oholics, but this awareness has not led to much effective action. Therefore, the problems described by Spradley are still with us almost one-quarter of a century after the publication of his book. The "down and out" are still "down and out."
There seems to be a dualistic approach to Spradley's book. On the one hand, the author argues that the urban nomads should not be treated as criminals, but instead should be treated as people with a disease, people who need treatment rather than punishment. The suggestion is that much of the problem can be alleviated through such a change in public policy. On the other hand, Spradley seems to be saying that there is much we can come to learn by accepting these urban nomads as they are. He seems to be saying, in the following passage, for example, that we will always have alcoholic "tramps" in society, and the best we might be able to do for them is to let them live their lives as they wish:
Perhaps . . . we have waited so long to renew our institutions [because] to do so would require that we accept different values and patterns of behavior as valid. Sooner or later . . . the Supreme Court . . . will rule that a jail sentence for public drunkenness is cruel and unusual punishment. . . . That decision will be the first step in restoring freedom to urban nomads and the day may come when we will go on to recognize the creative skill and dignity in this subculture so different from our own. When that day comes we will have moved closer to destroying the separateness which now permeates our cities, closer to including all the various subcultures in our multicultural society.
Whether he believes that these men can be changed and "saved" from their alcoholism, it is clear that Spradley is arguing that these urban nomads comprise a genuine subculture and that they deserve our respect and compassion.
In Pittman and Snyder, we read that alcoholics who have reached the nadir of their drinking car...