ALCOHOLEconomic Development.’’ The Journal of Developing
Areas 30:41–62.Hightower, James 1972 Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: The
Failure of America’s Land-Grant College Complex. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Schenkman.
Islam, Rizwanul, and Jin Hehui 1994 ‘‘Rural Industriali-
zation: An Engine of Prosperity in Postreform Rural
China.’’ World Development 22:1643–1659.
Jamieson, Neil L., Le Trong Cuc, and A. Terry Rambo
1998 The Development Crisis in Vietnam’s Mountains.
Honolulu: East-West Center Special Reports No. 6.
LeVeen, Phillip 1978 ‘‘The Prospects for Small-Scale
Farming in an Industrial Society: A Critical Appraisal
of Small Is Beautiful.’’ In Richard Dorf and Yvonne
Hunter, eds., Appropriate Visions. San Francisco: Boyd
and Fraser.
Lewis, Scott, David Gartrell, and John Gartrell 1989
‘‘Upper-Middle-Class Conservatism in Agricultural
Communities: A Meta-analysis.’’ Rural Sociology 54
(3):409–419.
Pampel, Fred, and J. C. van Es 1977 ‘‘Environmental
Quality and Issues of Adoption Research.’’ Rural
Sociology 42:57–71.
Poleman, Thomas T., and D. K. Freebairn 1973 Food,
Population and Employment: The Impact of the Green
Revolution. New York: Praeger.
Rogers, Everett 1983 The Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed.
New York: Free Press.
———, and D. Lawrence Kincaid 1981 Communication
Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for Research. New
York: Free Press.
Ryan, Bryce, and Neal Gross 1942 ‘‘The Diffusion of
Hybrid Corn Seed in Two Iowa Communities.’’ Ru-
ral Sociology 8:15–24.
Schumpeter, Joseph 1950 Capitalism, Socialism, and De-
mocracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Sharma, Rita, and Thomas T. Poleman 1993 The New
Economics of India’s Green Revolution. Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press.
Sommers, David G., and Ted L. Napier 1993 ‘‘Compari-
son of Amish and Non-Amish Farmers: A Diffusion/
Farm-Structure Perspective.’’ Rural Sociology 58:130–145.
Spicer, Edward 1952 Human Problems in Technological
Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
van Es, J. C. 1983 ‘‘The Adoption/Diffusion Tradition
Applied to Resource Conservation: Inappropriate
Use of Existing Knowledge.’’ The Rural Sociolo-
gist 3:76–82.
Warriner, G. Keith, and Trudy M. Moul 1992 ‘‘Kinship
and Personal Communication Network Influences
on the Adoption of Agriculture Conservation Tech-
nology.’’ Journal of Rural Studies 8:279–291.
Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust 1994 Social
Network Analysis. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.JOHN GARTRELL
DAVID GARTRELLALCOHOL
INTRODUCTIONThe sociological study of alcohol in society is
concerned with two broad areas. (1) The first area
is the study of alcohol behavior, which includes: (a)
social and other factors in alcohol behavior, (b) the
prevalence of drinking in society, and (c) the group
and individual variations in drinking and alcohol-
ism. (2) The second major area of study has to do
with social control of alcohol, which includes: (a)
the social and legal acceptance or disapproval of
alcohol (social norms), (b) the social and legal
regulations and control of alcohol in society, and
(c) efforts to change or limit deviant drinking
behavior (informal sanctions, law enforcement,
treatment, and prevention). Only issues related to
the first area of study, sociology of alcohol behav-
ior, will be reviewed here.PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOLThere are three major forms of beverages contain-
ing alcohol (ethanol) that are regularly consumed.
Wine is made from fermentation of fruits and
usually contains up to 14 percent of ethanol by
volume. Beer is brewed from grains and hops and
contains 3 to 6 percent ethanol. Liquor (whisky,
gin, vodka, and other distilled spirits) is usually 40
percent (80 proof) to 50 percent (100 proof) etha-
nol. A bottle of beer (12 ounces), a glass of wine (4
ounces), and a cocktail or mixed drink with a shot
of whiskey in it, therefore, each have about the
same absolute alcohol content, one-half to three-
fourths of an ounce of ethanol.Alcohol is a central nervous system depres-
sant, and its physiological effects are a direct func-
tion of the percentage of alcohol concentrated in