From: mdcsc!ah@uunet.UU.NET (Alexander Herrera)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: AA beliefs?
Date: 11 Sep 1992 13:14:10 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) writes:

> The program is
> never at fault, only the individual who rejects AA.  I.e., blame the
> victim.

You have from the beginning misunderstood a fundamental principle of
the program. In order for the program to work, one must be convinced
that nothing else will work for him. (Why? Because no one would do the
stuff they need to do to get sober unless they thought was the last
resort.) If in fact something else WILL work for him, then he should go
for that since it will be nearly impossible for AA to work for him. If
in fact that thing he thought would work for him does NOT work, then we
encourage him to return to AA since that doubt has been removed. You
seem to want to change that fundamental principle and unwittingly to
dismantle AA.

> In this respect AA resembles a dogmatic religious sect. 

Does this all sound religious? It should. Many religions use some of
the same tools AA uses to produce conversions. The difference is that
we do not adhere to any religious dogma. This is a spiritual program,
and the conversion you undergo is a conversion to the G-d of your own
understanding (even if that means no god at all). Thus a Jew like
myself can benefit from the program as well as the Christian or
Muslim or atheist. Because many of our members are religious, you may
see their spirituality reflected in a renewed religious interest. I see
this only as positive. If the program were locked in dogmatic conflict
as the Oxford group was, we would have disintegrated long ago as the
Oxford group did, and not incidentally, I could not have survived as a
Jew in such an environment.

You have interesting conjectures. I prefer to speak of reality.

>  Again, I'm not say
> that such programs cannot be helpful; some people whose lives have
> been disrupted by addiction seem genuinely to benefit from having a
> prefabricated belief system around which to structure their lives.

Actually it is more like "refabricated."

> But others just can't stomach religious dogmatism and anti-
> intellectualism.  There's no telling how many thousands of people have
> gone to AA meetings a few times, been turned off by the religiosity,
> the irrationality, the self-abasement, the smoke-filled air, and the
> prospect of endless meetings, and gone back home and poured themselves
> a tall drink...

There are some ideas that are so absurd, only an intellectual would
believe them. That is why we shy away from intellectuals. They sound
strangely like newcomers who want to "improve" the program after seeing
it for one week. As I said before, AA is not dogmatic though I don't
doubt that some individual members can get overly enthusiastic. I can
hardly blame them. When one looks death in the eye and is suddenly
saved from his grip, how could one not be a little grateful and willing
to share this miracle with others. I think you need to be more
tolerant.

> The admittedly sparse empirical evidence (it's extremely difficult to
> do reliable research on AA) indicates that the AA program is an
> effective treatment for a small minority of problem drinkers
> (something like 5-10 percent); the great majority would be better off
> with different recovery methods. 

Yes. Your evidence does sound sparse. Just think how effective a
combination of therapy and AA would be. That is why hospital programs
flourish.

> Unfortunately the more effective
> methods don't get a tenth of the publicity that AA gets, and AA isn't
> interested in telling anyone about them, so most people don't know
> about them.

Word of mouth is pretty effective publicity. It's true. Endorsements by
hospitals, clinics, doctors, humanitarians all contribute to it's
popularity. What others do cannot be controled by us. We just run an
ad every once in a while to let people know where to call. If you want
to complain, talk to those other people who keep saying how great we
are. Tell them to stop saying such nice things.

> These statements don't say: "We try help alcoholics sober up
> regardless of whether they accept AA's message".  Instead, they talk
> about "carrying the message", implying that AA has *the* answer for
> alcoholics, and if they don't buy the message, to hell with them.

You have 10 seconds to tell me what the "message" is. Bzzz. Time's up.
The message is, "This program works!" That's all. The message is not
that everything else does not. It's sort of like buying a potato
peeler. You want one that works so be sure to look for the one that
says, "This one works!" No one denies that there are many potato
peelers that work, but in a time where no potato peelers could be
found, this message had a lot of impact. I think it still does although
other peelers can be had now.

> Since AA has The Answer, none of its numerous publications deal with
> the medical and physiological aspects of alcohol abuse, nor has AA
> shown any friendly interest in alternative programs.

We have no outside interests. We are not affiliated with any other
group. We neither endorse nor reject anything. (Right out of those
Traditions). It's amazing how you pick and choose texts to make your
point. You have the potential to be a great TV evangelist. Could it be
that you think your cause noble and that any distortion is justified
for the greater good of "all th' peepul."

> I think that Wilson was in many respects an admirable and wise leader,
> but he also laid the foundations for the dogmatism, self-absorption,
> and hostility to other methods that has limited AA's usefulness,
> although it has undoubtedly helped many people.

You complain that the screwdriver is no good at driving nails. (some
pun intended).

Alex Herrera
uunet!mdcsc!ah