From: carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes)
Subject: Re: RR vs. AA, or RR + AA?
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:23:52 GMT

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 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.

Jack Trimpey puts it this way in THE SMALL BOOK (1992 edition,
Delacorte Press, $18.00 hardcover)-:

 "...there are two kinds of people: believers and thinkers.  Yes, we
 all do both, but we tend toward one personal style or the other.  And
 we also tend to approach our lives and problems as ones who either
 have *faith* in unchanging principles or as ones who think things
 through and use *reason* as the light that shows the way....
 
 "[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.  Some leave for the reasons I stated
 earlier.  But most leave because the 12-step approach is faith-based.
 As a means of survival, people in AA have faith in something other
 than, or greater than, themselves, and they implore newcomers to share
 that faith.... AA is not *a wrong program*, but for those who examine
 it and find it unhelpful, irrelevant, or disagreeable, it *is* the
 wrong program....
 
 "Rational Recovery Systems views AA as a victim of its own success --
 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.'  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....
 
 "The people who are interested in RR have almost invariably been to AA
 and are discouraged in their attempts to overcome chemical dependence.
 Rational Recovery is more than an alternative to AA -- it is the
 *counterpoint*.  AA's 'losers' are our winners.  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.  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.  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.
 
 "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
 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....
 
 "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