Not-God (71 page)

“… the ancient and consistent Pietist rejection of ‘bought grace’ as ‘cheap grace’” has surfaced in modern times in places perhaps surprising to some: it was an impetus to Bishop John T. Robinson’s
Honest to God
and underlay the “Radical Theology” of the 1960’s adoption of Dietrich Bonhoeffer;
cf
, William Hamilton, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer” in Hamilton and T.J.J. Altizer,
Radical Theology and the Death of God
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966), pp. 113-118. This particular line is well traced by Richard P. McBrien, “Radical Theology,”
Commonweal
84: 605-608 (23 September 1966).

34
    The earliest surfacing of this side of the “problem of professionalism” came at almost the same moment as the other side was laid to rest by A.A.’s decision to reject outside funding: “Dr. Sam Parker of Kings County Suggests ‘Criteria for A.A. Work in Hospitals,’”
AAGV
1:10 (March 1945), 1, 8;

“Let’s Be Friendly With Our Friends … The Psychiatrists — by Bill W., Co-founder,” [note that final fillip]
AAGV
14:2 (July 1957); “… The Physicians …,” 14:3 (August 1957); “… The Clergymen …,” 14:4 (September 1957);“… On the Alcoholism Front — by Bill,”
AAGF
14:10 (March 1958); for the context,
Chapter Six
, above; also Wilson to Dick S., 28 June 1949: “Your article carries the impression that we, Alcoholics Anonymous, have done wonders for the alcoholic in sharp contrast with zero performance by the doctors and, inferentially I should think, the clergy. While the substance of what you say may approximate the truth for the moment, I think it would be very unsound policy were you to present A.A. to the public in this light.” Tiebout’s sensitivity to precisely this is clear in Tiebout (Greenwich, CT) to Wilson, 26 June 1953.

On the deep psychological danger of such “resentments,”
cf. AA
, pp. 64, 66,128; e.g., (p. 64): “Resentment is the ‘number one’ offender. It destroys more alcoholics than anything else.”

35
    The immediate context — the thrust to “responsibility” and the Chafetz, Cain, and Ellison criticisms — has been treated in
Chapter Six
, above; Milton A. Maxwell, “An Exploratory Study: Alcoholics Anonymous and Professional Relations,” unpublished in this form, but presented at the A.A. convention of 1964, and available in the archives; Charles H. Aharan, “A.A. and Other Treatment Programs: Problems in Cooperation,”
Addictions
(Toronto) 17: 25-32 (1970); Aharan, “Problems of Cooperation Between A.A. and Other Treatment Programs,”
AAGV
27:11 (April 1971), 17-23, is substantially the same paper.

The “unofficial” lamentation was Wayne Goethe. “The Death of a Philosophy,” unpublished, but available from the Association of Halfway House Alcoholism Programs of North America, Inc., 786 East Seventh St., St. Paul, MN. Mr. Goethe of course did not speak for A.A. (any more than did Maxwell and Aharan); both points of view were often expressed at meetings attended in the course of this research, albeit rarely with such lucid passion.

36
    Goethe,
op. cit.
. pp. 1, 3, 5, 8, 11.

37
    The early perception of one aspect of the depth of this concern may be intuited from Wilson to Ned F., 11 July 1940: “Now it is an undoubted fact that professionalism in spiritual matters has too often limited the spread of real understanding and practical application. The modern world has little time for paid emissaries of God.…”

On this deep sense as derived precisely from the Oxford Group, Clarence S., interviews of 5 and 6 October 1978, was most illuminating. On the complexities of this for Wilson’s continuing role within A.A.,
cf
. pp. 42 and 76, above, with citations; also, and specifically for the Clarence S. point of view,
cf
. the Appendix, below. Concerning this as a problem of specifically Evangelically Pietist religion,
cf
. the book by G. H. Williams cited in the following note. This monumental study treats the vision well, although indirectly and in scattered places.

38
    For anti-intellectualism as characteristic of Evangelical religions,
cf.
Hofstadter, as cited above in the footnote to p. 188, tor “the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers,”
cf
. George Huntston Williams,
The Radical Reformation
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), pp. xxix f. and 845.

39
    The clearest treatment of this point as inherent in “Evangelical religion” is Hofstadter,
ibid.;
for A.A.,
cf
. the theme of the 1967 General Service Conference of A.A. on “Sponsorship”: “That which we give away we keep. That which we keep we lose. Such is the basis of our responsibility.…” (Final Report, p. 9).

40
    On” rationalization”:
12&12
, pp. 97, 98;
cf. AACA
, pp. 292-293
, 12& 12
, pp. 48–49;
ABSI
, pp. 64, 279;
cf
. also the footnote to p. 188.

41
    For a challenging treatment of one expression of these intuitions and insights,
cf
. Williams,
The Radical Reformation
, as cited in note #38, above, especially the final two chapters.

42
    Clearer awareness of this precise danger and its corollaries could helpfully enhance much of the analysis, popularly offered, of “deviance” and “labeling”:
cf
. citations in note #29, above.

43
    For “denial” as central and characteristic,
cf
. above, pp. 59-60; such concern over “the clever use of language” has been best expressed within 20th century American Intellectual History by one who well fits the understanding of “pietism” proposed earlier in this chapter:
cf
. J. Gresham Machen,
Christianity and Liberalism
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1923), especially pp. 109-112. On modernity’s “not dissimilar problem,”
cf
. Thomas Szasz,
The Second Sin
(New York: Doubleday-Anchor, 1973). The substance of the point will also be explored throughout
Chapter Nine
, below.

44
    On “alcoholic grandiosity,”
cf
. above, pp. 94-95.

45
    On the shift in terms in the sixteen printings of the 1st ed. of AA,
cf
. note #67 to
Chapter Five
, above, p. 356. The most significant sociological study of the shifts in cultural understanding of the term “alcoholic” is Bruce Holley Johnson,
The Alcoholism Movement in America: A Study in Cultural Innovation
(unpublished dissertation, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1973):
cf
. p. 57 for a summary statement of his thesis. My interpretation in this paragraph derives from my own knowledge of A.A. history and reading of the popular sources rather than from Johnson’s more technically sociological and far less shaded interpretation.
Cf
. also p. 181 and note #14, above.

46
    On the N.C.E.A.,
cf
. above, pp. 117-119, on the first negative attitude noted,
cf
. the review by Wolcott Gibbs of Jim Bishop’s
The Glass Crutch
, NYT book review section, 18 November 1945, 4; on “the alcoholic personality,”
cf
. note #14, above; and on the alcoholic as specifically “immaturely dependent deficient personality,” note #31 to
Chapter Nine
, below, p. 384.

47
    For the formulation of the “Twelve Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous,”
cf
. pp. 113-114, above; for A.A.’s developing understanding of anonymity, pp. 104-105, above; citations for anonymity appear in notes #56-58 to
Chapter Four
, p. 344, above.

48
    
Cf
. note #14, above; also, for popularization and diffusion, Albert L. Ayars and Gail Gleason Milgram,
The Teenager and Alcohol
(New York: Richards Rosen Press, 1970), a book called to my attention by Dr. Sarah Williams as available in high-school libraries; e.g., p. 57: “Major personality characteristics of alcoholics are a dependent nature, emotional immaturity, a low tolerance for frustration, and a rebellious character.… [Alcoholics] are regressive or infantile in their approach to problems. A lack of true identification with a well-identified masculine or feminine role is often present.” Ayars and Milgram do not distinguish here between drinking and sober alcoholics, although noting, this distinction earlier. On the “shared honesty of mutual vulnerability openly acknowledged” as characteristic of A.A.,
cf
. below, pp. 214-215 and 221-223.

49
    On the history of the name “Alcoholics Anonymous,”
cf
. pp. 74-75, above, also p. 78.

50
    
Cf
. The Gospel according to John,
Chapter 8
, verse 32, and Chapter 15, verse 13.

IX    ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS — MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE

1
     On medicine as a source of A.A.,
cf
. above, pp. 33-34, with citations; on Wilson’s and A.A.’s wariness of the term “disease,” above, p. 22, for more detail on “three-fold,” note #11, below.

2
     E. M. Jellinek,
The Disease Concept of Alcoholism
(New Haven: College and University Press, 1960), p. 11.

3
     For reviews of the literature on alcoholism as a disease,
cf
. note #49 to
Chapter One
, above, p. 312. The continuing and increasing complexity of the question may be well grasped from the two most recent comprehensive overviews of the subject: in R. E. Tarter and A. A. Sugerman (eds.),
Alcoholism: Interdisciplinary Approaches to an Enduring Problem
(Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1976)
cf
. especially A. Paredes, “The History of the Concept of Alcoholism;” R. E. Tarter and D. U. Schneider, “Models and Theories of Alcoholism;” D. L. Davies, “Definitional Issues in Alcoholism;” R.J. Cadoret, “Genetic Determinants of Alcoholism.”
Cf
. also even merely the Table of Contents in each of the five volumes of the Kissin and Begleiter series cited in note #3 to
Chapter One
.

4
     
Cf.
, for an example, Michel Foucault,
Madness and Civilization
, tr. Richard Howard (New York: Vintage, 1973);
cf
. also and especially the deep, direct treatment of the concept by Susan Sontag,
Illness as Metaphor
(New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1978).

5
     
Cf.
, e.g., Paul Heinisch,
The Theology of the Old Testament
, tr. William G. Heidt (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1955), pp. 250-264.

6
     For the literature on Progressivism,
cf
. note #26 to
Chapter Seven
, p. 368, above. The quotation is from Robert Hunter,
Poverty
, ed. Peter d’A. James (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1965), p. 178. This book was first published in 1904.

7
     It is the complaint against this cost of cancer understood as metaphor that inspires Susan Sontag’s
Illness as Metaphor
.

8
     On alcoholism as “real disease,”
cf
. note #3, above; on “alcoholism is a disease” as cliché and A.A. as the source of this idea’s diffusion,
cf
. Jellinek,
Disease Concept
, Wilkerson and Keller as cited in note #49 to
Chapter One
, and especially Johnson, as cited in note #3 to
Chapter Eight
.

9
     The intuition that A.A.’s understanding of alcoholism may be understood as a metaphor for the subjective dis-ease of modernity is reflected in the primary sources. In the Wilson correspondence,
cf:
to his Jungian friend Margarita L., 14 January 1946, where Wilson explains his preference for Jung over Freud; to Caryl Chessman, 31 March 1954: “… society… has become just as sick as we are.… People of all kinds and of every class, collectively and individually, are hipped on the pursuit of money, prestige and power as never before. The demand for these things is utter and terrifyingly absolute.… what once were normal instincts are now keyed up to such a compulsive and consuming pitch that they have become juggernauts in collision — man vs. man, society vs. society.” Wilson to Dr. Albert L., 4 May 1959: “How long will it be before the world becomes willing to look at the
whole
man? … In the world today we seem to be confronted by myriads of specialists who would relate all learning and human experience into their several fields. Never, it appears, was there such a tremendous need for … a sane synthesis out of which new and better values could arise.” Wilson to Purnell Handy Benson (author of
Religion in Contemporary Culture
[New York: Harper Brothers, 1960] which offers A.A. as an example of “The Functioning of Religion,”
Chapter 8
), 25 April 1961: “As we A.A.’s say, ‘The whole world is on a terrific dry bender!’ In our society [A.A.], we are fortunate, of course, to have suffered a malady that has not only threatened us with extinction, but which makes it possible [should read: impossible] to pass the blame on to other people. Being thus forced to ‘hit bottom,’ as we say, the way to spiritual experience is opened. A.A. is simply a way of capitalizing on this inherent situation. In the world around us, however, the bottom is being hit all right, but this is always somebody else’s fault.”

Hints of a similar perception may be found in the alcoholism literature:
cf.
, for example:

J. L. Henderson, “Alcoholism: Its Psychiatric Treatment,”
California Western Medicine
52: 11-15 (1940) — CAAAL #789: “Alcoholism seems to be an effect of the progress of civilization dependent upon the inability of certain persons to meet its requirements.”

D. A. Barbara, “The Neurotic Character Structure of the Alcoholic Personality,”
Psychiatric Quarterly
19: 503-515 (1945) — CAAAL #4237: “The alcoholic is the result of a faulty childhood and an ever-pressing and conflicting civilization. He wants to be both dependent and free.”

A. E. M. van der Does de Willebois, “Alienation and Addiction,”
Excerpta Criminologica
6, #852, 1966 — CAAAL #11619: “[Alcoholics are] sensitive indicators of the kind of pathogenic trends which influence western society today, leading… to a kind of neurosis definable as “identity-diffusion."’