Abstract
The emphasis of the social scientist on group differences and mass trends in drinking behaviour in contrast to the “individual” or “case-history” orientation of the psychologist and psychiatrist was noted. The relevance of the former approach is chiefly evident when concern is with the nature of alcoholism in general rather than with particular alcoholics, and when the focus of attention is on the long term goal of prevention rather than on the immediate goal of giving service. It was suggested that what tends to be labelled “alcoholism”, what are regarded as symptoms of the condition, what type of problem it is considered to be (e.g., medical versus psychiatric), and even approach to treatment are at least in part determined by the socio-cultural situation in which the drinking takes place. It was further suggested that socio-cultural factors might have a major role in the determination of the prevalence of alcoholism in a given population or cultural grouping. This was illustrated with reference to the role of attitudes in rural-urban, sex and Jewish-Irish differences in prevalence. Finally, the “Vulnerability-Acceptance Hypothesis” of Jellinek was discussed as a potential means of bringing together the two complementary approaches to the problem of alcoholism represented by the social scientist, on the one hand, and the psychiatrist and psychologist, on the other.