Recovery From Adiccionts Transpersonal Lens

8/19/2019 Recovery From Adiccionts Transpersonal Lens

1/17

Saints Run Mad 2.0: Further Deliberations on Recovery

from Addictions Through a Transpersonal Lens

Peter Anthony Eng1

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract This article examines major inconsistencies that arise between the broad theories,

spirit, and ideals of transpersonal psychology and its support of twelve-step programs. In place

of this alliance, an alternative spiritual framework for recovery is proposed that is construed

from the critical application of both contemporary transpersonal theory and addictions re-

search. It is noted in conclusion that, although the transpersonal field has gone to great lengths

to promote intrapsychic forms of healing from addiction, additional research pertaining to the

socio-cultural dimensions of a distinct transpersonal recovery is imperative.

Keywords Transpersonal psychology.

Addiction.

Alcoholics Anonymous.

Biopsychosocialmodel

Introduction

Recently, there has been an outbreak of criticism of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) in the

mainstream media, initiated by the heralded publication of Lance and Zachary Dodes’s The

Sober Truth: Debunking the Bad Science Behind 12-Step Programs and the Rehab Industry

(Dodes and Dodes 2014). The duo has ignited an impassioned debate by questioning both the

effectiveness of twelve-step groups and whether alcoholism is a medical disease. Lance Dodes

is an influential authority by virtue of his previous role as an assistant clinical professor of

psychiatry at Harvard. Sitting on one side of the continuum, there are those who argue, with

the support of numerous peer-reviewed studies, that AA’s success rate in treating alcoholism is

no more than 5 – 10 %. On the other end, many insist, often anecdotally, that AA is the most

effective intervention available. In all probability, this quarrel will not be settled in the

foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, the conflict ’s open nature clears the way for reassessing the historical alliance

between the field of transpersonal psychology and AA. Owing to the lack of contention in

Pastoral Psychol

DOI 10.1007/s11089-015-0678-9

* Peter Anthony Eng

[email protected]

1 88 King Street, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11089-015-0678-9&domain=pdfhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-7644-8168


2/17

transpersonal forums, many may have been reluctant to be critical of this relationship. AA is

sacrosanct in the eyes of many who claim to be liberated from alcoholism or who have known

people to be saved by the program. For these reasons Schoen (2009), a Jungian therapist and

author, attempts to head off critical inquiry at the pass by warning that he has Bvery little

patience and tolerance for theoretical A.A. bashing ̂ (p. ix).Inaugurated in 1969, the express purpose of transpersonal psychology is Bthe reflective

study of transcendent experiences and its practical application to healing^ (Chinen 1996,

p. 17). Research into addiction is ideally suited for this school since addiction is Bunique in the

mental health industry in that it openly acknowledges . . . perceived metaphysical valences^

(Boeving 2010, p. 94). Simply put, the problem is tailor-made for transpersonal solutions. In

view of the fact that AA was already in the late 1960s at the forefront of treating addiction with

spiritual means, the transpersonal field naturally gravitated towards a Bmarriage . . . [with] the

Twelve Step Program^ (Grof n.d.). According to the most recent count available, 75.5 % of

U.S. treatment centers are twelve-step in orientation (Roman and Blum 2004).In brief, the emphasis of AA and other twelve-step groups that it spawned is on spiritual

growth. The twelve steps are at the heart of its teachings and members are urged to seek

assistance from a higher power of their own preference. Miller (1998) reflects, BThe essence of

AA’s program . . . is the understanding that the alcoholic’s best, if not only, hope for sobriety is

through recognizing, appealing to, and accepting help from . . . a transcendent power, referred

to as God in AA’s twelve steps^ (p. 980).

By the mid-1990s, the number of publications on addiction from members of the transper-

sonal community began to dwindle, albeit with a sense of fait accompli. Common ground had

emerged and a distinct transpersonal recovery strategy came into being. Based on a consensusin transpersonal literature (Carroll 1987; Firman and Gila 1997; Grof 1994; Grof 1987;

Metzner 1994; Small 1987; Sparks 1993; White 1979; Whitfield 1985) the optimal treatment

for addiction is described as (a) participation in a twelve-step program such as AA, (b) in

conjunction with psychotherapy that is amenable to spirituality in either individual or group

settings, (c) coupled with practices that can induce a therapeutic non-ordinary state of

consciousness (NOSC). Echoing the sentiments of William James and Carl Jung, the etiology

of addiction is deemed a Bcounterfeit quest for wholeness^ (Nixon 2011) with the therapeutic

corollary of ego-transcendence.

At a cursory glance, the marriage between AA and transpersonal psychology seems

appropriate, effective, seamless, and elegant. Indeed, Jung confirmed, in his famous letter to

AA co-founder Bill Wilson, that the formula for recovery is Bspiritus contra spiritum^ (Schoen

2009, p. 19). Further, the two parties acknowledged a silver lining in addiction whereby the

symptomatic despondency can boost Bthe necessary antecedent to change and integration^

(Godlaaski 1988, p. 248). Barring the occasional quibbles over the perception that AA

members are largely reluctant to engage in NOSC (Grof n.d.) and the overtly theistic bias of

twelve-step programs (Cortwright 1997), the matrimony seems destined to last until death do

us part. Even so, many unintended and inauspicious cracks can be detected in this conjugal

bond, from the time of consummation until the present.

A strange fitting tailor-made alliance

Christina Grof ’s (1994) The Thirst for Wholeness both reinforces AA’s standing in the

transpersonal community and inadvertently reveals many immediate problems associated with

Pastoral Psychol


3/17

the marriage. For example, the author protests that Bsome Western religious attitudes feed into

and substantiate a negative, unhealthy view of ourselves as unworthy and even evil^ (Grof

1994, p. 93). She adds that Breligious texts . . . often emphasize the negative: human beings are

sinners, lost souls in need of redemption^ (p. 91). Yet, she omits indicating the obvious parallel

that, throughout its literature, AA perceives moral deficiency in one’s character to be at thecore of alcoholism:

Selfishness — self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our troubles. Driven by a

hundred forms of fear, self-delusion, self-seeking, and self-pity . . . Above everything,

we alcoholics must be rid of this selfishness. We must, or it kills us! (Alcoholics

Anonymous 2001, p. 62)

In another instance, Grof (1994) takes the unstated liberty of modifying AA’s third-step

phrase from BGod as we understand Him^ to BGod as we understand God^ (p. 119).

Presumably, she is attempting to make the program palatable to those who Bhave voicedconcern that the Twelve Steps . . . reflect[s] aspects of a patriarchal society^ (Sanders 2009, p.

9). Specifically, Grof (1994) laments that if we attend a Btraditional church or synagogue . . .

we become confused . . . . Even if God is represented as a loving God, he is almost exclusively

male and he exists apart from us^ (p. 94). Inexplicably, the author neglects to reveal anywhere

in her work that the same transgression occurs in AA. On every occasion that God is

mentioned in the Big Book (the primary text of Alcoholics Anonymous), God is invariably

referred to by the masculine personal pronouns He, Him, or His, which also serves to

emphasize the AA deity’s externality.

Some of these discrepancies cannot be dismissed merely as Big Book semantics, trapped inDepression-era biblical parlance. AA literature also contains serious deviations from the

perspective of any generally accepted school of counseling thought. To illustrate, Christina

Grof (1994) cautions that those who have a pattern of suppressing anger Brisk damag[ing]

[their] . . . integrity^ (p. 82). She goes on to say, BRather than expressing anger, we become

furious with ourselves or turn rage into depression^ (p. 81). However, she is silent on AA’s

instructions to spouses to Bnever be angry. Even though your husband becomes unbearable and

you have to leave him temporarily, you should, if you can, go without rancor. Patience and

good temper are most necessary^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p.111). Battista (1996)

regards the repression of anger in spiritual practice as an example of Bfalse spirituality^

(p. 252). Le, Ingvarson, and Page (1995) cite Maslow, Rogers, Carkhuff, and Benjamin as

prominent psychologists who confirm that encouraging the repression of anger is

Btherapeutically unsound in denying clients rights to their true feelings^ (p. 607).

In fairness, similar contradictions can be uncovered in other transpersonal works that have a

tendency to support AA as a ‘spiritual’ practice while at the same time casually disparaging

Judeo-Christian religiousness. The oft-repeated aphorism that AA is a spiritual, rather than

religious program camouflages AA’s Bquasi-religious^ (Rudy and Greil 1988) temperament,

while a kind and generous ‘ perennialist ’ attitude further pre-empts AA from censure. In this

vein, Grof (1994) suggests that Bif we take the time to look past the words at the broader

concepts and suggestions for healing within the Twelve Steps, we find an approach that

contains many of the ideas inherent in time-tested spiritual systems^ (p. 194).

However, the reflexive, seemingly benign, and hitherto unquestioned embrace of AA by the

transpersonal community obscures potentially harmful ramifications that naturally emerge

from this relationship. Essentially, the two groups have sharply contrasting ideas on the

underlying essence of human nature and, in turn, the foundations of spiritual healing. As I

Pastoral Psychol


4/17

will explain in greater detail, transpersonal theory, as a whole, arduously attempts to convey

that all persons are, at the core of their being, much larger than the limits narrowly imposed by

their personal egos. AA, in contrast, seeks to reveal and continually reinforce the supposition

that alcoholics, in effect, fall far short of the grandiose self-images suggested by their egos.

Recovery efforts of individuals attending AA may then be hindered precisely because of theconflation of transpersonal theory and AA doctrine to paralyzing effect. In order to fully

appreciate this unacknowledged but polarizing rift, the origins of AA’s spiritual assumptions

need to be considered.

The varieties of spiritual solutions to alcoholism

In 1934, AA co-founder Bill Wilson had a mystical encounter in a New York hospital room

after undergoing Belladonna treatment for a severe alcoholic binge (Alcoholics Anonymous2001). Similar to St. Paul, the light of God suddenly appeared before Wilson and he underwent

a radical change in consciousness: BI must turn in all things to the Father of light who presides

over us all . . . God comes to most men gradually, but His impact on me was sudden and

profound^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 14). Mystical experiences are known to occa-

sionally result in Ban inner marriage between the individual and God^ (Dwight 1996a , p. 135),

and Wilson, throughout the remainder of his life, bore the hallmarks of a Bfully surrendered,

willing B bride^ or Bservant ̂ to the divine^ (Cortwright 1997, p. 48).

Wilson’s mystical experience, which radically altered the trajectory of addictions treatment,

occurred for possibly one, or a mixture of two main reasons: (1) the hallucinogenic effects of Belladonna, a then-popular detoxification treatment that is known to induce delirium and (2)

God’s directly choosing Wilson. To support their program’s spiritual contentions, AA apolo-

gists are likely to prefer the latter reason and deny the first. Kurtz (2008) steers AA members

clear from investigating entheogenic avenues to sobriety and maintains that any such attempt

Bshares the core assumption of addictive thinking . . . and locates divinity in drugs^ (p. 44). On

the other side of the coin, the academic field of transpersonal psychology is inclined to be

interested in the first explanation (i.e., the belladonna). Mystical experiences that are stimu-

lated by entheogens are easier to understand, investigate, and repeat.

Taking the assumption on face value, that God chose Wilson, and insomuch as Ban

unconditional and infinite effect can never be conditioned by a finite cause^ (Staal 1975,

p. 125), AA is compelled to present a different path to recovery than Wilson’s sudden

unio mystica. The Beducational^ method, whereby a spiritual awakening Bdevelop[s]

slowly over a period of time^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 567), seems different

from what Jung postulated as a solution to alcoholism. According to the Big Book, in a

very rare moment in which Jung makes known his opinion on addiction (Schoen 2009),

Jung once confided to an American patient who was suffering from chronic alcoholism

that undergoing a Bvital spiritual experience^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 27) might

be the man’s best alternative. In this situation, Jung is most likely referring to the

numinous (i.e., Bvital^) charge that is theoretically contained in abrupt mystical outbursts.

Jung wrote extensively on these types of experiences, which are alleged to seize, terrify,

and inspire awe to such effect that Beven a bishop may not release [a person from this

state of rapture]^ (Meister Eckhart, as cited in Nelson 2011, p. 230). Wilson confirmed

through his episode in the hospital that an immediate psychic change could result from

such a precipitous mystical onrush and pave the way to recovery.

Pastoral Psychol


5/17

Seeing that AA has forever linked itself with Jung through a pair of published letters

between Jung and Wilson (Schoen 2009), one might attend AA expecting a specific Jung-

inspired solution for alcoholism. Oddly, in place of this one is steered towards a form of

evangelistic faith healing. It is improbable that ‘working’ AA’s twelve steps will lead to a peak

experience with as much dramatic urgency as Wilson’s. None of the 42 personal stories in the Big Book , which narrate how individual members found recovery through AA, resemble Wilson’s

spontaneous conversion. They tend to be predictable and adhere to the following formula:

The overall storyline followed classical literary conventions for tragedy and comedy.

Prototypical stages included: (1) first or early drinking, (2) alcoholic regression, (3)

hitting bottom, (4) progress in the AA program, and (5) stable sobriety, embedded in a

subjective, evaluative function over time. (Stobbe and Kurtz 2012, p. 29)

On this note, both Kurtz (2008) and Diamond (2002) maintain that a key cathartic release

mechanism in AA is the repeated telling at AA meetings of one’s personal journey to recovery.

Jung (1977) was fully aware of such a strategy being widely used for recovery, but he was

unimpressed with its long-term effectiveness:

A hysterical alcoholic was cured by this Group movement, and they used him as a sort

of model and sent him all round Europe, where he confessed so nicely and said that he

had done wrong and how he had got cured through the Group movement. And when he

had repeated his story twenty, or it may have been fifty, times, he got sick of it and took

to drink again. The spiritual sensation had simply faded away. (p. 272)

The fact that Wilson himself did not get sober by working the twelve-steps cannot beoverstated. He never drank again after the hospital incident, but the steps were not developed

until a few years later. Nonetheless, transpersonal psychology identifies its role in addiction

recovery through both facilitating spontaneous personal mystical experiences with its

Btechnologies^ (Grof et al. 2008, p. 156) and playing an adjunctive role in the twelve-step process.

Prelude to a puzzling spiritual framework for recovery

Dupre (1996) states, BAll genuine mysticism results in spiritual fecundity . . . . Having come to

partake in God’s life, the contemplative also feels called to share in God’s life-giving love^

(p. 14). Correspondingly, Wilson was gripped by a proselytizing impulse after the hospital

episode but, according to his own account, he felt disenchanted with organized religion. Yet, he

needed some kind of spiritual framework to convey his newfound bliss. There would appear to be

two main requirements: (1) an experiential, rather than blatantly religious practice, promising the

personal discovery of God, and (2) an appropriate container where he could coherently situate his

own life story as part of a larger narrative on the human struggle for spiritual redemption.

The design that Wilson chose for AA is widely known to be patterned after the Oxford

Group, a North American revival organization of which both he and AA co-founder Dr. Bob

were active members. This self-professed non-denominational Christian group that professed

itself more spiritual than religious had ignited a mass movement in the late 1920s with the

intent of establishing BA New World Order for Christ, the King^ (Layman with a Notebook

1933, p. 6). It set itself apart from major religions by claiming to complement and Brevitalize

existing religious organizations^ (Bufe 1998, p. 59). Central to Oxford Group doctrines are the

ideas that human immorality is responsible for all suffering, only God can change human

Pastoral Psychol


6/17

nature, and a mass conversion to Christ, whereby He is put in control of all human affairs,

would lead to a better world.

AA historian and arguably, its leading academic apologist, Ernie Kurtz, begrudgingly

acknowledges the extent of the Oxford Group’s influence on AA. Both he and White

(White and Kurtz 2008) strongly imply that only six of AA’s twelve steps are taken directlyfrom Oxford Group teachings. In contrast, later in his life, Wilson (1988) admits, in no

uncertain terms, the full scope of AA’s appropriations from the Oxford Group:

Where did the early AAs find the material for the remaining ten Steps? Where did we

learn about moral inventory, amends for harm done, turning our wills and lives over to

God? Where did we learn about meditation and prayer and all the rest of it? The spiritual

substance of our remaining ten Steps [emphasis added] came straight from Dr. Bob’s

and my own earlier association with the Oxford Groups [sic]. (p. 298)

Furthermore, B. (2003), in a scholarly effort to confirm AA’s biblical roots, lists 28 of the

Oxford Group’s most important principles and practices and it is clear that all of them are

absorbed in AA’s twelve steps:

(a) God; (b) His Plan; (c) Our Obedience; (d) Initial belief that God is; (e) Surrender of

your Bwill^ to God; (f) A Bturning point: . . .; (g) Confidence; (h) Confession; (i)

Conviction; (j) Conversion; (k) Continuance−Bsteps^ that would eliminate Bsin^

B blocking^ one from God and others; (l) Making restitution for harms caused by sins;

(m) Making Bdaily^ surrender . . .; (n) BGrowing^ spiritually through Bible study,

prayer, and Quiet Time observances enabling receipt of God’s revelation; (o) Becoming

BGod conscious^ as the result of such obedience; (p) Witnessing to what God had donethat the person could not do for himself; (q) Fellowshipping; (r) Serving. (s) Practicing

Christian principles . . . . (para. 24)

Kurtz’s reluctance to grant full credit to the Oxford Group may be due to that movement ’s

unsatisfactory track record on healing alcoholics (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001). Moreover,

the Oxford Group’s leader, Frank Buchman, fell from media grace when he voiced support for

Hitler prior to World War II. Yet, at the Oxford Group’s zenith, multitudes of fervent supporters

proclaimed to have experienced God and to have found healing directly through the move-

ment: BThousands of these witnesses are convicted by the evidence in their own lives of what

the life changing of the Oxford Group has done for them and can do for all^ (Layman with a

Notebook 1933, p. 7).

To be sure, Wilson implemented many provisions designed to differentiate AA from the

Oxford Group and tailor his program specifically for all alcoholics, regardless of their religious

orientation. Examples include the fact that Christ is not mentioned by name, one is given the

freedom to choose a higher power of one’s preference, steps one and two are unique to AA,

and the word ‘sin’ is replaced by ‘defects’ and ‘wrongs.’ AA also pioneered the therapeutic

and revolutionary concept of one alcoholic helping another. In spite of these adjustments, AA

inherited, in its entirety, a theological platform directly from the mind of Oxford Group leader

Buchman. AA could not have modified the Oxford Group’s ontological assumptions without

negatively affecting the accompanying mechanism for personal change. The Oxford Group

instructions are explicit and are mirrored by AA through its steps (Mercadante 1996).

Kurtz (2008) explains AA’s spiritual/therapeutic process in a circuitous manner that

suggests AA is a form of esoteric practice: Bthe spirituality necessary to recovery [involves]

not the seeking of the magical, but being open to miracle — accepting life as mystery to be

Pastoral Psychol


7/17

lived rather than a problem to be solved^ (p. 53). Still, and possibly for the purpose of

preserving mystery, he circumvents AA’s paramount exoteric tenet. Since B probably no human

power could have relieved our alcoholism^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 60), an alco-

holic’s only chance is the intervention of an omniscient, omnipotent, and creative being

overseeing every aspect of human existence. The Supreme Court of New York ruled in the1996 case of Griffin v. Coughlin that AA is in fact religious as it urges the acceptance of a

BSupreme Being of independent higher reality than humankind^ (Peele 2001, p. 37).

In her study on AA, Bean (1975 b) argues that AA’s deity bears resemblance to an obstinate

and conditional father who will only intervene if a child obeys his commands. She speculates

that such beliefs Bmay produce a low level of maturity . . . . This is a disadvantage for those

who are capable of more insight ̂ (p. 90). Le, Ingvarson, and Page (1995) arrive at a similar

conclusion and ask whether Bthe messages of AA are the ones we wish to send to our clients^

(p. 605). Again, Kurtz (2008) sidesteps AA theology. In the entirety of his 51 page paper, Why

A.A. Works: The Intellectual Significance of Alcoholics Anonymous, he mentions the concept of a higher power, which is at the very heart of AA doctrine, only once and in passing. At any

rate, the Oxford Group/AA theological mindset was familiar to Jung (1977), who confessed, BI

wish I were still a medieval man who could join such a creed. Unfortunately, it needs a

somewhat medieval psychology to do it and I am not sufficiently medieval^ (p. 163). In

retrospect, Jung never wrote or publicly uttered a single sentence that can be construed as an

endorsement of AA even though the organization flourished in his lifetime.

Kurtz (1991) concedes that there is an overt streak of anti-intellectualism in AA

(p. 188) but defends it by asserting that critical analysis by members of the program

is a form of denial. Still, since Kurtz was not only an intellectual mouthpiece for AA but also an active member, it may be concluded that one’s critical faculties can only

be applied to AA if it puts AA in a favorable light; otherwise, one is in danger of

imminent relapse. Bufe (1998) provides an extensive analysis of AA’s anti-intellectual

leanings and, from a transpersonal perspective, Vaughn (1991) advises, BWhenever

critical intelligence is discarded in favor of blind devotion to a particular experience, a

person, or a cause, addiction becomes a risk ̂ (p. 110).

Miracles, not magic

In 1934 Marjorie Harrison, an English Protestant woman, wrote the sharp-witted Saints Run

Mad in response to the Oxford Group. Among many criticisms, she castigated members for

their lack of discernment, Bfor, in obedience to the teachings of the Movement, they have put

out the lights of reason and intelligence that have been given them^ (Harrison 1934,

Chapter 4). Her disapproval of the Oxford Group could have been reserved for the yet-to-

be-conceived AA. For example, AA literature trumpets that Bhereafter in this drama of life,

God was going to be our Director. He is the Principal; we are His agents. He is the Father, and

we are His children^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 62). In her prescient critique, Harrison

(1934) writes:

To return to the simile of a father and his children. The Group teaches the child to regard

his father not as a guide and defence generally and a ready help in time of trouble, but

someone to whom the child turns for actual direction in everything he does. Father, shall

I play with my train or my bricks? Father, shall I build a house or a bridge? Father, shall I

Pastoral Psychol


8/17

use red bricks or blue? Father, shall I knock it down? Father, shall I build it up? Father

this and father that, until a father might well wonder whether his child is a half-wit,

instead of a reasonable being. (Chapter 4)

Harrison was not alone in her critical stance regarding the Oxford Group. The Bishop of Durham wrote the forward to her book and the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr

(Niemur 1936) publicly detested the Oxford Group for doctrinal reasons that also apply to

AA: BA careful study of the gospel itself, particularly its abhorrence of the self-righteousness

of the righteous, would reveal the danger of any doctrine which promises powerful men the

possibility of fully doing the will of God^ (p. 1316). Ironically, Niebuhr is credited with

composing the Serenity Prayer that is recited at almost every AA meeting.

AA’s Big Book reminds readers that Bour book is meant to be suggestive only. We realize

we know only a little . . .^ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, p. 62). Paradoxically, in contrast to

this veneer of epistemic modesty, AA issues a warning: BUnless each A.A. member follows to

the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his

own death warrant ̂ (Alcoholics Anonymous 2010, p. 174). That being the case, a somber

inference can be made. Contrary to the pluralistic representations of AA, its members are

threatened at the expense of their lives, to adopt AA’s philosophy, which essentially conveys

that Bgrace is our only hope for dealing with addiction^ (May 1988, p. 16). Given this, the

transpersonal field should take heed. Rosenfeld (2010) identifies this strain of religious belief

to be pernicious: BThey may believe that only God can heal, and [that] the ill need to replace

the thinking that created their disease with harmony by restoring their relationship with God^

(p. 515).

A burning question naturally emerges: Why did the members of the Oxford Group

eventually abandon the organization in droves? Perhaps most of them eventually moved on

to more robust spiritual belief systems. Buchman’s ontological interpretations continue to exist

but only for a demographic subset who are consistently told that Buchman’s particular

approach is the answer to addiction.

The point of no return

At this juncture, one could still assert that persons suffering from alcoholism can attend AA intwo other ways that are beyond a literal interpretation of the program: (1) individualistically

i.e., those Bexhibiting a high degree of critical thinking and analytical judgment in their

spiritual life^ who Bmay debunk the miraculous in their tradition^ (Dwight 1996b, p. 296),

or (2) symbolically i.e., Bthose possessing a mature openness towards the symbolic world^

who Bare alive in their own inner world to archetypal presences^ (Dwight 1996b, p. 297).

Even vocal critics of AA are apt to concede certain therapeutic qualities of the program:

Let me be clear here: the Twelve-step programs have many profoundly wonderful

qualities. They encourage open acknowledgement that the life of chemical dependencyis an unhealthy one; they provide an environment that nurtures the relationship of

sponsors and sponsorees; and they also encourage making amends. (Boeving 2011,

BTwelve-step programs’ Christian underpinnings^)

However, there is still the matter of the previously mentioned chasm between transpersonal

theory and AA theory. In Kurtz’s (2008) evaluation, the recognition of Bessential limitation^

Pastoral Psychol


9/17

and the resulting Bshared mutuality^ or interdependency are the two main factors contributing

to why AA works (p. 179). Assuming that Kurtz is in fact correct, the Bembrace of fundamental

finitude^ (p. 196) offers the single most cogent reason why transpersonal psychology is

antithetical to the twelve-step process.

To begin, there is a bond of genuine empathy between transpersonal psychology and persons afflicted by addiction. Addicted persons are often described as sensitive and

idealistic seekers or even as mystics who are misguided in their search for spiritual

wholeness (e.g., Grof 1994; Small 1987; Sparks 1993). The transpersonal field understands

and openly acknowledges every individual’s Binnate impulses towards an ultimate state^

(Sutich 1973, p. 2).

At the core of transpersonal psychology and psychotherapy lies the metaphysical concept of

the Higher or transpersonal Self in every individual’s psyche. Daniels (2005) identifies 19

complex interpretations of this BGod self ̂ (Carroll 1987, p. 46) that are subtly different in

meaning put forward by transpersonal theorists. Despite variances, the theories are united in a primary goal, which is the Bmutually active process of surrendering control to the self.

Accepting responsibility and trusting one’ s inner wisdom to direct one’ s life are vital to the

therapeutic context [emphasis added]^ (Strohl 1998, BKey Points Revisited^). Accordingly,

the ego’s capitulation to the to the Higher Self (i.e., individuation or self-actualization) is the

key to recovery.

Grof (1987) relates that the journey to recovery is essentially a process of ego death and

rebirth. In other words, one’s ego is revitalized in healthy ways. Likewise, AA works through a

process of ego deflation, but the similarity ends there. Schaub and Schaub (1997) find that Bin

this [AA] model, alcoholics and other addicts are characterologically and morally different than non addicts^ (p. 24). They will always be Bin Jamesian terms — ‘sick souls’^ (Kurtz

2008, p. 68). Kurtz (2008) maintains that the Bdeep root of alcoholic behavior lies in

character ̂ and he provides a list of the negative traits of alcoholics: Bgrandiosity, resentment,

defiance, dishonesty, and obsession with control^ (p. 95).

Although the transpersonal model of addiction is essentially one of self-medication,

AA cannot escape obvious comparisons with the moral model. The only caveat is that

AA does not view alcoholism as a volitional malady (Miller and Kurtz 1999). Bill

Wilson’s life story fits well with AA’s etiology of alcoholism. By his own account,

prior to his conversion Wilson was an educated, middle-class White male who was

arrogant, entitled, self-centered, and self-aggrandizing. Alcoholic individuals who

identify with his story of redemption will no doubt find a comforting home in AA.

But the same might not be said for many who have been severely traumatized by

abuse, poverty, neglect, discrimination, and a host of other societal injustices. They

might well arrive at the gates of AA through maladaptive efforts to self-medicate,

only to be told, through one of the Big Book ’ s personal and highly vaunted narratives,

that Bnothing, absolutely nothing, happens in God’s world by mistake^ (Alcoholics

Anonymous 2001, p. 417). Worse yet, their character flaws are solely to blame. If

they cannot recover in AA, they are cast aside as Bunfortunates . . . [who] are not at

fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping

and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty^ (Alcoholics

Anonymous 2001, p. 58).

According to Kurtz (2008), the purpose of inebriation is an attempt to transcend one’s

‘humanness.’ Through his reasoning, it then follows that recovering persons need to relinquish

any Bclaim to ultimacy^ (p. 198) or, in effect, the capacity for progressing beyond the

Pastoral Psychol


10/17

‘ personal’ to the ‘transpersonal’ (Wilber 1996). Contrary to the transpersonal approach, BThe

minimal requirement of a higher power in AA is that it is not the self ̂ (O’Halloran 2008,

p. 96). Kurtz argues that true recovery is cheerfully bowing to the fact that one is much less

than the illusions perpetrated by one’s limitless ego. Hence, the twelve steps are more

concerned with exposing one’s ‘defects’ than uncovering resilience. In theory, AA worksthrough a process of inner personal contraction with the goal of fostering dependency on a

higher power outside of oneself.

On the other hand, transpersonal psychology strives to make it known that addicted

persons, as with all humans, are in reality capable of much more than their limiting

egos. Welwood (2002) relates, BThe less involved we are with images of who we are,

the more we will be able to recognize our deep bond with all sentient beings, as

different expressions of the mystery that also pervades our innermost nature^ (p. 47).

And for those who consistently hear the message that they are inadequate, the

transpersonal perspective offers solace and hope. Although working on one’s shadow

is an integral part of transpersonal psychotherapy and diffuses the prospect of narcis-

sism, one can still find perfect goodness and wisdom within oneself by pushing past

egoic constraints. In this way, transpersonal theory, when applied to recovery, works

through a process of inner personal expansion B beyond individuality, beyond the

development of the individual person into something which is more inclusive than

the individual person, or which is bigger than he is^ (Maslow, as cited in Boorstein

1996, p. 2).

Analogous to the two sides in the game of tug of war, transpersonal psychology’s aims,

spirit, and ideals run contrary to AA’s efforts. One might still argue that this results in an

effective spiritual fulcrum that provides checks and balances. But Edinger (1972), in opposi-

tion to precisely such situations, admonishes, BWhen the value of the Self is projected by

opposing groups onto conflicting political ideologies, it is as though the original wholeness of

the Self were split into antithetical segments which war on each other ̂ (p. 68).

In all likelihood, AA will never change to accommodate transpersonal theory. In

the past, there has been a propensity for transpersonal writers to reflexively project

their own spiritual ideals onto AA. To his credit, Kurtz (2008) understood the mutual

incompatibility of AA and transpersonal psychology. Mirroring Alexander ’s (1980)

criticisms, he thinly veils his contempt for what is, in essence, the field of transper-

sonal psychology. He uses William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study

in Human Nature, first published in 1902, as his source for irrefutable wisdom and

abandons transpersonal psychology at the altar:

What James termed Bthe religion of healthy-mindedness^ is a vigorous, full-bodied,

optimistic type of spiritual sensibility that sees nature as beneficent and God as inti-

mately, affirmatively, related to all His creatures. Characterized by the Binability to feel

evil,^ this spirituality Blooks on all things and sees that they are good.^ This is the

Bsimpler ̂ view, and it is aptly captured by the spiritualities of the New Age. (Kurtz

2008, pp. 69 –

70)

One might argue in James’s defense that he did not have access to over a century’s worth of

painstaking research into attachment theory, developmental psychology, trauma, social psy-

chology, neurobiology, Jungian analytical psychology, and every other kind of contemporary

academic endeavor that strives to explain human pathology beyond a dualistic Bronze Age

framework of good and evil. What would be Kurtz’s excuse?

Pastoral Psychol


11/17

Towards an alternate spiritual framework for recovery

The current trend in public policy on the matter of addictions recovery seems to favor a

transpersonal approach that steps outside the shadow of AA. In a recent official statement, the

U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) announces:BSelf-determination and self-direction are the foundations for recovery as individuals define

their own life goals and design their unique path(s) towards those goals^ (SAMHSA 2012,

BRecovery is person driven^). Reading between these lines, Peele (2012) observes that North

American recovery movement has been released from the dominance of twelve-step ideology

as reliance on an external higher power is no a longer a prerequisite for recovery. Embedded in

the SAMHSA statement, there is also an express recognition of multiple pathways leading to

recovery goals that are unique to every person. Likewise, there is a drive in contemporary

transpersonal theory to view liberation as an Bocean with many shores^ (Ferrer 2002, p. 133).

If, however, transpersonal psychology were to reduce the role of AA in its framework for the treatment of addiction, how might this model appear? In order to arrive at a revised

transpersonal strategy for recovery, the views of major transpersonal theorists need integration

and inclusion. Aside from those who refer specifically to addiction, important contributors to

the transpersonal field (e.g., Wilber, Ferrer, Maslow, Washburn) tend to develop broad meta-

frameworks whereby Bthe goal is not merely to remove psychopathology but to foster higher

human development ̂ (Kasprow and Scotton 1999, p. 13). The practical application of their

theories toward the treatment of addiction must then be extrapolated from their works.

Hartelius, Caplan, and Rardin (2007) summarize transpersonal psychology’s historical

unfolding as B

an approach to psychology that 1) studies phenomena beyond the ego as context for 2) an integrative/holistic psychology; this provides a framework for 3) understanding and

cultivating human transformation^ (p. 11). Correspondingly, an integrated transpersonal

framework for recovery would embrace these three developments in the form of directives

or ideals.

To meet the first condition of intrapsychic (i.e., that which occurs in one’s psyche)

well-being, there is already an overcrowded field of therapeutic skills offered by the

transpersonal community. They range from psychotherapeutic interventions (e.g., analytical

psychology, transpersonal psychotherapy, and psychosynthesis), to traditional spiritual

practices (e.g., yoga, meditation, and shamanic rituals), to atypical, peak-experience-

inducing procedures that are developed with explicit reference to healing addiction (e.g.,

holotropic breathwork and entheogenic therapy). Admittedly, there is a lack of scientific

studies on the effectiveness of most transpersonal interventions in treating addiction. Two

notable exceptions are mindfulness meditation (Bowen et al. 2011) and the therapeutic

ingestion of entheogens (Krebs and Johansen 2012). Indeed, the evidence for the entire

field of psychotherapy in relation to addiction is underwhelming (Hester and Miller 2003).

This is especially true since cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), a demonstrably effica-

cious intervention (Miller et al. 2005), tends to be placed in its own category in studies

of addiction treatments. Still, it would be difficult to find any form of transpersonal

intervention that contravenes CBT’s key assertion that every individual has an innate

capacity to take charge of his or her life.

Ken Wilber, to whom Ball transpersonal psychologists are indebted^ (Daniels 2005, p. 205),

facilitates the second stage requirement (i.e., an integrative/holistic framework) for a unique

transpersonal model of addiction. Based on his reasoning that Bdepth is everywhere.

Consciousness is everywhere. Spirit is everywhere^ (Wilber 2007, p. 60), Wilber provides

Pastoral Psychol


12/17

us with his comprehensive AQAL map that extends spiritual experience beyond the

customary realm as primarily intrapsychic events. This same map can be applied for

interpreting the manifest reality of any other phenomenon or event, including addiction

and recovery. Accordingly, there are four perspectives or quadrants of equal importance

that, when integrated, comprise addiction recovery: the upper left individual interior (i.e.,‘intentional’), the lower left collective interior (i.e.,‘social’), the upper right individual

exterior (i.e., ‘ behavioral’), and the lower right collective exterior (i.e.,‘cultural’). Wilber

(1998) further simplifies his schema into the BBig Three^ (p. 74) of ‘I,’ ‘it,’ and ‘we.’ In

turn, the therapeutic logic of applying his template to the treatment of addiction is

difficult to overlook. George Engel, who pioneered the ‘ biopsychosocial’ framework for

medicine, long argued for a medical model that Bmust include the psychosocial dimen-

sions (personal, emotional, family, community) in addition to the biological aspects

(diseases) of all patients^ (Smith 2002, p. 309). In the treatment of addiction, there have

also been frequent calls for more integrative models (Brower et al. 1989).From Wilber ’s integral perspective, there is no differentiation between biopsychosocial

and spiritual. Rather, spirituality engulfs the biopsychosocial dimensions. This distinction

may be noteworthy in the perception of spirituality and how it relates to addiction

treatment. A case in point is Miller, Forcechimes, O’Leary, and LaNoue’s (2008) exper-

iment wherein they attempted to isolate the variable of spirituality in addiction treatment.

The control groups received treatment as usual (TAU) without spiritual guidance. Contrary

to expectations, the groups that received impeccably formatted spiritual guidance in

addition to TAU, exhibited no improvement in outcomes over the control groups. In fact,

one of the groups receiving spiritual guidance experienced significantly higher levels of anxiety. The researchers were at a loss to provide a convincing explanation for these

results but one might infer that the disassociation of spirituality, making it as an adjunct

entity of regular lived experience, carries an emotional burden. Parenthetically, Rothberg

(1999) indicates that Bindigenous traditions . . . do not typically separate out spirituality

from the life of the community or from every day life; indeed, there is no known word

corresponding to ‘religion’ in indigenous languages^ (p. l37).

Wilber (1995; 1996) would argue that all major competing schools of addiction

thought offer something of value towards an effective and theoretically inclusive meta-

framework of recovery. A complex and integrated model of addiction would therefore

include the best of what each theory has to offer but would also note and transcend their

individual differences. Placed within Wilber ’s framework, a spiritual model of addiction

no longer competes with the medical or social model since spirituality encompasses the

physical and social dimensions of recovery. Studies conducted by pharmaceutical compa-

nies have disclosed that, even though it is not an official AA policy, twelve-step members

are often discouraged from taking their prescribed medications (Cheney et al. 2009;

Woody and McNicholas 2004).

Since one of AA’s major contributions to recovery lies in ‘mutuality’ (Kurtz 2008), an

integrative transpersonal framework for addiction could also include burgeoning support

groups such as LifeRing and SMART Recovery. The theories behind these groups do not

conflict in any way with transpersonal theory, and participation in these groups partially fulfills

the ‘we’ or social dimension of recovery. Inadvertently, Kelly et al. (2009) would support this

development. In their pro-AA study, they conclude that AA’s effectiveness stems more from

Bfacilitating adaptive social network changes^ than its Bspecific practices or spiritual

mechanisms^ (p. 236).

Pastoral Psychol


13/17

Amodia et al. (2005) and DuPlessis (2013) present outstandingly thorough mappings of

addiction/recovery using Wilber ’s AQAL map and integrating the different schools of addic-

tion thought. They bypass the natural tendency to simply present biopsychosocial treatment

recommendations for addiction that originate from only one etiological perspective (e.g., that

addiction is a medical disease).There is a subtle shift in the third phase of transpersonal psychology’s development (i.e.,

understanding and cultivating the transformation of humanity) that, if applied, will have

significant ramifications on how addiction and recovery are perceived. Dupuy and Morelli

(2007), the founders of Integral Recovery indicate that Bthe problem [of addiction] is huge and

complex, with myriad social and cultural implications^ and their stated focus, Bhowever, is on

understanding and treating the individual [emphasis added]^ (p. 2). And while it is practical

for addictionologists to concentrate on individuals, these authors are only partially

implementing the spirit of Wilber ’s AQAL model. In the above quote, they have restricted

treatment primarily to Wilber ’s upper left and upper right quadrants (i.e., the BI

^ interior and

exterior). But addiction is not a problem that is confined to individuals nor even their families.

There is a symbiotic reinforcement between an individual and the larger community during

both the addiction and recovery cycles (Alexander 2008; Peele and Brodsky 1976). By their

own admission, Dupuy and Morelli (2007) assert, BAny stressors in any of the quadrants will

place a burden on the other quadrants; and conversely, any gains made in any of the quadrants

will help stabilize and lift up the others^ (p. 8). This being the case, then an integral framework

for addiction should necessarily focus not only on the unwell individual but also on the ailing

culture and community. Put another way, the addicted person is the identified patient in a large

and dysfunctional social system. At the same time, and from the perspective of transpersonalvalues, BSelf, culture, and nature must be liberated together or not at all^ (Wilber 2007, p. 36).

Much emphasis is placed on the ‘I’ (i.e., psychological change) and the ‘it ’ (i.e., medica-

tions and physical health) dimensions in the current addiction treatment paradigm. In terms of

the ‘we,’ there is a unidirectional expectation that, once addicts are rehabilitated, they will

become Bacceptable, responsible, and productive members of . . . society^ (Narcotics

Anonymous 2008, p. 18). Hence, a social change component is present mainly through the

healthy restoration of one addict at a time. It is also commonly believed that twelve-step

programs provide an all-nurturing social cocoon. And yet, AA’s model of perpetual infirmity

and its emphasis that addicted persons are a different breed from the rest of the population

leads naturally to only partial social integration. The proposition that individual recovery needs

to take place alongside community healing is currently highlighted by research on aboriginal

communities and alcoholism (e.g., Jiwa et al. 2008; Legha and Novins 2012).

Brys and Bokor (2013), however, indicate that Bthe operative integration [emphasis added]

of social psychology, psychosocial studies, [and] social psychiatry^ (p. 23) is not explicitly

clear in Wilber ’s earlier work. In Ferrer ’s (2002) opinion, Wilber ’s theories still retain a bias

towards intrapsychic enlightenment. For the purpose of finally solving the conundrum of a

theoretical transpersonal framework that Bsubsumes the intrasubjective, objective, and inter-

subjective dimensions and bridges their distinctions,^ Ferrer (2002) proposes that Ba partici-

patory turn [takes place] in transpersonal and spiritual studies^ (p. 184). His theory Bconceives

transpersonal and spiritual phenomena, not as individual inner experiences, but as participa-

tory events [emphasis added] that can occur in different loci, such as an individual, a

relationship, a community, a larger collective identity or place^ (Ferrer 2002, p. 184). Using

the metaphor of an event to situate spiritual experiences, Ferrer ’s complex participatory

framework is seamlessly transposed onto a mentally effortless and accurate conceptual

Pastoral Psychol


14/17

mapping of addiction and recovery. Specifically, addiction and recovery can each be

envisioned as events that are co-created through an undetermined, not predetermined, combi-

nation of ‘loci’ that are different for each individual. At the same time, there is an express

acknowledgement of the interdependency between the loci that are embedded in each of these

events. The application of Ferrer ’s participatory theory would then fulfill the basic require-ments of a comprehensive and effective model of addiction. Peele and Alexander (1976) note:

A successful addiction model must synthesize pharmacological, experiential, cultural,

situational, and personality components in a fluid and seamless description of addictive

motivation. It must account for why a drug is more addictive in one society than another,

addictive for one individual and not another, and addictive for the same individual at one

time and not another. (BThe requirements of a successful theory of addiction^)

Metaphorically speaking, it is evident that not everyone takes the same path to the alcoholic

gathering, nor does everyone need to mimic each other at the recovery celebration. At the veryleast, what can be done at a group participatory level is to improve the venue, or social housing

for recovery and work towards tearing down the mansion that nurtures addiction. Perhaps even

distant and casual observers can begin to see that they somehow play a role in this unfolding

drama.

To summarize, an integrated transpersonal alternative for treating addiction would (1)

be proficient at restoring mental well-being, (2) provide an integrated vision for holistic

growth, and (3) facilitate positive social change. Deeper inquiry by the transpersonal

community is needed in the third area. The recent transpersonal forays into the environ-

mental movement (e.g., Buzell and Chalquist 2009; Esbjörn-Hargens and Zimmerman2009), promoting the simultaneous healing of both humans and their surroundings, reflect

the direction of the proposed transpersonal recovery movement. Alexander (2008) advo-

cates social engagement as an antidote for what he considers to be at the heart of

addiction: alienation due to a lack of ‘ psychosocial integration.’ He refers to the highly

effective community reinforcement approach (CRA) to demonstrate the need for wider

recovery approaches. It is surmised that, through active participation in the improvement

of social conditions, persons suffering from addiction can rejoin the larger community,

revitalize their own processes of psychosocial integration, and move in a therapeutic

direction away from isolation.As a postscript, it would be fair to ask where the construct of a higher power resides in this

revised ‘spiritual’ framework. Although little is known about Marjorie Harrison, I would like

to defer to her, with the utmost respect, for an answer:

I cannot now remember the exact words of Mr. Bernard Shaw, but they were to this

effect: God is a Spirit. The world is material. The Spirit of God must therefore be

interpreted through material means. A spirit has no eyes, hands or feet, and without these

work cannot be done in a material world. Your faculties are the only means through

which God can work in this world. You are the body of the Spirit of God. Without the

co-operation of man God is powerless in this world. Without God, man is equally

powerless. Together they are omnipotent. (Harrison 1934, Chapter 10)

Acknowledgments Many thanks to my CIIS dissertation committee, Craig Chalquist, Carol Whitfield, and

James Nolan for their encouragement. A special hello to the kind folks I met at Southwestern College in Santa Fe,

NM and the usual suspects I have not had the pleasure of meeting: Orange, Silver, and Ken Ragge. Gratitude also

Pastoral Psychol


15/17

to Ebede Ndi, Attila Szabo, Victor Pobihuschy, Alexis Clarke, Wendy Salem, and Jorge Ferrer for their precious

input. And finally, mom, dad, Juliana, Andy, Jim M., Natalie, Peter James, Nicole Poelle, the editorial review

board at Pastoral Psychology, and Eve Donnelly.

References

Alcoholics Anonymous. (2001). Alcoholics anonymous (4th ed.). New York, NY: Alcoholics Anonymous World

Services.

Alcoholics Anonymous. (2010). Twelve steps and twelve traditions. New York, NY: Alcoholics Anonymous

World Services.

Alexander, G. T. (1980). William james, the sick soul, and the negative dimensions of consciousness: a partial

critique of transpersonal psychology. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 48(2), 191 – 206.

Alexander, B. K. (2008). The globalization addiction. A study in poverty of the spirit . Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.Amodia, D. S., Cano, C., & Eliason, M. J. (2005). An integral approach to substance abuse. Journal of

Psychoactive Drugs, 37 (4), 363 – 371.

B., D. (2003). The steps, the facts, the Oxford Group. Retrieved from http://www.silkworth.net/aahistory/oxford_

group_connection2.html. Accessed 12 April 2014.

Battista, J. R. (1996). Offensive spirituality and spiritual defenses. In B. W. Scotton, A. B. Chinen, &

J. R. Battista (Eds.), Transpersonal psychiatry and psychology (pp. 250 – 260). New York, NY:

Perseus Books.

Bean, M. (1975). Alcoholics anonymous, chapter V: a critique of A.A. Psychiatric Annals, 5(3), 83 – 109.

Boeving, N. G. (2010). Sneaking God (back) through the back door of science: a call for a comparative

addictionology. Pastoral Psychology, 59, 93 – 107.

Boeving, N. G. (2011). Is addiction really a disease? a challenge to twelve-step programs. Tikkun, 26 (4), 22.

http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/is-addiction-really-a-disease-a-challenge-to-Twelve-step-programs. Accessed30 May 2013.

Boorstein, S. (Ed.). (1996). Transpersonal psychotherapy (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press.

Bowen, S., Chawla, N., & Marlatt, G. A. (2011). Mindfullness based relapse prevention for addictive behaviors:

a clinician’ s guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Brower, K. J., Blow, F. C., & Beresford, T. P. (1989). Treatment implications of chemical dependency models: an

integrative approach. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 6 , 147 – 157.

Brys, Z., & Bokor, P. (2013). Evaluation of Ken Wilber ’s integral psychology from a scientific perspective.

Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 15(1), 19 – 33.

Bufe, C. Q. (1998). Alcoholics anonymous: cult or cure? Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press.

Buzell, J., & Chalquist, C. (2009). Ecotherapy: healing with nature in mind . San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club

Books.Carroll, M. M. (1987). Alcoholism as an attachment and a gift on a spiritual journey. ReVision, 10(2), 45 – 48.

Cheney, B., Galanter, M., Dermatis, H., & Ross, H. (2009). Medical versus spiritual orientations: differential

patient views toward recovery. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 35, 301 – 304.

Chinen, A. B. (1996). The emergence of transpersonal psychiatry. In B. W. Scotton, A. B. Chinen, & J. R.

Battista (Eds.), Transpersonal psychiatry and psychology (pp. 52 – 61). New York, NY: Perseus Books.

Cortwright, B. (1997). Ps ychotherapy and spirit: theory and practice in transpersonal psychotherapy. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Daniels, M. (2005). Shadow, self, spirit: essays in transpersonal psychology. Charlottesville, VA: Imprint

Academic.

Diamond, J. (2002). Narrative means to sober ends: treating addiction and its aftermath. New York, NY:

Guilford Publications.

Dodes, L., & Dodes, Z. (2014). The sober truth: debunking the bad science behind 12-Step programs and therehab industry. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Du Plessis, G. P. (2013). The import of integral pluralism in striving towards an integral metatheory of addiction.

Paper presented at the Integral Theory Conference, San Fransico, 20 July 2013.

Dupre, L. (1996). Unio mystica: the state and the experience. In M. Idel & B. McGuinn (Eds.), Mystical union in

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: an ecumenical dialogue (pp. 3 – 23). New York, NY: Continuum.

Dupuy, J., & Morelli, M. (2007). Toward an integral recovery model for drug and alcohol addiction. AQAL:

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 2(3), 26 – 42.

Pastoral Psychol

http://www.silkworth.net/aahistory/oxford_group_connection2.htmlhttp://www.silkworth.net/aahistory/oxford_group_connection2.htmlhttp://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/is-addiction-really-a-disease-a-challenge-to-Twelve-step-programshttp://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/is-addiction-really-a-disease-a-challenge-to-Twelve-step-programshttp://www.silkworth.net/aahistory/oxford_group_connection2.htmlhttp://www.silkworth.net/aahistory/oxford_group_connection2.html


16/17

Dwight, H. J. (1996a). Transpersonal psychology: roots in Christian mysticism. In B. W. Scotton, A. B. Chinen, &

J. R. Battista (Eds.), Transpersonal psychiatry and psychology (pp. 134 – 144). New York, NY: Perseus Books.

Dwight, H. J. (1996b). Transpersonal psychotherapy with religious persons. In B. W. Scotton, A. B. Chinen, & J.

R. Battista (Eds.), Transpersonal psychiatry and psychology (pp. 293 – 301). New York, NY: Perseus Books.

Edinger, E. (1972). Ego and archetype. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Esbjörn-Hargens, S., & Zimmerman, M. E. (2009). Integral ecology: uniting multiple perspectives on the natural world . New York: Integral Books.

Ferrer, J. N. (2002). Revisioning transpersonal theory. A participatory vision of human spirituality. Albany, NY:

State University Press of New York.

Firman, J., & Gila, A. (1997). The primal wound . Albany, NY: State University Press of New York.

Godlaski, T. (1988). Transpersonal psychology and the addicted experience. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly,

5(3/4), 245 – 256.

Grof, C. (1994). The thirst for wholeness: attachment, addiction, and the spiritual path. New York, NY: Harper One.

Grof, S. (n.d.). Spiritual emergencies: Understanding and treatment of psychospiritual crises. http://www.

realitysandwich.com/spiritual_emergencies. Accessed June 11, 2013.

Grof, S. (1987). Spirituality, addiction, and Western science. ReVision, 10(2), 5 – 18.

Grof, S., Grob, C., Bravo, G., & Walsh, R. (2008). Birthing the transpersonal. The Journal of Transpersonal

Psychology, 40(2), 155 –

177.Harrison, M. (1934). Saints Run Mad: A criticism of the BOxford ̂ group movement. http://www.morerevealed.

com/library/saints/saints_front.html. Accessed 14 June 2015.

Hartelius, G., Caplan, C., & Rardin, M. A. (2007). Transpersonal psychology. Defining the past, divining the

future. Humanistic Psychologist, 35(2), 1 – 26.

Hester, R. K., & Miller, W. R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches. Effective

alternatives (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Jiwa, A., Kelly, L., & St Pierre-Hansen, N. (2008). Healing the community to heal the individual. Literature

review of aboriginal community-based alcohol and substance abuse programs. Canadian Family Physician,

54(7), 1000 – 1000.e7.

Jung, C. G. (1977). The symbolic life: miscellaneous writings (collected works of C. G. Jung, vol. 18). In C. G.

Jung & G. Adler (Eds.), R. F. C. Hull, Trans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kasprow, M. C., & Scotton, B. W. (1999). A review of transpersonal theory and its application to the practice of psychotherapy. The Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 8, 12 – 23.

Kelly, J. F., Magill, M., & Stout, J. S. (2009). How do people recover from alcohol dependence? a systematic

review of the research on mechanisms of behavior change in alcoholics anonymous. Addiction Research and

Theory, 17 (3), 236 – 259.

Krebs, T. S., & Johansen, P. (2012). Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) for alcoholism: meta-analysis of

randomized controlled trials. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 26 , 994 – 1002.

Kurtz, E. (1991). Not God. A history of alcoholics anonymous. Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Kurtz, E. (2008). The collected works of Ernie Kurtz . Bloomington: iUverse.

The Layman with a Notebook. (1933). What is the oxford group? London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Le, C., Ingvarson, E. P., & Page, R. C. (1995). Alcoholics anonymous and the counseling profession:

philosophies in conflict. Journal of Counseling Development, 73, 603 – 609.

Legha, R. K., & Novins, D. (2012). The role of culture in substance abuse treatment programs for AmericanIndian and Alaska native communities. Psychiatric Services, 63(7), 686 – 692.

May, G. (1988). Addiction and grace. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Mercadante, L. (1996). Victims and sinners: spiritual roots of addiction and recovery. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.

Miller, W. R. (1998). Researching the spiritual dimensions of alcohol and other drug problems. Addiction, 93,

979 – 990.

Miller, W. R., Forcehimes, A., O’Leary, M., & LaNoue, M. (2008). Spiritual direction in addiction treatment: two

clinical trials. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 35, 434 – 442.

Miller, W. R., & Kurtz, E. (1999). Models of alcoholism used in treatment: contrasting A.A. and other models

with which it is often confused. In E. Kurtz (Ed.), The collected Ernie Kurtz (pp. 91 – 108). Wheeling: The

Bishop of Books.

Miller, W. R., Zweben, J., & Johnson, W. R. (2005). Evidence-based treatment: why, what, where, when, and

how? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 29, 267 – 276.Metzner, R. (1994). Addiction and transcendence as altered states of consciousness. The Journal of

Transpersonal Psychology, 26 (1), 1 – 17.

Narcotics Anonymous. (2008). Narcotics anonymous (6th ed.). Chatsworth, CA: Narcotics Anonymous World

Services.

Nelson, K. (2011). The spiritual doorway in the brain. New York, NY: Dutton.

Niemur, R. (1936). Hitler and Buchman. The Christian Century Magazine, October 7, 1315 – 1316

Pastoral Psychol

http://www.realitysandwich.com/spiritual_emergencieshttp://www.realitysandwich.com/spiritual_emergencieshttp://www.morerevealed.com/library/saints/saints_front.htmlhttp://www.morerevealed.com/library/saints/saints_front.htmlhttp://www.morerevealed.com/library/saints/saints_front.htmlhttp://www.morerevealed.com/library/saints/saints_front.htmlhttp://www.realitysandwich.com/spiritual_emergencieshttp://www.realitysandwich.com/spiritual_emergencies


17/17

Nixon, G. (2011, Nov. 24). Transforming the addicted person’s counterfeit quest for wholeness through three

stages of recovery: a Wilber transpersonal spectrum of development clinical perspective. International

Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1 – 21. doi:10.1007/s11469-011-9365-y.

O’Halloran, S. (2008). Talking oneself sober: the discourse of alcoholics anonymous. Amherst, NY: Cambria

Press.

Peele, S. (2001). Drunk with power: the case against court-imposed 12-step treatments. Reason, 33(1), 34 –

38.Peele, S. (2012). The meaning of recovery has changed, you just don’t know it. Psychology Today. http://www.

psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201202/the-meaning-recovery-has-changed-you-just-dont-

know-it . Accessed 12 May 2013.

Peele, S., & Alexander, B. K. (1976). Theories of addiction. http://www.peele.net/the-meaning-of-addiction-3-

theories-of-addiction/ . Accessed 13 June 2013.

Peele, S., & Brodsky, A. (1976). Love and addiction. Watertown, MA: Broadrow Productions.

Roman, P. M., & Blum, T. C. (2004). National treatment center study summary report: private treatment centers.

Athens, GA: Institute of Behavioral Research, University of Georgia.

Rosenfeld, G. W. (2010). Identifying and integrating helpful and harmful religious beliefs into psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47 (4), 512 – 526.

Rothberg, D. (1999). Transpersonal issues at the millennium. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 31(1),

41 –

67.Rudy, D., & Greil, A. (1988). Is alcoholics anonymous a religious organization? Sociological Analysis, 1(50),

41 – 51.

SAMHSA. (2012a). SAMHSA’ s working definition of recovery updated. http://blog.samhsa.gov/2012/03/23/

defintion-of-recovery-updated/ . Accessed 12 April 2013.

Sanders, J. (2009). Women in alcoholics anonymous: recovery and empowerment . Boulder, CO: First Forum

Press.

Schaub, B., & Schaub, R. (1997). Healing addictions. The vulnerability model of recovery. Albany, NY: Delmar

Publishers.

Schoen, D. E. (2009). The war of the Gods in addiction. New Orleans, LA: Spring Journal Books.

Small, J. (1987). Spiritual emergence and addiction: a transpersonal approach to alcoholism and drug abuse

counseling. ReVision, 10(2), 23 – 36.

Smith, C. S. (2002). The biopsychosocial revolution. Journal of Internal Medicine, 17 (4), 309 –

310.Sparks, T. (1993). The wide open door: the twelve steps, spiritual tradition and the new psychology. MN.

Hazelden: Center City.

Staal, F. (1975). Exploring mysticism: a methodological essay. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Strobbe, S., & Kurtz, E. (2012). Narratives for recovery: personal stories in the ‘Big Book ’ of alcoholics

anonymous. Journal of Groups in Addiction and Recovery, 7 (1), 29 – 52.

Strohl, J. E. (1998). Transpersonalism: ego meets soul. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76 , 397 – 403.

http://www.cpd3.com/transpersonal.htm. Accessed 10 June 2013.

Sutich, A. J. (1973). Transpersonal therapy. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 3(1), 1 – 6.

Vaughn, F. (1991). Spiritual issues in psychotherapy. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 23(2), 105 – 119.

Welwood, J. (2002). Toward a psychology of awakening: Buddhism, psychotherapy, and the path of personal

and spiritual transformation. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.

White, L. W. (1979). Recovery from alcoholism: transpersonal dimensions. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 11(2), 117 – 128.

White, L. W., & Kurtz, E. (2008). Twelve defining moments in history of Alcoholics Anonymous. Recent

Developments in Alcoholism, 18, 37 – 57.

Whitfield, C. L. (1985). Alcoholism and spirituality: a transpersonal approach. East Rutherford, NJ: Perrin and

Tregett.

Wilber, K. (1995). An informal overview of consciousness studies. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 27 (2),

107 – 129.

Wilber, K. (1996). A brief history of everything . Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.

Wilber, K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul . Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.

Wilber, K. (2007). The integral vision. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.

Wilson, B. (1988). Language of the heart . New York, NY: AA Grapevine.

Woody, G., & McNicholas, L. (2004). Putting addiction medication to use: lessons learned. In H. Harwood & T.Myers (Eds.), New treatments for addiction - Behavioral, ethical, legal, and social questions (pp. 125 – 139).

Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Pastoral Psychol
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11469-011-9365-yhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201202/the-meaning-recovery-has-changed-you-just-dont-know-ithttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201202/the-meaning-recovery-has-changed-you-just-dont-know-ithttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201202/the-meaning-recovery-has-changed-you-just-dont-know-ithttp://www.peele.net/the-meaning-of-addiction-3-theories-of-addiction/http://www.peele.net/the-meaning-of-addiction-3-theories-of-addiction/http://blog.samhsa.gov/2012/03/23/defintion-of-recovery-updated/http://blog.samhsa.gov/2012/03/23/defintion-of-recovery-updated/http://www.cpd3.com/transpersonal.htmhttp://www.cpd3.com/transpersonal.htmhttp://blog.samhsa.gov/2012/03/23/defintion-of-recovery-updated/http://blog.samhsa.gov/2012/03/23/defintion-of-recovery-updated/http://www.peele.net/the-meaning-of-addiction-3-theories-of-addiction/http://www.peele.net/the-meaning-of-addiction-3-theories-of-addiction/http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201202/the-meaning-recovery-has-changed-you-just-dont-know-ithttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201202/the-meaning-recovery-has-changed-you-just-dont-know-ithttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201202/the-meaning-recovery-has-changed-you-just-dont-know-ithttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11469-011-9365-y

Documents

Recovery From Adiccionts Transpersonal Lens