|
Article Excerpt
Public health policies related to alcohol generally and bars or other on-premise alcohol outlets specifically typically characterize bars as discrete and relatively homogenous units consisting of the physical setting, the server and other staff, and the patrons. The policies affecting these businesses and the people who work in or frequent them are placed in a variety of legal structures, including zoning ordinances and workplace legislation, as well as health codes at local, county, state, federal, and international levels. Policies focusing on alcohol outlets may include restrictions on types of alcohol permitted to be served, time of sales, minimum ages of patrons and servers, and other restrictions based on proximity to schools or on previous noncompliance with any restrictions (Edwards, Anderson, Babor, Casswell, Ferrenc, Giesbrecht, et al., 1994; Gliksman, Douglas, Rylett & Narbonne-Fortin, 1995; Grube, 1997; Laixuthai & Chaloupka, 1993; Mosher, 1999a, 1999b; Preusser & Williams, 1992; Wittman, 1997). In addition to restrictions on alcohol sales, bars and other alcohol outlets have been operationalized as the objects of public policies including smoke-free workplace ordinances restricting worker exposure to secondhand smoke (Moore, Lee, Antin & Martin, 2006; Moore, Lee, Martin, Todd & Chu, In Review; Weber, Bagwell, Fielding & Glantz, 2003) and violence and aggression (Graham, Osgood, Zibrowski, Purcell, Gliksman, Leonard, et al., 2004).
Since 1999 anthropologists at the Prevention Research Center in Berkeley, CA, have been analyzing the effects of one such policy--California Assembly Bill 13 (CA AB 13), a statewide ban on workplace smoking which in 1998 was applied to bars (Magzamen & Glantz, 2001)--by conducting a series of multi-method studies of tobacco policy compliance in bars in three California counties. Through extensive field observations and interviews we have identified wide variability within bars and aspects of bar culture which may greatly impact the success of these policies. These aspects may shape the likelihood of certain problematic health-related behaviors occurring in and around bars, such as heavy drinking, underage drinking, violence and aggression, risky sex, illicit drug use, and/or smoking cigarettes, as was the object of our studies. As observed in our studies, public health policies applied to bar settings may not be evenly upheld, applied, or enforced; we propose that the aspects of bar cultures identified here may impact the effectiveness of such policies as well.
In the following article, we will outline key aspects of bar cultures which bear on public health which we have identified through our ethnographic studies of bars. We specifically focus on social organization in bars. We define bars--also known as taverns or pubs--as those public institutions whose primary occupation is the sale and on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages. We utilize the concept of social organization in its classical socio-anthropological sense, i.e. the interaction of persons in their relative social roles with the relationships between these persons. This article considers the social roles and relationships of bar patrons, staff and owners of bars as critical factors for health-related behaviors and adherence to public health policies. In our studies, these elements were found to contribute to the development and reinforcement of 1) power relations within bars, together with 2) solidarity of bar communities, the combination of which was seen to result in either resistance to or compliance with the externally-mandated tobacco control policy. Data sources for this article include observations of bar behavior and ethnographic interviews conducted in three multi-method studies of tobacco policy compliance in California bars.
Bars in the literature
In theoretical overviews on cross-cultural comparisons of alcohol use by anthropologists including Heath (1987), Mandelbaum (1965), and Marshall (1979), ethnographic research on drinking in public places has been shown to shed light on wider social phenomena including class and gender issues. Ethnicity, class, and gender are among the elements of culture thrown into high relief through analysis of behavior in bar settings (Caceres & Cortinas, 1996; Graves, Graves, Semu & Sam, 1982; Lindsay, 2006; Natkin, 1985; Smith, 1985).
Since the 1940s, research on bars has yielded important understandings of drinking behavior (Gottlieb, 1957; Harford, Feinhandler, Oleary, & Dorman, 1983; Hunt & Satterlee, 1986; Hunt & Satterlee, 1986; Katovich & Reese, 1987; Kessler & Gomberg, 1974; Macrory, 1952; Mass Observation, 1943; Room, 1972; Sykes, Rowley, & Schaefer, 1990; Sykes, Rowley, & Schaefer, 1993). Yet within this literature, ethnographic studies characterizing bar environments have been relatively scarce. Indeed, Room noted an increasing tendency for observational studies of bars and taverns to focus on quantified methods and less on traditional anthropological approaches (Room, 1981). However, while quantified methods allow for closer and more concise analyses of bar-room behaviors such as drink amount, frequency and type, or interactions between drinkers, traditional ethnographic approached have proven perhaps more conducive to elucidations of the norms, attitudes and social relations which underlie these behaviors. Cavan's (1966) ethnographic observations and interviews in a small set of bars in the city of San Francisco resulted in a description of bar behavior grounded in an analysis of bar-specific social norms, as well as a functional typology of bars. Although not focusing on drinking behaviors per se, Richards' (1963/64) ethnographic study of tavern groups in suburban New York also produced a typology of bars, or taverns, as well as descriptions of social relations within bars, while Dumont's (1967) case study of the role of one tavern in the lives of homeless men explicitly analyzed drinking behaviors as well as social roles and relations. Sulkunen and colleagues (1997) conducted ethnographic studies in a small sample of suburban Finnish pubs to analyze drinking behaviors within their socially-meaningful contexts. Spradley and Mann (1975) conducted an ethnographic case study analysis of one college bar to analyze social dynamics, in particular gender and power relations, through close and intensive observation of, and conversations with staff regarding, social behaviors, spatial relations, economic structures and gender roles. Gusfield (1981) described the implications of bar sociability on drinking and driving. Tavern epidemiologist W.B. Clark (1981) supported the merit of such "detailed studies" of bars but argued that scholars must continue to address bars in the aggregate in order to more fully understand associations between behavior and drinking settings.
Public health researchers analyzing bar-room contextual factors influencing risky health behaviors have generally followed Clark's advice by operationalizing bars as standardized units of analysis. Alcohol researchers deLint and Popham (1963) noted a need for further attention on the bar as a research site (Single, 1985), and several researchers have heeded this advice, focusing their analyses of alcohol consumption by conducting unobtrusive observations in bars (Caceres & Cortinas, 1996; Graves, Graves, et al., 1982; Harford, Feinhandler, et al., 1983; Harford & Gaines, 1981; Nusbaumer, Mauss & Pearson, 1982; Nusbaumer & Reiling, 2002). Other researchers have looked at violence and aggression (Fox & Sobol, 2000; Graham, Bernards, Osgood, Homel & Purcell, 2005; Graham, La Rocque, Yetman, Ross & Guistra, 1980; Graham & Wells, 2001; Leonard, Quigley, & Collins, 2003; Wells, Graham & West, 1998), and specifically women's experiences with aggression, often sexual aggression, in bars (Buddie & Parks, 2003; Parks, 2000; Parks, Miller Collins & Zetes-Zanatta, 1998; Testa & Livingston, 1999, 2000). As a result of increasing legislation prohibiting smoking in workplaces, including bars, researchers have more recently focused on smoking in bars (Beiner & Seigel, 1997; Lee, Moore & Martin, 2003; Moore, Lee, et al., 2006; Room, 2005; Tang, Cowling, Lloyd, Rogers, Koumjian, Stevens, et al., 2003; Tang, Cowling, Stevens & Lloyd, 2004; Weber, Bagwell, et al., 2003).
Because in California some bars have been found to be in compliance with this tobacco control policy while others have not, anthropologists at the Prevention Research Center began to analyze what differentiated compliant from noncompliant bars, focusing in particular on aspects of the social organization of the bar. We hypothesized that the differences between bars were as significant as the similarities across bars in explaining compliance or noncompliance with tobacco control policies. We chose to treat bars both as comparable cultural units comprised of persons performing similar roles and functions, and as unique and discrete social worlds with their own internal logic and social mechanisms; and we have connected these two movements through the concept of social organization.
The concept of social organization in anthropology originated in ethnographic studies of tribal societies conducted in the early part of the 20th century and coalesced in the works of the French scholars such Emile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, and Claude Levi-Strauss. These researchers analyzed the roles and statuses of individuals together with the social structures and concepts which make these roles meaningful. Social relationships are defined, established and reinforced by the participants acting in their roles, and the various social roles of the participants are made sensible by these relationships, within the context of socio-cultural frameworks that define these roles and relationships. Here we use the concept of social organization to analyze those aspects of bar society which may impact health behaviors such as smoking, as well as drinking, violence, and risky sexual practices, and may facilitate or prevent the implementation of health policies including, but not limited to, tobacco control. The aspects we found most salient to a discussion of compliance with tobacco control policy included 1) the specific community within which a bar was situated; 2) the unique identity the bar developed to differentiate itself from other bars; 3) the persons who functioned as staff within the bar, of whom in our studies the most significant were the bartender and the owner; 4) the persons who functioned as patrons in the bar, including the highly significant role of the regulars; and 5) the bar society, or social life of the bar, in which these social roles were manifested and activated. These elements were found to directly impact bar compliance with the California smoke-free workplace policy.
The smoky bar projects
Since 1999, the authors have conducted a series of three ethnographic evaluations of California AB 13, the Smoke-free Workplace Ordinance, which specifically investigated how the ban has played out in stand-alone bars. Stand-alone bars are those not connected to restaurants or hotels, and these bars have been the workplace-type found to be most frequently out of compliance with the smoke-free ordinance. For all three studies, comprehensive listings of bars in each county were generated using California Alcohol Beverage Control data and local entertainment guides. Field research assistants conducted an initial scouting survey for each bar using a checklist form to verify the names and addresses of bars, inspect the bars and surrounding areas for details important for the observational component such as safety, patron demographics and likely costs, and to assess whether the bars qualified for the study. Qualifying bars were those which were stand-alone and not attached to a hotel or restaurant. Nightclubs and other venues where alcohol was served but where drinking could be considered a secondary and not primary focus--such as pool halls, strip clubs, dance halls, and live music venues--as well as bars with fully-functioning kitchens and full food menus were excluded. Private clubs of all types were excluded. For the first of the three studies, a random sample of 121 bars (one-third of all stand-alone bars in San Francisco) was identified. For the second study, which compared Los Angeles and San Francisco counties, the same criteria for stand-alone status were applied, but as this study focused on tobacco control policy compliance in ethnically-specific bars, we purposively sampled bars serving predominantly Irish, Latino, and Asian patrons. After identifying the universe of bars in each of the two counties, we identified a sample for each bar type by either taking a sample or by choosing to census the entire population because of the few qualifying bars in a particular category. A total of 165 bars were included in the sample for San Francisco and Los Angeles, with 87 and 78 bars respectively. For the third study, based in the large northern California county of Alameda, a universe of 168...
|
