|
This Book is available online Click here
Stanton Peele Writes:
David Rudy, as a participant-observer, attended AA
meetings and observed how members were socialized into the AA
philosophy. Whatever their drinking concerns or problems initially, all
members soon learned — through reward and punishment — to adopt standard
symptoms of alcoholism. When newcomers said they didn't recall if they had
ever blacked out, they were told, "Of course, because you don't remember
black outs!" Rudy is not antagonistic towards or belittling of those in AA,
but casts a critical eye on the AA process nonetheless
Some Other Writing of David Rudy I would Like to Find:
"Is
Alcoholics Anonymous a Religion: Beyond Functional and Substantive Definitions
of Religion" David R. Rudy, Morehead State University
Rudy, David R./Greil, Arthur L.: Is Alcoholics Anonymous a Religious
Organization?: Meditations on Marginality. In: Sociological Ananlysis Vol.50:1
(1988), SS 41-51.
Rudy, David R.: Slipping and Sobriety; The Functions of Drinking in Alcoholics
Anonymous. In: Journal of Studies on Alcohol Vol 41:7 (1980), SS 727-732.
this is from some term paper place online
This study will provide a critical analysis of David R. Rudy's Becoming
Alcoholic: Alcoholics Anonymous and the Reality of Alcoholism. While
Rudy's perspective is certainly marked by an appreciation for the benefits
of Alcoholics Anonymous for alcoholics who seek sobriety, he is
nevertheless objective and balanced in his analysis of AA. As Rudy writes
in the Notes section of his book, Nearly half of the reviews that
addressed my relationship to AA charged that I had gone 'native' [i.e.,
fallen under the spell of AA and lost scientific objectivity] while the
other half argued that I have been superficial or ethnocentric [i.e.,
failed to deeply enough appreciate the worth of AA]. I interpret such
disagreement as support that I have successfully straddled the middle of
the road (Rudy 134). The perspective of Rudy is relatively unique in that
he truly seems to seek such middle-of-the-road objectivity, in comparison
to other works which seem to openly argue for or against AA as the primary
avenue for recovery from alcoholism. Rudy offers the reader criticisms of
AA, while at the same time making clear that there are indeed many
benefits presented to alcoholics by AA, benefits which are not yet
available from other sources. Rudy's objectivity is emphasized by his
honesty about his own feelings. For example, it is an important, even
crucial, element of the researcher's effectiveness in dealing with groups
that he be seen by the members of that group as at least an objective
observer. If he is seen as an outsider, the members of the group will be
less likely to be honest with him or to behave as they would if such a
perceived outsider were not present. Rudy writes that, Just when I felt
'accepted' in the field [i.e., in his field research into AA], an
experience occurred that questioned my empathy skills. Rudy was coming out
of an AA meeting when he was approached by two inebriated individuals
coming out of a bar nearby. One of the drunks shouted, Hey, maybe we
should try some of that AA stuff! . . . . There's one of them now, right
there. Rudy had an experience which shows that no matter how objective he
believed himself to be, no matter how much he might scientifically note
the benefits of AA, no matter how much he might have been accepted by the
actual members of the group, he was still not able to allow himself to be
seen as one of the group by even these two drunken outsiders: Before they
turned and walked away, we briefly looked at each other. The words were
forming on my lips, 'But I'm not really one of them, I'm just . . .' (Rudy
134). This honesty about his own inherent, unavoidable, and even
subconscious biases does not disqualify Rudy as a scientific observer, but
rather causes the reader to be even more open to his analysis and
findings, for we know that the author has faced and acknowledged his own
fears and biases. Certainly Rudy's approach and perspective are made
unique by such honesty, which is not commonly found in scholarly research
which too often seems to want to give the impression that it was created
by a superior being or a mechanical force whose utter objectivity should
never be questioned. Such an aboveboard approach to the material is
crucial in the study of alcoholism and Alcoholics Anonymous, due to the
fact that there are a great number of areas of controversy and debate and
uncertainty with respect to the definition of alcoholism itself, as well
as with respect to the nature of AA as an effective means of dealing with
alcoholism. The theoretical approach of Rudy is that of symbolic
interactionism: Both the conception of deviance and social control
underlying the present research as well as the theoretical underpinnings
of participant observation and life histories draw heavily from a symbolic
interactionist perspective. The symbolic interactionist perspective
conceives humans as living in symbolic as well as physical environments,
and it emphasizes that humans are stimulated to act by symbolic as well as
by physical stimuli (Rudy 119-120). This theoretical perspective is
especially useful, again, because it deals with the importance of symbols
in human affairs and because AA is an organization which deals in
spiritual matters, matters which are themselves more conducive to symbolic
rather than concrete study. If we briefly look at two other researchers'
perspectives, we can better appreciate the efforts of Rudy to remain in
the middle of the road in his study of AA and alcoholism. Erich Goode, in
Drugs in American Society, amazingly makes only three mentions of AA--and
one of those mentions, listed in the index, is not even on the page the
author claims. The other two mentions are included in the personal account
of a recovering alcoholics That account first rejects AA, then seems to
accept it as a path to sobriety, but after that it is not mentioned again
(Goode 135-136). It is as if Goode refuses to recognize the organization
and the spiritual path which have had more effect on bringing alcoholics
into sobriety and keeping them there than any other organization or path.
Every reputable alcohol and/or drug rehabilitation program in the country
is deeply indebted to AA for its methods and philosophy, but Goode,
writing a 320-page book on drugs in America, has only two insignificant
references to AA. Philip Flores, on the other hand, in Group Psychotherapy
with Addicted Populations, openly advocates AA as the primary road to
sobriety as well as spiritual growth for alcoholics seeking recovery, and
defends AA against its detractors. For example, Flores writes, in response
to the charge that AA promulgates a simplistic, naive disease concept of
alcoholism: AA's concept of alcoholism as a disease is neither simplistic
not naive . . . . While the original (AA) hypothesis that alcoholism was
an allergy has never been proven, many of today's biologically oriented
researchers . . . still hold to the disease concept, as does the American
Medical Association . . . . Many members . . . are more concerned about
the effectiveness of utilizing the disease concept rather than engaging in
polemics about whether alcoholism fits the right criteria for the true
definition of disease (Flores 212-213). Clearly, Rudy does demonstrate a
willingness and an ability to tread the middle ground of reasonable
objectivity in comparison to the perspectives of Goode, who ignores AA
almost entirely, and Flores, who is an open and bold advocate of the means
and principles of AA. Concerning the methodological approach of Rudy, the
author declares that Methodological techniques . . . are tools that shape,
define, and focus research strategies. The methodological techniques
utilized in studying the process of becoming alcoholic and the events
leading to membership in AA were participant observation and in-depth
interviewing in the form of topical life histories. These techniques are
effective in understanding the world as the actor experiences it and are
conducive to providing processual explanations of phenomena (Rudy 119).
Not only do methodologies shape, define, and focus research strategies,
they are also shaped by the nature and material of the research itself.
Issues of alcoholism, of the definition of alcoholism, of the nature and
effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous, of the nature of group dynamics, of
the nature of recovery itself, particularly when that recovery is based on
what AA refers to as spiritual progress--all of these issues and aspects
of the research at hand require a certain set of methodologies. After all,
the scientific method relies on measurement--if there is nothing which
yields to measurement, then there simply is no scientific method.
Measurement approaches and theories obviously vary, and the more fluid and
dynamic and open to interpretation the material at hand (such as
alcoholism and Alcoholics Anonymous), the more flexible and fluid the
methodologies must necessarily be. Rudy recognizes this, and his
methodologies are appropriate as a result--participant observation and
in-depth interviewing. Nevertheless, as appropriate as the methodologies
may be, they depend on the insight of the researcher, as well as on the
honesty of the subjects, for their significance and accuracy. The
measurement of alcoholism and the nature of AA in dealing with alcoholics
does not focus on the precise and specific quantities of a particular
moment, but rather on processual explanations of phenomena. Any researcher
who enters the realm of alcoholism and Alcoholics Anonymous and hopes
and/or expects to emerge from his study with a final definition and fixed
and comprehensive understanding of those entities will surely be
disappointed. The strengths of Rudy's symbolic interactionist theoretical
approach, and his use of participant observation and in-depth interviewing
methodologies, are that they are appropriate to the material at hand, and
that they will yield the most and most useful data for analysis. On the
other hand, the same theory and methodologies are weak because the data
they yield will be so fluid and open to interpretation and so reliant on
the intuition of the researcher and the candidness of the subjects. The
weakness, obviously, is rooted more in the dynamic nature of the material
under study than in the theory and methodologies selected. Rudy
essentially finds his experiences with and in Alcoholics Anonymous
impressive with respect to validating the ideas and practices of AA. Rudy
concludes that AA seems to have the best and most effective answers to
alcoholism in society today, and that other, more legalistic and
restrictive approaches have not had a significant effect: Perhaps once we
understand that 'law making is not behavior making' and that television
commercials, product labeling, and drug education programs in our schools
still leave us with an alcohol problem, we will begin to think about
drinking and drinking problems differently and explore, in a variety of
settings, those basic interpersonal ties and responsibilities that tend to
grow within Alcoholics Anonymous (Rudy 115). As mentioned, Goode's book is
hardly appropriate as a basis for comparison with Rudy's book, primarily
because Goode deals in an utterly superficial way with AA, if it can be
said that he deals at all with AA. The two books do deal,with the nature
of alcoholism, however, and here we have the basis for contrast. Whereas
Rudy essentially agrees with AA that alcoholism is most effectively
treated when seen as a disease (from which the alcoholic never fully
recovers, but can achieve an ongoing recovery through complete abstinence
and the practice of the principles of the AA program), Goode presents an
array of perspectives, never focusing on any one of them, and then
essentially rejecting the AA view that an alcoholic can never drink
without the return of the disease in a full-blown fashion. The very
language of Goode indicates his underlying assumptions. He writes, for
example, of recovered alcoholics (as if there were such beings), and
claims that very little is conclusively agreed upon in this field (Goode
131). In fact, the vast majority of the professionals in the field
wholeheartedly agree on the disease model of alcoholism, and practice in
their recovery programs the fundamentals of AA, including the Twelve Steps
and the AA insistence that a spiritual need lies at the heart of recovery.
The argument of Rudy is, essentially, that AA is correct in its
description of alcoholism and recovery from alcoholism. Society's approach
on a political and governmental level indicates ongoing ignorance as to
the nature of alcoholism and drug addiction, summed up in the Just Say No
campaign. This means nothing to the alcoholic or drug addict, who will
continue to drink and use drugs until his or her life hits bottom. He or
she may use and/or drink unto death. Just Say No simply will not do as
social policy if the country truly believes in a comprehensive and
effective drug/alcohol program on a national level. The war on drugs or
drug control in any form will not stop the alcohol/drug program.
Restriction of alcohol sales to individuals 18 or 21 has not kept children
from obtaining alcohol, just as Prohibition did not work. Drug education
is certainly a step in the right direction, but by itself it will prove no
more effective than drug control through attacks on Colombian drug lords
or destruction of alcohol commercials. All of these approaches are useful,
but without the implementation on a national level of the principles and
practices of Alcoholics Anonymous, those more superficial efforts will
prove negligible in the fight against alcoholism and drug addiction. To
simply tell a youngster who is lonely and frightened and uncertain of his
place in the world and perhaps unwilling even to go home after school to
an abusive and/or alcoholic parent--to simply tell that child to Just Say
No is to demonstrate an overwhelming ignorance about the nature of
alcoholism and drug addiction. It is vital that public policy be based on
the increasingly accepted conclusion--endorsed by the sources consulted by
Rudy--that alcoholism and drug addiction are diseases. The Just Say No
approach implies that a person who says yes is somehow evil, or immoral,
or weak. The disease concept frees the individual from responsibility for
his disease--but does not free him from responsibility for his actions
and, finally, for his recovery. Rudy's conclusions also should help lead
to a public policy which increasingly relies on the communal nature of
recovery. The Just Say No approach implies that it is an individual
matter--both the use of alcohol and drugs and the refusal to use them.
Rudy's book explores the reasons behind the success of Alcoholics
Anonymous, and those reasons in this context suggest that a communal
rather than an individual approach is required. After a list of personal
explanations from recovering members of AA with respect to their lonely,
desperate drinking experiences, Rudy writes that The loneliness and
isolation of these explanations are the exact opposite of the sharing,
love, and involvement of the typical AA setting. AA members frequently
describe in testimonials the warmth, intimacy, caring and sharing that
typify the 'fellowship of AA.' Perhaps the AA society's reestablishment of
social relationships . . . indicates real social relations among many
heavy drinkers . . . . Weakened interpersonal support systems, permissive
and ambivalent sanctioning responses, normalization of deviant drinkers by
others, and withdrawal are factors contributing toward the development of
drinking problems (Rudy 112). With respect to public policy, then, based
on Rudy's conclusions it is vital that treatment programs emphasize the
social elements of recovery. The individual alcoholic will very likely
find it impossible to recover separate from a community of recovering
alcoholics. This has been, at least, the experience of alcoholics who have
found recovery success in Alcoholics Anonymous. The symbolic
interactionist theory of Rudy should also be adopted as the basis for
public policy treatment and prevention programs. Essentially, we have
covered the symbolic element of the theory--human affairs are composed of
more than merely physical activities; they also include symbolic factors
which, in this case, involve spiritual needs. The interactionist element
emphasizes the collective nature of most human behavior. The argument with
respect to alcoholism is that the individual drinks deviantly as a part of
collective action, and he recovers as a part of collective action: From an
interactionist perspective, deviant designations are best viewed as
outcomes or culminations of many collective actions between participants
(Rudy 95-96). Treatment and prevention programs, then, should emphasize
the communal, collective nature of both alcoholism/addiction and recovery
from alcoholism/addiction. Certainly peer pressure plays a role in
alcoholism/addiction, and peer pressure can also play a part in initiating
recovery. The problem is that Pressure is not what works in AA, but,
rather, group acceptance, group sharing, group involvement in positive,
healthful activities. The individual may be bullied or pressured into
using alcohol and drugs, but he will not be bullied or pressured into
successful, long-term recovery. This must be, as in AA, a matter first and
last of individual choice, individual responsibility, individual
commitment--always within the communal environment such as is provided by
Alcoholics Anonymous and such as is recommended by Rudy. Bibliography
Works Cited Flores, Philip J. Group Psychotherapy With Addicted
Populations. New York: Haworth, 1988. Goode, Erich. Drugs in American
Society. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989. Rudy, David R. Becoming Alcoholic.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois U P, 1986. Word |
