> nah. check out David Rudy's ethnographic study of aa in Becoming
> Alcholic. He describes many instances in which he, the researcher, was
> grilled as to whether he was an alcoholic.
Convincing people they have a drinking problem is the purpose of AA meetings. It's not a secret. It's what they're organized around, and what people come there for. People who don't have one leave and don't come back. So do many people who do, for that matter. But if someone keeps coming back, and keeps denying he has a drinking problem, of course people grill him. That's what such behavior normally means, and that's what the person is asking for by keeping coming back and hanging around. Someone who behaves like that and knows for sure he doesn't have a drinking problem is acting absurdly -- and it would be absurd to treat his interaction as normal.
As for the organization ritually socializing people into it, as you say, that is rather generally true of every organization that exists.
I'll take your word that Rudy's is a good book. But it rather sounds from this description like he's breaking down an open door at best. And at worst, that he's an unself-reflective participant observer who's gotten it bassackwards.
And if he sees no essential difference between AA diffidence and Al-anon intrusiveness, then IMHO he's made a mistake. The two approaches are diametrically opposed.
Michael