Reprise: PBS’s “Prohibition” Parched on Water/Alcohol, Medical Issues
(We recently saw the third anniversary of PBS’s airing of the Ken Burns/Lynn Novick fascinating three-part documentary “Prohibition”. In 2011 I wrote an analysis of the historic piece. It was published on Yahoo! But since I hadn’t written a column for Yahoo! in two years, deciding to publish elsewhere, I recently discovered that Yahoo! had erased all my columns, making them no longer available on the Internet. Here’s the column on “Prohibition”. Consider these points when you watch or rewatch the film series, which deserves watching.)
Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s extensive, educational, and entertaining PBS documentary “Prohibition” has done a great service to today’s Americans by presenting a specific story of how activism can prove successful, yet can fail in the end if humans refuse to change. But it might have presented a more realistic introduction to the alcohol problem by paying deeper attention to both the alcohol/water and medical issues.
The three-part series premiered nationwide Oct. 2-4. While the first episode eloquently covered the century-long movement culminating with the Eighteenth Amendment, it seemed to simplify the problem of alcohol excess by indicating that commerce made drink excessively available, and people wanted it. The program basically skirted two vital points: alcohol’s substitution for water as a cheap, disease-free mainstay in the society’s diet, and the medical view of addiction.
Very early in the first episode, the alcohol/water connection is mentioned with only one sentence, a reference to doctors believing that alcohol was healthier than filthy river water. It didn’t go into the fact that most American towns growing into cities had been established next to rivers. And disease rising from contaminated drinking water had become a major fear. These illnesses could include bacterial infections such as botulism, cholera, dysentery, and typhoid fever. For example, New York City and New Orleans had seen epidemics of cholera in 1832, with 3,000 deaths in the north and 4,340 in the south.
The scholar Paul Fisher points out alcohol’s impact in replacing drinking water in House of Wits, his thorough biography of the James family (including the prodigious brothers, medical doctor/psychologist William and novelist Henry). In 1820 America, Fisher notes, “when water was often polluted and coffee and tea cost dearly, stiff drinking had become a daily ritual for most Americans.” That year in fact, he says, “saw the highest per capita consumption of alcohol in American history. Estimates range from between four and seven gallons of pure alcohol, per person, per year. In any case, it was more than twice the amount now consumed in the United States.” That included alcohol given to babies and children.
So alcohol in America had evolved as, not simply a wanton consumption, but a vital necessity. As a major player in a “healthy” diet, it could be seen to help a population survive, and therefore be able to thrive. But it could also provide a breeding ground for addiction.
Meanwhile, society in that era had no real concept of alcoholism as a medical disease. A man who couldn’t hold his liquor—and men were the breadwinners and primary political force at the time—was considered “unmanly,” as the “Prohibition” documentary points out. To become a drunk was considered a scourge on one’s family and society.
The “Prohibition” documentary points to religious movements rising to challenge alcoholism, including the Washingtonians and other 19th century organizations. In the early 20th century, the Oxford Group became of international significance.
The understanding of alcoholism as a medically diagnosed physical allergy, leading a person to obsessive, uncontrollable drinking, gradually grew with the advancement of psychology and psychiatry in the 20th century. The combining of spiritual and medical approaches to alcoholism seems to have culminated in the 20th century with the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous by two recovering alcoholics, a stockbroker named William Griffith Wilson and a physician, Dr. Robert Smith. The fellowship now claims more than 2 million members.
Wilson and Smith formed AA in 1935, just under two years after the repeal of Prohibition. Wilson gleaned principles and philosophy to include in the program from a wide range of sources, including the Washingtonians, the Oxford Group, and William James’ book The Varieties of Religious Experience. “Prohibition” indicated in its third installment that Wilson and Smith hadn’t been aware of the Washingtonians, but that’s inaccurate. Wilson refers to them in the book Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, saying in Tradition Ten, among other things, “In many respects, the Washingtonians were akin to A.A. of today.”
Dr. William Silkworth made the medical view of alcoholism as an allergy clear in “The Doctor’s Opinion,” a chapter within the book Alcoholics Anonymous. Silkworth, a psychiatrist who had treated hundreds of alcoholics including AA co-founder Wilson, wrote:
We believe, and so suggested a few years ago, that theaction of alcohol on these chronic alcoholics is a manifesta-tion of an allergy; that the phenomenon of craving is limitedto this class and never occurs in the average temperatedrinker. These allergic types can never safely use alcoholin any form at all; and once having formed the habit andfound they cannot break it, once having lost their self-confidence, their reliance upon things human, their prob-lems pile up on them and become astonishingly difficultto solve…
…On the other hand—and strange as this may seem to thosewho do not understand—once a psychic change has occurred,the very same person who seemed doomed, who had somany problems he despaired of ever solving them, suddenlyfinds himself easily able to control his desire for alcohol,the only effort necessary being that required to follow afew simple rules.
Since the water/alcohol and medical aspects of alcoholism both have played such important roles in American society before, during and after Prohibition, it would have been valuable for the producers to include them with some depth in their very important, quality documentary.