Förnuft och känsla - Kunskapsbruk hos gårdagens förbudskritiker och dagens alkoholliberaler.

Abstract

Aim: The aim is to study non-governmental actors’ production and use of alcohol policy knowledge in the early 20th and the 21st century respectively, by analyzing their main arguments, knowledge substantiation and their overarching discursive legitimacy. Design: The first impact focuses on prohibitionist-critical actors’ engagement against the alcohol ban in the years 1916–1922. The second impact focuses on the Swedish think tank Timbro’s engagement in alcohol policy in the years 2012–2020. The analysis of the two empirical cases was based on an open coding strategy with a focus on what type of knowledge claims that were made and how which reasoning was put forward in relation to these. Results: Great similarities are distinguished between the two time periods. Alcohol is an issue of freedom and at the same time a threat of crucial importance for the future society. The arguments are supported by historical, international, media and scientific evidence. The biggest difference lies in the legitimization of the argumentation. In the early 20th century this is rooted in democracy and the will of the people while the arguments of the 21st century are rooted in public health and governmentally sanctioned knowledge. Conclusion: The knowledge processes are explored as matters of political appropriation that takes place through processes of directing and stealing the spotlight. These processes show how the aspiring democracy and the existing public health policy respectively are productive preconditions for what kind of knowledge that can be brought forward. This enables a renegotiation regarding what democracy and public health policy can involve.