Should A.A. remain anonymous?

Rob B put me onto a topic here and I'd like to present it here in such a way that we see both sides... and maybe some interesting comments that this topic generates.

Please bear with my cutting and pasting;

Heard on NPR, "Taking the A out of A.A."

http://www.nhpr.org/sites/all/mediaplayer/audioplayer.html

An article from the New York Times that began “I’m David Colman and I’m an alcoholic” went viral last week and generated page upon page of discussion online and in print. In it, Colman openly discussed his 15 years of recovery and spoke to other sober people who think that it may be time to revise the anachronistic stigma of addiction and alcoholcs anonymous’s public relations policy that states “ we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.”


Links:

■the new york times piece on a.a.

■responses to dave's piece

________________________________________
 
Then a seconde article here from the N.Y. Times titled "Challenging the second A in A.A.";
 
________________________________________
 
Then, finally an article from The Telegraph discussing why the idea would be a big mistake and why we should not violate the traditions set forth titled "Dropping the Anonymity Rule would be Disastrous for Alcoholics Anonymous";
 
In an interesting piece on the New York Times website, from Sunday’s paper, a recovering alcoholic named David Colman asks whether the anonymity requirement, which Alcoholics Anonymous imposes on its members, is outdated. He thinks it is old-fashioned because these days there’s no reason to be ashamed of addiction. I think dropping the anonymity rule would be a disaster. It’s an essential part of AA’s success, and the organisation tampers with this key principle at its peril. I think that shame drives addiction, but the antidote to shame is not necessarily incontinent openness – just as the remedy for constipation isn’t diarrhoea.



Why is AA anonymous? Well, here are some of the things AA says on the subject. The 12th tradition states that “anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions”. AA expects its members to “place principles before personalities”. They are expected not to “break” their anonymity in public. And the rules specify they should respect “personal anonymity at the level of press radio and television”. AA’s public relations policy is based on “attraction rather than promotion”. Consider that when famous people trumpet their AA credentials, potential members are as likely to be put off having anything to do with AA, as they are to be encouraged.


The New York Times piece is worth reading. It has contributions from John Cheever’s daughter, Susan, who you’d expect to know more than most about alcoholism. She wrote a piece in The Fix, an addiction magazine, asking whether it was time to take the “A” out of AA. As with Colman, her view is that addiction is an illness, it no longer taints the sufferer with a social stigma, so it’s unhealthy to be secretive about it.


Is she right? Only up to a point, I think. You shouldn’t stigmatise alcoholics, of course not. But alcoholism does involve the operation of free will to an extent, and therefore it is never going to be morally neutral. It’s a disorder of the mind and the soul. But it’s not just the same as diabetes or cancer. And there are plenty of good reasons why ordinary people, as opposed to show-offs and celebrities, will want to remain discreet about an alcoholic history, even if it was years in the past. As Mary Elizabeth Williams puts it in Salon:


Not everyone has the freedom of an Eminem to write an album called “Recovery” and sport an AA triangle at the Grammys. Not everyone has the clout of Russell Brand, who has mirrored his famous bouts of excess and subsequent sobriety in Get Him to the Greek and Arthur. For others, there are profound social and career repercussions. If you’re a schoolteacher or a doctor, maybe you don’t want your colleagues and clients to know that a year ago, you were getting obliterated before work.


The extraordinary thing about AA is how little its members have meddled with it over the years – especially when you compare mainstream Christian denominations, which are forever churning out new and improved translations of their key texts.


The Big Book of AA, the founding text, remains virtually unchanged in its core chapters from when it was written in the 1930s. It retains the old-fashioned locutions of the American mid-west, the non-inclusive language, the talk of drinking “sprees” and the like. And few seriously want to update it. Why? Because it works, and AA members are sensibly reluctant to mess with it. Since anonymity was such an important founding principle, better leave it as it is, surely.

_______________________________________________________

You'll see my comments at the end of the last link.