In the 1970s there was a debate in psychology fueled by Mark and Linda Sobell’s position on the question, “Can the alcoholic learn to drink socially?” The Sobells said their research suggested the answer is “Yes.” The other side of the argument was represented by rehabilitation groups like Alcoholics Anonymous. Such programs are based on the view that the alcoholic brain is addicted to alcohol, and moderate consumption is virtually impossible to achieve. Any success will be short-lived, and over time the alcoholic will return to uncontrollable drinking.
When you think about it, the Sobell’s suggestion is strange. If someone has a problem with alcohol consumption, why would they want to focus their coping efforts on moderating their consumption of what’s causing their problem? Isn’t there always a chance of “slipping” out of the moderation? Why would someone want to take that chance? If Joe’s drinking has caused him to lose his job, self-respect, and family, and he has been arrested for DUI three times, isn’t trying to teach him moderate drinking gambling with disaster? You want Joe to learn moderate drinking and hope that the moderation lasts? You want to gamble that there will be no chance of a “slip” into the former habits? That’s crazy. Wouldn’t a safer approach be for Joe to accept, “I can’t control my drinking. I must take better control of my life by abstaining completely. That’s the only way I’ll stay out of trouble.”
I see an analogy here with the global warming debate. People ask, “Is global warming real? If so, is it caused by us?” Is that the focus you want, looking for someone to blame for the rise in annual earth temperature? Isn’t that focus irrelevant to the core issue: reducing carbon emissions to give us cleaner air to breathe, and better able to survive natural events like storms, floods, and fires? Shouldn’t we see laws to reduce global warming as showing that we can exercise some control and oversee our environment better? How many people get all stressed out fighting and arguing about whether climate change is real or not, man-made or not, or some dastardly plot by Big Brother to subjugate all of us into mindless slaves? Why do we feel so compelled to take an issue that impacts our physical and psychological well-being, and force it into a political conflict? Shouldn’t the focus be on strategizing with new and emerging industries and technologies to develop an environmental plan for the future? Wouldn’t that be a great example of effective coping by empowering us to exercise some control over our physical and psychological welfare?
Alcoholics can learn to drink socially; the earth isn’t warming. In a coping context, those arguments are examples of losing focus on the core issue. In one case our focus should be on maximizing an alcohol abuser’s prospects for a safe and productive life; in the other case the focus should be on keeping our “home” safe and productive. Here’s our coping lesson: To cope effectively with a problem, you must define the parameters of the problem and focus your coping strategies within those parameters. Don’t let others distract you and lead you into irrelevant areas. Don’t distract yourself with ego-defense mechanisms like denial and rationalization. Accept the reality of your issues; face them, and focus on developing specific actions to empower yourself to meet your challenges.
Psychology and Stress 