How I Got Involved with A.A. - and What I've Concluded About It
Long before I attended my first meeting at Alcoholics Anonymous, or knew anything about it's teachings or practices beyond what I had seen on screen - people sitting in church basements, and the phrase "I'm Bob, and I'm an alcoholic", the one thing I did know is what everyone knows as common knowledge: that A.A. is the one and only program proven to actually work. My intuition picked up one there being something not quite right about it - but when my drinking reached a tipping point, I figured it couldn't hurt.
My therapist, a former member, suggested 90 meetings in 90 days. This seemed far to intense a commitment to begin with my very first meeting, so I decided to get a feel for it, going to meetings on and off again at most once a week. The people were very nice, and very encouraging, but an alarm bell went off when I realized that the "I'm Bob and I'm an alcoholic" was used in a different way than I had thought. I had thought that this was a phrase uttered once, by the newcomer who stated it as a declaration that they were no longer rationalizing and were willing to admit they needed help. It made no sense to me to keep repeating it.
But what shocked me even more was to hear people state it who had not drank in 20 years. Why would you continue to define yourself that way? But in spite of disagreeing with this aspect of A.A., I figured it was still worth a shot - if it truly works, they must be doing something right. I put off getting a sponsor because I wanted to make sure I got to know the people there enough to make sure I got one I could trust to be my mentor.
The first time I began to take A.A. seriously was when, after 3 1/2 years of almost solid drinking, I lost my job, and realized if I didn't get sober right away, I would fill my spare time with drinking, and my life would rapidly disintegrate. There was a group a 5 minute walk from my house, which was open all day for people to hang out, and which held multiple meetings in a day, and sometimes I went to 3 of them, for about ten days. I decided to let go of my reservations, and had the full intention of adopting a sponsor and doing the steps, but would wait a bit to make sure I got the right sponsor.
Unlike the previous two groups I had attended, this group began each meeting with the Big Book preamble:
My therapist, a former member, suggested 90 meetings in 90 days. This seemed far to intense a commitment to begin with my very first meeting, so I decided to get a feel for it, going to meetings on and off again at most once a week. The people were very nice, and very encouraging, but an alarm bell went off when I realized that the "I'm Bob and I'm an alcoholic" was used in a different way than I had thought. I had thought that this was a phrase uttered once, by the newcomer who stated it as a declaration that they were no longer rationalizing and were willing to admit they needed help. It made no sense to me to keep repeating it.
But what shocked me even more was to hear people state it who had not drank in 20 years. Why would you continue to define yourself that way? But in spite of disagreeing with this aspect of A.A., I figured it was still worth a shot - if it truly works, they must be doing something right. I put off getting a sponsor because I wanted to make sure I got to know the people there enough to make sure I got one I could trust to be my mentor.
The first time I began to take A.A. seriously was when, after 3 1/2 years of almost solid drinking, I lost my job, and realized if I didn't get sober right away, I would fill my spare time with drinking, and my life would rapidly disintegrate. There was a group a 5 minute walk from my house, which was open all day for people to hang out, and which held multiple meetings in a day, and sometimes I went to 3 of them, for about ten days. I decided to let go of my reservations, and had the full intention of adopting a sponsor and doing the steps, but would wait a bit to make sure I got the right sponsor.
Unlike the previous two groups I had attended, this group began each meeting with the Big Book preamble:
Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty.
One reason I intended to continue to attend and then commit, was to prove that I was not one of these. Fortunately, that repetition caused me to wake up. I realized how ugly those words were. How nonsensical. How judgemental. How absolute. I had been open to the idea that while there were certainly aspects of A.A. to disagree with, the core message might be true. But this paragraph was not just buried somewhere in the Big Book. It's use as a preamble made clear to me that accepting it was a precondition for the rest of A.A.'s teachings.
It took me years to see the full extent of A.A.'s harm, but it was then that I realized it's toxic elements were not just peripheral issues, or broad tendencies that some groups may or may not have, but intrinsic at the most basic level.
Nevertheless, I tried to give A.A. as much credit as I could, and while I considered it to have cultish elements, I did not want to water down the word "cult" by using it for A.A. An organization can be harmful without being a cult. And the almost universal response I have had when I criticise A.A. (to people with little knowledge of it), to defend it, and often enough they imply or state that I am being bitter and judgemental - and to call it a true cult is a sure way to write me off. Even when people defend A.A. or think I am being harsh, they do acknowledge that A.A. might indeed have a lot of flaws - but that it's good outweighs it's minor harms. But to hear it called an inherently harmful cult - especially when it has such a stellar reputation, and you are the only person they've heard this other side from - sounds utterly audacious.
Even when I criticize it without using that term, it is frustrating how people defend, defend, defend. I mention a criticism of A.A.'s teaching. They come up with a rational sounding interpretation. I tell them that this is completely different from how it's meant to be, which is crystal clear. Then they respond by comparing it to Christianity - just because there are fundamentalists, doesn't mean it's universal. I respond that it is a core doctrine, and you cannot practice A.A. without it. Perhaps they concede, and I point out why this teaching is wrong - they respond that even though it may not be 100% technically correct, people still need it.
And so on. It is frustrating that people who will admit they know next to nothing about A.A. still disbelieve me when I tell them what A.A. teaches explicitly and universally. A big part of this is that they think I am criticizing a fundamentalist minority within A.A., because they do not realize that A.A. is at it's core fundamentalist and absolute.
To summarize: the reason for this blog is to hone my arguments regarding A.A. so that there will be less frustration in conversations. Someday I can turn these into a self-published book I can give to people.
For now, I think my approach should be to avoid going for the harshest criticisms right away, to focus on just one criticism rather than listing them all, and before going into my arguments, be very careful to preface them by saying my feelings are very strong, but that it's taken me a very long time and thought, and involvement in A.A.
That's all for this post.
I think my next one may be to list of all my criticisms.
One reason I intended to continue to attend and then commit, was to prove that I was not one of these. Fortunately, that repetition caused me to wake up. I realized how ugly those words were. How nonsensical. How judgemental. How absolute. I had been open to the idea that while there were certainly aspects of A.A. to disagree with, the core message might be true. But this paragraph was not just buried somewhere in the Big Book. It's use as a preamble made clear to me that accepting it was a precondition for the rest of A.A.'s teachings.
It took me years to see the full extent of A.A.'s harm, but it was then that I realized it's toxic elements were not just peripheral issues, or broad tendencies that some groups may or may not have, but intrinsic at the most basic level.
Nevertheless, I tried to give A.A. as much credit as I could, and while I considered it to have cultish elements, I did not want to water down the word "cult" by using it for A.A. An organization can be harmful without being a cult. And the almost universal response I have had when I criticise A.A. (to people with little knowledge of it), to defend it, and often enough they imply or state that I am being bitter and judgemental - and to call it a true cult is a sure way to write me off. Even when people defend A.A. or think I am being harsh, they do acknowledge that A.A. might indeed have a lot of flaws - but that it's good outweighs it's minor harms. But to hear it called an inherently harmful cult - especially when it has such a stellar reputation, and you are the only person they've heard this other side from - sounds utterly audacious.
Even when I criticize it without using that term, it is frustrating how people defend, defend, defend. I mention a criticism of A.A.'s teaching. They come up with a rational sounding interpretation. I tell them that this is completely different from how it's meant to be, which is crystal clear. Then they respond by comparing it to Christianity - just because there are fundamentalists, doesn't mean it's universal. I respond that it is a core doctrine, and you cannot practice A.A. without it. Perhaps they concede, and I point out why this teaching is wrong - they respond that even though it may not be 100% technically correct, people still need it.
And so on. It is frustrating that people who will admit they know next to nothing about A.A. still disbelieve me when I tell them what A.A. teaches explicitly and universally. A big part of this is that they think I am criticizing a fundamentalist minority within A.A., because they do not realize that A.A. is at it's core fundamentalist and absolute.
To summarize: the reason for this blog is to hone my arguments regarding A.A. so that there will be less frustration in conversations. Someday I can turn these into a self-published book I can give to people.
For now, I think my approach should be to avoid going for the harshest criticisms right away, to focus on just one criticism rather than listing them all, and before going into my arguments, be very careful to preface them by saying my feelings are very strong, but that it's taken me a very long time and thought, and involvement in A.A.
That's all for this post.
I think my next one may be to list of all my criticisms.
Comments
Post a Comment