I agree cross-fertilization is a good thing generally and has been occurring and will continue to occur in these areas as elsewhere -- and of course not only cross-fertilization but interdisciplinary cross-fertilization. But I'm not sure the best way to achieve cross-fertilization is an "everything under one tent" approach. In fact, if history of drugs/addiction and history of alcohol/alcoholism become the same discipline, is it likely this one discipline will cross-fertilize itself? -- Jared Lobdell -------------- Original message -------------- > While concerns about the addition of drugs to this area of alcohol studies > are understandable, I have to agree with David Fahey that there's room for > optimism. > > As a historian who has studied both alcohol and drug history, I'm afraid I > see more imagined than actual danger in connecting the types of > substances. There is so much to learn and build upon by connecting the > two. Personally, I'm seeing all sorts of links between issues of liquor > regulation in the 1930s and drug prohibition today. And with liquor > control today. They can be so interconnected! As for "relevance", well, > relevance is relative, isn't it? It's not the field, but the practitioners > who imbue it with relevance... > > When planning the ICDAH we were actively aware of the need for > inclusion. Expanding the focus would bring in new people, and honestly, > the range of topics, and the value of cross-"substance" discussion was, as > far as I could see, tremendous. And very beneficial. When drug and > alcohol historians get together, they seem to see connections in trends and > approaches that can only enhance our work. Oh, and have a very good time > doing all of this. > > "Addiction" and "Contemporary Drug Problems" have not turned their backs on > alcohol as a substance of inquiry. And even a cursory read will > demonstrate that the SHAR hasn't been exclusively about alcohol for some > time now. > > Dan Malleck > > > At 12:32 AM 8/21/04, David Fahey wrote: > >Jared makes a good point, but I am optimistic. For me the more serious > >tension (in the ATHG and now the ADHS) is between two different approaches: > >on the one hand, the medical/legal/political response to pathological > >addictions and, on the other hand, the history of foods and leisure history > >that emphasize the normality and acceptability of alcohol and other > >drugs. I hope that the two approaches can educate one another. > > > >"Social history" is part of both the old and the new name for the > >journal. A case can be made that a good deal of the history of alcohol and > >other drugs is not social history, but something else: political history, > >business history, medical history, cultural history, the history of > >technology, etc. This doesn't worry me. The term social history merely > >indicates the core focus of the journal and does not limit its contents. > > > >Finally, I have no doubt that there is room for journals more specialized > >than that to be published by ADHS and gladly welcome them. > > > >At 04:13 PM 8/20/2004, you wrote: > >>Yes, I dare say, provided -- and this was and is my principal point -- the > >>"alcohol and temperance history" doesn't get swallowed up in the history > >>of tobacco, coffee, marijuana, hashish, qat, coca and coca derivatives, > >>betel nuts, opium and opium derivatives, not to mention designer drugs, > >>pills, usw.-- for however many hundreds of relevant substances there > >>are. I suspect there may still be a niche for a journal specifically on > >>alcohol and (alcohol) temperance history, and if anyone agrees and is > >>interested in something of that sort, on a (necessarily) minor scale, I > >>should be interested in being in touch with them -- Jared Lobdell. > >>-------------- Original message -------------- > >> > >> > Since the conflation of alcohol and other drugs has long > >> > characterized temperance culture, it makes sense, I think, for a > >> > society devoted to temperance history to also welcome historians of > >> > tobacco, coffee, and other drugs. > >> > > >> > Jon > > > >----------- > >Dan Malleck > >[log in to unmask]