This blog post is written from the influence of Brian Coon’s practice of drawing lessons from outside the addiction, treatment, and recovery field (See Coon’s 2024 post Lessons from outside the field: “Both sides of the string”).
On July 3, 2026, Ezra Klein released an interview with Bryan Stevenson titled The America That’s Still Possible. On the eve of America’s 250th anniversary, Klein introduces the episode with the following questions:
“Talking to Stevenson, I was interested in the question: How do you create a history of this country that loves it in its totality? How do you work with America’s past and its present in a way that doesn’t trap you in pain, but also doesn’t force you to inhabit only an imagined glory? How do you have a story that pushes a country forward, that enhances rather than reduces the bonds of brotherhood and solidarity between people within it?”1
Bryan Stevenson, remarkably, articulately, impactfully, and gracefully, occupies many roles and spaces. He is not just an attorney who founded the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI); he is also a preserver and interpreter of history (see EJI Legacy Sites).
Additionally, drawing upon his family legacy (the great-grandson of a formerly enslaved man), human rights work, and study of truth and reconciliation in other countries, Stevenson skillfully frames a national path for healing from the impact of chattel slavery, racial terror, and systems of racism. Change cannot happen without confronting the past.
“If you talk to military leaders in military colleges and all of these academies, what they study are the mistakes we have made during our past. It’s the misjudgments during war. It’s the miscalculations that created outcomes that we didn’t want. That’s what you study so that you don’t replicate those mistakes in the future.
You do the same thing in science. You do the same thing in business. That’s how we have succeeded. That’s how we have achieved in this country.
I don’t share the view that we are doomed. I don’t share the view that we are corrupted without any opportunity for repair.
I genuinely believe that there is something that feels more like freedom, more like equality, more like liberty and more like justice waiting for us in the United States. I think it’s just waiting. But we will not get there if we don’t find the courage to unburden ourselves from the parts of our history that hold us back. I genuinely believe that, and I see lots of examples of it all the time.”1
In reflecting on Stevenson, we considered the contributions of another important person in an adjacent but overlapping space. Similar to Stevenson, William White has remarkably, articulately, impactfully, and gracefully occupied many roles and spaces in the addiction recovery field. White has been a streetworker, counselor, clinical director, researcher, author, and well-traveled trainer and consultant. He has been a preserver and interpreter of history, while also casting new visions for the field and for the individuals, families, and communities it serves.
Both Stevenson and White have functioned to cheerlead and challenge.
In 2007, William White and William Miller co-authored an article for Counselor Magazine titled The Use of Confrontation in Addiction Treatment: History, Science, and Time for Change. The article explores styles of confrontation that emerged in voluntary, peer-based communities before extending to authority-based professional settings. In particular, they describe styles of confrontation that emerged in the mid-20th century.
“…addiction counselors developed and advocated a particular style of direct verbal confrontation of those with alcohol and other drug problems. These communications varied from frank feedback to profanity-laden indictments, screamed denunciations of character, challenges and ultimatums, intense argumentation, ridicule, and purposeful humiliation. Confrontation marked a dramatic break from earlier therapeutic traditions premised on the importance of neutral exploration, empathy, compassionate support, and positive regard for clients.”2
Within this history and context, White and Miller report that “four decades of research have failed to yield a single clinical trial showing efficacy of confrontational counseling, whereas a number have documented harmful effects, particularly for more vulnerable populations.”
White and Miller do not abandon the concept of “confrontation”; rather, they rethink “confrontation.”
“The clinical method of motivational interviewing has historically been taught as an alternative to confrontation, a diametrically opposite style. In watching demonstrations of this approach in workshops, however, counselors have at times observed, ‘This is actually very confrontational.’ Exploring just what they meant by this led to a different way of conceptualizing what confrontation is, and we believe it is time to rehabilitate this concept.
In its etymology, the word ‘confront’ literally means ‘to come face to face.’ In this sense, confronting is a therapeutic goal rather than a counseling style: to help clients come face to face with their present situation; reflect on it; and decide what to do about it. Once confronting is understood as a goal, then the question becomes how best to achieve it.”2
For those entering the addiction treatment and recovery field (and those who are in a process of unlearning/relearning), it may be helpful to consider this distinction. In our effort to avoid confrontational styles, have we forgotten the goal of confrontation? How can the goal of confrontation lead to a richer and fuller recovery?
(This post was written with input from Jason Schwartz)
- Klein, E. (2026). The America That’s Still Possible an interview with Bryan Stevenson. The New York Times. July 3, 2026. ↩︎
- White, W. L., & Miller, W. (2007). The use of confrontation in addiction treatment: History, Science, and time for change. Counselor, 8(4), 12–30. ↩︎
Artificial Intelligence Statement
The authors did not use AI in researching or writing this blog.
