From: rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: What this group is (and isn't) for (was: Abstinence ...)
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:26:33 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Sep14.145612.21915@zip.eecs.umich.edu> carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) writes:
>rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman) writes:
>
>>As I've tried to point out, there are certainly dogmatic AA members,
>>but the AA approved literature, which even the most dogmatic of members
>>rely on, says that AA is not concerned with other programs one way or
>>another.
>>
>>If other programs work, my sense is that that would be just fine with
>>most people in AA.  I know it would be just fine with me.  
>
>I'm glad to hear this.  But as you know, newcomers to AA are going to
>run into the dogmatic members as well as the open-minded ones.  In
>addition, two familiar AA slogans encourage dogmatic attitudes:
>"Utilize, don't analyze" and "Your best thinking got you here".
>Accordingly, newcomers expressing doubts about the program will often
>be told in effect that thinking leads to drinking.

That's true.  Newcomers will be told that.  And in many cases it's a
good thing.  It's the most conservative approach to the problem, and
it's confusing enough as a newcomer.  In another posting you yourself
say that re-introducing the drug shouldn't be done until after
abstinence is reliably achieved, and even then only under professional
supervision.  So, even under your standards, I think it is entirely
appropriate that newcomers be discouraged from thinking they can get
away with using.  For most, it will be several years at a minimum before
even thinking about it makes sense.  And by then, presumably their lives
will be working just fine without it.  So even then, why should they
bother?

Newcomers are also told in every meeting that the opinions expressed
are strictly those of the speakers.  So when the zealots told me
something that didn't make sense to me, I paid more attention to people
I found more reasonable.  I also know that my opinions on recovery are
entirely too soft-line for some.  Some of the things that have worked
for me have rendered some recovering people completely aghast.

>As evidence of the prevalence of dogmatic belief in AA, Exhibit A
>would be alt.recovery itself.  I've criticized AA (and by implication
>other 12-step programs) for certain deficiencies and for propagating
>misinformation, and I've and claimed that AA can be unhelpful and do
>harm as well as good -- things I firmly believe are important for
>problem drinkers, addicts, and the public to know about.  But in
>response I get not only some very thoughtful, rational, and calm
>postings but also a good deal of hostility, defensiveness, and
>attempts to suppress this kind of discussion.

True.  And those folks who responded to your critiques in that way were
also asked by many to let you have your say.

> ... One might imagine by
>contrast a newsgroup in which free, open, and reasoned discussion of
>the pros and cons of the various paths to recovery was welcomed and
>encouraged, while criticizing individuals and flaming were frowned
>upon.

Flaming and criticizing individuals is frowned upon by most people in
this group.  So is criticism of other people's programs.  In doing
that, I'm afraid that you crossed the line a bit, and may have invited
some of the reactions you got.  Cross-posting to other newsgroups is
also frowned upon, and for the same reasons--because the idea is to
share our various experiences, not our conjectures.

This is slightly different than the reasoned style of discussion I
think you had in mind.  You may have encountered friction because it
appears that you are attempting to discuss your ideas about AA, as
opposed to your experience with AA.  It's a subtle difference, I must
admit.  As I understand it, we're here to help ourselves and each
other, not to decide in any objective sense which method of help "is
best."  (And I hope that those tempted to thump their Big Books get
this point as well.)

>If AA members are truly more committed to helping people than to their
>own belief system, they might consider handing out to all newcomers a
>sheet that says:

Well, I don't think this is entirely fair.  I do think it's a good idea
though.  If we ever get a FAQ, I hope that something like this is part
of the preamble.

>"You are welcome here and we hope you will stay.  Many thousands of
>alcoholics have found sobriety and a new life through the AA
>fellowship.  But we recognize that the AA way is not for everyone.
>Our primary purpose is to help people with drinking problems sober up
>any way they can.  So in case you decide that AA is not for you, here
>are some alternative methods you may wish to explore....  Here are the
>phone numbers for Women for Sobriety, Men for Sobriety, SOS, Rational
>Recovery, and Methods of Moderation....  Best wishes for your new life
>of sobriety!"
>
>Or something like that.

>Richard

-r
From: kasey@trsvax.tandy.com
Date: 08 Sep 92 09:33 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: No Cigarettes
Message-ID: <1227267298@trsvax>