Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 4,27-28 (1994)

Commentary ‘Community Psychology and Politics’ by David Smail

DAVID HAWKS Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia

Community psychology has not, in David Smail’s view, given us much more than ‘quite conventional psychological studies . . . realigned to display their social and community aspects’-and even if it had, Smail is doubtful as to whether community psychologists should seek to apply their knowledge.

I believe these judgements are unnecessarily harsh and will attempt to prove my point by reference to work in the alcohol arena (and it is perhaps no accident that a number of community psychologists have chosen to work in this area).

While there is little question that individual dispositions, including genetic inheri- tance, contribute to the development and maintenance of alcohol related problems, there is no doubt that environmental factors (outside of the individual) contribute significantly. The availability of alcohol, its real price relative to a person’s disposable income and its marketing are known to influence consumption, and consumption is known to be closely related to problems. As consumption increases so, in general, do problems.

Harbouring such knowledge, it must be asked whether community psychologists concerned for the welfare of their clients are entitled to agitate for the reduction of inducements to drink. I believe they are entitled, if only because to attempt to treat the individual disposition to drink without concern for the economic and other environmental inducements is to be less effective as therapists.

The case can be illustrated vividly by reference to random breath testing. All the scientific evidence suggests that random breath testing, frequently invoked, widely publicized and supported by popular opinion is an extremely effective deterrent to drinking and driving. This is of no small consequence when it is acknowledged that 40% of road traffic fatalities in Australia were, until recently, alcohol related. Given the known difficulty of dissuading chronic drinkers from driving, are we to ignore this legislative deterrent because it derives from outside the individual or because heavy drinkers oppose its enactment? More specifically, are psychologists who might be expected to have privileged technical knowledge of random breath testing’s effectiveness not to advocate its use?

The same questions can be asked of a number of other measures, all of them requiring some regulatory or legislative action-the banning of half-price drinks

CCC 1052-9284/94/010027-02 0 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

28 D. Hawks

and the mandatory training of barstaff in responsible serving practices, the effective- ness of which has been demonstrated.

To argue that community psychologists have a responsibility to advocate policies and practices that their disciplined study persuades them are effective in the minimiza- tion of distress is not to say, however, that their views should be given precedence in determining public policy. Science has changed its mind far too often as to what it considers ‘truth’ for it to be trusted as the sole determinant of public policy. Nor have scientists always acted in the public interest. However, for them not to seek to persuade, but only to demystify, as Smail recommends, seems to me to abdicate their special responsibility to society.

I have used examples from the alcohol literature precisely because more such examples can be found. That so few exist in other areas, and I agree with Smail that community psychology has done better at advocating its cause than demonstrat- ing its effectiveness, is also due I believe to a neglect of ‘positive cases’ in mental health research. While we continue to study only negative cases (people who break down in one way or another) it is hardly surprising that we have so incomplete an understanding of what is protective or promoting of mental health. How is it that the majority of phobic conditions ‘self correct’, or alcoholics give up drinking without the benefit of professional assistance? How do children growing up in mater- ially deprived environments sometimes excel against all the odds? Undoubtedly, research will demonstrate the importance of individual factors, like temperament, but it is also likely to reveal the importance of external influences, some of which at least are amenable to change. Community psychologists, it seems to me, have a responsibility to advocate such changes not because they are sentimentally per- suaded of them, but precisely because they believe them to have been scientifically validated.

As anyone who has been close to government knows, it is not so rational a process that it can be left to politicians. Community psychologists have a responsibility to attempt to influence the legislative process precisely because it has implications for individual distress, which, as Smail points out, is not going to be reduced by purely psychotherapeutic interventions.