French artists, from Baudelaire and Van Gogh to Van Gogh, once revered the potent, emerald green blend of wormwood anise, fennel and green anise, called “the Green Fairy.” In the early 1900s France consumed more absinthe per capita than all of the other countries combined. Within a few decades it had been banned as a “national poison.”
What happened? What happened?
The absinthe that became France’s enemy
In the beginning, there were genuine concerns about alcohol and its effects on society. This was against an alarming background of high rates of alcoholism, a military defeat by Prussia, as well as fears over a national decline.
Despite their inconclusive research, scientists coined the term “absinthism”, claiming that absinthe causes unique symptoms such as epilepsy or madness.
The dynamics are fascinating. In response to the growing anti-alcohol feeling, manufacturers of aperitifs containing nearly identical ingredients such as pastis, anis and anisette strategically distanced absinthe from their products.
Advertisement posters of the 1880s showed a contrast between “healthy” and “deadly absinthe”, showing a death lurking in front of absinthe-drinkers, while attractive women were accompanying those who chose competing products. The wine industry joined in the fight for economic reasons. They needed to recover market share after a vine disease called phylloxera destroyed French vineyards.
They framed their fight as patriotic, arguing that absinthe was a foreign poison and wine is French heritage.
Even absinthe makers turned against each other. Pontarlier producers, who are the region’s traditional absinthe makers, turned on “bad” Parisian absinthe, in an attempt to protect themselves. Absinthe was doomed by this internal division. The ban was imposed quickly after the outbreak of World War I, and presented as an act of French civilisation.
In our research, we have identified a pattern that is repeated. First, real social anxiety about issues such as health, identity and public safety emerges. Then a target that is similar to “acceptable actors” but different enough from them to expel, can be identified.
Importantly, potential scapegoats actively move themselves to join the accusers in order to avoid blame.
The target group is shrinking and the attacks are intensifying. The pattern is called “stigma-opportunity structures”, i.e. conditions which open up windows to further targetting. The vineyard disease and the French military defeat facilitated this process.
Modern day scapegoating: Recognising it
Despite the fact that absinthe was banned in France back in 1915, this dynamic is still very much alive today. The scapegoating of others is a powerful mechanism for social change. Scapegoating is a powerful social mechanism that can be used to turn uncertainty, fear, or conflict into social blame directed towards certain people or groups.
It does this by using thin, selective, or false stories, which are then repeated or told as though they were true. The effectiveness of victimization lies first and foremost in the fact that the evidence often isn’t relevant for creating moral panic and causing social harm.
Covid-19 was a powerful example of a pandemic in our time. In many instances, fear of infection led to physical or verbal attacks against people of Asian descent who some people feared as coronavirus spreaders. Fear, rumours and false belief about the transmission of coronavirus fuelled discrimination towards patients and marginalised group, not because they were based on evidence, but rather out of anxiety and misinformation. This stigmatisation has not been corrected either by scientific clarifications or political authorities about the actual spread of the virus.
Even after the epidemiological consensus was established, people of Asian descent faced hostility. This pattern is also evident in the absinthe scandal: Once a scapegoat has been identified, momentum is used to shape how the evidence is perceived rather than correcting it.
Is there a real reason to be angry at social media?
A real-time case is very instructive.
The debate about social media and mental health in youth.
Since 2012, the rates of depression, anxiety and self-harm in adolescents has risen dramatically.
What caused it? Social media is the obvious culprit.
Parents who have at least a mild concern about the mental health of teens are 44% more likely to say that social media has the greatest negative effect on teenagers today. US Surgeons General have issued warnings about potential harms. Legislators are rushing to ban and restrict social media. Jonathan Haidt’s bestseller, The Anxious Generation has been a rallying cry for this viewpoint.
It argues that smartphones are causing a mental health epidemic. The scientific evidence is murkier, however.
Social media usage is linked to higher rates of anxiety, depression and suicide among teenagers, although the side effects can often be modest. Scientists continue to debate just how much of this youth mental health crisis social media has to do with.
Social media are not harmless. It is legitimate to be concerned about the algorithmic amplification of content, disruptions in sleep, and vulnerability among youth. The evidence may not have been able to keep up with the haste in which the blame was assigned. This case is revealing because of the difference between conviction and evidence.
It has become common knowledge that social media destroys a generation. This belief is so widely held that to question it seems counter-productive or irresponsible.
We can avoid asking more difficult questions, such as the precarious economic situation, pressure on education, decline in community institutions and failures within mental health care systems, by blaming the social media.
What is common sense when you blame someone?
It is easy to recognise the pattern: real anxiety, an easily identifiable target, political actors who distance themselves from those most critical, and actors looking for visible solutions. It does not mean that we ignore the concerns of young people about technology. We should, however, be cautious of our own convictions and instincts.
The most obvious target is often the one that attracts the most hatred when a community feels anxious or wants to find answers.
Humans are driven by the desire to find clear answers for complicated problems. The absinthe trial and the many contemporary echos it has left remind us, however, that blaming someone for a complex problem is often driven by social dynamics rather than based on careful consideration of evidence.
More than ever, in a world filled with anxiety about immigration, health, inequality and identity, it is important to be cautious.
In the moment, blaming others feels justifiable. Absinthe has been legalized in France again a century after its prohibition. Its dangers are largely mythical.
Looking back on today, what will we remember about the convenient criminals of today?
Weekly e-mail featuring the expertise of scholars and researchers.
The newsletter introduces the diverse research that is being done on the European continent, and also considers the most important issues for European countries. Subscribe to the newsletter.
