“Gresham's
Law and Alcoholics Anonymous” was originally published in July 1976
in "24 Magazine" (author unknown), and subsequently updated
in 1993 by Tom P, Jnr.
(The essay
itself – henceforth abbreviated to GLAA - can be accessed via the
internet by putting the title in a search engine. There are a number
of versions available but they differ mostly in format rather than
content)
To
clarify: Gresham's Law states essentially that "Bad money drives
out good". In this context the “law” is cited to exemplify
the view (propagated mostly by the fundamentalist tendencies both
within and without AA, and including the Primary Purpose movement)
that Alcoholics Anonymous' programme (and its application) has
undergone a progressive weakening or dilution since the inception of
the Fellowship, and this has been accompanied necessarily by a
reduction in recovery rates. According to some sources this essay
serves as one of the crucial supports to that argument. We were
somewhat surprised, therefore, on reading the piece, to discover how
much of it was based on the author's opinion, and how little upon any
substantial evidence in support of its contentions. The few
references to any kind of statistical data are, as far as we can
discern, either unsupported by research (independent or otherwise) or
gross misrepresentations (or perhaps, more charitably,
misinterpretations) of these figures. As a work of speculation it has
little merit; as an analysis it has none.
Essentially the
essay purports to demonstrate a number of factors which apparently
“explain” why recovery rates (and quality of sobriety) are much
reduced since the origination of AA in 1935.
Firstly the
author asserts that in the early days of AA (ie. from its inception
but prior to the publication of the book Alcoholics Anonymous in
1939) “a more rigorous and demanding” programme was practised,
one largely derived from that of the Oxford Group, and which
consisted of their initial framework of six steps plus the Four
Absolutes. Moreover this approach placed a great deal more emphasis
on belief and reliance upon God (the last term to be interpreted
according to traditional orthodoxy since the Oxford Group was an
attempt to return to (as they understood them) fundamentalist
Christian principles), a practice which was intended to lead to a
“spiritual experience”.
Secondly,
that subsequently, the programme's presentation and application have
been progressively “diluted” and “secularised”, its
principles “sugar coated”, that it has translated from a
“directive” to a “suggestive” mode of emphasis, and ,
moreover, the expression “spiritual experience” has been replaced
by “spiritual awakening” as the primary objective - and
consequence - of implementing the 12 Steps, and all this due to a
shift within AA (by cause and effect) from the originally more
demanding approach to the present largely watered down version.
The author
of GLAA further argues that AA practitioners may be characterised as
falling under three main categories: “strong”, “medium” and
“weak” (and also, by analogy, “strong-cup-of-tea”,
“medium-cup-of-tea”, or “weak-cup-of-tea” types). The
“strong” variety represents those who adhere most closely to the
programme in its 'original' form, and who place a greater emphasis on
implementing its principles. The “weak” type is characterised by
those who have substituted mere participation in the AA fellowship
(ie. meeting attendance) but this accompanied by little or no
application of its principles ie. the twelve Steps. Finally the
“medium” category falls somewhere between these two extremes (the
author also refers to the “weak” type as “COWD AA”
(“copped-out and watered-down AA")).
Finally -
and as a consequence - this “dilution” has resulted in falling
recovery rates, and even when these are sustained it is asserted the
quality of recovery, or “sobriety”, falls far short of what it
could be.
It
should be commented here that the first clue as to the author's
flawed perspective, (and more revealing perhaps of his underlying
bias) lies in his use of the “cup-of-tea” analogy:
“By 1941
(which was the year my father, Tom P. Sr., came into the Fellowship)
it was possible to distinguish three variant practices of the AA
program, which we have labeled the strong-cup-of-tea,
medium-cup-of-tea and weak-cup-of-tea approaches.”
He later
goes on to expand on these categories which may essentially be boiled
down to his own summary:
“There
are three ways to work the program of Alcoholics Anonymous.
1. The
strong original way - proved powerfully and reliably effective over
fifty-eight years.
2. A
medium way - not so strong, not so safe, not so sure, not so good,
but still effective.”
And
lastly,
“3. A
weak way, which turns out to be really no way at all but literally a
heresy, a false teaching, a twisting and corruption of what the
founders of Alcoholics Anonymous clearly stated the program to be.”
Firstly,
the notion that these “variant practices” may be reduced to a
comparison of “tea strengths” is dubious in itself. It cannot,
for example, be asserted that there is any particular inherent virtue
in whether tea be taken strong or weak; this is rather a matter of
taste. It follows therefore that what the author may actually be
illustrating in this presentation is not so much the efficacy of the
respective practice but rather a reflection of his own predilections
ie. his own tastes. Moreover, underlying his assumption that there
can be only one effective way to practice the programme (the
“strong-cup-of-tea” method) is the belief that every alcoholic
must necessarily be of the same temperament, of the same
constitution, at the same stage of the progression of the illness of
alcoholism, and of course, and somewhat trivially, inclined towards
the same tastes. This is quite patently a perspective at odds with
actuality. For example, and as a comparison, it may be that an
individual has a malign cancer. The condition may be labelled as a
type of cancer, it may manifest in one part of the body or another -
or many - and at varying degrees of development. No one is going to
suggest that the treatment administered is necessarily to be
identical for every patient. Rather the remedial action, where this
is possible, is applied according to what is requisite rather than
dependent merely on the inclination of the doctor, or at least we
hope so. These variations are, in part, acknowledged within the
author's “medium” category where the programme is practised with
some vigour - but in a somewhat selective style - and with the
caution that this practice may, over time, slip into the
“weak-cup-of-tea” category. He does not seem, however, to
consider the possibility (although this is implicit in his discussion
of the “medium” approach) that practitioners of the programme
might just as easily shift from “strong” to “weak” as in
reverse (assuming of course that everyone needs to apply the “strong”
or even “medium” approaches to remain sober in the first place).
However,
this aside, we will now consider the line of his argument:
It is
uncontested that there was a gap between the origins of AA and the
publication of the basic text of our society, the book “Alcoholics
Anonymous”. Moreover it is accepted that the original format of the
programme derives from the Oxford Group (which is evident from the
structure and wording of their own six step framework). Additionally
his outline of the development of the Fellowship is non
controversial. However where we are inclined to part company is with
his subsequent interpretation of events leading to the “dilution”
of the AA message.
At the
outset he argues that the Twelve Steps as they were formulated:
“contradict the secular psychological axiom that where the level of
performance is low, you must set a low level of aspiration in order
to gain a positive result in life”.
Furthermore:
“According
to the secular psychological view, the only practical approach for
the early AA's to have taken would have been as follows: to put
together a program which aimed certainly no higher than alcohol
abstinence and a return to life as it had been in pre-alcoholic days,
to life as ordinary men and women of the world.
However,
these wild and woolly early AA's, these psychologically illiterate
off-scouring and rubbish of the world, these newly-sobered-up drunks,
set out to become totally committed men and women of God”.
It is
evident from the above quotes that the author sets little store by
ordinary psychological methods. This low valuation would seem to
revolve around the stated “psychological axiom” (an axiom, to
remind those of you who have forgotten, is a self evident truth, a
universally received principle, a postulate, an assumption). For our
part we are not aware of any such axiom nor do we consider the
statement above to incorporate anything within it which is at all
self evident. In fact it seems rather to be an expression of
prejudice more than anything else. At best it can be considered an
assumption, a simple speculation, but one as yet untested.
Additionally the idea that anyone within a social science would be
prepared to present such a statement as being “axiomatic”, when
even those within the “hard” sciences (their subject matter being
far more amenable to such generalisations) would hesitate to accord
to a “fact” such weight, seems to us entirely beyond what is
reasonably credible. Again we have to assume that this statement
itself represents nothing more than an assumption, or more simply, an
opinion. However, he goes on to argue (somewhat ironically), and in
contradistinction to this limited “secular” approach, that these
“newly-sobered-up drunks, set out to become totally committed men
and women of God”. This, of course, immediately begs the question:
If they were already sobered up then why was it necessary for them to
commit themselves to God, or, for that matter, do anything more than
they had already done? We have to assume, therefore, that this
preliminary “sobriety” comprised no more than mere physical
abstinence from alcohol, and did not meet all the other criteria
constituting what he later on describes as “permanent recovery”
(whatever that might be!) (It should be noted here that the term
“sober” or “sobriety” within AA is applied sometimes to refer
to physical abstinence, but also to the quality of life consequent
upon that. The first is relatively easy to assess; it is objectively
verifiable (or falsifiable). The latter, however, is rather a
question of “value”, and therefore, by definition, impossible to
“quantify”, other than indirectly, and by inference; we would
argue finally it is a wholly subjective “fact”).
His
argument proceeds in a similar ironical fashion, but now introducing
the notion that the authors of the Big Book would need to “sugar
coat” this pill if it were not to dissuade newcomers from accepting
this “God-centered,, psychological heretical....” and so forth.
Thereafter in his exposition the relevant passages are cited from the
book 'Alcoholics Anonymous' including that section from Chapter Five:
“Many of us exclaimed, “What an order....” through to “…..
We claim spiritual progress rather than spiritual perfection.” It
is also proposed by the author of GLAA that Bill and Dr. Bob (the
co-founders of AA) further “sugar-coated” the pill by their
repeated use of the term “suggested” (and its variants)
throughout the basic text in order to avoid “frightening new
prospects”, and again an explanatory extract is presented from
Chapter Five: "Here are the steps we took, which are suggested
as a program of recovery" to support this argument.
However we
are now informed that:
“When
the Twelve Steps were first being formulated by Bill and Dr. Bob and
an editorial committee from Akron and New York - Bill, Dr. Bob and
the entire committee conceived of the Steps as instructions, not as
suggestions. When the idea of presenting the Steps as suggestions
came up, Bill for a long time flatly opposed it.” But finally - and
reluctantly - Bill agreed to the "suggestions" approach.
(It seems
curious from the above (and unexplained) that where there was such
apparent unanimity with respect to the “directive” approach out
of of nowhere apparently comes the “suggestive” mode, and it is
this latter which is subsequently adopted, though with some
misgivings – allegedly – on the part by Bill W).
The author
then goes on to assert the language employed in the first part of
Chapter Five “would be utterly appropriate as a preamble to a set
of action directions, but is not as nearly as fitting as an
introduction to a group of suggestions.” He then goes on to quote
that section:
“Rarely
have we seen a person …....... Here are the steps we took...”
together
with his own emphases to exemplify this more “directive”
approach.
The author
of GLAA then proceeds to give a brief account of the early expansion
of AA, and including the period when the Big Book was being written.
Apparently it was at this time, and then seemingly quite
spontaneously: “It suddenly became attractive, in a way it had not
been before when the fellowship was smaller and more intimate, to
ease up a bit on the idea that all the principles should be practised
all the time by all the members. More and more emphasis began to be
placed on the fact that the Steps were to be considered as
suggestions only. At this time, and through this set of
circumstances, the "cafeteria-style" - take-what-you-like-
and-leave-the-rest-out - approach to the Twelve Steps came into
practice.
And it
seemed to work. It turned out that many newcomers could get sober and
stay sober without anything like the full and intensive practice of
the whole program that had been considered a life-or-death necessity
in the early years. In fact alcoholics in significant numbers began
to demonstrate that they could stay off booze on no more than an
admission of powerlessness, some work with other alcoholics and
regular attendance at AA meetings.
This is
not to say that all AAs began to take this very permissive approach
to the Twelve Steps. A great many continued to opt for the original,
full-program approach. But now for the first time the workability of
other, less rigorous approaches was established, and a tendency had
emerged which was to become more pronounced as time went on.”
The author
then outlines his categories, ie, strong, medium or weak AA.
In brief:
Strong –
a thorough going and continuing implementation of the 12 Step
programme in its entirety. ie. “Strong AA was the original,
undiluted dosage of the spiritual principles.”
Medium –
commencing perhaps with some verve, but subsequently employing an
abridged version of the Steps, and generally easing up “....(due to
encroachment of business engagements, social activities and other
baggage that went along with the return to normal life in the
workaday world).”
Weak –
missing out “big chunks of the program totally and permanently.
Their approach could be summarised as: "All you need to do to
stay sober is go to meetings and stay away from the first drink".
Moreover,
“....weak
AAs who were successful in staying sober were pretty faithful
meeting-goers. Since they were doing so little with the principles,
their sobriety and their survival depended more exclusively than did
those of the strong and medium AAs on constant exposure to the people
of AA.”
He then
goes on to argue that the medium approach is of some value, as a kind
of springboard for the more “reluctant beginners”, but
additionally that this can lead to “sliding back into weak AA”.
But:
“Weak AA
has none of the redeeming features of medium AA. Weak AA is clearly
at odds with the program as outlined in the Big Book. Weak AAs bases
itself on a flat and un-negotiable refusal to work with vital
recovery principles. Weak AA cops out and stays copped out on most of
the Twelve Steps. Weak AA waters down the program to the point where
there really is no program. A more accurate term than "weak AA"
would be "copped-out and watered-down AA" - COWD AA for
short.”
Now the
author wades into even deeper speculations:
According
to his interpretation “COWD” AA has, over time, come to displace
strong AA and its message. He proceeds to account for this tendency
by the increasingly confident and strident approach of the COWD
adherents, and upon the “more relaxed and tolerant, less strident,
less defensive,” strong AA adherents. Gradually “weak AA”
became the 'in' thing, and “strong AA came to be regarded - not
universally, but widely - as a bit stodgy and a bit passé.”
Annoyingly,
or so it would seem, the adherents of the weak version of AA were
able to remain sober, and this despite the “....introduction to the
Twelve Steps”, where it is stated, “we thought we could find an
easier, softer way, but could not”, which “was an unequivocal
assertion that it was necessary to practice all the Steps.”
And now we
have reached 1993, and according to the author “precious few AAs
continue to attempt seriously and consistently to do these things on
a daily basis - not after their first months of sobriety in the
Fellowship.”; “weak” or “COWD AA” is the order of the day.
But then
the surprise. After an earlier claim, that “many” weak AA
adherents are getting (and staying) sober, it now appears that this
is no longer the case: “weak AA, in very many cases, really doesn’t
work. Weak AA brings about a far less profound life alteration than
strong AA does. In many cases, the change which weak AA produces is
not enough to crack the alcoholic pattern, and results in an apparent
recovery which does not last but sooner or later eventuates in a
relapse into drinking. And in many cases where weak AA does succeed
in producing lasting sobriety, these weakly sober AAs peter out into
lives of depression, anxiety, bitter resentment and real despair,
just like nearly all the other merely dried-out drunks in history.”
The above
quote exemplifies the two (interrelated) interpretations of what
constitutes sobriety, and moreover the manner in which the author of
GLAA shifts from one to the other as the mood (and his argument)
takes him. On one hand we have “sober” as in simple, physical
abstinence, and on the other “sober” signifying a certain quality
of life but contingent upon that physical abstinence. Moreover, there
is no real precision advanced here for what constitutes the “many
cases” in the above quote. We have to assume that it means a
minority for otherwise the term should be replaced by “most” ie.
as in “a majority”. But how large is this minority? If it is a
small minority then surely this cannot be used as a support for the
argument ie. the smaller the minority the less statistically valid
that sample becomes. But no figures, not even approximations, are
offered to support this assertion. We have to assume that if there
were such data they would be cited but, and from its absence, we are
left rather with a estimate based on nothing but the author's
impression (or opinion). However, if this imprecision fails to
generate much confidence, the subsequent analysis can only provoke an
even greater sense of disappointment. Again we are presented with the
term “many cases” ( but still undefined) where “weak AA”,
although producing lasting sobriety ie. physical abstinence, leads
only to an inferior quality of life. Even if one were to accept this
was the case it is difficult to determine whether this undoubtedly
miserable condition derives from failing to implement spiritual
principles, or may depend rather on the objective circumstances of
those concerned, or indeed upon their even more particular subjective
condition i.e. underlying psychological states unrelated to prolonged
alcohol abuse, or perhaps the emotional constitution of the
individual in question. To apply a blanket diagnosis to all and
sundry, and in such an indiscriminate fashion, simply exemplifies a
overly simplistic assessment of the general - and particular - human
condition. Or to sum it up: You can't blame it all on alcoholism.
The author
moves on to expound further on the progressive undermining of the
sudden “spiritual experience” mode, one which would result in
“permanent abstinence [which] will automatically occur as a blessed
and life-saving-by-product”, and further asserts that this was: “
how it happened with Bill. That was how it happened with Dr. Bob.
That was how it happened with the first hundred members. That was how
the authors of the Big Book saw it would have to happen with
EVERYONE.” (our emphasis)
The point
is then hammered home, equating such an experience with only one
result, this to be summed up as: “no spiritual experience – no
recovery.”
It is at
this point in the discussion that the following 'insight' is
presented: that a “major shift in [AA] philosophy occurred”.
Apparently this was reflected in the respective roles of “recovery
principles and the recovery Fellowship in AA”, this taking place
apparently, “Sometime between 1939, when the [Cleveland] Plain
Dealer articles were published, and 1941, when the [Jack] Alexander
piece ran in the [Washington] Post”.
Essentially
as the fellowship of AA grew in numbers so did the availability of
contacts, and gradually recovery became based rather upon meetings'
attendance than “undergoing a real spiritual conversion”. Here
the AA member rather stayed sober “largely off the power of the
pack”.
It is at
this point in the exposition we are introduced to two more categories
of alcoholics:
“One,
the sober-by-conversion alcoholics - those who, as the result of
working the Steps, had had a spiritual experience and become
transformed human beings, seriously involved with regenerative life
and ideas, as contrasted with the two, sober-by-imitation alcoholics
- those who had remained essentially the same type of people they had
been before coming into AA, except that they had joined a new
organization, made a new set of friends, and given up drinking in
conformity to their new social setup”.
Moreover,
the term “spiritual experience” came to be supplanted by that of
“spiritual awakening” reflecting (according to the author of
GLAA) the view that the former was “ too narrow and prejudicial
against the less-profound life changes resulting from the
mimesis-oriented AA, which were coming to be the majority recovery
pattern in AA”, and he cites here the relevant section 'Appendix II
Spiritual Experience' beginning with “The terms “spiritual
experience” and “spiritual awakening” are used …. this
conclusion is erroneous …..”
This
section is contrasted with the more forthright exposition of
“God-commitment” as exemplified at the beginning of Chapter Five.
Although he himself expresses some recognition that such a
qualification is itself to be welcomed, that spiritual change need
not necessarily be in the form of some “sudden upheaval”,
nevertheless this, together with the “clear, strong and
unmistakable implication - by the indirect , defensive, almost
apologetic treatment of the whole subject of religious and spiritual
experience”, resulted in the aforementioned dilution of spiritual
principles. Finally: “The founders of the Movement were responding
to the spiritual problem by lowering the spiritual level of
aspiration of the society, a move they could not make in the early
days, but could make, and even felt they must make, now that the
society had become large and gained a reputation for respectability
and reasonableness.”
From this
it is asserted that this qualified approach led to AA “dividing
into two camps”: the “strong-cup-of-tea” and the
“weak-cup-of-tea”, this unnoticed apparently by everyone except
the author of GLAA.
The
assumption underlying this argument is that these modifications
occurred to accommodate AAs' new found “respectability and
reasonableness”. It might equally be asserted that the reasons for
these shifts in emphasis (rather than in substance) might rather be
attributed to:
a broader
range of experience - as AA membership expanded in numbers and
diversity i.e. to include those who did not derive their approach
directly from the Oxford Group, or indeed from any outside religious
organisation, but who rather got and stayed sober (physical
abstinence) within the context of the Fellowship, their direct
experience accordingly modified - and refined - the original model of
recovery.
a greater
depth of experience – this factor is related to the above but
derives from an increasing average longevity of sobriety (again
physical abstinence).
a
recognition that if AA were to be a truly inclusive Fellowship it
would have to drop those explicit references to - and associations
with - theologies, practices, perspectives etc which were directly
related to outside organisations (including religious, and therefore
encompassing both the Oxford Group and its fundamentalist Christian
based approach).
a
recognition that as a result of the lessening stigma associated with
alcoholism (in part due to the efforts of AA itself) people were, and
in increasing numbers, seeking assistance at an earlier stage of the
progression of the disease (if one accepts the disease model), and
that therefore the therapeutic or 'spiritual' measures required to
support a “remission” from this chronic condition were
correspondingly less drastic, and moreover “half measures” might
in fact “avail us” something after all, and that so-called “weak”
or “medium” AA might be just as effective in some cases as
“strong” AA.
an
expansion in membership, together with a corresponding geographical
dispersion, resulted in increased numbers of meetings, which in turn
gave the membership easier access to each other via this particular
medium. Whereas this did not eliminate the need for formal 12 Step
work ie. contacting potential AA members at their own homes (always
at the newcomer's request), or via a neutral venue, AA meetings
became the main vehicle for transmitting its message. Therefore
meetings became more significant than they had been in the past for
carrying out this function, a fact which might account for the
increasing focus on meeting attendance as a basis for sustaining
recovery.
the
displacement (partial) of the term spiritual “experience” by
spiritual “awakening” again suggests a pragmatic reform, and one
based upon the “experiences” of existing AA members rather than
on some palliative compromise intended to ease less committed members
into the recovery programme. It is, indeed, recognised by the author
of GLAA himself that this modification was useful, and that not all
spiritual experiences needed to be of some dramatic or sudden nature,
and that they could manifest in the another form, ie. the gradual,
“educational” variety. Therefore we are quite unable to fathom
the author's objection to this redesignation, the terminology
employed being virtually synonymous.
And now
the consequences:
“The
relatively superficial life change which weak AA produces is
sufficient to get some alcoholics sober. It is not adequate - it is
not effective - it simply doesn’t work - for a very large number of
others. This situation is evident both in the “easy” cases and
the “hard”cases, that is, those alcoholics who have been very
badly damaged physically and mentally before they arrive at their
first AA meeting, those whose alcoholism is complicated with drug
abuse, crazy sex, criminal or psychotic tendencies, or a hard streak
of socio-psychopathology.”
From this
we now have some clue as to the use of the above term “many cases”
- this can be translated more accurately into “a very large number”
though still a little fuzzy for such a serious declaration. And yet
again, from the context of the above passage, there is a shift in the
use of the word “sober” - here it is being wielded in the
qualitative sense rather than “physical abstinence”.
Moreover:
“weak AA
simply doesn’t work with the very large population of AAs who are
known everywhere as “slippers” - those alcoholics who have
developed a pattern of hanging around AA, staying sober for periods,
but relapsing repeatedly into drinking.”
Now we
have moved from “a very large number” to “the very large
population” - seemingly the numbers increase by implication as the
author of GLAA warms to his subject. But still he appears unable to
put a figure to these “guesstimates”.
The author
then goes on to cite the experience of the “East Ridge Recovery
Facility in upstate New York. Strong AA is standard practice in the
East Ridge group, and this group has a recovery rate of over seventy
percent with these so-called AA failures”.
At last we
have a number: seventy percent. Unfortunately, and on consulting the
website which relates to this facility, we find no such reference to
this recovery rate. Furthermore there is no indication of data
collection relating to recovery rates etc. We are again left with a
“percent” seemingly drawn out of thin air.
And now we
come to those “many cases” of recovery where the “watered-down
approaches to the Twelve Steps fails to hold up over the long haul.
What looked in the beginning like an easier, softer way to maintain
happy sobriety yields progressively less and less serenity and real
happiness, finally ending in complete reversal of momentum and a
relapse into serious personal misery. The end result may be a return
to active alcoholism; or it may be a sinking-out into a life of
discontented abstinence, marred by some combination of tension,
resentment, depression, compulsive sick sex, and an overall sense of
meaninglessness. It is a final failure to reap the benefits of the AA
program; it is, in the last analysis,a failure to recover.”
In this
section the author has fallen back on that old standby “many cases”
and again the shifts between the uses of the term “sober” proceed
apace.
Now we
come to one of the few instances where there are any statistics
deployed to support the above assertions, and we hoped quite
naturally here for some further clarification on those “many cases”
or “a very large number”:
Apparently,
“Two
ominous tendencies are noticeable in contemporary AA. One tendency is
toward a lower recovery rate overall. For the first twenty years, the
standard AA recovery estimate was seventy-five percent. AA experience
was that fifty percent of the alcoholics who came to AA got sober
right away and stayed sober. Another twenty-five percent had trouble
for awhile but eventually got sober for good, and the remaining
twenty-five percent never made a recovery. Then there was a period of
some years when AA headquarters stopped making the seventy-five
percent recovery claim in their official literature. In 1968’s
General Service Board published a survey indicating an overall
recovery rate of sixty-seven percent. The net of all of this seems to
be that as AA got bigger and older, its effectiveness dropped from
about three in four to about two in three.”
The first
set of figures appears to derive from those cited in the Foreword to
the 2nd Edition of Alcoholics Anonymous (the first printing of this
edition was in 1955). As we have come to expect the figures quoted
are presented unqualified, and state that they relate to “the
standard AA recovery estimate.....of the alcoholics who came to
AA...”. This seems to suggest that these recovery rates apply to
anyone who came to the Fellowship. In fact the figures relate only to
those who, in the words of the text, “really tried”. (This point
has been made repeatedly elsewhere so we are not going to 'belabour'
it again here). The author of GLAA then adduces the 1968 GSB figures,
which suggest an “overall recovery rate of sixty-seven percent”,
a drop of 8 percentage points. However, in one analysis (How Well
Does A.A. Work? An Analysis of Published A.A. Surveys (1968-1996) and
Related Analyses/Comments - Don McIntire) it was demonstrated that
the original estimates of 75 percent still apply, that is if one
qualifies this assessment accordingly.
And now,
and apparently defeated by any substantial evidence for falling
recovery rates, he shifts once more to his favoured fall back
position - a revaluation of the term 'sober' to be employed here in
its 'qualitative' function, and which evidence is moreover: “clear
enough to any careful observer of the AA scene”: “As the
Fellowship grows older its class of old-timers, alcoholics sober ten
years and longer, grows. And the question of the staying power of an
AA recovery looms ever larger. It is an unhappy fact that growing
numbers of these old-timers find the joy going out of their sobriety.
Many of them search around frantically for ways to recapture the old
zest for alcohol-free living, and many of them end up in such blind
alleys as lunatic religions, pop psychological fads, or chemical
alternatives like psychedelics, pot, tranquilizers and mood
elevators. And many end up either back drinking or sunk in
despondency, hostility, bizarre acting-out patterns of one sort or
another, or just plain, devastating boredom”.
So - and
perhaps quite annoyingly at least for the author of GLAA - it would
seem that there are “growing numbers of these old-timers [“ten
years and longer”]” (this itself something of a blow to the
thesis that recovery rates are declining), but, “It is an unhappy
fact that … the joy is going out of their sobriety”. There
follows here an extensive list of where these unfortunate fellows are
going wrong but - though not unsurprisingly - a dearth of any kind of
data to back it up - not even anecdotal evidence - just more opinion.
And we
come finally to the proposed solution:
“The
answer lies in a return to original, strong AA. It turns out that the
men who wrote the Big Book were right after all. It turns out that
there really is no easier, softer way. The extra work and commitment
demanded by the full-Program approach pays out in enormous and
indispensable dividends. The extra work and commitment make sobriety
fun, because they do not make sobriety an end in itself.”
Moreover:
“The
majority of those who become addicted are people with a mystical
streak, an appetite for inexhaustible bliss. We sought in bottles
what can only be found in spiritual experience. AA worked in the
first place because its Twelve Steps were a workable set of
guidelines to real spiritual experience. The growth of the Movement
made possible for a time a kind of parasitism in which partial
practitioners of the spiritual principles were able to feed off the
strength of full practitioners; those who had undergone real
spiritual experience.”
Again we
are presented with a figure, but one only slightly more specific than
those alluded to above, and from which we can at least gauge the
minimum value to be over 50 percent. Here it is asserted that a
“majority of those who become addicted are people with a mystical
streak”. Quite precisely what the author of GLAA had in mind by his
use of the term “mystical” is not clear. It is to be assumed that
this is in some way connected with the notion of “spiritual” but
suggests again the writer's prejudice, ie. in regarding valid
“spiritual experiences” to be in some manner linked with this
tendency. Both terms are, by nature, subject to considerable
interpretation, and it cannot follow that such particular definitions
will of necessity converge upon that one determined solely by the
author of GLAA. Moreover such a presumption on his part would suggest
a remarkably obtuse perspective, or one which might even be regarded
as verging on arrogant. To judge from the content of the remainder of
the paragraph we would opt to apply the term “arrogant”. Here his
withering contempt is clearly exhibited for anyone who applies these
principles – or not - in any fashion other than that which he deems
to lead to – and exemplify - a “real spiritual experience”. It
is these “partial practitioners” who “feed off the strength of
full practitioners” thus inducing “a kind of parasitism” within
the Fellowship and programme.
“But
now, the parasites have already drained the host organism of a
considerable portion of its life force, with no benefit to
themselves.”
And
finally, and rather confusingly, but reiterating the previous themes:
“Complacency,
smugness in our record of success, is our greatest enemy. If we as a
recovered-addict society are unwilling to reverse our present course,
the outlook is clear enough. We stand to recapitulate in less than a
century what the great religious communities of the world have spent
the last two thousand years demonstrating: that even the very best
and highest of human institutions tend to deteriorate in time; and
that size in spiritual organizations is often achieved at the expense
of the abandonment of original goals and practices.”
We would
remind you here that the author of GLAA has gone to some lengths
(largely ineffective) to demonstrate the decreasing efficacy of “COWD
AA” and yet we are now to beware of a “smugness in our record of
success”! This confusion is not only exhibited here but throughout
the whole of GLAA. Finally, and again betraying the author's own
prejudices, there is reference to the “great religious communities
of the world [who] have spent the last two thousand years ….”.
This may be a valid statement when it comes to one specific,
religious organisation – that of Christianity - but we can think of
at least three others, and of comparable significance, which have
been around for considerably longer than two millenia.
In
conclusion the author of GLAA:
has failed
to supply any evidence which lends credence to his argument. The
data, where it is presented, is vague or misquoted.
shifts
constantly between the two definitions of “sober” moving from the
verifiable and quantifiable mode (when the evidence would seem to
contradict his assertions) to the qualitative and subjective mode, an
area by its very nature inaccessible to measurement, and only to be
assessed by direct reporting on the part of those subjects, or
inferred behaviourally (neither of which sources he provides).
asserts as
fact what IN FACT are merely impressions, opinions, hypotheses,
speculations, generalisations, assumptions and prejudices
(unsubstantiated), all of which though are quite legitimate areas of
human activity, but should hardly figure in any serious analysis of
what is finally a very serious question.
We
would invite you to consider the following studies (click here
for link) which do present the relevant data, and ask you to consider
this material (and draw from it whatever conclusions you wish) as a
basis for judgement rather than the “kite flying” exemplified by
GLAA, and others of its type.
Finally, and on a personal
note -
The author of this critique is a member of AA (by this I
mean I have, and still retain, a desire to stop drinking – this
being the ONLY membership requirement for Alcoholics Anonymous). I
have been continuously sober (physically abstinent from alcohol in
any form and in any quantity) for a period running into decades now
(“one day at a time”). I account for this fact by my regular
attendance at AA meetings (which frequency has varied over the
years), and my implementation of the recovery programme (as it is
presented in the book Alcoholics Anonymous 3rd edn). My understanding
of the principles it outlines is based upon direct study, and is, for
the most part, unmediated by received opinion. Apart from the first
couple of years of my recovery I have undertaken this particular
journey without the services of a sponsor (“control freak” or
otherwise) finding myself to be entirely capable of doing all of my
own thinking, and making my own decisions (leading to successful
outcomes or not) as is appropriate to one who makes claim to being an
adult. That is not to say that I am unwilling to listen to the views
of others, but I take quite seriously the notion that the only Higher
Power upon which I can ultimately place any form of reliance is
“probably [not] human”. For my part I do not believe in God
(orthodox or otherwise), nor do I pray (on my knees or in any other
position) for to do so would be to engage in an activity which I
would regard as entirely meaningless. I have no difficulty whatsoever
in accepting the fact that I am powerless over alcohol, nor that
there are (innumerable) Powers greater than myself. In fact, and in
my occasional moments of honesty, I would be hard pressed to find
much which would constitute a lesser power, and, furthermore, would
regard it as nothing short of insane that I should believe the
universe (and its component phenomena) should organise itself
according to my will rather than the precise reverse. I have had no
“spiritual experience” which could in any way be described as of
the “sudden” type, nor am I (and necessarily following on from my
statement above) aware of any kind of “God consciousness”, nor
possess any sense whatsoever that such an entity exists in my
particular universe. I would not even use the term “spiritual”
other than according to its present currency within the Fellowship, a
term which is so vague as to be almost useless as a means of
communicating a concept. A more apt expression would be “holistic”
in that my progress within AA has necessitated a complete revaluation
of every area of my life, this process having taken place quite
naturally but utilising the structure and concepts presented by the
programme, and leading, quite “educationally”, to some rather
drastic realisations. None of these would I characterise as
“spiritual” nor in any way were these insights associated with
any form of “mysticism”. I am by nature a sceptic, and
disinclined towards such tendencies unless it be in the form of
fiction, which largely I believe to be its proper province. Moreover,
and to utilise the categories so imaginatively employed by the author
of GLAA, I would place myself in the “weak” to “medium” class
of alcoholic, although I would baulk somewhat at applying the “COWD
AA” brand to my back. As for the “quality” of my sobriety (the
alternative mode) I have remained serenely “unrocketed” into any
dimension, fourth or otherwise, being quite sure that an individual
of my temperament would suffer greatly from the experience.
(Interestingly, at least from my point of view, I am directly
acquainted with three individuals – two still alive – all of whom
have had what can only be described as dramatic shifts within their
psyche – none of these are alcoholic, none are members of AA, and
not one of them has any belief in a supreme deity). Otherwise my own
life varies according to circumstance (both inner and outer, and
therefore entirely as I conceive,and perceive, it), and is replete
with such profound questions as those which relate to the nature of
existence, purpose, meaning, and, indeed, whether I should have a
toasted cheese sandwich now, or go for the easier softer way, and
just slap a couple of slices between some bread and to hell with the
grill! To put it another way, my sobriety, the quality of my life, is
largely my business – it suits me!!
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS Our thanks
again to this contributor
