From: rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: RR vs. AA, or RR + AA?
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:07:36 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Sep26.222352.18316@zip.eecs.umich.edu> carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) writes:
>rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman) writes:
>
>>You know, what I enjoy about this group is the opportunity to find out
>>about how other people get better.  What I don't enjoy about this
>>group is the debates about how other people _ought_to_ get better.
>
>Same here.  Let's make a distinction between: (a) telling other people
>how they "oughta" go about their recovery (my way is the One True Path
>to Enlightenment); and (b) pointing out the differences between the XX
>and the YY programs 

Richard, I agree with you up to here.

>and explaining why the XX program doesn't work for
>me or would be counterproductive for me and some other people, without
>implying that people who *do* work the XX program are stupid or
>immature or inferior as persons.  IMHO the first is a waste of time,
>while the second can be useful in some circumstances.

I think that this is impossible.  The negative implications are
simply unavoidable.  Just as I don't want people quoting AA's
big book at you, I don't want you quoting RR's small book at me.

Let me cite the instances in your later paragraphs that strike me as
laden with negative implications--so that you know.  And from now on, I
would appreciate it if you would simply relate the differences in
approach, and leave out the explanations of why things didn't work for
you, or might not work for others.  As a person who believes in
rationality, why don't you just present the case for what you believe
in, and let others present the case for what they believe in, and let
each person decide for her- or himself.  This isn't a court of law.
There's no call for cross-examination.  Both AA and RR apparently have a
track record.  They each work for some.  Let's just let people
self-select without trying to steer them one way or another.

In criticising AA and thumping the small book, it appears to me that in
you're doing the same thing that you object to in others.  I'd
therefore like to ask you to stop.

Thanks.

-r

>Jack Trimpey puts it this way in THE SMALL BOOK (1992 edition,
>Delacorte Press, $18.00 hardcover)-:
>
> "[AA] does much good for many people, and I know it.... But thousands
> leave AA each year, disgruntled and ripe for relapse, unable to make
> use of a very good program.

Bad implication.

> "Rational Recovery Systems views AA as a victim of its own success --

Bad implication.

> thrust into roles in our society that it is neither designed for, nor
> able to fulfill.... In its simplest, *communal* form, AA is, as its
> members say, 'wonderful.'

Not bad.

> ... But when AA comes to us in its
> *institutional* form, enforced by the military, the courts, and social
> welfare agencies, and sets the agenda for practically every treatment
> program in America, it is intolerable....

But followed by a very bad implication.  It's more like the
institutions tried to appropriate AA because it had a track record.
This seems to blame AA for that.

> "The people who are interested in RR have almost invariably been to AA
> and are discouraged in their attempts to overcome chemical dependence.

Very bad implication.

> Rational Recovery is more than an alternative to AA -- it is the
> *counterpoint*.  AA's 'losers' are our winners.

This implies that AA labels people who don't stay with it as
losers, and themselves as winners.  I think that people who stay
with AA view themselves as _lucky_ to be alive.  That's a very
different perspective.  This paragraph is both negative an inaccurate.

> In order to reach our
> segment of the population, it is necessary to discuss current
> practices in the field of chemical dependence.  AA is all that is in
> practice, and perhaps it is a burden of its success that in order for
> one to critique current practices it is necessary for critics to focus
> on 12-stepism.

This implies that AA is outdated, and that 12-step"ism" is a dogma.
You may think it is, but that is your opinion.  In my opinion,
the 12-steps are a _method._

> The differences between Rational Recovery and
> Alcoholics Anonymous are not superficial, but specific and
> irreconcilable.  If I were promoting a three-pronged widget when
> everyone was accustomed to a two-pronged widget, I would first point
> out the problems and limitations inherent with the current device.
> THE SMALL BOOK is titled to be immediately associated with 'The Big
> Book' of Alcoholics Anonymous.  It is vital that alcoholics who are
> considering getting help know that there is more than one way to skin
> a cat and -- just as there are differences among people -- there are
> different ways to achieve a durable sobriety.  Rational-emotive
> therapy (RET) is an irrationality-bashing approach to mental health,
> and members of RR attack irrationalities in themselves and others as a
> matter of survival.

This seems OK.  Again, you're just describing differences in method.

> In our discussion of the 12 steps, we can see
> that Rational Recovery is not so much another creed, or set of
> prescribed beliefs, but rather a way of thinking, or reasoning, as
> opposed to believing.  For people starting out on the road to
> recovery, there are choices to be made, and it is best that they be
> made as early as possible.

Again OK.

> "The message of RRS [Rational Recovery Services] is 'Take sides!'  The
> choice is between 'To overcome my compulsive drinking problem, I will
> choose to become more faithful to a rescuing deity, God, and more
> dependent on a recovery group,' and 'I will do better by becoming more
> rational and independent of others.'  There is too much at stake to be
> in the middle of the road on recovery issues.  There is a great need
> for healthy competition between the ideologies of AA and RR, so that
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A mild quibble here.  If RR is targeted at a different segment
of the addicted population, then there's no need for competition
between the two.

> those in need can shop and compare, and so that when one reaches an
> impasse in one program there is a better alternative than the corner
> bar.  Since 'The Big Book' includes an entire derisive chapter about
> 'agnostics' as a way to argue its case for faithfulness to God, THE
> SMALL BOOK makes frequent mention of the irrationalities contained in
> the universally accepted AA model.  That seems fair enough....

It seems to me that if RR wants to distinguish itself by not making the
same "mistakes" as AA, then it would do well not to use the fact that
AA made some mistakes to justify making them itself.

> "But perhaps this objection [i.e., that Trimpey shouldn't criticize AA] 
> is really an objection to irreverence toward God, cautioning that a
> nontheistic or humanistic approach should 'tone it down' so as to
> avoid being tasteless or offending those who do believe.  If so, we
> had better acknowledge that there are millions who cannot be helped by
> AA precisely because they can *see through* the religiosity therein.
> This book is written specifically for them, just as 'The Big Book' is
> aimed at those who are in the market for spiritual healing.  THE SMALL
> BOOK is an affirmation for AA refuseniks, and it is a vindication for
> those who have had their personal objections to religiosity discounted
> at AA meetings.  It is also their guide to recovery from a life-
> threatening condition.  By obtaining appropriate help, they may learn
> that abstaining from intoxicants is far less difficult than it is
> commonly made out to be."
>
>Richard

The fact that people become wedded to things that help them, and revere
them, is not necessarily a bad thing.  I have the feeling that if I were
to run down RR the way that these paragraphs run down AA, I'd get an
other-than-rational reaction from you and others who find help through RR.

Just as I've asked the Big Book thumpers to tone it down so as not to
give _needless_ offense to those who agree with you, now I'm asking you
to do likewise for their sake.  Please knock it off.

Thank you.

-r
Newsgroups: alt.recovery