Re: Dr. Arthur Cain

[Guest guest]

I believe there were earlier books, articles, and papers written that were

critical of AA, as far back as the late 40s. I think it was even called a

cult or cult-like in the 40s. I will look for the references.

Dr. Arthur Cain

> Does anyone know if this is true? I received it as a response to a

> post relating to the 63' Harpers Magazine Article.

>

>

> > > Nationally-distributed criticism of AA first appeared

> > > in a 1963 Harpers Magazine article.

>

> Cain also wrote another critical article which was publisa]hed in the

> Sat.

> Eve Post on Sept. 19, 1964. What is interesting is that later he wrote

> to

> Bill W. to apologize, admitting that he was an alcoholic who could not

> " get "

> the A.A. program. The articles were wrttten out of his frustration.

> Jimb

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sounds like one of those AA urban legends to me. Maybe somone noticed that

Chapter 2 of The Cured Alcoholic (1964) is entitled " Apologia, " and that it

contains some statements praising AA. But " apologia " only means an

autobiographical explanation of one's involvement in a certain field. The

whole book including the " apologia " is just an extension and elaboration of

the " Cult or Cure " article, not a change of opinion.

Cain would be considered an " internal reformer " in these parts. His attitude

was that AA is great for some people, but not all; that it was developing

some dangerous cult-like tendencies; and that it should not be considered

the last word on the subject of alcoholism. Bill never attempted to

directly refute any of Cain's theses, and it would have been completely out

of character for him to do so. One of Bill's Grapevine articles

( " Responsibility Is Our Theme " , July 1965, reprinted in The Language of the

Heart) alludes to the Cain criticisms. His tactic is mild agreement with the

critic, saying that there are indeed certain dangerous tendencies we have to

look out for.

It doesn't make much sense that Cain would write to and apologize,

given that in their public writings they are nearly in agreement in the

first place! Furthermore there is a limited period of time in which this

alleged recanting could have happened -- between the Post article and

's death early in '71.

Cain was not merely a " disgruntled AA member " but a man who had devoted his

life to the study and treatment of " alcoholism " since 1947. By the time his

articles and books began to appear, he had been a PhD'd psychologist

treating alcoholics, and specializing in those for whom AA didn't work, for

years. Cain continued to write prolifically at least into the 70s. Most of

his books have titles like " Young People and X, " where X= drugs, alcohol,

sex, religion, cigarettes, etc.

Bottom line: anything is possible, but unsourced factoids from AA members

don't always turn out to be true ;-)

--wally

Dr. Arthur Cain

> Does anyone know if this is true? I received it as a response to a

> post relating to the 63' Harpers Magazine Article.

>

>

> > > Nationally-distributed criticism of AA first appeared

> > > in a 1963 Harpers Magazine article.

>

> Cain also wrote another critical article which was publisa]hed in the

> Sat.

> Eve Post on Sept. 19, 1964. What is interesting is that later he wrote

> to

> Bill W. to apologize, admitting that he was an alcoholic who could not

> " get "

> the A.A. program. The articles were wrttten out of his frustration.

> Jimb

[Guest guest]

i doubt it because he criticism is still valid today, 37 years later. if

he wrote it out of spite, it wouldn't have had ring of truth in it. also

how would this letter have gotten out? would bill have

disregarded tradition of anonymity or would have cain come put

in public? if either one were true, there would be more info on it

readily available.

the steppers would love broadcasting it if it were true, " Dry Drunk

Critic of AA Was Really a Drunk Afterall! " this stinks of a stepper

" dry drunk " rationalization they use every day , on anyone , to

discredit critics.

> Does anyone know if this is true? I received it as a response

to a

> post relating to the 63' Harpers Magazine Article.

>

>

> > > Nationally-distributed criticism of AA first appeared

> > > in a 1963 Harpers Magazine article.

>

> Cain also wrote another critical article which was publisa]hed

in the

> Sat.

> Eve Post on Sept. 19, 1964. What is interesting is that later he

wrote

> to

> Bill W. to apologize, admitting that he was an alcoholic who

could not

> " get "

> the A.A. program. The articles were wrttten out of his frustration.

> Jimb

[Guest guest]

Thanks for all the input folks.....

> > Does anyone know if this is true? I received it as a response

> to a

> > post relating to the 63' Harpers Magazine Article.

> >

> >

> > > > Nationally-distributed criticism of AA first appeared

> > > > in a 1963 Harpers Magazine article.

> >

> > Cain also wrote another critical article which was publisa]hed

> in the

> > Sat.

> > Eve Post on Sept. 19, 1964. What is interesting is that later he

> wrote

> > to

> > Bill W. to apologize, admitting that he was an alcoholic who

> could not

> > " get "

> > the A.A. program. The articles were wrttten out of his

frustration.

> > Jimb

[Guest guest]

wally , do you have a copy of that grapevine issue?

One of Bill's Grapevine articles

> ( " Responsibility Is Our Theme " , July 1965, reprinted in The

Language of the

> Heart) alludes to the Cain criticisms. His tactic is mild

agreement with the

> critic, saying that there are indeed certain dangerous

tendencies we have to

> look out for.

[Guest guest]

i think wallys explanation makes sense.

> > > Does anyone know if this is true? I received it as a

response

> > to a

> > > post relating to the 63' Harpers Magazine Article.

> > >

> > >

> > > > > Nationally-distributed criticism of AA first appeared

> > > > > in a 1963 Harpers Magazine article.

> > >

> > > Cain also wrote another critical article which was

publisa]hed

> > in the

> > > Sat.

> > > Eve Post on Sept. 19, 1964. What is interesting is that later

he

> > wrote

> > > to

> > > Bill W. to apologize, admitting that he was an alcoholic who

> > could not

> > > " get "

> > > the A.A. program. The articles were wrttten out of his

> frustration.

> > > Jimb

[Guest guest]

no dont type it in, i was just wondering about 's reply. im

surprised, i thought cains criticism was well

reasoned in the harper piece, and i never gave any credit

as a man of intellect, far from it. i see him as the

intellectual buffoon, anyone who needs to be as dishonest

intellectualy as he to be compelling, cant stand in ring with

a person of reason.

> > One of Bill's Grapevine articles

> > > ( " Responsibility Is Our Theme " , July 1965, reprinted in The

> > Language of the

> > > Heart) alludes to the Cain criticisms. His tactic is mild

> > agreement with the

> > > critic, saying that there are indeed certain dangerous

> > tendencies we have to

> > > look out for.

[Guest guest]

> Bottom line: anything is possible, but unsourced factoids from AA

members

> don't always turn out to be true ;-)

That's it in a nutshell. I still get a sense of freedom, just

questioning the veracity of AA soundbytes. Just asking for evidence.

judith

[Guest guest]

I think that the ability to manipulate emotions is more important than

information/ evidence in the art of persuasion. It takes work for me

to overcome my emotional knee-jerk reactions, and I have put a lot of

effort into thinking things through rather than just reacting. It's

easier and it's frankly very satisfying to give into my emotions.

Bill W. pandered to emotions, especially shame (imo). Any credible

person who talks about research--information arrived at by the

scientific method--pretty much makes a commitment NOT to pander to

emotions. So a Bill W. is going to have the edge in a public debate.

I guess I see 12 step freedom as, in large part, a PR campaign. We at

12 step free are not a monolithic group, as evidenced by the spirited

debate we engage in. The one thing we have in common is an awareness

of the shortcomings of *A. People who fight that awareness tooth and

nail would characterize us as a cult--throwing our negative

descriptions of *A back in our face. You know who these folks are, you

can tell them by the language they speak.

" Stop your whining. "

" Get a life. "

" Don't blame *A for the harm you've done to yourself. "

I'm digressing a bit here. Lately I've been feeling that

self-awareness is a mixed blessing. Self-awareness lacks the easy

answers and satisfying emotional excess of *A. But having glimpsed my

true self, it's clear to me that I will be pursuing self-awareness the

rest of my life no matter how difficult that may be. I just don't have

the energy to keep pretending I don't see the truth.

judith, rambling

> > My general assessment of Cain vs. is that Cain was

> (intellectually) a

> > lightweight and if they had ever got in the ring Bill would have

> KO'd Arthur

> > in round 1. Which, of course, has nothing to do with who was

> ultimately on

> > the right side.