. When I started, my mom, who was a bartender through college, told me that in her experience (therefore she said it more as a fact than an observation) that “vodka drinkers drink twice as much as anyone else." I wanted to look at how drinks signal social status, and how liquor store employees create mental "types" to make sense of their customers (like everyone does, I suppose).

Over the last year I have seen the same guy come in every day, sometimes twice a day, and buy a case (24 pack) of cheep beer (Coors light, Natural Ice, Bud Light, etc.), and a 375 mL (We call it a pint) of Karkov vodka, the cheapest we sell. He is an older (65+) white male, who comes in looking dirty, smelling, and pays in cash. When I say I see the same guy coming in, I mean to say that we have several different guys who match the same description coming in every day. Mostly they refuse to engage in any conversation, even the, “Hey, how are you doing today?” is brushed off with a scoff and a scowl.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have people who come in less frequently, once or maybe twice a week, looking for the latest and greatest craft beer. They are willing to spend $10-$20 on one bomber (750 mL bottle) and like to talk to the staff about their favorite aspects of a certain beer or a certain brewery. Most of these craft beer heads are younger, 25-35, come in dressed much nicer than the case + pint guy, but not overly dressed, typically male, but some female, and are more excited about the culture behind the beer than the drinking to get drunk parts of beer. These are the people who, like we talked about last week, would fit in with the casual daily drinkers of the south, where the functioning alcoholics from above would be associated with the binge drinkers of the north.

Of course we have the “good” spirit drinkers (Vodka, Whiskey (scotch and bourbon), Gin, Rum, Etc.), those who come in frequently, but infrequently buy a $15-$50 bottle, often from a local distillery, and would be offended if I offered them anything from lower than the middle shelf. This drinker is typically 35-50, appears to be middle class, isn’t afraid to ask for opinions or to ask about something new. This drinker, much like the Craft beer heads, give a vibe that they are more interested in the social aspect of the drink.

I do want to point out that I am generalizing groups of people here. But in any line of work, this happens. Humans don't come in an endless varied spectrum. Sooner or later, and rightly or wrongly, we begin to notice types. Three months ago I began working at a new location, in a middle class suburb. Because we are still new we are getting a lot of first time people in every day, but after the first month we already have some of each kind of regulars.

In particular, I enjoy a woman who comes in frequently and has been very open in telling me quite a bit about her life. She is a mother of two kids, she used to only drink German white wine, and when we opened she started doing a build-your-own 6-pack of craft beer (a special thing we do in our store). Since that first visit in she has grown a love of all things craft beer. She comes in twice a week to buy, then each night she drinks and rates her new beer and posts it on her blog that she started since becoming a customer in our store.

A big difference I’ve seen from the Minneapolis location and the suburb location is that the guy who buys a case of beer (although, in the suburb, it is rarely paired with a pint of anything) is usually lower-middle class, going out on his boat, and buying a cheep beer because he knows all his friends are going to be drinking it too. So the stigma against suburban macro-beer drinkers is less harsh than the stigma against Minneapolis macro-beer drinkers, partly because they have never taken the time to try any of the craft beers we have available, just choose to drink what they have always known.

After talking to coworkers who have been in the business for at least as long as I have, they seem to agree that most of what someone drinks has to do with one of two things, their socioeconomic status, or their addiction. One said pointed out, “The guy who comes in and buys a pint every day is doing it for one reason, if he has it, he will drink it. Whether it is a pint or a liter, if its there he (or she) will drink it. It’s a matter of control, not preference.” Personally I see this as more of a Psychological issue than a Sociological one, but it was worth pointing out. A different co-worker pointed out that the guy who comes in every day is spending more overall than the guy who spends $50 on one bottle even though he has fewer resourses (because he often makes less money). 

When I asked a third co-worker if there was a correlation between class and what people drink, she didn't want to be pinned down. We talked about the "pint a day" crowd as well, and she agreed with coworker 1, that it’s all about control rather than economics. It would be cheaper in the long run to buy a larger bottle, but if it were a bigger bottle they would drink that too. She also points out that certain higher socioeconomic status people try too hard to let everyone know that they are of a higher status, letting the bottle they buy work in the same way their car works, to show others how much money they make and often try to put the idea out there that they are better than you based on what they buy. Coworker 3 has only worked at the suburb location, so she can’t compare the difference in the two stores, but even working one day a week she can tell who is a regular and who is not.