"Let intoxicants be given to the one who is perishing, wine to those who are bitter,
let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember no more his misery."
It seems that the makers of certain brands of alcohol take this proverb very seriously indeed, bent as they are on providing alcohol as close to free as profitably possible. Our current government however has not taken note and seem insistent on introducing a minimum price per unit.
The tone of the above paragraph was of course sarcastic like I am fairly sure Lemuel's mother intended us to hear her words about giving alcohol to those in misery given the context of what she's just said and is just about to say. These verses are framed by instructions about how a king should use his power to defend the cause of the poor and oppressed. As we saw in verses 4-5, a king should not drink and forget to defend the poor and we will find again immediately after these verse more instructions to defend the rights of the oppressed.
Perhaps these verses also serve as a check on her powerful son, lest he confuse his abstinence from drink with a morally superior position. She is checking the blindness that privilege could afford him and exposing some of the reasons why the poor and oppressed may turn to drink, in order that his response might be one of seeking justice rather than passing judgement. Marx said that religion was the opium of the people. Lemuel's mother seems to think more highly of the poor, they are not unconscious of their misery but taking what agency they can within their situation of constrained choice to forget their poverty.
So what comment do these verse make on the current discussion to put a minimum price on alcohol? Well they ground a discussion in excessive drink in consideration of power and oppression. Now I'm not great at keeping up with the news at the mo but I've not heard much thorough critique from this angle, to be fair there's been an acknowledgement that this will push up prices for families already struggling with reduced income and rising prices, there has also been an acknowledgement that the industry needs to act responsibly (between the lines of that read: stop exploiting people so excessively that they notice).
My gut feeling is uneasy, most of that is down to who is proposing this, which is just plain prejudice on my part but also I am slightly concerned this is a tax on the poor? Though I got so shot down suggesting the smoking ban was classist I suspect I won't get much sympathy for my un-easiness about a minimum price on alcohol. And I have had to concede that the smoking ban seems to have worked pretty well. (However a minimum price on alcohol would mean the coalition could never again accuse anyone of promoting a nanny state!).
Perhaps these verses also serve as a check on her powerful son, lest he confuse his abstinence from drink with a morally superior position. She is checking the blindness that privilege could afford him and exposing some of the reasons why the poor and oppressed may turn to drink, in order that his response might be one of seeking justice rather than passing judgement. Marx said that religion was the opium of the people. Lemuel's mother seems to think more highly of the poor, they are not unconscious of their misery but taking what agency they can within their situation of constrained choice to forget their poverty.
So what comment do these verse make on the current discussion to put a minimum price on alcohol? Well they ground a discussion in excessive drink in consideration of power and oppression. Now I'm not great at keeping up with the news at the mo but I've not heard much thorough critique from this angle, to be fair there's been an acknowledgement that this will push up prices for families already struggling with reduced income and rising prices, there has also been an acknowledgement that the industry needs to act responsibly (between the lines of that read: stop exploiting people so excessively that they notice).
My gut feeling is uneasy, most of that is down to who is proposing this, which is just plain prejudice on my part but also I am slightly concerned this is a tax on the poor? Though I got so shot down suggesting the smoking ban was classist I suspect I won't get much sympathy for my un-easiness about a minimum price on alcohol. And I have had to concede that the smoking ban seems to have worked pretty well. (However a minimum price on alcohol would mean the coalition could never again accuse anyone of promoting a nanny state!).
What would Lemuel's mother advice be to our binge drinking culture? Well to the powerful she would advise that they do not partake in heavy indulgence lest, it clog their vision of justice. She would ask us to pause and reflect on why people drink. Without painting them as helpless victims, we should consider wider sociological, political, economic and spiritual forces shaping people's lived experiences, and then once more we should return to seeking justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment