Smoking Culture

This essay about the culture of smoking was written for a university cultural anthropology course in the year 2000.

The issue of smoking has steadily become a heated debate in all facets of our society. Through the age of technology, we have become more aware of the fact cigarettes can and will, kill the individuals who smoke them. Furthermore, second hand smoke does affect non-smokers. This raises two distinct groups or factions, which have been battling it out for decades. On one side, are smokers. The other, non-smokers. Both sides have arguments, which over time, have shaped and will continue to shape our cultural beliefs regarding smoking.

To get a better idea of what has led us to where we are today, I have gathered information from books, the Internet, and a personal interview. I feel in the book, Cigarettes are Sublime, the author tries to portray smoking as somewhat glamorous. Perhaps, make smokers and their habit look not all that bad. However, he does not encourage smoking. Through the use of examples lent to him from other literary works, he compares smoking to the making of a poem. He makes the habit look spiritual in nature. (Klein 1993). In the book titled, Smoking Policy: Law, Politics and Culture; I found the authors were using legislative and political views to determine the course our culture has taken in regards to smoking. In using statistical data and setting a timeline dating back some forty years, they have established culture change as it relates to smoking is affected by a number of different variables. (Rabin/Sugarman 1993). An article written by Lawrence Gostin, The Legal Regulation of Smoking (and Smokers), was another interesting resource. The article, printed in Allen Brandt’s, Morality and Health, is taking the issue of health and morality, in so far, whether the two are inter-related when discussing the issue of smoking. Gostin believes an authoritative approach is not the answer. If by taking a less coercive approach by improving health education about tobacco use is implemented, then he believes tobacco use will decline. (Brandt 1997:352). The Internet seems to grow larger by the day. I can remember when doing research was done solely by reading books, conducting interviews and experiencing the topic at hand. No longer are we restricted to our libraries of bulky hardbacks weighing us down. Now, just click, and retrieve whatever information you need. I may be able to give worthwhile information regarding my topic solely through Internet resources, but I feel these web sites are more importantly, used to gather date points of interest. The Internet is ever changing with time, as is the smoking culture. Thus, recent legislation and cultural change as it applies to smoking will be gathered from the web. Some of the most vital research you can obtain is that of the person-to-person interview. Gillian Wood, my mother and smoker, offered her time to answer a few of the questions I had regarding smoking. Specifically, being a smoker in Southern California, where over the past ten years there has been a dramatic health conscience shift.

These resources help in determining the effects smoking has on our culture. Smoking has made a significant impact on our culture. The nature of the topic dictates the use of both chronological and a comparative analysis of cultural change related to smoking. The information I have gathered will show smoking, as it relates to health, has directed the way our society approaches this pastime.

As I stated before, I primarily gathered my research material through literature. I did, however, conduct one interview. I feel it is important to see the perspective of the long time smoker. My interviewee happened to also be my mother. I chose her because she has been a smoker for 45 years. Additionally, she has lived in Southern California for 35 years. In that time, she has witnessed considerable changes in the attitudes of people when it comes to the issue of smoking. The interview was relatively long, because on issues like these we tend to become somewhat long-winded. It is a genetic trait, I suppose. So taking that into consideration, I have selected a couple portions of the interview. These portions I felt were important, as it focuses on the cultural ideals related to smoking. I will use my initials when asking questions or commenting. My comments will be in [brackets]. I am using this idea from Martha Balshem, her book; Cancer in the Community.

“[SW: So, what exactly do you mean by, “Stigma?”] Well, it is obvious that over the past few years, yes, I would say, ten years. It is obvious that the act of smoking (especially in California) has been, lets say, stigmatized. Characterized as a disgraceful act. [SW: Has it always been this way?] I cannot speak intelligently about how it was before I moved here, but I can tell you that since the early 70’s, smoking has gradually become a stigmatized habit. [SW: So, before the 1970’s it wasn’t bad to smoke?] I never claimed that smoking was not bad. I would not say that. However, non-smokers did not label smokers then. [SW: Do you feel that health issues are at the forefront of the stigma that has been placed on smokers?] It can be assumed that health is an issue, yes. Actually, assumption does not seem to be an issue anymore, does it? I believe that a combination of improved medicine and the time in which we live have a lot to do with how people stereotype the smoking culture. [SW: Improved medicine?] Yes, links between smoking and cancer were not studied until…Well, to be honest, I’m not quite sure when these studies took place, but it was not until recently that you heard about them. [SW: You also mentioned, “The time we live in.” What do you mean?] For example, I was raised during and post World War II. Smoking was a social event during those times. It seemed everyone smoked. Now, our society is much more health oriented. Here in California it is epidemic. Young and beautiful is a way of life here. So, down with the smokers.

[SW: Do you feel you could quit smoking?] No, I have tried on numerous occasions. [SW: Why not?] I enjoy smoking, yes, and I am aware of the possible ramifications, but it is a habit that is part of my life. I do not know a life without smoking. Does that answer your question? [SW: Yes. So, if you could quit, you would?] Most certainly. [SW: Interesting. Do you have anything you would like to add?] Yes. Quit smoking, son. <smiles>

A good portion of this interview was trivial conversation, but I feel the excerpts I selected have a strong place in the context of the topic. Gillian’s attitude about smoking has definitely changed over time. I feel as though she may experience a sense of guilt from time to time. Perhaps, as the culture around her has changed, she has changed with it. I think it is important to point out as well, Gillian stressed to me after the interview a key point. She is a strong believer smoking is passed on from generation to generation. She claimed reading numerous articles regarding the issue. Unfortunately, I did not find any information to verify her claim, but I believe there may be some merit to the idea of generation smokers.

This leads me into the chronological history of the attitudes toward smoking. In the early twentieth century along with the women’s rights movements, we see the first real cultural change centered on smoking. “That explains why, among women, smoking began with those who got paid for staging their sexuality: the actress, the Gypsy, the whore. Such a woman violates traditional roles by defiantly, actively giving herself pleasure instead of passively receiving it.” (Klein 1993:117). It was apparent that the women were taking less of a feminine role in society and making themselves more masculine (Klein 1993). The correlation was women used the act of smoking cigarettes to break out of the mold of male domination was suppressing them. A key to the women’s right movement.

As time went on, we see the next real cultural attitude towards smoking lasted a very long time. I am profiling the time between World War I (WWI) up to, but not including, the Vietnam War. A time span of about fifty years. “Popular culture between World War I and Vietnam portrayed smoking positively. In movies of the 1940’s and 1950’s, the cigarette is ubiquitous as the handgun.” “In fact, the role models in all walks of life - the arts, sports, the professions - were promoting the smoking habit.” (Rabin/Sugarman 1993:5). When I mention, ‘our’ culture or ‘our’ society, I am specifically speaking of American culture and society. Granted, we are living in a time of rapid globalization, but during this time frame, especially, Americans were still establishing their own cultural identities. So, as I relate it to the era between WWI and Vietnam, I am suggesting war is, but not confined to, the inhabitants of ‘our’ country. It is these times of conflict, which brings a culture together. In the United States (U.S.), as well as other countries, this era of wars was a stressful time. A trying time. Smoking seemed to relieve some of the stress. Post WWI came the roaring 20’s, a time when the country flourished. It was the 1920’s when smoking cigarettes was considered modern (Rabin/Sugarman 1993). During WWI, the American soldier and cigarettes were closely associated with each other. Therefore, in the years following the war, smoking seemed to be patriotic (Rabin/Sugarman 1993). It is important to understand before World War II (WWII), the issues surrounding health and smoking were not of a high concern. In actuality, during all periods of war leading up to now, smoking was praised and encouraged (Klein 1993). “Cigarette smoking during wartime and depressions was not merely approved as a pleasure but viewed almost as a duty that owed to the principle of camaraderie and to the requirements of consolation in the face of tragedy.” (Klein 1993:3).

Before I analyze the era in which smoking becomes a health topic, I must discuss the one war that did not help the smoking culture. The Vietnam War has a stigma of its own. Politically and economically, the Vietnam War drained the U.S. Unfortunately, it also took place during a time of a mass cultural movement. Peace and love was at the forefront of this societal change, smoking was not. This war developed on the heels of a time when smoking habits began to be studied. It was 1955 when the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) began tracking such data (Rabin/Sugarman 1993). Needless to say, the Vietnam War did not lend its glamour to the promotion of a smoking culture.

It was 1964, the middle of the war, the year that the Surgeon General reported smoking was a health hazard that required appropriate and remedial action. The data accumulated by the CDC and the American Lung Association, linked smoking and lung cancer. These implications also led the American Heart Association (AHA) to study the effects of smoking on the cardiovascular system. Not long after the Surgeon Generals report, the AHA stated smoking may also lead to heart disease (Rabin/Sugarman 1993). Here began the battle against smokers and it aimed directly at the tobacco manufacturers.. In 1965, a federal law mandated tobacco companies label or advertise on their packages, that “Smoking cigarettes may be hazardous to your health.” By 1970, congress had banned all broadcast advertising of tobacco products. It was the medical evidence and political position that led to the change in laws and cultural attitude of many Americans.

Once a fine line, now there was a distinction between smokers and non-smokers. The people we look up to in our society; the medical authority and powerful politicians were telling Americans smoking cigarettes was a killer. To amplify the smoker as pariah, “During the early 1980’s, the public became aware of research on what is known as “involuntary smoking” or “passive smoking.” This research, carried out in several countries, has investigated the effect of ambient cigarette smoke on the health of non-smokers (U.S. DHHS, Surgeon General 1986, ch2; Repace 1985, ch1).” Thus, the non-smokers are directly affected by second hand smoke. With these findings, non-smoker rights activists took a harder stand against smoking. Now, it was more of a moral issue, rather than a scientific one. “The impetus for scientific study of involuntary smoking was not the observation that non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) had higher levels of morbidity or mortality but, rather, the increasingly intense secular value smokers were becoming a public nuisance.” (Gostin/Brandt 1997:346). The problem for the smoker was the majority of other smokers backed and even still support the findings the CDC, AHA and Surgeon General made public. Through this support, we have seen the gradual death of the smoking culture.

To make things worse for smokers, it is estimated there are 434,000 deaths per year related to smoking (Rabin/Sugarman 1993). “By any measure, 434,000 annual deaths is a staggering number of fatalities. It exceeds the total U.S. battlefield casualties in World War II; it constitutes a mortality rate far greater than the sum of deaths that result from drinking, driving, working, and recreational activities. All told, more than one in six deaths from all causes can be traced to tobacco use.” (Rabin/Sugarman 1993:3).

Mortality aside, the moral and cultural repercussions are equally as great. The restrictions on the tobacco industry remain as stringent, if not more so, today. Culturally, we find the feeling is mixed from state to state. Albeit, federal regulations are a constant wherever you go in the U.S. For example, in California, the people recently passed a law that forbids smoking in restaurants and bars. It is obvious this law was passed on a moral basis, rather than medical facts. Yes, facts show “passive smoking” may cause harm to the non-smoker, but evidence does not seem to be the issue in this case. As Gillian stated in our interview, “Now, our society is much more health oriented. Here in California it is epidemic. Young and beautiful is a way of life here. So, down with the smokers.” On the contrary, visit Las Vegas, Nevada. The “City of Sin.” Or the “City that never sleeps.” All morality is thrown right out the window. Go ahead and smoke in the rooms, hotel lobbies, restaurants, parking lots, bathrooms, you name it. These two places only separated by one freeway and about a four-hour drive. I do however feel this is one situation in which Las Vegas caters to the social deviant. Of course, the smoker fits right in. Bottom line, it is more about where we place smokers on the cultural ladder.

I feel as though the more I write about this distinction between smoker and non-smoker, the more I feel my teeth grind. I am a smoker, and granted I would probably have a different view of my cultural standing if I were say, living in Las Vegas. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I prefer California anyway. I had the chance to gather some valuable information regarding the issue of smoking and how it relates to culture and health. My feeling is in the last two or three decades have we seen a blatant banishment of smokers from ‘our’ society.

The funny thing is, I read statistics such as, “434,000 deaths annually,” and I question the motive behind the stats.. Who are we kidding? Population growth would certainly account for some of these numbers. As a population grows, death rates also increase. Secondly, studies regarding tobacco use have only accounted for ‘our’ society since 1955. So, couldn’t we assume, not unlike ‘our’ medical authority, there were equivalent death rates associated with smoking prior to 1955? I believe this to be the case. Only, smoking was not a habit of deviant proportions then. It was a glamorous experience, almost ritual. Which leads me to the idea of ritual and smoking.

As I stated earlier, I would use the Internet as a current path into the habits of smokers and the ideals people have regarding their place in ‘our’ smoke-free society. “It would probably be a good thing to mention at this point my distinction between what I term Ritual Smoking and Habitual Smoking. While I suppose the boundary can only be a somewhat arbitrary one, I think it’s important to point out I’m not referring to nor endorsing anything which leaves you hopelessly dependent upon a debilitating behavior which has long since lost any sense of special pleasure and appeal in your life. Ritual Smoking is a conscious and appropriate use of tobacco and as such is a choice, something done at special times and in a special places, maybe with special smoking accessories, and maybe in the company of others who share and know how to participate in smoking as a ritual as well. Above all, Ritual Smoking is done for pleasure, for the connection to spirits it invokes, and as a wholly positive experience about which you do not even consider feeling guilty. Specifically, Ritual Smoking is not done on the sly or in shame, nor huddled under a shelter, which your employer has provided as a concession until you successfully complete their stop-smoking program. Nor is it something you do while attempting to accomplish anything else.

Ritual Smoking is a singular activity: It calls for your complete and focused attention and rewards that attention with an experience which expands the boundaries of awareness and pleasure.” (Watersll 1998:Website). This is a prime example of how smokers have taken the defensive. All of us are well aware of the fact, smoking kills. Call it ritual smoking if you like, but we know this is a feeble attempt to quell our non-smoking brethren. At the same time, take a shot at the culture that prevails, by suggesting our employers are the cause of the habitual smokers demise. Habitual we are, but to classify smokers as either ritual or habitual is outrageous, yet this where we are today. I equate ritual in this context as, Closet-smoker.

In light of the fact I am a smoker, and obviously disgruntled over the current state of smoking in our culture, I feel as though I can relate to the author of one website I came across while doing my research. Now, I have learned there are definite physical downfalls accompanying consistent smoking. The health issue is what has brought us to where we are today. Smoking equals bad health. Bad health equals death. The logical thing to do, would be to quit. I’m not sure I am ready to just yet. Maybe I am waiting for the next war or depression. It seems those are the times when smoking flourishes. Although now, after all the studies and implemented laws, I don’t think much will change. Smokers are a dying breed.

This last monologue is one I found while surfing the net, and is of course the one I mentioned in the latter paragraph. I think this is a good example of how I feel ‘our’ culture should approach the smoking culture…

"“During my first year of college, I went to dinner at exactly 6:12 PM. And I wasn't alone. Scores of bright-eyed freshmen flocked to the dining hall, and not for the Salisbury steak.
We were there for Banana-girl.

The name rings true even today. Banana-girl was a first-year student from a neighboring college who liked to eat bananas -- suggestively. She peeled the banana ever so gently, tickled the tip of her tongue down the meat of it, and took it deeply into her mouth. Then (most importantly), she swallowed.

We did our best to ignore the biting part. There's no great secret to Banana-girl's allure. She could just as well have been Bagel-dog girl or Cruller-girl. No one really cared about the banana (except, it seems, for Banana-girl herself, who cared rather deeply). So it should have come as no surprise when I discovered that smoking is enjoying a sexy little renaissance of its own.

This is not the traditional "She looks so sophisticated with that cigarette -- I think I wanna' see her naked" school of sexy. The tobacco companies and Hollywood have been pushing that one for years. This is a fetish that centers on the smoking itself, not the image of the smoker.
Whether one finds this kind of thing exciting is largely a question of how much abstraction is acceptable. Personally, banana-to-penis is an easier analogy than cigarette-to-penis, particularly when we're talking about those skinny little Capris. Call it male ego if you must, but I don't look at a quarter-inch thick burning paper tube and mistake it for "my little friend."

Still, people see what they want, and maybe it's an easier leap for others. There are other things, though, that I find a bit too far-removed. To see what I was missing, I checked out alt.sex.fetish.smoking and downloaded a picture of Liv Tyler that had everyone buzzing. She was exhaling. That's it. No lipstick on the cigarette, no "I'm enjoying this, but I'd enjoy it more if it were YOU, big boy" look -- just a puff of smoke.

I don't get it. I guess I just don't have the imagination. I might as well be watching Liv Tyler eat breakfast so I can pretend she's refueling after the workout I gave her the night before.

There are some people who take issue with the whole concept, claiming that the smoking as sexy encourages cancer and addiction. Say what you will about the socio-political ramifications, but what it boils down to is this. This fetish, like most, it is not mainstream. As such, we're in little danger. This fetish is also a lot less destructive than many. It may, to some degree, promote self-destruction, but it is far better than the "snuff flick" movement that encourages active violence toward others. And it is certainly no worse than mainstream culture's press for an unrealistic body weight. As for me, I'm just glad that bananas are healthy.” (SmokingPoll 1999:Website)

The writer of the essay quit smoking in April of 2003. The writers mother, Gillian, died of lung cancer in January of 2004.