Cultural Hegemony and Language: How Western Discourse Shaped Kava’s Global Story

Introduction

Across the islands of the South Pacific, Kava is more than a drink. It is a symbol of peace, unity, and a social libation central to the cultural life of nations such as Fiji, Vanuatu, and Tonga. For centuries, Pacific communities have used Kava to calm the mind, resolve conflict, and bring people together in dialogue. But outside the Pacific, the story of Kava has often been told in a different language, one of suspicion, risk, and prohibition. This distortion did not happen by accident. It is the result of cultural hegemony: the dominance of Western ways of thinking and speaking that shape what the world sees as “safe,” “rational,” or “scientific” (Gramsci, 1971). The language used to describe Kava in English; “drug,” “toxic,” “unapproved,” “psychoactive” has carried powerful cultural baggage, reducing a culturally embedded drink, to a misunderstood chemical. This framing has deeply influenced how Kava has been regulated, particularly in the United States and United Kingdom, where policies designed to “protect public health” often ignored its long record of safe, traditional use.

By tracing Kava’s journey through Western discourse and regulation, we can see how words as much as laws have shaped the fate of a cultural practice. Understanding that history is not just academic: it is the first step in reclaiming Kava’s rightful place as a respected, safe, and culturally vital plant in global trade and wellness.

Language, Power, and Perception

Italian philosopher Gramsci (1971) used the term cultural hegemony to describe how dominant groups maintain power not only through force, but by making their worldview appear as “common sense.” The same applies to how Western societies define what counts as a “drug.” Through language, media, and scientific authority, the English-speaking world has built a set of assumptions about psychoactive plants often casting non-Western substances as dangerous, exotic, or inferior to pharmaceutical medicine (Tupper, 2012). As Bourdieu (1991) observed, language carries symbolic power: those with authority such as scientists, regulators, governments can and often do impose their definitions as truth. Once Kava was described in official reports as a “potentially hepatotoxic drug,” that phrasing became reality in public perception. The term “drug” in English, as Tupper (2012) explains, is not neutral; it conjures images of addiction and criminality. When applied to plants like Kava, it erases cultural context and moral nuance. These linguistic biases began centuries ago. Early European missionaries in the Pacific, viewing the world through colonial and Christian moral frameworks, denounced Kava as “heathen” or “stupefying” (Turner, 1861; Marshall, 1987). Such labels established a hierarchy of value, European sobriety versus indigenous ritual, that persisted into modern policy language. Today, the words may sound more technical (“unapproved additive,” “safety concern”), but they carry the same undertone: Western knowledge defines the standard, while indigenous knowledge is sidelined. This cultural hegemony is most visible in how governments and media have talked about Kava since the early 2000s. The story of a few isolated cases of liver injury became a global narrative of danger, reinforced by English-language press and regulatory caution. What began as precaution soon solidified into prohibition and the consequences were profound.

Policy Case Studies: The U.S. and the U.K.

In the U.S., Kava has technically remained legal under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (1994), but the 2002 FDA advisory changed everything. Citing a handful of international reports of liver injury, the FDA warned that “Kava-containing supplements may be associated with severe liver damage” (FDA, 2002). Although the agency did not ban Kava, this single sentence, amplified by the press, redefined public understanding. Headlines about “herbal supplements causing liver failure” filled newspapers. Kava, once marketed as a natural remedy for anxiety, was suddenly grouped with illicit or unsafe products. Many retailers withdrew it from shelves. Yet the advisory lacked critical context: most adverse cases involved combinations with alcohol and other pharmaceuticals (Denham, McKenna & Tanaka, 2002). The language of “potential risk” became a label of guilt. Even without prohibition, the narrative of toxicity lingered, discouraging consumers and chilling trade. The safety profile of Kava in 2025 has never been clearer with the AHPA monograph (2025), detailing the minimal deleterious effects of its consumption. Despite this, recently, some U.S. states have gone further, such as New York, which in 2025 classified Kava as an unapproved food additive, effectively banning Kava bars (Friso, 2025). To be clear, this issue was largely due to the mixing of Kratom in with Kava, but the reasoning mirrored the same discourse from two decades earlier: precaution over evidence, risk over context, shaped undoubtedly from a western hegemonic mindset, leading to false equivalence for Kava.

The United Kingdom: Prohibition by Language

In the UK, the response was far more severe. Following similar reports in Europe, the Committee on Safety of Medicines in 2002 concluded that Kava’s potential benefits “could not outweigh its risks” (UK Hansard, 2002). That phrase alone, unchallenged and unqualified sealed Kava’s fate. By early 2003, the Medicines for Human Use (Kava-kava) (Prohibition) Order and Kava-kava in Food Regulations made it illegal to sell Kava as either a medicine or food (UK Statutory Instruments 2002 No. 3170–3171). The official rationale rested on the “precautionary principle.” Yet that principle was applied asymmetrically. Western medicines known to cause far higher rates of liver injury, such as paracetamol, remained freely available. Kava, consumed safely across the Pacific for centuries, was banned outright.

British media helped cement this framing. A 2002 Guardian headline read “Herbal high turns to Pacific downer” (Fickling, 2002), juxtaposing cultural loss with Western protectionism. Other outlets called Kava a “potentially dangerous herbal high,” blending medical caution with exoticism. The very language of risk and control was steeped in colonial echoes: the idea that Western authorities must “save” others and themselves from the dangers of unknown indigenous substances. Even as scientific reviews later found that Kava preparations are overwhelmingly safe (Denham, 2011; Sarris et al., 2013), the UK ban has never been reversed. The narrative was simply too entrenched, via a culturally embedded mindset of misplaced conservative values.

Consequences for the Pacific: Economy, Culture, and Voice

When Western regulators banned the sale of Kava for human consumption, the economic shock in the Pacific was immediate. In 2002, exports from Fiji and Vanuatu collapsed almost overnight, dropping by over 60% (Fickling, 2002). For rural families who relied on Kava as a cash crop, the loss was devastating. Boats were grounded, school fees went unpaid, and local economies stalled. This was not just an economic blow but a cultural one. Kava, or yaqona in Fijian, is part of daily life, a bridge between generations and communities. When it was labelled as dangerous and in some cases still does to this day, Pacific Islanders felt the sting of cultural delegitimization. Younger generations exposed to Western media began questioning whether something so central to their identity might be seen or socially constructed as “bad.” Employers and institutions in diaspora communities sometimes discouraged Kava drinking, associating it with intoxication rather than ceremony.

Yet the Pacific response was not silence, it was resistance. Governments and scholars spoke out, arguing that Western regulators had ignored indigenous expertise and centuries of empirical knowledge (Jowitt, 2013; Haunani, 2008). Scientists such as Dr Vincent Lebot from Vanuatu pointed out that pharmaceutical misuse of acetone and ethanol extracts in 2002 caused the few reported injuries not Kava itself (Lebot, Merlin & Lindstrom, 1992). He famously remarked, “We are competing with big pharmaceutical companies who see Kava as a serious competitor to benzodiazepines” (quoted in Fickling, 2002). Despite western bans, Pacific communities abroad continued their Kava practices with pride. Diaspora groups in Sydney, Auckland, and Honolulu kept Kava circles alive, sometimes discreetly, as acts of cultural preservation. Over time, these communities became powerful advocates for change, using science and diplomacy to challenge the stigma. Their persistence paid off: by the 2010s, Germany and several EU nations had lifted their bans after courts found the original evidence inadequate (Kuchta, Schmidt & Nahrstedt, 2015). However, the UK and EU still lag behind in terms of reengaging Kava back onto the market for human consumption.

Toward Reform: Language, Policy, and Respect

Reimagining Kava’s global status requires more than scientific data; it demands a shift in how we talk about and understand cultural substances. Reform must begin with language — because language is where hegemony lives.

1. Reframing Risk and Redefining “Drug”

Instead of broad terms like “drug” or “psychoactive substance,” policy documents could adopt accurate descriptors such as “traditional social drink.” Which this reframing acknowledges centuries of safe cultural use.

2. Participatory Regulation

Kava-producing nations must have a seat at the regulatory table in western markets. Any future assessments by agencies such as the MHRA, FDA, or WHO should include Pacific Island experts, farmers, and cultural representatives. A joint Kava Task Force, one integrates indigenous knowledge with scientific oversight could establish safety standards for global trade without erasing cultural identity.

3. Cultural Impact Assessments

When governments consider restrictions on substances with cultural roots, they should evaluate not only biological risk but also social harm. A Cultural Impact Assessment, akin to an Environmental Impact Assessment, could have prevented the 2002 bans from devastating island economies.

4. Decolonizing Drug Policy

The deeper lesson of Kava is that global drug policy still reflects colonial hierarchies of knowledge. Western institutions routinely privilege biomedical evidence over indigenous epistemologies (Cunneen, 2011; Carrington et al., 2016). Recognizing Kava’s safety record in its cultural context is not an act of charity, rather, it is an act of scientific integrity and justice.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Narrative

Kava’s story is not only about a beverage, but also about power, language, and the struggle for respect. The Western framing of Kava as a dangerous “drug” has had lasting effects: economic hardship for Pacific farmers, cultural stigma for island communities, and lost opportunities for natural health innovation. Yet the same story also reveals resilience and resistance. Pacific voices, long marginalized in the global policy arena, continue to speak with growing authority, supported now by science that vindicates what they have always known about Kava.

Reforming Kava regulation requires dismantling the linguistic and ideological barriers that made prohibition seem inevitable. By embracing dialogue, shared knowledge, and inclusive policymaking, we can rewrite the narrative, one where Kava is recognized not as a threat to public health or seen as something as “other” but as a testament to cultural wisdom and community well-being.

Language created the problem. Language can help solve it.

Bibliography

American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (2025) AHP Monograph & Therapeutic Compendium: Kava Rhizome & Root (Piper methysticum G. Forst.). Scotts Valley, CA: American Herbal Pharmacopoeia.

Baker, J. D. (2011) ‘Tradition and toxicity: evidential cultures in the kava safety debate’, Social Studies of Science, 41(3), 361–384.

Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carrington, K., Hogg, R. & Sozzo, M. (2016) ‘Southern Criminology’, British Society of Criminology Newsletter, 79, 6–10.

Cunneen, C. (2011) ‘Postcolonial perspectives for criminology’, in Bosworth, M. & Hoyle, C. (eds) What is Criminology? Oxford: OUP.

Denham, A. (2011) ‘The safety of kava: a review of the evidence’, Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 134(3), 378–390.

Denham, A., McKenna, D. J. & Tanaka, Y. (2002) ‘Kava: a review of the safety of traditional and recreational beverage consumption’, Food and Chemical Toxicology, 40(10), 1556–1559.

Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (1994) Pub. L. 103-417, 108 Stat. 4325.

Fickling, D. (2002) ‘Herbal high turns to Pacific downer’, The Guardian, 24 Nov.

Food and Drug Administration (2002) Consumer Advisory: Kava-Containing Dietary Supplements May Be Associated with Severe Liver Injury, 25 March.

Friso, G. (2025) ‘Traditional Kava Preparation Is Generally Safer, Expert Says’, The Cornell Daily Sun, 6 March 2025.

Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. Hoare, Q. & Nowell-Smith, G. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

Haunani, K. (2008) ‘Globalization and the Pacific: The impact of Western drug policies on indigenous practices’, Pacific Studies, 31(1), 23–48.

Jowitt, A. (2013) ‘Reconsidering kava regulation in the Pacific’, Journal of Pacific Studies, 33(2), 89–104.

Kuchta, K., Schmidt, M. & Nahrstedt, A. (2015) ‘German kava ban lifted by court’, Planta Medica, 81(18), 1647–1653.

Lebot, V., Merlin, M. & Lindstrom, L. (1992) Kava: The Pacific Elixir. Rochester, VT: Healing Arts Press.

Lebot, V. (2006) ‘Kava Chemotypes and Kavalactone Composition’, Phytochemistry Reviews, 5(2), 211-221.

Marshall, M. (1987) Quest for the Second Gift: A Study of Kava in Vanuatu. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies.

Sarris, J. et al. (2013) ‘Kava: a comprehensive review of efficacy, safety, and psychopharmacology’, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 47(1), 35–43.

Tupper, K. W. (2012) ‘Psychoactive substances and the English language: “Drugs,” discourses, and public policy’, Contemporary Drug Problems, 39(3), 461–492.

Turner, G. (1861) Nineteen Years in Polynesia: Missionary Life, Travels, and Researches. London: John Snow.

UK Hansard (2002) House of Commons Debates.

UK Statutory Instruments (2002) Medicines for Human Use (Kava-kava) (Prohibition) Order 2002 and Kava-kava in Food (England) Regulations 2002.