In Cambridge there are drinking societies, there are sporting societies and there are the joint sports-and-drinking societies. While I do not want to question the existence of either type of society on its own, what, exactly, is this combined model?

Recently, the Catz Kittens announced that they would be abolishing initiations. In explanation of this the President, James Digby, declared: “We are a sporting society, not a drinking society”. By reducing the amount of alcohol consumed the society aims to convert itself back into a sports society. This implies that there is a continuous scale, with sport at one end and alcohol at the other. How much you drink decides what kind of society you are. But what is this line linking sport and drinking on this scale? Where does it come from? How can it be explained?

I suppose the answer comes from the ‘sporting lad’ stereotype, where sports stars are also heavy drinkers and big party animals. This is, however, little more than a stereotype. In reality, the two activities are fundamentally different. However much I drink, I will not become an Olympian and however much I play hockey, I will not be able to ‘strawpedo’ a VK any faster. One student at Selwyn College, where the drinking society is separate from the sporting societies, does not understand the link either: “Just because you play sport it shouldn’t be assumed that you like to drink, [and] in the case of Selwyn students that doesn’t work.”

Indeed, at Selwyn, the president of the Hermes Club, the men’s sporting society, is not in the men’s drinking society, and the presidents of both drinking societies are not in the sports societies; the lack of overlap surely says it all. As the student at Selwyn points out, “if you’re playing sport at a high level you should not be encouraged to drink”. Everyone from Usain Bolt to hungover freshers on a Sunday morning knows that alcohol hinders sporting performance, so why encourage the two to mix?

However nonsensical the link may be, could it be beneficial for socialising? A member of Christ’s College’s women’s sports-and-drinking society, the Hippolytans, is a fan of the mix. Yet I wonder if sporting participation really is the only criterium in all of these sports-and-drinking societies.

The Hippolytans member explains that “an interest in sport means that members have something in common aside from their interest in Cindies on a Wednesday night. It also means that we hold alternative events such as sports days so that the society does not just relentlessly swap.” The sporting element clearly adds value and meaning to the underlying drinking society model. But what does the drinking add to the sport? I suppose it could be seen as the extension of sporting socials, which are commonplace and give members of the society a chance to bond off the pitch, track, or court. Does it depend then on how much the drinking element dominates? Is this the difference between a sports society that drinks, and a sports-and-drinking society?

Inevitably, there will be people who do not fit into both categories: the sporting stars left at home during socials because they do not like drinking, and the drinkers who just want to have fun but cannot because they ‘are not sporty enough’. I know dancing in Life until the early hours of the morning can be a true test of stamina, but I wouldn’t say you need a Blue to do it. Equally, another Selwyn student who has been on swaps with both sports-and-drinking societies and normal drinking societies says that there is “a different vibe”. As they explain, “some of the guys are not comfortable in a swap situation”. If the sporting stars are accepted into the club in order to reward their achievements, making them feel left out and ‘uncool’ seems like a poor way to do this.
So why not just have two separate societies? A member of the sporting Hermes Club finds that “by having the two societies separate you get a more inclusive system, a more effective sports society and probably a more fun drinking society”. With separate societies it gives people the option to be in one and not the other. Equally, it does not prevent people from taking part in both activities. I am sure the perfect candidates for the sports-and-drinking societies would not mind being in two societies rather than just one. Since when did joining more clubs ever cause any harm?