https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1360-0443....
https://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/smf-121_en.pdf
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/the-surpr...
https://www.inspiremalibu.com/blog/alcohol-addiction/7-thing...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1360-0443....
https://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/smf-121_en.pdf
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/the-surpr...
https://www.inspiremalibu.com/blog/alcohol-addiction/7-thing...
I am in no way an expert on AA, but I have researched various addiction treatment methods fairly extensively and am close to people who work professionally in recovery programs.
The idea that AA reinforces the "moral failing" aspect of addiction seems contrary to everything I've ever read, heard, or seen in regards to AA.
There may be a sense in which what you wrote is true, depending on defining very hard to define words such as "moral" ... I say that to apply the principle of charity to your comment as liberally as possible.
My problem with you writing what you wrote is that it could discourage someone from seeking help. AA is free and nearly ubiquitous. It is decentralized and the implementation varies considerably from group to group. People can relatively easily find meetings and just walk in. Whether or not it is the best fit for any given addict, it is often the first step someone takes on a very difficult road.
I don't think it in any way serves the common good to make discouraging comments about it. Especially if they are potentially misleading, which IMO yours is.
The entire insistence on the belief in a higher power, along with insistence that one is "powerless over your addiction" is intrinsically talking about a moral failing, and more specifically adherence to a christian-worldview where all from birth are morally failed.
They are offering a solution, in the form of rewiring your entire worldview (and deeply held beliefs) to the idea that you are powerless, there's an all powerful deity, and all good things are because of said deity. Step 4 is literally "Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves." [1] It may be effective for some, and some may have issues or resistance to such a thing.
Having a conversation about the methodologies is impossible without potentially discouraging someone from seeking help - but we should not hide the negatives, or else there'll be no way to actually get to better solutions. My feeling is that religion and giving up to a higher power can work for some people, but for others it can be a betrayal of their deeply held principles and values - my fear is that places like AA in an effort to evangelize their own principles and values take people who are rock bottom and offer up theirs as a solution rather than something that might work well for the person.
Does belief in a higher power constitute being morally failed? Is it even specifically Judeo-Christian?
Being "powerless over your addiction" has more to do with setting aside rationalizations and not mistaking temporary breaks for having control.
AA undeniably has a Christian flavor -- it was developed and elaborated by Christian people -- but that doesn't mean it's about Christianity.
The emphasis on public self-flagellation and self-humiliation via drunkalogs and self labeling as “alcoholics” aka sinners, the insistence on the nonsensical idea of “personal powerlessness,” the dogmatic suggesting of a book (the AA big book) written by Christian religious freaks as if it’s the Bible...
AA quite literally IS Christianity. It’s just that they use the generic label “God” rather than the more specific label of “Jesus Christ.”
It’s not like they allow polytheism, lol. They are specifically a monotheistic group religion, based on the idea of a singular MALE “higher power.” AA is Christianity. Saying otherwise reveals you either don’t know much about AA, or you don’t know much about Christianity. They are functionally the same.
I don't think that's right. More than anywhere else, it seems like on HN there's an idea of the infallibility of human rationality. Would anyone in their right mind a) shoot dirty dope filtered through a cigarette butt, b) gamble themselves into debt with the mafia, c) overeat to the point they can't leave the house, d) play videogames compulsively for days on end, etc?
> You drink too much for a reason, not because you're a bad person.
the reason here being predisposition, environmental factors, genetics, and/or current illness
In that case, how do we hold anyone personally responsible for anything considering that the reason a person does any action is a result of their genetics and the environment they grow in?
Not criticizing, just wondering how others reconcile this.
I think he drank to suppress the nightmares from serving in the front lines of two wars. I think he began tapering off when he left the army when I was three. I think he did so with no conscious plan. He just didn't need as much alcohol to push away his personal demons so he could sleep and he probably just naturally reduced it over time without really thinking about it.
I've got a serious medical condition. I used to take a lot of prescription medication. I've gotten off all the drugs. It's really normal for me to stop doing X slowly over time and not really notice it until later. It's common for me to only really notice a change precisely because I talk a lot about my medical stuff with my adult sons, so we periodically go over "Oh, yeah, you used to do X, Y and Z and you don't anymore."
I also spoke once with someone who had a lot of shame surrounding a DUI on their record. One of the stories they told me: They had surgery for something and when the doctors opened them up, they found one of the organs necrotic. This was unexpected and they expressed surprise that this individual was still alive. They removed the organ in the process of doing this other surgery. The individual quit drinking after that, but still saw themselves as a bad person and an alcoholic rather than someone who was managing a terrible and life threatening medical condition with alcohol until surgery happened to resolve it.
I'm convinced that this type of thing is much more common than is generally recognized.
Every society struggles with this - how to stop people from acting in ways that are anti-social? Nobody has a universal solution, because universal solutions can't and don't exist - but thats why we have judges and justice systems.
Accountability is different than responsibility. Is it the fault of a pedophile that the psychological reason for their desires came through no fault of their own? No, but they are still held accountable for acting upon such desires, as its clearly an assault on the victim. Its a bit like arguing causality - it can go in a loop and you can never come out. The line most societies draw is when one person negatively effects another (assault, fraud, etc), or has a high likelihood to negatively effect another (driving dangerously, some would say drug use).
Note that being an alcoholic itself isn't illegal. Its a legal drug, you can have as much as you want as an adult in a free society. All the illegalities come in when your alcoholism negatively effects others.
* Undealt with trauma/abuse
* Lack of skills to express themselves emotionally, and experience that it is a "socially acceptable outlet" (for a while)
* Depression and lack of self worth (sometimes brought on by excess drinking, in a cycle/loop)
* Neurochemical or biological imbalance - note that the rates of ASD spectrum or bipolar alcoholism is much higher than neurotypical, for example
* Cultural enforcement of drinking (frequently being around people with other of these issues)
* Others
Or most frequently
* Multiple of above
Over work? Over program? Over game similar to your "d)"? Over technology -- e.g. databases and search at work whilst Drones & Arduino at home?
When is any of this "addiction"? What if you replaced "Arduino" with "Alcohol"? What if you looked at "databases" and asked "is this interfering with my normal life"?
Basically, if you want to “translate” the AA steps for the modern era where things aren’t so culturally-Christian, try replacing “God” with “a Church congregation-community”, where a “Church” is any social technology designed for taking a group of average people and trying to extract the best, most empathetic/humanist/“moral” group behavior out of them.
When AA says to rely on the “power of God” which is “strong” while your own willpower is “weak”, what they’re really saying, stripping away the culturally-Christian assumptions, is to rely on the social technology of a Church-like organization to amplify and backstop your willpower in various ways.
• Most Church-like organizations, regardless of religion, have a membership that strive to practice moderation in things like drinking, so switching your “community” to be that of the Church-like organization means switching your friends (maybe people who love to go out and get drunk?) for people who don’t. (This is a similar idea to why some people say prisoners are better off paroled: the last people you want prisoners around are other prisoners. You want them around good role-models, not bad ones, if you want them rehabilitated.)
• Most Church-like organizations provide access to a confidant and therapist (in Christian churches, that’d be the priest.) If you bond with this confidant-and-therapist figure, you’ll feel less bad about temporary failures, because you’ll have someone to tell who will help you get back on the horse, rather than shunning you for your failure.
• In most Church-like organizations, if you don’t attend the regular community meetings, the community members will get worried about you and check up on you. This will help prevent you from degenerating further after falling off the wagon.
AA is already a bridge between two worlds; although it is constructed under a culturally-Christian lens, it assumes that its attendeees are not necessarily members of any Church-like organization. So one of the goals of AA group meetings is to be a Church-like organization, for people who don’t attend Church. It pushes you “back” toward the Christian Church because it knows it can’t help you forever and wants you to find a more permanent Church-like organization to help you. This is similar to how psychiatrists encourage people who are stable on a maintenance dose of some drug to stop seeing them, by instead getting a family doctor (if they don’t already have one) and getting the family doctor to perscribe the maintenance dose of the drug.
I think that, while AA could be rephrased to not be culturally-Christian, it’d be very hard to replace its insistence on accepting some kind of religious Church-like organization into your life... because there really just aren’t that many non-religious Church-like organizations. If there were, maybe there’d be fewer alcoholics.
AA very specifically does not push you off on some other organization for support, and very specifically does not see or bill itself as being unable to provide lifetime support.
It's designed as “you come, you stay, you evangelize”, not “you come, you get some value, you go back to some other support system”.
I've read the origin story. It was constructed by a group of people who had been terrible, hard core alcoholics for decades who had failed all efforts to get off the alcohol and were still drinking even though it was literally killing them. "Giving it up to God" helped these folks get sober when nothing else had.
Now, we call every college kid who goes on a bender an alcoholic, blame every personal problem they have on the alcohol and refer them to AA. Reality: Most people naturally drink less over time without any intervention whatsoever. Generally speaking, young people drink a lot more than old people, and not because all young people go to AA and get "cured."
One guy explained it thusly: "When I was young, it felt great to get drunk. I had fun for hours and then the hangover wasn't too bad. Now, I get a short term pleasant feeling, followed by a terrible hangover. It's just not fun like it used to be. It's simply not worth it anymore."