Historians tend to sniff suspiciously at the mention of theory. Historians prefer to talk more vaguely about approaches or more specifically about methodologies and interpretations. I recall that I confessed more than a bit of bafflement when I reviewed Patrick Joyce's Democratic Subjects for H-Review. Yet I propose that we discuss theory in alcohol/temperance studies. My inspiration is the lively review article by Christopher Kent, "Victorian Social History: Post-Thompson, Post-Foucault, Postmodern," Victorian Studies 40 (Autumn 1996): 97-133, which despite its nominal date arrived at my office this week. Despite its title its relevance extends beyond 19th-cent. Britain. By the way, the Thompson in the subtitle is E.P. Thompson, represented as the embodiment of anti-[explicit] theory. Kent is critical of what he calls the "soft Marxism" interwined with the subdiscipline of social history and is sympathetic to (a properly understood) Foucault (the F-word that terrorizes historians). I should add that Kent notes that marginalized historians (those who work outside history departments such as historians of accounting and medicine) make better use of theory in general and of Foucault in particular. Since alcohol/temperance historians are (or often think they are) marginalized too, maybe we should look at theory less dimissively. Finally, I should mention the threat that Kent paraphrases from a more aggressive champion of theory: "retool or retire"! David Fahey (Miami University, Ohio) [log in to unmask]