s, dooms many a client to depression and despair that could have been avoided.

Why the monolithic approach? The development of current treatment practices evolved from the marketing of AA's 12 Steps, an approach that worked for a group of alcoholics who'd faile

Fifteen years ago I first heard the term pseudo-egalitarianism, false equality, from Dr. Steve Schroeder-Davis in Minneapolis. At the time he was speaking about "dumbing down" education so as to penalize the academically gifted. Through the course of my work with people suffering from alcohol related problems I encountered another face of the same form of denial – institutionalized insistence that people are the same even when they obviously aren’t, and that a condition is best treated by only one, usually unsuccessful, approach. Ignorance and fear would seem to be the propelling forces in both cases but neither the gifted, nor clients, nor society are very well served by programs founded on either.

People’s abilities, whether athletic, intellectual, musical, emotional, and so on, are not equal and we all know it. We may hate it, but we know it. To pretend otherwise is to ignore primary factors in the successful diagnosis and treatment of any condition, alcohol dependence included. Failure to incorporate strengths, abilities, and, yes, differences, dooms many a client to depression and despair that could have been avoided.

Why the monolithic approach? The development of current treatment practices evolved from the marketing of AA's 12 Steps, an approach that worked for a group of alcoholics who'd failed

ople suffering from alcohol related problems I encountered another face of the same form of denial – institutionalized insistence that people are the same even when they obviously aren’t, and that a condition is best treated by only one, usually unsuccessful, approach. Ignorance and fear would seem to be the propelling forces in both cases but neither the gifted, nor clients, nor society are very well served by programs founded on either.

People’s abilities, whether athletic, intellectual, musical, emotional, and so on, are not equal and we all know it. We may hate it, but we know it. To pretend otherwise is to ignore primary factors in the successful diagnosis and treatment of any condition, alcohol dependence included. Failure to incorporate strengths, abilities, and, yes, differences, dooms many a client to depression and despair that could have been avoided.

Why the monolithic approach? The development of current treatment practices evolved from the marketing of AA's 12 Steps, an approach that worked for a group of alcoholics who'd faile

h. Ignorance and fear would seem to be the propelling forces in both cases but neither the gifted, nor clients, nor society are very well served by programs founded on either.

People’s abilities, whether athletic, intellectual, musical, emotional, and so on, are not equal and we all know it. We may hate it, but we know it. To pretend otherwise is to ignore primary factors in the successful diagnosis and treatment of any condition, alcohol dependence included. Failure to incorporate strengths, abilities, and, yes, differences, dooms many a client to depression and despair that could have been avoided.

Why the monolithic approach? The development of current treatment practices evolved from the marketing of AA's 12 Steps, an approach that worked for a group of alcoholics who'd faile

not equal and we all know it. We may hate it, but we know it. To pretend otherwise is to ignore primary factors in the successful diagnosis and treatment of any condition, alcohol dependence included. Failure to incorporate strengths, abilities, and, yes, differences, dooms many a client to depression and despair that could have been avoided.

Why the monolithic approach? The development of current treatment practices evolved from the marketing of AA's 12 Steps, an approach that worked for a group of alcoholics who'd faile

s, dooms many a client to depression and despair that could have been avoided.

Why the monolithic approach? The development of current treatment practices evolved from the marketing of AA's 12 Steps, an approach that worked for a group of alcoholics who'd failed at the other approaches used in the 1930's. These approaches hadn't failed everyone, only a subset who became the group from which most current practice is derived.

Once established, the programs themselves also became philosophically incestuous, with those who experienced success becoming the true believers who trained the next generation of "counselors," and those who did not find success on a 12 Step basis stayed, understandably, quiet about their failures. Through this winnowing process programs became ever more homogeneous and clients found themselves in a revolving door with few alternatives available. This has gone on through fifty tears of repetition while the other approaches have been lost, ridiculed, suppressed, or simply ignored.

Lately, however, other models have begun to appear or re-appear, programs rooted in medical and cognitive/behavioral approaches. Programs whose philosophy is client centered, not dogma centered. Politically incorrect, some even tread on the forbidden ground of moderation. The commonality here, if there