Two Alcohol Policy Editorials Interpreted by Opinion Makers

Abstract

The article analyzes opinion makers' wiews on alcohol policy by way of textual reception analysis. The material is based on two editorials and their interpretations. One of the editorials is an argument defending a (neo)liberal alcohol policy. It describes the reality as one in which citizens feel hostility towards the State because it is preventing the emergence of a civil society and the development of independent, cultivated ways of drinking through its two-faced paternalistic approach. The second editorial is in favour of a regulated welfare state alcohol policy. Here the reality is seen as one in which the State spreads the common good and maintains social order and solidarity between citizens through means provided by scientific know-how.

Fifty-five influential people (local authorities, trade unionists, journalists etc.) from Lahti, a medium-size city in southern Finland, contributed their interpretations of the two texts. The analysis of their textual reception reveals that the liberal rhetoric convinces them much more successfully than the pro-welfare state argument. More than two-thirds of them interpreted the (neo)liberal argument as more credible and truthful. The author suggests that the result reflects the opinion makers' wishes for a civil society, in which the freedom of choice of the consumer prevails.