At first glance, it may appear that there is ample material on the topic of the spirituality of the Twelve Steps. One need only walk into any Walden Books and review the shelves under "Addictions and Recovery". A computer search of journals discovered over six hundred articles purporting to discuss spirituality. However, the vast majority of the publications are for the popular market and are lacking in theoretical rigor. Nor are these necessarily based upon research of a more academic nature. There is a surprising dearth of material and quality work on the subject. Spilka, et al, have clearly documented the difficulty in conducting research into the religio-spiritual aspects of human behavior. They write:
...the seemingly simple word religion (has been) shown to be a very complex, multidimensional phenomenon. Unfortunately, a wide variety of schemes exist-- some more helpful than others, and most theorized but not researched-- and too many that suggest promise remain stillborn.
It is necessary to recognize that all the great classical problems of the psychology of religion that were formulated fifty to one hundred years ago are still with us. These have often been redefined, and sometimes rephrased in a new language, if not fractionated into subproblems and issues that seem distant from their original focus. New research methods and sophisticated procedures have been directed toward their solution. Unhappily, psychometric strengths, complex and abstruse statistical techniques, and the use of high-speed computers are no substitute for an organizing theory, and here is the basic weakness. Theoretically, the psychology of religion is poorly organized. Dittes (1969) noted a decade and a half ago that the main problem of the psychology of religion is a lack of theoretical specification. This problem is still very much with us.
More recently, Larson has reviewed literature and documented that the religio-spiritual behaviors of humanity are under-utilized and under-appreciated in the field of psychiatry. It is hypothesized in this present research that the structures and dynamics of formation theory, especially as articulated in the writings of Adrian van Kaam, will indeed provide the theoretical structures that will enable not only psychology and psychiatry to organize and define their approach to the issue, but will also provide the basis for the establishment of spirituality as a field in its own right.
The popular literature is, by its nature as popular, insufficient for our purposes of explicating the spirituality of the Twelve Steps. Perhaps it is because of the absence of "theoretical specification" mentioned above that some of the academic writers have resorted to the popular writers as a source of information in the religio-spiritual arena, as we shall see below.
In addition, both the popular and the academic literature suffer from the same flaws. Specifically, there is a lack of semantic precision in the literature. "Spirituality" as a distinct human phenomenon, or component of human experience, is more often than not, never clearly defined. We can identify four categories of this semantic confusion, all of which may be present to some degree in any given work. These are:
1) Expositions that are essentially theological in nature--reflecting the hermeneutic of a specific religious tradition. Such an approach is not foundational enough for our present purposes. It begs the question by failing to articulate spirituality as a human phenomenon out of which religions may develop.
2) A confusion, or an inability to distinguish among aspects
of human experience that are more properly studied by the fields
of psychology or sociology than that of spirituality. Because
there has been a failure to delineate spirituality as its own
field of inquiry the burden has fallen upon other fields. However,
there is then the tendency to reduce the religio-spiritual componant
of human being to the theoretical constructs of the researchers'
primary area of interest.
3) Perhaps because of the reasons stated above researchers fail to have at their disposal organizational categories within which to view the phemononon of human spirituality. Thus, there is often a failure to maintain fidelity to, or a focus upon the exposition of the Twelve Steps as originally described by Bill Wilson.
4) A failure to distinguish between spirituality and religiosity. That is, many writings that are ostensibly about spirituality are actually about people's religious behaviors such as church attendance or prayer life.
POPULAR LITERATURE
In the introduction we mentioned the presence of paraprofessionals in the addictions field. The same conditions that led to this have also led to an explosion of self-help books from these paraprofessionals. In general, it would appear that many, if not most of these authors have Master's degrees, often in social work, and/or are Certified Addictions Counselors. This is a relatively new designation that attempts to bring some regulation to the addictions field. The literature also holds a smattering of Ph.D.s, M.D.s and others, such as nurses and religious ministers who work in the various rehabilitation centers around the country.
A good example of a more serious work in the popular literature is Ernest Kurtz's Not-God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous which may be the most serious and insightful work related to our topic. The first half of this book presents the standard history of AA. The second half situates AA as peculiarly American and within the context of religious ideas. This is done within the parameters of Kurtz's central focus or insight into AA which is contained within the concept of the AA member being "not-God". Unfortunately for our purposes, Kurtz begs the question by relying upon what is already a theological language, that is, "God" and "not-God". For the purposes of this project the use of such terms is secondary to our concern with human spirituality. Their use connotes a variety of meanings, many only implicit. This is the primary reason why much on the topic of spirituality, especially in the popular literature, is useless for our purposes. There is an already implied theological, ideological and cultural hermeneutic of "spiritual" carried by such theologically-tinged terms.
This is the same problem with the commendable work of Gerald May. May, a psychiatrist, has produced a number of works on the topic of spirituality that straddle the line between popular and academic writings. May recognizes the present problems pertaining to the relation between psychology and spirituality:
The issue of how psychology and spirituality interrelate in this contemporary situation is one of the more pressing challenges that must be faced by anyone who is called to offer spiritual guidance. There was a time when psychological phenomena were seen only in spiritual terms. Then we went through a period in which spirituality was often seen in psychological terms. Now, what?
...the need for a new language to deal with modern spirituality and all of its ramifications. A fresh language is certainly in order, for this is where much of our confusion is rooted. Who knows, for example, whether you and I mean the same thing when we say "Spirit"?
May and I are in agreement over our assessment of the current situation vis a vis the study of spirituality. However, I find that, like Kurtz (and many others), May then begs the essential question of "what is spirituality?" by offering definitions based within a particular religious hermeneutic. "Spirit means to me the vital, dynamic force of being, that which is given by God..." While May's work is certainly of a higher quality than most (he appears to have actually read classical spiritual writers) it is still not foundational enough for our purposes.
To say "God" is to be already engaged with traditions that may talk about spirituality, but it does not address the issue of spirituality in and of itself, that is, spirituality as essentially human and prior to religious language.
I shall restrict my review to some of the dissertations that appear to treat of the subject of the spirituality of the Twelve Steps. Because of the paucity of serious material on our topic recent dissertations can be assumed to represent not only the most recent thinking on the topic, but also be representative of current threads of interest in the topic. I have chosen works on the basis of titles and abstracts that would lead one to believe they might address our topic. Dissertations that from the title or abstract appeared to be overtly theological in the approach to the topic of spirituality were not reviewed.
ATTITUDES TOWARDS CONCEPTIONS OF ALCOHOLISM
In 1980 Neal Bermas conducted surveys on practitioners' attitudes towards then current conceptions of alcoholism. In an introductory history of conceptions of alcoholism he writes "...Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), added a quasi-religious orientation with strong moral overtones to the current model of alcoholism." Bermas chooses to refer to writers who seem to reduce AA to the function of a builder of new social identities for those saddled with the label of "alcoholic" and its pejorative overtones. He acknowledges AA's "powerful" yet "unmeasured impact on alcoholism treatment". It is thus surprising that he fails to include questions in his surveys designed to elicit practitioners' attitudes towards AA and AA's conceptions of alcoholism. Nor does he include questions related to spirituality-- the primary componant of AA's conception of alcoholism.
He does ask if "Religious involvement is a good method of handling the alcoholic." Please note that the question does not seem to elicit practitioners' attitudes towards religious involvement as a component of treatment, but as a component of patient management. That is, does religious involvement assist the clinician in controlling the alcoholic patient who may be in withdrawal, resistant to treatment, oppositional, in denial, or simply belligerent in order that treatment may take place? Bermas' research fails to provide us with any information on practitioners' attitudes towards our topic.
SELF ACTUALIZATION
A dissertation by Margery Leithliter Jackson (1980) seeks the correlates between a Maslovian sense of self-actualization and AA members sober three through eight years, newcomers to AA, and those who abstain from alcohol for religious reasons. The use of Maslow's psychology as a means to discuss spirituality is not uncommon within the literature. Jackson does not fall into the confusion between spirituality and psychology, but at the same time this makes her work somewhat irrelevant to our topic. She clearly states that her interest lies in the "psychological growth" of those attending AA, though she does refer to religious correlates. Jackson found that "The recovered A.A. sample group made significantly more positive scores in measures of self actualization than the A.A. newcomers and the religious abstainers." Jackson does not include Muslims in her group of religious abstainers, though her definition of this group is of "Persons who abstain from drinking intoxicants by reason of religious conviction and who are active in a religious group advocating abstinence. Jackson utilized the Personal Orientation Inventory (Shostrom, 1963) which is "...specifically designed to measure Maslow's concept of self-actualization" and the Hartlage-Hale Self Concept Scale which was designed "...to measure changes in self-concept following psychiatric hospitalization".
While Jackson maintains her focus on psychology, and its relation to certain aspects of religiosity, her work does not shed light on our primary topic.
ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS' IMPACT ON AMERICANS
Stuart Cannold attempted to assess the impact of AA's Twelve Step program on Americans under thirty-six years of age. His sample, however, was limited to individuals who were admitted alcoholics and members of AA He points to the use of the Twelve Steps by non-alcoholics as an object of further study. Cannold undertakes a phenomenological study that may well be compromised and less than objective due to indications in his Acknowledgments that he himself is an alcoholic member of AA. In addition, Cannold utilized three members of Alcoholics Anonymous to assist him in the analysis of his interviews. Referring to them he writes, "Further validity was imposed by assembling a three-person panel of deemed alcoholic experts in the field to help the researcher interpret and report the findings..." Cannold is not clear in what he means by an "alcoholic expert". I don't know if I would classify AA members, by virtue of their membership alone, as the type of expert who could aid in the validation of a phenomenological study. In addition to these problems in the method of his study, I am dismayed by Cannold's imprecision when it comes to discussing the spirituality of the Twelve Steps. Defining the phrase "spiritual awakening" in Step Twelve he writes:
What is spiritual awakening? It is a new state of consciousness and being that is received as a free gift, rewards of helping other alcoholics to practice these principles in their affairs. This awakening demonstrates faith and places spiritual growth first. One must practice these principles in all his affairs. Understanding is the key to a right attitude. Right action is the key to good living (Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, 1974b).
Given that even a cursory reading of the Twelve Steps and the Big Book reveals the spiritual content of the AA program, I find it odd that Cannold relies upon the presence of prayer at some AA meetings to validate the rather self-evident observation of the Twelve Steps' spiritual orientation:
Most Alcoholics Anonymous meetings close with the Lord's Prayer. This is evidence that Alcoholics Anonymous is not simply a scientific program, not simply a collection of gems of wisdom, not simply an emotional outlet. Alcoholics Anonymous is all these and something more, in its faith and its humility.
Cannold does report two themes that would appear to be relevant to our topic. Out of twenty-eight interviews, 33% stated they had experienced "total surrender to a higher power" and 86% "reported finding (but not surrendering completely to) a higher power". However, that's it. Cannold provides no analysis or discussion.
MEASURING RELIGIOUS VARIABLES
Giannetti's 1980 dissertation treats of the correlation between religious orientation and the psychosocial functioning of the person in the areas of alienation, purpose in life, locus of control, and expectancies in therapy vis a vis alcoholism. Giannetti sees the etiology and the effects of alcoholism as only physiological, psychological and sociological. Thus he does not address, or perhaps he ignores, the Twelve Step claim of a spiritual etiology. He slightly alters the wording and intent of the Twelve Steps by writing that AA requires "...submission to the power of a 'higher being'". The correct wording is "higher power". He places religious affiliation as a part of the sociological aspect of the disorder, but without any discussion of how AA functions as a fellowship.
Giannetti appears to suffer from some confusion over terms. He seems to mistrust Twelve Step language as is indicated by his use of quotes around the word "spiritual" when he first mentions it as an approach to treatment as exemplified by AA. Though he generally sticks to describing the "religiosity" of AA, he does appear to confuse the terms "religion", "spiritual", "moral", and "inspirational". Having described the program as spiritual he then re-articulates the AA approach by using "religious-inspirational", "spiritual-religious", "religious-spiritual", and "religious-moral" in ways that are synonymous. This confusion is an example of what may happen when the researcher views AA through the filters of a particular conceptual framework without reference and fidelity to Wilson's writings.
Giannetti utilizes the conceptual framework of Durkheim's sociological analysis of religiosity. His uncritical acceptance of Durkheim's understanding of the "functions" of religion is, at best, limiting. For instance, the idea that religion functions as a means of integration into a group is simply not borne out by many of the classical spiritual writers who were often rejected by their religious establishment. The religious function of providing meaning in life does not take into account the experience of "dark nights" or "desert experiences". While religion may indeed have these functions he fails to take into account the complexity of religious experience. Such categorization does not address the fullness of the classical literature.
Giannetti does discuss, unlike many other works reviewed, various aspects and definitions of religiosity. However, these are from within the psychological and sociological literature. To his credit he does mention Clinebell, Frankl and Frank who, through talk of "existential anxiety", come close to talking in classically spiritual terms. This trend continues as Giannetti mentions Clinebell's discussion of the need for a "leap of faith". He also discusses Allport's distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity and acknowledges this distinction as "...a different approach to the definition and measurement of religiosity".
As with the vast majority of non-Muslim literature on spirituality and related topics, Giannetti does not include the Muslim tradition when discussing the relation between drinking patterns and religious affiliation. As Islam is the only one of the three Abrahamic traditions that specifically and clearly prohibits the use of alcohol one might question the validity of his citations that have theorized that "...a lack of drinking norms in a particular religious group coupled with strong negative sanctions prohibiting drinking leads to rebellious drinking which tends to become problem drinking." He goes on to mention a "problem of a lack of homogeneity of belief among religious groups" thus raising the specter of a "...major limitation to the study of religious affiliation and drinking patterns" However, this statement would not hold within the Muslim tradition as there is no variation within Islam on the total prohibition of the use of alcohol.
In order to measure religiosity Giannetti utilizes scales to measure "...the ideological, experiential, ritualistic, intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of religious orientation". To this end he utilizes scales developed by Faulner and DeJong (1966) which expand scales developed by Glock and Stark (1965) to gauge religious ideology and experience. He utilizes Glock and Stark for ritual and devotion, and Allport's Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religiosity Scale. Crumbaugh (1968) reported the internal consistency of the Purpose in Life Scale, and Giannetti refers to McClosky and Schaar (1968) with regard to the Anomy Scale. He continues with the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, the reliability of which he refers to Rotter (1966).
Allport's distinction, in particular, could be pertinent to our topic. Giannetti reports:
...respondents who reported more time spent in Alcoholics Anonymous reported lower (more intrinsic) scores for the intrinsic religiosity measure. This finding suggests that an internalization of religious attitudes takes place with increased contact with the Alcoholics Anonymous philosophy. Of particular interest is the fact that the most statistically significant and greatest mean difference between Alcoholics Anonymous members and nonmembers was on the private religious devotion scale. This finding confirms that Alcoholics Anonymous members are more involved with private communication with a "divine being".
The findings in this study concerned with the relationship between Alcoholics Anonymous membership and religiosity seem to suggest that membership in Alcoholics Anonymous stimulates a "spiritual awakening" in terms of increased religious behavior, adoption of religious world view and internalization of religious beliefs.
It seems likely that religious and quasi-religious therapeutic programs which can exploit religious values and a sense of relatedness to a "divine power" can provide a framework of a meaningful, hopeful existence for the alcoholic to attempt to restructure his life and attain sobriety. While this meaningful, hopeful existence may not always generalize to successful therapeutic outcome, this sense of meaning, hope and basic trust in life may create an atmosphere in therapy which may facilitate growth toward taking control of one's life and eventual sobriety.
Giannetti views religion only through the filter
of social scientific literature and is concerned only with psychosocial variables.
He does not distinguish between human spirituality as a distinct area of human
experience and the perspective afforded by sociology. However, he does conclude
a clinical value for this aspect of human experience,
and acknowledges that "...there has been little attention paid in social
work literature to the religious-existential approaches to counseling and casework..."
A PSYCHOSPIRITUAL CLINICAL APPROACH
The title of Howard Brown's 1989 dissertation immediately brings to mind the error of confusing the fields of psychology and spirituality. However, in spite of this error, his work deserves a closer look in that it is one of the few that actually attempts a critical approach to our topic at hand.
Brown utilized a method of treatment called BASIC-IS which is composed of two modules consisting of orientation towards the Twelve Steps and basic "living skills". Brown cites popular writers such as Schaef, Wegscheider-Cruse and Whitfield as support for the "importance of spirituality as a treatment component". I find this odd. Like Cannold above, it seems like a roundabout way to make a point that appears self-evident in AA literuature. Regardless, the use of popular writers as the basis for such a statement is not, to my mind, convincing. He goes on to advocate a "behavioral/cognitive approach to spirituality and the use of value therapy." This approach to spirituality, with its non-theological basis, is seen as a "methodology" that allows flexibility for counselors and the avoidance of "superego religion". Brown himself does not define this phrase, but does refer to another researcher. The absence of discussion about such an operational term, in an area already fraught with semantic confusion, I find to be somewhat irresponsible. Indeed, Brown continues to suffer from semantic imprecision. Though he draws a connection between values and spirituality he fails to distinguish values as specifically spiritual as opposed to say, a product of social conditioning or even mere personal preference.
He does provide a variety of definitions of spirituality utilized by other researchers. The first definitions: "practices, insights, states of being, and frames of reference" and "any behavior either cognitive or overt that facilitates, improves, deepens, or enhances our ability to 'relate positively'... to ourselves, others, or a Higher Power", both fail to distinguish spirituality as distinct from any other behavior that may foster, say, self-esteem. The patient's ability to "relate positively" to a Higher Power appears, at this juncture, to be indistinguishable from relating positively to the self. Given the fact that religious traditions often talk about the individual as a "sinner" one must question the precision of these definitions. Brown specifically links value conflicts and low self-concept. He appears to reduce spirituality to these dynamics without distinguishing between various perspectives on the issue, such as the psychological or sociological. He thus falls prey to the confusion and mistakes made by many other writers who attempt to address our topic.
Brown includes materials from the BASIC-IS program he utilizes as the basis of his clinical approach. The materials related to spirituality in this program display the categorical confusion between spirituality and psychology. These materials include "The BASIC-ISs Individualized Spiritual Development Workbook" written by Howard Brown himself for use by subjects in treatment. Brown's self-reference elicits in me feelings of suspicion and mistrust of his findings. I would feel more comfortable accepting such material if he reported the results of some validity testing, or at least some support from other, more established researchers.
In this workbook Brown not only fails to distinguish between spirituality and other disciplines, but also fails to maintain fidelity to Bill Wilson's writing on, and thus his understanding of, the Twelve Steps. For instance, he writes that "Our basic problem is emotional immaturity." In the very next paragraph he writes "This condition or illness is basically a spiritual disorder..." AA talks of medicine and psychology as well as spirituality, but Brown does not seem aware of any connections and does not discuss how the emotional and spiritual might interact.
AA stresses Step Twelve-- the "carrying the message" to other alcoholics-- to maintain sobriety. This social component is reflected in the "fellowship" of AA. Brown, however, ignores this social service component.
He gives attribution for the ideas in the workbook to such people as Jesus, Buddha and other religious figures, but fails to maintain fidelity to their thought. Indeed he does not even mention the most basic formulations of their thought such as Jesus' "pick up your cross" or Buddha's Four Noble Truths. Some of the more blatant examples of this follow.
Brown links "meditation, relaxation and prayer" to such a degree as to confuse the three and, in effect, reduces all three to simple relaxation techniques. All three are subsumed under a discussion of the need for "quiet time". Brown suggests that those who "wish to include prayer in your daily activities" should talk to a counselor. One must wonder why he does not refer to priests, rabbis or imams and why, in a workbook purported to assist with the establishment of spirituality, there is no further discussion of prayer. Readers who are familiar with the writings of saints and other religious people on the topic of prayer know that often prayer is anything but emotionally "quiet".
Brown does include "how-to" guidelines on meditation which appear to be a popular adaptation of Buddhist styles of meditation. We could classify this adaptation as a reduction of meditation to the purpose of mere relaxation. He appears confused about the use of the word "meditation". The Eastern sense of this word entails the quieting of mind and narrowing of attention to a single point. The Western sense means, roughly, "thinking things over". Brown recommends the client purchase at least two of the very popular "meditation" books that have emerged out of the self-help movement. These books provide simple daily thoughts or affirmations (like fortune cookies). In my opinion, one could hardly compare them with the world's great religious writings as objects of meditation or as food for thought. The classical literature has lasted for thousands of years and has crossed cultural boundaries. I am aware of no evidence that the contemporary and popular writings Brown recommends are possessed of a similar degree of profundity and universal application.
Brown's referral to "The Course in Miracles" is rather questionable as the "Course" appears gnosticly-tinged and fosters a simplistic dualism. The "Course" was not written, but "channeled" by a non-corporeal "entity". As such, there is no way that I can or would accept it as either a source for clinical techniques, nor can I accept it as a legitimate citation for an academic discussion of clinical practices. The "Course" as utilized by Brown fosters idealism in the sense of Berkeley. That is, all is a projection of our own minds and thus we are responsible for all negative things that happen to us, and nothing outside of ourselves is "real". This directly contradicts many of the religious traditions-- especially Islam.
Frankly, I found the uncritical inclusion of material from the "Course" and a list of "suggestions" from the "Course" to be appallingly irresponsible in a writing at this academic level, not to mention in a work designed for clinical application.
In a section entitled "Making Spiritual Progress (Part I): Seeking Higher Values in Recovery" we have to credit Brown for at least providing a definition of spirituality, albeit by the psychologist Assagioli. The difficulty in this section is that it equates spirituality with the "actualization of progressively higher values." While this may be true it is only part of the picture and is again lacking in precision. "Values" may also be a function of culture which may or may not correlate with specifically spiritual writings on the topic (which might be more inclined to utilize the more morally tinged word "virtues"). There is no discussion or evidence of awareness of this possible problem. It is in this section that Brown refers to both Jesus and Buddha, but with no sense of the rather profound depths of the totality of the systems of understanding based upon their teachings. Indeed, their teachings are afforded just about one sentence each.
Brown's next section is entitled "Making Spiritual Progress (Part II): Developing Healthy Self-Esteem in Recovery". The title itself illustrates what may be the number one example of the deficiency in writings on our topic: the confusion of spirituality with psychological issues-- especially self-esteem. No mention is made of the ample traditional material that treats of sin and authors' struggles to deal with it. Indeed, anyone with even a passing knowledge of the writings of traditional spiritual masters are aware that self-esteem may actually suffer as the individual comes to a greater recognition of his or her unworthiness in light of God's perfection. Brown's confusion is shown in that he does write that self-esteem "might more correctly be termed humility or self-acceptance", but then writes "Self-esteem is a feeling of positive self-worth that is maintained independent of any external person, place, thing, position, title, event, or any other thing that we can see, hear, touch, or feel." One's "Higher Power" is important only in so far as it produces "spiritual efficacy" which is "... the means and ability to cope with 'life on life's terms'". Interestingly, the reference for this is once again Brown's own work which at the time was in press.
Brown's bibliography does not contain one citation that could possibly be construed as belonging to the primary, classical or traditional literature in spirituality.
THE RHETORIC OF AA
Susan Stewart's 1990 study is excellent, though not without some serious flaws. It validates some of my own points and sheds light on others. One would think that a study with this approach would maintain close attention to the language of AA, and indeed Stewart accomplishes this task to a significant degree. She notices the same problem that motivates this project.
While the founders of AA made use of the concept of alcoholism as a disease, AA's solution is not medical. It is a social solution which uses the power of its rhetoric to persuade people to change their behavior within the context of a shared solution to a common problem. Yet AA's solution clearly transcends the realm of the social sciences. Implicit in AA's rhetoric is the idea of humankind as more than a biological and psychological animal. Its primary focus is on humankind as spiritual and consequently moral beings who, in the case of alcoholism, can be healed by choosing a spiritual solution...
Finally, we have a writer who at least notices with us the AA claim that alcoholism is primarily a "spiritual disease with a spiritual solution". However, please note that even within this paragraph Stewart contradicts herself, and AA, by saying it is a social solution. She does not comment upon this discrepancy, nor does she discuss how the spiritual and the social may interact.
She validates the dearth of research in this area with the observation: "Another reason why research into AA is limited may be that scientists regard AA's emphasis on spirituality as unscientific, perhaps even cultic." She also shares with me the observation that people interpret AA from within the perspectives of their own disciplines such that they fail to appreciate the autonomy of the topic; indeed, she detects a bias against spirituality. She also notices the failure to maintain fidelity to Wilson's writings. Her doing so is to be commended.
Stewart grounds her analysis in the work of Kenneth Burke. This entails an understanding of the expressions of AA as essentially dramatic rather than scientific. She writes:
A method of analysis such as dramatism is necessary because the rhetoric of AA does not reduce the experience of alcoholism to one set of manageable propositions. Rather it embraces ambiguity and contradictions. Describing Burke's dramatistic method of symbolic analysis, Duncan states that Burke "seeks not to avoid ambiguity, doubt, question, incongruity, and contra-diction, but to include them in his theory of the act. (sic) The hallmark of communication in AA is its vivid and dramatic use of storytelling.
She is primarily concerned with the "something" that happens which "'converts' the active alcoholic into someone with substantially different patterns of behavior" which she believes can be "understood in the terms of Kenneth Burke's dramatism as a transformation of motives". It would appear as if Stewart and I have our attention on the same object, but have decided on diverse approaches to the issue. Though she says she is concerned with the conversion, she glosses over Wilson's oft-told story of the "hot flash". She writes that in "a moment of hopelessness and desperation" Wilson "sought a God of his understanding". To my mind this omission is problematic if we want to refer to the spirituality of AA and especially if we want to discuss how AA elicits a "conversion" experience in its members. It is Wilson's "hot flash" story that instigated the entire movement that ended in the establishment of AA.
One reason for this omission lies with what appears to be her limited familiarity with the texts of AA. (see below) The details of Wilson's experience are not written in the Big Book, upon which Stewart largely relies. For the AA member its telling and retelling certainly provides a significant background to the rhetoric of the Big Book, one would think. Instead, when discussing the chapter "Bill's Story" in the Big Book she writes: "Since the story was written over four years after the conversion experience... ...accuracy is obviously not the relevant issue". However, she is willing to use the story by means of additional texts when utilizing Campbell's analysis of myths and attempting to fit AA into Campbell's framework. Her note on the issue points out that some think the experience was merely a hallucination.
I get the impression that Stewart was afraid to tackle the issue of Wilson's experience. Perhaps, like many professionals (as she herself observed), Stewart found the story possessed of too much "hocus-pocus". Perhaps Burke's writings did not contain a category into which she could place such a non-ordinary experience so she chooses to gloss over, rather than discuss the story. But when Campbell does provide a category she will use the story to her end, yet still glossing over it. I find this somewhat disingenuous.
By choosing the field of drama Stewart has fallen into the same error she accuses others of committing, namely, not maintaining fidelity to the topic nor to the writings. Drama is not spirituality. Drama may develop out of spirituality and drama may provide insights into spirituality, but it is not spirituality.
Stewart may have compounded her error by trying to fit AA into Burke's statement: "'the key term for rhetoric...is not persuasion but identification.'" From this she concludes: "For AA, identification is the key to transformation. The message of recovery is passed from one alcoholic to the next..." Stewart has reduced AA's efficacy down to the social arena of AA's function as a fellowship. She seems to have forgotten Step Two: "Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity". As we shall see in the discussion on AA, the act of carrying the AA message is for the continued growth of the sober alcoholic. According to Wilson it is a necessary condition for maintaining sobriety. Stewart has placed the purpose of "passing the message" onto the active alcoholic looking for sobriety. She forgets that the reason Wilson first spoke to Bob Smith was not to help Smith, but to keep Wilson himself from drinking. Identification is the key to maintaining the transformation. It is not the key to transformation as she wrote. Step Twelve, where the directive to "carry the message" is contained sets the preconditions of "having had a spiritual awakening". The purpose of "carrying the message" in Wilson's writings is to maintain and develop the spiritual awakening, not instigate it in someone else as it might seem at first glance. Stewart does acknowledge this, but fails to recognize its importance.
These are significant mistakes and points of confusion, in my opinion, especially given the fact that she claims to ground her analysis in the primary textual material of AA. She does distinguish between the texts and the oral tradition of AA, and so this may account for some of these problems. Regardless, this is a work of quality, and while it does not focus on our topic at hand, it does acknowledge it as a topic. Stewart's focus upon and fidelity to the texts provides insights into the actual process of working the Steps.
A MOVEMENT TOWARDS A DEFINITION
I seem to have found a compatriot in Peter Webber. Our concerns seem to be exactly the same. He writes: "The purpose of this study is to understand the term 'spiritual' in a focused way which might inform counseling practice. This is achieved by exploring a 'spiritual' approach to a counseling problem" which is the approach of AA. Webber notices the absence of quality material on the topic as well as the problem of definitions when we talk of spirituality:
This space [i.e. discussing the "spiritual"] is an academic no-man's land. Within this space, standard vocabulary is not particularly suitable, and there is no established method of describing such a process. Academic standards of all disciplines are lacking. Theology in general, and Church authorities in particular, are suspicious of a process which, though admittedly life-saving, is not clearly defined in dogmatic terms. Counselors, even those who are deeply committed to particular religious systems, find spiritual recovery somewhat amorphous, and out of the scope of their immediate work. A further difficulty of crucial importance to this study is that whereas A.A. uses "spiritual" to denote something essentially different from "religious", theologians tend to assume that the words share a certain identity. Counseling appears to have no solid view on the subject.
...the professional counseling community does not seem to have a conception of the "spiritual" which is not grounded in a specific religion or that is consistent with any major counseling theory. If the professional community is to make sense of these developments and reintegrate a spiritual component into professional counseling and psychology, an outline for separating the wheat of the genuinely spiritual from the chaff of the sensational, merely popular, or downright fraudulent is needed.
Webber does not himself directly respond to the above difficulties. He never clearly answers the question "What is spiritual?" He provides a linguistic history of the term and its equivalents in English, Greek, Scandinavian, Germanic, etc. But then concludes:
...there is no definite religious meaning attached to the word "spiritual", except by long-standing association (particularly in Jewish and Christian theology). The word "spiritual" within the context of counseling may or may not have a stamp of religious meaning upon it. The evidence makes a definitive interpretation impossible.
He seems to shy away from proposing a solution. After discussing Buber's understanding of the term as well as AA's, and comparing AA to the Jewish Hasidim, Webber provides for us only the conditions that would be necessary for an attempt at defining spirituality for clinical usage:
A new definition of the word "spiritual" is almost essential, if the word is to gain much credence from the ranks of professional counselors. Such a task is difficult though not impossible. The new definition must include a quality of relationship, in which some understanding (no matter how personal) is reached of "Thou" and "thou", and the relationship between the two. The characteristics of this relationship are surrender and humility. This spiritual relationship should produce an obvious change for the better in the quality of life...
...there is a need for a more reliable and applicable vocabulary suitable for use in this area by counselors and others.
Of course, this is precisely the concern of our project. Webber's work serves as an excellent preamble to the current project.
A VIEW FROM ART PSYCHOTHERAPY
In 1991 Wanda Gaskin undertook a study of alcoholics' artistic representations of the Twelve Steps. It is unclear whether Gaskin herself comprehended the Twelve Steps. She identifies the first two steps as "The core of AA's twelve steps..." My experience of almost daily participation in various Twelve Step groups for almost two years disputes this. It was the first three steps that seemed to receive the most emphasis and were, indeed, often "re-worked" by individuals with years or even decades of working the Steps. Gaskin provides no support for her assessment even though she cites other researchers who seem to indicate the first three and the first five Steps are of primary importance.
Perhaps because of this lack of clarity on the nature of the Twelve Steps Gaskin focused in her art psychotherapy sessions upon "major words, themes, and concepts" that are not present in the wording of the Twelve Steps, and she seems to place certain concepts under the wrong Step. For instance, in Step One she interjects the concept "frustration" and she interjects "jealousy" in Steps Five through Twelve. She also places the concept "surrender" in Step One which is not only not in the Steps, but would seem to fit conceptually with Step Three. She even interjects an entirely foreign concept from the (very) popular literature-- that of the "inner child"-- in her over-all conceptualization of all the Steps. She again violates her assessment of the relative importance of the Steps by singling out Steps One through Four for a collection of "major words, themes and concepts", and combining Steps Five through Twelve.
Gaskin's research design divided participants into two groups: those working the first Step and those working all the rest. Why this division, especially in light of her assessment of Steps One and Two as the "core" Steps, and her conceptual descriptions singling out the first four Steps, is not explained.
There is mention of the religio-spiritual nature of the Twelve Steps and she affirms the "spiritual foundation of AA". However, this is only for the purpose of describing the events that led to the establishment of AA-- there is no discussion of the issue. She refers to researchers who affirm that "...at the center of the AA program is the Twelve Step Model..." which strikes this writer as self-evident, to say the least. One would think that the relation between the quest for alcoholics' symbolic representations of a spiritual program would generate a greater degree of discussion on the part of the researcher on the presence or absence of religio-spiritual symbols in her data. There was only one overtly religious symbol in the subjects' work. The conspicuous, and seemingly counter-intuitive, absence of overtly religious symbols is not commented upon by the researcher.
Gaskin provides a breakdown of the frequency of the use of colors and objects as well as the frequency of abstract and representational style of work in the two groups. However, there is no analysis of what this may mean for treatment other than art psychotherapy may "provide the patient an opportunity to explore self in relation to the Step Model and communicate that relationship through a symbolic representation." Gaskin provides no significant translation of the symbolic representations.
We have seen that the religio-spiritual elements of the Twelve Steps are currently discussed from a variety of perspectives, from psychology to sociology to art therapy. Many writers have validated my observation that the current state of research into the religio-spiritual componant of human experience is at best, flawed, at worst, almost non-existent.
All the attempts to address our topic that we have reviewed fail to provide us with a firm understanding of the Twelve Steps as specifically spiritual. The primary reasons for this are: 1) a confusion that results from the researchers' ideological perspectives, such that spirituality is never clearly defined, nor is it delineated as its own topic apart from other human sciences and 2) a failure to maintain fidelity to Bill Wilson's writing on the subject. Secondary reasons are 1) a tendency to simply ignore or gloss over the issue of spirituality and 2) an inability to distinguish between spirituality and the religious language and behavior that may be used to express spirituality.
The next chapter begins our discussion of the new field of Formative Spirituality or formation theory which, it is hypothesized, addresses these concerns, corrects many of the errors we have seen, and provides a clear basis from which we may comprehend human spirituality.