I just spent a few minutes on the http://www.mentalhelp.net site (the server appears to be pretty well hosed at the moment, so I’ll provide links in an updated post) responding to recent blog posts by Mark Dombeck, PhD & Allan Schwartz, PhD. Dombeck’s dragging out the dead horse of “AA – Cult or Not?” while Schwartz opts for the kinder, gentler “Sober Conversation” about AA.
Far be it from me to call “bullshit” on guys who have professional credentials following their last names, but if the shoe fits … .
As far as the ‘cult’ debate goes, in my eyes it’s a non-issue. Alcohol/drug abuse & dependency are health issues & should be treated as such. Put a shotgun in my mouth & tell me to vote ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ on the “Is AA a cult” proposition & I will reluctantly vote ‘yay’. In real life, I’ve got no dog in that fight & it detracts from the larger, more cogent issues.
That said, for a therapeutic professional to willfully use the term in a blog post & invite commentary is utterly disingenuous. ‘Cult’ is a loaded word. Though it’s etymological origins are much less onerous, these days the term is clearly used in the perjorative sense. You call an organization a ‘cult’ and thems is fightin’ words.
So the good Dr. Dombeck is throwing gas on a fire, then standing back in mock therapeutic dismay at just how high the temprature of the flames has gotten. He goes on at some length about how his initial views of AA being the greatest thing since sliced bread have been softened somewhat having read the critiques of those ill-served by their association with the ‘fellowship’. Still, he’s not above provoking yet another good WWW shouting match all in the name of ‘addiction therapy’.
Me … I’m not buying into the whole nonsensical argument. It puts me in mind of the old Cheech & Chong bit: “It’s not a gang. It’s a club.”
Who cares?
The issue that medical, scientific, & therapeutic professionals need to be grappling with is whether or not AA is effective, whether on the whole it helps people or hurts them. And they need to be addressing that issue with widespread & open research — not invitations to web-based fistfights.
Whether or not an organization is a ‘cult’ or ‘cult-like’ is not only meaningless (figuratively & legally), it detracts from the larger argument. AA, whether it likes it or not, has positioned itself as the premier ‘solution’ for alcohol abuse & dependency. It has monopolized the treatment industry & wormed its way into virtually every aspect of civic life. While ‘AA’ may claim to be self-supporting, the GSO is under no such constraints & is in a very healthy financial position thanks to book sales & such. AA is long overdue for public inspection & revision. Its extraordinary claims (e.g. “millions saved”) need to be backed up by some extraordinary evidence. Plain & simple.
Cults that are shown to not be very good at fulfilling their promises aren’t terribly effective at winning over new converts. Throwing ‘cult’ & ‘AA’ together in a blog post, though, is pretty good for generating web traffic.
Dr. Schwarz in his post says he wants to engage the discussion in a constructive way, but dismissively uses the ‘anti AA’ rubric as a means for describing any & all criticisms of AA. I’ve posted before on this subject on other boards, but this ‘anti AA’ label is one that I think should be actively fought against. There is no organized ‘anti AA’ movement out there (although some might wish there were) & there is no uniform, monolithic critique of AA that every good ‘anti AA-er’ mouths. I have never seen anyone with picket signs outside an AA meeting & I have rarely (if ever) read anywhere in print or on the web anyone call for the complete & utter destruction of AA.
‘Anti AA’ is a myth.
This is an important point for two reasons:
- One of the more pernicious aspects of the AA/12X12 ‘experience’ is the way in which undermines common language (e.g., ‘sobriety’ is transmuted from ‘not drunk’ or ‘of solemn demeanor’ to ‘closer to god’); AA recognizes the power of using language to its advantages
- By allowing your view to be defined as mere oppositional argument, you almost certainly yield the rhetorical highground
Case in point: the “Pro Life” lobby is more than happy to have reproductive rights activists & advocates thought of in the collective public consciousness reflexively as “Anti Life”. What’s more monstrous than someone who’s against life? It’s in that spirit that the term “anti AA” emerges. Whether conscious of it or not, Dr. Schwarz marginalizes & minimizes critique of AA. Trust me, AA & its advocates are more than happy to let you gather under that one umbrella.
I refuse to be classified as “anti AA” because it’s insulting & completely inaccurate.
What I am is “Pro Truth & Accountability”, “Pro Public Health & Welfare”, “Pro Helping Others Without Any Contingencies.”
Stinkin' Thinkin' 
June 6, 2009 at 12:45 am
Pro -truth I like that.I am also.I am pro-freedom.I”m for trusting one’s own inner guidance.I believe it is okay to be different.I am for thinking and feeling.I”m for life free of time consuming AA meetings.And a life free of AA phone calls with people dumping on me and whining.I”m for enjoying life.Life is supposed to be fun and AA is not fun to me.
June 6, 2009 at 1:48 am
I don’t think that this is something that the two therapists want to talk about or deal with. They would prefer that the conversation went away. They do not want to defend AA; they do not want to criticize AA. That is, basically, how I see it. I think that may be called evasive.
June 6, 2009 at 7:19 am
Well thanks a lot. I went over to mentalhealth.net before 11pm, it’s now after 3am.
That particular article is an old one, I have responses dating back to June of ’06 on there. I’ve been sparring with Dr. Dombeck for years.
He has changed quite a bit from the old days, he once accused all the AA critics of being one prolific writer, but after being badgered for a few years, he now admits that AA has flaws.
I posted a few things on several articles over there tonight, they’re usually good about approving my comments. Now.
June 6, 2009 at 6:27 pm
ray,
sorry for keeping you up late.
you’re right — the dombeck article has a post date of 6/2006, but the response page (& his replies to the responses) look to be updating since last month. i remember going over this territory with him back then & just assumed he dug out an ‘oldie but goodie’ for the sake of picking at scabs.
the schwartz article is recent & for the most part is the same kind of puffery. it was the ‘Anti AA’ term that i wanted to call him on, & my post saw the light of day. mission accomplished.
as an aside, the linguistics issue is an important one. especially now that AA/12X12 step is getting less than stellar coverage in more than one form of media (e.g., — just hearing dr. sanjay gupta say on his CNNN special that the ‘continuum’ model of alcoholism was gaining more & more scientific credibility over the tired & unsubstantiated ‘chronic disease’ model almost made me fall off the couch). silence is golden for AAWS & GSO; even better, allowing their ardent foot soldiers to lower the terms of the public conversation (i.e., “anti AA”) is a publicity win for them.
i hate to keep going to the reproductive rights example, but the recent murder (yes, calculated, first-degree murder) of dr. george tiller genuinely speaks to this issue. in the media eyes, it’s “abortion doc killed in church — how ironic” (perhaps that’s painting with too broad a brush but this is a blog & i’m sure the general media will get over my slurring their fine journalistic efforts); as far as any leading clerical figure in any of the three abrahamic faiths (who all recognize the 10 commandments as the only straight-from-the-horse’s-mouth words of god — #7 being the one prohibiting killing) — mum’s the word.
it’s only when reproductive rights advocates & activists step up & call this murder for what it is (a despicable act in a continuing violent war on civil rights) that the issue gets re-framed in the public eye.
SAMSHA estimates put the number of ‘heavy drinkers’ (alcohol dependent) in the US in 2007 at 17 million. let’s give AA the benefit of the doubt & overestimate their regular attendance in that year to 1.5 million. i’m not going to unequivocally say that there aren’t some therapeutic & neurological anomalies surrounding alcohol & drug dependency. but’s it’s not the complete & utter ‘mystery’ that step adherents love to paint it as.
the ‘mystery’ is why the treatment industry tries to shove 17 million sufferers into one thoroughly unscientific model or ‘solution’ — which barely works even for the million or so who cleave to it!
that’s my hobbyhorse. i want to rid the discourse about alcohol & drug dependency of step-friendly terminology like ‘cult’, ‘mystery’, ‘spirituality’, ‘ant-[fill in the blank]’ & other backward-leaning words. the 12 steps are a 20th century creation gleaned from 18th & 19th century medical notions & dark-age morality.
steppers love alcoholics like the inquisitioner ‘loves’ the heretic.
speedy
June 6, 2009 at 6:41 pm
correction — ‘thou shalt not kill’ is commandment #6 … just after honoring your parents & keeping the sabbath day holy.
those are god’s priorites — in order. sort of like bill wilson’s ‘universally accepted’ moral principles, ‘the seven deadly sins’.
iron maiden was right.
speedy
June 7, 2009 at 2:16 am
Poking around on mental health.net, I found one of Dr. D’s comments to one of my 2007 posts:
“Editor’s Note: Ray has posted numerous comments on this website, all negative about AA. While his own experience with rehab and recovery has undoubtably been negative, keep in mind that your own milage may vary.”
June 7, 2009 at 4:10 am
ray,
i remember that one. i mean, how smug & condescending can you get? yet read over the ‘editorial note’ (almost certainly written by dombeck) that is appended to dr. hall’s reply to shwartz’s “sober conversation” blog post & you’d think the AA critics on mentalhelp.net are barbarian hordes storming the placid walls of AA, bloody swords at the ready.
the guy wouldn’t last 90 days going to AA meetings. he’d start running at the mouth about “radical post-modern revisions of the cartesian dualist model as a means for channeling ‘surrender’ to a higher self” & some tattooed ‘do the steps or die’ type would smack him in the back of the head.
i’d like to forward him a few posts from the steppers over at blame’s YT channel or even some of the e-mail i get after responding to vids. ‘vicious’, ‘demonizing’, ‘tearing down’ … ‘your mileage may vary’.
kiss my ass you molly-coddled, in-love-with-your-own-credentials pansy. sit your highly theoretical ass in meetings for a full year & then tell me how wonderful & empowering it all is.
fuck him twice,
speedy
January 10, 2010 at 5:17 am
Regarding anti-AA movement,
Fist off, all things start off “small” and then, grow large.
Secondly, ask the question, why would people have to claim that, there is an anti-AA movement,? Even if it didn’t exist???
I suggest that the autohor of this site, goes out and gets totally addicted to some type of substance, loses everything, is completely vulnerable and attends meeting for 1 to 10 years. Then go threw the AA or Na 12 step program, preferably in a large city and then, YOU come back in here and tell us how your feeling and how it all is. i agree with you, about that asshole Mark. He is getting off on “our” misery” Try googling AA HORROR STORIES or Anti AA webistes, there is only about 6.7 million of them and please will YOU stop sounding as if WE don’t exist. An Anti-AA movement may very well be limited however, that is NOT the point. the point is WHY would “anyone” feel compelled to say that, there is an anti-AA movement? and also, my pseudo intellectual friend.
Since when does websites and protest constitute a “rebellion”??? What about in my city alone, where we just had a AA-deprogramming” meeting and 57 people showed up? Hey there college boy gettin the larger picture, we are NOT aabout to destroy AA we are TRYING to bring it to AGE . Does it ever occur to you that, they anti-aa movement is TRYING to HELP people???? and we DO NOT care about trivial issues that YOU have brought up,
you are just like Mark, naive and getting off on OUR misery and it is because you are NOT an recovering addict/alcoholic.
You guys think this is something to make YOU feel good at our expense.
YOU suffer like us and then, come back on here and you might just find yourself joining OUR anonymous ANTI-AA MEETINGS. I ASSURE YOU, WE EXIST AND WE ARE GROWING…however, we do NOT ADVERTISE OURSELVES, FIGURE IT OUT!!!!!
WE NEED HELP AND WE WANT TO HELP OTHERS…Hey baby, you try AA and NA,,,these people are very screwed up and they are because of the archaic Oxford Group and a psycho-path named Bill Wilson..
Do your home work then make you assessments you naive, intellectual wind bag..
Lets see if you post my comments, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if your ego gets in the way..
and try humbling yourself we are totally hurting in more ways than one…
March 13, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Hard to make out what is so contentious. To say AA is not a quasi-religious cult is ridiculous on the face of it. Adepts, neophytes, rites, ritual, dogma, loaded language, redemption (in this life), damnation for apostates, apotheosized founders, in group/out group mentality, shibboleths (“Friend of Bill?), sacred text including select hagiographies, etc.
AA, like most cults, is self-selecting, and in my 15 years I’d say by far the greater part of the membership is politically leftist, which may explain the pervasive invective against mainstream religion. Another leftist trait I have witnessed is a morbid infatuation with victimhood, as a red herring excusing one’s lack of individual responsibility. Lip service is paid to the Steps since they do ultimately require one to take responsibility for both past and present actions, but the reality in meetings is that people whine about the same problems for years on end as if they were a victim. Of course, there is the biggest victimhood charade of all, that the profligate were so because they suffer from an incurable disease.
The rooms reek of gnosticism, yet another leftist trait, insofar as most members’ sharing about their higher power suggests the higher power’s deliverances bear an uncanny resemblance to the member’s own views on social justice,(im)morality, fairness, etc. Self-indulgent, mawkishly imbecilic drivel does deliver such a sense of moral superiority to a certain type after all, even if brought up in a totally inappropriate manner as above.
March 17, 2010 at 1:00 pm
dan,
“The rooms reek of gnosticism, yet another leftist trait …”
considering that gnosticism has its roots in the bronze age (well before marx), i’d say you’re inclined to sweeping, largely unfounded generalizations.
both a-of-a founders were devoutly right wing in their political inclinations & contemporary a-of-a’s public poster-boy is glenn beck. that hardly suggests a movement rife with ‘radical’ politics & progressive agendas.
AA is left wing.
AA is right wing.
AA has no public opinion … .
AA is a brand, concerned only with propagating & promoting itself — through any avenue & via any tactic available to it. deal with it.
speedy