Aa history Lovers 2004 moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut page

2 of 2)

From: Glenn Chesnut . . . . . . . . . . . . 5/18/2004 5:27:00 PM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ROWLAND HAZARD

Part 2 of 2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTE BY GLENN C. (South Bend, Indiana) -- Excerpted from Richard M. Dubiel,

*The Road to Fellowship: The Role of the Emmanuel Movement and the Jacoby Club

in the Development of Alcoholics Anonymous,* Hindsfoot Foundation Series on

the History of Alcoholism Treatment (New York: iUniverse, 2004), Chapter 4,

"Rowland Hazard and the Beginnings of A.A."

See http://hindsfoot.org for more details.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hazard and Jung

Ernest Kurtz's definitive history of A.A. regards Hazard as instrumental in

one of the four founding moments of Alcoholics Anonymous, the point where Bill

W. learned from Ebby Thatcher about what Carl Jung was supposed to have told

Hazard, that is, that alcoholics could not recover without some sort of

spiritual conversion. Bill W. interpreted this kind of conversion experience

as necessarily involving a major ego deflation.

"One-half of the core idea -- the necessity of spiritual conversion -- had

passed from Dr. Carl Jung to Rowland. Clothed in Oxford Group practice it had

given rise to its yet separate other half -- the simultaneous transmission of

deflation and hope by "one alcoholic talking to another" -- in the first

meeting between Bill and Ebby."

Kurtz quotes Bill W.'s own words on this issue (where the "Oxford Group

friend" is of course Rowland Hazard):

"Deflation at depth, yes that was it. Exactly that had happened to me. Dr.

Carl Jung had told an Oxford Group friend of Ebby's how hopeless his

alcoholism was and Dr. Silkworth had passed the same sentence upon me. Then

Ebby [Thatcher], also an alcoholic, had handed me the identical dose."

Carl Jung (along with the American psychologist William James) was frequently

cited by Bill W. and the early A.A.s as a way of legitimizing their emphasis

on the spiritual dimension of recovery. For James, religion embodied a

perfectly valid kind of experience, one that could be studied and said to have

its own objective reality. It could be demonstrated that certain kinds of

religious experiences could produce extraordinary life changes. For Jung,

religion was a way of expressing in symbolic fashion certain key components

within the human psyche, using archetypal images which were part of the makeup

of all human minds at the unconscious level. This material had to become

integrated at the conscious level, he stated, to produce full mental health.

Conventional psychiatry by itself could not bring freedom from the alcoholic

compulsion to a certain type of chronic alcoholic, as Bill W. had heard the

story of what Jung told Hazard. So as Bill interpreted what he believed to be

Jung's opinion, he saw this at first as a decree of hopelessness just as

severe as the one imposed on him by his own American psychiatrist William D.

Silkworth. The psychiatrists, even the best in the world, could not help a

certain kind of chronic alcoholic by conventional psychiatry. But Jung had

said to Hazard, according to the story Bill had been told, that a real

spiritual conversion could provide the power to stop drinking.

So conversion then became the only hope. This necessity of conversion became a

key ingredient in the formation of A.A. For the history of A.A., the

connection with the ideas of Carl Jung was extremely important in this way,

and in a variety of other ways also. Kurtz goes into considerable depth on

this matter, including long discussions of the way Bill W. regarded Jung (and

William James too) and appropriated their material.

All these observations remain valid. Carl Jung stated in a letter to Bill W.

many years later that the A.A. understanding of his theory of alcoholism was

in fact correct, and those who have studied Jungian psychiatry can easily see

how that understanding fits smoothly into his overall theoretical structure.

Jung praised the A.A. movement in that letter and indicated that he

wholeheartedly approved of their approach. But the fact is that there was at

the very least a considerable exaggeration of the length and depth of Rowland

Hazard's contact with Carl Jung in Switzerland. Part of the Hazard-Jung story,

as recounted in later A.A. sources, was clearly more legend than historical

reality.

The Traditional Account of Hazard's Therapy with Carl Jung and Its Influence

on A.A.

The official story regarding Hazard goes something like this, as stated by

Bill's early biographer Thomsen and quoted by later A.A. historians. The story

begins with the assertion that Hazard "wound up in Zurich, a patient of Carl

Jung," and that he worked with him in therapy of some sort for "over a year."

This was supposed to have happened in 1931. Hazard apparently thought that he

had seen the depths of his unconscious and understood himself to the extent

that he could rest easily in a sober life. According to the basic Bill W.

biography, Hazard then left Zurich but soon found himself drunk once again. He

returned to Zurich and once more sought the counsel of Jung. At this time the

psychologist told Hazard that he was hopeless in his alcoholism, insofar as

conventional psychiatry was concerned, and that religious conversion seemed

the one hope for such cases.

After this second meeting, Hazard is said to have discovered the Oxford Group

and to have begun to flourish in the program it provided. Hazard then came to

Ebby Thatcher's rescue in August 1934 when Thatcher was threatened with

commitment to the Brattleboro Asylum. The intervention of Hazard, along with

Cebra G. and another Oxford Group member, Shep C., was apparently fortuitous.

The three members happened to be vacationing at a summer home near Bennington

when they heard of the impending commitment. So they decided there on the spot

to make Thatcher a "project."

After his rescue, Thatcher took to the program of the Oxford Group with a good

deal of enthusiasm. Their zeal and evangelical fervor appealed to him,

granting him an extended period of sobriety. Three months after the Oxford

Group people had saved him from the insane asylum, he passed the message on to

Bill W. in the latter's kitchen in November 1934. The standard A.A. tradition

regards this as the context in which Ebby told Bill W. the story about Rowland

Hazard and Carl Jung. And then, according to the time-honored story, the

account of what Jung had told Hazard continued to sit and ferment in Bill W.'s

mind, and was one of the more important things that Bill learned from Ebby in

that meeting in his kitchen in November 1934.

The importance of Jung to Bill W. is not in doubt. But the detailed account

given for many years by A.A. people of Rowland Hazard's activities from 1931

to 1934 clearly contained some legendary elements. Hazard could not

conceivably have seen Jung for more than two months, perhaps less, in 1931.

There is no evidence in the Hazard family papers that he joined the Oxford

Group at that point. In fact, the earliest documentary evidence of him being a

member did not appear until February 1934, six months before he helped rescue

Ebby Thatcher from the asylum. Although this does not mean that he could not

have joined the Oxford Groupers much earlier, all our evidence so far of any

deeply committed involvement on his part in that group's activities comes from

1934. Furthermore, we have now considerable evidence of Hazard's contact with

the Emmanuel Group author Courtenay Baylor during 1933 and 1934, presumably as

Baylor's patient, which is a key factor which was left out of the traditional

A.A. legend.

So to understand the actual role which Rowland Hazard may have played in the

development of early A.A., it will be necessary to go beyond the legend and

see what the Hazard family papers reveal of what may or may not have actually

happened.

The Problems with the Traditional Account of the Hazard-Jung Contact

Two scholars, Rick Stattler and William L. White, have recently investigated

Hazard's role in the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous, in part by examining

materials at the Rhode Island Historical Society (RIHS) in Providence. This

author likewise examined selected Hazard material at the RIHS, focusing

largely on Hazard's connection with the Emmanuel Movement, but also reading

materials discovered by Stattler which might pertain to the Carl Jung

question. Scholars must be warned that the nature of these papers means that

many important questions still cannot be answered. They give us evidence which

is in many ways partial and sometimes frustrating.

In recent correspondence with the author, Rhode Island Historical Society

Manuscripts Curator Rick Stattler summarized the findings of a 1998 research

project which endeavored to document Hazard's whereabouts during the period

1930-1934. Stattler's scholarship as summed up in this letter and seen in an

accompanying six-page document list (1930-1934) is thorough and germane to the

subject at hand: Hazard's involvement with Courtenay Baylor.

Stattler himself best summarizes his main point: "I can state with confidence

that Rowland Hazard did not undergo any counseling in Zurich for more than a

couple of months between 1930 and 1934. I can also state that the records

examined, which are very suggestive on other matters, do not so much as hint

at any treatment by Dr. Jung, at least not as I have interpreted them."

The Stattler letter is accompanied by a document list, an annotated list of

letters from the Hazard Family Papers between 1930-1934. The letters either

place Hazard in a specific locale or refer in some way to his alcoholism. The

letters verifying his 1931 trip to Europe also substantiate Stattler's claim

that "there is no way he could have spent an extended period in Europe between

1930 and early 1933; he was intimately involved in several business ventures

in New York and New Mexico." When he did visit Europe from June to September

of 1931 he was with his wife and children. Stattler adds: "it seems very

unlikely that he could have spent more than a couple of weeks in Zurich." This

author examined the letters on Stattler's document list and can attest to the

reasonableness of Stattler's conclusions. The letters during the 1931 trip do

in fact give the feel of a family adventure. In one such letter Hazard's

mother, Mary, writes to his brother Thomas from Florence, Italy, wondering if

Roy (Rowland) won't bring her LaSalle automobile over when he arrives so she

can take it to England. When the itinerary is discussed in several places, a

familial feeling pervades, at least in the heart of the mother. There is an

expectation that all the family members will be in contact and will meet at

some point

Examining the family correspondence, however, still leaves a few mysteries

during the overall period that ran from 1930 to 1934. In a March 9, 1930,

letter to Thomas, the mother asserts: "I think Roy has had a spiritual

awakening which makes him ready to do anything which he feels incumbent upon

him. That is why I think those about him should try to prevent a sacrifice

which is not to the best good of all." She recognizes his vulnerability at

this point, particularly with regard to his ex-wife At that time he would have

been considering remarriage to Helen after their divorce a year earlier. The

point is that this spiritual awakening would have been in advance of meeting

Dr. Jung or being introduced to the Oxford Group or any contact that we know

of between him and Courtenay Baylor. What was this awakening? At this point we

do not know.

A second mystery surfaces in letters written on February 3, 5, and 13 of 1933,

in which his mother mentions Roy's "successes" with a "patient" and later

refers to other "patients," presumably while he was in Vermont. The "patient"

could not have been Thatcher at this point, since Hazard and Cebra did not

carry out their intervention with him until August 1934. Was Hazard attempting

to be like Baylor, emulating his own doctor and trying to take on patients

himself as a lay psychotherapist? This would be interesting in itself since

the first actual documentation on any connection between Hazard and Baylor

does not occur until December 15, 1933, ten months later. But as has been

noted, there is the possibility that Baylor may have first been called in when

Hazard was hospitalized for his alcoholism in February and March of 1932, so

his apparent attempts to play lay psychotherapist in early 1933 could have

occurred under Baylor's influence. There are no other mentions of this

practice in the collections, so the references to Hazard having "patients" of

his own in early 1933 remain a mystery.

It is important to note that these investigations do not conclude that Hazard

had no contact with Jung. It is possible that the two had a brief encounter,

and that it was of such a force that the meeting turned into a legend which,

in the retelling, was expanded into the tale of a course of extensive

psychotherapy that soon encompassed a full year or more. The news from Jung

that so impressed Bill Wilson might also have affected Hazard in a similar

manner; such is the nature of "good news." Apostles, stricken as they are with

the revelatory nature of the message, are more interested in passing the

message along than in documenting times and dates. And so it may have been

with Hazard and Jung. A cynical interpreter would also note that alcoholics

tend by their nature to exaggerate and boast and inflate the stories which

they tell. Such is the nature of the disease.

The Correspondence between Bill W. and Carl Jung

On January 23, 1961, Bill Wilson wrote a letter to Carl Jung referring to the

psychiatrist's encounter with Rowland Hazard thirty years earlier, and on

January 30, 1961 Jung wrote him back [*"Pass It On" The Story of Bill Wilson

and How the A.A. Message Reached the World* (New York: Alcoholics Anonymous

World Services, 1984), 381-6]. Jung said that he remembered working with

Hazard, and that Bill's account of what he told Rowland at that time was

"adequately reported" and completely correct.

[In recent correspondence with the author, Glenn F. Chesnut, Indiana

University South Bend, noted:] Jung's letter also gives the only perhaps

potentially deep insight we could possess into Hazard's personality and

character. The psychiatrist seemed, on the basis of his remarks in his letter

to Bill W., to have had other experience in trying to work with alcoholics,

and made the interesting observation in that letter that the kind of spiritual

conversion he was referring to when he spoke to Hazard could take one of three

forms. It could be produced by "an act of grace," but Hazard, the hardheaded

businessman, apparently had too many mental blocks in place to ever allow

himself to have anything like the vision of divine light, for example, which

Bill W. experienced in the Charles B. Towns Hospital not long after his

meeting in the kitchen with Ebby Thatcher, or any equivalent to that sort of

spiritual experience. Conversion could also be produced, Jung said in his

letter to Bill W., "through a higher education of the mind beyond the confines

of mere rationalism," but the pragmatic industrialist and banker Hazard did

not seem to have had any ability to explore the Jungian interpretation of

religious ritual and art in a way which would involve the deeper feeling

levels. Hazard's mind apparently was too prosaic for that.

But a spiritual remaking could also be produced, Jung commented, "through a

personal and honest contact with friends," that is, through joining in a

fellowship of people who were attempting to lead the spiritual life and then

becoming totally immersed in the activities of that group. And on the basis of

what Bill W. had reported in his letter, Jung said that he believed that

Rowland had chosen that way, "which was, under the circumstances, obviously

the best one." Fellowship among recovering people -- that vital part of both

the Emmanuel Movement method and the Oxford Group's practices -- had been the

only one of these threes routes through which a man like Rowland Hazard could

be reached and freed from his alcoholic compulsion.

The Rhode Island Historical Society material requires us to regard part of the

later A.A. account of the meeting between Rowland Hazard and Carl Jung as

legendary expansion. Whatever specific conclusion a reader of those documents

might reach, their contents cannot be simply ignored. Yet we also have this

1961 letter from Carl Jung affirming that he had in fact had some sort of

significant contact with Hazard thirty years earlier, and that the A.A.

account of what he had told the Rhode Island businessman at that time was

substantially correct. And it seems unquestionably the fact that Jung came

into the thinking of the A.A. founders in 1934, and exerted a profound

influence on their ideas during the years following.

Additional Emmanuel Movement Influence on A.A.: the Emphasis on Fellowship

Hazard's later years seem to have been prosperous enough, although he never

did join Alcoholics Anonymous. In 1936 he became a member of the Episcopal

Church and remained active in several of its organizations. Throughout the

latter part of his troubled life, Hazard relied on the fellowship of the

Oxford Group (including activities such as his work with Ebby Thatcher in

1934) to aid and comfort him in his struggle with alcohol. It was fellowship

that helped him even toward the end of his life, when he was being returned to

New York after his 1936 binge. The comment Carl Jung made in his letter to

Bill W. seems to have been correct, that a saving encounter with the healing

quality of the spiritual life could in fact be brought about "through a

personal and honest contact with friends," and that this route had been

"obviously the best one" for someone of Rowland Hazard's personality.

It was fellowship between recovering people that was a vital part of the

approach which the Emmanuel Movement and its offshoot, the Jacoby Club, began

developing in 1906-1909. We do not know whether Courtenay Baylor was one of

the people who was encouraging Hazard to participate in the activities of the

Oxford Group in 1934, but since Hazard lived at a great distance from Boston

where Emmanuel Episcopal Church and the Jacoby Club were located, the Oxford

Group could have appeared to Baylor as a useful alternative to suggest to the

businessman.

Fellowship with recovering alcoholics was also one of the most important

features of the A.A. method of freeing people from the compulsion to drink.

There have been voices to the contrary: Linda Mercadante, in her book *Victims

and Sinners*, claims that the original intention of A.A.'s founders was to

have the Big Book the central point of recovery. She insists that "meeting

attendance was not seen as 'vital to sobriety.'" In her analysis, the rise of

meetings was accidental, more or less an afterthought that later took over the

very character of the movement. This seems a very strained interpretation.

While it is true that the Big Book was seen as the central point, capable of

evoking reverence both then and now, this does not diminish that fact that

fellowship, the idea of one drunk helping another, sprang forth almost

immediately as one of the key ingredients in the movement. A person cannot get

sober alone: this became an axiomatic and vital A.A. tenet. Fellowship became

indistinguishable from the movement itself. This was a situation in which one

could not tell the dancer from the dance.

Rowland Hazard's own personal experiences made the importance of fellowship

clear to the early A.A. people who knew him. And he was a patient of Courtenay

Baylor, who came out of the fellowship-oriented Emmanuel Movement tradition.

Rowland himself was very active in 1934 in the Oxford Group, which was a

strongly fellowship-based spiritual program, and as a result of this, seems to

have recovered from his almost two-year total breakdown and returned to his

normal business activities by October of that year.

Although Hazard did not get along with Bill Wilson and the other early A.A.s,

never joined an A.A. group, and may not have even liked its program, the fact

is that he knew from personal experience the power of the fellowship he had

seen, felt, and witnessed in other contexts. And he must have had some sort of

influence on early A.A.s who knew about him, whether at first or second hand.

Could one imagine that some small portion of the power of the early Emmanuel

meetings, held by Elwood Worcester in the church basement in Boston back at

the beginning of the century, was somehow carried through time and was

conveyed to Hazard by Courtenay Baylor when he ministered to and influenced

him in 1933 and 1934? We cannot know. But it is clear that behind Ebby

Thatcher, the messenger who brought the word of salvation to Bill Wilson in

the kitchen of Bill's apartment in November 1934, lay the figure of Rowland

Hazard III, the mysterious messenger behind the messenger.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTE BY GLENN C. (South Bend, Indiana) -- Prof. Dubiel backs up his account

with a set of detailed endnotes, which have been omitted from this brief

excerpt from his book, except for one of the notes, which is important to

cite.

There he talks about the actual dates of Rowland Hazard's involvement in the

Oxford Group, as nearly as we can reconstruct this: "Rowland's membership and

active participation in the Oxford Group is well-documented in family

correspondence. See the letter from Mary P. B. Hazard to Thomas P. Hazard

dated 25 February 1934 in the Thomas P. Hazard Papers; and the letters from

Thomas P. Hazard to Mary P. B. Hazard dated 14 February and 28 March 1934 in

the Rowland G. Hazard II Papers, both in the Manuscripts Collection, RIHS."

What is especially important to observe in this set of dates is that there is

no indication that Rowland Hazard joined the Oxford Group immediately after

talking with Carl Jung in 1931. Or at any rate, references to his involvement