Letter from CG Jung to the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous

Did CG Jung have an indirect influence on the creation of AA?

Hello friends!

During my degree in psychology, I did a paper on alcohol and alcoholism that I still consider very good today (although, obviously, I would do it differently now – after 10 years!). In this work, see here, I learned that chemical dependency is a condition that involves several aspects: there is the genetic, biochemical issue, there is the social and environmental influence and there are individual personality factors.

The recovery of a chemical dependent, after treatment, has a success rate of about 30%, that is, the other 70% tend to relapse into addiction after a while. One of the most effective methods is that of AA, Alcoholics Anonymous.

In the 1930s, Jung had as a patient Roland Hazard, an important banker and senator, whose main problem was chemical dependence on alcohol, from which he left and returned with some frequency. In 1934, Jung assessed that the way out of addiction would be a profound transformation of the personality, which included going through a deeper spiritual experience that touched your being.

With that, Hazard started going in a religious movement called the Oxford Group, in which he met Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith, who are the co-founders of AA.

In the letter below, we see Jung writing to Bill Wilson, also mentioning the analysis done with Hazard. The letter is in English and has been translated below:

Jung’s letter to the founder of AA

January 30, 1961.

Dear Mr. W.,

Your letter was really welcome.

I heard no more from Roland H. and I often wondered about his fate. The dialogue that we had, he and I, and that he very faithfully transmitted to you, had an aspect that he himself did not know. The reason I couldn’t tell you everything was that back then I had to be careful about everything I said. I had discovered that I was being misunderstood in every way.

So I had to be very careful in talking to Roland H. But what I really concluded about his case was the result of my many experiences with cases similar to his. His fixation on alcohol was the equivalent, to a lesser degree, of our being’s spiritual thirst for wholeness expressed in medieval language, for union with God (5). How could anyone, in those days, expound such a thought without being misunderstood? The only correct and legitimate path to such an experience is for it to happen to you in reality, and it can only happen to you if you seek a path that leads to a higher understanding. And you can be led to this goal by the action of grace, by honest personal coexistence with friends or through a higher education of the mind, beyond the limits of mere rationalism.

I saw from your letter that Roland H. chose the second option, which in his circumstances was undoubtedly the best.

I am firmly convinced that the principle of evil that prevails in the world leads to spiritual needs, which, when denied, lead to perdition if not counterbalanced by religious experience or the protective barriers of the human community. An ordinary man, disconnected from the higher planes, isolated from his community, cannot resist the powers of evil, very properly called the Devil. But the use of such words is misleading; so we have to keep away from them as much as possible.

Here are the reasons why I could not give Roland H. a full and sufficient explanation. I am venturing to give it to you on account of having concluded, from your decent and honest letter, that you have already acquired a superior view of the problem of alcoholism, far above the commonplaces one usually hears about it.

You see that “alcohol” in Latin means “spirit”; yet we use the same word both to designate the highest religious experience and to designate the most depraved of poisons.

The recipe then is “spiritus” versus “spiritum”🇧🇷

Thanking you again for your kind letter, I reassure myself,

Yours truly, CG JUNG

Comment on the letter

A few words need to be said to better explain the content of the letter. In a society like ours, in which alcohol consumption is not only tolerated but encouraged by advertisements, it may seem pointless to talk about alcoholism.

Therefore, we must know and recognize the existence of two basic types of alcoholics:

– what you drink every day and therefore depends on the drink;

– the one who drinks in large quantities, but on weekends (for example). They are the heavy drinkersthose who drink “heavy”, but not every day.

The key to understanding alcoholism is the notion of addiction. When a person depends on something, he is dependent. That is, without the substance you will feel bad and think you need it. It is in this sense that we can understand Jung’s phrase in the letter: “His fixation on alcohol was the equivalent, on a lower level, of the spiritual thirst of our being for wholeness expressed in medieval language, for union with God”. In other words, the need to drink alcohol (which in Latin is spiritus) aims to fill a lack, a void. It is a search, albeit tortuous, for a way out.

It’s easy to visualize this. For example, in movies – and in reality! – we see how when a certain problem arises, the person goes out to drink and “let off steam”. If this happens once every decade, it’s not a big problem. However, when it happens every weekend, or every day, it is a sign that things are not going well. Because, of course, drinking isn’t going to magically make your problems go away, right?

After the binge, the problem remains to be resolved, with a probable hangover and less money. The output pointed out by Jung is:

“The only correct and legitimate path to such an experience is for it to happen to you in reality, and it can only happen to you if you seek a path that leads to a higher understanding. And you can be led to this goal by the action of grace, by honest personal coexistence with friends or through a higher education of the mind, beyond the limits of mere rationalism”.

The experience that Jung refers to is an experience that we commonly call religious. And the word religion, in both etymological senses, indicates:

– a practice of reconnection with a transcendent reality, that is, one that transcends everyday reality;

– a practice done religiously, that is, a practice that is maintained over time. For example, praying the Hail Mary at 6:00 pm, kneeling down towards Mecca five times a day, doing sitting meditation for 1 hour, in short, a practice that is done regularly and consistently.

Therefore, in these experiences, which happen to the subject more than he is their producer (in other words, the contents appear from the unconscious) there is the possibility of overcoming the addiction. But having the help of a support group such as family, friends or an AA-like meeting makes the process easier. In addition, Jung mentions the need to overcome the limits of reason, or rather, of rationalism.

As we see in the letter, Jung is prudent in using certain words (such as God and demon) because he speaks from a place other than the religious one. What I believe is fundamental is understanding the idea of ​​counterbalancing. In the very word counterbalance we note the idea of ​​balance. If you’re standing up and swinging your body too far to the left, you’ll have to counterbalance to the right, otherwise you’ll fall.

With the negative situations we encounter in life, we have to create or find a way to balance things, at the risk of falling down badly. In AA circles, there is a lot of talk about “rock bottom” as the moment when one loses everything. It is the worst moment, on the one hand, but due to the effect of enantiodromia (tendency to transform into the opposite) the bottom of the well is also the best moment, because it is the moment from which everything changes.

And about Jung’s indirect influence on the way AA works, there is no consensus. But in many of the practices used by the groups, we see some that correspond to Jung’s orientations to Hazard.

Questions, suggestions, comments, please write below!

Reference

Recovery Institute

Related