From – Understanding and Counseling the Alcoholic
Howard
J. Clinebell, Jr. (1956)
The
Emmanuel Movement is of salient importance to anyone who would help
alcoholics. Though it is no longer in existence as a movement, it is
anything but a mere ecclesiastical museum piece. Its goals, working
philosophy, understanding of man, conception of alcoholism, and even
some of its methods are worth emulating today. Here was perhaps the
earliest experiment in a church-sponsored psychoreligious clinic.
Here was the first pioneering attempt to treat alcoholism with a
combination of individual and group therapy, the first attempt to
combine the resources of depth psychology and religion in a
systematic therapeutic endeavor. During its course the movement
attracted many alcoholics and became well known for its success in
treating them.
The
movement came into being on a stormy evening in November, 1906, at
the Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Boston, when the first "classes"
for those with functional illnesses was held. The guiding genius of
the movement was a brilliant Episcopal clergyman named Elwood
Worcester. His associate throughout most of its course was the Rev.
Samuel McComb. Both men had had extensive graduate study in
psychology and philosophy. Worcester had a Ph.D. from Leipzig where
he studied under Wilheim Wundt, founder of the first psychological
laboratory, and physicist-psychologist-philosopher Gustav Fechner.
For
a long time before 1906, Worcester had had a growing conviction that
the church had an important mission to the sick, and that the
physician and clergyman should work together in the treatment of
functional ills. As a preliminary step he consulted several leading
neurologists to ascertain whether such a project as he had in mind,
undertaken with proper safeguards, would have their approval and
cooperation. A favorable response was received, and the plan was
launched.
The
Emmanuel program of therapy consisted of three elements: group
therapy administered through its classes, individual therapy
administered by the ministers and staff at the daily clinic, and a
system of social work and personal attention carried on by "friendly
visitors." The growth of the movement was phenomenal. Three
years after its inception, a California disciple could write:
The
work, begun as a parish movement, has grown so that the local demands
have overtaxed a large corps of workers while importunate calls from
many cities in this and other lands for knowledge of the work, and
pitiful calls for help from sick ones everywhere have to be put
aside... .Meanwhile, in two years the work has been taken up by
ministers of many faiths who see in the new movement a return to the
faith and practice of the Apostolic Church. These. ..are finding new
power in their work.
This
disciple also described the manner in which plans were being put into
operation for training ministers who wanted to use the Emmanuel
technique in their parishes, and for setting up the movement in large
centers. By 1909 the movement had spread abroad and was represented
in Great Britain by a committee under the title "Church and
Medical Union." The Emmanuel clinic in Boston was deluged by
patients. During one six-month period nearly five thousand
applications were received by mail alone. Of these only 125 could be
accepted. Hundreds of clergymen and many physicians were visiting
Boston to study the methods. Influential physicians like Richard C.
Cabot gave their support to the movement.
The
first definite book on the movement was Religion and Medicine, The
Moral Control of Nervous Disorders, which appeared in 1908. Demand
for this book was so great that it went through nine printings in the
year of publication. For twenty-three years Worcester continued as
rector at Emmanuel. The movement continued to flourish there and in
other parts of the country. The need for help was so great that often
a line of patients cued outside the church. In 1929 Worcester
resigned from his parish in order to give full time to the movement.
A considerable sum of money had been received to carry on the work,
so the movement was incorporated as the Craigie Foundation. In
addition to the patients which he saw at his home, Worcester accepted
many invitations to conduct week long clinics and lecture series in
prominent eastern churches. In 1931 Worcester and McComb produced
Body, Mind and Spirit, a book which showed clearly the development of
their thought following the earlier books of the movement. For all
practical purposes the Emmanuel Movement as such came to a close with
Worcester’s death in 1940.
It
is noteworthy that three outstanding lay therapists for alcoholics in
this country, Courtenay Baylor (who carried on the work at the
Emmanuel Church for a time after Worcester’s death), Richard
Peabody, and Samuel Crocker, were products of the movement. A lay
therapist is a nonmedical practitioner who specializes in helping
alcoholics professionally. For a description of the method of
treatment used by Courtenay Baylor, see Dwight Anderson’s "The
Place of the Lay Therapist in the Treatment of Alcoholics,"
Q.J.S.A., September, 1944.
The
Method of Treating Alcoholics
The
Emmanuel classes were held once a week. In this group experience,
alcoholics were lumped together with patients suffering from other
functional illnesses treated by the clinic. A disciple of the
movement, Lyman P. Powell, who had tried the technique in his own
church, describes the procedure:
Any
Wednesday evening from October until May you will find, if you drop
in at Emmanuel Church, one of the most beautiful church interiors in
the land filled with worshipers.. .A restful prelude on the organ
allures the soul to worship. Without the aid of any choir several
familiar hymns are sung by everyone who can sing and many who cannot.
A bible lesson is read. The Apostles’ Creed is said in unison.
Requests for prayer in special cases are gathered up into one
prayerful effort made without the help of any book. One Wednesday
evening Dr. Worcester gives the address, another Dr. McComb, still
another some expert in neurology or psychology. The theme is usually
one of practical significance, like hurry, worry, fear, or grief, and
the healing Christ is made real in consequence to many an unhappy
heart.
Other
subjects discussed at the classes included: habit, anger, suggestion,
insomnia, nervousness, what the will can do, and what prayer can do.
The class was always followed by a social hour in the parish house.
Reporting on the results of these group experiences, Powell says:
"Though the mass effect of the service is prophylactic, it is
not uncommon for insomnia, neuralgia and kindred ills to disappear in
the self-forgetfulness of such evenings."
The
heart of the Emmanuel therapy was the clinic. Before a patient was
accepted for treatment, he was required to have a careful diagnostic
examination by a physician and in some cases, a psychiatrist. If
psychosis or organic pathology was disclosed, the individual was not
accepted. If the disease appeared to be simply functional, the
applicant was registered for treatment and directed to the rector’s
study. In the case of alcoholics, it was felt by Worcester that they
should be seen every day, especially in the early phases of their
treatment. The new, nonalcoholic habits which the "psychotherapy"
was implanting were to be treated as tender shoots until they took
firm root. The patient was felt to need the daily support of the
therapist until these new habits were firmly rooted, after which the
therapist met the patient once or twice a week. Just how long the
average alcoholic treatment took is not clear from the literature. No
cases of alcoholism were listed among the quick cures - i.e., those
effected in one or two sessions. A treatment period of at least
several months seemed to have been involved in most of the cases
cited.
The
treatment itself included "full self—revelation" in which
the patient poured out all the facts - physical, mental, social,
moral, and spiritual — which might have any bearing on the
sickness. This catharsis was felt to have a curative effect in itself
often serving to "unlock the hidden wholesomeness" of the
patient’s inner life. The second phase of the treatment consisted
of "prayer and godly counsel." This apparently was aimed
chiefly at teaching the patient the techniques of prayer and helping
him strengthen his spiritual life, rather than praying for the
individual. The third phase was the use of relaxation and
"therapeutic suggestion," the latter administered in some
cases while the patient was under mild or deep hypnosis. It is
noteworthy that although Worcester began by using hypnosis in many
different types of difficulties, he eventually limited it to use with
some alcoholics. Apparently he felt that the alcoholic needed the
more powerful effect of hypnotic suggestion.
"The
patient is next invited to be seated in a reclining chair, taught to
relax all his muscles, calmed by soothing words, and in a state of
physical relaxation and mental quiet the unwholesome thoughts and
untoward symptoms are dislodged from his consciousness, and in their
place are sown the seeds of more health-giving thoughts and better
habits."
During
the course of the movement there occurred a highly significant
transition in the thought and methodology used. The change consisted
of the gradual incorporation of psychoanalytic techniques, as
Worcester began to learn of the dynamic psychology of Freud. This was
accompanied by diminishing dependence on suggestion, the therapeutic
device in vogue in the early days of the movement due to the
influence of Worcester’s European training with the physiological
psychologists. Worcester stoutly defended the method of
psychoanalysis. In 1932 he wrote: "I cannot agree with Stekel
who advises that analysis be attempted in alcoholic cases only after
other means have failed. I have found it helpful to begin my
treatment with an analysis of childhood and youth." Worcester
used standard psychoanalytic techniques such as dream analysis and
the probing of early memories as a part of his therapy.
Like
others who have attempted to use such techniques with alcoholics,
Worcester had encountered the problem of breaking the addictive cycle
long enough to allow the therapy to have some effect. He developed
his own unique solution which he felt was responsible for his success
in keeping the patient sober while therapy got a foothold. The
solution consisted of two parts: (a) making the analysis relatively
brief; (b) combining analysis with his earlier method, therapeutic
suggestion.
From
insight gained through analysis of alcoholics, Worcester arrived at a
profound understanding of alcoholism: "The analysis, as a rule,
brings to light certain experiences, conflicts, a sense of
inferiority, maladjustment to life, and psychic tension, which are
frequently the predisposing causes of excessive drinking. Without
these few men becoming habitual drunkards. In reality drunkenness is
a result of failure to integrate personality in a majority of cases.
Patients, however darkly, appear to divine this of themselves, and I
have heard some fifty men make this remark independently: "I see
now that drinking was only a detail. The real trouble with me was
that my whole life and my thoughts were wrong. This is why I drank."
He
went on to say:
"It is this consciousness of crippling
dissociation of powers, of inhibition and repression which
predisposes men to drink. In alcoholism in its early stages they find
release of their faculties, the dissociation of their fears and
inhibitions, as so many have said, "A short cut to the ideal."
The aim of Emmanuel therapy was the reconstruction of the inner self so that the alcoholic could remain abstinent -Worcester had no illusions about alcoholics becoming social drinkers. There was a conviction that this reconstruction of personality must utilize the resources inherent in the person. Psychoanalysis was an important technique for releasing these resources.
While Worcester came to regard analysis as essential, he also observed that "few drunkards have been cured by analysis alone." He recognized that their are two levels to the alcoholics problem - the underlying psychic conflicts and what he called the "habit itself," the effect on the nervous system of continued inebriety and the craving resulting therefrom. Analysis, he had found, had little effect on the latter, whereas suggestion often "supplied immediate help and permanent immunity from the return of the habit." His working hypothesis was that analysis relieved the psychic problems, "reducing the problem presented by the drunkard largely to a physical habit." Suggestion effected a strengthening of the will and a distaste for liquor so that the physical habit could be controlled.
Fortunately
Worcester gives a sample of how he administered therapeutic
suggestion to alcoholics: "Most alcoholics are highly
suggestible and I have found a few who failed to respond to the
technique intended to induce mental repose and abstraction and
physical relaxation. When the patient had obtained this condition, I
should address him in low monotones and offer him repeated
suggestions, positive and negative, somewhat as follows: "You
have determined to break this habit, and you have already gone days
without a drink. The desire is fading out of your mind, the habit is
losing its power over you. You need not be afraid that you will
suffer at all. In a short time liquor in any form will have no
attraction for you. It will be associated in your mind with weakness
and sorrow and sickness and failure. These thoughts are very
disagreeable to you and you turn away from them. You wish to be free,
you desire to lead a useful, happy life. Liquor is your enemy, but
you are overpowering it and in a short time it will have no power
over you at all." Then as a person accustomed to depend on
alcohol for sleep, when deprived of it, are apt to suffer from
insomnia, I should add suggestions as to sleep and rest."
In
addition to the suggestions given by the therapist, the patients were
taught autosuggestion so that their treatment could continue between
sessions.
The
third phase of the Emmanuel program consisted of the "friendly
visitors," whose purpose was "to give the environment of
the patients care similar to that provided for their bodies by the
physicians, and for their minds by the clergymen."
"Very
often patients... .need more than anything else a friend to show
personal sympathy and interest, to encourage them, and to make sure
they are following the prescribed directions. Victims of alcohol
especially need this assistance to prevent relapse after the
conclusions of treatment before they have acquired full
self—reliance."
Worcester
and McComb reported that the system was very successful. They pointed
out that alcoholics profited from becoming friendly visitors to other
alcoholics who were beginning their treatment and that they made very
effective visitors. One thinks immediately of the A.A. system of
sponsorship and the principle of Twelfth Step work in this
connection.
"Our
patients... .need occupation to keep them from being self-centered.
Clerical work has been found useful, but the best results have come
from sending them as friendly visitors to others less fortunate. Not
only does this have a good effect on the visitor, but new converts
are proverbially enthusiastic, and the alcoholic who finds himself
released from his bondage is a most valuable assistant in encouraging
and keeping up to the mark patients who have just begun."
The
friendly visitor system was administered by a committee which
included several trained social workers. Through this system the
alcoholic was aided in finding employment and, if necessary, given a
financial loan for a limited time while he adjusted his life. The
friendly visitors often helped the patient readjust in the area of
his family life.
Philosophically
the Emmanuel Movement stands in contrast to the approaches studied
previously. All of Worcester’s writings reflect the conception that
all life is permeated by the divine spirit, a belief which had its
roots in the panpsychism of his teacher, Fechner. In discussing
"Man’s Life in God," Worcester wrote:
"The
secret of all spiritual religion is the union of the human soul with
the divine soul, the belief that man’s spirit and God’s spirit
are in their essence one. Without this belief man’s relations with
God become formal and external. The world, robbed of the haunting
presence of the indwelling deity, becomes irreligious and profane."
Because
he held that the spirits of God and man are in their essence one,
Worcester did not think of man as depraved or lost in sin. Man’s
spirit is a part of God; his realization and healing consist not in
surrender to an external Power, but in the redirecting, releasing,
and reeducating of the inherent powers—the hidden wholesomeness—of
the spirit within. This positive conception of man contrasts vividly
with mission and Salvation Army doctrines of the impotent, sinful man
who can be saved only by surrender to an external Power. Rather than
seeing man’s beatitude in the abnegation of self, Worcester felt
that the purpose of therapy was to help the person "find freedom
and to discover a better way of life for himself." Prayer was
considered an important means of releasing the divine energies within
the soul trapped by one’s neurosis.
Worcester felt that many religious workers in the field of healing had made the mistake of supposing that God can cure in only one way. God cures by many means. An act of healing, whatever the means used, is religious, since the divine spirit permeates all of life. The healing of bodies and spirits by medicine, rest, kindness, and self—understanding is just as much an act of God as healing which depends on prayer and suggestion. Further, healing of the mind and spirit is not some sort of divine magic but is the divine spirit working through the orderly forces of nature. This general orientation provided the basis for a thoroughly cooperative relationship between the various healing disciplines involved in Emmanuel therapy.
In
his view of man Worcester (in contrast to previous approaches) held
to a thoroughly unrepressive attitude toward man’s desires and
feelings. He recognized that the tendency, especially among Christian
thinkers of the past, has been to deny these factors in human life.
Concerning the conflict between reason and conscience on the one
hand, and emotion and desires on the other, he writes:
"The
first step toward a possible solution of this fundamental problem of
human life... .is to recognize the legitimacy of both these elements
of our being. In our disposition to do this lies whatever superiority
we possess over former generations and our chief hope for the
future." This
handling of the problem reflects Worcester’s psychoanalytic
orientation.
The
problem of responsibility, a key problem whenever religion and
psychology meet, was handled in a realistic manner by this approach.
Worcester could not have fallen into freewill moralism concerning
alcoholism. For one thing, from the beginning of the movement, he
recognized alcoholism as an illness. Further his training in
psychology had acquainted him with the role played by the
subconscious mind in all behavior, including alcoholism. In 1908,
long before the idea had become generally accepted, Worcester wrote:
"We
believe that there is a subconscious element in the mind and that
this element enters into every mental process. Our daily life is
influenced far more than the shrewdest of us suspect by the
subconscious activity which is at work, exercising a selective power
even in apparently accidental choices. Hence the real cause of our
acts are often hidden from us."
Worcester
was convinced that "it is the subconscious that rules in the
mental and moral region where habit has the seat of its strength."
Further, he believed that therapeutic suggestion was able to
influence and guide the subconscious mind into paths of health. As
the influence of Freud grew in his thinking, the importance of
subconscious factors was further enhanced.
There
was another reason why Worcester avoided a moralistic conception of
alcoholism and human ills in general. As early as 1908 he had
recognized that the first six years of a child’s life are the most
important and determinative of his life. It was therefore relatively
easy for him to accept the findings of the psychoanalysts in this
area. In his last book he wrote: "The great psychological
thinkers and workers, Freud, Jung, Adler, and others, were quick to
perceive the significance of childhood as the chief determinant of
life."
An
Evaluation of This Approach
How
effective was the Emmanuel therapy in breaking the addictive cycle
and providing initial sobriety? And how successful was it in
providing long-term sobriety? It is impossible to answer these
questions with certainty, since the movement no longer exists and
apparently there are no quantitative records. For several reasons,
however, it seems probable that the Emmanuel movement enjoyed a
relatively high degree of success in providing at least temporary
sobriety. We know that the Emmanuel workers accepted for treatment
only those who wanted to stop drinking and who came on their own
volition. A.A. experience has shown that these mental attitudes on
the part of the alcoholic are essential prerequisites for successful
therapy. These Emmanuel requirements meant that only patients who
were "at bottom" and who would accept responsibility in
asking for help would be treated. Second, we know that the Emmanuel
therapists had the advantage over "straight religious"
approaches of having medical assistance - a valuable aid in effecting
initial sobriety. Third, we know that suggestion administered as in
this therapy by a person with status, exercises a powerful control
over behavior. This is especially true in the case of insecure and
dependent people, such as alcoholics frequently are. Fourth, we know
from various reports that suggestive therapy has produced impressive
results with alcoholics. Prior to the Emmanuel movement, Charcot
treated 600 cases over a twenty—year period and reported 400
"cures." Tokarsky of Moscow reported that 80 percent of the
700 alcoholics he had treated were cured, and Wiamsky of Saratow
claimed about the same percentage of cures out of the 319 cases he
treated. Unfortunately, no definition of "cure" was given
in these reports.
It
seems probable that many of those who gained temporary sobriety
through Emmanuel therapy stayed sober for an extended period. The
fact that Worcester and McComb over the years acquired a reputation
for success in treating alcoholics indicates that many of their
patients must have stayed abstinent. In 1932 they were able to
report: "It is well known that we have obtained as good and as
permanent results in these fields as any other workers." If most
of their cures had been short—lived, they would not have enjoyed
this reputation.
Several
cases are presented in Emmanuel literature which show that sobriety
extended over long periods. Worcester tells, for instance, of
treating a very difficult alcoholic with homicidal tendencies who had
been given up as hopeless by the doctors. At the time of writing the
man had enjoyed seven years of sobriety. Worcester reported having
little success in treating "dypsomaniacs" - apparently the
equivalent of periodic alcoholics as contrasted with "ordinary
alcoholics" (steadies). In spite of this, he tells of
successfully treating a woman "dypsomaniac," who had been
judged hopeless by two psychiatrists. Worcester writes:
"As
I have kept in contact with this woman, I can say that she was cured
in the sense that for twenty—two years there has been no return of
the fatal cycle, not a drop of liquor has passed her lips." That
a good deal of success was enjoyed by the movement, even in cases
where relapses occurred, is shown by Samuel McComb’s statement:
"There are other cases of alcoholism where a relapse has
occurred, but it has only been temporary; and fathers and sons have
been restored to their families with what a joy only those who have
felt the curse of intemperance can realize."
Writing
in 1931, the Emmanuel leaders could report, "On the whole our
successes have been far more frequent than our failures." This
statement was made with the perspective of twenty-five years of
experience in the movement.
There
are many points at which the Emmanuel approach was superior in theory
and practice to the evangelistic approaches. While recognizing the
importance of group experience, the Emmanuel approach also supplied
individual psychotherapy. This combination of individual and group
therapy represents an obvious advance over the mass evangelistic
approaches. As the Emmanuel approach came to incorporate
psychoanalytic procedure in its therapy, it dealt to some degree with
the underlying causes of inebriety, rather than simply relieving or
changing symptoms. Worcester’s observation that alcoholics respond
best to relatively brief therapy concurs with modern findings.
The
Emmanuel approach achieved an integration of the healing resources of
medicine, psychology, social work, and religion. In the Salvation
Army we saw a certain eclecticism in which the resources of other
professions were drawn on as supplements to the basic religious
approach. In contrast, the Emmanuel workers saw medicine, psychology,
and social work as integral parts of a total "religious"
approach to healing. The medical and psychiatric screening of
patients not only protected the church clinic but also improved the
possibility of a favorable outcome.
The
goal of Emmanuel therapy - to promote the freedom and growth of the
individual by releasing inner resources, in contrast to
authority-centered approaches,- is in keeping with the healthy needs
of the alcoholic. We have seen that alcoholics often have neurotic
needs which encourage the formation of immature dependency
relationships. Their healthy needs are for increased self—esteem
and constructive autonomy. In contrast to previously studied
approaches, which encouraged dependency and surrender to authority,
Emmanuel thought encouraged independence and growth in
responsibility. Worcester shunned the use of exhortation and
persuasion as being "wholly out of place in treatment."
They may provoke opposition on the patient’s part, or, they may
even be dangerous, because they impose the teacher’s personality
and philosophy on the patient instead of allowing him to find freedom
and to discover a better way of life for himself."
Instead
of depending on religious thrill and a sudden, dramatic conversion,
Emmanuel therapy relied on the gradual type of religious change. It
seems clear that Emmanuel’s psychotherapy offered greater
possibility of lasting change than was true of the evangelistic
approaches. The Emmanuel workers recognized that evangelistic
approaches have value for some alcoholics; they also saw that many
alcoholics cannot be reached by those approaches. Powell, an
Emmanuelite, wrote: "While men like Gerry McAuley and the
Salvation Army leaders have done something, the emotional motive
which they use does not avail in every case."
The
Emmanuel approach recognized fully that the alcoholic needs
individual and group support during his recovery. The "friendly
visitor" system combined the principle of A.A. sponsorship with
the resources of a social caseworker. Undoubtedly this friendly,
individual attention and help were major factors in the success of
the approach.
The
approach was well equipped to help the alcoholic find real
self—acceptance and release from guilt. Its superiority lay in its
splendid conception of alcoholism and its understanding of the
psychodynamics of human behavior. Twenty—seven years before A.A.
began, this approach was regarding alcoholism as a disease to be
treated like other functional diseases. In this early period there
was a degree of moralism connected with the conception of all
functional illnesses. The influence of psychoanalytic concepts
gradually removed this moralism, revealing the manner in which
behavior is conditioned by early experiences and by unconscious
forces which are not subject to the will.
The
therapy sought to reduce the alcoholics’ guilt rather than to
enhance it as in the previous approaches. It achieved this by its
disease conception of alcoholism and its positive conception of man,
allowing the therapist to establish a nonjudgmental relationship with
the patient. By means of his acceptance of the patient, the therapist
was able to help the patient achieve self-acceptance.
Self-acceptance, it is well to remember, implies a sense of being
accepted by life. This the Emmanuel therapist was well equipped to
convey because of the positive, life-affirming philosophy and
theology of the movement. There is a sense of course, in which the
experience of "accepting oneself as being accepted," to use
Paul Tillich’s description of salvation, results from any
psychotherapy which is successful. Emmanuel therapy apparently was
frequently able to convey this experience. When guilt is reduced, the
energies previously employed in the guilt and self-punishment process
are freed and made available for therapeutic ends.
Forgiveness
was achieved in Emmanuel therapy not by petitioning an authoritarian
Deity, but by modifying the unmerciful superego of the patient.
McComb wrote as follows concerning what he called the "New
England or Quaker conscience":
"The
great need here is for a new conception of God. The mind must be
taught to rest in his fatherly love, in his tenderness and grace. . .
.By the constant presentation to the mind of these ideas the
conscience is gradually lightened of its morbidity and the will is
set free to act."
Rather
than concerning itself with specific "sins," the Emmanuel
approach focused attention on the underlying causes of these symptoms
- namely, the sick personality. This also aided in reducing the
alcoholic’s guilt load. In addition, the psychoanalytic concept
that alcoholic behavior is determined in large measure by
subconscious factors (beyond the realm of willpower) had a tremendous
guilt-reducing effect. The positive conception of man and the
recognition that his drives and feelings are not inherently evil both
contribute to healthy self-acceptance on the part of the patient.
Likewise the conception of the healing process as resulting from the
release of inner resources (as contrasted with external divine
intervention) tends to enhance self—esteem by enabling the patient
to feel a sense of achievement in his improved condition. It also
serves to keep the responsibility for healing with the patient. The
alcoholic’s inferiority is reduced not by identifying with a
powerful authority-figure, but by becoming aware of his "higher
and diviner self" which is his most real self.
The
Emmanuel workers recognized clearly that religious symbols can be
employed in ways that promote maturity and health. They threw their
influence behind the latter. As a result we do not find the emphasis
on fear and guilt which was present in the previous approaches.
With
only minor changes, the mature Emmanuel concept of alcoholism would
be acceptable in the most enlightened circles today. In one way it
was superior even to the A.A. conception. Because of its orientation
in depth psychology, it recognized that the selfishness and
egocentricity of the alcoholic are actually symptoms of deeper
problems and conflicts. This is in contrast to the A.A. position
which does not seem to recognize the symptomatic nature of
selfishness. (It should be added that many individual A.A.’s,
particularly those who have had psychotherapy, do recognize the
nature of selfishness.) Because of deeper understanding of
personality, the Emmanuel therapy was beamed more accurately at the
roots of alcoholism than is the A.A. therapy. Its use of
psychoanalytic techniques in its therapy provided it with the
practical means of getting at these underlying causes. Such
techniques are not present to any great degree in A.A. The Emmanuel
approach was superior to A.A. in that it made individual as well as
group therapy available to the alcoholic. Further, because of its
psychoanalytic grounding, it was less repressive than A.A. in its
attitude toward the self.
In
spite of its areas of theoretical superiority, it seems probable that
from a practical standpoint, Emmanuel was less effective than A.A.
Its therapy was less adequate than A.A. in that it lacked an
all-alcoholic support group. Further, it did not capitalize fully on
the recognition that helping other alcoholics help the alcoholic
patient to stay sober himself. Nor did it capitalize on its
recognition that one alcoholic has a natural entree to another. Even
though its goal was nonauthoritarian, its therapy was dispensed by an
authority figure. It lacked the advantage of A.A.’s self-help
orientation, particularly the feeling on the part of the A.A. member
- "We’re licking this thing ourselves" and "This is
our fellowship." Since the Emmanuel approach was dependent on
professionals, the number of alcoholics who could be helped was quite
limited as compared to A.A.
The
central weakness of the Emmanuel approach to alcoholism would seem to
be the use of suggestion. Although Worcester’s therapeutic aim —
increasing the freedom of the patient - was psychologically sound,
his method actually defeated his aim. The thing that was not
recognized was that suggestion is an essentially authoritarian tool,
that it substitutes the authority of the "suggester" for
the autonomy of the individual, thus establishing an unconstructive
dependence on the therapist. The Emmanuel workers did not realize
that the "strengthening of the will" which they observed in
alcoholic patients was actually the result of the projection of their
authority on the patient. Carl R. Rogers includes suggestion under
"Methods in Disrepute" in his discussion of counseling. He
writes:
"The
client is told in a variety of ways, "you’re getting better,"
"You’re doing well," "you’re improving," all
in the hope that it will strengthen his motivation in these
directions. Shaffer has well pointed out that such suggestion is
essentially repressive. It denies the problem which exists, and it
denies the feeling which the individual has about the problem."
It
should be noted that suggestion was generally accepted as a
therapeutic device during the early period of the Emmanuel movement.
In fact, medical schools were teaching the technique as a healing
tool. As we have seen, the Emmanuel workers put decreasing emphasis
on suggestion as their knowledge of psychoanalysis increased. Though
their methodology became relatively less repressive, it would seem
probable that the effectiveness of their psychoanalytic procedures
must have been vitiated in part by the continued use of suggestion.
Worcester was insightfully accurate in recognizing the two levels of alcoholism and in his belief that something had to be done to hold the addiction in check while psychotherapy sought to deal with the underlying causes. Unfortunately, the device he employed (suggestion) impeded the effectiveness of the psychotherapy.
Why
did this movement not survive? First, it was centered around two
strong and unusual personalities. There were few clergymen with the
kind of training and general qualifications possessed by Worcester
and McComb. Apparently the movement was not successful in training
younger men to carry on the tradition. Second, the fundamental
methodological weakness of the movement may have contributed to its
demise. The continued use of a repressive device like suggestion over
a long period of time may have resulted in diminishing enthusiasm and
decreasing therapeutic return. Of course there is a sense in which
the movement continues in its influence on the clergymen whose
interest in psychotherapy and healing was stimulated by their
contacts with the movement, its literature, or others who had felt
its influence.
What
We Can Learn from the Emmanuel Approach
The
Emmanuel Movement was the first organized attempt to apply the joint
resources of psychology and religion to the problem of alcoholism.
Its degree of success suggests the possibilities
that lie in this direction. It was the first approach to understand
and seek to treat the underlying causes of alcoholism. In spite of
its methodological error, its general orientation was positive and
life-affirming, so much so that its critics labeled it "hedonistic."
The practical values as well as the psychological validity of this
outlook have been discussed in our evaluation.
This
approach provides an impressive demonstration of the importance in
dealing with alcoholics of one’s conception of alcoholism and the
human situation in general. In its understanding of the
psychodynamics of alcoholism and its incorporation of psychoanalytic
insights and methods, this approach was decades ahead of its time. In
these regards, as in the handling of the problem of guilt and
responsibility, the Emmanuel Movement has a great deal to teach many
religious leaders today. Among other things it provides an example of
the way in which a psychoanalytic orientation can mediate the
acceptance of God, thus enhancing self—acceptance. As we have seen,
it did this, not by encouraging surrender to an external deity, but
by resolving inner conflict, thus releasing God-given resources
within the personality. The resolving of inner conflict was achieved
through psychoanalytic techniques which were based on a recognition
of the dynamic significance of the unconscious and by an actual
accepting relationship with one of God’s children, the therapist.
The
Emmanuel Movement pioneered in the field of church-sponsored
psychotherapeutic clinics. Its story should cause organized religion
to reflect on its general role in a society plagued by widespread
neurosis and inadequate facilities for treatment. Startled by the
overwhelming influx of patients, the Emmanuel leaders wrote:
"The
mere fact that disinterested clergymen and physicians were willing to
be consulted.. . .has brought persons to us in such numbers that,
although we have a good-sized staff, it is impossible for us to see
one person in five for a single conversation. This one fact should
cause the Church to reflect. Why should there not be adequate
assistance for men and women who desire and need personal, moral and
spiritual help?"
Although
this was written many years ago, the question is still relevant and
pressing in our day. A partial answer is emerging in the pastoral
counseling movement and the two hundred or so church-related
counseling services which have been established in recent years.
Reproduced
in whole from the book Understanding and Counseling the Alcoholic by
Howard J. Clinebell, Jr. (1956)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.