I’ve been somewhat suspicious of Alcoholics Anonymous for many years. I grew up with an alcoholic stepfather, and had some experience with AA when I was younger, which you can read about in an earlier post. One of my big issues has been the idea of powerlessness and giving yourself over to a “higher power.” Though AA has been careful to use the non-denominational “higher power,” it always felt like a thinly veiled religious god, and more specifically one of the monotheistic sky-gods (of Christianity, Islam and Judaism).
But the idea that you can’t rely on yourself, your own will, has always troubled me. I know it seems to work for a lot of people, but it never felt like a cure, just a lifelong band-aid over a wound that never heals because the wound itself is never even treated. And I know I’m not the only one. There are treatment centers in Japan whose patients are able to drink in moderation without immediately becoming “alcoholics” after one sip. And a controversial book last year by Harvard psychology professor Gene M. Heyman, Addiction: A Disorder of Choice, punched further holes in AA’s insistence of powerlessness in alcoholics.
Why that matters, I think, is for this reason. As Science-Based Medicine reminds us, that makes AA a faith-based treatment, not a scientifically sound method of treating anyone. They write: “Alcoholics Anonymous is the most widely used treatment for alcoholism. It is mandated by the courts, accepted by mainstream medicine, and required by insurance companies. AA is generally assumed to be the most effective treatment for alcoholism, or at least “an” effective treatment. That assumption is wrong.”
And there are plenty of other critics out there, such as Sober Without Gods, Stinkin’ Thinkin’ and this particularly interesting essay, I Was An AA Nazi, at When they tell you to ‘Keep Coming Back’, run for your life!!! Escape from Alcoholics Anonymous. And there’s at least two Yahoo groups, Escaping the Cult of AA and 12-Step Free. And that, I assume, just skims the surface. Reading some of those, AA comes off more like a cult than anything else. As many of its critics also point out, many former alcoholics replace their addiction to booze with an addition to AA or religion more generally. I realize many people will argue that the latter is safer and healthier than the former, but isn’t obvious that trading one addiction for another is no cure and does nothing to address any underlying causes?
Now, more evidence is coming to light that even the “higher power” dodge in AA wasn’t always there. As a recent article in the Washington Post reported, founder Bill Wilson’s original manuscript from before 1939, which is being published for the first time, shows that the original document was nakedly Christian in its tone. But before it was published, Wilson had a number of people help him edit his manuscript, and how to characterize religion in it became a hotly debated topic. Eventually all references to a specific god were generalized and changed so they could be essentially anything. That was a calculated decision.
According to the Post, “AA historians [whatever that means] and treatment experts say” claim the edits were made to “adopt a more inclusive tone was enormously important in making the deeply spiritual text accessible to the non-religious and non-Christian.” Frankly, that sounds like apologetics. The changes were largely semantical, the tone of the program remained deeply religious, only the names were changed so it could be claimed it was not. That allowed it to be spread farther and wider than if it had remained true to its roots, and I’m even willing to believe that in 1939 their heart was in the right place. The idea of religious freedom has been in our Constitution almost since the beginning, but we’ve been a mostly-Christian nation for the majority of our history. It’s really only been in recent decades that the promise of the First Amendment is beginning to be addressed and enforced.
But in 1939, they decided not to address the role of religion in treating addiction, instead opting to essentially try to hide its “spirituality” or at least tried to couch it in non-denominational platitudes.
But the crossed-out phrases and scribbles make clear that the words easily could have read differently. And the edits embody a debate that continues today: How should the role of spirituality and religion be handled in addiction treatment?
They also take readers back to an era when churches and society generally stigmatized alcohol addicts as immoral rather than ill. The AA movement’s reframing of addiction as having a physical component (the “doctor’s opinion” that opens the book calls it “a kind of allergy”) was revolutionary, experts say.
Maybe, but today AA’s Big Book (a.k.a. its “Bible”) has changed little since those initial edits. It’s remained almost exactly the same, only a few of the stories have been updated. But the world has not stayed the same as it was in 1939. People’s approach to religion has changed dramatically. We’re a more diverse nation spiritually than we were then, I’d wager, and more tolerant (I continue to hope) of other points of view. I’m sure AA seemed revolutionary at the time, 70+ years ago, but remaining the same while the world changed around it has turned it into an antiquated cult. Not to mention, much more has been learned about addiction, much of contradicting AA’s original premises and methods. And while some claim AA has incorporated these newer insights into the program, it seems to me it’s remained largely unchanged at its core. Certainly its bible has remained the same, as religious as the day it started.
The 4th edition of AA’s Big Book, which is the most current, is available online.
I really have to disagree with you. The success of the program speaks for itself. If some people have to believe that they’re powerless to live healthy lives, there’s really nothing wrong with that. Those who don’t need to feel like they’re powerless (and maybe have a bit more self control) probably don’t need the lifelong crutch of AA and are free to drink responsibly if they see fit. The rules are there for people who need them, and those who don’t are still adults who can make their own decisions.
Thanks for your comment, and I appreciate your candor, although I don’t believe the program does speak for itself. That was, in effect, my point. It pretends to be one thing, and often insists it’s the only thing, when in fact it’s not at all. And more damaging, I think, is that’s it’s actually mandated in some circumstances. That would be fine if it had some scientific basis, but it doesn’t.
And I also have to disagree that “there’s really nothing wrong with” people having “to believe that they’re powerless to live healthy lives.” If you have to believe something that’s not really true, then explain to be how healthy your life really is? It may be effective in being able to successfully put on a facade of being healthy, but not treating the underlying causes only allows you to function at a minimally acceptable level in society. To me, that’s the very opposite of healthy. You’re essentially living a convenient lie. It may seem to work, but it’s still a lie. That’s why it’s a “lifelong crutch,” because it never addresses how to solve the underlying problem. It’s that very belief that you’re powerless that makes people never try to dig any deeper to find the willpower within themselves to actually change their lives. It’s that very acceptance of not being able to beat the addiction that makes it impossible, and so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
To me, that’s why AA is so damaging and dangerous. That it’s accepted as dogma means no one can question its assumptions, and so it never changes. Anytime anyone challenges AA, the therapy and addiction community rises up to squash them. I’ve seen it happen time and time again. I’d encourage you to read some of the links in the original post from people whose experiences with AA were less than positive. There is another side to the story. In other countries, where its hold is not as great, more effective treatments have developed and flourished, ones that allow people to have a drink from time to time without backsliding, something AA insists is impossible. That alone should make people question their program.
Cheers,
J
Thanks for responding. I think it’s great to talk about it and question it and you make some good points. Clearly it’s not a perfect system. I also think that there legitimately are some people who just don’t have the self control to drink without going overboard, and if AA works for them, I don’t think it’s for us deem it “a lie” that until they get help, they can’t handle drinking. A lot of the underlying emotional and psychological problems that cause addiction are likely issues that could take a lifetime to sort out anyhow. And you can’t start to dig into that unless you’re sober.
A lot of my immediate family is in the program, some can have the occasional beer responsibly, and some not so much, but in either case, AA is a good starting point.
Cheers.
I look at AA through a very simple lens: Does it help some people needing help? From personal experience with family and friends, the answer is a resounding yes.
Is it the only way to help alcoholics? Obviously not. There are few “cures” of anything that are the only way to cure that thing.
Perhaps people actually being helped by AA could be helped other ways, perhaps not; just like with the various cancer cures, they work for some, not others. That does not make cures that work for some but not all “dangerous”.
I also doubt there is a simple, clear cut “underlying issue” for alcoholism or for the alcoholism of any particular person; it’s manifestations and etiology are far more complex than that term would imply.
It could be that the best way to look at AA is that it’s a useful heuristic for handling a complex physiological and behavioral set of symptoms for some people.
For my part it’s good to know such a thing exists.
The problem with this article is that it fails in its descriptions of what the Big Book was and is. For example, the First Edition personal stories were not “updated.” They were removed, and they originally contained a large number of testimonials as to how early Akron A.A. pioneers were cured by the power of God. http://mcaf.ee/s50mq and http://mcaf.ee/gj7iw. Furthermore, the unqualified word “God” is used dozens of times; and the changes in the Twelve Steps by four people just before the manuscript went to press did not alter the basic thesis that “God could and would if He were sought.” And, of course, the Big Book was changed in major ways as the various editions were produced through the years. As stated, the early Akron A.A. Christian testimonials were systematically removed from later editions. The “Solution” which was that the Creator had entered into the hearts of AAs in a way that was truly miraculous. That was altered substantially in meaning. Thus, originally Rev. Samuel Shoemaker, Professor William James, Dr. Carl G. Jung, and Bill Wilson all spoke of the need for a “vital religious experience.” As the editions marched on, this was, in turn, changed from vital religious experience to “spiritual experience,” and then to “spiritual awakening,” and finally to a “personality change sufficient to overcome the disease of alcoholism.” Originally, every single A.A. announced that he had been “cured.” All in the Akron A.A. fellowship were required to profess belief in God and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. And that concept was changed by saying the remarks about “cure” were erroneous and the result of mistaken thinking by the pioneers and founders. The bottom line is that, in 1939, A.A. was changed from the Akron Christian Fellowship program (DR. BOB and the Good Oldtimers, 131) to a “broad highway” acceptable to atheists, agnostics, unbelievers, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and those who believed in nothing at all. And no remarks about what A.A. was or wasn’t or is or isn’t can alter the fact that there are thousands of Christians in A.A. today and thousands of “members” who are not Christians. A.A. was a Christian Fellowship. It is not today. Christians were welcome in 1935, and they still are. But attempts to oust God, His Son, the Bible, and religion from A.A. and its history are not within the purview of the leadership, the speakers, the sponsors, or the groups. Or the academics or writers. See The Good Book and the Big Book: A.A.’s Roots in the Bible.