ROSS-FERTILIZATION between anthropology and psychiatry has not been terribly impressive in the past. In a review of English-language mental health journals from 1925-1974, Oman and I discerned about 3600 articles which had anthropological or cross-cultural themes (1). Particularly notable, however, were the observations that, first, a holistic focus on culture in the anthropological sense was lacking in most articles and, second, in only a few articles was material synthesized. It appeared that psychiatrists and psychologists intuitively knew that culture was significant, but they were unfamiliar with the anthropological literature and with anthropological methodology. In discussing alcohol, psychiatrists and anthropologists, although mutually interested in the subject, have different approaches. Most psychiatrists, like other physicians, think in eric1 terms of alcoholism. Emphasis is on individual psychopathology and pathophysiology. In contrast, most anthropologists hink in e•nicl terms of cultural drinking patterns. The term integrarive drinking, for example, rarely appears in the psychiatric literature. Psychiatrists learn their trade primarily in the hospital, while anthropologists work in the field. Thus culture is more alive for the anthropologist than for the psychiatrist whose patients are transplanted into an institutional setting. Another professional difference arises from the type of drinker seen by each. The anthropologist is likely to come into contact with a wide range of individuals, from teetotalers to severe alcoholics. The psychiatrist is more likely to