More Is Being Revealed.....

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix. It's something I came across a while back and it applies to a lot of stuff we've been batting around. I especially like the analogy to the cancer ward. It's from a Guy named Floyd Henderson,and I think he says it all.










We in AA have signs posted everywhere, each with slogans, such as: “Think” (as if my thinking didn’t get me here and still can’t kill me, even to this day); or “One Day At A Time” (like I can make it without total commitment allowing for some future “reservation”); and “Easy Does It,” (which is advice offered in the Book to wife/husband whose spouse is beginning recovery, not to the alcoholic). None of those pieces of advice are in the original program of recovery. Yet we do not post the signs we should, such as (“The eye of the adulterer...disguises his face”); or (Beware: Hard Drinkers Inside”). Indeed, if you are a real alcoholic, the hard drinker may be a greater danger to you than alcohol itself.

I base that thesis on two comments from Bill Wilson himself. First, Bill said, in response to the rising rate of recovery failures that he began to see as a result of the message in the Book being warped through poor oral communication: “We cannot well content ourselves with the view that all these recovery failures were entirely the fault of the newcomer. Perhaps a great many did not receive the kind and amount of sponsorship that they so sorely needed. We did not communicate when we might have done so. So we AA’s failed them.” He also said that we must be ever vigilant to maintain the purity of our message, noting that “if AA is ever destroyed, it will be from within.” Bill also warned us that the Washingtonian recovery program, which was quite successful long before AA ever existed, was ultimately destroyed from within because they had neither rules (Traditions) nor a basic text (“The Big Book”) that could prevent the message from being twisted through oral communication.

So what problem can the hard drinkers cause us real alcoholics? Why can the killing things that are happening in AA be traced either to them or to alcoholics suffering from untreated alcoholism? First, early AA’s, like Earl T. and Paul M., report that the 75% success rate reported in the Big Book continues throughout their early years as well. So why do fewer than 6% of real alcoholics stay around long enough to get a 10 year chip nowadays? Research shows that 20% of the American population suffer from serious drinking problems, but only about half of those problem drinkers are real alcoholics. That means that we in America have as many hard drinkers as we have real alcoholics, and since it is easier for them to “stop or moderate”, we may well have more of them surviving in the fellowship than we have real alcoholics in recovery (program). And they offer opinions (instead of Book-based facts) and their opinions will kill us if we listen to them and follow their advice instead of the Book’s. They do not have to adhere to the “rules” (as we must) in order to live. Their strain of the disease is not necessarily fatal--as is ours--if we do not follow the rules precisely. With our fellows dying at such high rates and with the fellowship suffering such a low rate of success, isn’t it time we pay attention to our Traditions and the teachings of our program so that hard drinkers and alcoholics suffering the spiritual malady do not dominate our meetings with their lies?

Some drinkers can stay sober by choice (pages 20-21 for the “moderate drinker” and the “hard drinker”).Furthermore, the Book says that a moderate or hard drinker “can quit upon a non-spiritual basis”, depending upon “the extent to which he has lost the power to choose whether he will drink or not”. So I ask: if they can do it on their own; and if they are not here to work the steps; and if they are not helping guide others to a spiritual experience, what the heck are they doing hanging our around us? I don’t have cancer, so I don’t hang out on a cancer ward. If I did, I might be sicker, in fact, than the people there with cancer who don’t have a choice. Why would I want to associate with sick people in a cancer recovery program if I don’t have a fatal form of cancer?

Several possibilities exist to explain why I’m on that ward if I’m not dying of cancer. Maybe I overcame a mild form of cancer and now I want to tell them how they should treat their severe, fatal form --maybe I like the “expert” role that I think that allows me. Maybe my social skills have been so poorly developed that I am not welcome among the well people in our society--I need a captive audience of sick people who won’t walk out on me, no matter how obnoxious I might be. Maybe I sincerely think I can do them some good, though my mild form of the disease gives me no real understanding of their illness and what they really need to get well. Maybe I’m hanging out on the cancer ward because I just can’t handle life’s daily issues and I need someone to talk to. Maybe they even have free therapy sessions that I like to sit in on rather than pay a therapist myself. Maybe I’m even looking for someone to get into a relationship with, and it seems like a good place to look (now that is really a strange belief system, isn’t it? I’m going to go where people are dying to find me a life-long relationship! Man--I’m sicker than I thought, if I’m doing that.)

The danger in my roaming the cancer ward rests in the false information I might spread. I might say, since I had a mild form of cancer, “Hey--you really don’t have to do everything the doctor says. And you don’t have to do everything precisely or specifically the way he tells you to do it. In fact, let me share with you my opinions about treatment because this is all I had to do to get well, and it’s an easier, softer way than the way the doctors are telling you”. I might even tell them: “And forget this holistic approach to recovery--I did not have to pray. I did not have to turn to God. That part if their recovery program is really not needed--I’m living proof of that. Just treat the physical aspect of the disease.” My gosh. Simply by what I’m saying, simply by virtue of the words coming out of my mouth, I would be doing killing things on that ward, wouldn’t I? And don’t you think the people in charge would run my butt out of there in seconds? They would not sit by idly and let me spread information that will kill the people who are there seeking recovery.

The fact is that our hard drinkers (and some of our alcoholics suffering from untreated alcoholism) do all of that--they often use AA for social or self-serving purposes rather than for the purpose of working steps to “continued spiritual growth”. Like us real alcoholics, they, too, were told in their old drinking days to “Get out!”. Then they find AA (by some route) and we say, “Come back”. Wow--that’s new...that’s neat. So they also use AA as a Lonely Hearts Club, or for $1/hour therapy instead of $150/hour therapy, or for a place “to vent--to share--to air their issues”. They can live without evidencing a spiritual experience (they do not have to--they are not real alcoholics) and they do not extend true compassion for the struggle to do what they were able to do in a much easier fashion. Their attitude: “Hey, it was easy for me--so the heck with you. But keep coming back, O sick alky. It’ll get better”. (So what is the sign to those judgmental, pompous asses when I get better? Do I become like them? Are they the model? The prototype? I’m starting to feel the need for a new Fourth Step just thinking about them!).

Though we real alcoholics at first glance might look just like the hard drinkers, we are, in truth, very different. We must meet “requirements”--hard drinkers do not have to. We real alcoholics must do the work “precisely” and “specifically” and “Thoroughly”--hard drinkers do not have to. We must have a “psychic change”--they do not. We must undergo a “revolutionary change”--they do not have to. We are told that we have a “necessary element; namely, we are “required” to follow a “few simple rules”--they don’t have to. We are on a “life and death errand”--they aren’t. We must seek it “like a drowning man”--they do not have to. Thus comes the danger of being in a meeting with them: we hear from them the exact opposite of what we need to hear, the opposite of what our Book tells us. We hear statements and opinions that may be the truth for them but are fatal lies for us.

Who, therefore, needs to be wary of the hard drinkers, the “adulterers of AA?” Anyone who is a real alcoholic, for these wolves in sheep’s clothing are indeed the ones telling real alcoholics the lies, the myths, the fiction, the “middle-of-the-road-solutions” that we hear around the tables. And too often, we real alcoholics who (when sober) were withdrawn, were loners, were not comfortable speaking before crowds, find ourselves taking a back seat in AA to those more vocal, more self-assured, more authoritative hard drinkers who, though they may mean well, are really a danger to your chances at recovery and the very existence of our fellowship, too. If hard drinkers are not a part of the “common welfare”, carrying the common message--the “common solution”, then they have not met the requirements for AA membership. How long shall we sit by and forfeit ownership of our program through inaction?

So if we need to be wary of them, how do we identify the hard drinkers? Actually, they can help us identify them, if we are observant. First, the hard drinker often presents himself as the “Model AA”. (In reality, he is, because a “model” is defined as “an imitation of the real thing”. He will say to the newcomer, “I feel your pain”, but he will not roll up his sleeves and offer the many hours of service called for to sit-one-on-one with that newcomer and take him through the Book page by page. He is the guy in his second decade of sobriety who recently scoffed at those of us who get up earlier that usual each day for prayer and meditation. He is the one who I heard say recently to a real alcoholic: “I’m sick of your relapsing, and I’m sick of hearing you say you need more help than you’re getting. I don’t even want to be around you”. He is the one who I heard say recently: “I have double-digit sobriety, I worked the steps once when I came in 17 years ago, and my sponsor had me take it slow and easy, working the steps when I was comfortable”. (The hard drinker can do that--we real alcoholics, on the other hand, will die if we wait until we get comfortable before taking action). The hard drinker is the one with advanced years in the fellowship who says he “chose not to drink this morning”. He may be telling the truth. We, on the other hand, don’t have that privilege.

Additionally, he is the one who stays sober even as he contradicts the information in the Book. He says the Book is subject to “interpretation” (what he really means is “mis-interpretation”). He may be the one who has ordained himself the group’s elder statesman. He is the one who does not take his proteges from the cover to page 164, explaining every sentence and doing everything that the Book says exactly as prescribed in the Book’s “precise, specific, clear-cut directions”. He is the one who said recently, “That is not the way I work my program”. (Interesting...since when did he create a program? Can his program guarantee fulfillment of promises to us real alcoholics as the program of AA can?) Note: if any who are making those statements above happen to be real alcoholics, they are suffering untreated alcoholism again and need to get back to working the steps so that God’s love can be seen through their service and through their comments. So if we hear those same comments from a real alcoholic, he is back to suffering from untreated alcoholism, from the spiritual malady, from allowing unmanageability to creep back into his life because he stopped working the steps in a circular fashion, as was intended originally.

How, then, can we tell the two groups apart? Know that we need to, because if the real alcoholic is suffering from untreated alcoholism, we can help him. The hard drinker, on the other hand, can hurt us. We need to tell them apart. The alcoholic not working the steps will eventually separate himself from the hard drinker in several ways: (1) he will meet the description of the untreated alcoholic in the middle paragraph of page 52; (2) he will eventual go out and drink; or (3) he will commit suicide, that event occurring at a rate among us that is 75 times higher than among the general population. Remember: the hard drinker is the one who can stay sober while contradicting (through thought, word and deed) the instructions presented in the Book.

Why do I think I know so much about them? Because their advice dang near killed me. I listened to them long enough that I got “comfortable” at 7-1/2 years. In truth, I was the most uncomfortable since coming in, because I let them convince me to let up on the work. I heard so many of them pontificating about how they were doing it in their double-digit years (without having to do the work continuously) that I fell for it. Heck, if they can do it that way, I can too. They appealed to my “softer-easier-way-mentality”. I no longer worried about those contingencies required for my daily reprieve. They helped reconstruct my ego (“We can do it on our own”) and I stopped looking at them honestly and failed to realize that I don’t want what they have, even if it is easier. I was at fault for I allowed them to influence me, and I DAMN NEAR DIED!!!

Today, I know that because I am a real alcoholic, the continuous working of the steps is “vital” (that is, “necessary for life”)--not for them, but definitely for me. And since that is my experience, please let me share: please stay vigilant, for I have learned the hard way that the enemy who brings a false message is as cunning and baffling and powerful as the disease itself. So, if you are a real alcoholic, know the criteria; watch out for the overblown war stories they use to convince you they are one of us; look out for the statements that are truth for the hard drinkers but are lies for the real alcoholics. Know that we real alcoholics have no choice--we have no control and never will. Know that the only hope for us--continued work and spiritual growth--is not required for those vocal hard drinkers. Know that only by working the steps vigorously can we continue to have the renewed spiritual experience that we must have on a daily basis in order to remain sober and happy and joyous and free. And always beware the message coming from the mouth of the hard drinker (or any non-alcoholic in our groups), for he “disguises his face”. He is seated next to you, and though what he shares is really the truth as he sees it, he will unconsciously try to kill you when you’re least suspecting. That is my experience, so if you are a real alcoholic, I urge you to beware. If you are a real alcoholic, do it the way the Book says; do it the way the Book says; do it the way the Book says!

Copyright 1997 Floyd Henderson

Can be copied only by alcoholics and distributed without profit.

Three Views of Recovery

This is from a site that discusses three views of recovery and you can go to that link to engage in discussion and I'd like your opinions here.  The Conversion Experience view best describes the A.A. program... but our experiences in the thing may have minor to drastic variations.  The re-socialization view and the psychological view go a long way to descbribe a lot of our detractors... IMO. 

In my opinion, it starts with a radical refusal to accept help from a Higher Power or The Higher Power or whatever you want to call It... and the supposed empowerment of using the rational mind to overcome any behavior... as if alcoholism is always a choice and nothing more... not to be classed among mental illnesses, physical affliction, and of course... spiritual malady is well off the table because radical atheists among us refuse to honor such a Divine Creator and they want to thwart such line of thinking from the rest of the world.

The Psychological View would seem to go a long way in honoring science and the next pharm that will be the answer to all of our ailments.  This describes the missing link to recovery that some of our detractors claim when they say we A.A.s are not well qualified to work with other drunks, but we should stay out of it and let the "professionals" take over.  My question would be, "What were these 'Professionals' up to prior to A.A.?"  Does the word asylum, nut-house, or ... as Ralph says... "Graybar Hotel" ring any bells?

Well anyway, I'm in agreement with finding a recovery method that suits you and get on with it.  Once you find what works, you should be less likely to bash another method.  But you might be well disgusted in seeing the failures of the many along the way and be tempted to say that this method failed or you did it wrong or you weren't ready.  How about saying, "Maybe this person isn't ready" or "Maybe this person needs outside help."

Oh, and btw, I can identify a few of the folks above, but who is the guy with the specs and the plaid shirt?

_________________________________________



Three Views of Recovery








Currently, there are three major conflicting views on the nature of recovery. One view states that recovery is the result of a religious conversion experience. Another holds that recovery is really the process of re-socializing oneself to a community of sober addicts. A third view maintains that recovery happens when addicts expose and treat the underlying psychological causes of addiction.






The Conversion Experience View






This view of recovery understands the Conversion Experience as a psychological process defined by philosopher and psychologist William James. In his The Varieties of Religious Experience, James stated that conversion is a process by which






“a self hitherto divided, and consciously wrong, inferior and unhappy, becomes unified and consciously right superior and happy, in consequence of its firmer hold on religious realities”






According to James, the conversion experience is a huge displacement and rearrangement of the convert’s personality. This internal reorganization is not just a passing experience, instead, a whole new and stable attitude is established.






“the new ideas that reach the center in the rearrangement seem now to be locked there, and the new structure remains permanent.”






For the addict, this means that the former center of his life—the obsession to use—is now discarded and replaced by a sense of personal spirituality. The Conversion Experience View of recovery believes that this kind of radical change in the personality is necessary for true recovery to take place. The Twelve Steps are seen as a tool for creating Conversion Experiences without the intrusion of organized religion. In the Steps, an addict can have a powerful experience, and interpret it however he or she pleases. Therefore, Conversion Experience is often referred to as a Spiritual Experience, and the program is called “spiritual not religious.”






While working the Twelve Steps in a Conversion Experience style, the addict will make a total surrender of both will and life to a Power that heals the addict’s mind. A moral inventory is taken to root out and expose the addict’s primary trouble—selfishness. Amends and Twelfth Step work are designed to relieve the addict of self-concern and encourage a compassion for others. In this compassion, the Conversionists find themselves guided by a real and living Spiritual Power.






Meetings, in the Conversion Experience View, are a chance for recovered addicts to give testimony to the Power of the Steps and invite newcomers to work the Steps with a sponsor. Meetings are not a time to “share” or “check-in.” Instead, they are a time for those who have had a Spiritual Awakening to offer their services to those who have not.






Outcomes anticipated for people in recovery are very high in the Conversion Experience View. People who work the Steps successfully, are expected to find emotional well-being, freedom from mental obsession, and a deep sense of peace that comes from having a spiritual purpose in life. As long as the recovered person continues to help others, his or her sense of well-being is expected to increase. The times of real pain and anguish that are to be expected in life (when a loved one dies for example) are expected to bring the recovered person deeper into dependence upon their Spiritual Source, and so, while painful, will improve the addict’s spiritual life.






The Conversion Experience View exists in many of the Twelve Step fellowships, but is most commonly seen as the View of Alcoholics Anonymous member who strongly advocate for the AA Big Book. Sometimes called “Book Thumpers” or “Program Nazis,” these AA members have a reputation for being conservative and intolerant in the way they express their View. From their own point of view however, the Big Book advocates are trying to save fellow addicts from the pain of self-centeredness. In this way, they believe that they are expressing the spiritual truth of the Steps.






When Conversionists tell their stories, they are most likely to speak of the mental aspects of their addictions and place a strong emphasis on the personality change that they have experienced due to their experience of surrender to God.






The Re-socialization View






This view of recovery is…






“…highly social and involves the use of informal community resources that provide a sobriety-based framework in which one can stop drinking and maintain sobriety.”






William L. White


Slaying the Dragon






In the Re-socialization View of recovery, the biggest problem of the addict is not a need for spiritual experience, nor is it underlying psychological stressors. Instead, the Re-socialization View believes that the addict’s biggest problem is using. When the using stops, the addict’s biggest problem becomes how to stay stopped. Solutions to these problems are fairly straightforward. “Don’t use, go to meetings, ask for help.” “Keep coming back.” “Meeting makers make it.” “90 meetings in 90 days.” These and other similar slogans outline the program of the Re-socialization view—just keep going to meetings.






At times, meetings are emphasized so heavily that many people who hold this View do not work the steps. However, those who do work the Steps, tend to see them as a way to increase involvement in the fellowship. “Higher Power” and “God” are often interpreted as meaning the fellowship, the meetings, and sometimes the Steps and Traditions. Turning one’s will and life over to the care of God, really means coming to meetings and becoming willing to share and listen to others. Moral inventory and Amends are designed to help the fellowship stay intact even when personality clashes occur.






For Re-Socializationists, sobriety is understood as a difficult process, especially because the sober addict is forced to deal with feelings that were once suppressed by using. When things get rough, an addict goes to a meeting and shares their pain. Other addicts at the meeting sympathize and support those suffering. Sometimes, if there is an addict present who has suffered through a similar hardship, there is a sharing of experience, strength and hope. This makes meetings a kind of mutual-aid group. Other activities that are important in the Re-socialization View are “meetings-after-the-meetings,” sober dances, camp-outs, and other non-meeting social gatherings for addicts.






Expectations for recovering people in the Re-Socialization View are moderate compared to the expectations for people recovering in the Conversion Experience View. It is anticipated that recovery will be a painful process that lasts a lifetime. One is not expected to find relief from mental obsession, nor a vital spiritual life. Instead, the Re-Socialization View expects that people who stick with going to meetings will eventually be able to manage the business of daily life. Recovering people can get jobs and relationships, and keep them for longer than they used to. Recovering people don’t have to sell their TVs to buy drugs, or do any of the other behaviors associated with addiction. Often, recovering people have more money and possessions than they did when they were using. All of this is expected to provide some value and relief in the addict’s life.






The stories of recovering people who hold this View focus on the physical aspects of addiction and the despair and hopelessness of addicted life. These stories are meant to be a reminder to the speaker, and to his or her audience of why not to use again. Some times, though less frequently, stories focus on the things that the speaker has gained by being sober. Generally, Re-Socialization stories end with gratitude for the program, the meeting, and for one more day of sobriety.






The Psychological View






This view of recovery states that addiction is only a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder. In the years since the development of psychoanalysis, many psychological theories have been formed and promoted, each with its own view of the nature of the psychological causes of addictions. The theories range from Freud’s assertion that the alcoholic is expressing latent homosexual tendencies, to the Family Systems Theory concept of the addict as an actor of a role in a dysfunctional family system. Many of these theories, as they have each come into fashion, have had some impact on the Twelve Steps.






Currently, the psychological agreement seems to be that the addict is someone who uses to cope with some kind of pain. This pain might be the result of early child hood trauma, sexual abuse, a dysfunctional family system, low self-esteem, etc. The pain could also be produced by an existing mental disorder, such as Post Traumatic Stress, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, depression, etc. Addicts of this second kind are called “dual diagnosis,” because they are diagnosed with their mental disorder and addiction. Because addicts are seen as using to cope with pain, addiction is sometimes called “self-medicating.”






Recovery in the Psychological View is the process by which an addict learns appropriate methods of self-care. Treatment focuses on treating the source of the addict’s pain, and teaching the addict new ways to cope with pain. There is much talk about “feeling feelings,” and overcoming fears and shame. Sobriety is seen as a time of self-discovery, because feelings surface that were suppressed by using. Because most of these feelings are uncomfortable, the Psychological View attempts to help people in recovery to manage life while processing difficult emotions. Often, addicts are encouraged to use self-affirmations to build a positive self-image and increase self-esteem. Recovering people are instructed in the basics of self-care: hygiene, nutrition, sleep, and healthy social interaction. Sometimes, the word “H.A.L.T.” is used to remind people in recovery to stop and take care of themselves when they feel “Hungry, Angry, Lonely, or Tired.” The Psychological View encourages proper medication for people who have a dual diagnosis, and regular talk therapy, with emphasis on processing the pain of childhood and difficult personal relationships.






Working the Twelve Steps is not central to the Psychological View of recovery. When the Steps are worked in this View, they tend to be an extension of the type of therapy mentioned above. One realizes one’s powerlessness and turns one’s life over to professional treatment. Inventory is usually “balanced,” meaning that for every negative aspect of self, there is a positive one as well. Inventory also tends to explore things like family dynamics, early child hood trauma, instances where the recovering person feels that he/she has been victimized, etc. Amends are not emphasized in the Psychological View. In fact, most Twelve-Step rehabs will only utilize the first five Steps. Twelfth Step work is almost non-existent in the Psychological View, as professional treatment is seen as filling the role of ‘sponsor.’






Meetings in this View are seen as important to the recovery process. The Psychological View understands meetings in nearly the same manner as does the Re-Socialization View. For the Psychological View, meetings are important not for mutual-aid as much as for group therapy. The emphasis is not on “we help one another out,” but “we each get our turn to process feelings.” Often, addicts exiting treatment will be instructed to attend “90 meetings in 90 days,” and meeting attendance is often part of the routine at rehab. However, in many cases, the Psychological View feels that meeting attendance is not enough for the recovering person. Regular visits to a councilor are encouraged.






The Psychological View’s expectations for recovering people are equal to or less than those of the Re-Socialization View. Addicts are expected to struggle greatly with mental obsession and difficult feelings for the rest of their lives. One figure in the Psychological View, Terrence Gorski, has defined what he calls Post Acute Withdrawal Syndrome. PAWS predicts that people in recovery will not be able to get better through meeting attendance and Stepwork. Instead, the addict needs to see a PAWS trained therapist, or they will have severe symptoms of Post Acute Withdrawal Syndrome that will likely cause them to relapse. These symptoms can never be eliminated, only managed.






Stories of people recovering in the Psychological View often reflect their experiences in therapy. They speak of learning to feel their feelings, coming to grips with early childhood trauma, becoming better at taking care of themselves, or similar topics. Sometimes stories will include mention of Stepwork, but it is usually clear that this is Psychological and not Conversion Experience style Stepwork. Stories include much Psychological language, and will often focus on the emotional accomplishments of the speaker. The process of self-discovery and learning to love oneself feature strongly in Psychological View stories.






Arguments between the Views






Each View of recovery has an argument with each of the other Views. These arguments help us to distinguish the Views from each other, and clarify the values of each View.






Conversion vs. Re-socialization






From the Conversion Experience perspective, Re-socializationists are diluting the meaning of the Twelve Steps by not emphasizing a spiritual interpretation of the program. Conversionists point to the fact that many people in recovery could benefit from a Conversion Experience, but are unwilling to make the effort as long as they can ‘get by’ on meeting attendance. The fact that Re-socialization allows people to ‘get by’ and suffer from the mental obsession is seen as a crime by Conversionists; it keeps suffering people from getting real help, and it turns the program into a place where people get by without getting better.






From the Re-socialization perspective, Conversionists are seen as narrow-minded and possibly dangerous. Re-socializationists point to the fact that plenty of people are staying sober in the program without having to get religion or work the Steps. The fact that Conversionists are pushing their nearly religious View of recovery means that some people, who might otherwise stay in meetings, get turned off and don’t come back. Some of these people probably go back to using and may even die as a result. For the Re-socializationists, anything that keeps alcoholics/addicts out of meetings is a bad influence on the program.






Re-socialization vs. Psychological






The Re-socializationists see the Psychological View of recovery as having a basic misunderstanding of the disease of addiction. Alcoholics drink because they are alcoholics, and drug addicts use drugs because they are drug addicts, not because they are trying to cope with pain. Addicts may be in pain, but this is probably the result of their disease, not the cause of it. Psychologists are also seen as having the wrong approach to dealing with addictions. While therapy might be helpful for many, real recovery depends on one addict helping another. This is because only someone with first-hand knowledge of the disease of addiction can really understand the condition of another addict.






People who hold the Psychological View of recovery see the practices of Re-socialization as insufficient to help people recover. Meetings are good for what they are, but meeting attendance alone is often not enough to help addicts deal with the underlying psychological causes of their using. People who have a dual diagnosis, who suffer from PTSD, who are severely depressed, or who have deep personal issues to work through will need more than meetings to successfully stay in recovery.






Psychological vs. Conversion






The Psychological View of recovery reacts strongly against the Conversionist idea that selfishness is the root of the addicts problems. The emphasis on selfishness is seen as bordering on abusive. According to the Psychological View, recovering people need to be affirmed and nurtured, not scolded or told that they are bad. In this View, addicts already have negative self-images, and focusing on selfishness can only serve to increase that negative self-image. For some in the Psychological View, the Conversion Experience View of recovery is seen as taking advantage of vulnerable people. People new to recovery are in an impressionable frame of mind, and Conversionists seem to be attempting to force newcomers into a religious point of view.






Conversionists see the Psychological View of recovery as causing more harm than good. In the Conversionist View, telling addicts to care for and think about themselves only increases their already high level of self-concern and selfishness. Furthermore, the Psychological emphasis on “feeling feelings” and “expressing pain” leads to a recovery environment dominated by narcissism and diseased thinking. In this View, an addict can never express his/herself enough to rid their psyches of the mental obsession to use. The Psychological View of tortures recovering people by forcing them to obsess over their symptoms without offering a real solution to the basic problem of addiction.






Agreement among the views






Our division of the recovery culture into three Views is somewhat artificial. In reality, there are many recovering people whose recovery philosophy represents a mix of two or more of the Views mentioned above. Recovery culture represents a wide spectrum of belief and experience, and there are many ways in which each of the Views can be adapted to match each of the others. For example, the Conversion Experience is a powerful mental experience, and can be understood in Psychological terms. Mutual support networks and Re-socialization clearly have a Psychological benefit as well. And Conversion Experience, in its need to be shared with others, has a strong social impulse and a clear desire to help others Re-socialize themselves. However, our depiction of the three Views of recovery should help our understanding of the Twelve Steps by revealing the major themes that are present within all Twelve Step recovery programs. By looking at each View in its purest form, we can get a clear picture of the kinds of programs and experiences that are available in recovery culture.

Evolution or Heresy?

We've been bouncing this question of "Does AA need to Change" around in bits and pieces. My take is that some feel change is needed, some feel it's too late, and others feel that AA is fine as it is. I'm making this a separate post 'cause I'm tired of scrolling through a ton of comments to glean some bits of opinion/wisdom/whatever.

Here's my concern. I'm in AA to stay sober and help others achieve sobriety. Simple mission statement, but the "help others achieve sobriety" part is starting to bother me. Specifically, being a sponsor. AA literature, for what it's worth, says that I can deal only with alcoholism and am not qualified to deal with any other problems an alcoholic may have as I have no experience in areas other than alcoholism. Spot on! I'm a kosher alcoholic, never smoked weed or any of that stuff, never abused prescription drugs. None of that stuff. I'm restricted to dealing only with alcoholism.

If I follow those guidelines, I'm not going to sponsor many people. My screening of a sponsee would be to first ask if they have any other problems- other addictions, mental health issues, etc. If the answer is yes, then it's "Sorry, go find someone else. I'm not qualified to be your sponsor." And guess what? 99% of the people I screen will have to be turned down. Or I could have the option, I suppose, to say that I'll deal with the alcoholism, but you need someone else to sponsor you for your prescription drug abuse so go to NA for that, and to GA if you gamble, and so on. And then I'll have to make sure that he's doing all that and successfully recovering from those other addictions or his recovery from alcoholism will never happen.

Technically, I'm not given a choice here. If I think AA is fine, then I guess that's what I'll do. But I'm also a realist and know that the odds of getting a sponsee to do all that shit is slim to none. He'll turn around and walk out the door. So I take the guy on and try as best I can to walk him through the steps and show him how to get sober. But in doing that, I can't ignore his other issues/addictions. Those problems have to be solved concurrently or none, including alcoholism, will ever be. Sure, I won't even try to deal with mental health problems other than insist he get help from those qualified to give it. That's way above my league. But I can keep an eye on him to watch for signs that such issues aren't interfering with his recovery.

Which leads me back to the problem of change. Should AA change? Should it evolve? Are they the same thing? I don't think that AA should ever change in the sense that the program as outlined in the 164 is the reason we've been around for so long and have been so successful. If it works, don't fix it. But how about evolving? How about continuing to do what we have been doing, but do it better? Bill Wilson clearly stated that AA must evolve or it will die. I don't see any evolution here. If anything, I see AA circling the wagons.

AA has to acknowledge that the drunk who walks through the door today probably isn't the same one that walked in 75, or ever 25 years ago. It's time to pull the head out of the sand. At best, most are alcoholics and addicts. At worst, they have a lot of other problems that weren't ever recognized 25 years ago. I mentioned Pathological Gambling in another post and that's just one example of what I'm talking about. AA also has to acknowledge that you can't deal with alcoholism without dealing with these other warts. But I don't have a warm fuzzy that AA is gonna evolve and start addressing these things. We had talked about changing the Big Book or maybe another publication talking about current advances in alcoholism treatment etc. But I don't see that happening either. And given the problems we've already hashed over about with the threat within AA from the rogue groups, we may be screwed.

So what's the answer? Again, I dunno. Lots of questions, not many answers. From all the comments I've gleaned from my last post I've come to accept that there's not a damn thing we can do from the dirty street level to effect any changes. Best we can do is stick to the AA program as it was originally designed and hope for the best. While I do that, however, I'm evolving. Not changing, but evolving. I'm going to take on guys with cross addictions and do what I can to help them, never losing my focus on alcoholism.

Since AA isn't gonna educate me as to how I can best do that, I'll have to educate myself. I'll never stray from my primary purpose of helping another alcoholic achieve sobriety, but how I help them is gonna change. It has to. Dowg brought up the mental health issue in another blog. That's a good start. Some guys have talked about other treatment programs being successful. I wanna learn what's working for these other folks. Move over Ralph. another heretic is joining you. I'm sticking to the 12 steps like white on rice, but I'm also going to look at a lot of other stuff outside the confines of AA. And that makes me a heretic.

So. Am I tilting at windmills here? Are there other answers? What do you guys think? Inquiring minds want to know....

SOME THOUGHTS....

I came across a study of AA the other day the got me to thinking. It addressed the autonomy of each group and the problems that this autonomy can cause. Basically, any group of people can get together and call themselves an AA group. No license is required.

So I could gather a bunch of friends together who think like me - control freaks who believe in "my way or the highway"; who think that if you don't believe in God (our God) you're never gonna get sober and will surely burn in hell; who belittle the newcomer as someone who's a worthless piece of shit 'cause they don't know nothin'. Oh, and the 12 steps aren't suggestions - they're the only way to get sober. These friends carry around the Big Book (large print, paper back edition of course 'cause that's the biggest one) and are always thumbing through it during the meetings. Their idea of a "discussion" is to quote from the Bib Book. They've never had an original thought in their lives. Get the Idea?

So we start this AA group, register with GSO and inter-group, and get our meeting on the area schedule. And in walks this poor drunk, desperate for help, not knowing where to turn. He's ignored before, during, and after the meeting. How long do you think this poor guy is going to stick around? What's his impression of AA going to be based on this singular experience? I'll give you odds that he'll never attend another meeting. He'll also be the first in line to believe AA is a religious cult run by a bunch of fanatics. He's convinced he's right and he is. His perceptions are based on his experience and are his reality.

Sound farfetched? It's not. This shit is going on every day. We've all been to meetings that in some way resemble the one I described. Yeah, these meetings are far outnumbered by groups of people who follow the program as it was intended to be followed . But nonetheless, one bunch of assholes can do a lot of damage, not just to the reputation of AA but more importantly to the newcomers who reach out to us and run into this shit. AA is losing it's attraction because these people are accurately telling others about their experience with the program. It's the damage these morons who call themselves AA do to the newcomer that can keep me awake at night. When I read some attacks or criticisms of AA I can understand where these people are coming from. They were never exposed to AA, they were exposed to a bunch of idiots who are an anathema to everything we represent.

Now getting back to the study. It questioned the wisdom of the tradition of autonomy based on just the type of thing I outlined. It suggested that AA may want to revisit it's insistence on autonomy and consider instead a means of standardization, preventing groups like this from calling themselves AA. Groups would still be "autonomous" but would be required to adhere to certain standards if they wished to be considered an AA group.

So. This might solve the problem of the poor drunk who walked in the doors of hell looking for sobriety. Or would it? Are required standards the answer to the problem? Yeah, we have the 12 Traditions but nothing requires an AA group to abide by them. You're an AA group if you call yourself one just as you're a member if you say you are.

So here's my question. Is the solution to the problem I described one of enforced standardization as the study suggests? Or would this open Pandora's Box and be the first step down that slippery slope to centralized authority? And if standardization isn't the answer, what is? Sometimes we only get one shot at showing a newcomer what AA is all about. Think how many times we miss that opportunity because of these "AA groups"; how many lives are ruined because some people never get to see what we're really all about. I accept that AA isn't for everyone but, damn it, we could at least make sure they understand the program before they decide if it'll work for them.

Your thoughts?

God is everything or God is nothing. What is your choice to be?

Topic at our meeting tonight.

If you chose God is everything, what is your experience with this?  Any recent experience with this?

How about God is nothing?  How does/did this work for you?  Especially in relation to facing a life without booze and a life without God?

Being a guy who does steps yearly, it's a simple proposition of facing life right now on my own... without God.  There's no God.  Just me and the bit of power I can muster to wind out my days.  What would that look like?  How am I doing with God's grace?  How am I doing with the Power of God at my fingertips?  Am I... of myself, nothing?  Or am I everything?  Can I manifest what I need to get by?  How do others see me?  Is my life a success?  Is it worth living?  Page 52 stuff.

Now, what does "God is everything" look like?  Am I willing to put God number 1 and me number 2?  How about... God number 1, y'all number 2, and me number 3?  Proposition kinda sucks... when I get honest with myself.  Would I do this if I didn't have to?  Do I have to?  What happens to me with relation to booze if I choose otherwise?

Can I keep myself sober?  If so, why did I ever wind up in A.A.?  If that is the case, and I'm still in A.A. or if I wasted away in A.A., did A.A. do its job of directing me to where I needed to go?  Or could I have been hustled into A.A.?  If so, could it be my fault that I let that happen?

Now... if I can't keep myself sober, does the need for Power seem like such a ridiculous proposition?  Are there some who can keep themselves sober and can... if they really want/need to, moderate and control their booze intake?  You know?  8 hours or 12 hours from bottle to throttle? 

I've been studying for my CDL and it says that booze affects our brain in such a way that we lose our ability to control judgment and inhibition.  So... this describes everybody.  The logical choice would seem to be "Don't ever drink and drive."  Either drink, or drive, period.  But... it happens.  I don't think that just alkies drink and drive.  I think that some people assume power and they rebel against rational decisions at times.  So... it's possible that many get sent to A.A. that need not face the question God is everything or God is nothing.

I also understand that there are those who will point out that Bill W. and the authors of the book stole this spiritual tool from elsewhere.  Well so be it.  Set that argument aside.  What does it mean to you?  What's your experience with it?  How have you used and benefited from that proposition?

The Great Tony J Experiment

FTG (in her mind)







Well, it looks as if The Tony J Experiment has come to an end.

I'm blocked from ST again. No explanation or warnings this time.

As best as I can tell I questioned why they hate Chris R so much and that's one of the arbitrary, unspoken and always moving lines that I'm not allowed to cross.

Which is fine. I was pretty happy not being allowed to post there anyway. I have better things to do with my time.

All in all I say the experiment was a success. One person willing to argue facts and not allow the anti-AA's to shame him can't be talked down.

The only possible response is to kill the opposistion. They did it to John the Baptist. Hell, they even did it to Jesus.

Although unlike Jesus, I would probably throw one of them off a subway platform if the heat of the moment.

The point is, telling the truth to a spiritually dead crowd doesn't get you a thank you note.

Still, I can't say I hate them. I can't even say I have a resentment. I did what I had to do and now they've made it easy for me to move on.


So I shared at my men's meeting last night. I told them the site and the deal and got some good feedback.

One guy said, there are 5 billion people in the world and there's a group for everything. Good point. There are maybe 100 people on st. About a dozen regulars.
12 vs 2,000,000.

One guy shared about prayer and meditation and working with another alcoholic. I realized when I'm dicking around on st I'm not praying, meditating or working with another.

A few people shared on self righteousness. Yeah. The very same thing that pisses me off about the st crew is what fuels my arguments.

So, in conclusion, they are what they are. They only mean anything to me when I chose to read what they write.

So hopefully this little 5th/10th step thingy I'm doing here will help me get this crusade behind me so I can move on to better things.

Will it ? Who knows? That's why I'm praying on it. I know myself too well to trust myself.

I do know I was right when I repeated the little quip on the mental health blog. When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it.





Joe Cool Says :

"AA's been around time and will be around long after we're gone. I don't care about Orange, MFHA, Peele, or any other critic of the program. The tradition says that we don't engage in public controversy, so I don't get into pissing contests with morons who don't know wtf they're talking about. Especially morons who aren't alcoholics and have nfi about the experience of alcoholism and recovery. "

Yup. Joe has said all that really needs to be said.
Do I have a 'right' as an individual to express my opinions and argue with the anti-AA people ? Sure.
Is it a worthwhile effort ? No. Not when I'm honest with myself.
And Joe hits the nail on the head. They quite simply aren't alcoholics. If they were they'd understand what we're talking about. Even if they didn't agree with us, they'd understand.
And my business as far as AA is concerned is with alcoholics. Good post Joe.