Stanton Peele: Dr. Beast at Large by Jack Trimpey
Reprinted from The Journal of Rational Recovery, July - August, 1997Stanton Peele, Ph.D., a social scientist, was one of the first to publish materials critical of the recovery group movement and the addiction treatment industry. His groundbreaking exposé, The Diseasing of America: Addiction Treatment Out of Control, summarized many shortcomings and problems of 12-step programming, and many people have gained important insights from reading his well-written works.
In a subsequent book, The Truth About Addiction and Recovery, Peele offers his own vision of addiction recovery, and calls it the Life Process approach. In brief, Life Process is what its name suggests, an amorphous collection of indirect remedies for common life problems which, he believes, lead to habitual self-intoxication. At the core, the Life Process approach presumes that moderation in all things is good, a wiser and gentler approach than planned abstinence. As a purveyor of recovery advice, Peele is the scientist from hell, bristling with charts, graphs, mile-long bibliographies, lists, references, and turgid footnotes. For people with serious drinking or drug addictions, according to Peele, moderation just happens when people come to believe in their ability to have just a few now and then, provided they also live life according to wholesome attitudes and behaviors. "The unnecessary high cost of recovery," he dubs abstinence, suggesting that planned, permanent abstinence actually disposes one to failure. Yesssss. Just a little more. It won't hurt you, and I have the stats to prove it.
For a number of years, RR has distanced itself from professionals of all stripes, preferring to turn the problem of addiction over to the real experts - formerly-addicted, self-recovered individuals. I have written extensively about the difficulty that helping professionals have understanding the simple concepts of AVRT, and about how many of them, for whatever reason, become merchants of misguidance.
AVRTers who have read Rational Recovery: The New Cure For Substance Addiction may appreciate the following clipping netted from a public recovery forum on the internet. Dr. Peele did not address his misunderstandings to me, but posted them online. Compared to the internet, The Journal of Rational Recovery reaches only a tiny readership, but hard copy is, well, hard to beat when it comes to nitty-gritty discourse. All of the questions and statements were consecutive in the original, and I have broken them apart and put them in bold type for block response.
I never understood how telling people that unwise choices stem from their "midbrain" helps them.
This is exactly why RR excludes academic or clinical types. Never-addicted scientists and clinicians do not understand how showing people how a healthy, undiseased brain can produce seemingly chaotic behavior, and how their unwise choices are highly organized around a pseudo-survival drive, the Beast, and its expression, the AV. He really doesn't understand the joy of realizing that one's addiction is only a devotion to one's desire for a specific, bodily pleasure, and that overcoming addictions is accelerated by understanding how voluntary control overrides robust, biological appetites. It would be good if he would read about AVRT and seek out people who have recovered using it in order to form his opinions, but scientists are often locked into systems of thought which camouflage the very obvious.
The structural model helps addicted people make sense of their chaotic experience. It is a powerful vindication for people who have been drilled into hopelessness and despair by the disease model of addiction. The structural model says, "You have a healthy brain. You are not defective. You have what it takes to quit for good." However, persons who have not themselves been through the meatgrinder of addiction and treatment have trouble appreciating the keen simplicity of AVRT, and tend to get into specious debates about how many free ions can dance on the head of a neuron. That AVRT was discovered by a PhD (phormer drunk) and not by a scholarly Ph.D. citing from journals of scientific discourse may play no small part in the apparent density of never-addicted people in the learned professions to catch on to AVRT.
The structural model's view of human behavior predates modern social psychology, Dr. Peele's academic specialty, by several millennia, and reflects the wisdom of many generations of human beings struggling against their biological nature. In the beginning, it was said that man has an evil, base nature which must be reconciled with God, and that this evil within was the work of a dark spirit called Satan. The Bible describes Satan as a seductive mentality which overtakes the better judgment of men and women, causing disastrous or antisocial outcomes. In a number of passages, the Bible calls Satan "the Beast." This entity was conceived of by the ancients as external to human consciousness, but nevertheless as a very real influence in human affairs. A sizable portion of the American society believes strongly that Satan is alive and well, interfering with human happiness in a number of ways. They should not be dismissed as shallow or thoughtless. Indeed, many great leaders of our time and throughout history have held, as William Bennett said a few years ago, that human tragedy is the work of Satan. Bennett, then the so-called drug czar in the Bush administration, said, "I have seen the mayhem of our inner cities, the human destruction caused by drugs, and I am convinced that this is the work of Satan."
When the nation-wide fits of snickering subsided, we were left with the same problem in our cities, an addiction treatment industry that has traded sin for disease, and morality for psychodiagnosis. The various professional guilds constantly make outrageous claims of competence, and do or say damned near anything, including promising drunks more drinks, to sell a book or snag a federal or philanthropic grant. But I don't think Bill Bennett was too far off the mark, and here's why.
We might debate until tomorrow about what causes people to devote their lives and resources to self-destruction by self-intoxication, and we could discuss the spiritual and rational dimensions of recovery until the cows come home. My selection of the term, "Beast," as the descriptive term for the surpassing drive some have to self-intoxicate was not accidental. The ancients weren't far off the mark when they created a symbolic, externalized entity to explain the animal side of human nature - aggression, deception, lust, greed, and so on - which disrupts social organization. Their antidote to "the beast" was another largely externalized entity, God, which would defeat human animal desire in favor of better, more civilized, intuitions such as love, benevolence, generosity, and so on.
It is worth mentioning here the work of Julian Janes, who makes fascinating if not entirely scientific speculations about the origin of human consciousness along the path of human evolution. He pointed out that it is most unlikely that the subjective existence of prehistoric man was anything like that of modern man, and that those ancestors functioned more or less automatically in their day-to-day routines and struggles. Janes postulated that primitive humans also had "noisemakers" in their heads, as we all do; they were unable to conceive that their thought-noise was in fact their own. Their intuitions and decisions were punctuated by commands telling them what to do in order to survive, and their survival depended upon obeying the hallucinated voices in their heads that said, "Now!" at the precise moment for capturing or killing prey or to win in combat. They naturally perceived such inner direction as originating elsewhere than themselves, since it is doubtful they had any more concept of self than does a dog. They perceived a chimerical benefactor to which to be grateful and to appease. They believed that certain entities - gods - were guiding them, as they vividly hallucinated their own intuitions, and they experienced intense pleasure as they feasted on the fruit or prey. They made figurines with big eyes, and when they worshipped the icons, they "talked back" in a vivid, familiar language. Janes likens his hypothesized god-talk of prehistoric man to the irresistible, survival-oriented, commanding auditory hallucinations of certain psychotics and experimental brain surgery subjects as a way to present his view of a common thread connecting us with our ancestors. His brain model was hemispheric, left and right, to explain the nature of hallucination and perhaps the nature of some biologically driven behaviors. He supports his fascinating conjectures with examples illustrating how much of our subjective mental experience consists of simple commands seeming to emanate off-center from our "selves," quite often using the second person, "you," or even one's proper name.
Back to the Beast - it isn't much of a stretch to envision addiction or other compulsions as obedience to inner commands. Indeed, most addiction specialists know very well that the Addictive Voice exists, that is it cunning, powerful, and baffling, if not the many other attributes I have added in AVRT. Whether the source of the voice is external, as in old Mr. 666, or Mr. Mephistopheles, or a biologically-driven aberration, it is not as critical as understanding that something bad wrong is happening at the human command center. Some people drink or use drugs as if their lives depended on it. They drink with such persistence and gusto in the face of nearly certain adversity that many have concluded, falsely I believe, that some ineffable disease process must be the cause. Of course, this is quite discouraging to most addicted people, quite disorienting to others, and produces disappointing outcomes for most who adopt that viewpoint.
It is sufficient for addicted people to understand the obvious, that they have an animal side which strives for various sensate pleasures associated with survival, that these desires often conflict with safety and social living, and that brain tissue is differentiated according to function. It is well-known that the midbrain/forebrain is the site where emotion and pleasure is mediated. The neocortex is the site of uniquely human mental functions, one of which is to override any biological drive as a matter of choice and free will. Understood as a pseudo-survival drive satisfied by the intense pleasure of consummation, substance addiction is understandable, bringing order to the chaos arising from the recovery group movement and its business arm, the addiction treatment industry. The latter of course, is the well-funded home of countless scholars and sponge-soled scientists who generate charts, graphs, and arcane text to explain how very, very little they really know about addictions.
I have never understood on what evidence Trimpey located a symbolic voice in an area of the brain, and what he felt was gained by this identification.
The AV is not symbolic, but vivid, real, and associated with strong feelings. All addicted people have an AV, but few recognize is at the prime mover it is. By this comment, Peele shows he has not a clue as to the subjective experience of addiction. The AV is an immutable voice which is not susceptible to willful change, any more than one's sex drive or desire for oxygen can be reasoned away. It's just there, but may be entirely dissipated by the act of objective recognition. Any addict knows the AV is real and not symbolic, but never-addicted people are left mostly to their fertile imaginations and existing paradigms to surmise what it is like to be addicted and what may be done to recover.
The structural model is an attempt at making sense of addiction without lying to people, without advising them on personal matters, without promising that certain services will "cure" people of the desire to self-intoxicate, without discouraging them, and without offending their sensibilities with regard to their familiar, closely-held beliefs and values. The midbrain is that subcortical mass which includes the mesolimbic system and other structures which generate and moderate the survival appetites. If some folks disagree or don't believe this, then they might refer to basic health sciences text, or recent publications by the National Institute for Drug Abuse which are "discovering" that substance-addicted people are pursuing deep pleasure akin to the other survival drives. In other words, people drug themselves simply because it feels good. The neocortex, the matrix for many neurochemicals regulated by the mesolimbic system, is the site of mental functions which differentiate humans from other living creatures, while the midbrain (some call it the forebrain, others the hare-brain, the party center, or reptilian brain) is remarkably similar among many animals of the field and forest. It is a survival machine - pure, and to the extent we can make it in AVRT, simple. The dumb midbrain can "talk" in the sense that biological desires come to consciousness, demanding or suggesting what an animal might want but what a human had better not do in civilized societies. All addicted people hear the AV, but few recognize it as not-self, ego-alien, or whatever term will make it clear that one had better not obey it as if it were a whispering, benevolent god.
Does it make his theory sound scientific, did he have a vision, does he feel lending this voice biological, vestigial presence will make people take it very seriously?
Addiction science is political science. Some science is not science, such as behavioral science and social science. These are "soft" sciences, pretenders to the real thing, using the high credibility of real science to uphold their views. In the addictions field, science has become the huckster's pitch for anything that can be sold for money, the interpretation of data supporting one's own wishes, a bludgeon to cower common sense, and an embellishment for bad advice. Data "proving" the effectiveness of addiction treatment is abundant, whether AA-based or not, and data proving the opposite is equally abundant. Public policy is not based on objective science, but upon science snippets used to support vested interests. Research is rarely conclusive, but only suggestive, and is used to impress the suggestible. Addicted people are desperate and hopeless, and therefore highly suggestible. I might add that science is a religion when it is held up as the savior of mankind, or as the foundation for a social order.
If one feels compelled to categorize AVRT, it is a phenomenological approach based on naturalistic observation, using first-hand accounts of self-recovered people. But AVRT is not a scientific theory; it is a way of explaining how people self-recover through planned abstinence. It is a piercing insight into the nature of addiction based on the two-ness of addictive ambivalence. Addicted people are mystified at their own behavior, and horrified at the prospect of remaining vulnerable to a condition which threatens all that is good in life. But they are even more horrified by the idea of permanent abstinence, and have a profound inner resistance to saying they will never drink/use again. While AA panders to the Beast with its never-say-never, one-day-at-a-time approach, Peele panders to the Beast by virtually serving up drinks with the bartender's "say when." While the disease concept stigmatizes, the structural model presumes desire as a condition of health, even though acting on the desire may result in disease. The structural model vindicates addicted people from self-stigmatization and promises to ultimately restore normal citizenship to substance abusers who in today's disease hysteria are exploited and deprived of rights guaranteed others under the U.S. Constitution.
Is all of this "rational"?
One might gather that for some reason, Peele doesn't like AVRT, possibly because it doesn't fit with his scientific ideals, or with psychological theories with which he is familiar. He may think I made up AVRT during a hot flash, the way Bill W. reportedly received his revelations, not realizing that I learned AVRT from thousands of addicted and formerly-addicted people who explained to me their conflicted thoughts about alcohol and drugs. He seems to have forgotten that the structural model, the gross functional anatomy of the human brain, is taught in elementary schools. Peele apparently believes rationality is a virtue to be lived up to, a standard defined by psychologists preferring Albert Ellis' arcane definition of "rational" over the ones in the dictionary.
Most importantly, he has rejected AVRT without studying it, in spite of the testimonies of thousands of people who praise its efficacy. Dr. Peele would discourage people from investigating AVRT on their own by posting his cynical remarks followed by "Ph.D." (Interestingly, the organization which reorganized under another name following the ouster of former RRSN board members still uses The Small Book, in spite of my published retractions of that book's shortcomings, and they do not identify or recommend Rational Recovery: The New Cure For Substance Addiction, which is the authoritative source book on AVRT. If you've ever wondered exactly what is meant by "conflict of interest," behold.)
If, by "rational," Peele means "agreeable to reason, according to a logical thought process," yes, AVRT is rational. There is a method to what many never-addicted addiction specialists perceive as the madness, fanaticism, or rigidity of AVRT. I have explained some, but not nearly all, of my considerations in constructing the only method ever developed for the purpose of ending addictions. I have not mentioned my own subjective experience while addicted to alcohol, nor my thousands of clinical contact hours spent interviewing seriously addicted people to learn about and ascertain the phenomenological reality of AVRT. Chief among the benefits of AVRT is the structural model, which makes sense of chaos while toeing the line with scientific facts.
But if by "rational," Peele means Ellisian rationality, definitely no. AVRT is not "rational" by those standards, and cannot be. AVRT is perfectionistic, rigid, black-or-white thinking, based not on reason but upon intuition. Although I have learned a great deal from Dr. Ellis about the general applications of REBT, I have also learned that recovery zealotry is not confined to the spiritual realm but also exists among the scientifically oriented as well. I am still puzzled why so many professionals make claims of competency in the addictions field when they have none, particularly when they have no personal or professional preparation but only a chance opportunity to join the recovery group movement.
And while I'm at it: Are there any alcohol abusers for whom thoughts of future drinking are not irrational?
In AVRT, it doesn't matter what we label thoughts other than the Addictive Voice. When thoughts of drinking occur, as they always do, they are recognized as ego-alien - benign and insignificant.Can youthful problem drinkers ever resume drinking socially?
Of course. I did so myself, and had very few problems with drinking for a few years.
Does it matter how severe one's drinking problem is?
The more severe the problem, the more people will benefit from permanent abstinence, but all the more do those people yearn to drink moderately, especially upon the advice of experts. The yearning to drink moderately proves its opposite, a beacon that says, "Quit for good!"
Does it matter who (sic) you associate with - that is, if you are married to a moderate drinker or your social life revolves around moderate drinkers?
It isn't clear what Dr. Peele's concerns are about these conditions. It seems that he believes that abstinence is a less appropriate, desirable, or achievable goal if one is surrounded by drinkers. This, of course, is the Addictive Voice, arguing that drinking will inevitably occur under certain conditions, or that it is appropriate to take serious risks in order to conform socially, or that abstaining is difficult in the presence of the substance of choice.
Is the possibility of drinking moderately influenced by major life changes, such as returning from a war zone or leaving military service? Can people's beliefs about resuming drinking ever assist or direct their treatment - that is, can the belief they can drink moderately aid them in doing so, compared with those who want to drink again but believe they can never drink moderately?
This is what Freud called "wish fulfillment," a pathological defense mechanism that boils down to, "It is so because I want it to be so." Not a fan of Freud, however, I would call this kind of thinking the AV, since it is typical of every single addicted person I have met, and is the common thread of personal disaster. The belief that one can walk a straight line while under the influence does not aid people during a field sobriety test. The belief that one will abide by earlier decisions on how much or how often they will drink in any given drinking session does not aid people who have a history of reneging on those decisions.
Were the people I know who now drink moderately who used to drink problematically (such as Audrey Kishline) not real "alcoholics," so that all the above advice doesn't apply to them, but only to those Jack knows for sure are real alcoholics?
(Mon, Jun 19, 2000 / This article is three years old. The chickens have come home to roost. This is my entire point, that once someone like Audrey or me has crossed the line into alcohol abuse, drinking freequently and excessively in spite of problems it causes, there is a fundamental change in our bodies that makes any further use of alcohol extremely risky. For problem drinkers, small amounts of alcohol awaken a strong desire to drink for more gratification. While we certainly are certainly capable of resisting this desire, our judgment becomes impaired and we don't want to restrain the desire, and over time there is a likelihood of serious bingeing. I have attacked the "real alcoholic" ruse many times. Stanton has not read Rational Recovery and has practically no understanding of the most important methodology in the field of addictions. His statements suggest he cannot comprehend what any child can readily undersand. This was my exact experience with the nonprofit board which consisted mainly of psychologists - - well-educated, but dumb as stumps.)
Here, we see a most disturbing phenomenon, a never-addicted, social psychologist imagining that his own values on moderate drinking apply to people who have already been harmed by drinking alcohol. Dr. Peele imagines that RR pressures people into abstinence and predicts harm for those who do not choose to abstain. Dr. Peele's urgent support for moderate drinking completely contradicts the most basic understanding of substance addiction - that if you have a problem with alcohol or drugs, cut back, and when that doesn't work, quit altogether. To plead that problem drinkers should continue doing what they are already morbidly impassioned to do appears absurd. In effect, Dr. Peele is lending his PhD to the Beast, saying, "Abstinence is the unnecessary high cost of recovery. I know some people who moderated after problem drinking, and that shows that others can, too. If you want to return to the use of alcohol after experiencing serious problems with it, follow my program of down-home, good advice." Dr. Peele's opportunistic views find a wide audience and are read most enthusiastically by persons with the slimmest chance of drinking further without harm.
I have read some of Dr. Peele's work, and some of it is engaging and has social importance. However, his "Life Process Recovery Program" is little more than passive advice to "get a life," after which moderate drinking or drugging just happens. When he occasionally suggests that some are better off to abstain, he is without words to suggest who, or how one might accomplish this. Throughout the addictons field, everyone is an expert, but no one knows how to quit. With AVRT, the technology now exists for any addicted person to completely recover in a matter of days or weeks.
When someone imagines physical forces they claim drive behavior, when they dictate one true path for recovery, when these basic tenets cannot be questioned without fear of group expulsion, how much does their approach really differ from AA? These are the questions that run through my mid-brain - or is that mid-pelvis?
Here, Dr. Peele engages in petty gossip which characterizes the denominational recovery group movement. Moreover, he exposes his ignorance of AVRT and of Rational Recovery Self-Help Network, knocking the volunteerism of hundreds of RRSN Coordinators. RRSN group participants are under no pressure to believe anything. They are not expelled. We say, "This is an abstinence program. If you aren't ready to quit after a few meetings, come back if and when you are." RR makes no attempt to differ from AA as if that were a virtue. Following the logic and insights of AVRT, we simply end up being profoundly different from AA, infinitely better for people who have a desire to quit drinking. He does not understand that his pronouncements fit the definition of the Addictive Voice, and that the logic of AVRT is absolutely perfect. Either he is intentionally misunderstanding the AVRT literature or he has read nothing substantial on AVRT. If his questions were sincere, I think he would spring for the $12 and buy Rational Recovery: The New Cure For Substance Addiction.
I hope Stanton is pretending to misunderstand AVRT. I hope he knows better than his strained perspective that the Structural Model, with its emphasis on abstinence, is a variant of the disease model. I also hope he knows full well that the medical disease model, and the pschological disease model are truly variants on the theme that there are hidden causes for addiction, reasons other than the pleasure principle. I hope these things because if he isn't pretending ignorance, then he isn't very bright. AVRT is easily understood by anyone who is interested in learning it. I have been painfully aware for many years that AVRT triggers fear and anger among addicted people, and they often attack its progenitor, yours truly, or try to unravel the logic of AVRT in a futile effort to evade its moral mandate.
If Dr. Peele, heaven forbid, were addicted to some substance, say alcohol, he would experience, first hand, repeated episodes of excessive drinking, followed by regrets and exasperation that the problem persists against his overall better judgment. He would also feel trapped, and wonder why such a bright man as he would act against his better judgment, repeatedly reneging on earlier decisions to drink moderately. He might attempt to find other social and recreational outlets, and other satisfactions to substitute for his love for the pleasurable effects of alcoholic beverage, and he might seek finer rewards in life, or even explore psychological or philosophical journeys that would mitigate his desire to drink. But he would discover that nothing replaces the ineffable pleasure of alcohol, and he would certainly yearn to drink moderately, because that yearning is unique to and universl among addicted people. Stanton would not be able to imagine a satisfactory, abstinent life for himself or anyone else. Very likely, he would become entirely fascinated with books recommending the moderate use of substances that have already caused serious life problems and which suggest that he might "mature out" of his difficulty, drinking all the while. Stan would probably discover a book written by Himself, Ph.D., and think, "There! That's what I thought! I can continue to drink, but I will have to be very careful and thoughtful about it. But it will be worth it, especially since my friends all expect me to drink, and there are so many good reasons to consume alcohol." If Dr. Peele's hopes were then dashed by continued alcoholic excess because his judgment became blunted under the influence of alcohol, he might reason that alcohol impairs human judgment by lowering inhibitions, that after a drink or two his desire to drink moderately is like coitus interruptus - "Possible? Yes, but here goes!" He might even get the parallels between sexual appetite and the appetite for alcohol, and decide that waiting to "mature out" is too risky, that abstinence might be the key to avoiding future downfalls and disappointments, and that anything less than permanent abstinence only keeps the desire alive and kicking within.
But these are just speculations. How would I know what Dr. Peele would do if he were addicted to alcohol? Maybe he would just keep on drinking and get away with it. Suffice it to say that while some problem drinkers may be helped by his writings toward the rich, rich fulfillments of moderate drinking, many others may forget the hundreds of pages in The Truth About Addiction and Recovery which suggest fulfillments other than alcohol or drugs, and remember only that Dr. Beast has spoken, and it is fine to follow drinking problems with more alcoholic beverage.
I have condensed a letter, below, which Dr. Peele posted on the internet as an example of his Life Process approach. AVRTers will appreciate the writer's candor, and I will comment afterward. Then, I will end this long, long discourse on Stanton Peele, Ph.D., i.e., Dr. Beast at Large.
Dr. Peele: I am writing to let you know that your book, The Truth About Addiction and Recovery, was a great relief to me. I am what some would call a recovering drug addict, though I would not prefer to characterize myself that way. I was first hospitalized at 17 for marijuana dependency. I am certain that inpatient treatment was necessary to intervene in my case, as I was suffering from extreme life disruption. The chance to get away from my environment long enough to reassess things was very good for me. Even at my young age I was sufficiently intelligent and rational to understand that my treatment was not based in any kind of sound science or rational approach to personal lifestyle modification.
Three more hospitalizations ensued over a period of years, while I struggled with my emotional problems and the drugs I used to mask them. I was extremely unhappy with my life and with my inability to find some sort of meaning and purpose, but I was slowly changing my outlook on life.
After my last hospitalization I made a conscious decision that I was not going to participate in AA or any other 12 step program. I focused upon learning about my interests and my creative abilities to deal with problems. I left for the university and immersed myself in the joys of learning and exploring the wonders of life and knowledge. I remained abstinent and developed better and better coping mechanisms, surrounding myself with non-addicted people who were intelligent and creative. Slowly, I began to feel like I belonged to a community I enjoyed.
At this point I'd been abstinent for 3 years and had finally discarded the Alcoholics Anonymous disease myth. I had been getting very good grades, but was becoming disillusioned with my career choice.
Three months into a new job, I drank approximately 4 ounces of wine with my girlfriend on Valentine's Day. She was shocked, but pleasantly so, as was I. AA would have condemned me for my relapse, but I honestly had never felt quite so free. It was a wonderful moment on a wonderful night and I felt absolutely no guilt. I continued drinking, mostly a stable 2 to 5 drinks on the weekends with friends at parties and get togethers. All of these friends were intelligent college students and none knew of my previous drug addiction, nor saw anything pathological in my current drinking patterns.
My work performance was extremely competent and reliable, and I received several excellent performance reviews. It has now been over 5 years since I abandoned abstinence. I feel happier than ever and I have begun to develop many aspects of my life that rigidity had kept me from exploring before. I feel more relaxed, less fearful, more profoundly impressed with the human experience. Everyone who knows me considers me a success story, yet I'm sure the folks in AA would come up with some rationalization about why I haven't failed - yet.
Life and consciousness are extremely profound phenomena. I honestly believe that altered states can provide us human beings with a means of transcendence and hope for ourselves and our world. To deny vibrant curious minds access to these wonderful states in the name of a hollow morality is truly a major transgression against human nature.
I seem to have somehow found my balance with these mood altering substances. I live in a city that I love, I have a number of wonderful friends who share many of my interests and joys. I hold down a professional job and express the wonder I feel at being alive in this amazing world.
It was only when I allowed myself to trust my inner self (the exact opposite of AA dogma) did I realize that my heart and the wisdom and love within it could create a new order for my life, free from the tyranny of mainstream American expectations. Your book was the first thing I had ever read from the field that validated my experiences. Let me tell you that it was wonderful to read something that didn't try to attack me as hopeless and weak. Thanks again for your inspirational writings!
(Name Withheld)
I sincerely want the writer of the letter above to live a happy life, enjoying the apparent fulfillments of alcohol, and nothing to follow is meant to even suggest he will come to harm of any kind. I believe it is possible for some people to return to intoxicants following serious problems with them, and this individual is apparently satisfied with his decisions. However, Dr. Peele has failed in his responsibility to warn the aspiring moderator or the readers of the extraordinary high risk he assumes by continuing any use of alcohol whatsover. When a risk of danger to self or others exists, as it clearly does for problem drinkers, a professional duty exists to oppose or intervene.
That aside, the writer claims benefits from alcohol which exceed the claims of its manufacturers and advertisers, and goes on to explain that he cannot really be happy unless in "balance" with mind and mood-altering substances. That means he can't imagine a satisfactory abstinent life; sound familiar? Under the influence of alcohol, he has sublime moods and profound, beatific visions, which by comparison to his natural state render reality unacceptable - merely "hollow morality." This inability to imagine or create a satisfactory life without alcohol is what AA calls "the spiritual disease of alcoholism," or "dry drunk." Something like that does exist. In RR, we know this is a perceptual distortion that is typical of addicted people, a symptom, if you will, of addiction. The Addictive Voice is essentially a "life sucks" mentality that justifies the physical, spiritual pleasure of self-intoxication. The letter writer was a "dry drunk," for whom life without alcohol appeared hollow and meaningless, one who must inevitably drink. Through the lens of AVRT, he was, and still is, looking at life through the eyes of his Beast, seeing planet Earth as a large, spherical drinking establishment hurtling through space. Clearly, he is dependent on alcohol to experience rich feelings and meaning in life. For him, drinking alcohol promises "a means of transcendence and hope for ourselves and our world." Wow!
Seagrams might blush to be elevated to this pinnacle in human history, but his idea of denying his toxic epiphanies to other "vibrant, curious minds" is a bit much, since mental vibrancy and mental curiosity are not states that are particularly conducive to ingesting central nervous system depressants. His argument that abstinence is a transgression against human nature may seem a little far-fetched, considering that it is little more than a transgression against the animal side of human nature. The letter writer was quite ambivalent about his continued use of alcohol until he read Peele's work. He had quite reasonably dismissed the insipid pronouncements of AA, but retained one of its few kernels of wisdom - abstinence. He really wanted to abstain, but his Beast was driving him nuts. Enter, Dr. Beast. "Take three to five, prn, and call me in the morning - if you can."
This letter seems to sum up much of the pseudo-scientific rhetoric within the cognitive-behavioral professions. In all fairness, we should understand that some people do return to the use of alcohol and drugs without painful consequences, and that Dr. Peele's work validates their experiences. But is this man's experience really a template for others suffering from alcohol addiction? Dr. Peele seems to think so, and I would concur that efforts to moderate are a most important way to decide to abstain altogether. But to recommend moderation, to warn against abstinence as "the unnecessary high cost of recovery, and to present alluring, ideal outcomes such as the example above, reminds me of many-times-divorced Albert Ellis' decade-long flirtation with extramarital sex as a remedy for other people's marital problems. In his out-of-print book, The Civilized Couple's Guide to Extramarital Adventure, Ellis presents various means for couples to navigate the troubled waters of monogamy without being monogamous. Of course, if people think "rationally," as he prescribes, they may be able to frolic without foment, but how many people can actually think rationally about marital promiscuity? Damn few, even with an REBT shrink! Ellis acknowledges this, but I would guess that the promise of such a fantastic (fantasy-based) lifestyle resulted in considerable pain for many who saw the words, "civilized extramarital adventure," spotted the "Ph.D.," and had at it.
Dr. Peele's work, as well, is selectively read by people in the grip of pleasure. Some of Peele's readers call in and come to groups or RR Centers. They recall only the material on moderation, often citing from memory the page numbers of exciting passages on moderation. Remember, they have read the moderation material, are still having problems, and are still fixated upon statistics compiled by Stanton Peele, Ph.D., seeming to prove that abstinence disposes one toward more serious problems later, and proving that the large majority of problem drinkers do better by continuing to drink, but by exercising good judgment while approaching the threshold of deeeeeep pleasure.
Professionals who pander to the biological drives for pleasure, promising sensory gratifications in the context of professional guidance, commit an ethical violation in the same way as do sexual surrogate therapists. Counseling aimed at moderate drinking is "symptom squeezing," which is a dark compromise in the therapeutic relationship, or in the public relations of any clinician.
By pandering to the Beast of addiction, Dr. Peele finds people whose own Beasts are vindicated, as the grateful letter-writer exclaims his was. But he has also ordained the Beast of Audry Kishline, sending her on a mission to validate the collective Addictive Voice that justifies the use of alcohol long after one's moral judgment would intevene. American society needs strong social sanctions against the use of alcohol by people who have demonstrated incompetence in the proper use of alcohol. Instead, Dr. Peele broadcasts a very stupid that if you are just careful, as if getting drunk were accidental, it is fine to pursue the joy of drinking and live out the perverse idealism of liquor advertisers who promise better living through chemistry.
Dr. Peele has reacted a bit strangely to the original version of this article, photographing himself dressed up as he imagines the Beast of addiction, and posting the photo to the left at his website. It's funny in a ghoulish way, perhaps, making light of something that apparently troubles him. I have written about Beastly humor, which can be observed in people under the influence of alcohol (not funny unless you're drunk), and also while not intoxicated but nevertheless revelling in inappropriate humor related to the high life (not funny unless you are a drunk.) I have heard sober drunks make a knee-slapping humor out of tragic incidents, and I cannot help wonder about the Beastly humor of Dr. Peele.
Lotus Press has sold Stanton Peele books for over a decade, because his well-written, scholarly work has some value as reference about the general field of addictions. We also sell books by Chaz Bufe, Ken Ragge, who also champion moderation as a remedy for alcoholic excess. As of this year, however, will insert in each such book we sell a caveat emptor, warning the reader that the yearning to drink moderately is kown only to addicted people, and such plans are expressions of the Addictive Voice. When our inventory of See Sharp Books is depleted, we will no longer sell books that actively support moderate use of alcohol and other drugs when a personal history of alcohol abuse exists. We understand that anyone who learns AVRT will understand that their Beasts can read, and will be tickled pink by the mountains of evidence supporting moderate drinking that has been compiled by Dr. Beast. However, most of the people who call here are in the throes of addiction, and the last thing they need is to have their Beasts fortified by authors who pander to the Beast.
(The 3 italic paragraphs above revised Mon, Jun 19, 2000 Ed.)
