Posted by Larry Hoover on November 19, 2005, at 10:53:31
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion, posted by alexandra_k on November 19, 2005, at 1:35:53
> > Those readings are all available here: http://www.12step.org/references/na_chap2.php
>
> The link didn't work for me (page wouldn't load properly)
> :-(It worked for me, but try this:
http://www.12step.org/references/na_basic.phpThe entire text of the Basic Text. The readings you hear at meetings are the first paragraphs of different chapters. You'll recognize them by name.
> > I honestly believe that I was taught the 12-steps were a suggested path towards recovery.
>
> Yes but what do those pages (and their little 'bible' say?)I have never heard it called the bible. And, frankly, I wouldn't stand for it.
> > I'm not sure I grasp what you mean by 'party line'.
>
> The pages that were read at the start of the meetings and their 'bible'.The reason the meetings are standardized in that way is so that an NA member can go to a meeting anywhere in the world, and it will be familiar to them.
> > > Yes. And people say they have left to die of their addiction. I thought that... Was the AA / NA party line...
>
> > You're agreeing with yourself, in case you didn't catch that.
>
> ?? Getting a little lost.
> If you don't attend AA / NA regularly I thought the AA / NA party line was...
> That they had left to die of their addiction
> That death was imminent.
> I don't think they should say that.Nor do I. I guess I was slow on the uptake because that is not an NA approved message.
You may not realize this, but every word, every bit of punctuation, of every NA approved piece of literature, is voted on by a committee of trusted servants, who hold conferences for just that purpose. People fly in from around the world, to hold conferences whose sole purpose is to authorize the NA literature that is available at meetings.
It is a bottom up process, starting from individual meetings. An elected trusted servant carries a group message to an Area meeting, where a discussion and vote are held. Then on up to the Region, and so on, up to NA World.
I had a direct hand in changing some of the wording you would read today, through this process. There is not a publication that NA puts out that I haven't read, and at least subconsciously, approved.
Nowhere is that message, what you call the party line, an approved message from NA World Services. We speak of members going back out of the doors (of NA), or we say they "picked up". We generally hold a moment's silence (prayer optional) when news such as that is made known.
> It is not INEVITABLE that someone will relapse after stopping attending AA / NA. That is false and so they shouldn't say it. It is true that some people do, and here I do have to say that I wonder about the role of 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. The AA / NA literature *tells* them the ONLY way to remain sober is to attend and thus plants the little seed that if they stop attending relapse JUST HAS TO happen. And so is it suprising that some people do when this is what they have been taught?
I can't imagine any member of meetings I have attended saying any such thing. We can only offer what we have to give, what worked for us.
> > On the one hand, you seem to grant NA/AA extraordinary credibility with respect to the inevitable relapse, yet you then argue for realistic alternatives. I admit to being confused.
>
> ?
> I'm confused... I think the 'party line' (which I hope you get what I mean by that now...) I think the 'party line' makes it MORE LIKELY that people will relapse after stopping attending. That it is MORE LIKELY because the party line promotes the message that of course they are going to die of their addiction without attendance.That message is not an approved message of NA World Services. Whoever told you that was not speaking on behalf of NA, no matter what they told you. I'm so sorry.
> > > > And I think that the ability to provide a prognosis is part of what makes it a disease. Untreated, you can expect.....
>
> I think it is unethical to offer someone a very dim view of their future indeed. I am not my diagnosis Larry. I refuse to let what is *likely* dictate the course my life is going to take. I refuse to internalise that.I would never offer that up as a prediction to anyone. Yet, I would have a knowledge, from having observed a number of people in that situation. That's all I meant.
It is indeed unethical for someone to use it as a threat in the way it appears it was made to you. I have told an individual that if they didn't stop using they would die, but we were in an emergency ward at the time.
> > I don't agree with mandated attendance. It is wrong-headed.
>
> How about 'emotional blackmail' attendance when the party line is that without that attendance you will INEVITABLY die of your addiction?After saying all that I said, I remembered this line from one of the readings, "Who is an Addict". "We are people in the grip of a continuing and progressive illness whose ends are always the same: jails, institutions and death."
A bit melodramatic, but extrapolation to the endpoint of a continuum seems to lead to hyperbole. Inpatient addictions treatment is institutionalization, and I was there. It was already true, for me, and it was no hyperbole to see a risk of death, in my case. But the message was that the disease of addiction was going to get you, not that there was only one road to salvation therefrom.
> > I disagree, however, with the contention that there are other alternatives, just as good. There *are* alternatives, but their success is unproven, IMHO.
>
> Have you looked into token economies???
> That might be worth a try.I was not suggesting there are no potential alternatives. I don't know of any with equal merit. That is inevitably a biased view. I didn't need to look elsewhere.
> I think... The success rates of various programs... Are about as good as each other. Though... The majority of people try via AA / NA first and when that doesn't work out for them THEN they have a go at alternatives. So in a way... AA / NA gets the 'first pick' and the other programs get the ones who failed with the AA / NA way...
Perhaps that's true, especially now that government authorities are involved.
> > One of the keys to 12-step recovery is social. One of the effects of addiction is isolation. Social interaction *and* people experienced with recovery from addiction. Bonus!
>
> Yes. Though... You don't have to have steps and diseases and god to get a little social interaction these days do you???No. Take what you want, and leave the rest.
> > > > I bet you, that if you spoke to individual members, you'd have found different ways of dealing with addiction. There is no one AA/NA way.
>
> The PEOPLE can be teriffic.
> The PARTY LINE (the literature) is what I'm objecting to...I'm grasping that, but specifics would really help.
> > I've read the literature. I haven't come across a 'party line' as of yet.
>
> The Bible???Even calling it that is a violation of NA policy.
> The stuff that was read at the start of the meeting?
> Don't they read that at your meeting?
> I thought EVERY AA / NA group meeting was supposed to read that...
> That you had to to be an AA / NA meeting.
> And they encourage you to take (or to purchase) the AA / NA literature.
> It is SOME OF (not all of SOME OF) the stuff that is said in there that I am opposed to...I just wish you had specifics. I hope that link works for you now. It worked for me when I tried it this morning, right from this site.
> > His *initial* belief was in the coffee pot. It took on a more figurative role as he recovered his faculties.
>
> You mean... To start with he couldn't credit the idea of a higher power so they humoured him by saying 'oh, don't get hung up on that, it can be your coffee pot'. Then... By the time he got to around step 5 they had managed to bring him around to a conception of god that was an external agency that is powerful enough to save you from your addiction (and your sins) and benevolent enough to give a sh*t about your addiction and your sins?No one convinced him of anything with respect to a Higher Power. It was his perception all along. He's still an atheist. Just a clean and sober one.
Now, some are tempted to draw the conclusion that God was working through the NA group that supported him until his sobriety was internally motivated, but he happened to like my idea, and called it "good". The NA group did good.
He recast any step which mentioned Higher Power or God in a context suitable to his own moral senses, which he clarified upon doing his fourth step. On his fifth, he simply swore to tell the truth, and got on with it. God was there, or not. But good came of it.
> Can anyone see where the 'religious cult' notion comes from?????
There are groups where religion has taken improper hold of the proceedings. I have heard far too many references to Christian themes, for example, when members attempt to tell another how to work the program. When a member is speaking of their experience, strength, and hope, however, I must accept that that speaker's conception of the God of his understanding may be embodied in the Holy Trinity. It is not my place to judge.
> > > Why should these beliefs be considered *requirements* on sobriety?
>
> > The requirement is one of spiritual growth.
>
> Why should 'spiritual growth' be a requirement on sobriety?Over many years of experience, on intense reflection, it seems to be the lowest and simplest commonality in successful recovery from addictive behaviours.
That is what I meant, early on, when I was forced to make an act of faith, to accept this program of recovery. They said spiritual growth was the path to success, and I had to accept that on faith. They were correct, as it turns out.
> I thought... The requirements were attendance and working through the steps... And in order to work through the steps you need an external agent of a god who is beneficient and pretty darned powerful...
No literal external agency is required. Spiritual growth is the internal agent of success. My recovery required two decisions. One was an act of faith, "There is good in this world." The other decision was that there was this same good in me. I found my spiritual voice in those rooms.
> > > It is government agencies FUNDING or REQUIRING people to go to these meetings...
>
> > There is no external funding.
>
> Ah. Some councellors councel from the AA / NA party line. I've been to councelling that is like that. Government funded. Councelling that is focused on discovering my higher power and doing the steps etc. That councellors salary came from the government. That councellor was teaching the AA / NA party line. That is state funded religious teaching IMO. I wanted to discuss some of the assumptions he was spouting at me but no can do. I'm in denial etc etc. My death was imminent...There is no way that AA or NA can prevent this misuse of the philosophies. Yes, I went to a state-funded inpatient program, and yes, they adhered to a 12-step philosophy (more or less). I presume that individual agencies could be draconian in their approach.
However, during my stay at the inpatient program, I was strongly encouraged to attend local meetings of real AA and NA groups. That's where I paid attention.
> > They provide a new way of thinking.
>
> yeah. But the party line has been strangely resistant to other ways of thinking.You change things from within. From service work. Not many people volunteer for Literature Review.
> > I did not confess my sins. That is a rite of Roman Catholicism.
>
> That is also a rite of step 5.No. I required no absolution. I did no penance.
> What on earth does confessing your sins to god have to do with your recovery?
Not to god. In front of god. It's intended to promote sincerity.
> What on earth does confessing your sins to good have to do with your recovery?
It shows you're normal. Many (most?) addicts see themselves as terminally unique. That nobody could understand the special ways that they became so messed up. It gives you a chance to understand what is truly meant by humility.
> What on earth does confessing your sins to someone from AA / NA have to do with your recovery?
Just another human being. No requirement for membership in a program. It often ends up being someone in the program, though.
> Of course, someone may choose to make it part of their recovery... But I don't think people should be pressured to tow the line or the consequence will be immanent death of their addiction...
You do things at your own pace. As you see fit. You do them in any order. Or not.
> Why does one *have* to do a complete moral inventory to recover from addiction? Does one have to do this to recover from schizophrenia, or depression, or any other kind of 'disease'???An addict is a human doing. An inventory restores you to a human being.
I use concepts from my 12-step work in coping with depression and chronic fatigue, all the time.
> > In any organization of people, there are literalists, and there are more pragmatic adherents.
>
> I have no problem with the pragmatic adherents.
> I don't have a problem with the 'literalists'
> I have a problem with the writings / doctrines that some people are 'literalists' about. Those writings / doctrines need to be put right...Again, specifics would be useful.
> > I know of no member of NA or AA who took delight in another person's relapse.
>
> I never said they did. I said they were delighted when they came back after a relapse and went on to become one of the biggest advocates for 'the cause'.No. Members like that tend to be embarassments. "We are not interested in what or how much you used or who your connections were, what you have done in the past, how much or how little you have, but only in what you want to do about your problem and how we can help."
> > > > If I may be so bold, I would ask if you are blaming them fairly for what became of you.
>
> > > What became of me, Larry?
>
> > I have no idea. This seems very personal. Very focussed.
>
> I object fairly strongly to 'pseudoscience' and 'religion' stepping into regions that are more properly the domain of the sciences... Don't get me wrong... If people find those helpful then more power to them. But some of their claims are false. My problem is I was at a very low point in my life... And I lapped up the literature (as I do).> And... It f*cked me up pretty bad because I'm an athiest through and through and I refused to admit I was powerless (preferring the idea of 'taking responsibility'. I was not allowed to say what I thought for 3 months in treatment.
There are readings, approved by NA World Service, to accomodate an atheist in the program. What you describe is abuse, plain and simple.
> I had to sit there and grit my teeth. I tried to talk to my therapist about my concerns and was told of my immanant death. I don't appreciate that. I hope thats not happening to other people out there... Thats my thought.
I am so sorry.
> Just the thought that...
> There are different ways...
> And... Don't believe everything you hear.
> The 'disease' notion, for example.To accept that word, I went to its root. It originally meant "not at peace". I was "not at peace" with my use of substances.
Next!
> Don't let biology run out of hand
> To the point where we forget about the environment
> Don't let people tell you its all about some flaw in your brain a flaw in your brain that makes you defective and to blame and a biological flaw that you are powerless over.That's not the NA message. The NA message is one of recovery.
> Because the environment plays a role. Social supports are really very important. Lots of people are living in very f*cked up portions of the world where life does seem pretty horrible sometimes. And when life is crap its SOOOOOOOOO much more tempting to get the hell away from the crap and feel that rush of pleasure.Agreed.
> > I am sorry your experience was so negative. I really am.
>
> Yeah.
>
> I know there are great people.
> Its just reading these doctrines that messed me up.Ya. I hear you.
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:575263
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/subs/20051106/msgs/580383.html