Guest guest Posted May 15, 1999 Report Share Posted May 15, 1999 hey all, i just checked out http://www.askjeeves.com for first time. I asked; " is a.a. a cult? " a got some interesting links in return. here is one artical it found. dave ALCOHOLICS CAN BE CURED--DESPITE A.A. By Dr. Arthur H. Cain An expert charges that Alcoholics anonymous has become a dogmatic cult that blocks medical progress and hampers many members' lives. It is time we made a thorough investigation of Alcoholics Anonymous in the interest of our public health. A.A. is identified in the public mind as a God-fearing fellowship of 350,000 " arrested alcoholics " who keep one another sober and rescue others from the horrors of alcoholism. Unfortunately, A.A. has become a dogmatic cult whose chapters too often turn sobriety into slavery to A.A. Because of its narrow outlook, Alcoholics Anonymous prevents thousands from ever being cured. Moreover A.A has retarded scientific research into one of America's most serious health problems. My own experience with A.A. began in 1947. As a psychologist and investigator into the causes and cure of uncontrolled drinking, I have attended about 500 A.A. meetings in over 40 states and a dozen foreign countries. At first I was tremendously impressed with A.A.'s altruistic efforts in alcoholics' behalf. Its members would perform prodigies of selfless service, no matter what the hour by meeting the helpless and sodden in hospitals, flophouses and homes, and offering their sympathy, a helping hand, and their own example that temptation could be withstood. At the weekly meetings, which all A.A. members attended, there was a true sense of humility and a devout belief in God (We " came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity " ) and the fellowship of man--the original tenets of A.A. New members were given the freedom to question A.A.'s guiding principles codified in the Twelve Traditions and the Twelve Steps of Recovery. ' 'Over the years a disturbing change began to take place. As an increasing number of alcoholics joined A.A. chapters many turned out to be misfits who had rejected Christianity, Judaism or the Kiwanis Club. Dogmatic and opinionated in their nonbeliefs, they found in A.A. an instrument for a new kind of bigotry. Their only meaning in life was that they had heroically become " arrested " alcoholics. Arrogant egoists, they soon dominated many of A.A.'s 10,000 chapters. Weekly meetings, once spontaneous and exciting, became formalized and ritualistic. Anyone who questioned A.A.'s principles or even expressed curiosity was handed the slogan, Utilize, Don't Analyze, and told to sit down. The desire to help others degenerated. As one disheartened former A.A. member told me, " I felt nobody cared what happened to W. I felt they were just interested in another alcoholic who would become another notch in their belts. I felt as if I was being pressed into serving their cause and building up their oligarchy. " With this growing dogmatism came a Dark Ages attitude toward any scientist who might differ with official A.A. doctrine. According to the A.A. litany, alcoholism is a physical disease which can never be cured: " Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. " The corollary is: " A reformed alcoholic must live A.A. from day to day and never leave A.A. " Actually, there is no scientific evidence that alcoholism is an incurable, physical disease. According to current evidence, the origin of uncontrolled drinking is psychological. A person drinks to ease anxiety, depression, boredom, guilt, timidity, inarticulateness. An alcoholic learns to become one; he is not born that way. This means that many alcoholics can return to normal drinking without fear of ending up on Skid Row. Over the past 17 years I have treated more than 50 alcoholics who no longer need to attend meetings or receive treatment. Most important, over 20 of my patients have learned to drink normally, to use alcohol as a beverage, not a psychological crutch. Yet when scientists have reported similar findings, A.A. members have often set out to discredit them. In 1957 Doctors Melvin L. Selzer and Holloway of the University of Michigan came up with the then startling report that 13 confirmed alcoholics had become social drinkers. Because of the pressure of an influential A.A. member, the state agency that provided the funds for the study virtually ordered the two scientists to omit what it called these " embarrassing " findings. Doctor Selzer published his findings anyway. In 1962 Dr. D.L. Davies, after a study at Maudsley Hospital in London, declared that seven men who had been alcoholics were able to drink normally after treatment, some had been drinking without problems for as long as 11 years. Doctor Davies concluded that 'the generally accepted view that no alcohol addict can ever again drink normally should be modified. " Some A.A. members branded the scientist's report " immoral, because it might cause some members to drink. " Dr. E. M. Jellinek, a cofounder of the Yale School of Alcohol Studies and a dean of researchers in the field of alcoholism until his death in 1963, was drawing on his own experience when he declared: " . . . Alcoholics Anonymous have naturally created the picture of alcoholism in their own image . . . and there is every reason why the student of alcoholism should emancipate himself from accepting this exclusiveness as propounded by A.A. " Not only has A.A. interfered with scientific investigations, it has prevented medical and psychological treatment which runs counter to its own theories. At one New York City hospital, for instance, the physicians preferred using paraldehyde to treat acute intoxication. But then A.A. members implied that they would stop referring patients there if paraldehyde was used. The doctors were persuaded to switch to another drug, chloral hydrate. As the physician in charge of the alcoholics' ward explained, the A.A. non-scientists had discovered that paraldehyde was a form of alcohol. Actually, chloral hydrate is the more toxic drug. In fact, its indiscriminate use in another New York hospital has left some patients more intoxicated upon discharge than when they were admitted. While A.A. adherents battle scientific inquiry that does not fit A.A.'s narrow theories, its chapters often attempt to assume control of members' lives. Purporting to offer everything needed for human fulfillment, the fellowship now boasts of a " ladies auxiliary, " called Al-Anon, for spouses of members and even a division for members' children called Alateen. It suggests that the youngsters open their meetings by reciting this incantation: " We will always be grateful to Alateen for giving us a Way of Life and a wonderful, healthy program to live by and enjoy! " Implied is the distressing theory that there is no other way of life for alcoholics except that of A.A.--a life in which every waking hour is devoted to the struggle for sobriety. The wife of a Texas member described some unfortunate consequences of A.A.'s creed that the struggle against alcohol must be the most important ambition in a member's life. " This must be placed above wives or husbands, children homes, or jobs. They must be ready to abandon these things at any time.... The tragic part is, some of them while searching for this sobriety and serenity actually do exactly that. " How pervasive the obsession with A.A. can become was poignantly demonstrated by a patient who had come to me because of worries about her A.A. husband. He had proposed that they move their bed into the A.A. clubhouse so they might be " avail able 24 hours a day just in case an alcoholic wandered in. " For many members, of course, staying sober is a fierce challenge daily. But under the A.A. program, the lives of many are so sterile that their growth as human beings is hindered. Taught to rely or slogans and compulsive A.A. routine, some are unable to face the fact that they are alcoholics because they are psychologically sick. It is for this reason that many A.A. members never recover. A New Hampshire novelist and former A.A. member, who has been continuously sober for eight years, described this human waste when he wrote me- " I have met members who are actually afraid to think. They have made a high fence of A.A., which shuts them out from all pleasurable and vital aspects of life. " Behind the A.A. fence the original principle that alcoholics must be humble before God has been turned into the dictum that alcoholics are God's chosen people. This theme is preached in meetings and through books and pamphlets. A typical illustration is a booklet titled. " Around the Clock With A.A., " published recently by an A.A. group in California. One passage declares: " God in His wisdom selected this group of men and women to be the purveyors of His goodness.... He went right to the drunkard, the so-called weakling of the world. Well might He have said to us: 'Unto your weak and feeble hands I have entrusted- power beyond estimate. To you has been given that which has been denied the most learned of your fellows. Not to scientists or statesmen, not to wives or mothers, not even to my priests or ministers have I given this gift of helping other alcoholics which I entrust to you. " ' Such idolatry causes the believer to see himself as all-knowing, and turns the missionary into the zealot. A.A.'s creeds not only infect its own members but pervade public education. Most of what we hear or read about alcoholism is inspired by A.A. adherents spouting A.A. dogmas. City, state and private agencies frequently fill all key posts with A.A. members. One western state actually requires that personnel assigned to its alcoholism program be A.A. members for at least two years. No professional experience is needed. The A.A. philosophy also dominates the National Council on Alcoholism, the only nationwide public-information agency on alcoholism. N.C.A., which is supported by public donations, has over 60 affiliated information committees scattered throughout the country. Although both N.C.A. and A.A. deny that they are officially connected, many members of N.C.A.'s staff and some directors are A.A. members. A.A. members serve as directors in eight out of ten N.C.A. information centers in the largest cities in the United States. Thus, it is not surprising that N.C.A. continues to parrot the A.A. line that alcoholism is a " progressive disease for which there is no known cure, but which can only be arrested. " Further, N.C.A. in a series of radio and TV commercials actually stated that the American Medical Association had declared alcoholism to be a disease, although the A.M.A. has restricted itself to general statements that the alcoholic is " sick. " Time and again, I have heard public figures recite A.A.-N.C.A. myths and propaganda as if they were gospel. I once heard Arthur Flemming, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, read verbatim a pronouncement on alcoholism which I knew had been prepared a year earlier by N.C.A.'s public-relations firm. Flemming offered the now familiar " statistic " that there are five million alcoholics in the United States. This figure is based on a study Doctor Jellinek of Yale conducted 18 years ago in a small community; he thought he had found that three percent of the population were alcoholics. N.C.A. applied this percentage to the whole nation. Doctor Jellinek, a great physiologist but no statistician, repudiated his own formula in 1956. The five-million figure is only a guess, for- no scientific count of alcoholics has ever been made. While N.C.A. issues well-intended but sometimes questionable facts and theories, A.A. officials, when pressed, often hide behind the famous Tenth Tradition, which states that " Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues, hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy. " This device enables members of A.A. to make outrageous assertions which A.A.'s head quarters promptly disavows when challenged. " Many people I have tried to help, " said one Chicago member, 'have abandoned the program just because they couldn't take the ex cathedra homilies on drugs, alcohol, psychiatry, medicine, sociology, biology, to name a few subjects on which they speak with authority. " Much of A.A.'s failure can be blamed, on a lack of forward-looking, constructive leadership. Writer Jerome Ellison recently spent several months as a paid consultant to A.A. evaluating the fellowship's publications and activities. At national headquarters in New York City, Ellison declared, committee politics took up half the working day, and gossip was venomous. Everybody was an expert, Ellison went on, " with a cluster of ideas closed to amendment. " He related how one member had submitted to the A.A. monthly bulletin an article which showed that nearly all southern and a great many northern A.A. chapters were racially segregated, and that A.A. had failed to keep pace with the growing, problem of Negro alcoholism. The article was turned down on the ground that it " might disrupt A.A. unity. " Ellison's most damning indictment concerned the rule made by A.A.'s nonalcoholic board of trustees that no change can be made in A.A.'s theories on, alcoholism even though they are nearly a quarter of a century old. " Despite the fact that the rank and file teems with exciting, relevant, informed and up-to-the-minute experience, " Ellison declared, " none of it is permitted to appear in book form. To publish such literature, it is felt, would be to risk heresy. " Needless to say, I do not suggest that A.A. be abolished or that a single member quit. That A.A. helps many thousands stay sober is obvious. But Alcoholics Anonymous should return to its original purpose of being a much-needed first-aid station. The " arrest " of uncontrolled drinking is the essential first step in becoming a recovered or cured alcoholic. During this critical period, the alcoholic needs the sympathy and understanding that only another alcoholic can give. But after three months or so, when the shakes have subsided and the cobwebs are beginning to clear, the recovering alcoholic should go ahead. He should not be taught that he must remain forever crippled and bound by the paralyzing concept " Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. " It is at this point that the patient needs a different kind of understanding: an objective, dispassionate, clinical understanding that physicians, psychologists and pastoral counselors, not A.A. members, are trained to give. Only after he has undergone a rigorous and lengthy revision of his personality should he attempt to drink normally again, and then only if he desires to do so. After all, sobriety in itself is not a way of life. It is simply the absence of intoxication. It is what one does with his sobriety and his life that is important. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 1999 Report Share Posted May 15, 1999 heres another one.... Dave ________________________________________________________________ VOLUME 2, ISSUE 5 THE INTERPSYCH NEWSLETTER JUNE, 1995 ________________________________________________________________ SECTION D: RESEARCH (2/2) CULT-BUSTING A. Schaler, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Psychological characteristics of cult membership are discussed. The cult nature of Alcoholics Anonymous and disease model of addiction ideology is examined. Patterns of response by individuals who believe strongly in the disease model of addiction when their ideology is challenged are analyzed. Cults serve diverse purposes for individuals, the foremost of which can be a positive sense of community where values are focused, affirmed, and reinforced. The relationship among individuals in a cult is also hypnotic (Freud 1959; Becker 1973). People disagreeing with an ideology binding individuals together in a group are likely to be criticized, punished, and eventually excluded or shunned by the group. This rule reads " thou shalt not disagree, " for affiliation and membership in the cult rests on ideological consensus. In order for the cult to maintain its singular identity, the rule must be obeyed. Break the rule and break the spell. In order for a singular group identity to exist, individual identities must be minimized. The flip-side of this phenomenon concerns the impact of individual autonomy on the cult experience--a kind of " psychological capitalism " in a psychologically-socialist world. The stronger an individual's confidence in self, the less likely an individual will succumb to demands for cult conformity. At least three dimensions to those ideas are worth considering here: (a) Individuals with a strong sense of personal autonomy are less likely to become involved in cults. ( If they do become involved in a cult, they are more likely to recover from the cult experience in a way that preserves a strong sense of self (compared to those whose self-concept was considerably weaker prior to the cult experience). © What is also likely to be true is that individuals with a strong sense of self are less likely to feel threatened when cult members attack them. Moreover, individuals eschewing cult affiliation may elicit resentment from true believers (Kaufmann 1973). (1) Individuals with backgrounds involving chronic identity confusion, excessive guilt, and " totalistic " or dichotomous thinking, appear to experience more difficulty in re-establishing themselves in their post-cult life, compared to those individuals with a clearer sense of identity, less guilt, and more accurate sense of psychological perspective. Individuals exhibiting a strong sense of personal autonomy appear more resistant to criticism directed at them by a group of individuals at odds with their particular ideology. (2) In clinical hypnosis, the will of the subject becomes confluent with the will of the hypnotist. The subject does not have a say in the process. The sense of ego separateness between the two is purposely obscured by the hypnotist. In psychotherapy this experience is called " transference. " As long as the client in either hypnosis or psychotherapy maintains an acute awareness of self, that is, he or she persists in appreciating the difference between self and environment, a point referred to as the " ego boundary " by Perls (1947), the hypnosis will fail. Some schools of psychotherapy may view this as an obstruction to good therapy, others view it as a means to achieving success (Szasz 1965). Good contact and a hypnotic trance are opposing states of consciousness. Thus, good contact antidotes hypnosis. Moreover, good contact between therapist and client is not contingent upon cultivating transference. (3) Therapy fails when the client chooses to see the therapist as someone other than he or she really is, and when therapists encourage clients to see them as someone other than who they really are. An extreme example of this ability to resist hypnosis and brainwashing is seen in the movie of a few years ago entitled The Ipcress File. By deliberately pressing a metal nail into his hand actor Caine used his experience of pain to force an awareness of self. He avoided listening to the hypnotic voice of an " other, " an " other " seeking to make Caine's will confluent with his own -- against Caine's will. Caine's character found a way to maintain autonomy in the face of that psychological coercion. He was able to fight the psychological influence of an other intent on dictating a particular self concept. The point intended here is that by focusing on himself in such a way, he was able to resist the attempt by the other to force a psychological merge -- a merge that is coerced by one onto another. (4) There are ways of applying this idea to individuals under the " spell cast by others " (Becker 1973). One way of testing the cult nature of a group is by challenging the ideology binding the group together. We can discover something about the nature of a group by how well its members tolerate opposition to the ideology that holds the group together. How well do members tolerate difference of opinion, opinion that challenges the very ideological heart of the group? Members of the cult are like a colony of insects when disturbed. A frenzy of activity and protective measures are executed when core ideologies are challenged. The stronger the evidence challenging the truthfulness of the group ideology, the more likely members of the cult are to either lash out in a more or less predictable fashion, fall apart, or disband into separate cult colonies. The purpose of this brief essay is to present certain characteristic responses to " cult busting, " or, the challenging of ideology that assists in binding members of a particular cult together. That cult is Alcoholics Anonymous, (AA), (Kurtz 1988; Antze 1987; Leach and Norris 1977). Over the years the writer has been involved in investigating claims made by politicians, drug users, people in " recovery, " members of the addiction-treatment industry, and addiction-research field regarding the disease model of addiction, particularly the alleged role of involuntariness in explaining addiction. Extensive research supports the idea that addiction is a voluntary process, a behavior that is better explained by individual psychological and environmental factors, than physiology and the chemical properties of drugs, ( 1987, 1990). Presenting those findings to people holding opposing points of view, i.e., addiction is a disease characterized by " loss of control " (Jellinek 1960), often elicits a vituperative response. That response aroused the writer's curiosity as to the cult-like nature certain groups within the addiction field hold dearly. The bolder the presentation of ideas in opposition to the prevailing disease-model ideology, the clearer the characterizations of criticism directed back in return. Patterns of response are clear. The writer has had many such encounters over the years and will not elaborate on their details (e.g., Madsen et al., 1990; Goodwin and Gordis 1988). Those exchanges occurred on the editorial pages of large and small newspapers, live radio-talk shows, scientific journals, local political settings, and most recently on Internet. Conceding a confrontational style, it is a mistake to attribute the nature of critical response solely to a personal way of delivering the bad news. Colleagues present their ideas regarding similar issues in what are perhaps at times more sensitive and tactful ways, and they have met with similar forms of denunciation and character assassination, the typical form of rebuttal. Ad hominem rebuttals are the standard, (Fingarette 1989; Peele 1992; Searles 1993; Madsen 1989; Wallace 1993a, 1993b). Is AA a cult? There's plenty of evidence supporting the idea that it is. Greil and Rudy (1983) studied conversion to the world view of AA and reported that [t]he process by which individuals affiliate with A.A. entails a radical transformation of personal identity in that A.A. provides the prospective affiliate not merely with a solution to problems related to drinking, but also with an overarching world view with which the convert can and must reinterpret his or her past experience....Our analysis suggests that the central dynamic in the conversion process is coming to accept the opinions of reference others, (p. 6). t appears...that contact with A.A. is more likely to be accompanied by a greater degree of coercion than...most cases of religious conversion (Greil and Rudy 1983, p. 23). and Rollins (1984) described how Lifton's (1961) eight brainwashing techniques used by the Communist Chinese operate in AA. " [T]he authors contend that AA uses all the methods of brain washing, which are also the methods employed by cults, " ( & Rollins,1984, p. 45). Galanter (1989) has written: As in the Unification Church workshops, most of those attending AA chapter meetings are deeply involved in the group ethos, and the expression of views opposed to the group's model of treatment is subtly or expressly discouraged. A good example is the fellowship's response to the concept of controlled drinking, an approach to alcoholism treatment based on limiting alcohol intake rather than totally abstaining. Some investigators and clinicians have reported success with this alternative to treatment. The approach, however, is unacceptable within the AA tradition, and the option is therefore anathema to active members. It is rarely brought up by speakers at meetings and suppressed when it is raised. As an inductee becomes involved in the group, the sponsor monitors the person's views carefully, assuring that the recruit adheres to the perspective into which the sponsor was drawn; any hint of an interest in controlled drinking is discouraged. Similar constraints would be applied if a recruit questioned the importance of any of the Steps or the need to attend meetings regularly. The issue here is not the relative merit of controlled drinking...it is the way communications are managed in AA. As a charismatic group, AA is able to sup press attitudes that could undermine its traditions, " (Galanter 1989, p. 185). (5). Sadler (1977) writes to that effect when she stated that " AAers seek a relationship with the supernatural in order to cease managing their own lives....The AA concept of control differs significantly from the concept of control presented to drunkards by the rest of society....AA...tells the newcomer that his life is unmanageable and that it is ridiculous for him to try to manage it....By deliberately denying the ability to control their lives, AAers' former drunken situations are brought under control....Most importantly, abstinence is not considered a kind of control. The individual who comes to AA in order to control his drinking will be disappointed. AAers insist that abstinence is possible only when powerlessness is conceded. AA offers supportive interaction in which powerlessness comes to be positively valued, " (Sadler 1977, p.208). When ideas regarding voluntariness, responsibility, and addiction are introduced to members of AA and devout adherents to the disease concept of addiction, people who are usually involved with AA in some way, the following responses are likely to occur (in no particular order): NAME-CALLING The person introducing the taboo ideas (the heretic) is belittled and laughed at. Mocking occurs. Derogatory comments are leveled. Name calling often ensues, e.g., the writer was recently called a " thoughtless dweeb, " told " you are your own worst enemy, " that the writer was a " crackpot psychologist, the kind that can't get tenure because they are always bullying peers and students, " a " facist, " " doctor baby, " an " arrogant son of a bitch, " " contemptible, " " immature for a guy with a Dr. before his name, " and a person engaging in " highly unscientific behavior, " who has embarked on a " personal vendetta. " ACCUSATIONS OF MURDER After the initial mocking and belittling, the criticism appears to take a more serious turn. The ideas presented by the heretic are considered potentially dangerous. People who do not know better will misuse them and kill themselves or others. Thus, the heretic should be held accountable for murder, or the death of another. The accusation of heretic-as-murderer or potential murderer can be leveled as an unintended result of the ideas presented by the heretic, in which case forgiveness by some cult members is still possible; or it can evolve into rhetoric in which the heretic is described, or alluded to, as someone who has a deliberate interest in endangering the lives of cult members in this way. The heretic then personifies evil in the eyes of cult members. It is at this point that the exchange could become physically dangerous. (6) YOU'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY The heretic may also be accused at this point of having an economic investment in his particular point of view. For example, the writer has been accused of trying to pirate potential psychotherapy clients away from AA on more than one occasion in order to make money off of them. DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL ILLNESS Another tangent the cult members often take is to accuse the heretic of being " mentally ill. " The taboo ideas are alleged to stem from personal trauma the heretic has not dealt with, and his or her statements in opposition to the group ideology are considered " projections, " the function of " denial, " an " unconscious " process that is said to be a " symptom " of his or her mental illness. The heretic may be accused of expressing an emotional need to receive negative attention in order to feel good about himself or herself. Here, the heretic may be confronted on a paternalistic basis: " He is sick. He needs help. " At times, cultists may yield and take a more compassionate posture in relation to the heretic at this point, trying to convince the heretic that he/she is sick, and that he/she needs to come to his/her senses. IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE There is often an attack on the validity of the heretic's ideas. The heretic's ideas are termed invalid because he or she is not a drug addict. Frequently, the heretic is asked, " have you ever had a drug problem? " Whereas in the DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL ILLNESS case the motive driving apparent concern is that the heretic's inappropriate behavior is likely to stem from a mental illness, in this case, if the heretic has not had a drug problem or shared in the problems-of-living experienced by cult members, he or she is said to be incapable of speaking from legitimate experience, as it is only by this experience that someone can " know " what the truth is regarding their cult ideology. (7) INVOKING AUTHORITY A demand for scientific evidence to support the heretical ideas always emerges. In AA, members often cite scientific findings to support their claims regarding involuntariness. That certain medical organizations have endorsed their ideology is brought forth as evidence of the veracity of their ideas. When scientific evidence to the contrary is presented by the heretic, the research is said to be too old to be valid, not extensive enough, subject to diverse interpretations, and ultimately no match for personal experience. At times, when scientific information is brought into the discussion by the heretic, other scientists will accuse the heretic of unethical use of knowledge and influence, and threaten to report him or her to some professional association in hopes that he or she may become professionally censored. When the demand for scientific evidence is met by the heretic, a retreat to IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE may occur. One person wrote recently: " You sight [sic] science. I sight experience, strength, hope. " A favorite demand is " don't criticize what is unless you can propose a better way. " Another is " your sources are not scientific enough, " and " your understanding of science is not sophisticated enough. " SHAMING The assault on the heretic is based on the idea that facts are cruel and insensitive to people who have done him or her no harm. " Is this the way you treat your friends, (or patients)? " REDUCTIONISM, TAUTOLOGY, CONTRADICTION, AND NON SEQUITUR The counter-argument to the heretic involves scientific and philosophical reductionism to the point that few, if any, conclusions regarding the issues at hand can ever be reached. Circuitous arguments evolve. Blatant contradictions emerge, e.g., " the alcoholic cannot willfully control his drinking, therefore, he must be abstinent. " Yet, people choose to abstain from drinking alcoholic beverage. The alcoholic allegedly cannot choose to control his drinking, therefore, he should choose to control his drinking. (8) Using analogies that don't work is a favorite tactic of cultists. The analogies are often not reciprocal. For example, the alcoholic is seen as like a diabetic. Yet diabetics are not like alcoholics. Here is a particularly graphic account of the illogical analogy, often employed as non sequitur, by a psychotherapist attempting to " counter resistance to acceptance of the disease concept in alcoholic families, " (, 1984): Counselor: We are dealing here with an illness. We know it is an illness because it is predictable (it follows a course which we can describe in advance), it is progressive (it gets worse unless it can be brought into remission), and, if untreated, alcoholism is 100% fatal. Family: All he has to do to straighten up is to want to do it. He just doesn't want to stop drinking. I don't buy that he has a disease. Counselor: So you see him as just weak-willed. And when he chooses the bottle instead of his family, you feel he doesn't care about you. Family: Yeah, [t]hat's right. He'll step all over you. He makes promises he doesn't keep, and I don't believe he means to keep them when he makes them. [illogical transition occurs here.] Counselor: Have you ever had diarrhea? Family: (Laughing a little and looking at the counselor rather strangely), of course. Counselor: Did you ever try to control it with willpower? Family: No. I mean...you can't (still chuckling). Counselor: Why not? Family: Well, its a bacteria or something. There's nothing you can do about it...Oh... Counselor: You have the idea. Your Dad has an illness he can't fix with willpower because that doesn't stop it. There are things you can do to get diarrhea to stop, just as there are things you can do to stop the active part of alcoholism. But all you can do for both is to set up the conditions under which getting well is possible. It depends on what disease you have. There is a specific treatment for alcoholism...[.] (, 1984, pp. 118-119) Something is not an illness simply because it is predictable, nor because it is progressive, nor necessarily fatal if untreated. Not wanting to stop drinking is a sign of an " iron will, " not a weak will. The counselor contradicts herself by saying he " chooses " the bottle instead of his family, for on the one hand she asserts the drinker does not have a choice regarding his drinking, and then on the other hand she says he chooses the bottle over his family. Diarrhea is a physical illness. Drinking is a behavior. The two are not the same. People with diarrhea are not like heavy drinkers. The fact that this psychotherapist is unwilling to acknowledge the difference here is a sign of her own problems, problems that masquerade as treatment for the " psycho-pathology " of the family. (9) For some, those confrontations are en ough to shake them out of their hypnotic daze, arouse their curiosity, and assist in getting them to leave the group. Occasionally, a member of the cult may yield suddenly to the heretic, attempting to practice a " turn the other cheek " portion of the ideological doctrine. If a personal dialogue can be achieved and continued between a cult member and the heretic an emotional catharsis may occur for the cultist and this can become a major event in breaking the hypnotic spell. Humor is useful in further diffusing volatile contacts, along with divulging of personal information on the part of the heretic. Those intent on preserving the cult will often go underground and avoid any contact with the heretic whatsoever. (10) CONCLUSION These patterns of response may be useful in analyzing and interpreting exchanges involving vituperation directed at one or several individuals who have either intentionally or not stepped into a nest of vipers, i.e., the cult, a volatile experience, to say the very least. Many psychologists regard AA as no more cult-like than numerous other organizations. They consider that it does more good than harm. The purpose of this analysis is not to gather evidence that AA serves a destructive rather than constructive purpose in the lives of its adherents, but rather that as a cult, good or bad, there are certain characteristics of its members that may be drawn out when they are confronted with incompatible ideology. This essay is a commentary based principally on the writer's personal (rather than clinical) experiences. It has not considered the individual's need for cult conformity, an issue that may be explored further. The defensiveness of cult members should also be considered in light of these needs, (see also Berger, 1991). NOTES 1. Some members are definitely split in their involvement with the cult. They may value the ideology and not the affiliation, or vice versa. In the former case they hold fast to the ideology, yet do not attend cult functions. In the latter case they hold fast to the affiliation and know very little about the ideology, nor do they seem to care to. 2. These ideas are from Lifton's (1961) study of " brainwashing " in Communist China. 3. Clearly, psychoanalysts have established a cult around the ideas of transference and the mythical " unconscious. " 4. That idea was suggested to me by Amos M. Gunsberg, as was the idea of " iron will. " 5. The idea of controlled drinking is anathema to members of AA because it completely undermines the role of involuntariness, the cornerstone upon which the disease model of addiction rests. 6. One particularly irate male, over 2000 miles away, persistently " fingered " the writer on Internet, a computer process whereby the login identity of the bulletin-board poster may be ascertained along with a brief biography. Each time it is conducted, the person being " fingered " is alerted, and his or her work is interrupted while on-line. 7. The research on vicarious or observational learning shows that people learn through the experience of others. As one psychotherapist describes this: " Have you ever put your hand in a rattlesnake pit? Why not? " The point here being that people don't have to put their hands in a rattlesnake pit to know there is a good chance they will be bitten should they choose to do so, (A. Gunsberg, personal communication, July 1993). 8. The idea here is similar to Lifton's (1961) discussion regarding the " thought-terminating cliche. " 9. This is a projection of the therapist's. 10. On computer bulletin boards this may involve a group consensus to establish a " kill file. " A kill file automatically keeps their computers from printing anything by the heretic on screen. Thus, they are protected from anxiety. 11. I am grateful to several anonymous reviewers at the Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic for their comments regarding an earlier draft of this essay. REFERENCES , B. K. (1990). The empirical and theoretical bases for an adaptive model of addiction. Journal of Drug Issues, 20, 37-65. , B. K. (1987) The disease and adaptive models of addiction: A framework evaluation. Journal of Drug Issues, 17, 47-66. , F., & Rollins, M. (1984). Alcoholics Anonymous: The unseen cult. California Sociologist: A Journal of Sociology and Social Work, Winter, 33-48. Antze, P. (1987). Symbolic action in Alcoholics Anonymous. In M. , (Ed.), Constructive drinking: Perspectives on drink from anthropology (149-181). New York: Cambridge University Press. Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press. Berger, L. (1991). Substance abuse as symptom: A psychoanalytic critique of treatment approaches and the cultural beliefs that sustain them. Hillsdale, N.J.: The Analytic Press. Fingarette, H. (1989). A rejoinder to Madsen. The Public Interest, 95, 118-121. Freud, S. (1959). Group psychology and analysis of the ego. New York: Norton. Galanter, M. (1989). Cults: Faith, healing, and coercion. New York: Oxford University Press. Goodwin, F. K., Gordis, E., Hardison, D. L., & Hennigan, L. P. (1988, November 5). Alcoholism most certainly is a disease [Letters to the editor]. The Washington Post, A21. Greil, A. L., & Rudy, D. R. (1983). Conversion to the world view of Alcoholics Anonymous: A refinement of conversion theory. Qualitative Sociology, 6, 5-28. , C. D. (1985). Countering resistance to acceptance of denial and the disease concept in alcoholic families: Two examples of experiential teaching. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 1, 117-121. Kaufmann, W. (1973). From decidophobia to autonomy without guilt and justice. New York: Delta. Kurtz, E. (1988). AA: The story (A revised edition of Not- God: A history of Alcoholics Anonymous). New York: Harper & Row. Leach, B., & Norris, J. L. (1977). Factors in the development of Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.). In B. Kissin and H. Begleiter (Eds.), Treatment and rehabilitation of the chronic alcoholic: The biology of alcoholism, (Volume 5, pp. 441-543). New York:Plenum Press. Lifton, R. J. (1961). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism: A study of " brainwashing " in China. New York: Norton. Madsen, W. (1989). Thin thinking about heavy drinking. The Public Interest, 95, 112-118. Madsen, W., Berger, D., Bremy, F.R., & Mook, D. G. (1990). Alcoholism a myth? Skeptical Inquirer: Journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investigations of the Paranormal 14 , (Summer), 440-442. Peele, S. (1992). Alcoholism, politics, and bureaucracy: The consensus against controlled-drinking therapy in America. Addictive Behaviors, 17, 49-62. Perls, F. S. (1947). Ego, hunger and aggression: A revision of Freud's theory and method. London: & Unwin. Sadler, P. O. (1977). The 'crisis cult' as a voluntary association: An interactional approach to Alcoholics Anonymous. Human Organization, 36, 207-210. Searles, J. S. (1993). Science and fascism: Confronting unpopular ideas. Addictive Behaviors, 18, 5-8. Szasz, T.S. (1965). The ethics of psychoanalysis: The theory and method of autonomous psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books. Wallace, J. (1993a). Fascism and the eye of the beholder: A reply to J.S. Searles on the controlled intoxication issue. Addictive Behaviors, 18, 239-251. Wallace, J. (1993b). [Letters to the editors]. Addictive Behaviors, 18,1-4. A. Schaler is a psychotherapist and adjunct professor at American University's School of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. He lives in Silver Spring, MD and is the listowner/coordinator of NUVUPSY@.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 1999 Report Share Posted May 17, 1999 and another one: Alcoholics Anonymous: A Religion In Denial by Cliff Return to top Occasionally, I'll go to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting because I have a few friends there; a meeting is a good excuse to see them. Meetings are fun (from my perspective) and sometimes I even learn a thing or two. Mostly, they just provoke thought. At one meeting, I voiced my objections to the religious elements in AA. An AA loyalist stood up and warned the newcomers: " Don't believe those that say AA is religious! " Had I not recently learned the skill of self-control, I would have jumped up and said something like: " Don't take my word for it: listen to AA co-founder 'Doctor Bob' -- right out of the hallowed AA Big Book " : " If you think you are an atheist, an agnostic, a skeptic, or have any other form of intellectual pride which keeps you from accepting what is in this book, I feel sorry for you. " (page 181) Meanwhile, the Big Book admits that its purpose for teaching people that they are powerless is to induce religious conversion experiences, variously called a " psychic rearrangement " or " vital spiritual experiences. " This is the only reason anyone teaches the doctrine of powerlessness in AA. Without a religious conversion, the idea that one is powerless is detrimental to one's quest for recovery. In order to make AA appear more benign to the public, AA members differentiate between the words religious and spiritual. This dance with semantics implies that religion is stuffy, hierarchical, or phony, where spirituality is spontaneous, personal, honest, and genuine. The Webster's Tenth Collegiate Dictionary does not support these shades of meaning. To a nonbeliever, however, religion and spirituality are the same thing; we really don't want any part of it -- if we can help it. The Big Book dedicates its entire fourth chapter ( " We Agnostics " ) to ridiculing the beliefs of freethinkers, atheists, humanists, agnostics, and other nonreligious people. Such thinking is not welcome in AA. Of course, nonbelievers won't be thrown out of an AA meeting, but the Big Book is forceful in persuading us to change our religious beliefs as part of a successful program. The book forecasts certain doom to those who reject its teachings, giving victims the following either-or ultimatum: " To one who feels he is an atheist or agnostic such an experience seems impossible, but to continue as he is means disaster ... To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy alternatives to face. " (page 44) Using the ultimate form of coercion, Alcoholics Anonymous says you have two options: religion or death: " But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life -- or else. Perhaps it is going to be that way with you. But cheer up, something like half of us thought we were atheists or agnostics. " (page 44) Note that atheism and agnosticism are forms of dishonesty here -- delusions (we thought we were atheists). AA is not ashamed to paint agnostics (and other nonbelievers) as being dishonest with themselves, implying that they " really do " believe -- deep down inside: " But [the newcomer's] face falls when we speak of spiritual matters, especially when we mention God, for we have re-opened a subject which our man thought he had neatly evaded or entirely ignored. We know how he feels. We have shared his honest doubt and prejudice. Some of us have been violently anti- religious. " (page 45) " ...as soon as we were able to lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we commenced to get results... " (page 46) " Do not let any prejudice you may have against spiritual terms deter you... " (page 47) And don't forget that AA has a captive audience of impaired people: " [We] often found ourselves handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning prejudice. Many of us have been so touchy that even casual reference to spiritual things make us bristle with antagonism. This sort of thinking had to be abandoned.... Faced with alcoholic destruction, we soon became ... open minded on spiritual matters. ... In this respect alcohol was a great persuader. It finally beat us into a state of reasonableness. " (pages 47-8) Most of AA's allies will admit that AA does have its " religious trappings " or that some components of the AA program are spiritual in nature; however, the Big Book places the religious conversion experience as Priority Number One. The Big Book admits that recovery from addiction is secondary to religious conversion: " Lack of power, that was our dilemma. We had to find a power by which we could live, and it had to be a Power greater than ourselves. Obviously. But where and how were we to find this Power? Well, that's exactly what this book is about. Its main object is to enable you to find a Power greater than yourself which will solve your problem.... [That] means, of course, that we are going to talk about God. Here difficulty arises with agnostics. " (page 45) No kidding! The word difficulty is an understatement. AA admits that recovery from alcoholism plays second-fiddle to getting religion -- er, spirituality. ly, hundreds of thousands of us have not liked the " God part. " But the public at large continues to assume that the best advice is to suggest going to AA. More recently, those who are respectful of cultural diversity have begun to tell people simply to " get some help. " It no longer occurs to the average American to simply say: " Why don't you stop drinking? " This is my goal and the reason I support Rational Recovery: I have watched many people quit on their own -- without help. The primary message of RR is self-help. RR teaches self-help as opposed to professional help and self-help as opposed to support groups. But the authorities continue to mandate help other than self-help to thousands across America. To this day, self-help is not an option. This leads me to wonder if the authorities have abstinence as a goal, rather than simply herding them in " the system. " The U.S. Supreme Court may soon end this travesty. Let's hope! Cliff ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free - Simplifying group communications Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 1999 Report Share Posted May 17, 1999 Dear Pete and group: In my state it is the law that treatment programs must have abstinence as their goal. I do not see how Cliff makes the logical leap from assuming abstinence is the goal to assuming that that means mandated AA (if I am reading him correctly. I assume he refers to the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, since he goes on to say that the Supreme Court can remedy the situation). After all, other treatment programs (RR, SOS) promote abstinence. I believe the authorities here want treatment programs so that offenders can be monitored -- it's expensive and possibly illegal for companies to do that themselves, but they seem to believe it's necessary. BTW, my husband's company has a mandatory drug testing program, which has been in place for at least 10 years, though he can't recall exactly how long. Everyone is required to be tested, no matter how high or low their position, and they have a computer driven random lottery to determine who gets tested on any given day or week. In all that time they have only found five people with an illicit drug problem. Cost-effective? I think not. --- Kayleigh Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) >and another one: > Alcoholics Anonymous: A Religion In Denial > by Cliff > <snip> >But the authorities continue to mandate help other than self-help to thousands across America. To this day, self-help is not an >option. This leads me to wonder if the authorities have abstinence as a goal, rather than simply herding them in " the system. " > >The U.S. Supreme Court may soon end this travesty. Let's hope! > >Cliff > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >!! FREE !! DOWNLOAD NOW !! >Animated Interactive Cartoon Character for Windows. >http://clickhere./click/242 > > > >eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free - Simplifying group communications Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 1999 Report Share Posted May 17, 1999 Dear Kayleigh (please notice my sudden politeness) Your husbands program is in variance with the scapegoat paradigm. Everybody has ( unless they are equally dull each day ) ups and downs connected with work or life. If somebody finds anything in your personal fluids they will not focus on your work or your life, but on the chemical findings. Sometimes they will find someone worthy sacrificing, but the loss of the valuable member will be overshadowed by the 'positive' effect on the others - making their compliance more in line with company standards. As a former maoist I see maoist techniques of mind control in this policy. Find a goat and get free - for a while. Bjørn. (ups!? I'm not getting to political?) Kayleigh S wrote: Dear Pete and group: In my state it is the law that treatment programs must have abstinence as their goal. I do not see how Cliff makes the logical leap from assuming abstinence is the goal to assuming that that means mandated AA (if I am reading him correctly. I assume he refers to the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, since he goes on to say that the Supreme Court can remedy the situation). After all, other treatment programs (RR, SOS) promote abstinence. I believe the authorities here want treatment programs so that offenders can be monitored -- it's expensive and possibly illegal for companies to do that themselves, but they seem to believe it's necessary. BTW, my husband's company has a mandatory drug testing program, which has been in place for at least 10 years, though he can't recall exactly how long. Everyone is required to be tested, no matter how high or low their position, and they have a computer driven random lottery to determine who gets tested on any given day or week. In all that time they have only found five people with an illicit drug problem. Cost-effective? I think not. --- Kayleigh Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) >and another one: > Alcoholics Anonymous: A Religion In Denial > by Cliff > <snip> >But the authorities continue to mandate help other than self-help to thousands across America. To this day, self-help is not an >option. This leads me to wonder if the authorities have abstinence as a goal, rather than simply herding them in "the system." > >The U.S. Supreme Court may soon end this travesty. Let's hope! > >Cliff > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >!! FREE !! DOWNLOAD NOW !! >Animated Interactive Cartoon Character for Windows. >http://clickhere./click/242 > > > >eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums Click Here! eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free www. - Simplifying group communications eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free www. - Simplifying group communications Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 1999 Report Share Posted May 18, 1999 --- >Dear Pete and group: > >In my state it is the law that treatment programs must have abstinence as their goal. > >I do not see how Cliff makes the logical leap from assuming abstinence is the goal to assuming that that means mandated AA (if I am reading him correctly. I assume he refers to the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, since he goes on to say that the Supreme Court can remedy the situation). After all, other treatment programs (RR, SOS) promote abstinence. > >I believe the authorities here want treatment programs so that offenders can be monitored -- it's expensive and possibly illegal for companies to do that themselves, but they seem to believe it's necessary. > (snip) Hi Kayleigh, I don't think you're reading Cliff correctly. His point is that abstinence can be achieved, and body fluid testing can be done to ascertain it, without " treatment. " Rational Recovery does not refer to itself or consider itself a " treatment. " Part of my company's drug/alcohol policy (and I understand this is quite standard in all mandated " treatment " programs) is that the errant employee not only have negative d/a tests, but be assessed for " treatment compliance. " Now, what on earth does this mean? If a job designated " safety-sensitive " has an abstinence requirement, and an employee violates this, but then becomes abstinent (and proves it by repeated negative tests), he/she can still be considered " non-compliant " (and therefore " unfit for duty " ) SIMPLY BECAUSE HE/SHE DISAGREES WITH THE " DISEASE CONCEPT " OR THE NEED FOR RECOVERY GROUP ATTENDANCE. Where RR differs from most addiction programs is that they state categorically that stopping drinking/drugging is the end of the story, and that presenting the discontinuance of an unhealthy behavior as such an arduous process as to require months of " treatment " followed by a lifetime of vigilance (and meetings where one " works on recovery " ) is a ridiculous hoax. There are currently contract negotiations going on between my agency and the Transport Workers Union. I have presented a " radical " idea for the new contract to the union biggies, that persons who test " positive " on the federally-required d/a tests be put into a probationary status where they are tested far more frequently than the norm, and be given a list of possible programs they can utilize privately if they wish, BUT NOT BE FORCED INTO ANY KIND OF TREATMENT OR IDEOLOGY. If their job performance has been satisfactory, there is no reason why they shouldn't be working while demonstrating abstinence in the frequent-testing scheme. (BTW it's already on the books that a second positive results in a permanent demotion to a non-safety-sensitive position, and a third positive results in termination.) They thought I was crazy at first -- " But most people 'need' treatment in order to stop! " I have been patiently and tirelessly educating them as to the truth, which is that any individual can get lengthy, intensive treatment if he or she wishes, but the vast majority of people who were " naughty " need no such thing to avoid recurrence. ~Rita -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free - Simplifying group communications Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 1999 Report Share Posted May 18, 1999 Hi Kayleigh Which State are you in? This position is absurd - it means that basically a patient/client can never be assisted when referring to drinking too much without requiring that they stop altogether. I think means that the goal of the authorities appears to be not to produce non-drinkers as to recruit ppl into the 12-step treatment system. Pete On Mon, 17 May 1999 11:46:19 -0700 Kayleigh S wrote: > Dear Pete and group: > > In my state it is the law that treatment programs must have abstinence as their goal. > > I do not see how Cliff makes the logical leap from assuming abstinence is the goal to assuming that that means mandated AA (if I am reading him correctly. I assume he refers to the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, since he goes on to say that the Supreme Court can remedy the situation). After all, other treatment programs (RR, SOS) promote abstinence. > > I believe the authorities here want treatment programs so that offenders can be monitored -- it's expensive and possibly illegal for companies to do that themselves, but they seem to believe it's necessary. > > BTW, my husband's company has a mandatory drug testing program, which has been in place for at least 10 years, though he can't recall exactly how long. Everyone is required to be tested, no matter how high or low their position, and they have a computer driven random lottery to determine who gets tested on any given day or week. In all that time they have only found five people with an illicit drug problem. Cost-effective? I think not. > --- > Kayleigh > > Zz > zZ > |\ z _,,,---,,_ > /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ > |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) > > > > > >and another one: > > Alcoholics Anonymous: A Religion In Denial > > by Cliff > > > <snip> > > >But the authorities continue to mandate help other than self-help to thousands across America. To this day, self-help is not an > >option. This leads me to wonder if the authorities have abstinence as a goal, rather than simply herding them in " the system. " > > > >The U.S. Supreme Court may soon end this travesty. Let's hope! > > > >Cliff > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >!! FREE !! DOWNLOAD NOW !! > >Animated Interactive Cartoon Character for Windows. > >http://clickhere./click/242 > > > > > > > >eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > @Backup - The #1 Online Backup Service > Automatic, Safe, Reliable Backup and Restores. FREE for > 30 Days. INSTALL Now and have a chance to win a Palm Pilot V! > http://clickhere./click/218 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > Pete Watts ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free - Simplifying group communications Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 1999 Report Share Posted May 18, 1999 --- >Hi Kayleigh > >Which State are you in? This position is absurd - it means >that basically a patient/client can never be assisted when >referring to drinking too much without requiring that they >stop altogether. > Hi Pete, I agree wholeheartedly that moderated drinking, or " healthy drinking " if you will, is and ought to be an acceptable goal. But realize that anyone who is subject to d/a testing and penalties for coming up " positive " is not someone who has gone to a therapist to ask assistance in reducing drinking, or reducing anxiety/stress, etc.; it is someone who has a job which requires on-the-job abstinence and negative readings. If you see my previous post on this thread, you'll note my point (which I know to be the position of Rational Recovery) that " abstinence " (here referring to having drug and alcohol-free body fluids while on duty, verified by testing) should be the ONLY goal of any so-called " treatment " , and (who is I believe a RR spokesperson) makes the point that very often, " treatment " extends far beyond the point where that goal is reached, because of the mythology that " recovery " means something much more than abstinence (whether in required situations or complete) and is something that needs to be " worked on " for a lifetime. I have been quite open to friends, co-workers, and listmembers here that I personally do drink moderately and non-problematically. However, I would be immediately put back into " treatment " if I stated this to the EAP at a " followup " session. The fact that I have over 120 " negative " tests on record justifies my calling myself " abstinent " for their purposes, and bolsters my credibility when I campaign for reform of their loony " compliance " requirements. > >I think means that the goal of the authorities >appears to be not to produce non-drinkers as to recruit ppl >into the 12-step treatment system. > Rational Recovery does not advocate recovery group involvement of any kind, 12-step or not. I don't cotton to their " total abstinence forever " credo, but their ideas are easily modified for those who have converted from unhealthy drinking to responsible moderate drinking, without outside help of any kind. I don't think it would be any more fair for " authorities " to require attendance at X number of moderation-oriented meetings a week as to require AA attendance, even though Moderation Management is certainly an excellent program for those who desire it. ~Rita -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free - Simplifying group communications Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.