Critique of paper

[Guest guest]

Caroline, thanks for your paper, though I can't resist critiquing

it - I hope I haven't ripped it to shreds... I found a few errors of

fact, but also an omission of what I feel is a most important point:

that AA hurts people, including (perhaps especially) those who are

" successful " in it.

> " My opinion of A.A.?…….It is a group of drunks, given the power of mind

>control, to fuck people up and pull their strings in an effort for them to

>achieve their own gratification "

>-Anonymous A.A. member - mid 1980's to 1992

>Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) is by far the most popular and well-known

>organization in treating alcoholism in the United States.

>...

>The Big Book, A.A.'s own textbook, states, " Remember that we deal

>with alcohol, cunning, baffling, powerful! Without help it is too much for

>us. But there is One who has all power that One is God. May you find him

>now! " and " 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 " (The Big Book Ch.3; Ch.4).

Those quote are from chapters 5 and 4, respectively.

>This God-centered, twelve-step approach of A.A. has worked for a vast

>number of people. For example, at the meeting I attended there were two

>members celebrating their nine-year A.A. birthdays, and numerous others had

>been consistently attending meetings for years.

Perhaps you could define " AA birthday " , and when you say " AA has

worked " , say what you mean. You presumably mean that problem drinking

has stopped and they have achieved " sobriety " (which actually means

abstinence from alcohol in AA), not the dictionary definition of

sobriety, meaning 'not drunk' - one can drink one drink and still be

sober by the dictionary definition, but not by AA's definition).

R. Peteet of the

Brigham and Women's Hospital says that A.A. can be of assistance to people

by helping them find an appropriate identity, a sense of integrity, a

meaningful life and a sense of interdependence (Peteet 263). A study done

by Sylvia Kairouz and Lise Dube found that the overall sense of well-being

and happiness in alcoholics grows proportionally higher the longer one

remains successful in A.A. (Kairouz and Dube 576). Countless resources

prove that A.A. is a relatively successful program that has helped

countless numbers of alcoholics get on the path to sobriety since its

^^^^^^^^

I'd use the words abstinence from alcohol. Again, sobriety in this

context is AA's term for abstinence. By using the word sobriety in ths

way, you're buying into AA's definition, as opposed to previously

established use of the word. You may want to read up on " loading the

language " , as is done by cults.

>birth, although the exact numbers remain unclear, due to the anonymous

>character of the organization.

>All one has to do is ask any number of people where they would recommend

>sending someone with an alcohol problem to see that Alcoholics Anonymous is

>the number one prescribed means of overcoming alcoholism. A.A. is so

>popular that society has forced the organization into being a near monopoly

>of the alcohol recovery system

I don't think it is society forcing it to be a monopoly so much as

AA's public relations policies working amazingly well. Ask the average

person where to go if you have a bad toothache, and they will say a

dentist. Ask where to go if you're drink too much, and they will say AA.

But the average person probably knows more about dentistry than about

AA (for example, being unaware that the twelve steps mention God).

Many of the people most strongly promoting AA are themselves AA

members, but working " outside " their AA membership, in jobs such

as Employee Assistance Program directors/supervisors, treatment center

counselors, or as police, judges or ministers. Especially in these

last professions, they may choose to " keep their anonymity " , i.e.,

keep their AA membership a secret.

>though The Big Book states, " Upon therapy

>for the alcoholic himself, we surely have no monopoly…Our book is only

>meant to be suggestive only. We realize we know only a little " (The Big

>Book Introduction).

It appears you took two parts of the big book and put them together.

The first sentence is from this paragraph in the Forward to the Second

Edition, written in 1955 (printed in the Third as well as Second

editions):

So far, upon the total problem of actual poten­

tial alcoholics in the world, we have made only a

scratch. In all probability, we shall never be able to

touch more than a fair fraction of the alcohol problem

in all its ramifications. Upon therapy for the alcoholic

himself, we surely have no monopoly. Yet it is our great

hope that all those who have as yet found no answer

may begin to find one in the pages of this book and

will presently join us on the highroad to a new freed­

om.

The rest is from this paragraph on page 164, the last page of the

'official text' that is claimed and believed to be the recovery program

of AA (the rest of the big book after that consists of personal stories):

Our book is meant to be suggestive only. We realize

[yet ironically, it is taken as the inspired Word of God by many,

perhaps most, AA members]

we know only a little. God will constantly disclose

more to you and to us. Ask Him in your morning medi­

tation what you can do each day for the man who is

still sick. The answers will come, if your own house

is in order. But obviously you cannot transmit some­

thing you haven't got. See to it that your relationship

with Him is right, and great events will come to pass

for you and countless others. This is the Great Fact

for us.

This paragraph (along with everyhing else in pages 1 through

164) was written ca. 1947-1948 and published in 1949, when AA

was essentially brand new and claimed a total of 100 members.

>Though the group itself explicitly states that it does

>not want to be the only program in the business of alcohol recovery, it

>more or less is.

Look at the whole of that paragraph I quoted from the Forward to

the Second Edition. Back then (1955), AA membership was smaller

than it has been in recent decades, and certainly in 1955 many

doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, ministers, faith healers,

etc., treated alcoholics without referring to or even any knowledge

of AA, so certainly it was reasonable to say AA had no monopoly on

alcoholism treatment. But the intent is clear, that if they could get

the AA message out to the world's alcoholics, then they could put

their alcoholism in remission by having them follow the AA program.

Seen in context, these quotes say things very different from what

you imply by quoting them out of context. It is clear that the early

intent of AA was to spread its message far and wide, " saving " as many

alcoholics as possible.

>To illustrate this point further, another man states,

> " They make you believe that your every thought is their business, you

>aren't allowed to think for yourself…If you speak your mind you are shunned

>by higher-ups in the program if you don't come around to their thinking. If

>you say too much, you are considered a threat to the Group and all others

>are advised to steer clear of you " (Anonymous).

If I didn't know AA, I'd wonder why they would do this. To put it

into context, in AA a person's every thought is believed to be either

an " alcoholic thought " or a " sober thought " , and the natural thing is

for one to have " alcoholic thoughts " that will eventually lead back

to destructive drinking. One must have a sponsor, an outside person

who will be able to distinguish between one's " alcoholic thoughts "

and " sober thoughts " , and direct one toward having " sober thoughts " .

One cannot distinguish between these oneself, because, as they say,

" your best thinking got you here. "

>...

>In my research I visited websites with

>anti-A.A. sentiment names like " www.aahorror.com, "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's www.aahorror.net, not .com.

> " www.aadeprogramming.com, " and " www.aakills.com. "

>...

>While a number of people have formed the opinion that Alcoholics Anonymous

>is ineffective because of its religious, conformist structure, others have

>found God and guidance in a higher power through the program.

I think you concentrate too much on the religous nature of AA (which

is an importan point, but takes away from other points). Also, you place

people onto two groups: those whos beliefs are compatible with (or mold

their beliefs to be compatible with) AA and who are " succesful " in AA,

and those who reject AA's beliefs.

Also, you have quoted those on this list as saying AA is a cult, but

the word 'cult' is itself so loaded that the average person may not know

what we mean.

I am a former " successful " member of AA, in that not only did AA

get me " sober " but it got me to believe in God, get an AA sponsor,

take the 12 steps, associate only with other AA members, and thus

become a " member " of AA " society " . I am now considered a " faulure " by

AA because, even though I have stayed abstinent from alcohol, years ago

I stopped following the 12 steps, and quit attending meetings. I am,

at best, a " dry drunk " in AA's eyes.

Perhaps a critical point your paper misses is that AA has been called,

by its founder Bill , " an ego deflation program " . As someone else

wrote (I forget, perhaps Ragge or Bufe), it might more accurately be

called an ego destruction program, reducing as much as possible a

person's self-worth, replacing it with unworthiness, and a belief that

one doesn't deserve to be alive, much less be walking around " without

the curse of having to drink " . One believes he is only alive and

abstinent by having followed the program of AA. This fosters an

incredible amount of dependence on and loyalty to AA.

Which leads into your next sentence:

>While A.A.

>was not successful for a number of people, many have surely indebted their

>lives to the organization.

Why have they done this? I could argue that wearing seat belts

while driving a car has saved my life, but I haven't indebted my

life to seat belts. I've never gone to seat-belt-wearer meetings

every day and expressed my gratitude to seat belts, but I've done

the analogous thing in AA.

>However, those whom the program does not work

>for have little place to turn when the number one prescribed means of

>alcohol recovery does not work for them so they are often left to

>participate in a program unsuitable to their needs. Though Alcoholics

>Anonymous is oftentimes a successful, life-changing program, it is not

>necessarily right for everyone.

It is certainly life-changing, I think most everyone would agree

with that. I'd say it is life-changing in negative ways, in ways

similar to Scientology, est (more recently called the Landmark Forum),

and Amway. Check out these in any web search engine for articles

critical of them - these have many similarities to AA.

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley