World Order/Series2/Volume 8/Issue 3/Text

←Issue 2

World Order, Series 2 Volume 8 - Issue 3

Issue 4→

Return to PDF view Proofread once

[Page -1]

World Order

SPRING 1974

THE BAHÁ’Í FAITH

Firuz Kazemzadeh

UNIVERSAL MAN AND PREJUDICED MAN

Hossain B. Danesh

ALCOHOL AND ALCOHOLISM: AN OVERVIEW

Bahia Deloomy Mitchell

REMEMBERING SHOGHI EFFENDI:

THE BELOVED GUARDIAN

Howard B. Garey

[Page 0]

World Order

A BAHÁ’Í MAGAZINE • VOLUME 8 NUMBER 3 • PUBLISHED QUARTERLY

WORLD ORDER IS INTENDED TO STIMULATE, INSPIRE AND SERVE THINKING PEOPLE IN THEIR SEARCH TO FIND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTEMPORARY LIFE AND CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS AND PHILOSOPHY

Editorial Board:

FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH

BETTY FISHER

HOWARD GAREY

ROBERT HAYDEN

GLENFORD E. MITCHELL

WORLD ORDER is published quarterly, October, January, April, and July, at 415 Linden Avenue, Wilmette, Illinois 60091. Subscriber and business correspondence and changes of address should be sent to this address. Manuscripts and other editorial correspondence should be addressed to 2011 Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut 06520.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, or of the Editorial Board. Manuscripts should be typewritten and double spaced throughout, with the footnotes at the end. The contributor should keep a carbon copy. Return postage should be included.

Subscription: USA and Canada, 1 year, $4.50; 2 years, $8.00; single copies, $1.25. All other countries, 1 year, $5.00; 2 years, $9.00; single copes $1.35.

Copyright © 1974, National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, World Rights Reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.

ISSN 0043-8804

IN THIS ISSUE

1 The Five Year Plan

Editorial

2 Interchange: Letters from and to the Editor

10 The Bahá’í Faith

by Firuz Kazemzadeh

16 Universal Man and Prejudiced Man

by Hossain B. Danesh

27 Alcohol and Alcoholism: An Overview

by Bahia Deloomy Mitchell

48 Remembering Shoghi Effendi: The Beloved

Guardian

book review by Howard B. Garey

50 Flight

poem by Horace Holley

51 Reasoning by Computer

book review by William S. Hatcher

Inside back cover: Authors and Artists in This Issue

[Page 1]

The Five Year Plan

THE FIVE YEAR PLAN of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing body of the Bahá’í world community, has been unveiled. Derived from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s charter for the global expansion of the Faith, the new Plan is the third such international undertaking. Like the Nine Year Plan (1964-1973) and the Ten Year Crusade (1953-1963) before it, the Five Year Plan envisages the opening of new territories, the creation of additional centers, the formation of many more local and national spiritual assemblies, the initiation of construction of houses of worship, and the holding of international conferences.

A salient feature of the new Plan is the emphasis it places on the development of the spiritual and social life of the nascent Bahá’í community. The education of children, the harnessing of “The vast reservoir of spiritual energy, zeal and idealism resident in Bahá’í youth,” the unstinted support of the institutions of the Cause, are some of the means for “the development in the world-wide Bahá’í community of distinctive Bahá’í characteristics implanted in it by Bahá’u’lláh Himself.”

“In a world becoming daily more divided by factionalism and group interests,” the Universal House of Justice writes, “the Bahá’í community must be distinguished by the concord and harmony of its relationships. The coming of age of the human race must be foreshadowed by the mature, responsible understanding of human problems and the wise administration of their affairs by these same Bahá’í communities.”

It has always been an obligation of every individual Bahá’í to endeavor to make his private life correspond to the principles and the spirit of the Teachings of Bahá’u’lláh. The time has come to begin the slow and laborious process of applying these Teachings to ever larger groups of Bahá’ís so that by 1979 there may emerge in the tens of thousands of localities a community that could truly be regarded as a pattern for a future society.

[Page 2]

Interchange LETTERS FROM AND TO THE EDITOR

“LIQUOR adds that special something,” a full-page recipe spread in our local newspaper advised us the day we began editing Dr. Bahia Deloomy Mitchell’s article “Alcohol and Alcoholism: An Overview.” That special something Suzanne Weiss, a staff writer on the newspaper, informed us, came in the form of Orange Rum Sherbet, Cafe Brulot, Cantaloupe Claret, and Beer Pancakes. Innocent enough, it would seem. Dr. Mitchell, however, accounts for that special something not in terms of exotic tastes but in terms of health impaired, productivity diminished, home lives distorted, millions of dollars wasted, and lives lost. While Ms. Weiss labels as “enterprising” the cook “who would bring the bar into the kitchen,” Dr. Mitchell challenges us to confront alcohol and alcoholism for what they are—major social problems in the United States and throughout the world. She is not a moralist. She does not have to be. The statistics and the medical data argue their own case.

The Bahá’í view on alcohol is unequivocally clear. Bahá’u’lláh forbids its use, except when prescribed by a physician, for, as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has explained, it “‘is the cause of chronic diseases, weakeneth the nerves, and comumeth the mind.’” Bahá’u’lláh tells man not to pursue that which destroys him but rather to “‘Drink . . . the Mystic Wine from the cup of My words. Cast away, then, from you that which your minds abhor, for it hath been forbidden unto you in His Tablets and His Scriptures. Beware lest ye barter away the River that is life indeed for that which the souls of the pure-hearted detest. Become ye intoxicated with the wine of the love of God, and not with that which deadeneth your minds, O ye that adore Him! Verily, it hath been forbidden unto every believer, whether man or woman. Thus hath the sun of My commandment shone forth above the horizon of My utterance, that the handmaidens who believe in Me may be illumined.’”

* * *

Just before this issue of WORLD ORDER went to press, we learned that our regular and much-valued contributor William Stafford had been named Poet Laureate of the State of Oregon. A ceremony was scheduled for April 29 at the Portland Art Museum with Governor Tom McCall making the award and Dr. John Howard, President of Lewis and Clark College, reading some of Mr. Stafford’s poems.

We of WORLD ORDER’s Editorial Board, all admirers of William Stafford’s poetry, salute him on this happy occasion and wish him many successes in the future. We also congratulate Oregon’s Art Commission for recognizing and celebrating outstanding artistic merit.

* * *

To the Editor

We are writing to find out, once and for all; do you really exist? We wrote to you over a year ago from our pioneer post in the Solomon Islands requesting a subscription to the WORLD ORDER Magazine, and enclosing a check for four dollars. Someone using WORLD ORDER envelopes sent us a request for one more dollar, [Page 3]

[Page 4] a check which we cheerfully sent and patiently waited. And waited. And waited. In July, just before we left the Solomons, we wrote again, reminding you of our longing to have a WORLD ORDER subscription and telling you of our forwarding address in New Zealand. Still the months go by and we must content ourselves with borrowed copies. We realize that New Zealand orders the magazine in bulk and they’re all sent to one address. Is that why you won’t write to us? Has devaluation reduced our checks to pieces of paper and you want more money? Has the computer gone on sabbatical? Do you really exist at all? Give us a sign; in the heavens, on the waters or (preferably) on a piece of paper and restore our faith in the WORLD ORDER Magazine and in North American efficiency.

DIANNE and JOHN POWERS

Lower Hutt, New Zealand

Ed. Note: The computer’s response to the above confusion sounded remarkably like a grieved sigh. Mr. and Mrs. Powers will be happy to know that a new subscription maintenance system is now being used and that the entire subscription system is being computerized. We genuinely hope some of our subscription difficulties will become vague memories of the past.

NINE ON THE RICHTER

[I want] to express an appreciation for your story “Nine on the Richter,” by Marissa Heller [VOL 7, No. 4, Summer 1973]. This feature answers a question I had in my mind for some time . . . —namely, are there Bahá’í writers who can write good fiction apart from stories based on the history of the Faith? (I do not mean to imply that such “romances” are fiction, but that I was never sure when there were embellishments.)

“Nine on the Richter” is a refreshing departure and stands on its own as a piece of fiction; at the same time it expresses a truth, in that it emphasizes that an outside factor, even a frightening one such as an earthquake, can provide an escape from boredom, or perhaps from responsibilities. One is reminded of that poem “The Barbarians Are Coming Today” by a contemporary Greek poet. . . . The gist of it was the preparedness of the Greeks (in a certain city) to be taken over, and then the let down feeling when the Barbarians didn’t come, after all . . . One saw this too before the Second World War, when the expectancy that there would be one was mixed with fear and optimism.

Perhaps it indicates the tendency of people to “roll” with the impending doom rather than to try to do something to prevent it. Anyway, I hope that there’ll be more such contemporary fiction writing, as promised.

RAE PERLIN

St. John’s, Newfoundland

MYSTICAL KNOWLEDGE

As a long-time student of religion and mysticism, I read Jalil Mahmoudi’s “‘Irfán, Gnosis, or Mystical Knowledge” [Vol. 7, No. 4, Summer 1973] with great interest. However I have several reservations and objections to express from the Bahá’í point of view.

Under the heading, ‘The Bahá’í Approach,’ Dr. Mahmoudi goes from Ṣúfism to the Bahá’í Writings without transition. Further on, he attempts to analyze the “mystical meanings” of a quotation from Bahá’u’lláh. A reader unfamiliar with the Bahá’í Faith would assume that the Bahá’í Revelation is another mystical discipline, which it is not.

There are many doctrines of mysticism, both philosophical and religious; therefore, mystical knowledge is “divine knowledge” for the mystic only—I mean for the individual who believes that he will attain the knowledge of God through a particular teaching and a particular discipline. The mystics affirm that their mystical experience is indescribable; yet anyone interested could follow the “path” or the “way” and would partake of it, though to different degrees. This is the experience which some think to attain through the shortcut of psychedelic drugs or through mantra-meditation. In other words, it is a psychological experience the quality of which is dependent upon gradual initiation to a particular teaching and to the personality of the mystic, refined by a special physiological discipline (or by some drug).

Mystical knowledge is esoteric knowledge, or the knowledge of mysteries and symbols. All religions of the past led to several forms of mysticism, as they contain many “mysteries” which the mass of common people could not understand. Some of these religions prepared the ground for mysticism through monastic life and asceticism. Though some mystics lived as anchorites, most mystical schools developed in groups, in monasteries, or in other centers, [Page 5] under the leadership of a superior, a master, a guru.

Revelation is not mysticism. In fact, it is the opposite, as it is not the product of elaborate meditation or ecstatic experience, but a spontaneous, intuitive spiritual knowledge. A prophet is not a mystic, a product of a lifetime of discipline and study, but an unusual individual chosen by God and prepared for his mission from childhood in a quiet, natural life of simple dignity. He is first aware of his mission, not in a rapturous experience, but in startling events and conditions thrust upon him. Whereas a mystical doctrine is “the truth” for a group of followers, a revelation is the Truth of God’s Creation confirmed by history, inasmuch as prophetic revelation is the basis of a new civilization.

We are fortunate to possess in our time the Bahá’í Revelation, genuinely recorded and witnessed, illustrating the characteristics stated above.

Mystics claim direct contact with God or the Absolute. This is impossible, according to Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation; several of His Writings explain that God, the Unknowable Essence, is independent of His Creation. We know God through His Manifestations or Mediators. Therefore, the highest station that a sincere mystic could reach is nearness to the Manifestation.

However, what most mystics experience is degrees of the awareness of love-energy and the sense of eternity which pervade the universe and which the mystic translates according to his own personality and knowledge. By means of physiological discipline an individual can extend his perception of universal energy, but the quality of the experience is subordinated to the value of the knowledge, of the intellectual food he gave to his mind and stored in his subconscious. Actually a mystic does not attain revelation; he projects what he already possesses and experiences it to the utmost; and his perception, amplified by universal energy, will eventually enter into contact with a certain spiritual wave (if he is motivated by love) or be attuned to a certain sphere of existence.

In the proper physiological context, perception expands and consciousness reaches previously unknown dimensions of awareness. A scientist, an artist can develop intuition and talent this way. But also any esoteric knowledge, any false imagination is amplified by universal energy and reaches dimensions that make them seem real and sublime. Or, in the case of psychedelic experience, if the mind is poor the subject will have a “bad trip,” as the drug expands his emptiness and his fears. It is worthy of note that certain schizophrenics live in a psychological world very close to mystical dimensions. This fact is exploited by “anti-psychiatrists” in England who, instead of treating their patients, allow them to reach the utmost of their “experience,” no matter how extravagant or degrading their behavior in the process.

Recent developments and studies showing how metabolism and drugs affect the chemical make-up of the brain and influence psychological experiences raise some doubts as to the value of mysticism in the process of spiritual maturation. In other words, mystical experiences are not very reliable unless motivated by love and from the right knowledge.

Though some great mystics have made their impact on history (in religion, the arts, and science), mysticism is generally a means of escape from human reality, as mystics, who claim that they dwell in spiritual realities, shun their duty on earth. It is a kind of addiction: mystics are very satisfied and convinced of the “truth” they possess, and their mind is closed to other spiritual knowledge. I have always wondered how mystics can claim access to the truth while they are not able to recognize God’s Manifestation in their own time. Christian mystics did not recognize Muḥammad; Ṣúfís recognized neither the Báb nor Bahá’u’lláh. More recently, the priest-scientist, Teilhard de Chardin, a sincere Christian mystic, developed a scientific theory which parallels Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation in numerous instances; yet he was not aware at all of the one-hundred-year existence of this Revelation. In “Pour y voir clair,” an essay analyzing the drive of mankind toward “unity,” he could express astonishment that, to that day (July 1950), no writing existed describing this spiritual phenomenon (L’Activation de l’Energie [Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1963], p. 236).

It might seem that mystics should be irresistibly attracted to God’s Manifestations; but this is not the case for millions presently involved in some kind of self-realization, Zen, Ṣúfí, or other Eastern disciplines, while a simple, illiterate South American Indian is able to recognize Bahá’u’lláh by the mere mention of His name.

We are told that, among Bahá’u’lláh’s Writings, only The Seven Valleys is a mystical [Page 6] treatise. This tablet, revealed before Bahá’u’lláh’s Declaration, was designed to enlighten Shaykh ‘Abdu’r-Raḥmán (according to the French version; the English version says that The Seven Valleys was written for Shaykh Muḥyi’d-Dín and The Four Valleys for Shaykh ‘Abdu’r-Raḥmán), concerning the Prophet and His mission: the “Beloved,” object of the seeker’s quest, is not God, but Bahá’u’lláh.

Poetry is the language of revelation and poetry uses symbolism; therefore Bahá’u’lláh’s beautiful language is close to that of Arabic mysticism; a Ṣúfí or other mystic could find in the Bahá’í Revelation enlightened meanings. However, a revelation is not mystical or esoteric knowledge; it is spiritual knowledge. Though symbolism is the language of the soul and of the subconscious, spiritual symbolism is not necessarily as hermetic and elaborated as mystical symbolism; and to interpret it in this way could be misleading. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, as interpreter of His Father, wrote in the most beautifully simple and clear style, radiating divine love and spirit. Though called “The Mystery of God” by Bahá’u’lláh, the Master was a radiant personality, of charismatic quality, but no “far-out” mystic, speaking majestically, not ecstatically.

No initiation, no ascetic or physiological discipline is required in the Bahá’í Faith, except for a short yearly period of fast. “Purity of heart, chastity of soul and freedom of spirit” describes a state of mind a long way from the elaborate initiation of the mystic. Some plain, good people in primitive society fulfill from birth these Bahá’í norms. The Bahá’í way of living is based on spiritual detachment from the world, but with enjoyment of its beauty, moderation in its pleasures, and striving for its improvement. A lifelong education is the rule, and deepening in the Writings and unlimited Bahá’í love are the ferments, of Bahá’í life.

Love, prayer, and spiritual and intellectual education: these are, I believe, the key to the mystery of life that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá demonstrated and taught. How to be of high spiritual character in the most simple and logical way on this planet—to me this is the ultimate of the agreement of science and religion. It is significant that, in this Dispensation, work, science, and the arts, not mysticism, have been raised to the level of worship.

In the same order of ideas the Bahá’í Revelation does not divide the Creation along the sacred/profane line of past religions, theologies, and philosophies. The word profane, according to its Latin etymology, originally meant “before the temple”—that is, outside of it. As there is no Bahá’í ritual and no temple for that purpose, the entire life of man is an act of worship to God, so there is no clear-cut profane/sacred delimitation in individual life, nor in the world. While past religions and mysticisms oppose the physical world to the spiritual realm, Bahá’u’lláh sanctified the human plane of existence when he said, “All men have been created to carry forward am ever-advancing civilization.” This is a Divine Civilization in the making, the progressive construction of God’s Kingdom on earth, whose blueprint Bahá’u’lláh has given us. If there is such a sacred/profane demarcation, Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation has thrown it back to the evolutionary past; thus the “profane” can be understood as nature and the animal kingdom, while the “sacred” is the human kingdom, for Bahá’u’lláh confers a sacred duty upon men in this Dispensation.

Of course, there is a long way to go before mankind can step deliberately from one kingdom to the other. Many people, including scientists, want us to believe that we are no better than animals—and it is true that men and nations still behave like animals.

The Bahá’í Revelation being a unique event in human history, a fresh and open mind is necessary in the investigation of its truth. Philosophies, theologies, and mysticisms of the past are inadequate tools in this endeavor; at best they can only provide a frame of reference to understand the difference and the greatness of a Revelation which dominates any existing knowledge. As I understand the relationship of revelation, mysticism, and science, mysticism is a symbolic, esoteric knowledge which derived from past revelations. As human intelligence was not able to conceive of the scientific meaning of a revelation, mysticism took over as a means of investigating cosmic truth. Though science is still in its infancy, many advanced trends of scientific investigation appear to lead toward the cosmic knowledge recorded in the Bahá’í Revelation. In the Faith, we are, on the one hand, forbidden to engage in such practices as asceticism, monasticism, and the like; and we are not allowed to impose our personal interpretations of the Writings upon others. On the other hand science and arts have been raised to the level of worship.

When scientists and artists realize their spiritual power, science and arts will reach domains [Page 7] of awareness presently unknown. For instance, when ESP will be a way of life rather than a strange phenomenon, mysticism will appear to have been a crude forerunner of scientific achievements. Perhaps it is significant that in order to find echoes of Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation we have to turn toward the work of such thinkers as the scientist, Teilhard de Chardin, the architect and engineer, Buckminster Fuller, or other futuristic scientists. I do believe that at the apex of the Bahá’í Civilization religion and science will be in complete agreement in realizing man’s lofty destiny implicit in these words: “The potentialities inherent in the station of man, the full measure of his destiny on earth, the innate excellence of his reality, must all be manifested in this promised Day of God.”

ELIANE HOPSON

New York, New York

My article [“‘Irfán, Gnosis, or Mystical Knowledge,” Vol. 7, No. 4, Summer 1973] deals with a knowledge, the Arabic word for which is ‘Irfán and the Greek equivalent of which is Gnosis; in English it is referred to as mystical or spiritual knowledge. All the words and terminologies are defined in the article. Furthermore, the Webster International Dictionary defines “mystical” as “having a spiritual meaning, existence, reality. . . .” As used in the article, “mystical knowledge” and “spiritual knowledge” are synonymous and denote one and the same thing. Thus, the article addresses itself to a knowledge (mystical or spiritual) and not to an “ism,” such as mysticism, or to any mystical discipline.

The article talks about the three aspects of man and the corresponding relevant knowledges which may be divided into three major areas—namely, empirical, philosophical, and spiritual or mystical. To put it into the most simple language, it attempts to distinguish between mundane knowledge and knowledge of a divine nature. In other words, it attempts to show the difference between knowing the Manifestation of God (highly abstract and sacred thoughts and ideas) and mundane knowledge, such as how to drive a car. While all types of knowledge are good and admirable, the purpose of the article is to study the former; and thus it concentrates on mystical or spiritual knowledge. I stated on page 6, column 2, that “My purpose here is to study this particular form of knowledge.” A few lines further with regard to this particular type of knowledge I write:

In almost all theistic religions this type of knowledge, or ‘Irfán, has been more or less emphasized. It deals mainly with the spiritual or mystical aspect of religion where it has a broader meaning and a deeper effect on man’s spiritual nature. It is knowledge of a divine nature dealing with a realm “beyond” the earthly, the mundane. It is on a higher plane referred to as the sphere of the “sacred” or “holy.”

An unfortunate conclusion of Mrs. Hopson is her fear and assumption that “A reader unfamiliar with the Bahá’í Faith would assume that the Bahá’í Revelation is another mystical discipline. . . .” As mentioned before, the article deals with aspects of man and forms of knowledge. It does not deal with any mystical discipline or order at all. . . .

Mrs. Hopson makes a bold generalization that “Mystics claim direct contact with God or the Absolute.” A study of the volumes of writings of great mystics makes this statement seriously questionable. She further claims that “mysticism is generally a means of escape from human reality. . . .” It certainly takes a great deal of courage to make such an accusation and value judgment. Mrs. Hopson further writes that “I have always wondered how mystics can claim access to the truth. . . .” I am not sure whether all the mystics make such a claim. Actually, most of them refer to themselves as seekers of the truth.

Mrs. Hopson writes “Poetry is the language of revelation and poetry uses symbolism; therefore Bahá’u’lláh’s beautiful language is close to that of Arab mysticism. . . .” I do not know whether Mrs. Hopson knows the Arabic language. This writer, however, happens to know both the Persian and Arabic languages and has studied and read most, if not all, of the published writings of Bahá’u’lláh revealed in the original Arabic and Persian. I do not know what exactly Mrs. Hopson means by poetry because very little of Bahá’u’lláh’s writings are in poetry. Also I am not quite sure whether there is such a thing as a language of “Arabic mysticism.” Actually, as far as I know, there is no language distinction for mysticism; and there is no classification on that basis. Maybe Mrs. Hopson is referring to Islamic mysticism. Bahá’u’lláh’s style of writing, however, is His own.

The Seven Valleys, which Mrs. Hopson believes is the only “mystical treatise” written by Bahá’u’lláh, is written in the Persian language; and it is written in prose. It is true that this [Page 8] Tablet was revealed before His declaration in Baghdád (Bahá’u’lláh became conscious of His heavenly Mission in the Síyáh-Chál in Ṭihrán ten years before His Declaration in Baghdád), but Bahá’ís believe that Bahá’u’lláh was the Manifestation of God when He wrote The Seven Valleys.

Mrs. Hopson claims that The Seven Valleys is the only “mystical treatise” of Bahá’u’lláh. This statement is also questionable.

Mrs. Hopson objects to Emile Durkeim’s usage of the terms “sacred and profane.” I hope Mrs. Hopson will refer to his writings to learn exactly what he means. However, the matter is much more profound and complicated than can be dealt with so lightly, and I do not want to defend Emile Durkheim.

It is noteworthy, though, that even within the sphere of religion, which is sacred in itself, still there are two dimensions. This is how ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explains it:

. . . each of the divine religions is separable into two divisions. One concerns the world of morality and the ethical training of human nature. It is directed to the advancement of the world of humanity in general; it reveals and inculcates the knowledge of God and makes possible the discovery of the verities of life. This is ideal and spiritual teaching, the essential quality of divine religion and not subject to change or transformation. It is the one foundation of all the religions of God. Therefore the religions are essentially one and the same.

The second classification or division comprises social laws and regulations applicable to human conduct. This is not the essential spiritual quality of religion. It is subject to change and transformation according to the exigencies and requirements of time and place.”

Mrs. Hopson writes “As there is no Bahá’í ritual and no temple for that purpose, the entire life of man is an act of worship to God, so there is no clear-cut profane/sacred delimitation of individual life, nor in the world.”

My questions are:

1. How would you classify the obligatory and other prayers prescribed in the Bahá’í Faith?

2. What are the purposes of the Bahá’í Houses of Worship?

3. Is the life of an evildoer an act of worship of God?

4. Are the manufacturing of the hydrogen and atomic bombs as well as other means of killing and destruction sacred and holy enterprises?

Mrs. Hopson says “mysticism will appear to have been a crude forerunner of scientific achievements.” I do not know what kind of mysticism Mrs. Hopson has in mind. If she is referring to some pseudo-occultism, vague reveries, or whims and fancies, as well as some particular fads and orders—that is beside the point. But if she is using the word mystical in its original sense—namely, of denoting aspects of the “divine mysteries” and the spiritual aspect of the theistic religions—then this statement probably should be very seriously questioned.

In conclusion, I agree wholeheartedly with Mrs. Hopson that “a Ṣúfí or other mystic could find in the Bahá’í Revelation enlightened meanings.” I only add that not only Ṣúfís and mystics but the entire human race can and shall be enlightened by the light of Bahá’u’lláh and His divine Teachings.

JALIL MAHMOUDI

Salt Lake City, Utah

[Page 9]

[Page 10]

The Bahá’í Faith

BY FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH

---

Reprinted from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, © 1974, by permission of the publishers. House style for transliteration of Persian and Arabic words has been used.

---

BAHÁ’Í FAITH is a religion founded by Mírzá Ḥusayn ‘Alí (1817-1892; known as Bahá’u’lláh . . . Glory of God). The word Bahá’í derives from bahá (“glory, splendour”) and signifies a follower of Bahá’u’lláh. The religion stemmed from the Bábí faith—founded in 1844 by Mírzá ‘Alí Muḥammad of Shíráz, known as the Báb— which emphasized the forthcoming appearance of “Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest,” a new prophet or messenger of God. The Bábí faith in turn had sprung from Shí’ah Islám which believed in the forthcoming return of the 12th imám (successor of Muḥammad), who would renew religion and guide the faithful. This messianic view was the basis of the teachings of the Shaykhí sect, so named after Shaykh Aḥmad-i-Aḥsá’í. Shaykh Aḥmad and his successor, Siyyid Káẓim-i-Rashtí, abandoned traditional literalism and gave allegorical interpretations to doctrines such as resurrection, the Last Judgment, and the return of the 12th imám. They and their followers (known as Shaykhís) came to expect the appearance of the Qá’im (“He Who Arises,” the 12th imám) in the immediate future.

On May 22, 1844, in Shíráz, Persia, a young descendant of Muḥammad, Siyyid ‘Alí Muḥammad, proclaimed to a learned Shaykhí divine, Mullá Ḥusayn-i-Bushrú’í, that he was the expected Qá’im, whereupon Mullá Ḥusayn became the first disciple of Siyyid ‘Alí Muḥammad, who assumed the title of the Báb (“gate,” or channel of grace from someone still veiled from the sight of men).

Soon the teachings of the Báb, the principal of which was the tidings of the coming of “Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest,” spread all over Persia, provoking strong opposition on the part of the clergy and the government. The Báb was arrested and, after several years of incarceration, condemned to death. In 1850 he was brought to Tabríz, where he was suspended by ropes against a wall in a public square. A regiment of several hundred soldiers fired a volley. When the smoke cleared, the large crowd that had gathered at the place of execution saw ropes cut by bullets but the Báb had disappeared. He was found unhurt in an adjacent building, calmly conversing with a disciple. The execution was repeated, this time effectively. There followed large-scale persecutions of the Bábís in which ultimately more than 20,000 people lost their lives.

History and Extent

Bahá’u’lláh, who had been an early disciple of the Báb, was arrested in connection with an unsuccessful attempt on the life of the sháh of Persia, Náṣiri’d-Dín, made in August 1852 by two Bábís intent upon avenging their master. Though Bahá’u’lláh had not known of the plot, he was thrown into the Black Pit, a notorious jail in Ṭihrán, where he became aware of his mission as a messenger of God. He was released in January 1853 and exiled to Baghdád. There Bahá’u’lláh’s leadership revived the Bábí community, and an alarmed Persian government urged the Ottoman government to move both Bahá’u’lláh and the growing number of his followers farther away from Persia’s borders. Before being transferred to Constantinople, Bahá’u’lláh spent 12 days in a garden on the outskirts of Baghdád, where in April 1863 he declared to a small number of Bábís that he was the messenger of God whose advent had been prophesied by the Báb. From Constantinople, where Bahá’u’lláh spent some four months, he was transferred [Page 11] to Adrianople. There he made a public proclamation of his mission in letters (“tablets”) addressed to the rulers of Persia, Turkey, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Britain, as well as to the pope and to the Christian and Muslim clergy collectively.

An overwhelming majority of the Bábís acknowledged Bahá’u’lláh’s claim and thenceforth became known as Bahá’ís. A small minority followed Bahá’u’lláh’s half brother, Mírzá Yaḥyá Ṣubḥ-i-Azal, creating a temporary breach within the ranks of the Bábís. Embittered by his failure to win more than a handful of adherents, Mírzá Yaḥyá, assisted by his supporters, provoked the Turkish government into exiling Bahá’u’lláh to ‘Akká (‘Akko, Acre), Palestine. He became, however, a victim of his own intrigues and was himself exiled to Cyprus.

For almost two years, Bahá’u’lláh, his family, and a number of disciples were confined in army barracks converted into a jail. One of his sons and several companions died. When the severity of the incarceration abated, Bahá’u’lláh was permitted to reside within the walls of ‘Akká and later in a mansion near the town. Before his life ended in 1892, Bahá’u’lláh saw his religion spread beyond Persia and the Ottoman Empire to the Caucasus, Turkistan, India, Burma, Egypt, and the Sudan.

Bahá’u’lláh appointed his eldest son, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (“Servant of the Glory,” 1844-1921), as the leader of the Bahá’í community and the authorized interpreter of his teachings. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá not only administered the affairs of the movement from Palestine but also actively engaged in spreading the faith, travelling in Africa, Europe, and America from 1910 to 1913. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá appointed his eldest grandson, Shoghi Effendi Rabbani (1896-1957), as his successor, Guardian of the Cause, and authorized interpreter of the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, thus assuring the continued unity of the believers.

During ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s ministry, Bahá’í groups were established in North Africa, the Far East, Australia, and the United States. Since then the movement has spread to virtually every country in the world, with particularly large and vigorous communities in Africa, Írán, India, the United States, and certain areas of Southeast Asia and the Pacific. No official membership statistics for the entire Bahá’í community are available. In 1971, however, Bahá’ís resided in more than 50,000 localities throughout the world, with more than 100 national spiritual assemblies (national governing bodies) and no fewer than 6,000 local spiritual assemblies. A current plan of worldwide expansion envisages the formation of 120 national spiritual assemblies and 13,833 local spiritual assemblies by April 1973 (600 of these in the United States). Bahá’í literature has been translated into more than 400 languages. By 1970 more than 300 African tribes, some 100 American Indian tribes, and nearly 100 tribes and peoples of the Indian subcontinent and the Pacific Ocean were represented in the Bahá’í community. In the 1960s and early 1970s the Bahá’í faith was undergoing a period of extremely rapid expansion.

Sacred Literature

BAHÁ’Í sacred literature consists of the total corpus of the writings of Bahá’u’lláh and their interpretation and amplification in the writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi. Bahá’u’lláh’s literary legacy of more than 100 works includes the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (“The Most Holy Book”), the repository of his laws; the Kitáb-i-Íqán (The Book of Certitude), an exposition of essential teachings on the nature of God and religion; The Hidden Words, a collection of brief utterances aimed at the edification of men’s “souls and the [Page 12] rectification of their conduct”; The Seven Valleys, a mystic treatise that “describes the seven stages which the soul of the seeker must needs traverse ere it can attain the object of its existence”; “Epistle to the Son of the Wolf,” his last major work; as well as innumerable prayers, meditations, exhortations, and epistles. The Bahá’ís believe that the writings of Bahá’u’lláh are inspired and constitute God’s revelation for this age.

Religious and Social Tenets

BAHÁ’U’LLÁH teaches that God is unknowable and “beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress.” “No tie of direct intercourse can possibly bind Him to His creatures. . . No sign can indicate His presence or His absense. . . .” Human inability to grasp the divine essence does not lead to agnosticism, since God has chosen to reveal himself through his messengers, among them Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muḥammad, and the Báb, who “are one and all the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe. . . .” The messengers, or, in Bahá’í terminology, “manifestations,” are viewed as occupying two “stations,” or occurring in two aspects. The first “is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity,” in which one may speak of the oneness of the messengers of God because they are all manifestations of his will and exponents of his word. This does not constitute syncretism, since “the other station is the station of distinction. . . . In this respect, each manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission. . . .” Thus, while the essence of all religions is one, each has specific features that correspond to the needs of a given time and place and to the level of civilization in which a manifestation appears. Since religious truth is considered relative and revelation progressive and continuing, the Bahá’ís maintain that other manifestations will appear in the future, though not, according to Bahá’u’lláh, before the expiration of a full thousand years from his own revelation.

In Bahá’í teachings, God is, and has always been, the Creator. Therefore, there was never a time when the cosmos did not exist. Man was created through God’s love: “Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee: therefore I created thee.” The purpose of man’s existence as taught by Bahá’u’lláh is to know and to worship God and “to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization. . . .” Man, whom Bahá’u’lláh calls “the noblest and most perfect of all created things,” is endowed with an immortal soul, which, after separation from the body, enters a new form of existence. Heaven and hell are symbolic of the soul’s relationship to God. Nearness to God results in good deeds and gives infinite joy, while remoteness from him leads to evil and suffering. To fulfill his high purpose, man must recognize the messenger of God within whose dispensation he lives and “observe every ordinance of him who is the desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other.”

Civilization, Bahá’u’lláh teaches, has evolved to the point where unity of mankind has become the paramount necessity. The Bahá’í faith, in the words of Shoghi Effendi,

proclaims the necessity and the inevitability of the unification of mankind, asserts that it is gradually approaching, and claims that nothing short of the transmuting spirit of God, working through His chosen Mouthpiece in this day, can ultimately succeed in bringing it about. It, moreover, enjoins upon its followers the primary duty of an unfettered search after truth, condemns all manner of prejudice and superstition, declares the purpose of religion to be the promotion of amity and concord, proclaims its essential harmony with science, and recognizes it as the foremost agency for the pacification and the orderly progress of human society. It unequivocally maintains the principle of [Page 13] equal rights, opportunities and privileges for men and women, insists on compulsory education, eliminates extremes of poverty and wealth, abolishes the institution of priesthood, prohibits slavery, asceticism, mendicancy, and monasticism, prescribes monogamy, discourages divorces, emphasizes the necessity of strict obedience to one’s government, extols any work performed in the spirit of service to the level of worship, urges either the creation or the selection of an auxiliary international language, and delineates the outlines of those institutions that must establish and perpetuate the general peace of mankind.

Practices

MEMBERSHIP in the Bahá’í community is open to all who profess faith in Bahá’u’lláh and accept his teachings. There are no initiation ceremonies, no sacraments, and no clergy. Every Bahá’í, however, is under the spiritual obligation to pray daily; to fast 19 days a year, going without food or drink from sunrise to sunset; to abstain totally from narcotics, alcohol, or any substances that affect the mind; to practice monogamy; to obtain the consent of parents to marriage; and to attend the Nineteen Day Feast on the first day of each month of the Bahá’í calendar. The Nineteen Day Feast, originally instituted by the Báb, brings together the Bahá’ís of a given locality for prayer, the reading of scriptures, the discussion of community activities, and for the enjoyment of one another’s company. The feasts are designed to ensure universal participation in the affairs of the community and the cultivation of the spirit of brotherhood and fellowship. Eventually, Bahá’ís in every location plan to erect a house of worship around which will be grouped such institutions as a home for the aged, an orphanage, a school, and a hospital. In the early 1970s, houses of worship existed in Wilmette, Illinois; Frankfurt am Main, West Germany; Kampala, Uganda; Sydney, Australia; and one was being built in Panama. In the temples there is no preaching; services consist of recitation of the scriptures of all religions.

The Bahá’ís use a calendar established by the Báb and confirmed by Bahá’u’lláh, in which the year is divided into 19 months of 19 days each, with the addition of four intercalary days (5 in leap years). The year begins on the first day of spring, March 21, which is a holy day. Other holy days on which work is suspended are the days commemorating the declaration of Bahá’u’lláh’s mission (April 21, April 29, and May 2), the declaration of the mission of the Báb (May 23), the birth of Bahá’u’lláh (November 12), the birth of the Báb (October 20), the passing of Bahá’u’lláh (May 29), and the martyrdom of the Báb (July 9).

Organization and Administration

THE BAHÁ’Í COMMUNITY is governed according to general principles proclaimed by Bahá’u’lláh and through institutions created by him that were elaborated and expanded by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. These principles and institutions constitute the Bahá’í administrative order, which the followers of the faith believe to be a blueprint of a future world order. The governance of the Bahá’í community begins on the local level with the election of a local spiritual assembly. The electoral process excludes parties or factions, nominations, and campaigning for office. The local spiritual assembly has jurisdiction over all local affairs of the Bahá’í community. On the national scale, each year Bahá’ís elect delegates to a national convention that elects a national spiritual assembly with jurisdiction over the entire country. All national spiritual assemblies of the world periodically constitute themselves an international convention and elect the supreme governing body known as the Universal House of Justice. In accordance with Bahá’u’lláh’s writings, the Universal House of Justice functions as the supreme administrative, legislative, and judicial body of the Bahá’í commonwealth. It applies the laws promulgated by Bahá’u’lláh and legislates on matters not [Page 14] covered in the sacred texts. The seat of the Universal House of Justice is in Haifa, Israel, in the immediate vicinity of the shrines of the Báb and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and near the shrine of Bahá’u’lláh at Bahjí near ‘Akká.

There also exist in the Bahá’í faith appointive institutions, such as the Hands of the Cause of God and the continental counsellors. The former were created by Bahá’u’lláh and later assigned by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the functions of propagating the faith and protecting the community. The Hands of the Cause appointed by Shoghi Effendi in his lifetime now serve under the direction of the Universal House of Justice. The continental counsellors perform the same functions as the Hands of the Cause but are appointed by the Universal House of Justice. Assisting the counsellors in advising, inspiring, and encouraging Bahá’í institutions and individuals are auxiliary boards appointed by the counsellors and serving under their direction.

Bibliography

The classic introduction to the Bahá’í faith, giving a general view of its history and teachings, is J. E. ESSLEMONT, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, 3rd rev. ed. (1970). GEORGE TOWNSHEND, The Promise of All Ages, rev. ed. (1948, reprinted 1957), approaches the Bahá’í faith from a background of Christianity. The history of the Bahá’í faith has been studied by many scholars, but the most detailed and poetic account is The Dawn-Breakers by MUḤAMMAD—I-ZARANDÍ, surnamed Nabíl, trans. and ed. by SHOGHI EFFENDI (1932, reprinted 1970; 2nd ed., 1953); the latter’s God Passes By (1944), recounts to the end of the first Bahá’í century. The most important source for the study of the Bahá’í faith is the writings of Bahá’u’lláh and their interpretation and application by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi. Several of Bahá’u’lláh’s major works are available in excellent English translations. The Kitáb-i-Íqán (1950) is indispensable for understanding Bahá’í views of God, progressive revelation, and the nature of religion. The Hidden Words, rev. ed. (1954, reprinted 1970), and The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys, rev. ed. (1952, reprinted 1968), deals with man’s spiritual life and the states of the soul. Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh (1951) is a representative selection. ‘ABDU’L-BAHÁ’s Some Answered Questions, rev. ed. (1964), is a record of table talks on various religious themes. The Secret of Divine Civilization (1957) uses the problem of modernization and development to set forth the spiritual prerequisites of true progress and civilization. SHOGHI EFFENDI’s writings include The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh (1955), an exposition of principles for the establishment of universal peace and world civilization; and The Promised Day Is Come (1961), an examination of the effects of manifestation upon the modern world.

[Page 15]

[Page 16]

Universal Man and Prejudiced Man

BY HOSSAIN B. DANESH

PREJUDICE is a universal phenomenon characterized by a preconceived, generalized opinion, either favorable or unfavorable. It is basically of an irrational and stereotyped nature and is a force of devastating power. Sociologists and psychologists have shown that prejudice is closely related both to personality structure and to cultural factors. The results of their studies are best understood if we review the two areas separately.

Personality Theories

MANY OF THE THEORIES originating in the psychological sciences hold in common the belief that intolerant attitudes towards minority groups are an expression of deep-lying trends in the prejudiced individual’s personality.

Psychological Factors. Psychoanalysts hold that aggression is an instinctive force of prime importance which has great impact on a human life. One of the manifestations of this force is “scapegoatism,” the tendency of people to externalize their inner conflicts and weaknesses and to project them upon members of minority groups. Since scapegoatism is regarded as a universal defense against inner weaknesses, prejudice is considered as virtually “second nature” in man. Some investigators have shown that individuals who have prejudices are inhibited in directing their hostilities toward the real objects of hostility. Therefore, they tend to express their aggression in an indirect form against substitute objects who are usually members of minority groups.

Psychoanalysts find frustration to be another important factor in the dynamics of prejudice. The origins of frustration lie often in personal, physical, intellectual, or social defects and are closely related to the stresses of family and community life. In over-populated, tightly organized communities close contact between people may result in a better understanding and a decrease in prejudice, especially if the contact is sanctioned by institutional support such as law or customs. It is equally possible, however, that economic, social, and personal maladjustments in an over-populated community may produce frustrations which result in hatred and prejudice. Frustration and hatred are closely related. Usually, frustration creates aggression, and aggression is directed against an available minority group.

[Page 17] Still other elements important in the dynamics of prejudice are anxiety, guilt, and fear, which are closely related to one another and to the mechanisms of hate and frustration. No human being is free from fear, guilt, and anxiety, although the degree of their intensity may differ from person to person. Jean-Paul Sartre gives special attention to the role of fear in the dynamics of prejudice:

We are now in a position to understand the anti-semite. He is a man who is afraid not of Jews, to be sure, but of himself, of his own consciousness, of his liberty, of his instincts, of his responsibilities, of solitariness, of change, of society and of the world—of everything, except the Jews.

The Authoritarian Personality. That early life experiences and the relationship between the mother and the child, parental ideas, attitudes toward the child, and the socioeconomic condition of the family are fundamental factors in the development of one’s personality is now well established. Various investigators have shown that people tend to develop prejudices with high frequency in families where certain specific attitudes, forms of behavior, and values are present as part of child rearing.

Studies have shown marked differences between the attitudes and ideas of families of children with prejudices and those of the families of children without prejudices. In the families of children with prejudices great stress is placed on obedience. Children are expected to share their secrets with their parents and to subject all of their own wishes to those of their parents. They are expected to remain quiet. In varying degrees and ways such families prove to be neglectful, inconsistent, and rejecting. The emphasis is generally upon power, love being a secondary consideration. Additional research supports these findings. The authors of The Authoritarian Personality identify a type of parent-child relationship similar to that just described. To paraphrase their conclusions: in a basically hierarchical, authoritarian, exploitative, parent-child relationship children inevitably become both power-oriented and exploitatively dependent. Conventionality, rigidity, repression, and denial become parts of their personalities. In their relationships with others such children are highly prone to the formation of stereotypes and of in-group/out-group cleavages.

Cultural Theories

CULTURAL theories maintain that prejudices are neither inborn nor primarily the products of unhealthy family situations. Such attitudes are said to be acquired from society not only during childhood but also through years of adulthood. They are not, therefore, necessarily a fixed part of individual personality. Studies of culture have uncovered a wide range of sociological factors which clearly appear to be involved in the development of prejudice. [Page 18] Among them the needs for adaptation and for conformity are perhaps the most prevalent and influential.

Adaptation. Adaptation to a given culture is one of the major concerns of every individual. Inability to adapt is commonly regarded by different cultures as a manifestation of sin or sickness. In homogeneous, primitive, and simple cultures adaptation is relatively easy to achieve. As societies become more heterogeneous and complex, the adaptation processes begin to make much heavier demands on the individual. As a result the familiar pattern of frustrations develops, and anger and hostility increase. Such anger is fairly easily projected on to others. When this occurs, a situation involving prejudice of one sort or another develops.

Recent studies of communities where the demands of cultural adaptation are especially heavy have shown that the effort to attain cultural norms has produced prejudice quite independently of any deep-lying personality trends. Indeed, some social scientists maintain that cultural demands are the main source of prejudice.

Conformity. In an effort to bring together the personality and societal (cultural) theories mentioned above, Gordon Allport has introduced the notion that it is pressure for conformity that plays the vital role in the dynamics of prejudice. He says:

No custom can be maintained, no laws obeyed, and no social change can take place unless a large number of citizens possess attitudes of acquiescence and conformity. Unless many people are disposed to go along with the demands of tradition, legislation, industrialization, urbanization, economic expediency, or any other social force alleged to increase or decrease strain in ethnic relations, these social forces will have no affect at all. And so we conclude that all theories of social causation have as their unacknowledged silent partner the psychological fact of conformity.

This process of conformity has close and obvious relationships with the process of adaptation described above. Erik Erikson places special emphasis on the role of conformity in the development of some types of prejudice among adolescents. As the young child approaches puberty, he begins to modify his beliefs and actions in order to establish and shape his identity. He may choose prejudice as a promising detour to this goal, the main reason being, as Erikson points out, that the young person, finding himself unable to settle on an occupational identity, identifies and sometimes over-identifies with “heroes of cliques and crowds.” Such adolescents form their own in-groups which are usually highly intolerant of outsiders. The standards on which these groups form differ considerably, but basic similarities between them and the stereotypes and prejudices of the adult community can often be discovered, however different the superficial features may be.

[Page 19] Religion and Prejudice

WHATEVER ELSE a skeptical age may say of religion, few serious students of culture would deny that it has played a central role in the formation of all societies. The only real debate has been over the nature of that role and its desirability. Critics of religion have been greatly confirmed in their views by various studies which have shown that a high percentage of regular churchgoers exhibit considerably more prejudice than nonchurchgoers. The situation is further complicated by the fact that irregular marginal and casual members of religious organizations exhibit the most prejudice of all. An important key to the subject appears to lie in the nature of the religion in question. These same studies have led their authors to the conclusion that the more authoritarian, rigid, and externalized the religion, the greater the degree of prejudice manifested among its followers.

Allport focused on theological, as well as personal, psychological, and sociocultural aspects of religion in its relationship to prejudice, and concluded that at least three religious beliefs tend to generate prejudice: the “doctrine of revelation,” which he defined as belief in the possession of final truth; the “doctrine of election,” the concept of a chosen people or race; and “theocracy,” which he narrowly defined as “rule by divine right” on the part of a “monarch” leader. The last of these three elements Allport tends to dismiss as he believes that such monarchical systems are no longer of real importance and indeed are fast disappearing.

In addition to these theological elements in religion, Allport identified certain sociocultural factors. These include the attitudes and motives of churchgoers. Many belong to a religion primarily for social or cultural advantages they receive from such an affiliation, including security, status, and the diversions of social life which it provides for them.

The point that most sharply strikes the reviewer of available literature on the relationship between prejudice and religion is the ambiguity, uncertainty, and discomfort which virtually all investigators demonstrate in their attempts to reconcile the teachings of love, service, and magnanimity common to almost all religions with the prejudiced and dogmatic attitudes held by the vast majority of members of these religions.

The Prejudiced Man and the Universal Man

THE RESEARCH into prejudice by psychologists and sociologists is obviously at far too early a stage to provide a single comprehensive and detailed theory of prejudice. However, there is already sufficiently wide agreement among scholars to identify a few broad features. While psychologists and social scientiSts would place the emphasis in different areas, there is nothing in the findings to date that would necessarily put these two disciplines in conflict.

[Page 20] It is clear that individuals learn and practice prejudice primarily because their early upbringing as well as the prevailing philosophies, beliefs, demands, and practices of their society all encourage its development. Indeed, in varying degrees they reward it. Authoritarian childrearing, with an emphasis placed on power as the primary source of security, is the prevalent attitude in most present-day societies. The elements of this authoritarian attitude also characterize, to a larger or smaller degree, both totalitarian and democratic political systems and the majority of religious organizations.

Power orientation not only contributes to the development of prejudice but also inevitably limits the individual’s area of human experience. In his quest for power the individual has continuously to compete with others who are similarly motivated. This overriding concern decreases his opportunity to establish a loving and trusting relationship with others and erodes his capacity to do so.

The individual raised in an authoritarian and basically prejudiced environment, through the dynamics of his personality makeup or the demands of his society or both, develops a world view which is characterized by power orientation, in-group/out-group cleavages, rejection of strangers, and resistance towards new ideas, new people, and new practices. Conformity becomes the norm and attempts at diversity are discouraged. What is more serious still is that the demands are insatiable. Each submission forces a new one on an individual who feels, with growing, vague anxiety, that somehow his world is shrinking and his existence is steadily losing meaning and potency.

Under such circumstances people tend to form small groups with which they can identify. At the same time, in order to decrease the burden of awareness of their meager attempts to battle with the narrowing confines of their own lives and communities, they not infrequently join various so-called universal organizations whose aims of “helping the less fortunate,” the “less civilized,” and the “less wealthy” offer the illusion of participation in the real life of mankind. There is a terrible fallacy hidden in this seductive course of action.

Once we allow ourselves to take on a “helper” identity, we have allowed ourselves to raise, effectively, a barrier between ourselves as helpers and others as receivers of help. We have in fact developed a potentially prejudiced system, and psychologically we immediately feel ourselves again disappointed. At the same time we deceive no one as those receiving our help sense, if they do not understand, our motivations and develop deep resentments.

As these charitable groups increasingly demonstrate their impotence and confusion, the harried seeker may turn to aggressively reformist organizations which appear to possess the all-important power to which they have been conditioned to respond. The humiliations and compromises that such associations entail for all but those who lead them is the last stage in the disillusionment of increasing numbers of disoriented human beings.

Briefly, therefore, the central need of any human being in this age is to find a way to become conscious of the underlying similarities between people of the world, similarities between their thoughts, their emotions, and their aspirations. He needs to become keenly appreciative of the capacities and qualities of others, especially those whose life experience was significantly different from his. He needs to learn not only how to give help but also how to receive and be [Page 21] helped. If an answer to these needs is not found, the individual has no recourse but an endless retreat into an arid inner boredom because the outside pressures are relentless and universal. If the answer is found, however, the transformation of prejudiced man into universal man begins.

The Bahá’í Faith and Prejudice

THE PICTURE of the role played by prejudice in the destruction of individual and social life, now emerging in the findings of the social sciences, was first sketched a century ago in the teachings of a new world religion, the Bahá’í Faith. The central theme of Bahá’u’lláh (the Prophet-Founder of the Faith) is that mankind is one single race and that the day for the unification of this race in a universal civilization has dawned. He warned that this historical process represents the realization of the will of God for mankind and that its gathering momentum will sweep away all obstacles—social, institutional, and individual. Bahá’ís see the social and moral chaos presently engulfing our world as the inevitable result of mankind’s rejection of this central fact of existence: its own unity.

The role which Bahá’u’lláh assigned to His own followers was the creation of a worldwide community that would demonstrate the principles of world unity and justice. One of the chief tasks He set for this community was the eradication from its midst of prejudice of all kinds. At the inception of His mission He declared, “Ye are the fruits of one tree, the leaves of one branch.” “Close your eyes to racial differences, and welcome all with the light of oneness.” “. . . the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. . . . Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you.”

Before His passing Bahá’u’lláh appointed His eldest Son ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as the sole interpreter of His Teachings and guide for the developing Bahá’í community. To the Bahá’ís of America ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote in 1911, “. . . Gather together these two races, black and white, . . . and put such love into their hearts that they shall not only unite but even intermarry. . . . Moreover, by the Will of God, may it be so. This is a great service to humanity.” He instructed a young Negro Bahá’í named Louis Gregory and a white believer named Louise Matthews to marry, declaring that their union would become a source of example and encouragement to all Bahá’ís.

Similar guidance to the nascent Bahá’í communities in other parts of the world applied the general principles of unity to the solution of the problems presented by prejudice in its wide range of manifestations: cultural, religious, social, economic, age, and so on. This large body of writing is now the property [Page 22] of the entire Bahá’í world and provides the moral coordinates within which community and individual efforts to understand and eradicate prejudice are taking place.

Bahá’u’lláh did not, however, leave the issue of the eradication of prejudice at the enunciation of moral guidelines on the subject. He provided also the framework though which the principles could be effected. An examination of the Bahá’í Faith itself and of the Bahá’í community reveals a startling correspondence between the very nature of the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh and the evidence now being presented by the social sciences. The religious system conceived by Bahá’u’lláh contains elements which both replace and counteract those very theological concepts, psychological pressures, and sociocultural norms which have since been exposed as the principal breeding grounds of prejudice.

Theological Concepts. We have seen earlier that Allport identified the possession of “final truth” and the belief in the privileged position as God’s “chosen” race or people as two theological concepts which have encouraged the growth of prejudice. The fundamental teachings of Bahá’u’lláh run counter to both these doctrines. Truth, He tells us, is relative. God reveals reality to mankind and generates “an ever-advancing civilization” through a series of Messengers or “Manifestations” of God, the Founders of the great religions. There is no difference in Their station or in Their purpose: “Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause. . . .” Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation itself is only the most recent in the endless sequence of divine impulses by which God wills gradually to reveal to man his own attributes and capacities. It is in no sense final; he writes, “Can one of sane mind . . . conceive for these Divine Luminaries, these resplendent Lights either a beginning or an end? . . . the clouds of Truth will continue to the end that hath no end to rain on the soil of human capacity, reality and personality their favors and bounties. Such hath been God’s method continued from everlasting to everlatting.”

As far as the concept of a specially favored race or nation is concerned, Bahá’u’lláh’s Teachings are emphatic: “‘The world is but one country, and mankind its citizens.’ ‘Let not a man glory in that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind.’” Bahá’u’lláh points out that the experiences of history and culture have developed different human capacities in different races; but these capacities are universal, not racial; and all men can develop them through association and example: “consort with the people of religions with joy and fragrance.”

Psychological Training. One of the major areas of Bahá’u’lláh’s Teachings is [Page 23] the new body of standards He reveals for the development of family life and the training of children. Space does not permit an examination of this subject in detail here, but a survey of some of the more important Bahá’í principles in the field will suggest the means by which Bahá’u’lláh seeks to free mankind from psychological attitudes that have encouraged prejudice.

At the center of this great effort of the spirit is the reinterpretation of “love” and the emphasis on love as the primary factor in family relationships, replacing the orientation toward power inherited from a past that was dominated by animal needs. Bahá’u’lláh teaches that women are the equal of men and must be given an equal voice and opportunity within the family and in all departments of life. He declares that children also have rights which must be understood and respected and calls both moral and social suasion to the work of securing these rights. The concept of “sin” as an active force for evil is denied by Bahá’u’lláh. As ‘Abdu’l-Bahá puts it: “[Bahá’u’lláh] has submerged all mankind in the sea of divine generosity. Some are asleep; they need to be awakened. Some are ailing; they need to be healed. Some are immature as children; they need to he trained.”

According to Bahá’í teachings education must be compulsory. Bahá’u’lláh places special stress on the education of girls as they are the mothers and educators of the next generation. The aim of education is described by Him in these words: “The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice. . . . By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor.”

The basis which Bahá’u’lláh creates for the training and development of the individual is consultation. It applies to all areas of human association, including the family. Bahá’ís are encouraged to speak with “absolute freedom” while seeing that “no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise.” They are urged to see their ideas as contributions to the group and to struggle to detach themselves from personal interest in them once they have been presented. Criticism of others as a means of social control is strongly discouraged, whether it occur in consultative situations or individual encounters. The spirit of trust that communication of this kind produces, in turn engenders real love and a profound sense of unity. The deep satisfactions such experiences provide (and which are now themselves the subjects of study by a new branch of social sciences) are more than sufficient to overcome gradually and discipline the animal appetite for power or fear of inadequacy. When such experiences begin in earliest childhood and are sustained by a wide range of social contacts, the effect is to reorient radically the motivations governing the individual. Prejudice finds little nourishment in such a soil and is easily blighted by the [Page 24] social and spiritual discouragement it encounters in the Bahá’í Faith and the community of believers.

Community Life. The third area in which religion in the past has tended to encourage the development of prejudice is in the kind of community life it creates. As we noted, there is a strong correlation between the motivations which lead a majority of churchgoers into church affiliation and the development of prejudices.

Here Bahá’u’lláh has provided specific safeguards. The ideal of the Bahá’í Faith is “unity in diversity.” Bahá’u’lláh teaches that healthy community life depends on the integration of as wide a diversity of human nature as possible in a manner that protects the integrity of the individual. Differences are seen by the Bahá’í community not as a cause of trouble but as resources essential both to the welfare of the community and the growth of all its individual members. As will already be apparent from what has been said, the nature of the Bahá’í message tends to attract people of every race, creed, nation, and class. Today, just over a century after Bahá’u’lláh’s Declaration of His Mission, the Bahá’í community is established in over three hundred sovereign states and significant territories of the planet, in a total of more than fifty thousand localities. The diversity which this global community embraces is unequaled in any other society of its size on earth.

The organization of this rapidly growing community promotes an unusual degree of interaction among its members. At the local and national levels Bahá’ís elect governing bodies called Spiritual Assemblies. Once every five years the members of the National Spiritual Assemblies gather at the World Center of the Faith in the Holy Land to elect the international governing body of the community, the Universal House of Justice.

Bahá’ís see their Spiritual Assemblies and communities as workshops for an infinite series of experiments toward the realization of Bahá’u’lláh’s idea of unity in diversity. The law of consultation requires that individuals learn to trust themselves to the groups in which they are working and to encourage the personal development of other, very different members of the group. Backbiting, criticism, domination, and the various manipulative techniques developed by mankind over the centuries are frankly recognized and painstakingly corrected.

In one of the most striking statements in His Writings Bahá’u’lláh revises the famous golden rule of personal conduct. This age of human maturity He declares, requires that man learn to prefer others to himself. The principle is not left on the level of pious hope or exhortation. In countless ways the life of the community is organized so that it gives this principle practical effect. An example is the Bahá’í electoral procedure. Nominations, campaigning, and similar practices are forbidden. The elector votes in the privacy of his conscience for only those whom meditation on the spiritual, moral, and intellectual requirements of office inspire him to elect. One of the injunctions of the Bahá’í writings to which he is expected to give special consideration is the following: [Page 25] “If any discrimination is at all to be tolerated, it should be a discrimination not against, but rather in favor of the minority, be it racial or otherwise. . . . So great and vital is this principle that in such circumstances, as when an equal number of ballots have been cast in an election, or whether the qualifications for any office are balanced as between the various races, faiths or nationalities within the community, priority should unhesitatingly be accorded the party representing the minority, and this for no other reason except to stimulate and encourage it. . . .”

Conclusion. In the opinion of Bahá’ís mankind is badly handicapped by its failure to recognize the seriousness of the damage which prejudice does to the fabric of human life. It is generally seen as one of a wide range of “social problems” which it is hoped education may somehow gradually resolve. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá insists, however, that prejudice is in fact the principal cause of the war and violence that have afflicted our world. Infinitely subtle, hidden behind countless guises, prejudice lends itself as a ready tool to dominant materialistic interests which would not otherwise be able to attract significant support.

Indeed, the idea that the attainment of unity among men must wait upon the accomplishment of a host of other social reforms is one of the most subtle and tragic of all modern illusions. “The well-being of mankind,” Bahá’u’lláh states, “its peace and security are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.” The Universal House of Justice elaborates on this central principle: “To this day, however, you will find most people take the opposite point of view: they look upon unity as an ultimate, almost unattainable goal and concentrate first on remedying all the other ills of mankind. If they did but know it, the other ills are but various symptoms and side effects of the basic disease—disunity.”

If the evidence of the social sciences indicates anything, it shows clearly that prejudice is an age-old and almost universal blight that neither legislation nor education by themselves can eradicate. Prejudice reaches to the roots of human motivation and draws nourishment from the very structure of human society. In the final analysis it will yield only to a force capable of radically changing human consciousness in both of these areas. That force, Bahá’ís believe, resides in the Revelation of God to our age. Bahá’u’lláh states that “. . . the task of converting satanic strength into heavenly power is one that We have been empowered to accomplish. . . . The Word of God, alone, can claim the distinction of being endowed with the capacity required for so great and far-reaching a change.”

[Page 26]

[Page 27]

Alcohol and Alcoholism: An Overview

BY BAHIA DELOOMY MITCHELL

THE NATIONAL COMMISSION on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, in its report dated March 22, 1973, noted that “Alcohol dependence is without question the most serious drug problem (in the United States) today.” In its 1972 report the Commission observed:

The use of alcohol and tobacco is not considered a major social problem by many Americans, while marihuana use is still so perceived. This remains true despite the fact that alcoholism afflicts nine million Americans. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health]: Alcohol is a factor in half (28,000) of the highway fatalities occurring each year; an economic cost to the nation of $15 billion occurs as a result of alcoholism and alcohol abuse; one-half of the 5 million arrests in the United States each year are related to the misuse of alcohol (1-1½ million offenses for public drunkenness alone); and one-half of all homicides and one-fourth of all suicides are alcohol-related, accounting for a total of 11,700 deaths annually.

There are more people addicted to alcohol in the United States than to all other drugs combined. At least 100 million Americans drink and nearly 10 million, or approximately one in ten, become alcohol abusers. For each alcohol abuser there are four to six persons affected by this abuse—a total of some 50 million people or one-fourth of the total population. Only a small percentage of alcohol abusers are “skid row” alcoholics. The majority, an estimated ninety-five percent, are members of family units and are either homemakers, employees, or young adults in school.

In 1970 per capita consumption of pure alcohol was 3.9 gallons—the equivalent of about 44 fifths of whiskey, 157 bottles of wine, or 928 bottles of beer. These figures represent a steady rise since 1961 when the per capita consumption was 2.06 gallons.

The magnitude of alcohol consumption when compared with the use of other drugs is strikingly demonstrated by the fact that the alcohol industry produces over one billion gallons of spirits, wine, and beer annually for which consumers pay $24 billion. Psychoactive drugs, however, involved only 214 million prescriptions with a retail value of $1 [Page 28] billion; the illicit drug market was estimated at $2 billion.

Approximately five percent of the nation’s work force are alcoholics, and another five percent are alcohol abusers, adding up to 4.5 million employees from an approximate total work force of 45 million. Five out of six of these are men in the years of greatest productivity (thirty to fifty-five). The cost to American commerce and industry is $10 billion in absenteeism, medical expenses, and poor job performance. A conservative estimate is that alcohol costs a company $2,000 pet alcoholic per year. Thus a company employing 5,000 people, of whom five percent, or 250, are alcoholic, could lose annually a half a million dollars.

The United States Army conceded last September that seventy percent of its enlisted men and thirty-six percent of its officers are either heavy or problem drinkers.

A study by the University of Chicago of 14,000 students in six Chicago high schools reports that thirty-seven percent used alcoholic beverages to get high. Another study of teenage drinking in two eastern Massachusetts communities “showed that drinking was quite widespread, and that illicit drug use was reported much more frequently by relatively heavy alcohol users than by light drinkers or non-drinkers. The heavy drinkers quite frequently reported that they had been involved in various antisocial activities including shoplifting and property damage. . . .”

Alcohol is the third major cause of death in this country. Heart disorders and cancer, the first and second largest causes, claim, respectively, one million lives and 350,000 lives per year. Alcohol takes 200,000 lives per year and, in addition, contributes significantly to many deaths due to heart disorders in the same way that tobacco contributes to deaths by both heart disorders and cancer. More than fifty percent of all traffic fatalities are directly or indirectly caused by alcohol. More than 500 people are killed daily on the highways and roads of the world because of alcohol. For each death there are at least thirty additional non-fatal but often disabling and severe injuries. There are approximately 800,000 alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents in the United States which account for 30,000 deaths annually. Six out of ten of these deaths occur between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four. It is estimated that as many Americans are killed from drunk driving in a period of eighteen months as have been killed during the entire period of the Vietnam war, and “more people have been killed and disabled on the highways in the last fifty years than have been killed and disabled in all of America’s many wars.”

Alcohol also accounts for fifty percent of all admissions to mental hospitals.

Moreover, alcohol causes inestimable additional costs in damages to property, loss of wages, divorces, insurance and court expenses, and the like. Connected with these are accidents, automobile crashes, disabling [Page 29] injuries, suicides, homicides, and other crimes. The other complications of alcoholism, so numerous and commonplace, include gastrointestinal disorders, heart disorders, mental disorders, peripheral neurological defects, disorders of the liver, pulmonary infections, metabolic defects, and nutritional disorders. All add to the costs.

Nor is alcoholism restricted to the United States. It has become an acute problem in many countries throughout the world. Concern is growing in Italy, which has often been cited as a country where alcohol consumption is consistently high with almost no related medical problems. The quantity of alcohol consumed per capita more than doubled between 1941 and 1961, and the number of first admissions to hospitals for illnesses connected with its abuse tripled from 1947 to 1962. In France, where alcohol is very much part of the culture and where in restaurants it is easier to order an alcoholic beverage than a glass of water, more than one-tenth of the population is considered to be alcoholic. Even in a small country like Switzerland the cantons spent five million francs between 1967 and 1968 to combat alcoholism.

The above figures are approximations. It is believed that they would be much higher if it were possible to conduct accurate worldwide surveys.

Effects of Alcohol on the Body

THE EFFECTS of alcohol on the body are so numerous that there is hardly a system or tissue that is not affected. Furthermore, these effects cannot be measured simply in terms of the quantity of alcohol consumed. The effects produced by the same amount of alcohol differ from individual to individual, from one type of drink to another, from month to month, and even from day to day.

Normally the alcohol in any beverage is absorbed rather quickly—some through the stomach, but most through the small intestine —and then distributed generally throughout the body, whereby it exerts its various effects. Absorption can be influenced by several factors such as the alcohol concentration of the beverage, the presence of other chemicals in the drink, the presence of food in the stomach, the speed of drinking, body weight, and various other factors.

Effects on the Central Nervous System. While the acute effect of alcohol on the central nervous system is concentrated on the brain, chronic intake affects other areas as well and may produce myelitis (inflammation of the bone marrow), encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and polyneuritis (inflammation of the nerves).

Alcohol is generally classified as a central nervous system depressant drug. It reaches the brain and the spinal cord through the blood, but not all areas of the brain are depressed simultaneously. First it reaches “the more complex higher brain centers (cerebral cortex) where, after a few minutes, the truly depressant nature of alcohol begins to take effect by slowing down mental activity.” These centers control the most highly integrated actions—behavior, speech, memory, [Page 30] reasoning, and related self-control. At the same time that mental activity is slowed down, restraint processes are lifted, which is the reason alcohol is mistaken for a stimulant.

At lower concentrations alcohol usually produces a mild sedation. Slightly higher levels produce behavior changes which falsely suggest stimulation: the aggressiveness, garrulousness, and excessive activity resulting from depression of the inhibitory brain centers. The alcoholic becomes uninhibited; his speech is loud, slurred, and excessive, though he considers himself eloquent. His penchant for self-criticism and his sensitivity to criticism are diminished. He experiences euphoria and an illusion of freedom. Tasks dependent upon conditioned reflexes are adversely affected: he has difficulty, for example, hitting a moving target, target shooting, climbing, knitting, and driving.

As the concentration of alcohol increases, it reaches the lower centers of the brain which control speech muscles, movements, and eye motion. When alcohol begins to affect the lower brain activities controlling circulation and respiration, it becomes truly dangerous.

A blood alcohol level of .035 percent (approximately one drink, or one ounce of 90 proof whiskey) can produce a measurable impairment of vision, hearing, and muscular coordination. A level of .5 percent may cause death, which usually results from respiratory paralysis.

Alcohol also affects the delicate nature of brain cells, causing permanent alteration of shape. They are not regenerative.

Alcohol has recently been found to decrease brain protein synthesis. One finding which surprised many is that heavy drinking widens the cerebral ventricles as it creates alcoholic dementia.

Effects on the Gastro-Intestinal System. The effects of alcohol on the gastrointestinal system are many and varied. Alcohol irritates the gastric mucosa, and in large amounts it interferes with the action of the digestive enzymes frequently causing chronic gastritis, in which case the mucosa cannot absorb other foods effectively. This frequently leads to vitamin deficiencies (especially of Thiamine, or Vitamin B1). Large amounts of alcohol also impair taste by hardening the mucous membrane in the mouth. Though alcohol has no nutritional value whatsoever, it has a high caloric value (7 cal/gm), and thus substitutes for nutritional food, leading to various vitamin deficiencies. Alcohol also exacerbates bleeding ulcers by masking the pain an alcoholic should feel.

Alcohol, moreover, markedly affects the structure and function of the liver, though malnutrition has often been blamed for this condition and may contribute greatly to the liver’s pathology. Recent studies, however, indicate that several disorders of the liver can be attributed to the direct action of alcohol upon it. Cirrhosis of the liver occurs about eight times as frequently among alcoholics as among non-alcoholics. Cirrhosis occurs when the liver cells are destroyed, fat accumulates in the liver, and the destroyed cells are replaced by scar tissue. Normal functions cannot take place, and jaundice results, as well as alcoholic hepatitis, which, incidentally, is among the top ten causes of death in the United States.

Effects on the Cardiovascular System. Alcohol, in moderate doses, causes peripheral vasodilation, resulting in a feeling of warmth on the skin and frequent reddening of the cheeks and nose due to the change in blood pressure. There is evidence that the heart muscle is affected by large doses. With the steady improvement of diagnostic procedures more alcohol-induced cardiovascular disorders [Page 31] are being discovered and documented.

Alcohol is also associated with various blood anemias. Moreover, since it is carried through the placenta, the baby suffers from the mother’s nutritional deficiencies. How serious this is to the unborn child is just beginning to be investigated.

Other Effects. The above are some of the more pronounced physical effects of alcohol. There are numerous articles appearing in the literature documenting various other effects discernible only to scientists. For example, one recent study on an alcoholic group revealed an astonishingly high degree of chromosomal aberrations.

Fate of Alcohol in the Body

AFTER ALCOHOL is absorbed and distributed by the blood, it undergoes metabolic or oxidative changes, the major part of which occurs in the liver. The alcohol is changed to acetaldehyde CH₃CHO, a highly irritating and toxic chemical which is quickly oxidized to other compounds. The final step is the formation of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water (H₂O). It is this oxidation process which yields approximately seven calories of energy for each gram of alcohol. Two to five percent of alcohol is excreted unchanged in the breath, sweat, and urine.

Tolerance to Alcohol

THE DAMAGING EFFECTS of alcohol on the various systems and tissues of the body are cause for concern. The fact that the body can develop a tolerance for alcohol is cause for further concern. Tolerance refers to the necessity of increasing the dose or the level of a drug in the blood in order to achieve a specific effect or, conversely, to the decreased effectiveness of the drug at a given dose or blood level. Tolerance can be either physiological, resulting from an actual change in the neurones affected by the drug which renders them less sensitive to it, or psychological, resulting from a “learned” accommodation to the continuing drug. Recently researchers have become aware of the pronounced effects of tolerance to alcohol. Classic experiments on alcoholic volunteers who were given large quantities of alcohol have shown that, with high levels of alcohol in their blood, they could thread beads. A person newly acquainted with drinking, with an equal concentration of alcohol in his blood, would be unable to hold the bead or see the hole.

Physical Dependence on Alcohol

NOT ONLY can the body develop a tolerance for alcohol, it can also develop a physiological dependence on it. According to Michael J. Walsh, “The term dependence has been used to distinguish between the physical consequences of drug withdrawal and the psychological drive to continue drug use, either or both of which can occur with many . . . [abused] drugs [that act on the central nervous system]. The development of intense symptoms of physical disturbances upon cessation of alcohol administration is indicative of a physical dependence on alcohol.”

The signs and symptoms of physical dependence on alcohol have been successfully produced in laboratory animals. The “Alcoholic Withdrawal Syndrome” manifests itself in tremors, hallucinations, and convulsive seizures which occur within seven to forty-eight hours after cessation of alcohol, with a peak effect occurring generally around twenty-four hours. The most serious manifestation of this withdrawal is called delirium tremens. It is charactered by gross tremor, severe agitation, disorders of sense perception, [Page 32] and an increase in psychomotor and autonomic nervous system activities. It is fatal in at least fifteen percent of the cases.

What is Alcohol?

THE CULPRIT that produces all these miseries is a simple chemical belonging to a class of organic compounds distinguishable by the presence of a “hydroxy” (OH) group and known as “alcohols.” The term alcohol also refers commonly to one member of this class: ethyl alcohol (CH₃CH₂OH) known also as grain alcohol, ethanol, or spirits of wine. It is the physiologically active principle of beverages produced by fermentation. Wood alcohol is methanol (CH₃OH). Both are useful in industry because of their chemical reactivity and low boiling point; however, methanol is highly toxic and has been the source of an alarming number of deaths and cases of blindness. It is used to render ethanol intended for industrial use unfit for human consumption.

Scholars generally agree that the word alcohol is derived from al-kuhl, the Arabic term for finely powdered antimony sulfide used as a cosmetic to darken eyelids. Carl C. Noller says that “Later the term was applied to any finely divided substance and then during the sixteenth century in the sense of ‘essence.’ Thus alcool vini was the essence or spirit of wine. Gradually vini was dropped, but it was not until the early part of the nineteenth century that the term alcohol came to be used generally for wine spirits.”

The use of alcohol and the problems associated with it can be traced back to the beginnings of recorded history. Peoples from all parts of the world learned early that fruits or grains which were kept around in the heat produced unusual effects when eaten. Only a few basic ingredients—sugar, water, yeast— and a mild degree of warmth are required to produce alcohol.

In ancient Egypt beer was more common than wine and usually more potent. A book of etiquette dating back to about 1500 B.C., “The Precepts of Ani,” included an admonition about the effects of too much of a good thing. It continued: “Make not thyself helpless in drinking in the beer shop. For will not the words of [thy] report repeated slip out from thy mouth without thy knowing that thou hast uttered them? Falling down thy limbs will be broken, [and] no one will give thee a hand [to help thee up;] as for they companions in the swilling of beer, they will get up and say “Outside with this drunkard.” Other writers—Roman, Indian, Japanese, Chinese—expressed similar sentiments. For example, in Greece, where wine was widely used, Socrates advised against it, calling its use habit inducing. Plato was ready to lead a movement to prohibit it. The Chinese had a proverb warning, “Excessive joy leads to sorrow, excessive wine to disorder.” Another pointed up the meretricious promises of alcohol: “Medicine may heal imaginary sickness but wine can never dispel real sorrow.” Seneca, the Roman philosopher, wrote, “Drunkenness kindles and discloses every kind of vice and removes the sense of shame that veils our undertakings.”

It was the Arabs who developed the art of distillation, while searching for the elixir of life. Instead a means was found to produce cheaply large quantities of intoxicants. In eighteenth-century England the industrial revolution perfected the methods of mass production of gin.

Distilled alcohol was brought to America in 1607 when the Virginia Colony was settled. Twelve years later excessive use of alcohol prompted the passage of a law which [Page 33] decreed that any person found drunk would, for the first offense, be reproved privately by the minister; for the second offense he would be reproved publicly; the third time he would be forced “to lye in halter” for twelve hours and pay a fine. At the same time, however, the Virginia Assembly passed other legislation encouraging the production of wines and distilled spirits in the colony, while in the Massachusetts Bay Colony brewing ranked next in importance to milling and baking.

As a reaction to rampant drunkenness the temperance movement began, in the early nineteenth century, with the goal of moderation. Its leaders drank wine and beer only. Teetotalism, which arose in England in the early 1830s, attacked all alcoholic beverages as unnecessary and harmful; its proponents demanded total prohibition. In the United States abuse of alcohol led to the strong reaction of the prohibition movement, culminating in 1920 in the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of all alcoholic beverages. Prohibition lasted until 1933, when it was repealed by legislators who bowed to public demand and forgot the social evil which prohibition was designed to cure.

International concern about alcohol and alcoholism problems developed in the second half of the nineteenth century. The first scientific meetings on alcoholism were held in Brussels in 1878 and in Paris in 1880. Congresses were held every three to four years afterwards and were largely animated by the temperance movement. The League of [Page 34] Nations made proposals that alcoholism be recognized as a health problem. But it was left to the World Health Organization to do so in the years after World War Two and to encourage governments to set up facilities for the treatment of alcoholics. The International Bureau Against Alcoholism, founded in Stockholm in 1907, was reorganized in 1954 as the International Council on Alcohol and Alcoholism. It has members from about fifty countries and works closely with the Mental Health Unit of the World Health Organization.

The first coordinated systematic scientific study of alcohol made in the United States came about when the Citizens’ Committee in the reform administration of Seth Low in New York persuaded and financed the best physiologists, pharmacologists, and clinicians to study the alcohol problem. Their findings were published in 1901 in an important two-volume report, Physiological Aspects of the Liquor Problem. In the mid-thirties the late Professor E. M. Jellinek and others founded the Yale School of Alcoholic Studies (it is now the Rutgers School) and the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol. The concept “of alcoholism as an illness or as a public health problem” was beginning to be recognized by a few. However, it took almost forty years for this country to acquire the most significant piece of legislation to deal with the problem of alcoholism. On December 31, 1970, the “Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-616)” was signed into law. Alcohol was finally recognized as a complex and alarming medical, social, and environmental problem.

Therapeutic and Medicinal Uses of Alcohol

ALCOHOL, over the years, has had and continues to have some therapeutic and medicinal uses. Before the advent of ether and other safer and more easily controlled products alcohol served as an anesthetic to lessen the pain of amputations and tooth extractions. Alcohol is still used for skin massage, as a medium for solutions of local antiseptics, and as a detergent. It is a good solvent for many vegetable drugs and is a dependable preservative. Contrary to popular folk tales, it has no medicinal value in curing such ailments as the flu and the common cold, and it does not stimulate the appetite.

Alcoholism

THE NOUN “alcoholism” was first introduced in 1849. By now scientists and others concerned should be able to agree on the word’s meaning. Such, however, is not the case. The word is still used to suggest many different things, and publications continue to complicate the issue over whether alcoholism represents a sin, a symptom, or a disease.

The World Health Organization has described the alcoholic as “‘one who begins to be concerned about how activities might interfere with his drinking instead of how drinking might interfere with his activities.’” Webster defines alcoholism as (1) a continuous and usually excessive use of alcoholic drinks and (2) the state of being poisoned by alcohol. The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines alcoholism as “a disease in which a person has a uncontrollable desire for alcohol. Once his craving is triggered he begins to drink steadily and [Page 35] excessively. A state of physiological dependence exists, and the true alcoholic may be considered addicted to alcohol.”

The symptoms of alcoholism are generally related to those of dependence upon any sedative drug—such as character disorganization, reduced achievement, reduced attention span, reduced ability to concentrate, tremulousness, insomnia, headache, bowel dysfunction, muscle spasm, fatigue, palpitations. Eventually there is a diminished threshold in seizure susceptibility, elevated tolerance, amnesia, hallucinations, and delirium.

Researchers, almost unanimously, have agreed on the profile of an alcoholic: he exhibits egocentricity; low inhibitory tendencies, initially; low tolerance for tension and frustration; and an exaggerated sense of his capacities. A developing alcoholic reduces his social activities, drops out of membership in social groups which do not tolerate his drinking, and changes to groups more tolerant of his drinking. At that point he no longer considers consumption of alcohol a right. It is an obligation.

In a study of over two thousand male alcoholics Dr. Jellinek was able to define certain phases of the progression of alcoholism as a disease. At first the individual uses alcohol as a drug to treat anxieties and help him relax. He does not confine drinking to social situations and may discover that his tolerance for alcohol is increasing (which should be considered a warning sign). In the next stage the drinker experiences “blackout” periods or amnesic attacks (the drinker seems to make perfect sense in what he says or does, but he cannot remember afterwards what happened). He sneaks drinks during the day and hides bottles around the house. He gulps drinks at parties and usually orders them “on the rocks.” He is preoccupied with the bottle but is quite defensive about his drinking. He denies the existence of a problem and blames others around him. In the third stage the drinker becomes addicted and loses control over his drinking. He shows aggressive behavior and tends to alter close relationships. In the final chronic phase the drinker experiences the full physical and mental effects of alcoholism.

While it is relatively easy to describe the signs and symptoms of alcoholism, it is not so easy to pinpoint its causes. This, of course, becomes a particular problem in the research on alcoholism. It would seem logical that, if alcoholism is a disease, the obvious cause of the disease is alcohol. The answer, however, is not so simple as that, since excessive drinking may not always lead to alcoholism and, unlike other diseases such as tuberculosis, alcoholism may be largely due to non-physiological factors.

The nature of the addictive processes and the sequence of events leading to an alteration in the central nervous system are still largely unknown. One cannot say at this point whether there are certain “predisposing” factors which motivate a person to drink. Nor can one say if these factors, if they do in fact exist, are physiological, psychological, or sociological or if they are based on chemical, metabolic, hereditary, nutritional, environmental, or cultural differences. Researchers, however, working with animals, hospitalized alcoholics, and samples from different cultures, have been able to postulate numerous physiological, biochemical, hereditary, and environmental causes of alcoholism. A few interesting examples follow:

Physiological and Biochemical Causes of Alcoholism. The discovery that the metabolic pathways of the biogenic amines are “altered in the presence of ethanol is perhaps [Page 36] the most exciting clue” in the search for the effects of alcohol on the central nervous system. It is known that acetaldehyde, the major metabolite of alcohol, can interact with some of the biogenic amines and produce new types of compounds which resemble many pharmacologically active plant alkaloids. One of the new lines of investigation is related to the possibility that some of these products are similar to such opium alkaloids as morphine. Since no form of physical dependence is more prevalent than that produced by alcohol and since no substances are known to have a greater capability of producing it than the narcotic alkaloids related to morphine, the possibility of similarities between the two has occurred to a few scientists, especially since it is known that opiate addicts will take alcohol during abstinence from a narcotic drug or if they cannot obtain morphine. Many of them also have previous alcoholic histories, which raises the question of cross dependence between alcohol and opiates. It should be noted here that alcoholics, when sober, are tolerant of many drugs, particularly sedatives such as the barbituates; non-alcoholics, when inebriated, have a sharp sensitivity to sedatives and tranquilizers.

Studies with animals in the laboratory have proved a useful means for studying the mechanism of dependence. It is well documented that laboratory rats are reluctant to drink solutions with a high concentration of alcohol when given a free choice between that and water. However, stimulating a certain area in the brains of the rats (the hypothalamus, which is concerned with the visceral and emotional functions) reverses preference for water over alcohol. Animals once exposed to ethanol but now drug-free continue to demonstrate electrophysiological abnormalities for up to eight months. Certain species such as monkeys voluntarily consume alcohol by self-administration until dependence is established. These are particularly useful as models for studying the mechanism of addiction.

A Matter of Heredity? Some studies suggest that heredity may play an important role in contributing to alcoholism. Animal research, strain studies, and selective breeding shed some light, for certain strains of rats can be shown to consume more alcohol than others. It is also intriguing that specific genetic strains of rodents that prefer the ingestion of ethanol to that of water can be artificially produced by breeding.

Family studies and follow-up of adopted children with alcoholic natural parents and of half siblings and identical and fraternal twins are not conclusive; but the weight of accumulated evidence seems to make an exclusively environmental interpretation no longer tenable. Thus a study of 4,372 alcoholics showed that fifty-two percent had an alcoholic parent. The normal expectancy of alcoholism among children of alcoholics is about twenty-five percent as compared with an expectancy of approximately two percent for the population as a whole.

The recent rash of infants born as narcotic addicts, whose first experience in life is the heroin withdrawal syndrome, and the demonstration that drug tolerance which is closely related to drug dependency can be genetically transmitted to a succeeding generation suggest the possibility that drug dependency might be a biochemically determined, genetically transmitted result of a learned phenomenon. In other words, it appears that there is a bridge or relationship between environmental choice and genetic predestination. [Page 37] This bridge, once neglected, became evident with the discovery that a woman who has contacted rubella (German measles) in the first trimester of pregnancy will give birth to an infant with congenital heart disease and many non-cardiac abnormalities. These abnormalities are present at birth and are by definition congenital; but they are not hereditary. Alcohol research on the interrelationship between heredity and environment is an intriguing new branch of inquiry.

The Environment and Alcohol. Investigators have been looking into the environment for clues to patterns which lead to the use of alcohol, since it is well known that a mother’s early care has irreversible effects on a child. Thus the environment to which the child is exposed becomes extremely important. Yet there has been very little research on the development of concepts and attitudes of children towards alcohol, partly because of a widespread and erroneous belief that children are innocents with regard to alcohol. However, children are frequently exposed to alcohol at an early age. In a study in Glasgow, Scotland, two-fifths of a group of six-year olds who were given nine substances (including beer and whiskey) to smell were able to pick out one as an alcoholic drink. The proportion rose to three-fifths at the age of ten. Confronted with an array of bottles half of which contained alcoholic drinks, two-fifths of the six-year olds were able to divide them correctly into alcoholic and non-alcoholic groups. By the age of eight most of the Glasgow children had mastered the concept of alcohol and its relationship to drunkenness. By the age of fourteen, ninety-two percent of the boys and eighty-five percent of the girls had tasted alcohol, which they received mostly from their parents and, to a lesser degree, from other teenagers.

In the United States most individuals learn to drink during adolescence. One study has shown that the people with whom adolescents drink most frequently are close friends (fifty-seven percent of the adolescents questioned). The most important influence on whether or not the adolescent drinks is friends (thirty-one percent), parents (twenty-six percent), and church (ten percent). Next in order are school and television. The most important reason for teenage drinking is going along with the group (fifty percent), trying to act grown-up (twenty-two percent), and curiosity (twelve percent). The rest were divided between rebellion and personal and other problems.

A composite picture of the heavy drinking teenager gives us a boy or a girl who smokes heavily, who receives more pocket money than others, who does not attend church regularly, and who is hostile to teachers and others in authority. A recent survey of 388 high school drinkers showed that problem drinkers valued achievement less than non-problem drinkers; had more tolerant attitudes toward transgression; and engaged more in various other disapproved activities, such as the use of marihuana and illicit sexual intercourse. Another survey of 3,256 males in grades seven to twelve (ages twelve and under to eighteen and over) in three greater Boston suburbs showed that of them 18.3 percent were abstainers (never used alcohol); 5.7 percent were experimenters (single experience only); 65.5 percent were moderate drinkers; 8.5 percent were kick drinkers (severe effects from alcohol consumption); and 2.1 percent pathological drinkers (boys who, were they adults, would be termed alcoholics).

[Page 38] Certain highly correlated conditions were evident among members of the groups surveyed in the greater Boston schools. The abstainer usually came from a protestant family of Scandanavian, Scottish, Canadian, or German descent. He was living with both natural parents and generally had a large number of siblings, a father who was usually or always employed, and a college-educated mother who was a full-time housewife. He attended church weekly, maintained a B or better average, was a member of school clubs and organizations (in which he usually held an office), and did not work after school hours. He was generally happy, had parents who did not drink, felt an obligation to his parents, and had his father’s confidence and agreed with him on fundamental issues. The abstainer’s parents usually refused to grant him permission to drink or would grant permission only after he was able to support himself. He did not participate in deviant acts. His reasons for not drinking were health, safety, and expense (principle or morality was less popular).

The abstainer’s opposite, the pathological drinker, came from a Catholic Canadian, Irish, or French family. He lived in a broken home and had a father who was not regularly employed, and a mother who worked full or part time. His parents either possessed less than a fifth grade education or had widely divergent educational backgrounds. He was eighteen or older, attended church infrequently or not at all, and maintained either an upper grade average or D and below. He participated in no organized school activities, had two or more dates per week or was going steady, worked after school substantially more than his peers, and was much less happy than his peers. His parents were abstainers or daily drinkers with present or former drinking problems. He began drinking shortly after he reached the age of ten, in violation of the wishes of his parents, who held a laissez-faire attitude; and he often drank until he was drunk. He saw drinking as the rite of passage to adulthood, exhibited deviant behavior, committed offenses, and was in contact with law enforcement agencies.

Not only does one’s family environment play a role in alcoholism; social and cultural factors are also important. Extensive studies regarding the incidence of alcoholism among people of various ethnic backgrounds and social classes have been undertaken. Not surprisingly the lowest incidence of drunkenness was found among those cultures which censure it, while the highest figures were found among those groups which tolerate drunkenness or find it amusing.

A study directed by Don Cahalan of problem drinking among American men between the ages of twenty-one and fifty-nine who lived in households showed that: (1) Seventy-two percent of the Americans studied reported that they had experienced at least one type of problem associated with alcohol intake; thirty-two percent reported some fairly severe problem within the last three years. (2) Problems such as binge drinking, loss of control, symptomatic drinking, problems with friends, neighbors, and the police, and financial problems were reported most frequently among those between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-four. (3) Drinking problems diminished rapidly after the age of fifty—an interesting finding, since alcohol abuse and alcoholism are popularly associated with old age.

Cahalan also found large city residence, childhood deprivations, race, religion, social tolerance of environmental deviance, and alienation to be correlates of problem drinking, as were influences and perceptions and attitudes about alcohol. He drew the general conclusion that “environmental factors predominate among the correlates of problem drinking, although certain personality [Page 39] characteristics, notably impulsivity and lack of ego-resiliency, are also of material importance in determining the level and character of drinking problems.”

Problem Drinking: Further Findings. A more or less random listing of some additional findings concerning the use and abuse of alcohol provides a fuller perspective on the entire problem:

In the United States the highest average of drinking is in the Middle Atlantic region and New England. The South is well below average.

More men drink than women.

The higher the social class, the more likely a person is to engage in drinking, contrary to popular opinion. However, men of lower social status have more severe problems.

Drinking among Jews seems to be relatively trouble-free; cultural disapproval of drunkenness among both the Jews and the Chinese prevents excessive indulgence.

Insecurity about food supply has been positively associated with increased insobriety in many societies.

Since the consumption of alcoholic beverages is not necessary for human survival, drinking behavior among many people is learned in the socialization process.

Drinking for “personal” reasons is generally thought of as being “unsafe”; however, drinking for “social” reasons is usually [Page 40] thought of as being “safe.” The former is also associated with loneliness and misery, the latter with joviality and happy times. Moreover, drinking is often perceived as part of one’s job.

“Alcohol is particularly present in the Army among personnel with many years of service. Factors which encourage alcoholism in the military are frequent drinking occasions, family separations, low cost and ready availability of alcoholic beverages, and boredom. Factors which mitigate the problem are military discipline and the prevalence of younger persons.”

“An alcoholic may be admitted to a hospital, ‘dried out’ so physical dependence is nullified; given tranquilizers to ease withdrawal effects and subsequent nervousness; physically restored with foods, exercise, and vitamins; and psychologically supported through talks with a therapist and group encounter sessions—yet he returns to heavy drinking shortly after discharge.”

Confessions of Alcoholics. The following comments from in-depth interviews with twenty-five “skid row” alcoholics produced valuable insights about the relationship between environment and alcoholism:

“When I’m drinking I don’t have any schedule at all . . .”

“Drinking takes away a concern for time.”

“I don’t mind keeping to the schedule here (in the welfare home). You know what is going to happen next. . .”

“Institutions are nice and orderly.”

“I just don’t know what to do with myself, or how to look for a job.”

“. . . Everything moves so fast. No one knows or cares if you are alive. You just do not fit anywhere.”

“Well, you don’t feel that anything you are going to do will eventually be rewarded, so why do it?”

“I wrote out a schedule for almost every minute, you see. Then when I had nothing to do, I’d consult my schedule.”

“Often I only half accomplished what I’d planned.”

“I think if I could just hang around with different people I could pick up their approach on how to handle my time. But I didn’t really know anyone but the other drinkers I was avoiding.”

“. . . A guy who is trying not to drink has to have his time all planned.”

“I feel I’ve lost 15 years of my life drinking.”

“When you are out (of the institution) the pattern revolves around constantly having to establish statutes. Here, (in the institution) they are already there. Even when you deviate from them you are comfortable because they are there.”

It is obvious from the above comments and from other surveys that a great many people are at loose ends when they leave an institution; they sincerely desire to reintegrate themselves into society and find jobs but neither do they know how to go about it in a fast-moving world nor is society ready to accept them. Whether an alcoholic or not, every person needs some sort of time scheduling to give him a feeling of progress and usefulness. Without a goal, a former alcoholic often returns to alcohol after therapeutic abstinence. Many researchers have found that the absence of attractive alternatives and the lack of motivating goals are usually behind leisure-time drinking.

‘Spontaneous’ Cures

ALL THEORIES of alcoholism based on physiological, biochemical, hereditary, and environmental causes are sometimes criticized because of the “known occurrence of ‘spontaneous’ [Page 41] cures associated with religious conversion. . . . a complete understanding of what takes place in such a cure has not been achieved.” Some feel that the “elements of auto-suggestion, if vigorous enough, may actually produce alterations in bodily functions that support the new pattern of behavior.” On the other hand, low religious involvement is significantly and positively related to drinking for personal rather than social effects. One investigator suggests that:

The ability of alcohol to dissolve social barriers, to create the illusion that everyone loves one another and so on, is too well known to require further comment. Less clearly recognized is the spiritual power of alcohol, if I may dare to use such a term; that is, its ability to create a sense, however fleeting, that life really does have meaning and that, despite all appearances, all is well with the world. . . .

This line of thought suggests that the successful treatment of the alcoholic requires, above all, that therapy convince him that someone genuinely cares about him and that life has meaning, to replace the illusory similar experiences that alcohol gives him fleetingly at great cost. . . .

As to inducing the mystical experience, this is more difficult. Alcoholics Anonymous seems to be hinting at this goal in its reference to a Higher Power. Worth remembering in this connection is that the most effective cure for an alcoholic is a religious conversion.

Treatment and Prevention

ALTHOUGH THE TREATMENT of alcoholism is a complex task which involves a number of factors, not many, including physicians, realize that it can succeed in varying degrees under the proper circumstances. Because of the irreversibly damaging effect alcohol has on certain tissues and systems, a complete cure is not possible. Most specialists also hold that no alcoholic can abstain totally through life and therefore consider as successful a “rehabilitation” program where drinking is controlled most of the time. “Abstinence” is a success when no drinks are taken for three to five years on the average. Dr. Frank A. Seixas, Medical Director of the National Council on Alcoholism, likens today’s treatment of alcoholism to the treatment of tuberculosis before the discovery of streptomycin:

In those days it was found that if one removed the patient to the country, gave him rest, a good diet, sunlight and fresh air, he maximized his resistance to the offending germ and had the better chance of recovery.

Today’s treatment may include medical detoxification and drug therapy performed, preferably, in a general hospital and psychotherapy to mobilize the patient, motivate, and rehabilitate him. The latter can be conducted in a residential treatment center such as a minimal care unit of a general hospital, a special wing in a psychiatric hospital, or a free standing unit. During treatment a life plan is developed for the alcoholic which may include group therapy, individual therapy, visits to Alcoholics Anonymous, adjunctive drugs, or religious assistance from clergymen and others. Patients with overwhelming social problems may be sent to halfway houses. Those with permanent brain damage may require special facilities.

Hospital Treatment of Alcoholics. The goal of hospital treatment is to detoxify the alcoholic and help him achieve abstinence through the use of sensitizing, aversive, or conditioning therapy and to alleviate stress and anxiety through the use of tranquillizers, vitamins, exercises, and relaxation. Such treatment is carried out by medical and technical aids.

[Page 42] The most well-known drug which induces sensitivity to alcohol is disulfiram, marketed by Ayerst as Antabuse. Its effects were first discovered by Jens Hald and Erik Jacobsen who were studying the effects of disulfiram on intestinal worms in rabbits. To test its effects on man they tried it on themselves. Coincidentally, each took a couple of drinks and experienced severe gastrointestinal disturbances. They concluded later that these effects were due to disulfiram.

Disulfiram interferes with the normal degradation of alcohol in the body resulting in an increase of acetaldehyde (see page 31) of this article), which accumulates in the blood stream and produces unpleasant effects: flushing, throbbing in the head and neck, respiratory difficulties, nausea, vomiting, sweating, thirst, chest pain, palpitation, weakness, vertigo, blurred vision, and confusion. As long as a person is taking the drug, he cannot drink without experiencing these severe disturbances.

The lack of adequate controls makes it difficult to evaluate disulfiram therapy effectively. The first reports on tests of its use with alcoholics claimed successful outcomes in sixty to eighty percent of those given the drug. But it soon became apparent that many were not being helped by disulfiram. Double-blind placebo studies were absent, and the one single-blind placebo study claimed that 150 men alcoholics treated with placebo did as well as 150 treated with disulfiram. Most studies of other drugs are poorly designed and have produced no conclusive results yet, and the few controlled studies so far continue to challenge any claims of a pharmacological effect in attenuating the intake of alcohol.

The underlying aim of aversion therapy is to establish a conditioned aversion to alcohol and to maintain an avoidance of alcohol based on the classical conditioned-reflex studies of Pavlov. In an adaptation of this work to the therapy of the alcoholic, an emetic drug (such as emetine) is used as the unconditioned stimulus and the alcoholic beverage as the conditioned stimulus. The purpose is to cause the conditioned stimulus, alcohol, to elicit the same bodily response when swallowed as the unconditioned emetic through repeated association of the two stimuli in a controlled treatment. For example, after taking the medication the patient is taken to the treatment room and seated before a toilet bowl. Just before vomiting begins, the patient is made to smell and swallow an alcoholic drink. The process of taking alcohol and vomiting is repeated several times daily for five to six days. The emetic is then omitted and conditioning is considered successful if there is immediate vomiting after the alcoholic drink is given.

A variety of drugs and other methods such as electric shock and even acupuncture have also been tried on alcoholics. However, there has been no consistent and extensive critical support for any of the current drug therapies used to attenuate alcohol intake. Furthermore, used alone, without proper motivation and supportive psychotherapy, such therapeutic approaches have only a brief effect on the drinking pattern of the alcoholic.

Psychotherapy. Psychotherapeutic methods help the patient to understand himself and his alcohol problem. Although it is the most difficult form of treatment, since the physician is dealing with a person having problems and using alcohol to escape from them, psychotherapy has been quite successful when the alcoholic has been taken seriously by the therapist as an expert on his own illness and when treatment has not been confined to the patient alone. The theory that the alcoholic’s environment contributes [Page 43] largely to the initiation of his illness has been gaining ground; and psychotherapy, whether individual or group, is being extended to those directly involved with the alcoholic as well. It is essential for an alcoholic’s spouse, for example, to understand the nature of his underlying problem. Through psychotherapy the alcoholic is gradually taught how to abstain by limiting the number of drinks, how to sip the same quantity, and how to order drinks at a declining rate. He also learns that it is best for him to be with friends who will not press him to drink. Unfortunately, with the large number of alcoholics, there are hardly enough therapists to serve them individually.

The advantages of group therapy over individual therapy are two. Larger numbers of alcoholics can be treated, and the alcoholic gains assurance in learning that others have similar problems.

A successful form of psychotherapy is called “milieu therapy.” It combines the advantages of both group psychotherapy and occupational and recreational therapy by utilizing a dynamically geared activities program in which everyone is kept busy and interested.

Many of the programs of abstinence and controlled drinking are being reinforced by reward factors. Thus the patient could earn money and spend it on goods and services within a ward setting. Reinforcements offered by society, such as medical care, reinvolvement, and personal attention may have similar effects.

Alcoholics Anonymous. Another method for dealing with alcoholics is Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), which has been described as a “loosely knit, voluntary fellowship of alcoholics gathered together for the sole purpose of helping themselves and each other to get sober, and stay sober,” and design new life patterns. Important to AA’s approach is “an admission by the alcoholic of his lack of power over alcohol” and his decision to turn over his live and will power to a “power” greater than his. Much of the program has a spiritual but non-sectarian basis. Alcoholics Anonymous cooperates also with therapists, social workers, and religious organizations. It is not a complete form of treatment; but according to many surveys “Alcoholics Anonymous really does work.”

It has been widely publicized since the early 1940’s and has more than seven thousand local chapters. Moreover, it has helped to bring the “more respectable” alcoholic out of hiding. A 1968 survey of alcoholics attending AA meetings in the United States and Canada showed that there were 61,400 alcoholics who were sober for less than one year; 56,300 who had been sober for one to five years; 21,400 who were sober for six to ten years; 10,400 for eleven to fifteen years; 5,800 for fifteen to twenty years; 3,200 for more than twenty years; and at least one person who had been sober for thirty-three years.

Other Methods of Treatment. Another avenue open to the alcoholic is the halfway house, which regards alcoholism as a life problem. The goal of such treatment is to provide for the alcoholic a new life style in a milieu which includes a rigid schedule of activities and ready-made decisions for such areas of life as eating, sleeping, and daily chores.

One of the most neglected means for reaching alcoholics—and one of the most promising—is the labor management program. Dr. Seixas estimates that, five to ten percent of heavy drinkers become abstinent without treatment and about twenty percent will eventually arrive at the doors of AA without other help. Thirty percent achieve abstinence and social improvement through current alcoholism clinics. The most impressive of all methods of treating alcoholics are the labor [Page 44] management programs which report sixty to eighty percent abStinence and improvement.

Yet of the 1.5 million companies in the United States only 350 have alcoholism programs; however, there is a national effort underway to improve the situation. The goal of the current programs is to have supervisors identify the employed alcoholic, through close observation and alertness to job performance records, before he becomes unemployable. Supervisors are asked not to moralize and to restrict criticism to job performance and attendance only. An alcoholic employee is referred to a company counselor, who guides him toward existing therapeutic programs while counseling him on improving job performance.

Towards Preventive Action

IT IS NOW seventy-three years since the publication of Physiological Aspects of the Liquor Problem and forty years since the prohibition era, yet most Americans do not recognize that alcohol is a drug and the biggest drug problem in the United States. Drinks are legal virtually everywhere, and drinking behavior is unregulated. Much of our folklore, history, and culture has treated and continues to treat alcohol in a pleasant, comical, and friendly manner. Alcohol is consistently associated with happy times on television programs and in films and comic strips, and many comedians profit enormously from affecting drunkenness. Social drinking, more often than not, is associated with social acceptability. Among our most attractive advertisements and commercials are those selling alcohol. Cigarette commercials have been banned while commercials for alcoholic beverages—a greater danger to society than tobacco—continue to be televized.

Many physicians misuse alcohol but get annoyed at the alcoholic, and hospital staffs feel that the alcoholic is not worth the effort or the time. Medical students spend far more time learning about rare diseases which they may never encounter during their practice than about alcoholism, which is prevalent.

There has been a reluctance in the courts to convict drunken drivers. Police, courts, drivers, and the public should work together on this problem. The “let’s all be good drivers and not drive under the influence of liquor” approach will not work; we need universal disapproval of drinking and fear of accidents. Currently, there are moves by many states towards reducing the level for legal evidence of intoxication from .1 percent (100 mg of alcohol in 100 mil of blood) to .08 percent and to establish uniform state laws giving police the right to perform blood alcohol tests prior to arrest.

Immediate and decisive steps should be taken towards prevention of alcohol-related problems in our society. The public must be informed about the dangerous effects of alcohol and the enormity of its abuse. People must realize that alcoholic problems are preventable; they must recognize every individual’s right not to drink, for tremendous pressure is exerted on the non-drinker to join his friends in drinking. This understanding can be reached through a multi-media attack, utilizing community newspapers, radio, television, personal appearances of trained staffs at schools, clubs, community centers, and various industrial plants; through the inclusion of courses on alcohol and alcoholism in existing school curricula and encouragement of universities to develop specialized courses for physicians and other professional personnel, as well as for lawyers, judges, police officials, AA workers, and others who deal with alcoholics. A more attractive and realistic image of the non-drinker—who is often ridiculed as a no-fun bore—must be presented to the public.

[Page 45] Preventive measures should be directed towards the moderate consumer, not the abstainer and the alcoholic, and medical treatment should be instituted as soon as possible; therefore, employers, personnel experts, social workers, marriage counselors, law enforcement officers, and other key individuals should be trained to detect early signs of possible alcoholism.

Hospitals should be equipped with modern drugs and trained personnel for patients who are intoxicated or suffering from delirium tremens. Such patients should be readily admitted in order not to compound the problems for drunkards and those around them.

Funds are needed to develop better techniques for treatment and for prevention through basic research on animal models and studies on human subjects. Nationwide epidemiological research is needed to describe and measure the problem and replace current estimates.

It is anticipated that within the next few years basic research on alcoholism will have clarified many of the ambiguities and unresolved issues that have been described so far.

At a time when public attention is being directed to the conservation and wise use of resources, it is essential that alcohol abuse be recognized as a devastating and preventable waste of human resources.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albrecht, Gary L. “The Alcoholism Process: A Social Learning Viewpoint.” In Alcoholism: Progress in Research and Treatment, ed. Peter Bourne and Ruth Fox, pp. 11-39. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

“Alcoholism as a Disease.” World Health, Jul.-Aug. 1973, pp. 24-29.

Amit, Z., et al. “Alcohol Preference in the Laboratory Rat Induced by Hypothalamic Stimulation.” Psychopharmacologia (Berl.), 17 (1970), 367-77.

“Antabuse®: Ayerst Laboratories.” In Physicians’ Desk Reference, pp. 565-66. 27th ed. Oradell, New Jersey: Medical Economics Company, 1973.

Aviado, Domingo M. Krantz and Carr’s Pharmacologic Principles of Medical Practice. 8th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1972.

Bacon, Seldon S. “Alcohol and Highway Crashes.” In Alcoholism: Progress in Research and Treatment, ed. Peter Bourne and Ruth Fox, pp. 333-35. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

Brodie, H. Keith H. “The Effects of Ethyl Alcohol in Man.” In Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective, The Technical Papers of the Second Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, March 1973, pp. 6-59. Appendix, Vol. 2. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, Stock Number 5266-00005.

Burk, David E. “Introduction to Chapter 6: Congenital Factors.” In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Nature and Nurture in Alcoholism, ed. Frank A. Seixas, et al., 197 (May 25,1972), 165-66.

Cahalan, Don, and Room, Robin. “Problem Drinking among American Men Aged 21-59.” American Journal of Public Health, 62, No. 11 (1972), 1473-82.

Davis, Virginia, and Walsh, Michael J. “Alcohol, Amines, and Alkaloids: A Possible Biochemical Basis for Alcohol Addiction.” Science, 167 (1970), 1005-06.

Demone, Harold W., Jr. “The Nonuse and Abuse of Alcohol by the Male Adolescent.” In Proceedings of the Second Annual Alcoholism Conference of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Psychological and Social Factors in Drinking and Treatment and Treatment Evaluation, June 1-2, 1972, Washington, D. C., ed. Morris E. Chafetz, pp. 3-23. Washington, D. C.: DHEW Pub. No. (NIH) 74-676, 1973.

de Torok, Denes. “Chromosomal Irregularities in Alcoholics.” In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Nature and Nurture in Alcoholism, ed. Frank A. Seixas, et al., 197 (May 25, 1972), 90-100.

Editorial. Lancet, 1 (1973), 142.

Fitz-Gerald, F. L. “Voluntary Alcohol Consumption in Apes.” In The Biology of Alcoholism, Volume 2: Physiology and Behavior, ed. Benjamin Kissin and Henri Begleiter, pp. 169-92. New York: Plenum Press, 1972.

Forney, Robert B., and Harger, R. N. “The Alcohols.” In Drill’s Pharmacology in Medicine, ed. Joseph R. DiPalma, pp. 276-93. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Fort, Joel. Alcohol: Our Biggest Drug Problem and Our Biggest Drug Industry. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

Frank, Jerome D. “The Treatment Process: Discussion.” In Proceedings of the Second Annual Alcoholism Conference of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Psychological and Social Factors in Drinking and Treatment and Treatment Evaluation, June 1 -2, 1972, Washington, D. C., ed Morris E. Chafetz, pp. 242-44. Washington, D. C.: DHEW Pub. No. (NIH) 74-676, 1973.

[Page 46] Goodwin, Donald W. “Alcohol in Suicide and Homicide.” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 34, No. 1A (Mar. 1973), 144-56.

Hammersley, Donald W. “Conditioned Reflex Treatment.” In Hospital Treatment of Alcoholism: A Comparative Experimental Study, by Robert S. Wallerstein, pp. 53-76. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1957.

Jessor, Richard, and Jessor, Shirley L. “Problem Drinking in Youth: Personality, Social and Behavioral Antecedents and Correlates.” In Proceedings of the Second Annual Alcoholism Conference of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Psychological and Social Factors in Drinking and Treatment and Treatment Evaluation, June 1-2, 1972, Washington, D. C., ed. Morris E. Chafetz, pp. 3-23. Washington, D. C.: DHEW Pub. No. (NIH) 74-676, 1973.

Kelly, Raymond J. “Private Industry: ‘A Neglected Area in Reaching Alcoholics.’” Insight. Illinois Department of Mental Health. Jan. 1, 1973.

Leach, Barry. “Does Alcoholics Anonymous Really Work?” In Alcoholism: Progress in Research and Treatment, ed. Peter Bourne and Ruth Fox, pp. 245-80. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

Leake, Chancey D. “Introduction.” In Alcoholism: Basic Aspects and Treatment, ed. Harold E. Himwich, pp. 1-3. Washington, D. C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Publication No. 47, 1957.

Martin, William R. “Drug Dependence.” In Drill’s Pharmacology in Medicine, ed. Joseph R. DiPalma, pp. 362-78. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Mottin, J. L. “Drug-Induced Attenuation of Alcohol Consumption: A Review and Evaluation of Claimed, Potential or Current Therapies.” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 34, No. 2A (June 1973), 444-72.

Murray, David. “70% of Enlistees Have Drinking Problems: Army.” Chicago Sun Times, Sept. 19, 1973, p.52.

National Institute of Mental Health, National Center for Prevention and Control of Alcoholism. Alcohol and Alcoholism. Washington, D.C.: Public Health Service Publication No. 1640, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967.

Noller, Carl C. Chemistry of Organic Compounds. 8th ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1958.

Omenn, Gilbert. “Introduction to Chapter 4: Twin and Family Studies.” In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Nature and Nurture in Alcoholism, ed. Frank A. Seixas, et al, 197 (May 25, 1972), 108-09.

Rainaut, Jean. “Semantic Essay on a Definition of Alcoholism.” In Selected Papers Presented at the Twelfth International Institute on the Prevention and Treatment of Alcoholism, June 13-24, 1966, Prague, Czechoslovakia, Vol. 1, pp. 81-97. Lausanne, Switzerland: International Council on Alcohol and Alcoholism, 1966.

Seixas, Frank A. “Introduction to Section 2: Morphinelike Alkaloids.” In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Alcoholism and the Central Nervous System, ed. Frank A. Seixas and Suzie Eggleston, 215 (Apr. 30, 1973), 89.

———. “New Priorities in Diagnosing and Treating Alcoholism.” Alcohol Health and Research World, Summer 1973, 6-9.

———. Preface. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Alcoholism and the Central Nervous System, ed. Frank A. Seixas and Suzie Eggleston, 215 (Apr. 30, 1973), 6.

Shiman, L. L. “Crusade against Drink in Victorian England.” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 34, No. 1B (Mar. 1973), 311 (Abstract No. 265).

State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health. Addendum to the Illinois State Plan for the Prevention, Treatment and Control of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Apr. 1, 1973.

———. The Incidence and Impact of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in Illinois. [Summer 1973]

Steiger, V. “Möglichkeiten der Erfassung der durch Alkoholmissbrauch in der Schweiz verursachten volkswirtschaftlichen und sozialen Schäden,” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 34, No. 2B (June 1973), 645 (Abstract No. 628).

Straus, Robert. “Alcohol and Society.” Psychiatric Annals, 3, No. 10 (Oct. 1973), 8-107.

Tinklenberg, Jared R. “Alcohol and Violence.” In Alcoholism: Progress in Research and Treatment, ed. Peter Bourne and Ruth Fox, pp. 195-210. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

Tongue, Archer. “International Aspects of Alcoholism Problems.” In Selected Papers Presented at the Twelfth International Institute on the Prevention and Treatment of Alcoholism, June 13-24, 1966, Prague, Czechoslovakia, Vol. 1, pp. 1-4. Lausanne, Switzerland: International Council on Alcohol and Alcoholism.

U. S. General Accounting Office. “Alcoholism among Military Personnel: Report to the Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U. S. Senate.” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 34, No. 1B (Mar. 1973), 308 (Abstract No. 255).

Victor, Maurice. “Introductory Remarks to Part 2: Withdrawal, Neurological Syndromes, and EEG.” In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Alcoholism and the Central Nervous System, ed. Frank A. Seixas and Suzie Eggleston, 215 (Apr. 30, 1973), 210-213.

Walsh, Michael J. “The Biochemical Aspects of Alcoholism.” In Alcoholism: Progress in Research and Treatment, ed. Peter Bourne and Ruth Fox, pp. 43-62. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

Weiland, Gustave J. “What is Alcoholism? Sin? Disease? Habit?” In Alcoholism and the Federal Employee: A Report on a Training Conference, April 1969, Washington, D. C. U. S. [Page 47] Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970, pp. 4-18.

Weschler, Henry, and Thum, Denise. “Alcohol and Drug Use among Teenagers: A Questionnaire Study.” In Proceedings of the Second Annual Alcoholism Conference of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Psychological and Social Factors in Drinking and Treatment and Treatment Evaluation, June 1-2, 1972, Washington, D. C., ed. Morris E. Chafetz, pp. 33-46. Washington, D. C.: DHEW Pub. No. (NIH) 74-676, 1973.

West, Louis Jolyon. “Research Strategies in Alcoholism.” In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Nature and Nurture in Alcoholism, ed. Frank A. Seixas, et al, 197 (May 25, 1972), 13-15.

Wilbur, Dwight L. “Alcoholism: An AMA View.” In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Congress on Alcohol and Alcoholism, Volume 2: Lectures in Plenary Sessions, ed. M. Keller and T. G. Coffey, pp. 10-15. New Jersey: Hillhouse Press, 1969.

Wiseman, Jacqueline P. “Sober Time: The Neglected Variable in Recidivism of Alcoholic Persons.” In Proceedings of the Second Annual Alcoholism Conference of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Psychological and Social Factors in Drinking and Treatment and Treatment Evaluation, June 1-2, 1972, Washington, D. C., ed. Morris E. Chafetz, pp. 165-84. Washington, D. C.: DHEW Pub. No. (NIH) 74-676, 1973.

[Page 48]

Remembering Shoghi Effendi: The Beloved Guardian

A REVIEW OF UGO GIACHERY’S Shoghi Effendi: Recollections (OXFORD: GEORGE RONALD, 1973), x + 238 PAGES

BY HOWARD B. GAREY

THIS BOOK is not a biography, but, as its subtitle states, a highly personal set of recollections. Ugo Giachery, an Italian chemist, had the inestimable privilege of being associated with Shoghi Effendi in the planning and execution of two of the beautiful edifices of the World Center of the Bahá’í Faith in Haifa, Israel. On him was laid the charge of securing the stone from the historic marble quarries of Italy, of engaging the services of Italian stonemasons who had inherited their craft from ancestors who were, one would like to believe, builders of the ancient Forum of Rome. Much of this work was carried on during and immediately after the Second World War, amid the difficulties of shipping, social and economic dislocations, and shortness of funds. Again and again difficulties which momentarily seemed insurmountable dissolved as the work went on in confidence that all would somehow come to a happy issue.

Shoghi Effendi: Recollections is a beautiful book, at every level: from its tasteful dust jacket and elegant cloth binding to its chaste typography and monochrome photographs, to its literary style and its glimpse into the soul of a man who had experienced reverent friendship (as oddly assorted as these words may seem) with the beloved Guardian—a friendship which revealed to Dr. Giachery not only the creativity, intelligence, and taste manifested in his clear vision of gardens and edifices to be installed on the slope of Mt. Carmel, but also the larger vision of the World Order to come, as adumbrated by Shoghi Effendi in table conversations with pilgrims or during walks through the holy precincts of the Bahá’í World Center.

In this work there is no wish for or pretense of objectivity, just the desire to make known what Shoghi Effendi meant to the author. To the historian the value is two-fold: first, the book provides many “raw facts,” a good number of them perhaps not to be learned from other sources, facts which, after accumulation and sorting, become the prime material of history; second, the highly personal testimony of Dr. Giachery reveals a relationship with the Guardian and an attitude towards him which may prove to be typical in many ways of the uncounted pilgrims and eager assistants who had the privilege of meeting and of working with Shoghi Effendi.

The principal appeal of these recollections is for Bahá’ís; one is tempted to say “for Bahá’ís only.” The near adoration which Dr. Giachery so unreservedly lavishes on the Guardian would certainly astonish a non-Bahá’í and for many would raise the suspicion of a “personality cult.” In every aspect of life, Shoghi Effendi is seen to excell, as is exemplified by these opening words to the chapter on “His Literary Gifts”:

Gifts! Shoghi Effendi possessed many, and it is difficult to state which was the most remarkable, but one of his greatest talents is seen in his use of both the English and the Persian languages in his writings and translations. . . . To know Shoghi Effendi’s literary work is to know and love him, to penetrate deeply into the discovery of his personality and the world of reality in which he lived.

A few pages later he says, “As a writer Shoghi Effendi achieved a degree of brilliancy that cannot be equalled.” Dr. Giachery seems to have set for himself, and often resolved, the problem of finding a degree of [Page 49] adjective comparison beyond the superlative.

How does the Bahá’í react to this book? I can only answer for myself; but my reaction, like Dr. Giachery’s to the Guardian, might be regarded to some significant degree as typical. To me, reading this loving recollection has been a moving and joyful experience. Bahá’ís who, like me, have come into the Faith since the passing of Shoghi Effendi, have typically been more fascinated by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, a personality about Whom anecdotes cluster and become legend. The continuing outpouring of love for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá is remarkable and has been nourished by the many books and articles, memoirs and traditions which have been published about Him. Colorful, exotic, kindly, possessed apparently of supernatural wisdom, He became in His time the object of a reverence which He Himself sternly discouraged lest it become a cult. His adoring grandson, Shoghi Effendi, paid Him a reverent affection which spread throughout the whole community of those believers who came into the Faith after the Ascension of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. During his own ministry, Shoghi Effendi, perhaps fearful of becoming in his turn the object of an adoration verging on apotheosis, did not allow the use of photographs of himself, or give other opportunities for the misuse of the great respect which he inspired in the Bahá’ís. In every way he made it clear that just as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá cannot be compared with His Father so he himself could not be compared with the Master.

The effect of this has been to draw a sort of veil over Shoghi Effendi as far as new Bahá’ís are concerned—that is, Bahá’ís enrolled since the Guardian’s death in 1957. Their reverence is for Bahá’u’lláh, their deep love for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, while Shoghi Effendi remains for all too many the austere, distant figure who is responsible for bringing into material being the Administrative Order.

But Shoghi Effendi was more than a great executive. “New” Bahá’ís who have had the privilege of talking with “old” ones who have known the beloved Guardian, who have talked with him, walked with him through the beautiful gardens which he created around the holy places on Mt. Carmel— these new Bahá’ís have some notion of the deep love evoked by this remarkable man, of the desire for service which he inspired in so many devoted Bahá’ís. But if one has not had the bounty of knowing, as I do, at least a few of the older Bahá’ís, how can he even guess at the love, the deep sense of mission—and also of tragedy—the sweetness of the personality possessed by Shoghi Effendi? There are, happily, ways of coming to know the Guardian. The Priceless Pearl, published in 1969, by his devoted wife, Rúḥíyyih Khánum, has begun to open the hearts and eyes of “new” believers. And now comes the book by Dr. Giachery, which is like a poem of love. This is not a biography to be “reviewed”; such a treatment would somehow demean its purpose. This book is not history —it is not the product of research in the sense of piecing together documents and attempting to reconstruct events of which one has not been a direct witness. Documents were used, indeed: bills of lading, government permits for shipping, correspondence with quarry owners and stone cutters; but these pieces are used to refresh and corroborate the memory of personal experiences.

Facts are not valued for themselves but for what they contribute to the building of a personal epic by relating the collaboration of the Guardian and the loving assistant, stone by stone, tile by tile, through architects’ plans and clay models (particular attention is devoted to the artistic genius of William Sutherland Maxwell), so that, as the dome of the Shrine of the Báb comes to its realization, as the great doors of the Archives are hung, as the ornamental fences, sculptures, urns, are placed in the gardens and about the holy shrines, one senses at the same time the growth of love and solidarity between Shoghi Effendi and Dr. Giachery.

It is not just the story of two men; it symbolizes the devotion of beings who, together, subordinate themselves to a Cause, a [Page 50] Cause which gives meaning to human existence. He who reads this book will find human striving representated at every level, from the most material—the cutting of marble, the forming of titles for the great dome, the choice of plantings for the garden—to the most sublime: the shaping of a great community of souls.

I am conscious of the floridity of my own language. But just as Dr. Giachery’s book is no mere collection of facts, no systematic presentation of a life history, no treatise on “Bahá’í Architecture of the Twentieth Century,” just so, whatever it is I am writing here is not a book review, but rather the “recollections” of feelings evoked in one Bahá’í by his contact with those of another Bahá’í. I cannot be more objective than this; I can only say, “Read the book; respond to it as only you in the whole world can; it will be your experience, not another’s.” If you are a Bahá’í, it will, I think, make you even more aware of the community of souls we enjoy; if you are not, it may give you some inkling of the experience of unity, of real brotherhood within a diversity no longer divisive.

Flight

As sky to the hawk’s wing be

O Life, for me!

Space yielding space and height compelling height,

To poise and free

The ardor of my flight.

Give me the sky

Of the hawk’s wing, Life!

And does a voice reply:

To the hawk’s wing . . . to the hawk’s wing,

Sky.

—HORACE HOLLEY

[Page 51]

Reasoning by Computer

A REVIEW OF HUBERT DREYFUS’ What Computers Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason (NEW YORK: HARPER, 1972), 259 PAGES

BY WILLIAM S. HATCHER

AS MAN’S KNOWLEDGE of himself and his environment has increased, he has developed increasingly complex models of his own functioning. From the ancient notion of the humors to the most elaborate constructions of psychoanalytic thought, these models have never had the explanatory and predictive value found even in the crudest of physical theories. Thus, there is the eternal temptation to try to find some “key” to explain human functioning in simple and concrete terms.

The most elusive aspect of human functioning is thought itself, since it is so intangible and so varied. Plato’s theory of ideas was a landmark attempt to explain thought, and many subsequent theories are nothing more than modifications or derivatives of it. However, Plato’s theory is highly metaphysical, even mystical, and has never appealed to thinkers with a more materialistic bent.

It was, therefore, only natural that the modern development of computers (electronic digital data processing devices) should give rise to a theory of human intelligence based on the computer as a model. The main thesis of this theory is admirable in its simplicity: thought is (reduces to) brain activity and the brain is nothing more (or less) than a “computer made of meat.”

Hubert Dreyfus’ What Computers Can’t Do is a cogent discussion of results in computer and related sciences which strongly suggest that the “brain as computer” thesis is inadequate, if not fallacious. Though some of Dreyfus’ points are not made as clearly as they might be, I still consider this book to be a first-rate exercise in philosophical criticism. His discussion also serves to deflate the mystification of computers to which the public has been much subjected in recent years.

The field of Artificial Intelligence, henceforth called AI, really puts forth two theses which I will call the “weak” thesis and the “strong” thesis. The weak thesis is, roughly stated: The brain is a mechanical, deterministic device; and, when we understand its functioning sufficiently well, we will be able to build machines which accomplish any and all brain functions. In fact the machines will probably eventually be better since we can continue to enlarge and improve them indefinitely, whereas it is not clear that we can so enlarge and improve our own brains at will.

The strong thesis is: We already understand brain functioning. It is digital. And we already have the machines. They are electronic digital data processors. Therefore, the only remaining problems in artificial intelligence are increasing the size and efficiency of digital computers (hardware improvements) and learning how to program computers in order to accomplish brain functioning (particular kinds of software improvements).

Dreyfus’ approach is to analyze experimental and other evidence for and against these theses. He is mainly concerned with the strong thesis. His conclusion is that current evidence tends to discredit the strong thesis while leaving the weak thesis inconclusive.

What Computers Can’t Do is an expanded form of a report, originally issued at the Rand Corporation, which provoked the ire of many exponents of AI. These people have not minced words in their vehement attacks upon Dreyfus; and Dreyfus has responded in kind, though to a much lesser extent. This gives a slightly polemical tone to the book [Page 52] which some readers might deplore. However, this should not obscure the care with which the author’s argumentation proceeds nor the skill with which he lays bare the various philosophical assumptions which, often unacknowledged and ignored, underlie the whole strong AI thesis.

Let us begin with a quick look at the nature of digital functioning the better to understand the issues involved. A computer has a finite number of basic, atomic, irreducible operations. By putting these operations together in various combinations, it accomplishes other, combined operations. A program is simply a set of instructions to the computer which determines a particular combined operation. But operations must operate on something. For the computer this something is information—but information in a particular form. To be usable by the computer, information must be discrete— that is, in the form of a finite sequence of atomic, irreducible bits of information. Information in such a form is data. Thus, given data and a program (thus, given some particular combination of basic computer operations), the machine analyzes the information bit by bit (at fantastic speed), passing from one configuration to the next as it applies the pre-determined combination of basic operations, until it stops. When it stops, we have the result of the combined operation (program) acting on the data; and the data, thus transformed, is the output.

Let the reader think of how he adds two large numbers digit by digit (with appropriate carrying and borrowing operations), and he will immediately see how it is possible to mechanize fully such an operation (the sums of the digits 0-9 being simply a matter of pure memory). It is clearly possible to learn to add two numbers without even thinking about what addition means. It can be carried out as a purely formal, mechanical process. Yet such an operation of addition does represent thought. It takes intelligence, and it takes conscious mental effort. Many people have had difficulty learning to accomplish this and similar tasks. For centuries the ability to accomplish such tasks was considered a mark of distinction, education, and intelligence.

Let us say that any mental task which can be performed digitally (that is, by a finite combination of a finite number of atomic operations) is mechanizable. Then the strong AI thesis can be stated: Human intelligence is mechanizable. Thought is calculation.

Having thus gotten a clearer picture of what digital functioning is, we can see what sorts of questions one might ask in examining the strong AI thesis: Which tasks of human intelligence can computers now perform? Are there any which they cannot perform? What evidence suggests that such tasks are or are not mechanizable? In particular, what about intuition, global perception, learning, problem-solving, game-playing, and decision-making?

What Dreyfus shows is that, in each of these areas of intelligence, research in AI has followed an almost identical pattern—namely, initial success at a lower level of complexity followed by virtually complete failure at higher levels of complexity. Moreover, the failure at high levels of complexity has almost invariably been accompanied by a “block” in that no method of extending results to higher levels of complexity suggests itself.

We will illustrate these points by a detailed analysis of a particular AI problem, that of chess-playing. In our discussion, we will not adopt a scholarly style of extensive quoting of research reports since this can all be found in Dreyfus’ book to which the reader is referred.

The fantastic number of possible combinations in chess makes exhaustive, mathematical analysis of the game impossible (as contrasted with, say, nim or tic-tac-toe). One of the best chess-playing programs to date has won a class D chess trophy. Yet [Page 53] this, and all other known programs, loses consistently against medium-strength players. Chess-playing programs operate on the basis of making an exhaustive analysis (a counting-out of possibilities) up to a certain depth. Thus, against beginning or weak players, the machine wins consistently. But against those players who challenge the machine beyond its depth of analysis, the machine loses consistently, as one would expect. This would seem, at first inspection, to suggest that the problem is simply one of programming machines to greater depth of analysis. Let us see why this may not be so.

The chess master de Groot, and other researchers, have taken the protocol of chess players of different strengths as they reflected in preparation for making a given move. It was found that grandmaster chess players do not examine a greater number of alternative moves than do mediocre players. The average for any given category of player is about the same, namely two to four variants to a depth of six or seven moves (thus a maximum of seven times four or twenty-eight moves in all). Nor does the grandmaster take more time than the mediocre player (if anything he takes less time). What, then, is the difference? Obviously the grandmaster examines the “right” moves. That is, he preselects and discards possibilities before he begins the move-by-move analysis of counting out. The mediocre chess-player wastes time examining possibilities the grandmaster does not even bother to consider.

The computer, unlike both human players, examines thousands of possibilities before moving (in one case, the computer examined 26,000 moves and took fifteen minutes). And the computer’s move is not nearly so good as the grandmaster’s. Furthermore, the computer is known to be electronically more efficient than the brain (for example, a single electronic transference takes place at greater speed). Yet, the computer takes much longer than the grandmaster, all the While making a vastly inferior move (the average thinking time per move of grandmaster chess is under five minutes). This seems to suggest that the brain’s mode of operation is not the computer’s, thus that brain functioning is not wholly digital.

Some workers in AI have responded to this by arguing that the grandmaster simply does “unconscious calculation” before beginning his conscious, move-by-move analysis. It is, they say, this unconscious calculation which leads to discarding so many possibilities and allows the grandmaster to “zero in” on the fewer number of “good” moves.

But there are serious problems with this explanation. What mechanism determines the switch from unconscious to conscious calculation? More important, if the brain is digital as the strong AI thesis insists, and since the brain is less efficient in its atomic operations than the computer, then how does the brain effect so much calculation in a few seconds and then tell the grandmaster where to begin his conscious analysis? The electronically more efficient computer takes much longer to make an inferior move. The appeal by exponents of AI to the unconscious is totally irrelevant here since, if we accept their thesis of purely digital functioning, the unconscious functions digitally just as well as the conscious. The unconscious cannot, therefore, be significantly more efficient than the conscious in matters of pure calculation; and in any case not more efficient than the computer.

Let us call this ability of the brain to “zero in” or to pre-select relevant features of a problem solving situation intuition (here we do not follow Dreyfus’ terminology). The above example suggests that this faculty of intuition is not a digital mode of functioning. Assuming for the moment that this is true— that intuition is non-digital—it is easy to see why AI exhibits the “Dreyfus pattern” of initial success at low levels of complexity followed by failure at high levels. At a low level of complexity (like adding two numbers) the computer is more efficient than the brain since it can more quickly exhaust all possibilities. At higher levels of complexity [Page 54] exhaustive analysis is no longer possible and the computer limitations become apparent whereas the brain operates in a mode of functioning unavailable to the computer. The reader who feels that all of this can be solved just by pushing the computer’s analysis to greater depth simply does not appreciate the explosiveness of exponential growth in a complex problem-solving situation.

Another feature of brain functioning brought into focus in chess-playing and in other problem-solving situations is global perception (known in AI as pattern recognition). In chess, for example, it is even possible for the experienced player just to look at a position and, without making any analysis at all conclude that White, say, will lose. Simply, the global dissymetry of the position enables the brain to perceive that there is an imbalance in Black’s favor. Clearly this global dissymetry is a property not of the individual pieces (bits) but of the whole configuration. The whole is, in some sense, greater than the sum of its parts, as Buckminster Fuller has pointed out in another connection.

This, and many similar examples, raise serious questions as to whether all information is really discrete. Much evidence from experimental psychology suggests that what humans perceive first is the whole. The differentiation of separate parts comes after the original global perception. Thus, rather than the whole being made up piecewise from atomic parts, it is rather the parts which are made (by us) from the whole! This global perception (or Gestalt) is the background against which the parts we make have meaning and relevance.

All computer programs for pattern recognition (recognizing nonstandard handwriting, pictures, photographs, human speech, etc.) are based on idealized, discretized, bit-by-bit analysis of these patterns. In no case has it been possible to construct a computer program which is foolproof or which even comes reasonably close to human performance in these areas. There are also known theoretical limitations inherent in bit-by-bit pattern recognition but this is too involved for a discussion here. Again, the available evidence suggests that global perception is not wholly mechanizable.

Some defenders of the strong AI thesis would still have an answer for this. They would point out that global perception is based on the past experience of the brain— that is, on learning. If, they say, the computer had programmed in it all the experience of the brain of the grandmaster, it could also recognize global dissymetries and the like.

Learning is a modification of one’s responses as a function of experience. Attempts have been made to program computers in such a way as to modify their own program as a function of their own past experience. All of these attempts exhibit the deadly Dreyfus pattern. We will skip a detailed discussion of this point.

The reader can now begin to get a feel for the dialectic between Dreyfus’ criticisms of the strong AI thesis and the way in which its defenders respond. In the final analysis, we really have a circle of equally unsolvable problems. We could mechanize intuition if we could mechanize global perception if we could mechanize learning, etc. To each criticism of the strong AI thesis, the response is to introduce a new approach which turns out to be just as intractable to digital treatment as the original one.

Those who still feel that, somehow, better technology is bound to lead to a solution of these problems should recall that such technology can only increase the size and efficiency of computers. But computers will always be finite. Thus, problems of exponential complexity will remain forever beyond a purely combinatorial approach.

There is another AI approach to computer treatment of problem-solving which seeks to avoid the limitations inherent in the purely combinatorial approach. This is the approach known as “Machine heuristics.” “Heuristics” means roughly “educated guessing.” It is plausible or probable reasoning as opposed [Page 55] to strict deduction and calculation. Some workers in AI have suggested that such heuristics are the basis of the human ability to “zero in” quickly on a few relevant details within a mass of data. This, they say, explains how the brain avoids considering the fantastically large number of possibilities required for an exhaustive analysis. They have, therefore, programmed the computer to try to do the same thing. Instead of exhaustive analysis, the machine engages in a limited analysis and then, on the basis of that analysis, chooses some particular line of attack as being probably the best. Of course, the criteria for this “probable” choice by the computer are also programmed in and can only be based on the information that the computer has gained from its initial, limited analysis.

But here again the machine runs up against the difficulty of its lack of global perception. A human being who is engaging in heuristic reasoning can perceive the undifferentiated whole before having to make his educated guess. The information on which his guess will be made will thus include not only the results of his limited, machine-like analysis of a few differentiated features of the situation but also considerable further partially differentiated information never brought to full consciousness in the form of complete differentiation. This “fringe consciousness” resulting from global perception of the total configuration means that the human guess is based on considerably more information than the computer guess. For the computer cannot perceive the whole as such and knows only the results of the particular parts it has examined.

The reader can easily think of myriad situations in which choices based on such a partial analysis without global perception could be disastrously wide of the mark. (We only glance at a person and suddenly know he is troubled or sick. But that “troubled look” isn’t to be found just in his eyes or the tightness of his facial muscles. It is in his walk, his posture, his hands, his whole attitude. It is, once again, a property of the whole not to be found in any analysis of parts, and certainly not in a limited analysis.) Moreover, as Dreyfus has cogently pointed out, it is not a question just of statistical frequency of possibilities. For example, Simon, who has programmed machine chess heuristics, used guiding principles of the sort “one should rarely look for a Queen sacrifice.” But the real heuristic human criterion is “one should look for a Queen sacrifice when the total configuration calls for it and not otherwise,” a vastly different principle.

Thus it is that machine heuristics have also followed the Dreyfus pattern. Still, one might object, the brain is part of the physical world. It does have some sort of physical structure, and it is known that electrical transferences take place in it and that these electrical transferences are necessary to its functioning. If the brain has nondigital modes of functioning, what are they and how do they work? We do not know, but there are many biologically possible alternative modes that are nondigital.

In purely digital functioning, it is only the presence or absence of an impulse which is important. The intensity, the frequency, or other such factors are irrelevant. But they may well not be irrelevant to brain functioning. In digital functioning the electrical impulse flows equally through all closed channels. Perhaps some channels in the brain are “preferred” and predispose the input to be processed along particular dominant channels first. There are, in short, a possibly unlimited number of parameters or factors which could influence or shape different, nondigital modes of brain functioning. Perhaps they all influence it in different ways, some factors being relatively dominant in certain modes with other factors being dominant in certain other modes.

[Page 56] If something like the above situation is the case (and this is pure speculation for the moment), then we would have at least a partial explanation for the phenomenon of “creativity.” Suppose, for example, that the number of possible modes of brain functioning is virtually unlimited (something like the possible number of genetic combinations), perhaps with some of the modes differing only in subtle but important ways from others (due perhaps to different blendings and shadings of the various factors). Then, one aspect of creativity might be that an individual suddenly discovers or “hits upon” a slightly new, perhaps only subtly different, combination thereby enabling him to approach an old problem in a new way. Such a creative response would appear all the more striking against the background of the limited number of thought patterns to which blind habit, lack of imagination, laziness, or social conformity may have disposed us all. The phenomenon of creativity could become universal once we rid ourselves of these limitations.

Be these fanciful speculations as they will, we can conclude, with Dreyfus, that available evidence certainly is much more unfavorable than favorable to the strong AI thesis.

The strong AI thesis is a philosophical thesis—a working scientific hypothesis—and like any such thesis it must stand or fall according to whether or not the total evidence is in its favor. But the reader should not consider that all of this criticism of the strong AI thesis is an attack on computers or their use, or even an attack on AI itself. Since computers are so good at calculation and digital data processing, they are capable of doing mental tasks which we regard as boring and uncreative, thus freeing us for tasks which we regard as interesting. They are in relation to mental work as are other machines to physical work. Such machines eliminate physical work we consider boring, thus giving us time for physical activity we enjoy, need, and desire (like sports, building something we like, or gardening). Moreover, the attempt at programming computers to accomplish brain functions has led us to think more deeply about the nature of intelligence and brain functioning, and this has also been beneficial. After all, AI’s limited successes at low levels of complexity are still successes. (That a machine program won a class D chess trophy is an accomplishment not to be dismissed lightly). What Dreyfus attacks is the exaggeration that has followed these successes, the dogmatic claims that human intelligence must be mechanizable.

It may be that some of the aspects of brain functioning which are currently noncomputerized will turn out to be mechanizable. Perhaps the grandmaster really does unconsciously use some formalizable heuristic rules that allow him to avoid having to calculate large numbers of possibilities. If so, and if such rules are discovered, a computer could be programmed to play grandmaster chess or even perfect chess. That we have not been able to discover such rules certainly does not mean they do not exist. But it certainly does not mean that they do exist either, and so continued dogmatic assertions that their existence is the only possible explanation for the grandmaster’s ability are untenable.

One could almost view the strong AI thesis as a curious kind of self-worship. Man builds a machine capable of performing certain kinds of mental operations and then tries to recreate himself in the image of his own handiwork—thus negating that which is essentially human.

The weak AI thesis is, of course, another matter since it is difficult to say that man will never invent a machine capable of intelligent behavior comparable to that of humans. Such dogmatic assertions against the weak AI thesis are to be avoided. But then so are dogmatic assertions in favor of the strong AI thesis, and this is the point which Dreyfus' book makes so clear.

[Page 57]

Authors and Artists

HOSSAIN B. DANESH is an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Ottawa and a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, Canada. He holds a medical degree from the University of Iṣfáhán and a psychiatric degree from the Illinois State Psychiatric Institute. Dr. Danesh has published studies on a nomadic tribe in Írán and on psychiatric problems. His interests include harmonizing the spiritual and emotional needs of man.

HOWARD B. GAREY is an Associate Professor of French and Romance Philology at Yale University. He has published a number of articles on French linguistics in Language and is now working on an edition of a fifteenth-century French songbook, “The Mellon Chansonnier.” Dr. Garey is an Associate Editor of World Order.

WILLIAM S. HATCHER is a Professor of Mathematics at Université Laval in Quebec. He holds B.A. and M.A.T. degrees from Vanderbilt University and a D.S. degree from the Université de Neuchâtel in Switzerland. He has published a book entitled Foundation of Mathematics and numerous articles on mathematics, logic, computer science, and philosophy. His interests include those topics as well as the relationship between science and religion, and epistemology and method. Dr. Hatcher is making a third appearance in World Order, his “Bahá’u’lláh to the Christians” having appeared in the Winter 1966 issue and his “Science and Religion” in Spring 1969.

HORACE HOLLEY, who died before World Order was revived in 1966, was one of the founders of our magazine. Bahá’ís throughout the world remember him as a totally dedicated servant of the Cause of Bahá’u’lláh. He was a magnificent teacher, speaker, and administrator, as well as a writer, poet, and thinker.

FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH is a Professor of Histor at Yale University and Editor of World Order.

BAHIA DELOOMY MITCHELL is a research scientist at Abbott Laboratories. She holds a B.Sc. degree in pharmacy from the University of Baghdád, ‘Iráq, and a Ph.D. degree in medicinal chemistry from the University of Illinois Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.

ART CREDITS: P. 3, photograph by George O. Miller; p. 9, photograph of the Shrine of the Báb overlooking the city of Haifa, location of the World Center of the Bahá’í Faith, courtesy National Bahá’í Information Office; pp. 14 and 15, photographs of views of the Bahá’í House of Worship in Wilmette, Illinois, courtesy National Bahá’í Information Office; back cover, photograph by George O. Miller.

GEORGE O. MILLER is a graduate student of zoology at the University of Texas. His ambition is to combine the study of zoology with nature photography.

[Page 58]