Transcript
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 1: God, our help in ages past and our hope for years to come, we confess that in our strength, we too often spurn Your help and in our weakness, we frustrate Your promise. Through the reflexive power of reason and unreason, we have tailor-made our sin so that it fits us more comfortably.
A better fit to our tailor-made sin becomes, in fact, our help and our hope. Save us from this folly. Some of us put on a "Jesus suit" to look better to others and to You. But our hearts are far from Your mercy. Some of us collect theological words and ideas
that become "God games," but our hearts are far from Your judgments. Some of us baptize our misuse of power with the name of Christ, but our hearts are far from Your will. We petition You to continue to call us to Your mercy, to Your judgments, to Your will, so that we
might live in Your help and delight in Your promise. May the time spent here this hour be for us a means to our good and to your word. In Christ's name, Amen. This
afternoon, Dr. Menninger will present the third of his five lectures on "Symptoms or Sin?" -- question mark. His fourth lecture will be this evening at 7:45, and his final lecture, tomorrow morning at 10:00 here in Miller Chapel. Last evening, Dr. Menninger told us that the lecture today
will bring the question of sin closer to home, and those of us who have an interest in the existential dimensions of theological inquiry should find this lecture rather illuminating. I have the pleasure to present Dr. Menninger today. In checking on his pedigree in Who's Who in America,
I discovered about 70 lines of biographical information. That alone is outstanding, but what is even more outstanding is the substance of those lines. I will not bore Dr. Menninger with a lengthy allusion to this reference, although I'm sure we are all aware of some of these
items, but I would like to make reference to one small observation which I made as I was going over this material. Dr. Menninger was born in Topeka, Kansas, and carried out most of his professional career in Topeka. So here is a man who has spent most of his life in one
place, which is rather unusual in our time. Now I suppose, in the light of the topic at hand for these lectures -- I suppose one could infer from this that most of his sinning occurred in one place, too, which is also rather unusual in our time. It would be inelegant
to present Dr. Menninger as a man who probably sinned in one place, so I will not do that. Perhaps it would be more elegant simply to present the man: Dr. Karl Menninger.
MENNINGER: Now if I haven't adjusted this quite right, will somebody let me know? Do you hear me adequately in the rear? Everybody -- you hear me, here? Fine, thank you. Well this afternoon, as the tempo of these lectures speeds up -- you know: boom, boom, boom-boom-boom -- three in a row now, and the last three will have to -- well,
it'd be a little easier to assume that there's some continuity. How many in the audience did not hear us the last night or two? Well, let me for their sake's say that the title implies, as you see, that instead of sins being dismissed from our concern by the proposal that they're symptoms of something and therefore less susceptible to
adverse judgment, that maybe we ought to take a look in the opposite direction and see if some of the things we've called symptoms might have some element of sinning. And if you think I'm thereby becoming more stern and more puritanical, or more Presbyterian, or something, perhaps you're right. As, seems to me, that there's been a little tendency
to dehumanize as well as demoralize -- demoralize -- some of our sciences; and I'm proposing that we look at some of the sins that we know of and examine them, compare them, with the definition of symptoms. Now I'm going to ask your help in defining the sins, as I've already defined the symptoms.
I think it certainly would be one kind of a sin if I were to keep an audience like this indoors very long on a -- as beautiful a day as this. So I can assure you, this will not run past 3:00, and everybody can look forward to the heaven beyond. Now, the -- to list a few more sins and ask a few questions. First --
well, not first because I gave you some sins yesterday. Here are some more. I want to talk first about the sin which you, as theologians, if you -- those who are, and -- those of you who are identified with the theological point of view, and those of us who are identified with the behavioral science and psychiatry point of view, would both agree that this is sin. And curiously enough, it's one that the public doesn't quite understand either one
of us about. I'm talking about self-adoration. I'm not going to talk about selfishness, quite -- or self-love. Any of these words is wrong, so I'm trying to use a word, an expression, a little bit different from the one you usually use perhaps in your sermons, perhaps in your therapeutic work. I have many patients that I have to say, to, essentially, "But you're so preoccupied with yourself; you're so over-concerned
with what happens to you. You know there are other people. There are even the people that you do things to, or you neglect." And I'm sure that clergymen have, similarly, the responsibility for saying, either publicly or privately, something to the same effect. We both agree this is, shall we say in the vernacular, this is bad for the individual and its bad for the world. And what kind of situation is this? Is it an illness?
Is it a symptom of an illness, or is this purely a dereliction, a failure to live up, a failure of one's will for the better, and so forth? I'm not just talking about -- I might say, I notice a point here I want to make that, probably the clergyman would most often call it, something like selfishness. This has a
moralistic tone to it, you see; and the minister, clergymen, are not ashamed of moralistic words. Doctors still are a little bit, so they have technical words for it and they call it narcissism or something of that kind, but this really means not just self-love, which is an important thing that one should have; love is not destructive; love is always a constructive. I'm speaking now not as an interpreter of
the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians; I'm speaking as a doctor. Love, by definition in psychiatry, is a constructive force, always. You can't do any damage by love. The kind of so-called "love," love in quotation marks that does damage, is the same kind of love that gets on the front page of popular music sheets. But, I'm not talking now about self-love but
rather about a kind of self-over-concern, self-preoccupation, and investment of energies in oneself which should be turned to the outside world. Without a certain amount of self-appreciation and self-regard and so forth, one doesn't ever develop much
regard for anybody else. But the theory, at least, of personality development is that this love gets shifted in the course of living, so that one can give up the original infantile preoccupation and begin to think about other people. The whole psychoanalytic -- the whole psychoanalytic theory of the personality
development, so-called psychosexual development, begins with this notion. I know you will not need me to point out to you the comparison of this with the, I believe, the Christian doctrine that one grows in one's capacity for loving others, more than one -- as much as, and more than, oneself. Well, now in spite of our medical ideal about what maturity is, that
stage in which the object is really the -- in which another person in the outside world is really the object of our great concern, greater concern than our self -- that tendency to grow to that goal, the ability to transform erotic attachment into agápe
attachment, is in a way the idealized course of education of maturity, of improved or increased civilization and all sorts of similar expressions which describe the evolution of the individual from a very primitive, -- from a primitive biological cell through a very helpless and
a little self-directed organism to the mature adult. Nevertheless, we are not -- nevertheless, I shouldn't -- that isn't the right adverb. I should say: Correspondingly, we are all the time seeing around us people who have failed or who are failing in some degree in this evolutionary course. They are not growing out;
they are not learning to love a few other people than themselves. The -- this even gets glorified or gets frankly acknowledged as a way of life. It gets reflected in our language. It gets reflected in some of our conventions. I don't know how many of you saw a movie some time ago called, I'm All Right Jack, the substance of which was this particular,
the very unscrupulous, the very self-advancing, rugged, individualist -- this eager beaver, this aggressive young man -- and I'm using phrases that I'm hoping you would detect a slightly sour flavor to because they're in common use; they're in use as if they were something to be proud of; and in this particular instance, the ironical
overtones become very, very clear to the audience. I'm all right, Jack, because I look out for myself; I look after number one and he's getting along, and he gets along by fair means and foul. And you're soon aware that things being all right for Jack means they're not all right inside of Jack, and they're not all right for the world either. I think that it's interesting to look for
the subtle defenses of this idea; I've hinted at some of them. The way this is praised in certain circles in the success cult -- particularly in the some of the movements and conventions that have to do with, in
certain interpretations, of the thing called success -- it can be very piously done. And I wonder if you share with me a certain evolution in thought. Occurred, I don't know when, many years ago. But I used to say over -- rather sententiously, I was at one time in amateur dramatics, and then subsequently I was -- had a hobby of
Shakespeare, and so forth. And many times I said, with great fervor and conviction and dedication, those words of Petronious [sic] beginning that: "And to our own self be true, and it follows as..." Remember? "...it follows as the day to night that we cannot be false to any man." Well, think what sophistry.
Think what dishonesty. Think what incredible immorality it is to say, "Look after number one and then you'll just incidentally be looking after everybody else. If you just be a complete self-sufficient person, just be true to yourself; never mind the people that live over on the other side of the city; be true to yourself." Now how much... I used to -- I think I used to
love this expression, and I think how much now, I despise it, as I think it is this kind of dishonest teaching that the youth rebel against. The youth say, "That's the kind of tripe you used to teach us, you Petronious -- you Poloniuses, you." And they shake their fists at us and say, "You know that isn't so; you try to teach -- you try to stuff it down our throats."
And I was telling a group of the staff faculty this morning about a play that I saw in London at the World Mental Health Congress in which the students, the College of London, had written and produced a play which at first shocked all of us. But before it was through and after we got to thinking about it, the whole assembly was excited about it. And substance's what it was. It was a very irreverent play but
in a sense, very spiritual play. It showed God and Jesus and Gabriel up on the high balcony, which was very rickety, and the -- they had -- they were communicating with one another in very colloquial terms. And God's calls out: "Gabe? Gabe, come here and give me another one of those bowls; I want to smite some more. (inaudible),
what can I smite?" And He continues this general attitude of, "They not behaving as they should; you know I told you they wouldn't; give me another one of those bowls." And this sort of goes on to quite get into the spirit of it, I'm telling you. Meanwhile the individual who was supposed to represent Jesus, dressed very much like what we would call a hippie, kept saying, kept kind of whining: "I don't think you ought to
do that. (inaudible) do that." Well, God was very impatient with this youngster and said, "Can't you keep still? You don't know what's going on here, anyway. We always had -- you always had those big fat ideas in your head; they isn't going to get you nowhere." Then, there's some more very practical behavior, sort of an up-to-date Green Pastures, or in terms of Cockney instead of a Southern dialect.
Well, it goes on and there are various interchanges of this kind, and one place Jesus said, "Nobody's listening to me; I'm not going to stay here much longer." So finally He decides He won't stay in heaven; they won't listen to him there. "Going down there, those people that are getting smited all the time, and that's a lot more hospitable place to live. And then you'll be sorry I went!" And sure enough they are sorry, and so on. Well,
as I say, it seemed at first it was quite irreverent and people, at first, we all laughed, you know, at the rather uncomfortable air (inaudible). Before long, everybody got to be very intense and very quiet. They'd be interested in this whole view, and we saw what they were saying. The young people were saying: Well, that's what you taught us; you taught us that God was a smiter; you taught us that He was smiting people right and left; that's what you taught us, and we want to
have a religion but we can't accept it quite in your terms. And some of us old squares were a little bit moved by this. On the whole, it seemed to me -- well, I can't say subtle appeal, but this symbolic appeal of the fact that there's a new language afoot. There was a time when expressions like "To thyself be true," were noble sentiments.
That was before they any idea what they meant. What they mean being true to yourself? And the youth stop and think about those expressions that we hand out as Polonius did, and which some Shakespeare authorities think was already an attempt on his part to ridicule the sophistry and pretentious pedantry of his day. Be that as it may, I think that
the preoccupation with one's self becomes malignant when it becomes self-destructive, and it does become self-destructive. It's self-destructive when it begins to preoccupy the individual completely and begins to keep him from the proper investment of himself in the outside world, the human and the nonhuman elements. You know that's one of the -- come back to
marijuana later, but let me say at the moment that even those who defend the use of marijuana give this as one of their fears: that marijuana seems to greatly intensify the personal internal experiences. That it, for some individuals, it is a device for withdrawal, which we withdrawing (inaudible), more and more from the very world that he wants to learn, painful that though it may be
to invest himself in more and more. The -- one hears these malignant, selfish -- one hears malignant selfishness also, and not only in Shakespearean and other Victorian and later Victorian
piety of that kind, but you hear it in expressions like this: "This business is run for the purpose of making a profit. And that is our main, our primary, our only purpose." Now this sounds very businesslike, you know. This sounds like this is this -- you're the man who's being very honest and frank. No business is run merely for a profit. All businesses are run,
if one doesn't include anything else, all businesses are run for the occupation of the people that run them. Money -- life doesn't consist only in making profits; life consists in making friends, making acquaintances, making deals, making exchange of ideas, making conversation, making small talk, making big talk, making big deals, making little deals, and all of this goes on in the business. So the man who really believes that he's saying something wise and sententious
when he says that, "This business is run to make a profit; don't expect us to do anything else; or, if we do anything else, it's for the purpose of making a profit indirectly," -- this sounds like hard-boiled business talk. It's really only the ignorance of the speaker. Now the degree to which other factors are recognized by the officials in the company, that's something very else; that's something else again.
What those men mean usually, who make this statement, is: We're not running this for the benefit of employees. But you see, they are. Why do they kid themselves? You don't separate out the original motive from the actual motive, operationally, whether they run it for that or not; that is what occurs and since that is what occurs, that is what -- that is a part of the
definition. I don't want to labor this point to this intelligent audience; you all see what I mean. But, you hear the similar kind of narcissism in expressions like this: "We should all mind our own business." Keep our nose out of this or that country or this or that problem, and so forth. And then another common expression: "What is there in it for me?" Now some people wouldn't use that expression for anything, but it is what they're thinking. Other people would use the expression
frankly, to show how detached they are from any hypocritical concealment of it. Then again, of a malignant form of self-love, of course, is what we psychiatrists call phallicism. Now phallicism does not mean masturbation. Masturbation is not necessarily self-love at all, and self -- it is based on the --
it is a physical process which is often detached from the much psychological content and which depends entirely upon the fantasy life. The real opposition to sexual -- the real sexual pathology that we regard as being tinctured by over-weaning self-interest, is that which exploits the love partner;
that is, using a love partner for -- period. Using a love partner. A love partner is not for use. This simply is a kind of a -- this is a kind of a dishonest representation of the sexual impulse and this is oftentimes a very important symptom of (inaudible) in some people. Well, you say, "Can you call this a sin?
Isn't it true that this represents some inhibition or interference in the development of the individual or, so to speak, a failure to mature as yet -- or completely, and so forth?" Yes, I would agree. But, "Well," they said, or I might say, "isn't this simply a hang-up or temporary interruption in what would be the normal evolutionary development and growth toward maturity?"
Yes, I would say it was. But I would say, on the other hand, the sin part of it come in the fact that this is continuously a struggle. Unselfishness requires effort. The natural psychology is not to be so unselfish, not to invest in outside people, anymore than it is necessary for my own self-advancement. And that's where civilization, culture,
Christianity -- all these things that we mean when we talk about character growth -- that's where it comes in; but that's not achieved simply by sitting back and letting character grow, you know, or even exposing one's self to the Fifth and Eighth -- and Seventh Symphony now and then. Character growth is a matter of constant struggle against the temptation of narcissism. Now, I'm speaking somewhat technically.
Now this is something I always try to avoid, but I can't say that in simpler words without using a great many more. Well, a second sin I thought I'd mention at this time would be cheating. There's cheating in the grade schools, and everybody knows; there's cheating, one kind or another, I'm told, in some colleges; there's certainly some cheating in homes, one kind another; one of the most popular books is about
various kinds of cheatings that go on in the suburbs; there's good deal of cheating in business, I read in the paper, and occasionally it's detected; there's some cheating in politics, I suspect, although I wouldn't know any politicians that would do any cheating. Couldn't help but smile when I read Harpo -- or, Groucho Marx's frank statement yesterday that his -- he cheated in his taxes
when he could, as much as he could; and certainly this candor brought a smile to many people, I'm sure. Now, you -- one asks one's self about cheating: What does this really mean? Cheating can be a way of life, you know. I understand in the Chinese politics it is an accepted way of life. The question is, you just cheat more or less skillfully. And
this is a kind of a Machiavellian possibility. We could get that more widespread in this country; we sort of think we've grown up with a different presumption, but we could be wrong. Now I remember some years ago, and I was at the academy at Colorado Springs. I spent some time with the psychologists there, because this was long before the scandal; and if you don't know what I mean by the scandal, I don't want to
rub it in. There was some trouble out there. But at that time, we psychologists -- I included myself -- we psychologists were talking about what is the effect of this extraordinary, this enormously exaggerated, so-called honor system in which it was your duty not to even accidentally or by implication or
by inference tell a lie. If you were subject to question: "Did you make your bed?" "Yes, sir." "Did you put your sheets straight?" "Yes." "Did you tuck the pillow in?" "Yes. Yes, sir." "Did you put your foot locker back?" "Yes, sir." "Did you sweep the room?" "Yes, sir." "Did you do this..." Constantly, bing, bing, bing, bing. "And did you shine your shoes?" "Yes, sir." "More than four times?" "Yes, sir."
If one of these is wrong -- and you can think all day about it -- and then I say, "Yes, I believe I did shine my shoes," -- if one is wrong, then it was your next duty go and report yourself: "I lied to you this morning, sir. I had not shined my shoes four times, only three times." But this is...
I'm not exaggerating; I wish I were. But this sort of a (inaudible) scrupulosity began to be the -- permeate the school, and was at that time, in what seemed to us a rather startling way. To me it did. I won't go into all the details, because along this was a great deal of hating of the first-year men, you know -- by standing in detention while the others ate their meals, and running, not walking,
to each class and to each next appointment. You could always -- you could tell which was the first-year men because they always had to run; they were not allowed to walk across the campus; they must run. Second-, third-, and fourth-year men could walk. Well, this regime, this became a system. These men got into this like men in an order would get used to getting up at 3:00 in the morning and saying prayers and so forth. These cadets were all used to it, and they were -- I was much impressed with this; I never saw anything like this;
I had no idea this was this way. And I didn't know anything about the tremendous emphasis on not lying. This man that reported that he had not shined his shoes as he had said, was, of course, sent out of school. You -- oh yes. You don't get suspended; that's the end. That's the end of his career as a flier, as an Air Force man; and this seemed to be such tremendous
punishment -- of course, what seemed to me such minor types of sin -- that I got very interested in what was the nature of the thing called sin. What is the sin in cheating? If you're -- if you can get so much better grades by a little cheating, then maybe cheating is more ethical than not cheating. Because look: You're holding yourself back; you're giving yourself a raw deal; you're not following
the -- your -- the peer estimate. I'm not going to give you all the pros and cons, but I happened to have been reading a few college newspapers recently. And the question is: If you're not going -- who are you eluding when you cheat? Who do you have to elude? Is cheating merely, you elude the stupid professor? Or, does it merely mean the only way you have to retaliate against the stupid questions? Or is the only way you get to express yourself is
having no sympathy whatsoever with the kind of examinations you're given? There're all kinds of these reasons, you see. But the fact remains that, for most of us teachers, cheating seems to be kind of a sin. There are those who keep insisting it's only a symptom -- and it's a symptom of your bad teaching methods. It's a symptom of the educational ferment moment; it's a symptom of the overstress on
not cheating, that in some places, you know, that's what came out at the time of the scandal that I referred to, the big misfortune. The overemphasis on this has, of course, the effect of challenging somebody to do just the -- that which is forbidden. The old "bean in ear" business. Well, be that as it may, I mention this as being a certain tendency in human life that
I don't often hear discussed in the pulpit. It does get discussed a great deal clinically, because patients are often feeling very guilty about certain things and they tell their psychiatrist. I don't know whether they tell their clergyman or not, when they do some of these forbidden things. But at any rate, they expect their psychiatrist to forgive them, and go on and say what caused that. And I suppose they think their clergyman will be a little
more disappointed and reproachful; I don't know. Of course we ought to all be reproachful, because, seems to me, we can't seriously consider dishonesty and accepted dishonesty as a way of life in this country. But whose -- but, I ask you this question: Whose responsibility is it to exhort the weaker brethren to greater efforts? That is to say, let us say: Some can't refrain teaching; they're not quite as smart
as we are, and they don't know all the answers; and if they don't cheat a little, they're going to be hopelessly behind this. Who is going to exhort the weaker brethren against trying to elevate their status by incorrect methods? They know they can do this in ordinary life, why not in school? they say. Why must we live in an artificial environment where we can't use all the tricks and cheating devices we want to? Now this is such an easy question to answer, you know,
other than merely appealing to the eternal verities. How do you do it, and how do you manage it, and who does it? Who is the Jeremiah who stands up there and shakes his finger and says, "Now look: In the long run, cheating's only going to hurt you." Of course, the student don't believe this. What do you mean? It hurt me nothing. It's the only way I can get by. If I don't get by,
I crack out of the school; I'm a disgrace at home; my mother would be brokenhearted; my father would be angry. I can't afford this. I've got to choose the lesser of two evils. I better do a little cheating. Well, the lemons of this kind are not so rare. The question is: Have we any right to passing judgment -- pass judgment on this and say that was a sin? Well,
I want to come rapidly to the third-type sin because I promised to get you out of here. The slaves in the South were tortured, I want to say, but that isn't perhaps right. They were kept in their place by one device which few people seem to know about when
I tell them. I don't know how I first ran across the matter, but I'm referring to the fact they were not given salt, now, for their food. Now, salt was more of a luxury in those days than it is now, and that was more of a gift. Now their not being given salt, of course, greatly diminished the pleasure in eating. There was -- one was still hungry and one ate from hunger,
but one ate much more like the animal -- which, this day, was more or less considered to be by many. So people have discovered, and since then, numerous other things that make the food taste very much better: salt, spices, pepper, and on. Now, what's the psychology of this? Something that makes your life
spicy and better? Something chemical? Some chemical thing that you can take and induce thereby some change in your sensations? If you enjoy your food more with salt, maybe you enjoy other things more with some other kind of salt that we might discover. This idea of the question of using drugs, some of the drugs which chemistry has discovered -- these
powerful substances, a small amount of which produce either more pleasant or less painful effect. Every time I take a five-grain tablet of aspirin -- that's the tablet you ordinarily have -- I think I'm taking a miracle drug. There was nothing like it known to the ancients, you know. Nothing. They had aches and pains; they had headaches; they had all the things that you have, and they
had no aspirin. This is the slave that had no salt. And one can make some other examples of people who just didn't have what you take for granted so easily. I mention this because I don't know whether you will want to object to the principle of one -- to the principle, I say -- that one shouldn't take a chemical that might make you feel differently. If you did, you'd have to object to them begun taking alcohol a
long time ago, as you know. And certainly, at the very dawn of civilization, we're finding various ways to take C2H5OH, and other... So it's probably the best-known and wide -- most wide-spread drug or chemical was taken, (inaudible) not necessary for food, more or less some food value. It was probably the first one, and the oldest, and it was found to have a different effect on different people. It soothes some people; it
relieves the pain of some people; it has a numbing effect; it was the only anesthetic that was used during many of the wars that we read about in history, as you know. The only anesthetic they had for the surgical operations was, in that sense, an anesthetic. It excites some people. It has enabled millions of miserable people to survive with some degree of sanity and peace. I'm thinking of the
gin drinkers of London, who, we think of them as drinking gin because they're so low; and I mean being so low because they drink gin. Remember that the -- many of them drank gin weren't low because they drank gin; they drank gin because they were so low and miserable and had so little in the way of what -- creature comforts of any kind: warmth, affection, fresh air, freedom of
vermin, and all the rest. Well, some of that still goes on. We know the alcohol does some other things. We know that it enslaves some. And I think perhaps we oughtn't to just pass this over quickly, but remind ourselves that there are over five million American citizens suffering not from leprosy, not from tuberculosis, not from
heart disease, there are over five million people who are completely disabled on account of alcohol addiction alone. Now that -- stop and think about that. That's almost as many -- probably more as many people as live in this whole state; I don't know. That's a lot of people. And remember, too, that there's another five million that aren't practically that far gone. Not entirely disabled: They work occasionally;
they're on skid row or somewhere else and they get an occasional job; or they manage to keep on their feet. There are nearly 10 million people involved in this disease. Now can you imagine any other disease -- imagine any disease that afflicted 10 million of us that would not excite more national alarm, more concern in seminaries and universities, and White Houses and parliaments,
and everywhere else? Can you imagine any condition that wouldn't be alarm? We've just, you know, evil vices, monster of such hideous mean that to be hated means but to be seen. You only need to see a vomiting, careening, screaming, or entirely unconscious drunk, and you say, I hate this evil. But: "seen to oft, familiar with the face, we
first endure, then pity, then embrace." And we have, in a sense, of -- not embraced alcohol addiction. We have certainly let it go for long times despite of the fact that we do not know, even to this moment, the appropriate or effective thing to do about it. Psychiatry does not know what to do with the whole
question of alcohol addiction. Alcoholics Anonymous do their level best and help quite a few people. That's only a drop in the bucket. It's helpful only to the -- to an intelligent minority and so on. Now this is a dreadful problem in America. If I were just looking around for some great sin and some great evil and some great -- to proclaim about, I think I'd
stay on that. It's so far greater a problem in this country than marijuana, opium, morphine, and nicotine -- well, not nicotine; there's a question about nicotine -- but certainly all the drug addiction that we've made so much about that we put people in the penitentiary about, and we hail them into the courts and we do this and that with them in some frantic effort to stop a dreadful thing, while a far more dreadful thing is going on all the time,
and in every state, and in spite of all sorts of corrective efforts such as the one we made in -- nationally, in which we made in Kansas and one or two other states some years ago. It's seemingly impossible to legislate virtue -- that's assuming that alcohol addiction is a sin. It's also almost impossible to legislate health, and that's assuming that alcohol addiction is an illness. I don't know
what you think it is; I'd like to get a vote. How many here think that alcohol addiction is primarily an illness? How many think alcohol is primarily a bad habit? How many think, in that sense -- you may not want to... You can take your hand down if you want to. It's a bad habit and the implication is that it's a sin, right? And you people that
voted that it was an illness say it is also a bad habit; it's also a sin -- how many of those that voted that it is an illness think it is also a sin? You -- in other words, you think there's a voluntary element in it even though it's a disease. Is that what you think?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 2: Alcoholism produces alcoholism.
MENNINGER: Well, now that's interesting if it doesn't. Gasoline doesn't produce it; I know! This gentleman is quite right. Now I don't want him to be -- feel ridiculed, but the point is that nothing else that'd ever been discovered seems to appeal to these habit-seeking, relief-seeking needs of the human being like
alcohol does. So while it's true that the alcohol doesn't come and say, "Start drinking me and become an addict," it has some peculiar qualities for some individual and we don't know why. There are those who think this is something in the genes, some susceptibility in the constitution; there are others who think this is psychological conditioning. There's the others who think... There are all kinds of -- other think this is a purely chemical complication
for individuals who don't properly get glucose satisfactions. All kinds of theories about it, and every psychiatrist is haunted with a certain number of people whom he treats, or ought to be treating, or is asked to treat. What can a few thousand psychiatrists do with 10 million alcoholics? Now, I tried to impress on you that if you think this is an illness,
then you better whip up some more concern on the part of my profession. But if you think it is partly, at least, sin -- and I want to whip up a little more attention on the part of your profession, because I am a strong -- I am strongly convinced that the -- every addict reaches a point, it's true, where he is helpless. In fact, AA will not
take a man that doesn't say, "I can't help myself at all. I have to surrender completely; I've always said I could partially control this, but now I say I can't." Now long before they get to that point, the alcoholic always assumes, contrary to what you say, that he has no disease; he'd merely gotten into a bad habit. So if you think it's an illness, you're disagreeing with most of the alcoholics themselves. That doesn't prove you wrong, you know;
they all think it's a sin. They all admit, "Well, I used too much; I shouldn't have done that. Yes, that -- I'm sorry about that; that won't happen again; I'm not going to drink anymore. I'm absolutely off all during Lent; you'll see; I'll be all right." You know, I've heard these pitiful statements and these pleas, these little pretenses, I've heard these for 50 years; I've seen these poor people crash time and
time and time again and I've seen their whole families go down with them. And this, seems to me, can't be other -- can't be considered entirely an illness. However, I'm not going to answer that question until tomorrow. I'm going to say: What about -- you're going to ask me, but what about some other drugs? What about nicotine? Nicotine: We know that nicotine kills thousands of people every year.
We know that it's a fatal -- that, inside, it's a fatal illness in many people, not in all people. Not all people who take alcohol get addicted to it, either, but some people do. Some people who take nicotine -- yet they have developed various diseases, but primarily cancer of the lung. Well, what shall we do about that? Is it, then, a sin to smoke, to -- "If meat
causeth my brother to offend, I will eat no meat while the world standeth." But that apparently is not anybody's model anymore, because lots of people go on smoking regardless of the fact it isn't good for them, and regardless of the fact that it isn't good for people around them. Now, I'm a little ashamed to talk this way because, you see, I'm a reformed smoker, and they're always the worst, you know. They're like converts. But,
I think such a beautiful illustration of something that we know is fatal, we know is dangerous, we know as a drug that is far more toxic than a number of the drugs that the young people get put in the penitentiary for. Yet we not only... You can buy it over the counter anywhere, and our friends are using it and even offering it to us. Well, might as well talk a little bit about the marijuana and peyote and all these other drugs. Depending on how you get
introduced to these things, you may have a different idea. My introduction was through Professor [LeBar?], who (inaudible), who teaches (inaudible) -- He teaches in this state somewhere, one -- universities, Rutgers, I think. Well any rate, whether -- LeBar made a study some years ago for the missionaries in the Southwest, and for the United States government, to see if the
peyote ceremony, which is a basis of a religion among some of the Southwest Indians in whom I am interested, whether it was really dangerous, because some of the missionaries were very much concerned about it. They said, "There's pretty serious competition. These Indians get very religious and very devout; they get a great thrill out of these things; and we'd rather you come over to our church and be thrilled and follow the true light," and so forth. So the missionaries in the Indian country were displeased, and the Indian
agents were displeased because they said, "These Indians, you know, they ought to be out working on their farms. Instead, they're going in there and having religious services, and religion is a kind of a necessary evil; we ought to have as little of it as possible." So, between the agents and the missionaries, the Indians who were having these peyote ceremonies had a hard time. And every once in awhile, they would persuade one of the state legislators to pass laws that -- knowing the Indians couldn't use any peyote. Well, this is like saying
that no Christian church could have any more grape juice or wine. And very disturbing to the, something like a hundred thousand Indians that belonged to this church. I get interested in this. Well, for -- Dr. LeBar was sent there, down there, by the Smithsonian Institute, and the United -- and the Department of the Indian Affairs to investigate it. And he spent a year down there, visiting many of these Indians and attending the peyote ceremonies. How many here have ever attended a peyote ceremony?
Don't -- I will say I have, so then you won't be afraid. Heard a federal judge speaking in one (inaudible) colleges there in Chicago. And forgetting himself in his enthusiasm, he said, "I don't believe the youth are as bad as you picture them. Why," he said, "I'll -- why, there's not so very much this stuff used around here. How many of you are really using marijuana?" The man next to him said, "Do -- can I hear what -- I cannot believe what I hear: a federal
judge asking the students at a university to rise up and offer themselves for the penitentiary." The judge says, "Pardon me, I -- what I meant to say is: How many of you think there is some being used around here?" The students gave a great roar of approbatory laughter and held up their hands. Well, I want to say also, you don't need to think that we are
taking down any names, but if you've attended the peyote ceremony, you may not have taken any peyote, so you are exonerated on that basis. Actually, these are very reverential, very dignified, very quiet, meditative, reflective, constructive services. I can only speak of it in the most positive terms. I was accompanied by a Jesuit friend of mine
and a couple of other psychiatrists. I can't remember just how many of us were in the party. But this was a great experience for all of us, whether we took peyote or not, because you still sit through the church services whether you took it or not. And you couldn't help but agree with Dr. LeBar who had said, "This is one of the most constructive things that these people encounter. It's one of the few times they get together in a quiet, social,
non-raucous way." He praised it so highly that I got interested in it, and I've followed it some ever since. Now, of course, we're learning that this is one of the hallucinogenic drugs, which -- more severe, more distilled forms of which are being used even by some of the students with some rather deleterious effects; and we're learning it is a close relative of lysergic acid which is certainly capable of having some severe effects, although
some of our doctors have been using it for therapeutic purposes for some time. And in the background, there's this really quite different substance, marijuana, which a great many people have been taking at the urging of people like Aldous Huxley, and other, for some time. Now, what should we make of all these drugs? How do you decide? Is taking a drug a disease? Is taking the drug a bad habit? Is taking the drug a sin? I'd like to
ask you again: How many think. -- just vote, you know? You can change your vote tomorrow if you want to, but how many would vote that taking -- we'll start with marijuana -- how many would vote that marijuana taking is a symptom -- as a symptom, let us say, of student fatigue, of boredom, of desire for new experience and so forth? It's a symptom that says, I want something more exciting than school. All right. How many think that
shooting acid is a symptom -- lysergic acid injections, I mean? How many think that? How many think that this, that marijuana is -- smoking is just a bad habit -- it's a sin, a bad habit and not a symptom? Well gracious, I'm certainly startled. The law thinks it's a sin; are there no lawyers present? The law thinks it's a crime, don't they? Isn't
it, officially? I don't -- isn't? Yes, possessing it even. Well now what about lysergic acid. How many think that's a sin? Well you better think so; pretty serious offense, not only legally but medically. And if you think cutting off your finger or cutting your finger is a sin -- how many think that? How many think self-mutilation is
a sin? You know, you think that's just a symptom? Well... How about piercing your ears? Well, now, it's nearly 3:00 and I'm going to leave you a few questions with you. Some -- we'll try to answer some tonight with your help. In the first place, what's -- what
is it you think is sin or symptom? Is it the principle of an unnatural modification of mood, or unnatural way to effect the body -- juices, you know? We criticize the Catholics for talking about natural and unnatural treatments, or some of that kind; nevertheless we all admit that there is more natural that -- don't we? Is it more natural to take water than to take lysergic acid?
Would you say that? Well, all right. Is it -- but, on the other hand, well, aspirin is not entirely natural, although you can get some of it out of certain plants, weak dose of it. How many object to the principle of attempting to modify a mood artificially,
either to relieve pain, or to have more excitement? Because you know, those may not be so different. Many people get pained by boredom and by the -- by anxiety that nothing is going to happen, which isn't exactly boredom, but which can get very painful. If you sit in a office waiting for two, three hours for the dentist, you know what I mean, or the doctor, and so forth. A few of us are carrying on a campaign
that really has no relevance. I know it ought to have relevance because of some young people, and if it doesn't have relevance it's no good; but, hadn't much relevance except there is an act... There is a little move among some of us doctors to eliminate a medical sin, which is the sin of keep the people -- especially poor people -- waiting on the benches four or five hours; and the pain they suffer in their ears or somewhere else is nothing compared to the pain they fear of that. They suffer from apprehension, and I
think this is a piece of cruelty that we've just unconsciously slipped into. Well, as I told you, this has no relevance. But is it the -- in far as these drugs concerned, do you object to the habit? Is that what you object to? Is it -- it is an accustomed dependence on a certain thing. How many object to the fact that it becomes a habituated part of -- a way of life, becomes habitual, and you're habituated to it,
and are dependent upon it instead of merely an occasional indulgence? How many object to it on that basis? Fine. What do you people do about coffee? I didn't bring caffeine into this discussion. Caffeine has a whole lot of its unpleasant effects, you know, its dangerous effects; we didn't discuss them. Stop and think about that. What about the -- I -- I'm just; I can't... "I'm just awful until I've
had my coffee in the morning," say some people. Most people, they're not apologizing. What are they saying? "I'm just terrible until I have my first marijuana cigarette." What a -- then you say, "Well hold -- call the cops; we've got an --" Why? Here are two kinds of addiction. Now what is it you think people object to, I ask you? And I'm going to tell you now. Is it the byproducts and side effects
that you're worried about? For example, in the case of cigarettes, you know one thing that -- in the case of coffee, there's some cardiac stimulation and so forth. Is it the side effects that you're worried about? You can -- or, is it the inability to discontinue something which seems in some way or therefore to be an actual poisoning of the will or paralysis of the will such as one cannot stop? People that would gradually give up
everything: We know that gamblers do this, as well as drinkers; we know that drug-takers will do this and then complain about it. They do a great deal more complaining than any of the others. But compulsive gambling is a great -- which has nothing to do with drugs, ordinarily -- is another example of the -- of this self-destructiveness in the form of a dependence
upon something which began, as the individual himself thought, as a good thing, as a comforting thing, as a pleasant thing, as a life-saving thing -- and ends up as a form of suicide. Well now, this evening... I don't know whether I'll tell you what I'm going to do this evening. I'll keep you in suspense. But, having listed these symptoms -- I beg your pardon, having listed these symptoms and sins, things that seems -- seemed to me to be
appropriately disapproved of by us moralists, and some of which are treated by us doctors -- having listed some of these, I want to -- I want you to help me define, describe, in somewhat new terms, what you think to be what we think -- what we can say, we believe to be -- the essence of sinning. Not some general, theological
term like alienation from God or alienation from reality, and so forth, but I want you to help me, rather, to define these in very practical, pragmatic terms which we will -- can compare with similar definitions of symptom. There, it's just 3:00, and the sun's shining, and I wish you well out there.
(inaudible, background chatter)