and right here, you've done what Rudy describes in his book: defined the "real drunk" when, the fact of the matter is, we have no decent biological, physical, or genetic, let alone psychological, basis for defining the _REAL_ drunk. addicts may well believe in intervention. i know enough people who've gotten help through an intervention, and very nearly initiated one for the ex after he got hooked on coke here in florida. but i decided to boot him out on his ass instead because i didn't want to lose my kid. but, of the people i've known who've been through intervention successfully, they would call themselves real addicts and they are glad for intervention!
so, that said, here is a description of Rudy's findings. One of the things he points out is how he was actively engaged to see if he was an alcoholicl. Now, here's a guy from SU, who asks the people who run the meetings if he can study them. He's made it clear he's an ethnographer doing research, with an NIH grant and all. Even so, the guy in charge sends him home with a load of AA books and makes him read them all and report back. Then, throughout his observations of several different sites, he finds that he's continually grilled about his drinking habits. He's the damn researcher and yet they want him to be an alcoholic, basically. When he answers, members try to squeeze his answers into a binary.
Have you ever blacked out?
Gee, I don't remember. (and that answer is followed with, "That's because when you black out, you don't remember!)
So, here's a guy who's been in college, who's certainly exp'd various things that AA considers characteristic of the alcoholic. When he answers yes, they try to define him as an alcholic. Of course, this won't wokr if you're actively resisting. But a lot of people are there for help, the subtle insistence can be an anchor and that's how AA is successful, because they engage in ritualistic activities that define and shape the identity of someone who belongs. In the process, they actively exclude the experiences and stories of those folks who don't fit with the alcholic as they've defined them. When Rudy was writing in the mid 80s, of course, the alcholic was someone who couldn't stop drinking. Now, 15 years later, we know better. At least I hope we do. Plenty of people have aproblem with drinking and they can stop.
ask me: i lived with an addict for four years. for three and a half of those years, he didn't drink much. never kept beer in the house except for hot summer days. had wine when we hosted dinner parties with friends once a month. i insisted on a end of semester blast, and I was the one who got loaded and danced on the tables, because he drove! we also had the occasional dinner and a movie at home with some wine. that's about it.
why? because I was the line of coke and the bottle for 3.5 years.
who would have thought he was an addict? i sure didn't,until i fell off the pedastal when a series of disastrous life events and turning 30 crises meant he couldn't handle it all.
this is not an unusual story, i've come to learn. so, AA did damage long ago. they've since recuperated their approach by even more broadly defining alcholism to include people like my ex-fiance. but, since that's the case, the pressure is really on.
Rudy isn't the only one to experience this. I only learned of the book because i TAd for his diss advisor at Syracuse. He assigned it in the courses. Students--friends and children of addcits and alcoholics--found that Rudy's discussion of theis subtle "recruitment" said that it resonated with their experience if they'd ever attended a meeting with their loved ones. People at the meetings would grill them about their drinking habits, and they'd always have a snappy come back that would define the situation: you're an alcoholic, you just won't admit it. and not admitting is a sign of an alcoholic who hasn't seen the light.
again, Rudy has no bone to pick with AA. He doesn't want them to go out of business. Rather, he wants to show, through an indepth case study, what Carrol mentioned: they appear so successful because they define out of the identity, "real alcoholic" people who fail to meet their definition or who aren't helped by AA.
Rudy also rejects the medical model--broadly understood--upon which their approach is founded. he points to the research Carrol spoke of, which shows that there is not sound physical, biological, or genetic basis for claiming that there are people who just can't stop drinking or that there are special cases of people who just can't handle alcohol and must abstain entirely. Thus, he also criticizes the abstinence model of dealing with the problem because it demonizes the substance as _the_ problem.
He comes at this from a way of looking at society as somewhat like religion in the way that people negotiate meanings and identities, etc. so you might find it relatively interesting Michael.
kelley