Dissertation Recovery: Or How I Got my PhD

What a Conference Paper proposal looks like...

2006-06-01T16:11:00.000-05:00

What have I been up to? First, I finished the first draft of the disseratation proposal. It was awful, an awful experience and a pretty scattered, unfocused finished product. But, I learned a lot, I got good advice from the advisor, and I'm moving on to draft2. Whahoo!

In the meantime, I've been attending 9-7 recovery meetings a week in the city and I've begun doing short, largely unstructured, interviews. I got 7 interviews this past week. I've been pretty busy. Now, I've got to transcribe them!

So, there is this fabulous sounding conference, Practicing Pierre Bourdieu: In the Field and Across the Disciplines. September 28-30, 2006 at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Conferences send out a "Call for Papers" via email or as posters on bulletin boards, a few months before the event. This one asked for a paper proposal, approximately 500 words.

That, folks, is rather hard to do. I've got so much going on in my dissertation that trying to carve out a little piece to write a paper on took some work. And, then I was faced with trying to put it's ideas into 500 words. Here's the result. Wish me luck! I have no idea when or if I'll hear from them. I'll let you know.

“The City as the Recovering Metropolis: extending Bourdieu’s ideas of field and habitus”

Using data collected through participant observation, short interviews and analysis of key organizations’ official and unofficial documents, I will briefly outline the contours of the space of recovery in the city, making careful note of its transformation into a field of struggle, and the resulting effect this struggle has on organizations, groups and persons within it.

Peer-led support groups, as treatment for addiction, were once dominated by the hegemonic position of Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) and other organizations that have copied A.A.’s famous twelve-step, spiritual program of recovery. In the last ten years this social space has become a field as competing ideas and organizations have penetrated and questioned A.A.’s influence. In its previous state, with little or no contestation, the social space of recovery groups acknowledged only one type of recovery experience. Therefore, the process of affiliation with a treatment program was typically framed in terms of a universal conversion experience. By using Bourdieu’s theoretical tools, I will argue that the emergent field of recovery groups in the city provides an opportunity to reject this framing and to rethink Bourdieu’s conception of split habitus. Bourdieu’s work, especially his early work on Algeria, presents habitus as an evolving, yet durable element of analysis. In this regard, a Bourdieuan might be encouraged that many scholars in the field of addiction studies describe affiliation with the twelve-step world as a conversion experience—as a transformation of habitus as it enters a new field of struggle. My data speaks to something much more complex than this.

I will argue that the recovery-seeker’s habitus is split, as was that of the Algerian in 1960. Assessing a change in habitus in a particular case provides nuance to Bourdieu’s original conception. I will illustrate, with this empirical case, how transformation can occur from internal, self-directed forces as well as through the external symbolic violence wrought by colonization and war—in other words, changes need not be the result of a purely objective social crisis. Furthermore, the illusio present in the twelve-step fellowships, contrasted with the illusio of its challenger organizations, reveals a very different process of habitus transformation that corresponds both to different understandings of addiction and cure, and to differing practices found in these groups. My paper will map these differences onto the city's field of recovery as it exists today.

Battles are currently fought in this field on two levels: ideologically and organizationally. At stake in this field is the right to name or classify the affliction and to proscribe its cure.

From the late 1990’s Secular Organization for Sobriety (SOS) and SmartRecovery, have begun to seriously challenge the dominance of A.A.’s model of recovery by promoting a secular, rational understanding of recovery which appeals to individuals who are philosophically opposed either to a spiritual understanding of their addiction, or to A.A.’s insistence that addiction is a disease without a cure. My paper will discuss the factors leading to these competing organizations’ rise in order to show how this social space has been transformed by classification struggles.

Secondly, there exists a struggle between warring organizations, as they challenge the dominance of A.A. and other twelve-step fellowships by offering weekly support group meetings. This social space has become of a field of contestation where over ten different twelve-step fellowships (with thousands of meetings each week[1]) along with two anti-twelve-step organizations compete for members and, more importantly, for access to symbolic power and the favor of the State. The State, embracing the existence of a network of free support groups, has historically promoted A.A.’s “disease” model and currently mandates growing numbers of people to enter drug and alcohol in-patient treatment programs, 85% of which use A.A.’s model and hold twelve-step meetings within their institutions. Now, this is changing. I aim to trace this new development with Bourdieu’s field theory.

[1] A.A. alone, has over 1200 English-speaking meetings in the city limits each week.

one month later...

2006-05-27T13:36:00.000-05:00

Yes, I am still working on the proposal. I finally finished the first draft only to have to start over again, reorganizing, rewriting and reworking the "story" of my project. The advisor has been very helpful, encouraging and at the same time also very critical of the writing of this thing. My only saving grace is that he's been entirely not critical of the project and the direction I wish to go in with it. It's funny, I can sit down and tell someone the "story" of what I'm doing. I can map out the chapters of this dissertation and explain it to anyone over the age of 14 (an arbitrary age, picked to emphasize the lack of knowledge it takes to understand what I'm doing). I just can't sit down and write it up in a chronological, logical manner. Writing is so frustrating!

I'm not the kind of writer to suffer from writer's block. I have moments when it all sort of stumbles out onto the page and I have moments when I have to literally make an outline on a piece of paper to keep me on track. Ideas come easy, too easy. It's the logic of making it make sense to others that trips me up. As the advisor said "You've got it all in your head, you just need to make the average reader understand it on the most basic level and then tell them the story."

So, I start over. Well, it's not really a starting all over thing. It's a re-crafting thing. The neat thing about doing this is that I can really rethink my claims and see how they really do express my position in sociology -- that of a relation-ist. It's not a real word, obviously. But, my training really does reflect my advisor's influence and I don't consider that to be such a bad thing. I'm actually grateful to have gained a perspective on sociology that is broad enough to make all sorts of projects possible and yet defined enough to have a recognizable thread, a theoretical stance that can be defended. Maybe this happens to all of us, but I don't expect that I'll forsake this stance (an emphasis on thinking relationally ) anytime soon.

I'm also working up a one page explanation of my project to submit for the upcoming conference, “Practicing Pierre Bourdieu: In the Field and Across the Disciplines” to be held September 28-30, 2006 at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. I have to have a tentative paper title and a one page paper proposal by May 31. Wish me luck!

Approval, at last!

2006-04-28T14:56:00.000-05:00

I've been battling the IRB (Institutional Review Board) for months. After submitting my research protocol at the end of December, I've received three deferrals and a partial approval. But, today I heard from my advisor that at last, I've gotten full approval. Yay! What was making this process so difficult? I have three suspicions:

The nature of qualitative research (or specifically, I should say, participant observation of human subjects) is not well suited to traditional IRB formats which are attuned to the medical profession. This is a well-documented fact. I refer you to the American Psychological Association's stand, and an excellent article in Inside Higher Ed on sociology and IRB problems. Unfortunately, I am unable to find any statement by my own professional organization (American Sociological Association) on this issue. If there is one, please email me the link.
The nature of my project, namely, that it deals with a stigmatized population: alcoholics, drug addicts and their families. Information about recovery groups is not widely known. The best indicators suggest that only about 13% of the American population has attended a support group for addiction issues. Couple this with the fact that the major group treating addiction is named Alcoholics Anonymous and one can sympathize with an administrative board which seeks to protect research subjects from harm. In the end I had to convince the board that open meetings of any 12-step group, as well as publicly announced support group meetings of any kind were indeed public. I accomplished this by printing out internet announcements and webpages which announced meeting times and places. My most difficult task was to convince the board that I had a system in place whereby my research participants would not feel coerced into granting me an interview. I accomplished this by making some strong statements (on both the consent form and on the flyer I would use to recruit them) about the benefits of participating. In other words, I made it very clear that granting me an interview was in no way connected to any prognosis of recovery from addiction. I also agreed to use a flyer so that respondents could contact me later, out of earshot and eyeshot of their peers - there would be no chance of further stigmatization or social gain from complying with my research goals - I wouldn't even have to approach individual members to recruit them.
The nature of the bureaucratic university which makes submitting anything to an interdisciplinary and legally-bound board a rather tedious affair. After each deferral I was required to submit 14 copies of my response, often with only one day's notice (due to their one-week turn around) in order to meet the deadline for the next scheduled, monthly meeting. Needless to say, I missed a deadline or two and my response wasn't even reviewed for another four weeks!

Readers, if you are in the process of thinking up a dissertation project, get that IRB protocol in early. I've lost months in the field to the process. However, I can't say that it has been a total loss. I've made strong contacts with members by faithfully attending recovery groups on a regular basis.

In the meantime, work continues on my official proposal. My advisor made it very clear at our last meeting that this is now my first priority. He's not too keen to read much of anything else. Writing it seems like it will kill me. But, doesn't all writing seem that way? Today I sought some advice on the internet, something to make me feel better. All I got was this:

"in its most demanding forms, writing and doing research, requires a state of mind and a way of being that most people in the world spend their lives trying to avoid: withdrawal, obsession, panic." from The Berkeley Dissertation Proposal Workshop

Thanks, Berkeley! Bring it on!

What meeting with my advisor looks like

2006-03-28T15:55:00.001-06:00

update: I tried to fix the formatting of this post and accidently deleted all the comments on it! So sorry! Please feel free to re-post your comment and know that I didn't erase you intentionally! It's so good to know that someone, somewhere is reading this. :)
I've been trying to do *something* on my project every day (well, I should take one day a week off from it, right?). So Monday consisted of meeting with my advisor and reviewing the recent attempts toward my official proposal. He had carefully read it (a bonus!) and had obviously put some thought into what it was saying. I've outlined the meeting, as it happened, but put in bold the part that was most meaningful – the "take-home message" for the day. He seems to be measuring my/our progress and at the end of each meeting we discuss the advance we've made thus far. It's a really nice way to think about this project which at times seems so big and overwhelming!

There's three things going on in my proposal:

The field of alcoholism and the classification struggle within it- how does the field of recovery in Chicago (metropolis) fit into that?
The voluntaristic-ally induced fractured habitus – what conditions make this possible? And how do individuals achieve this through recovery groups?
The population susceptible to recovery groups – how do individual trajectories lead toward recovery groups?

The next thing to do is to figure out with more clarity how these three pieces fit together into a coherent story. To do this I need to:

Read up on Bourdieu's followers:
- Christoph Charle – on the intellectual field of France
- Giselle Sapiro – on the literary field
- Pascale Cassanova – on the literary field
- Simon Charlesworth (?) – on the working class in an English city
- Participants at the conference at Yale (by Gorski, my masters' thesis advisor who's since moved to Yale from Wisconsin)
- Loïc's work, especially his article on the pugilistic habitus in Theory and Society.
Focus on a comparatively informed analysis of the 12-step world within the bigger sphere of the State and how the State influences recovery.
- Treatment centers in Chicago area – what options do addicts have for non-12-step treatment? What role do HMO's and other healthcare institutions have in this?
- Mandates of court – approach of judges and other State officials who often ask "What step are you on?" in DUI and family court situations. How does a member of a non-12-step group answer this? How do they reconcile the need to lie about their recovery with the need to live a new honest life?
- State mandated therapy and the difficulty of finding a non-12-step therapist.
Include a larger emphasis on compulsion/addictive behavior. Get away from simply describing alcoholism and AA. How has the structure of the recovery world accommodated non-substance abuse recovery (co-dependence, sex addiction, gambling, etc.?)
Think about the middle of the field – are there non-12-step alternatives in the middle of the field – (weaker belief in the disease model with ambiguity surrounding the mystical/rational source of relief). Perhaps Recovery, Inc, but I'm not sure they deal specifically with addictive or compulsive behavior. I need to check that out.
Streamline chapter outline of the proposal – after the intro begin a large-ish chapter that incorporates the history of Chicago and the history of the field of recovery there. Include in this a discussion of:
- geography/ecology of the State structure
- demography of meetings
  - how many people
  - what type of people
  - correspondence with locations/neighborhoods and types of addictions
  - incidence of cross-addicted members who attend more than one type of meeting
the role of the State in meeting attendance
strategies used by groups
- conservation strategies
- offensive/defensive moves
- growth strategies
Then, have three chapters, one on each part of the field (top, middle, bottom) and a chapter on implications for theory and policy followed by a conclusion. Simple format, streamlined outline.
Consider what type of data I'll need to fill these holes. As the shape of the project emerges what will be useful to me and how will I get it?

Overall, it was a very positive meeting—he was super excited about the big picture story of the dissertation and how it will sell to a wide audience and especially the role of the State. We agreed that it's good for your dissertation to "spill over the edges a bit" so that you can continue to mine it for articles and projects afterward. I was worried about the lit review and talked about how the literature on addiction studies is so overwhelming. He assured me that once the outlines of my project come in clearly and sharply, the relevant literature will be obvious. I think he's right, my panic about the lit review is just a product of my continued ambiguity about the central thesis of this project. It's amazing how helpful these conservations are! If you don't have a mentor that you can both honestly share your misgivings with and share your excitement about your project with, you're doomed, I think. I feel very lucky to have this project and this mentor.

Steady progress

2006-03-26T16:32:00.000-06:00

My advisor has taken to calling out the phrase "steady progress" whenever I see him. It's sort of heartening, I must admit.

However, the preparation of my official dissertation proposal is anything but heartening at the moment. I'm trying to do a short, concise, introductory literature review of an interdisciplinary field. I'm finding it to be quite impossible to be both short, concise or even introductory!

Do I classify sociologists who primarily publish in addiction studies journals as "specialists" or as "sociologists?" Does sociology even really have anything to say about addiction studies? Somewhere in here is the hook I'm going to hang my thesis on, I just can't locate it at the moment. Addiction studies is largely characterized by psychologists, medical specialists, counselors, psychotherapists and social workers. Of course, sociologists are also represented in that they write about the medicalization of addiction, the history of the idea of addiction and the social impact that recovery groups have on larger social structures. But does sociology have a theory of addiction of it's own? Can sociological theory be applied to addiction in a fruitful manner?

I get completely off topic when I try to address these questions. This is why I've avoided the literature review so far. Instead of talking about recovery groups and the field of recovery in a particular temporal, spatial location I end up thinking about the nature of addiction, as if it exists outside of any social constructions or constraints. This is where the interdisciplinary-ness of addiction studies goes off the deep end. Maybe I'm just being reactionary, but without some sort of disciplinary fence it's just too easy to loose track of the empirical realities of your topic and go on traipsing around in generalities and what-ifs. I could end up writing a literature review about how all existing literature fails to capture the realities of recovery but how would my data speak to solving that problem?

repercussions

2006-03-17T13:55:00.000-06:00

I've gotten some very interesting replies to my opinion piece (see post below). My favorite one so far was a very nice typed response from a member of AA who assumed that I had never been to a twelve-step meeting. They could not fathom why I would possibly be critical of it when it has proven to be so successful; I must not be very familiar with what goes on it meetings. I find this funny because I've possibly been to over 1,000 twelve-step meetings in my life and I'm currently attending two a week. I've been to Atheist and Agnostic meetings, I've been to women's meetings, candlelight meetings, queer meetings, mixed-race and white only meetings, meetings full of working-class drunks and meetings full of stockbrokers and bankers and movie stars, breakfast meetings, picnics, dances, benefits, wakes. All of them twelve-step oriented and all of them following the same "program of recovery." Are they all the same? No way. Do they each think that their particular brand of twelve-step recovery is the only solution to a severe addiction. Yes.

Other mail I've received:

a wonderful note from someone I hadn't heard from in a while - reconnecting and relating their story of recovery which included leaving a twelve-step program and getting some good psychotherapy.
a phone call from someone who had information for me, but I lost the message, so if you're reading this, please call again! And, do tell me how you got my number, ok?
an email from someone who just wanted to refute my position, redemption is possible, they say, but only if you're honest. I wrote them back but received no further response.
a letter just today from someone who wants more information on alternatives to twelve-step recovery, for a friend.

I'm actually surprised at the response. What started out as my advisor's whim has turned into a way to engage the public with my topic and I feel a new responsibility to sort of champion alternative recovery therapies. Wow!

I'm currently reading some interesting stuff, look for more book reviews soon. And, the IRB has approved most of my research proposal so I can officially observe recovery group meetings, as a researcher. Wahoo! I just have to jump through a few more hoops to get them to approve my initial interview phase, provide more information about participant selection and make sure that there is no threat of coercion - that participants can say "no, thank you" as easily as "yes, thank you" to my request to interview them. That shouldn't be too hard.

Advice to other grad students preparing for the dissertation phase: Get your IRB protocol in early. It's taken me months to get preliminary approval. And, it's a good way to firm up (as much as possible at this early stage) your ideas and questions. You can always change course with this, you just have to submit another protocol, but it gets you started in a more formal way. That's a good thing.

Oh, I totally forgot to tell you about my very special email from James Frey, thanking me for my support. It was just a one-liner, but it made my day! (Yes, I sent him a copy of the editorial, via his publisher.)

fig. 1

2006-03-08T16:41:00.000-06:00

(positive)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Quad A

SOS

Smart Recovery

(negative)

2006-03-08T16:32:00.000-06:00

The field is divided
The field of recovery from alcohol and drugs is a site of contested meanings and warring ideologies. Groups vie for symbolic power and the ability to classify and label cures, causes and even definitions of addictive behavior. They also vie for members. One might expect this field to be chaotic; to have an unclear or poorly articulated logic. From my brief time in the field of recovery in a major city, however, I have found it to be very orderly and it’s logic is apparent to even the most casual observer. In essence, individuals who seek no-cost, peer support to overcome their addictions have a choice between two basic paths; the rational, psychology-based support group which focuses on cognitive behavior therapy, or the world of 12-step recovery and its dedication to a more mystical, spiritual cure. These two paths, the rational versus the mystical, exist in relation to one another. They have been created in each other’s shadow. While 12-step recovery and it’s basis in Alcoholics Anonymous reigns supreme in this field, individuals do have a choice of other secular and “science-based” recovery programs (although, admittedly, many are unaware of this option). In an almost Durkheimian way, the field of recovery is evenly divided between the sacred and the profane and recovery groups align themselves neatly to these divisions as they struggle to carve out a place for their particular interpretation of the addict’s life.

The top end of the field and how it’s measured
The field can be envisioned as a measure of mysticism or faith. I choose this as a measure because it is the dominant force of recovery in the largest number of adherents to peer support groups. It is dominant in two ways. First, with over 1200 weekly meetings in the city, Alcoholics Anonymous attracts the majority of recovering persons. Secondly, all other recovery groups are younger, smaller, and define themselves against AA. Correspondingly, at the top end of this top-heavy field lay mystical or spiritually-inclined 12-step groups (as you travel down the field (fig. 1) groups approach a more rational cure and understand their addictive behavior as an irrational element of their lives.) Most members of 12-step groups have a desire for spiritual renewal, view their addiction as a the well-deserved result of a spiritual malady and depend on the intervention of a spiritual being or force (most commonly some Christian concept of God) to alleviate the symptoms of their addictions and to transform their “character defects” (often seen as both the cause and result of their use of alcohol). These characteristics hold true for all 12-step programs, as they model their meetings and organizations on AA. (See fig. 1.)

The top of the middle of the field: powerless, in the grips of a disease but no belief in God.
Toward the middle of the field lay Quad A (AA/A/A, or AA for atheists and agnostics) groups. These groups cling to the principles of the 12-step approach but reinterpret its tenets to reflect their lack of focus on spiritual cures. Quad A groups contain members who practice non-Christian religions, those who practice no religion at all, as well as those who do not believe in a supernatural deity. For them, as for some members of the secular groups discussed below, their religious lives exist separately from their recovery lives. Quad A members see no reason to depend on any concept of god to obtain recovery and to transform their character defects. However, they do depend on a reinterpretation of god as a higher power (often expressed as belief in the collective wisdom of the group or the history of wisdom in AA). In order to recover from alcoholism, they admit powerlessness to the force of their disease and ask for help from the mystical powers of the 12-step program in order to live without drinking. In this effort they reinterpret the steps, literally reading from a prepared text of their own version of the steps that omits any reference to God.

The lower middle of the field: undecided on the disease model, ambivalent about powerlessness but reliance on rationality, not mysticism for recovery
At the lower end of the field lay rational or secular groups. Both of these secular groups devote a portion of their energies to debunking AA and the 12-step approach. Each views itself as a viable alternative to god-centered recovery that focuses on personal, character transformation and each group holds weekly meetings to support its members. Within these secular groups, however, exist persons with varying spiritual practices and beliefs. Secular Organization for Sobriety (also known as Save OurSelves), created in 1985 by James Christopher, uses the principles of secular humanism to achieve non-12-step recovery from alcoholism. Christopher, and his followers do not admit powerlessness to a disease of alcoholism. They take no stand on character defects, viewing their alcoholism as an unwanted psychological dependence. Many do not even take on the label of alcoholic as they see it limiting their ability to recover from addiction. SOS views spirituality as a personal decision, one that has no bearing on the addict’s recovery. The only important decision to make in recovery is the decision for total abstinence from any mind-altering substance.

The bottom of the field: rationality, psychological re-training to defeat illogical thought processes
SmartRecovery, created in 1994 as a spin-off from Rational Recovery, depends on Albert Ellis’ psychological tools for breaking compulsive behavior. All members are encouraged to see their addiction as compulsive behavior, not a disease and there is no insistence on labeling oneself an addict or alcoholic. No transformation of character defects is sought or acknowledged in this group. SmartRecovery, teaches only rational, “scientific,” principles for maintaining abstinence, dealing with urges, using problem-solving skills, and balancing your life in recovery. They repeatedly recall their “evidence-based” foundation and never discuss any spiritual benefits to their program. Complete abstinence from all mind-altering substances is not a prerequisite for attending meetings, but members are strongly encouraged to not engage in any practice that might lead to poor decision-making regarding relapses in abstinence from the targeted substance. The leader admits to the benefits of meditation, yoga and physical/mental relaxation techniques, but he is careful to delineate this from the official recovery program of SmartRecovery.

Emerging questions
Four important questions emerge as we come to understand this field: (1) How do members understand the causes of their addiction? (2) Where is the source of the solution to their problems surrounding their addiction? (3) What type of moral stand do they take on their past actions when they engaged in their addiction? (4) What role do their personal beliefs about religion and spirituality play in their transformation from active addict to recovered person? An individuals’ position in the field of recovery reveals their position on these important questions. All types of peer support recovery groups contain members with varied attitudes toward religious organizations and spiritual practices. What matters most to their selection of a recovery group is their own definition of addiction and the perceived role that mystical or spiritual forces play in their recovery (see Fig. 2). This decision might change as recovery progresses, but it is a crucial part of the initial engagement in a particular group. To the researcher, I feel that it is important to understand the distinction between self-perceived character defects and psychological dependence. A disease-model of addiction lends itself to a focus on character defects and further, to a mystical solution for transforming these defects. Within this approach there are symptoms and moral consequences of having the disease of addiction. Conversely, a more psychological and rational approach to problems with addiction prevents members from fixating on moral issues and encourages them to utilize a more mechanistic re-programming of their habits and thought processes.

Recovery Habitus reiterated
I argue that the “recovery habitus” of each group is distinctly created in peer support group meetings. Addicts come to these groups ready for change. They embrace a reorientation process wherein their understanding of their position in the world and their beliefs about their addictive practices (often seen as a causal force in placing them in these positions in the world) undergo a transformation. The type of meetings they attend determines the type of transformation they experience.

OP ED published, wow!

2006-02-15T16:25:00.000-06:00

Wisconsin State Journal :: OPINION :: A6

Monday, February 13, 2006
REBEKAH RAVENSCROFT-SCOTT

James Frey, author of "A Million Little Pieces," is a con man, a liar and a poor model for the recovering addict. At least, that's the story line for the moment.

Why?

Sure, there's talk about the meaning of "truth" and "memoir" and "fiction," and of Frey as a "pathological liar" for fabricating information in his book on addiction and recovery. But, the real reason why he's such a bad man is much simpler than that.

The real issue is that Frey beat drugs and alcohol in his own way. Regardless of the details, the one thing that has never been contested in Frey's story is that he was an addict who recovered, and he did it without accepting the disease model of addiction and the Twelve Step model of treatment.

"A Million Little Pieces" represents an open challenge to the Twelve Step approach. It's a challenge that should not be rejected so quickly. It is time to re-examine our blind acceptance of the Twelve Step model as the only road to recovery.

The public censure of "A Million Little Pieces" reveals how deeply a fundamental assumption has seeped into our culture: the assumption that addiction is a chronic disease -- a physical, mental and spiritual disease -- for which there is no cure, and only one effective treatment, the Twelve Steps.

While the medical profession remains undecided on whether addiction is really a physical disease, a 1999 poll by Hazelden (the treatment center Frey writes about) revealed that 79 percent of the American public believes that it is. This perspective permeates not only our collective consciousness, but our legal and public health systems.

Yet, thousands of people recover from addiction without working the Twelve Steps, without admitting powerlessness over any disease or turning themselves over to a higher power. They take responsibility for their future in less mystical and more rational ways.

For such people and their supporters, the "essential truth" of Frey's experience is simply his recovery. Many forgive him for embellishing the facts, because he's no longer a drug addict or an alcoholic (even if he wasn't ever really a criminal) -- because he succeeded, and it means that they can too.

When will we realize that people become addicted to substances and behaviors for reasons that are unique to the individual? When will we start to see the thousands who recover without support groups, or with treatment that doesn't follow the Twelve Step model?

Hazelden reports that only 17 percent of its clients will remain clean and sober one year after treatment. If this is the best that the Twelve Step model can promise, why don't we spend more resources exploring other forms of treatment? Why do we allow our government and health care system to promote only one road to recovery?

I think it's because too many take pleasure in looking at drug addicts and alcoholics as sinners. We want them to pay for their sins, and we don't want to let them off the hook no matter what. They will always be held in suspicion. They will never be redeemed. Just ask James Frey.

Book Review: Baring Our Souls

2006-01-20T13:08:00.000-06:00

Baring Our Souls: TV Talk Shows and the Religion of Recovery by Kathleen S. Lowney
This is an interesting, weird book. It’s written halfway for the public, the non-academic public who wants to know why talk show TV is so popular, and halfway for weary academics who have the same question but can’t be bothered to read any media/culture theory. Lowney’s tone wavers between that of a teacher to media-savy undergrads (which she is, by the way) and that of an informed sociologist with a political critique to make about our understanding of popular culture (also true). Ultimately, it’s a fun book to read. It takes a commonly known subject and “unpacks” it (for lack of a less used term) to expose the workings of capitalism, the maintenance of gender roles, and the pervasiveness of American civic religion in popular culture.

I found her history of the freak show informative and useful. As circus performers were morally ambiguous (p. 12), what followed (religious revivals) certainly were not and in Lowney’s analysis neither are TV talk shows (aptly described as a modern-day mix of freak show and revival). She states that

Talk shows provide us with public entertainment, a time to play with and then ultimately affirm moral boundaries, and the opportunity to listen to ex-es who tell their stories of despair and then redemption. For that hour we get to live with, be surprised by, if not vicariously experience deviance, all the while safe and secure in our homes (p. 16).

Characters on these shows (real or contrived? This is something that she seems to miss – how many of these people are really actors playing a part? I know from an acquaintance that in New York city actors frequently play roles on talk shows.) are reduced to their problematic behavior. As Lowney notes, their one deviant trait or act is “lifted up for moral judgment” (p. 16). All we see of their lives is their criminal acts, their drinking, their drug abuse, their prostitution or their sexual misconduct. Those deviant acts are presented as the complete identity of the person who came to the show for redemption.

Sinners are converted on talk shows. They make amends, they recant their previous beliefs, they are faced with the repercussions (and victims) of their actions. And in this venue the 12-step mentality dominates (p. 19). Lowney sees the “recovery movement” as a 12-step movement that has infiltrated our understanding of all types of social problems. She often equates it with a therapeutic model, even conflating or joining the two into a “12-step therapeutic model” (p. 19). But, is she justified in this? Is the recovery movement in the U.S. just about 12-step programs and really in league that much with a self-help, therapeutic mindset? She never gives us a justification for this claim. We’re left having to believe it because it rings true to our common sense understanding.

But, I sense that she’s an outsider to both the recovery movement and to the 12-step world of recovery. Yes, both therapy/self-help and 12-step mentalities focus on individual change to the detriment of society. Each, in their own way urge the individual to take responsibility for social problems and to find an individually-based solution to social ills like poverty, child welfare and gender discrimination. Yet, what Lowney overlooks is the fact that 12-step programs also place a high priority on community. They stress the importance of the group and it’s survival. The individual is subjugated to the needs of the group. No one in a 12-step meeting gets to talk about his own concerns unless they fall in line with the priority of the group. In AA, if you’re not interested in dealing with alcoholism, just listen. If your comments are not focused on the program you’ll be set back on track by another member (in or out of the meeting, depending on the perceived severity and timing of your wrongdoing). The group is what is important. Furthermore, much discussion “in the rooms” (a favorite saying of 12-steppers about meetings) centers on healing relationships with their families and friends. While they are focused on their own recovery they are also encouraged to reach out for forgiveness from those they’ve wronged in order to restore broken relationships not just for their own sake as individuals but in order to right the wrongs that society has perpetrated.

Self-help (or the “therapeutic mindset”) in other respects prioritizes the individual to the detriment of his relationships with family or friends. People are encouraged to “heal their inner child” and “do what’s good for them” in an entirely different manner than how recovery is treated in 12-step programs. Historically there has been a sharp divide between therapy and recovery. Hardcore 12-steppers have eschewed any outside interference and certainly any mood-altering drugs, even those prescribed by psychologists. Because of this I remain unconvinced that the “recovery movement” can be conflated with the general trend toward therapeutic solutions to social problems that we see in society.

However, Lowney does have some important insights into what recovery groups achieve. By equating them with religious conversions, she describes how people in recovery come to depend on regular meetings.

The groups provide ‘conversion maintenance’ for ex-victimizers. Participants experience a sense of instantaneous sociability because they have faced the same problem. Meetings provide opportunities for members to talk about their lives before and after conversion. Their discourse constructs a shared worldview that makes their lives up to now – how they have harmed themselves and others – make sense (p. 84)

It’s the talking, however, that she targets as the proposed solution to their addictions. I’m not so sure that 12-step groups (or any recovery group, for that matter) can be reduced to just “talk-therapy.” Much of recovery focuses on changing actions, the “people, places, and things” of the addicts’ live that need sorting out and redirecting. Lowney’s focus on talk shows leads her to characterize 12-step groups (she acknowledges no other type of recovery group) as “all talk” when in fact they are much more.

A strong point of this book, however, is found in chapter 4 where Lowney analyzes the recovery movement’s “basic tenets.” She claims that “Recovery religion affirms five central beliefs:”

1. that one’s own needs must come before the demands of society

2. that families emotionally and spiritually wound children during the socialization process

3. and that those scars carry into adulthood, causing us to be stuck in debilitating behavioral patterns

4. that to heal, we must let go of these private wounds by sharing them with others

5. that these patterns are symptomatic of the disease that ails us – codependency (p. 89).

What is interesting to me about these points is not the way talk shows have forged “Recovery religion” into our collective consciousness as the only way to combat social ills (as Lowney claims) but how these tenets have changed and even created recovery groups. I agree with her that these ideas adequately characterize the dominant forms of recovery in American society but it’s not that simple. The 12-step mentality did not begin with these tenets. We can trace the history of 12-step programs and see how they have been changed and infiltrated by these tenets and how adherents to 12-step programs have sometimes resisted and sometimes embraced these changes. The alternative recovery groups (non 12-step groups like Secular Organization for Sobriety and SmartRecovery) have cast themselves as alternative to both the religious aspects of AA and to the tenets of “Recovery religion.” In a similar manner, elements of the 12-step “world” (Quad A – atheist/agnostic AA, and orthodox, “oldtimers” AA meetings) have also reacted to “Recovery religion’s” tenets. In fact, the proliferation of 12-step programs in the 1980s can be seen as an opening up of 12-step mentality to more therapeutic values and ideas.

The trouble with the book is that Lowney looks at 12-step groups through the lens of talk shows. She condenses 12-step programs down to talk. What’s left out of this analysis is the rest of the program, namely, the “spiritual awakening” that AA promises to its members. According to AA, the mother of all 12-step groups, this awakening comes on an individual level and results in change on a group and social level. The recovering alcoholic is promised peace, happiness, fulfillment and a changed attitude in his everyday life and in his relationships with everyone around him. In the end, the message of the Big Book is not that talking will alleviate your addiction but that God will change your life in everyway, including your will to drink. Yes, that conception of god is broad and can even be broadened to include “god, as you understand him.” But the mystery of AA – the insistence on powerlessness – is centered on an understanding of a spiritual process, not a therapeutic one. For this reason – that 12-step programs seek a spiritual and not a therapeutic source for the alleviation of addictions – I agree with Lowney’s characterization of the “Recovery movement” as an instance of American civil religion (pace Bellah, et al., Lowney, p. 125-6).

Another strong point in Lowney’s analysis of the “Recovery movement” is her insistence that the “civil religion of recovery” (p. 134) comes at a price. With a message of “help yourself but not others” (p. 147) talk shows and recovery groups of all kinds divert us from political action, from challenging the increasingly corporate status-quo, and from a sociologically-informed understanding of the world that recognizes the importance of social institutions and social relations and acknowledges the potential to change them. The political point of Baring Our Souls is well taken.

Back on track and more ciritical than ever!

2006-01-16T13:50:00.000-06:00

I spent most of December travelling. It was useful both mentally and academically. Now I'm just waiting to hear if the national AA archives in NYC will allow me to do research.

In the meantime, I've been setting up contacts in the city and trying to work out a schedule to attend as many meetings as I can. At this point I'm sitting in and just listening, "soaking it up." I've applied to the IRB board and am waiting for them to approve my pilot study.

Here's a bit on an article I read this morning. It reflects my growing critical attitude toward the 12-step approach. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but it's very difficult to immerse yourself in both the 12-step world and the secular one. Over break I read two books by James Christopher (founder of Save OurSelves, or Secular Organization for Sobriety). I have to admit that his argument against the 12-step mentality is pretty strong.

“The Consciousness of Addiction: Toward a General Theory of Compulsive Consumption” (Hirschman 1992)

Hirschman explains addiction as a consciousness which is illustrated by two a priori “themes”

1. serial/simultaneous addictions exist in all addicts

2. stressful life circumstances spark addictive episodes or behaviors

She also categorizes addiction into five “emergent themes”

1. relapse – occurs almost always

2. deception – to hide addictions from self and others

3. dysfunctional families – as a causal factor

4. suicide – a common occurrence

5. boundaries – addicts seal themselves off from families and friends

One of the most interesting factors in this article is how the author handles her own history of addiction. She is forthright about her status as a drug addict and uses that status to gain entry into NA meetings where she becomes a participant observer. She uses “phenomenological inquiry,” taking the participants’ perspective, as they understand it (p. 160). She also triangulates her analysis of the data by including comments from colleagues and noting that others have checked her analysis. The themes she uncovered are regarded by her as “representative of the consciousness of addiction” (p. 161).

She sees addiction in the typical, medical-model way. There is no cure, but lots of “viable remedies.” She gladly takes on the identity of the addict and sees value in doing so in her participants. She focuses on “the different levels of seeing and feeling the phenomenon of addiction” (p. 177), and yet also states that addiction is not just about chemical dependencies. For Hirschman, the disease of addiction stems from childhood experiences in the family, becomes an increasingly debilitating lifestyle, and is rooted in “personal feelings of inadequacy and inauthenticity” (p. 178). She finds a common root in all addictions – “an emotional vacancy” – that is masked by their addictive behavior.

My own project questions some of the basic assumptions put forth by Hirschman. Can we see addictions as just compulsive behaviors? Why must we assume that there is some hidden, underlying personality defect that fuels this type of behavior? Her description of addiction is so strongly rooted in the 12-step mentality and yet it is not hardly acknowledged. Furthermore, her hopes for recovery are weak. As long as the disease model predominates our understanding of addictions our recovery model will also suffer. How can we plan a recovery from something that is rooted in the failures or weaknesses of human nature? In the harshest view, the 12-step mentality sets up a moral war between worldly temptations and tendencies towards selfishness, overindulgence and wickedness and spiritual release, passivity, and unending struggle toward an unattainable perfect ending.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1992. "The Consciousness of Addiction: Toward a General Theory of Compulsive Consumption." Journal of Consumer Research 19:155-179.

2005-11-27T13:40:00.000-06:00

The Transformation of Intimacy (Giddens 1992); "Intimacy as a Double-Edged Phenomenon? An Empirical Test of Giddens (Gross and Simmons 2002)

How do addictions play a role in the modernization process of post-traditional society? For Giddens, modernity (post-traditionalism, in his words) has the potential for “dialogic democracy” wherein individuals fill newly formed dialogic spaces with relationships of trust and intimacy. Addictions only thwart this progress. Addictions are anti-dialogic representations of individual-level obsessions and psychological underdevelopment. The Transformation of Intimacy plots a course for society to transcend its prior, limiting, dependence on tradition and to engage in private, interpersonal relationships that reflect improved relations between individuals and the State. These “pure relationships” are relationships of sexual and emotional equality” (Giddens, 2). Individuals interact freely, “where a social relation is entered into for its own sake, for what can be derived by each person from a sustained association with another; and which is continued only in so far as it is thought by both parties to deliver enough satisfactions for each individual to stay within it” (Giddens, 58). Like the transition described by Durkheim, from mechanical to organic solidarity, ties between people who are separated from one another spatially and temporally take precedence in a de-traditionalized, or global society over local, relationships and habitual action (Gross and Simmons, p. 534).

Intimacy
In a post-traditional society, sexuality, intimate relationships and political identities are melded into a concept of the self. However, this self is fraught with anxiety because of its basis in reflexive thinking and self-referential behavior. With increasing avenues for self-definition the individual is often overwhelmed and becomes distraught at the array of options. This anxiety, for some, is alleviated by addictions. Giddens understands intimacy in an instrumental way. It is no longer simply the result of a long-lasting relationship but an important “means to self-development”(Gross and Simmons, p. 536). It is a dialogic process whereby two people come to an understanding of themselves, individually. Again, addiction thwarts this process, distorts self-reflexivity and hinders intimate relationships, all the while, seeming to provide a defense from the anxiety produced by having too many choices (Giddens, 107). Addictions “may represent ‘a defensive reaction, and an escape, a recognition of lack of autonomy that casts a shadow over the competence of the self’ and which therefore lessens the individual’s unconscious sense of responsibility for, and hence anxiety about, future outcomes” (Gross and Simmons, p. 540, quoting Giddens, 1992: 76).

Compulsions and Addictions
Giddens makes a clear distinction between compulsions and addictions. Addictions are compulsive but “not minor rituals; they colour large areas of an individual’s life…. [Addiction] can be defined as a patterned habit that is compulsively engaged in, withdrawal from which generates an unmanageable anxiety” (Giddens, 71). What is interesting here is the fact that society classifies the alcoholic, yet, all the while he remains unidentified with his compulsion, it’s only in recovery that he adopts a conscious identity with his behavioral urges. It is only after the individual takes a conscious step toward recovery (the first step, in AA’s program – invokes the title “alcoholic”) that he is able to participate in the collective project of identity formation. It is only in recovery that he becomes socialized, tamed into taking on a social classification of “addict.” By attempting to avoid his “lot,” (the outcome of his compulsive behavior) the practicing alcoholic engages in behaviors of refusal and at the same time stays in denial of his true self. He also remains incapable of engaging in “pure relationships.” Addiction is a way to both avoid and refuse without having to consciously acknowledge the avoidance and the refusal.

The Addict as Refusnik
The addict represents an element of society that can’t make the transition to a post-traditional world. He is unable to participate in the collective process of social classification and intensively focused self-reflexivity. He’s stuck in a loop of compulsive behavior that is doubly cursed: it prevents him from self-reflexivity and it only exists (ontologically) as the result of a disruption of tradition. The classification is created and used in order to bring the addict back to the fold of the collective project of self-reflexivity and identity formation. The category or classification of addiction only exists in the face of a “normal” or “correct” mode of action – addiction is the yucky build-up of something that occurs because of the imposition of a new order or as the result of having to cope with a new paradigm of appropriateness (of action). Addiction is two things at once; a new entity (a result of alienation in post-traditional society) and the response to the new entity (self-destruction). Recovery is the process whereby things are made right; the new entity is defined, filled with individuals who atone for their sin against the collective and the self-destruction is acknowledged and reflexively owned by the individual who is then able to transcend it – to rewrite his narrative self and enter into egalitarian, reflexive, intimate relationships (Giddens, 75).

Alcoholics Anonymous, in Giddens’ mind, is a place where addicts “are encouraged to reveal their most private concerns and worries in an open way without fear of embarrassment or an abusive response. The leitmotif of these groups is a rewriting of the narrative self” (Giddens, 75). Of course, society gets to decide which behaviors are addictions – it’s society’s project and the individual can only make sense of it as it relates to broader categories of action. Giddens doesn’t dwell on the fact that collectively, society has overarching interests in a specific type of political and economic order. He assumes that this shared project is focused on egalitarian democracy. The addict’s compulsions stem from his own understanding of himself, but they are measured against the social project of conforming individual action to the collective transformation of action in post-traditional societies. He’s not getting on board, he doesn’t know it, then he is made aware of it and then he places himself in the category that society has already placed upon him.

Consumption identity
In some respects, this relates to the idea of a “consumption identity. ”We identify ourselves according to what we consume, what our preferences or appetites are for consumer products. What we consume helps us define who we are. An over-consumption of an addictive substance defines the addict’s identity and places him in a disadvantaged position in terms of intimate relationships and future political engagement. For Giddens, it’s not just addictive substances, however, but also addictive positions in interpersonal relationships. Codependence is the addiction to the intimate relationship itself. It’s sufferers “do not allow for the monitoring of self and other so vital to the pure relationship” – self-reflexivity (Giddens, 91). Giddens sees psychotherapeutic work on “healing the child within” as also part of the addiction process – patterns of thinking and behavior from dysfunctional families are addictions – elements that individuals remain fixated on instead of maturing and developing intimate relationships in adulthood (Giddens, 103).

One of Giddens more important claims is his notion “that there is a connection between the diffusion of “pure relationships” and the solidification of democratic ideals in the polity. As individuals experience the joys of egalitarian social arrangements in their most intimate relationships, they may carry with them, when they participate in the public sphere, a sense of the importance of these very values” (Gross and Simmons, 539).

The results of Gross and Simmons hypothesis testing were predictable. They sought to show that “pure relationships” do not suffer higher levels of addiction than (traditional) romantic love or (combination of pure and traditional) hybrid relationships. Their analysis of general population survey data did reveal this to be true. However, Gross and Simmons also state that their measure of addictions might be flawed, “our extensive focus on alcohol and drug use – these being the only good measures of addiction in the MIDUS data – might have kept us from observing all the associations Giddens theorizes” (Gross and Simmons, 550). Indeed, do they even measure addiction at all? How can we infer that respondents who report a “dangerous” incident with alcohol or drugs also carry the classification of an “addict?” If my hypothesis is correct, addiction must be measured more fully. The recovery habitus is centered on a self-referential understanding of an addictive past. Those in recovery would seem to be more prone to “pure relationships” as they have already embraced the collective process of the narrative rewriting of the self in order to enter into more satisfying intimate relationships.

I like the connections between interpersonal relationships and engagement in the social order. However, Giddens and I are going to butt heads on what is at stake in civil society (if it exists) and what positions are occupied in this field. When Giddens talks about anxiety I can’t help but think of Marx’s alienation. Giddens’ “third way” seems to me to be a copout, a state without enemies or interests that supercede its citizens’ needs.

In terms of a recovery habitus, I’m intrigued by his emphasis on intimacy. This is a strong current running through AA and also found in S.O.S. (well, in the one meeting I’ve attended so far). The recovering person seeks to restore relationships, gain greater understanding of himself and have more rewarding interactions with his family and friends. The whole process of “hitting bottom” is often described as acutely recognizing the emotional mess the alcoholic has made of his intimate relationships or how he no longer has any intimate relationships. This focus resonates with my understanding of addiction.

The C word

2005-11-10T16:54:00.000-06:00

“Chapters,” he said “chapters!” I know I’m getting a little too excited here but for the first time the advisor voiced the “c” word. After my presentation on Tuesday I was a little discouraged – mostly because I want to be further along than I obviously am. Sometimes the hardest part of academic work is managing your own expectations. I expected to have a full-blown proposal by Jan. 1. Now, I’m not so sure and coming to that realization was emotionally difficult. Wow, I’d better pace myself. This is surely not the last of the disappointments, set-backs, or difficulties I’m going to face in this project! But the fact that he said the “c” word makes me hopeful that this might be shaping up.

I’m still committed to the idea of a “recovery habitus” and it’s even more interesting than I previously thought. I read through Loïc Wacquant’s synopsis (Wacquant, 2004) and was really struck by the uni-directional aspect of a change in habitus. Bourdieu talks about the “fractured habitus” of the Algerians after colonization by the French. Their dispositions simply didn’t match their new environment due to the rapid and violent imposition of a new social order. These Algerians were forced to accommodate, to learn a new way to navigate their social world and accomplish transactions of capital in a new social market with new rules. In a “recovery habitus” however, the changes (just as violent and rapid) are not imposed by some external force but internally by the actor—she places herself in a different position or even in a different field. This is done consciously and at the same time its effects are more than that. The addict cannot anticipate all of the changes that will be wrought on their bodies or in their psyches. So, while habitus is formed and continuously recreated by the relationship between the person (and their position in the social structure) and the environment, their habitus can also begin a process of transformation through their own efforts.

An interesting question to answer is whether or not people acquire different habitus in different positions in the field of recovery. In other words, does the trajectory from AA to recovery result in a different outcome than the trajectory from Moderation Management (MM) to recovery? Probably yes, but what about the differences between the trajectory of Women for Sobriety (WOS) versus Overeater’s Anonymous (OA)? The last two groups have largely female members and stem from AA but might lead to very different sets of dispositions and “categories of judgment and action” (Wacquant, 2004, p. 2). One way that I think Bourdieu would tackle this would be to map the field of recovery and trace the trajectories of these groups. AA would be a central node of power as all other recovery groups orient themselves and define themselves against it. The social distance from OA to AA is small – both are twelve-step organizations, OA consciously carries on the traditions of AA. However, the social distance from WOS to AA is larger/farther as WOS which abandons AA’s 12 steps.

If habitus is transferable and there is a “coherence that obtains, for instance across different realms of consumption” then we might expect the “recovery habitus” to be more unified than different across recovery groups (Wacquant, 2004 p. 2). However, habitus is also very responsive to social conditions and therefore we might expect the “recovery habitus” to be less unified across differing conditions of recovery. We might not even expect men to acquire the same habitus as women or blacks as whites. On some level habitus must be mostly unified because of social layering—or the way we transverse different social environments—and travel through differing social fields.

Lastly, Bourdieu acknowledges the fact that habitus can “misfire” and become “incapable of generating practices confirming to the milieu” (Wacquant, 2004 p. 3). Is this an explanation of deviance? Can we come to a Bourdieuan conception of social deviance or criminality that has an internal trajectory? Specifically, although Wacquant seems (admittedly, I’ve not dug deeply into his argument on criminality) to want to explain deviance in structural terms, as the result of changes of social structure on populations, can we not also explain deviance or criminality as the result of a fractured or broken habitus resulting from behavior and decisions by the actor? I’m not arguing for a “blame the victim” approach by any means but more for an understanding of the possibility of a multi-directional trajectory of changing a habitus.

If dealing with a fractured habitus means learning how to acquire and transact capital in a new environment in some sense acquiring a “recovery habitus” means un-learning or taking oneself out of a social position and re-positioning your body and your mind in a different social space. You abstain. You impose on yourself bodily discipline in a negative sense – taking away instead of adding to – so that the violent and abrupt and rapid change is sourced in your inner, mental and spiritual world and translates to your social world. The recovering alcoholic, for example, begins the journey by making up her mind, by coming to a realization, a spiritual experience, a new way of looking at her life, a process of coming to terms honestly with the reality of her situation. Only after that internal process occurs does she begin reforming her behavior. She no longer drinks, she no longer takes herself to bars or physical environments where drinking occurs. She cuts friends, family members and loved-ones out of her circle of association if they are deemed to be detrimental to her primary purpose of recovery. This is in exact opposition to the process of habitus fracture that Bourdieu explains in Algeria, 1960. It’s also a different process from Wacquant’s experience in the boxing ring (Wacquant, 2004b), (maybe a little less different but still sourced in the internal, personal realm and traveling to the body instead of sourced in the body and traveling to the psyche).

As for capital? It might be a measure of values or traits in AA: the strength of your story, your length of time in sobriety, the extent you can diminish your ego and give service to the group. This could be tracked on the process of reformation/transformation of habitus. Those who transverse groups – the dual-diagnosis, the “meeting addicts” (if they really exist) would help determine the boundaries and limits of the recovery field. And the advisor suggested picking three points or nodes or specific groups which were different from each other as vantage points to the field. So, ideally, I’d find three meetings to attend, one from each of three types of recovery programs. From analyzing these groups I’d be able to see how far and where the trajectory of recovery took you. Overlaps are interesting but so are blank spots – places where one type of recovery program corners the market, so to speak. (Part one) chapter 1 would be a mapping of the field; (part two) chapters 2, 3, 4 would be devoted to my three vantage points; (part three) chapter 5 as broader reflections on habitus and field matches and dynamics of habitus formation and acquisition and; chapter 6 as a summary chapter on the variations of habitus found in recovery.

Of course, it won’t work out that way. But, it’s pretty exciting to think that there’s a reasonable plan and that this whole thing isn’t completely hopeless. Thanks for listening!

Back at square one

2005-11-08T14:36:00.000-06:00

Suggestions from the Politics, Culture and Society workshop today:

Pick either field theory or AA, but don’t try to make them fit together. Bourdieu is impossibly hard to apply to an empirical case.
Compare two programs of recovery – a secular alternative and AA
Compare two types of friendly societies or mutual aid societies – compare the single-strand tie (alcoholic identity that transcends race and class) with multi-strand ties (fraternal order, etc.)
Start a longitudinal study – it’s a good time to begin, early in your career – where do people’s trajectories take them? Do their new ties last? Are there dense or temporary networks? (This would be secondary to the dissertation)
Investigate network ties formed in AA – do they carry outside of the meeting? How far? For how long?
Identities and equality – what type of identities are not mediated within the group? For example, would a gay alcoholic come out in a straight meeting? Are there some identities that are never expressed within the program?
Compare homogeneous groups with heterogeneous groups within AA. How would you measure heterogeniety?
Reconsider conversion theory and the cult-like characteristics of AA – how do alcoholics segment their lives – compare to converts to religion and the segmentation of their lives.
Reconsider social capital theory – I don’t remember why.
How does one acquire habitus? Is there a period of transition from an older habitus to a newer one? What happens in the process of rapid socialization?
Compare those who remain in AA with those who don’t (Rational Recovery is a natural comparison – most left AA for it)

All in all, I’m feeling pretty defeated. I still don’t have a question. If I really do have to choose between Bourdieu and AA I’m not sure what I’d choose. I guess I’ll go read Giddens and look for inspiration.

first contact

2005-11-02T17:36:00.000-06:00

Yesterday
first call to the local city General Service Office of AA:
me: Hi, I used to go to meetings, I got sober in 1988, but I haven't been in a while and I'm wanting to come back but this time as a researcher too. I'm a grad student, researching a dissertation on "recovery." How should I handle this in a meeting? Should I just ask the group if that's ok?
AA office: Uh, well... have you asked your sponsor about it?
me: oh, I don't have a sponsor anymore.
AA office: then, I think the best thing to do is for you to call back after 5:00 and talk to someone else who might be able to help you.
me: (sheepishly) oh, ok.

Well, that, didn't feel so good. I grew worried that this might be a lot harder than I thought.

Today
second call to AA, this time to the National office in NYC:
me: (same story, a little more elaboration, a lot more charm, it can't hurt, right?)
AA office: Oh, well, if you feel like you're at the meeting as more of a researcher than a "regular" person, then you might want to get the group's consensus on it. Of course, if you want to go to an "open" meeting, you're welcome to. Those are for alcoholics and anyone interested in AA for any reason.
me: So, I maybe should just ask?
AA office: yes, it's really up to each meeting to decide what rules they want to set. And in the long run it's really up to what you feel is right because as you know you could just sit there and not say anything. It really depended on what kind of research you wanted to do.
me: oh thanks!

That was much better. Maybe this thing will work afterall! I'm going down to the city this weekend for fun, I'll stop by a meeting at the same time and see how it goes. Now on to that to-do list.

Return of Serve!

2005-11-01T16:19:00.000-06:00

New direction, new take on topic, new set of tasks… After meeting with my advisor today I have a redirected focus. Tentative title: “Metropolis in Recovery” What exactly does this mean? I don’t yet know.

But I am going to do the following things this week to try and get this thing more focused:

Read Giddens, Transformation of Intimacy, Modernity and Self Identity, Beck’s Reflexive Modernization, Collins – on emotional energy, DiMaggio and Powell on institutions, Bourdieu on field, and Lauman’s Sexual Organization of the City.

Get a map of the city and a list of recovery groups in the city limits, map it out.

Ask about the Social Problems literature on alcoholism.

Check the Journal of Contemporary Sociology for book reviews.

Get a reference librarian to help if necessary.

Re-scan reference pages of Mäkelä’s book carefully for sociological sources.

Points to remember:

How many fields are there? In the city? One recovery field of all kinds of groups? One recovery field of 12-step groups* (I favor this answer)? AA as its own field?

How does this relate to civic life in the U.S.? (hint) We’re not bowling alone, we’re going to recovery groups together.

The bodily discipline of recovery

What’s the organization’s history and trajectory? – DiMaggio and Powell

What’s the individual’s trajectory of recovery, how do they travel through the process of habitus reshaping?

How is/was AA a template for other solutions to social problems: voluntary; faith-based; autonomous (in the Bourdiean sense, autonomy from market forces); democratic/egalitarian.

What positions are taken in the field? By whom? With the transaction of what kind of capital?

Focus on folks that bridge the groups – go to more than one group a week is it the same as it was in the 80s?

What about “fakers” those who are “addicted to groups” and might not even be suffering from the addictions they profess.

The catch phrase of the day: “Return of Serve”

I’ve been wandering off course, not actually following through on the advice of my advisor. Today he called me on it and rightfully so. I know when he uses my name that I’m being reprimanded, as in “Rebekah… you’ve got to read Giddens!” Oh Lord! So, as he says, the thing that I have to do to get this done is to follow through and just like in tennis, it’s the “return of serve” that determines a winning player, not just the good ideas or the innovative project. Good thing I'm planning a trip to the city this weekend.

Recap: what do we know so far?

2005-10-31T14:47:00.000-06:00

Recovery habitus: what you get from AA

A diagnosis -- Alcoholism as a categorical condition you're in or out. The disease model either you have it or you don't (Mäkelä, et al).

AA thinking -- as an antidote to the passions (Mäkelä, et al.)

New behavior -- which leads to new beliefs (Mäkelä, et al).

The construction of an existential condition -- (how much does it affect your life? Who shares your malady? What happens when you recover? What is a relapse? What's the risk of relapse? What causes relapse?) (Mäkelä, et al).

a belief system -- which is threatened by intellectualism, politics, the academy, diversity, religion, etc. (Mäkelä et al)

a quasi-religious conversion (Fitcher) and an atmosphere of transcendence through mortification (Rudy)

a philosophy of life-reconstruction -- nurturance and limit setting as very necessary for persons with limited ego skills and strengths (Pattison and Mansell)

an example of Durkheimian religion-- the regulating moral force of the group (Trevino)

a generalized twelve step consciousness (Room)-- emerges in 1980s and spreads from AA to other recovery groups and to a focus on the healing of the planet. Society is generally sick and recovery groups and a twelve step consciousness aims to cure them.

psychological zealotry -- AA as a cult with Bill W as a charismatic leader in Weber's sense (Galanter)

a battle over irrational beliefs-- Ellis' psychology as the basis for Rational Recovery's focus on psychological health. (Galanter)

As promoting a historically embedded concept based on shame, guilt, fear and personal responsibility (prevalent themes of the 1930s). Abstinence as atonement and expiation-- the result of Bill W's personal failure. (Rumbarger)

An identity change accompanied by a way of life (Rudy) -- AA as a ITO (Identity Transformation Organization) acts like social cocoon chosen in order to inculcate a new way of being.

a prototype for a relief -- from the problem of alcoholism, informed by Pragmatism (Rehm)

a paradigm shift -- from temperance to the disease model of alcoholism enacted because of changing social and cultural conditions (the Depression) and the influence of the academy in the study of alcoholism. (Rozien)

a social world -- (Smith reporting on Shibutani)

Alcoholism/Alcohol is characterized by those in recovery or by those analyzing recovery as:

The beast (Ellis, as reported by Galanter)

A defective mode of being (Thune)

Psychological/moral weakness (Fitcher)

an enlarged Ego (Rudy)

Emotional distress (Galanter)

A symbol of a more generalized inability to deal with the social changes in 1930s and the effects of the Depression and financial failure and the resulting self-loathing that failure engendered (Rumbarger)

a disease

great work so far (says she, patting herself on the back) but now what to do with it. I need a question, a research question.... how can I improve on this account of AA? What "added value" (as my partner might have asked when she was still in the corporate world) does Bourdieu's field theory bring to this?

must dig deeper into habitus and field theory... (and find a way to link these sources to a bibliography page so readers can click for the citations.)

Aiming for a proposal

2005-10-31T12:21:00.000-06:00

So, here's what I've been doing of late:

library database searches
printing out relevant articles/checking out books/sending for interlibrary loans
reading, reading, reading
making notes - my favorite approach consists of making a "handbook" of sorts. I stole this idea from a colleague who did it for prelim exam studying. You enter each source as a part of a master document with a brief outline and commentary. If it's a particularly useful and long source (great book) you might have 3 or 4 pages, single-spaced on it. If it's just a generally useful article you might only get a paragraph or two. Your master document is formatted in Word with main headings for each source and subheadings as the material dictates. The best thing about this formatting is the "map" function which gives you the outline of what you've done so far. After working on the master document for a while you might find natural breaks or subjects to further organize your notes around. I generally put my own comments, thoughts to myself in italics in the text or even in contrasting colors. Important stuff is highlighted, I love Word for this. At the end you can index your handbook so that you can find things by author and by topic/keyword.
thinking about where to go and how to get there. This consists of generally, panicky responses to an upcoming meeting with the advisor wherein I have to come up with something to tell him about where I am in the process. He's great at asking questions that direct or re-direct me to where I want to go. It's so early in the dissertation process that the paths seem innumerable. I could go in any of 2000 ways with this stuff.
whining and complaining on this blog about the process - fun!

I am, however, starting to freak that it's already November and getting an actual research question formulated and in proposal-form by January seems impossible. god, I hate to think of dragging this out another semester!

what this disseration might be about

2005-10-29T12:50:00.000-05:00

Here's my first paragraph, crafted to give my advisor an idea of where I think I'm headed...

Alcoholics Anonymous is more than just a social movement, more than a program for recovery from alcoholism, and more than just the result of an interesting historical moment. AA teaches its members how to live as non-drinkers in a world that celebrates alcohol consumption. It inscribes on them a “recovery habitus” that keeps them from drinking and reorients their lives toward organizationally-defined ideas of mental, physical and spiritual health. Written in 1938, three years after the founding of AA, the Twelve Steps serve as a mechanism of social reproduction (an aid in creating a “recovery habitus) within the organization. Participants hear these steps at every meeting. Many of the answers to newcomer’s immediate questions about recovery are answered by reciting one of the steps. The authors of Alcoholics Anonymous as a Mutual-help Movement : A study in eight societies* describe steps one, two, and three as decision steps; steps four through nine as action steps; and steps ten through twelve as continuing or maintenance steps. In other words, the first three steps orient the self-described alcoholic to resignation or “powerless” over the disease of alcoholism. Steps four through nine proscribe specific behavior that the alcoholic needs to take in order to enter the process of recovery from the disease. Finally, the last three steps ensure the future of the organization and the continued success of the recovering alcoholic individual. These steps and the many supporting mottos (including the Twelve Traditions) that AA promotes contribute to the creation of a “recovery habitus” within the organization and explicitly orient individual members towards a collective goal. The “recovery habitus” a recovering alcoholic obtains propels her to think, feel and act in a different manner than before she entered an AA meeting. Her life becomes partitioned into pre-AA days and post-AA ones. Her understanding of her own trajectory from addict to recovering alcoholic is cast in light of the moment she “hits bottom” and takes the first of those Twelve Steps.

*Mäkelä, Klaus, Alcoholics Anonymous., and World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. 1996. Alcoholics Anonymous as a Mutual-help Movement: A study in eight societies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

off to a good start

2005-10-28T00:23:00.000-05:00

Dissertation meetings cancelled by me: 1
Dissertation meetings cancelled by my advisor: 2

But, who's counting, really? All meetings have been re-scheduled, it's all good.

My advisor's approach to getting started on a dissertation consists of doing a lot of reading on the subject and then writing a paragraph about what you learn. One paragraph per meeting, meet every week or every other week. By the end of the semester somehow I should/need to have a proposal. Does this sound reasonable? Do other people start the process like this? It seems to be working so far but it also seems to be going really slow.

In the end, will I have paragraphs that go together and magically form a proposal? I guess it IS a start. And, already I find myself tweaking things and refining ideas and narrowing the focus in a good way so I guess it is working.

It's just such a weird process. Read every day, write reviews/notes and synthesize information to find the gaps, the holes, the things that someone else has overlooked. And hope to god, of course, that you can come up with an original idea.

At some point a couple of years ago I decided that I DO like to work alone. I DO like to sit in a quiet room, isolated from other people and read and write. It's a weird life but you know, after all those years of waitressing and nannying and serving other people it feels really good to do work just for me.

Inagural Post

2005-10-27T13:04:00.000-05:00

So, I've started my dissertation. I've ordered books from the library. They have arrived. I've read some of these books already. I've ordered articles from the library. They too have arrived. I've even figured out how to download them from the library's web site. I've also figured out how to pay for them with my Wiscard. It's cool. And, I've read some of them.

I've had two meetings with my advisor in the last 30 days. They have been both encouraging and fruitful. He's encouraged me to pursue a specific topic and our conversations have helped hone my topic into an idea of sorts. Having a "good" advisor is everything. I spent a couple of years thinking about and persuing the "right" person. It's definitely paid off!

Now, I've got a glimmer of an idea, I've done some preliminary reading on the wider topic. And, I've committed myself to presenting at least an idea and some questions at a "brownbag" here at UW on Nov. 8. Now what?

The panic sets in....

citations

2005-09-01T14:45:00.000-05:00

1949. Caux; report of the World Assembly for Moral Re-armament, 1949. Caux-sur Montreux. editions de Caux BJ10M6W6

1976. Alcoholics Anonymous : the story of how many thousands of men and women have recovered from alcoholism. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services.

Abcarian, Gilbert, and Sherman M. Stanage. 1965. "Alienation and the Radical Right." The Journal of Politics 27:776-796.

Abel, Theodore. 1941. [review of The Psychology of Social Movements by Hadley Cantril] American Sociological Review 6:914-915.

Alcoholics Anonymous World Services inc. 1984. "Pass it on" : the story of Bill Wilson and how the A.A. message reached the world. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services.

Alcoholics Anonymous. 1953. Twelve steps and twelve traditions. [New York]: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services.

B., Dick. 1995. The Good Book and the Big book : A.A.'s roots in the Bible. Kihei, Maui, Hawaii: Paradise Research Publications. HV5278 .B25 1995

B, Dick. 1997. Turning point : a history of early A.A.'s spiritual roots and successes. Kihei, Maui, Hawaii: Paradise Research Publications. HV 4460.5 B191997 Ohio State, ILL

B., Dick. 1998. The Oxford Group & Alcoholics Anonymous : a design for living that works. Kihei, Maui, Hawaii: Paradise Research Publications. BV 4487 09 B3 1998 Andover Newton Theological School, ILL,

B, Mel. 1998. Ebby : the man who sponsored Bill W. Center City, MN: Hazelden. PAM 02-3212

B, Dick. 1999. New light on alcoholism : God, Sam Shoemaker, and A.A. Kihei, Maui, Hawaii: Paradise Research Publications. 362.29286 Atlanta Fulton Library ILL

B, Dick. 2000. By the power of God : a guide to early A.A. groups & forming similar groups today. Kihei, Maui, Hawaii: Paradise Research Publications. HV 5278.B342000 Rutgers, ILL

B, Dick. 2001. Why Early A.A. Succeeded: the good book in Alcoholics Anonymous yesterday and today (a Bible study primer for AAs and other 12-steppers). Kihei, Maui, Hawaii: Paradise Research Publications. HV 5278.A782001 Rutgers, ILL

Bateson, Gregory. 1971. “The Cybernetics of ‘Self’: A theory of Alcoholism.” Psychiatry 34: 1-18. requested via. Library Express, 10/17/05

Begbie, Harold. 1909. Twice-born men, a clinic in regeneration; a footnote in narrative to Professor William James's "The varieties of religious experience". New York, Chicago: Fleming H. Revell company. BV 4915 B4 1909b

Begbie, Harold. 1932. Life changers; narratives of a recent movement in the spirit of personal religion. London: Mills & Boon.

Bernard, L. L. 1939. "Religion as Men Have Seen It." Social Forces 17:564-567.

Bernard, Joel. 1980. [review] “The American Drinking Tradition” Reviews in American History 8:2:206-214.

Bishop, Charles and Pittman, Bill. 1989. The annotated bibliography of Alcoholics Anonymous, 1939-1989. Wheeling, W. Va.; Bishop of Books. ZWM274B622a

Bishop, Charles. 1994. To be continued--: The Alcoholics Anonymous world bibliography, 1935-1994. Wheeling, W. Va.; Bishop of Books. Ordered from amazon, 10/27/05

Blumberg, Leonard. 1977. “The ideology of a therapeutic social movement: Alcoholics Anonymous.” Journal of Studies in Alcohol 38: 122-43. requested via library express, 10/17/05

Blumberg, Leonard U., and Bill Pittman. 1991. Beware the first drink! : the Washington temperance movement and Alcoholics Anonymous. Seattle, Wash.: Glen Abbey Books. HV 5296B79

Boobbyer, Philip. 1995. [review of Religion: The Missing Dimension of Statecraft by Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson (eds)] International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 71:606-607.

Braden, Charles Samuel. 1949. These also believe; a study of modern American cults & minority religious movements. New York,: Macmillan Co. BR 516 B697

Brady, Robert A. 1949. [review of The Legend of Henry Ford by Keith Sward]The Journal of Economic History 9:215-217.

Brandes, Stanley H. 2002. Staying sober in Mexico City. Austin: University of Texas Press. HV5283M62M483

Buchman, Frank Nathan Daniel. 1961. Remaking the World: the speeches of Frank N. D. Buchman. London: Blandford Press.

Bufe, Charles, and Albert Ellis. 1991. Alcoholics Anonymous : cult or cure? San Francisco: See Sharp Press.

Burgess, J. Stewart. 1944. "The Study of Modern Social Movements as a Means for Clarifying the Process of Social Action." Social Forces 22:269-275.

Cain, Carole. 1991. "Personal Stories: Identity Acquisition and Self-Understanding in Alcoholics Anonymous." Ethos 19:210-253.

Campbell, Paul B., Howard, Peter. Remaking men. New York. Arrowhead Books. J10M6C3

Campbell, Paul B., Howard, Peter. 1957. America needs an ideology. London: F. Muller.

Cantril, Hadley. 1973. The psychology of social movements. Huntington, N.Y.,: R. E. Krieger Pub. Co.

Cheever, Susan. 2004. My name is Bill : Bill Wilson : his life and the creation of Alcoholics Anonymous. New York: Simon & Schuster. HV 5032 W19 C44

Clark, Norman H. 1980. [review of Intemperance: the Lost War Against Liquor; Not God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous; The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition] The American Historical Review 85:1003-1004.

Clark, Walter Houston. 1951. The Oxford group, its history and significance. New York,: Bookman Associates. DD45V542

Co, founder, and Bill W. 1957. Alcoholics Anonymous comes of age. New York,: Harper

Crossman, R. H. S. 1934. Oxford and the groups; the influence of the groups. Oxford,: B. Blackwell. BV4915C7

Dalton, R. J., & M. Kuechler, eds. 1990. Challenging the political order : new social and political movements in western democracies. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990.

Davies, Horton. 1954. Christian deviations; essays in defence of the Christian faith. London,: SCM Press.

Davis, Kenneth G. 1994. Primero Dios : Alcoholics Anonymous and the Hispanic community. Selinsgrove [Pa.]: Susquehanna University Press. HV5278D38

Denzin, Norman K. 1987. Treating alcoholism : an Alcoholics Anonymous approach. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. HV52790443

Denzin, Norman K. 1987. The recovering alcoholic. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. HV5279 D44 1987

Dinger, Clair M. 1961. “Moral Re-Armament: A study of its Technical and Religious Nature in the Light of Catholic Teaching” dissertation Washington, D.C.,: The Catholic University of America Press. BR 45 C3 118-121

Driberg, Tom. 1964. The mystery of Moral Re-armament; a study of Frank Buchman and his movement. London,: Secker & Warburg. BJ10M6D7

Durkheim, Emile. 1974 []. Sociology and Philosophy. New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, Emile. 1977[1938]. The evolution of educational thought : lectures on the formation and development of secondary education in France. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Durkheim, Emile, Pickering, W. S. F. 1975. Durkheim on religion : a selection of readings with bibliographies. London ; Boston: Routledge & K. Paul. BL50 .D85 1975

Eister, Allan W. 1945. The Oxford Group Movement : a typological analysis.

—. 1950. Drawing-room conversion; a sociological account of the Oxford Group movement. Durham,: Duke University Press. CGVE18

Edwards, Lyford P. 1937. [review of Group Movements Throughout the Ages.] American Journal of Sociology 42 (6): 953.

Ekman, Nils Gösta. 1972. Experiment with God: Frank Buchman reconsidered. London,: Hodder and Stoughton.BJ10M6E3813

Ekstrand, Sixten. 1993. Tro och moral : Oxfordgrupprörelsen och MRA i Finland 1932-1955. Åbo: Åbo akademis förlag. BJ10M6E48

Entwistle, Basil, Roots, John McCook. 1967. Moral re-armament; what is it? Los Angeles: Pace Publications.

Field, Clive D. 1987. [review of Voluntary Religion W.J. Shiels and Diana Wood (eds)] English Historical Review 102:951-953.

Fichter, Joseph Henry. 1976. " Parallel conversions : Charismatics and recovered alcoholics." Christian Century 93: 148-150.

Fingarette, H. 1988. Heavy Drinking: The myth of alcoholism as a disease. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. HV5292 F56 1988

Foot, Stephen. 1935. Life began yesterday. New York, London,: Harper & brothers.

Forcehimes, Alyssa A. 2004. "De profundis: Spiritual transformations in Alcoholics Anonymous." Journal of Clinical Psychology; Brandon 60:503.

Foss, Hannen, Johnson, William Cameron. 1953. Where do we go from here? New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.

Fox, Selena. 1995. When Goddess is God : pagans, recovery, and Alcoholics Anonymous.

Galanter, Marc. “Cults and zealous self-help movements: a psychiatric perspective.” The American Journal of Psychiatry. 147 (5): 543-51.

Galanter, M. & H.D. Kleber, eds. Textbook of substance treatment.

Galanter, M., S. Egelko, & H. Edwards. 1983. “Rational Recovery: Alternative to AA for addiction?” The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 19(4): 499-510.

Galanter, M. ed. Recent developments in alcoholism: Vol. 5. memory deficits, sociology of treatment, ion channels, early problem drinking, New York & London: Plenum. Q 7R233

Geiger, Til, Richard Hawkins, and Michael Partridge. 1988. "List of Publications on the Economic and Social History of Great Britain and Ireland Published in 1987." Economic History Review 41:603-636.

Gellman, Irving Peter. 1964. The sober alcoholic; an organizational analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous. New Haven,: College and University Press. HV5278A78G4

Giddens, Anthony. 1971. Capitalism and modern social theory; an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge [Eng.]: University Press. HM19 .G53

Giddens, Anthony. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Goode, William J. 1957. "Community Within a Community: The Professions." American Sociological Review 22:194-200.

Greil, Arthur L. and David R. Rudy. 1983. “Conversion to the world view of Alcoholics Anonymous: A refinement of the conversion theory.” Qualitative Sociology 6: 5-28.

Grant, Edwin E. 1925. "Scum from the Melting-Pot." American Journal of Sociology 30:641-651.

Gross, Neil, Solon Simmons. 2002. "Intimacy as a Double-Edged Phenomenon? An Empirical Test of Giddens" Social Forces, December 2002, 81 (2) 531-555.

Guldseth, Mark. 1982. Streams : the flow of inspiration from Dwight Moody to Frank Buchman. Homer, Alaska. M.O. Guldseth.

Gusfield, Joseph R. 1996. Contested meanings : the construction of alcohol problems. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. HV5292G77 1996

Hartigan, Francis. 2000. Bill W. : a biography of Alcoholics Anonymous cofounder Bill Wilson. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press.

Hazlewood, Arthur. 1963. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 39:431-432.

Heberle, Rudolf. 1949. "Observations on the Sociology of Social Movements." American Sociological Review 14:346-357.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1992. "The Consciousness of Addiction: Toward a General Theory of Compulsive Consumption." Journal of Consumer Research 19:155-179.

Horton Smith, David and Karl Pillemer. 1983. “Self-help groups as social movement organizations: social structure and social change.” in Research in social movements, conflicts and change, vol. 5. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Hovelsen, Leif. 1959. Out of the Evil Night.. London,: Blandford Press.

Howard, Peter. 1946. That man Frank Buchman. London,: Blandford Press.

—. 1951. The world rebuilt; the true story of Frank Buchman and the achievements of moral re-armament. New York,: Duell Sloan and Pearce.

—. 1962. Frank Buchman’s Secret. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday. BJ10M6H567

Ivy, Marilyn. 1993. "Have You Seen Me? Recovering the Inner Child in Late Twentieth-Century America." Social Text:227-252.

Jaeger, Clara. 1968. Annie Jaeger Tells Her Own Story.. Pinner, Middlesex, UK: Grosvenor Books.

Jaeger, Clara. 1995. Never to Lose My Vison: The Story of Bill Jaeger. London: Grosvenor Books.

James, William. 1897. The will to believe, and other essays in popular philosophy. New York [etc.]: Longmans, Green, and Co. B 945 J23 W5 1897

Jensen, George H. 2000. Storytelling in Alcoholics Anonymous : a rhetorical analysis. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. HV5278J45

Johnson, B. H. 1973. “The alcoholism movement in America: A study in cultural innovation.” Ph. D. diss. University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.

Johnston, Douglas; Sampson, Cynthia; Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington D.C.). 1995. Religion, the missing dimension of statecraft. New York: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, H. C. 1987. “Alcoholics Anonymous n the 1980s: Variations on a theme.” Ph. D. diss. University of California, Los Angeles. Proquest # AAT 8721038

Johnson, Linda L. 1996. .[review of A New Woman of Japan: A Political Biography of Kato Shidzude by Helen M. Hopper] Monumenta Nipponica 51:387-388.

Jones, Robert Kenneth. 1970. “Sectarian Characteristics of Alcoholics Anonymous.” Sociology 4: 181-95.

Kasl, C. D. 1992. Many roads, one journey: Moving beyond the 12 steps. New York: Harper Perennial. RC533 K365 1992

Katz, Alfred H. 1981. "Self-Help and Mutual Aid: An Emerging Social Movement?" Annual Review of Sociology 7:129-155.

Katz, A. H. 1993. Self-help in America: A social movement perspective. New York: Twayne Publishers. HV547 K369 1993

Kett, Joseph F. 1981. "Temperance and Intemperance as Historical Problems." The Journal of American History 67:878-885.

Kitchen, Victor Constant. 1934. I was a pagan. New York,: Harper & brothers.

Koenig, Samuel. 1939. "The Social Aspects of the Jewish Mutual Benefit Societies." Social Forces 18:268-274.

Kurtz, Ernest. 1979. Not-God : a history of Alcoholics Anonymous. Center City, Minn.: Hazelden Educational Services. WM11AA1K9N

Kurtz, Ernest. 1988. A.A. : the story. San Francisco: Harper & Row. HV 5278 K84 1988

Kurtz, Ernie. 1999. The collected Ernie Kurtz. Wheeling, WV: Bishop of Books. HV 5279 K87 1999.

Kramer, R. M. 1981. Voluntary agencies in the welfare state. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. HV40 K68

Landis, Benson Y. 1933. "Organized Religion." American Journal of Sociology 38:905-912.

Layman with a, notebook, and Laurence William Grensted. 1933. What is the Oxford Group? London,: Oxford University Press. BV4915W48

Lean, Garth. 1985. Frank Buchman : a life. London: Constable. [and also published in the U.S. as On the Tail of a Comet: The Life of Frank Buchman, 1988.

Lean, Garth. 1964. John Wesley, Anglican. London: Blandford Press.

Lender, M. E. & J. K. Martin. 1982. Drinking in America: A history. New York: The Free Press. HV5292 L4 1987

Levine, H. 1985. “The Discovery of Addiction: Changing Conception of Habitual Drunkenness in America

Levine, H. 1992. “Temperance cultures: Concern about alcohol problems in Nordic and English-speaking cultures” in M. Lader, G. Edwards, & D.C. Drummond, eds. The Nature of alcohol and drug related problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levine, Lawrence. 1983. “American Culture and the Great Depression,” The Yale Review (1983): 196-223.

Lofland, John and Rodney Stark. 1965. “Becoming a World-Saver: A Theory of Conversion to a Deviant Perspective.” American Sociological Review. 30: (6) 862-875.

Lowney, Kathleen S. 1999. Baring our souls : TV talk shows and the religion of recovery. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Madsen, William. 1974. The American alcoholic; the nature-nurture controversy in alcoholic research and therapy. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas. HV 5035 M34 2

Mäkelä, Klaus, Alcoholics Anonymous., and World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. 1996. Alcoholics Anonymous as a mutual-help movement : a study in eight societies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Makela, K. et al., 1981. Alcohol, society, and the state: 1. A comparative study of alcohol control. Toronto: Addiction research Foundation. HV5082 A45 1981

Marcel, Gabriel. 1960. Fresh hope for the world: moral re-armament in action. [London]: Longmans.

Marshall, M. 1979. Beliefs, behaviors, and alcoholic beverages. Ann Arbor.: University of Michigan Press. GT 2884 B44 1979

Maxwell, Milton A. 1984. The Alcoholics Anonymous experience : a close-up view for professionals. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McAfee, Wallace T. 1952. Alcoholics Anonymous: an evaluative study. Chicago,: University of Chicago.

McCrady, Barbara S., and William R. Miller. 1993. Research on Alcoholics Anonymous : opportunities and alternatives. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies. HV5278R47

McGovern, John. 1960. Neither Fear nor Favor. London: Blandford Press. DA5669M32

McLeod, Hugh. 1992. “Varieties of Victorian Belief” The Journal of Modern History. 64: 321-337.

Melucci, A. 1989. Nomads of the present; Social movements and individual needs in contemporary society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. HN16 M38 1989

Miller, Toby, and Alec McHoul. 1998. "Helping the Self." Social Text:127-155.

Monahan, Molly. 2005. "A Faith that Works." Human Development 26:12.

Moore, David. “Deconstructing ‘dependence’: and ethnographic critique of an influential concept” Contemporary Drug Problems. 19: 459-90.

Moral Re-Armament (Organization). 1954. The Oxford Group and its work of moral re-armament. [London,. BJ 10 M6 08

Mowat, R. C. 1955. Report on moral re-armament. London,: Blandford Press.

Mowat, R. C. 1988. Spiritual Forces in International Politics. Oxford,: New Cherwell Press.

Murray, Robert H. 1935. Group movements throughout the ages. London,: Hodder and Stoughton limited. A10171

Nichols, Beverly. 1936. The Fool Hath Said. Garden City, N.Y. Doubleday Doran & co.

Nowak, John M. 1998. Sobriety amen : growth beyond the initial spiritual experience. Chino Valley, Ariz.: Providence Two.

O'Halloran, Sean. 2005. "Symmetry in interaction in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous: the management of conflict." Discourse & Society; London 16:535.

Orange, Cynthia. 2004. "Recovery principles could help nation end divisiveness." Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly 16:5.

O'Reilly, Edmund B. 1997. Sobering tales : narratives of alcoholism and recovery. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Peele, Stanton. 1998. “All wet: the gospel of abstinence and twelve-step, studies show, is leading American alcoholics astray.” The Sciences 38 (2): 17-22.

Peele, Stanton. 1989. Diseasing of America : addiction treatment out of control. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. RC 564 P43 1989.

Peterson, John H Jr. 1992. “The International Origins of Alcoholics Anonymous.” Contemporary Drug Problems. 19: (1) 53-74.

Petrunik, Michael G. 1972. “Seeing the light: A study of conversion to Alcoholics Anonymous.” Journal of Voluntary Action Research 1: 30-38.

Pickering, W. S. F. 1984. Durkheim's sociology of religion : themes and theories. London ; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. BL60 .P53 1984

Piguet, Charles and Michael Sentis. 1982. The World at the Turning: Experiments with Moral Re-Armament. London: Grosvenor Books.

Phillips, Julianne. 1973. Alcoholics Anonymous: an annotated bibliography, 1935-1972. [n.p.,: Central Ohio Pub. Co.

Piguet, Charles and Michael Sentis. 1982 The World at the Turning: Experiments with Moral Re-Armament. London: Grosvenor Books.

Pittman, Bill. 1988. AA, the way it began. Seattle, WA: Glen Abbey Books. HV5278P57

—. 1988. Stepping stones to recovery. Seattle, WA: Glen Abbey Books.

Poage, E Don, Kay E Ketzenberger, and James Olson. 2004. "Spirituality, contentment, and stress in recovering alcoholics." Addictive Behaviors; Oxford 29:1857.

Polcin, Douglas L, and Sarah Zemore. 2004. "Psychiatric severity and spirituality, helping, and participation in alcoholics anonymous during recovery." The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse; New York 30:577.

Pollock, James K. 1942. [review of I Paid Hitler by Fritz Thyssen] The American Political Science Review 36:767-768.

Powys, Llewelyn. 1935. Damnable opinions. London,: Watts & co.

Putnam, Robert D. Democracies in flux : the evolution of social capital in contemporary society. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Ragge, Ken. More revealed : a critical analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous and the twelve steps. Henderson, NV: Alert! Pub.

Reed-Danahay, Deborah. 2004. "Tristes Paysans: Bourdieus' Early Ethnography in Bearn and Kabylia." Anthropological Quarterly 77:87-106.

Rehm, Jurgen. 1993. “Don’t think: Believe and Act! The derivation from philosophical pragmatism of the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous.” Addiction Research 1: 109-118.

Reissman, F., & A. Garnder. 1987. “The Surgeon General and the self-help ethos.” Social Policy 18: 23-35.

Roberts, David A. 1971. "The Orange Order in Ireland: A Religious Institution?" British Journal of Sociology 22:269-282.

Robertson, Nan. 1988. Getting better, inside alcoholics anonymous. New York: Morrow. HV5278R59

Robinson, David. 1979. Talking out of alcoholism : the self-help process of Alcoholics Anonymous. London: Croom Helm. HV5278R6

Robertson, R. 1970. The Sociological interpretation of religion New York: Schocken. BL60 R59

Room, R. 1987. “The great controlled drinking controversy” in M. Galanter, ed., Recent developments in alcoholism: Vol. 5.

Room, R. 1978. “Governing images of alcohol and drug problems; the structure, sources, and sequels of conceptualizations of intractable problems.” Ph. D. diss. , University of California, Berkeley. AAT 7914745 on dissertation abstracts = $38

Room, R. 1983. Sociological aspects of the disease concept of alcoholism. In R. G. Smart, F. B. Glaser, Y. Israel, H. Kalant, R. E. Popham, & W. Schmidt, eds., Research Advances in alcohol and drug problems, vol. 7, pp. 47-91. New York: Plenum Press.

Room, R. 1984. “A ‘reverence for strong drink’: the Lost Generation and the elevation of alcohol in American life,” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 45:540-546.

Room, Robin. 1992. “’Healing ourselves and our planet’: the emergence and nature of a generalized twelve-step consciousness” Contemporary Drug Problems. 19 (4): 717-40.

Room, Robin and Thomas Greenfield, “Alcoholics Anonymous, other 12-step movements, and psychotherapy in the U.S. general population, 1990” British Journal of Addiction, 84 (4): 555-562.

Rotskoff, Lori. 2002. Love on the rocks : men, women, and alcohol in post-World War II America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. WM11AA1R849L

Roizen, Ronald Peter Boris William. 1991. "The American discovery of alcoholism, 1933-1939." Unpublished dissertation. University of California at Berkeley. Dept. of Sociology. HIST COLL HV5292 R741 1991

Rudy, David R. 1986. Becoming alcoholic : Alcoholics Anonymous and the reality of alcoholism. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. HV52970443

Rudy, David R. and Arthur L. Greil. 1987. “Taking the pledge: the commitment process in Alcoholics Anonymous” Sociological Focus 20: 45-59.

Rudy, D. R. & A. L. Greil. 1989. “Is Alcoholics Anonymous a religious organization? Meditations on marginality” Sociological Analysis 50 (1): 41-51.

Rumbarger, John J. “The ‘story’ of Bill W: ideology, culture, and the discovery of the modern American alcoholic.” Contemporary Drug Problems. 20 (4): 759-82.

Rumbarger, John J. Profits, power, and prohibition : alcohol reform and the industrializing of America, 1800-1930. Atlanta: State University of New York Press. HV 5089 R84 1989.

Russell, Arthur J. 1932. For sinners only. New York and London: Harper & brothers.

Shanas, Ethel. 1950. [review of Drawing Room Conversion: A Sociological Account of the Oxford Group Movement by Allan W. Eister]American Journal of Sociology 56:122.

Schaef, A. Wl. 1987. When society becomes an addict. San Francisco: Harper and Row. BF575 D34 S33 1987

Sharma, Manoj, and Manoj00 Sharma. 2005. "Exploring the spiritual experience in the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous Spiritus contra spiritum." Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education 49:85.

Shoemaker, Samuel M., Pittman, Bill, B, Dick. 1994. Courage to change : the Christian roots of the 12-step movement. Grand Rapids, Mich: F.H. Revell.

Sigmund, Paul E. 1973. [review of Ideology and Moral Philosophy by K. Bruce Miller]The American Political Science Review 67:605-606.

Smith, A. R. 1993. “The social construction of group dependency in Alcoholics Anonymous” The Journal of Drug Issues 23 (4): 689-704. HN1 R47

Spode, Hasso. 1994. “The first step toward sobriety: The ‘Boozing Devil’ in sixteenth-century Germany.” Contemporary Drug Problems. 21 (3): 453-83.

Steinfels, Peter. 1990. “Clerics wonder whether religion can learn lessons from recovery programs for addicts” New York Times. April 28, 1990, p. 11.

Stewart, George. 1925. Life of Henry B. Wright. New York: Association press.

Stewart, Robert G. 1974. Radiant smiles in the dirty thirties : history and ideology of the Oxford Group movement in Canada, 1932-1936.

Strong, Arthur. 1994. Preview of a new world : how Frank Buchman helped his country move from isolation to world responsibility. Sweden: A. Strong.

Taylor, George Aiken. 1953. A sober faith; religion and Alcoholics Anonymous. New York,: Macmillan. HV5275.T3

Taylor, Verta. 1999. "Gender and Social Movements: Gender Processes in Women's Self-Help Movements." Gender and Society 13:8-33.

Thomsen, Robert. 1975. Bill W. New York: Harper & Row.

Thornton-Duesbery, J. P.. 1964. The open secret of MRA; an examination of Mr. Driberg
critical examination" of Moral Re-armament. London., Blandford Press.

Tonigan, J. Scott., W.R. Miller and Carol Schermer. 2002. “Atheists, Agnostics and Alcoholics Anonymous.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol. September 2002: 534-41.

Toy, E. V., Jr. 1969. "The National Lay Committee and the National Council of Churches: A Case Study of Protestants in Conflict." American Quarterly 21:190-209.

Trice, H. M. 1957. “Sociological Factors in Association with AA.” The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 48 (4): 378-86.

Trice, H. M. & P.M. Roman. 1970. “Sociopsychological predictors of affiliation with Alcoholics Anonymous.” Social Psychiatry 5 (1): 51-59.

Trice, H. M. & P.M. Roman. 1970. “Delabeling, relabeling, and Alcoholics Anonymous” Social Problems 17 (4): 538-546.

Trice, Harrison Miller. 1955. A study of the process of affiliation with Alcoholics Anonymous.

Vaillant, George E. 2005. "Alcoholics Anonymous: cult or cure?" Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 39:431-436.

Voldeng, Karl Edward. 1962. Recovery from alcoholism. Chicago,: H. Regnery Co. RC565V6

W, Bill, J, and Alcoholics Anonymous. 1996. A simple program : a contemporary translation of the book Alcoholics Anonymous. New York: Hyperion.

Wacquant, Loïc. 2004. "Habitus." in International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology, edited by Milan Zafirovski. London: Routledge.

Wacquant, Loïc J. D. 2004. Body & soul : notebooks of an apprentice boxer. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Warner, Jessica. “Before there was ‘alcoholism’: lessons learned from the medieval experience with alcohol.” Contemporary Drug Problems. 19 (3): 409-429.

Warren, Richard. 2002. The purpose-driven life : what on earth am I here for? Grand Rapids, Mich. Zondervan. BV 4501.3 W37 2002

White, William L. 2004. "Addiction recovery mutual aid groups: an enduring international phenomenon." Addiction; Abingdon 99:532.

Whitley, O. R. 1977. “Life with Alcoholics Anonymous: The Methodist class meeting as a paradigm.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 38: 831-848.

Wilcox, Danny M. 1998. Alcoholic thinking : language, culture, and belief in Alcoholics Anonymous. Westport, CT: Praeger. HV5045W55

Wilkerson, Albert Ernest. 1966. A history of the concept of alcoholism as a disease. Thesis--University of Pennsylvania. WM 274 W681h 1966F

Williamson, Geoffrey. 1954. Inside Buchmanism; an independent inquiry into the Oxford Group movement and moral re-armament. London,: Watts. B310M6W5

Wriglesworth, Chad, 2004. "Raymond Carver and Alcoholics Anonymous: The Narrative under the Surface of Things?" Religion & the Arts 8:458.

Yalisove, Daniel. 1998. “The origins and evolution of the disease concept of treatment.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 59 (4): 469.

Yu, Lin. 1936. "Self Ethical Issues Confronting World Christians. Fleming, Daniel Johnson" Pacific Affairs 9:3: 498-500.

Zablocki, Benjamin D. 1990. [review of Cults: Faith, Healing and Conversion by Mark Galanter] Contemporary Sociology: An International Journal of Reviews 19:260-261.

Zald, M. N. & P. Denton. 1963. “From Evangelism to general service: the transformation of the YMCA.” Administrative Science Quarterly 8: 214-234.

Zemore, Sarah E, and Lee Ann Kaskutas. 2004. "Helping spirituality and Alcoholics Anonymous in recovery." Journal of Studies on Alcohol; New Brunswick 65:383.