In a previous post (donewithaa.wordpress.com), MA revisits the age-old “Is Alcoholics Anonymous A Cult?” question.
While I’m less eager than most in this debate to invoke the word ‘cult’ in association with AA/12X12, I can understand why others are inclined to come to that conclusion. Whether they use ‘cult’ in the most heated pejorative sense of the word or in a matter-of-fact lay sense of the word, in many ways (to my mind at least) the shoe does seem to fit more than not. Any dictionary definition of the word readily utilizes terms like ‘religious’, ‘belief’, ‘community’, ‘non-scientific’, & ‘esoteric’ in explicating its usage. Perhaps most troubling for me are the following forms of definition taken from three separate dictionary sources:
“8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.” (Random House Dictionary)
“4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.” (American Heritage Dictionary)
see: www.dictionary.com
“4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator ” (Webster’s Dictionary)
see: www.merriam-webster.com
Now, AA/12X12 adherents & advocates can repeat the “it’s spiritual not religious” mantra all they want (among one of the finest crafted tautologies in the English language in my [humble] opinion), but they have no ground to stand on when it comes to the ‘disease’ issue. The “my disease”, “this disease”, “I have a disease that tells me that I don’t have a disease” language is so common at meetings that honestly disputing it is impossible. In one of the most tortured defenses of AA & the ‘disease’ definition, official AA historian Ernest Kurtz, PhD. writes:
“On the basic question, the data are clear: Contrary to common opinion, Alcoholics Anonymous neither originated nor promulgated what has come to be called the disease concept of alcoholism. Yet its members did have a large role in spreading and popularizing that understanding. …
As is often stated in introductions but too rarely recognized in analyses, Alcoholics
Anonymous is its members [bold emphasis added]. That membership tries to live their program’s Twelve Steps, guided by their fellowship’s Twelve Traditions. The Tenth of those Traditions reads: “Alcoholics
Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.” [1] The nature of alcoholism is an “outside issue.” Thus, Alcoholics Anonymous as Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on it, as most members will tell anyone who asks.
1 – The writing of this article was subsidized by a grant from the Behavioral Health Recovery Management project, a partnership of Fayette Companies and Chestnut Health Systems funded by the Illinois Department of Human Services Office of Alcoholism and Substance
Abuse.”
see: www.bhrm.org
If I’m reading the above passage correctly (and with Ernest Kurtz, that’s always a challenge), Kurtz is saying Alcoholics Anonymous never formally defined alcoholism as a disease; however, Alcoholics Anonymous is its membership & its membership defines alcoholism as a disease.
(Think that 10 times fast & see if your head doesn’t explode.)
The tortured, convoluted history of AA member & publicist Marty Mann’s machinations with Yale ‘Dr.’ E.M. Jellinek (see: www.roizen.com regarding Jellinek’s dubious academic credentials) to establish both the ‘disease theory’ of alcoholism is fairly well documented. That the AMA’s recognition of this definition went to a highly controversial vote & won only by the slimmest margin is also fairly well documented. That Mann utilized AA funds & the response information from AA members only to support Jellinek’s findings is again fairly well documented. Finally, that Mann also used AA funds to establish the National Committee for Education on Alcoholism (now known as the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence [NCADD]) as the formal public relations arm of AA is another matter of verifiable public record.
And, no, you don’t need to go to the Orange Papers (www.orange-papers.org) to get any of this information. If truly interested see: www.google.com.
Finally, (for those “original program” types in da house) we go to the horse’s mouth. Here’s what Bill Wilson himself had to say with regard to ‘alcoholism’ & ‘disease’:
“Resentment is the ‘number one’ offender. It destroys more alcoholics than anything else. From it stem all forms of spiritual disease, for we have been not only mentally and physically ill, we have been spiritually sick.” (Alcoholics Anonymous – 4th edition, “How It Works” – pg. 64)
Bill explicitly states that alcoholics are “sick” in a three-fold manner (mentally, physically, spiritually) and in the most important area of that triumvirate (spiritually) they are suffering from “disease”.
Put bluntly, AA/12X12 trying to distance itself from the ‘disease’ concept is (as if it were possible!) more disingenuous than its continued disavowing itself of its ‘religious’ aspects. As AA proponent William L. White clearly outlines in his book “Slaying The Dragon”, the ‘disease’ notion of alcohol abuse & dependence has a history dating back to the 18th century with Benjamin Rush (Surgeon General of George Washington’s revolutionary armies). While its popularity waxed & waned over the ensuing years, it was always to some degree part of the public consciousness. AA simply took the existing concept & with Mann & Jellinek’s efforts put it into overdrive. The ‘disease’ concept of alcoholism & AA are inseparable — despite the sophistry of Ernest Kurtz & 12X12’s more duplicitous defenders.
All that in mind, let’s go back to the horse’s mouth — the sanctified, inerrant words of Bill Wilson:
“To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy alternatives to face.”
(Alcoholics Anonymous – 4th edition, “We Agnostics” – pg. 44)
“Unless each AA member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant.”
(Twelve Steps & Twelve Traditions, “Tradition Nine” – pg. 141)
Let’s count ’em off:
- We’ve got a person “claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease” (see “How It Works” pg. 64 — referenced above)
- We’ve got the same person (later, an entire worldwide organization) claiming a “nonscientific method or regimen … [claiming] exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease”; better (or worse, depending on your perspective) — “a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator “
- We’ve got an explicit death threat accompanying even the mildest rejection of the prescribed ‘cure’
AA/12X12 proponents can prattle on all they want about how ‘the program’ isn’t ‘treatment’ or ‘cure’. As demonstrated above, they are at best equivocating & at worst willfully misrepresenting their own texts & philosophy. They are just plain lying.
I’ll say it again: when it comes to describing AA/12X12 I refrain from using the word ‘cult’. I believe contemporary usage of the word comes with more than a fair amount of pejorative baggage & is not really all that helpful in truly deconstructing the myth of 12X12 efficacy.
But — & this question is directed at any AA (or any [fill-in-the-blank]A) member — how do you consider all of the above & not come away with at least some concern that you’re engaged in a cult or a cult-like organization?
ADDITION:
In the event that the inevitable “AA does not call alcoholism a disease” response to this post hits the ‘Comments’ section, let me head that one right off at the pass. From AA’s own website & available in pamphlet form at virtually any meeting or treatment facility:
“We who are in A.A. came because we finally gave up trying to control our drinking. We still hated to admit that we could never drink safely. Then we heard from other A.A. members that we were sick. (We thought so for years!) We found out that many people suffered from the same feelings of guilt and loneliness and hopelessness that we did. We found out that we had these feelings because we had the disease of alcoholism (emphasis added).” – Is AA For You? copyright 1973 & 2008 — Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc.
Stinkin' Thinkin' 
June 18, 2009 at 7:41 pm
“Is AA For You? copyright 1973 & 2008 — Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc”
If the Copyright is 1973 like it says than it was not written by Bill W. and is deemed invalid.
Pg 18 says “An illness of this sort and we have come to believe it an illness”
So it’s not a disease, it’s an illness. A disease can be detected through testing while an illness is centered in the mind. Similar to Anorexia, Kleptomania, Pedophelia, etc… there is no known “Cure”
Pg 23 “Therefore, the main problem of the alcoholic centers in his mind, rather than in his body”.
The term “Disease” came from a Grapevine Article June 1944 which stated that A Yale Study determined that Alcoholism is “True Disease” and delivered this concept to Alcoholics Anonymous. The Book called it an “Illness” when it was written 5 years prior to that and still calls it an illness to this day.
AAWS again is allowing misinformation to flow in the name of a buck
June 19, 2009 at 12:44 am
cuda,
your sophistry knows no bounds.
let me see if i’ve got the rules of the game right here:
1) if it wasn’t written by bill wilson than it isn’t AA (even if it’s written by AAWS, which he was the prime instrument in developing, organizing & founding)
2) even though the words “illness”, “sickness” & “disease” are all considered synonymous by Roget’s, Websters, & the OED Thesaurus — bill’s incorrect & thoroughly unsubstantiated differentiation is beyond dispute
3) although bill wilson had no degree in psychology, psychiatry, or medicine — in fact, had no formal or even lay training in any form of study related to concepts of psychology, psychiatry, or medicine (before becoming a full-time drunk, his vocation was stock speculator), his pronouncements on matters related to theories of mind & mentall ‘illness’ are beyond question
okay then … .
both benjamin rush & thomas trotter were referring to ‘chronic drunkenness’ as a ‘disease’ in the early 18th century. a dr. w.h. sanders of chicago advertised a ‘cure’ for the ‘disease’ of drunkenness as early as 1904.
the 1946 yale study you refer to was performed by e.m. jellinek & its results were collated from questionnaires distributed solely to AA (156 in all, 98 submitted) members by marty mann. the study was funded by mann & r. brinkley smithers with AA support.
the modern ‘disease of alcoholism’ concept, therefore, is inextricably linked solely to AA.
your regurgitation of wilson’s ever-shifting poppycock (“it’s an ‘illness’ centered in the mind” … no, it’s a “spiritual disease” that has its roots in “resentment”) isn’t terribly convincing. the sheer instability & dopiness of wilson’s presentation is one of the more prominent factors in pushing suffering people out AA’s doors en masse.
and it’s doubletalk like what you offer up that keeps them away. that’s probably not a bad thing, come to think of it.
keep up the good work,
speedy
speedy
June 19, 2009 at 4:03 am
“1) if it wasn’t written by bill wilson than it isn’t AA (even if it’s written by AAWS, which he was the prime instrument in developing, organizing & founding)”
That’s why I pointed out the copyright date. Bill died two years prior. AAWS could put me on staff and everything I said would become Gospel, Right?
“2) even though the words “illness”, “sickness” & “disease” are all considered synonymous by Roget’s, Websters, & the OED Thesaurus — bill’s incorrect & thoroughly unsubstantiated differentiation is beyond dispute”
Go a little further and look them up separately in Webster and you’ll find two different definitions.
ill·ness
Pronunciation: \ˈil-nəs\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1500
1obsolete a: wickedness b: unpleasantness
2 a: an unhealthy condition of body or mind b:
dis·ease
Pronunciation: \di-ˈzēz\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English disese, from Anglo-French desease, desaise, from des- dis- + eise ease
Date: 14th century
1obsolete : trouble
2: a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms
Webster specifically mention “Plants” in the definition of “Disease” Do plants get “Ill”?
Now there’s a difference in black and white. Can we now accuse Webster of “Doubletalk” since his thesaurus differs with his definition?
June 20, 2009 at 3:52 am
NOTE:
Alcoholsm is not referred to int he Big Book, “Alcoholics Anonymous” as a spiritual disease.
Spiritual malady or illness is referred to as a distinct and separate condition. All alcoholics have suffered from it – but it isn’t part of the alcoholism description.
Think: ‘All alcoholics are spiritually ill — but not all those who a e spiritually ill are alcoholic’ – Capiche? Or if this is easier: All those infected with HIV have compromised immune systems — but not all those with compromised immune systems are HIV infected
Alcoholism is only described as have TWO components – Mental and physical. NOT SPIRITUAL!
The “three fold” concept is not an AA concept.
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 18, 2009 at 10:00 pm
It looks like we have found some common ground, Cuda. I’m not sure if you have read the book “Slaying the Dragon”, but I just finished it, and it goes into some detail about the origins of the disease concept. It is actually written by an AA advocate, but it is really fair in its historical accuracy. The disease concept was really conceived long before the article from which you referred, although that might well have been when AA took the reins of the concept.
June 19, 2009 at 7:12 am
cuda,
1) if AAWS were to put you on its staff & subsequently printed a pamphlet authored by you, that pamphlet would bear the ‘AA’ imprimatur; that would make those words an explicit statement made by AA — it would be AA officially “saying” something; in this case it is AA explicitly endorsing “the disease of alcoholism” notion; to your second point, i would accept nothing AAWS or bill wilson said or published as “gospel” nor even vaguely helpful
2) so it’s the etymological game you want to play, is it? now bill wilson — in addition to being a chronic drunk, failed stock speculator, natural psychiatric & neurological savant — was also an erudite lexicographer & etymologist?
when you’re reaching back to the 14th century early french roots of ‘disease’ & 16th century roots of ‘illness’ to find vague differences in meaning neither of which were recognized in contemporary usage in 1938 you have gone from splitting hairs to raising the bar on the patently absurd; why not go back to the arabic roots of the word ‘alcohol’ (al-kuhul – “the [article]” plus “kohl” defining the fine metallic powder used to darken the eyelids; or as Websters defines it: “a preparation used especially in Arabia and Egypt to darken the edges of the eyelids.”
that’s a helluva long way from distilled spirits, no? or perhaps ‘alcoholics’ are really people afflicted with an obsession for mascara?
Websters thesaurus deals with words as they are used in a contemporary fashion, whereas the dictionary may offer a snippet of etymological information along with the more contemporary definitions in descending order of magnitude.
your foray into the etymologies of ‘illness’ & ‘disease’ are a piss-poor defense of bill wilson’s knack for purple prose & hyperbole rather than finely argued, densely cited academic or medical discourse. yours’ is an exercise in pedantics so as to give license to wilson’s (& your own) penchant for doubletalk.
perhaps in your mind there is a distinct difference in the meanings of the words ‘illlness’ & ‘disease’. let me suggest you are among an increasingly miniscule minority — & not just in the english speaking world.
again — from its very beginnings, AA used the convoluted language of “illness” & “disease” in order to describe the condition of the ‘alcoholic’. the phrase “spiritual disease” (much closer to the etymological origin of the word “illness”) is used in the BB to describe that which destroys more alcoholics than anything else. implicit in that statement: alcoholics suffer from a “disease” (however ethereal its origins) that can potentially kill them.
the ‘disease’ versus ‘illness’ line of argument is the falsest there is in AA — & there’s no shortage of false arguments within AA.
looks to me like you’ve been spending a little too much time in that head of yours’ & coming up with prideful, intellectual arguments … even if they don’t hold much water. seems like someone needs to let go & let god.
or maybe not. let me suggest your disenchantment with contemporary AA stems not from its straying from its pure, altruistic roots. AA has always been a quasi-religious attempt at cashing in on the “alcoholic’s” plight.
both MA & i mention william l. white’s “slaying the dragon”. you may want to give it the once-over, paying particular attention to the chapter 18 (i.e., AA’s vision of AA-run hospitals & the actual running of a hospital wing in NY — “The Knickerbocker Paradox”).
the “original program” is a myth.
speedy
June 19, 2009 at 7:36 am
btw, noah webster was a bible-thumping nutbag whose fundamentalist christian views are quoted in “the cyclopedia of temperance” (the founding text of the prohibition movement) — copyright 1917.
spiritual not religious.
right.
June 19, 2009 at 11:29 am
One good reason to call AA a cult: it gets a rise out of some aa participants. I can accept that. For me, it does not do much. AA harms some people; AA helps some people. For most attendees, it does very little of either. In fact, AA does very little of anything.
If AA were, in fact, safe and effective treatment, this blog would not exist.
Call it a cult; deny it is a cult. A futile conversation. Disease? Where is the treatment? The world is waiting.
Again: If 12 step is the answer, what is the question?
June 19, 2009 at 5:13 pm
anon,
that voice is a familiar one. i wonder … .
that question’s been posed more than a few times & (generally speaking) i agree with the sentiment in which it is asked.
let me re-phrase it, though, in AA-ese: “If the ‘program’ of AA’s 12 steps is ‘the solution’, then what is the problem?”
in the BB bill w. goes to some length to state that ‘alcoholism’ (‘real’ or otherwise — both get equal treatment in the book) is the problem.
the question than becomes, “well, what is ‘alcoholism’? and how, exactly, does your proposed ‘solution’ actually resolve the problem? further, if you could provide some fairly compelling, verifiable, replicable evidence of your ‘solution’ that would be great.”
bill spent his lifetime double-talking & equivocating (e.g., a touted ‘75% success rate’ that turns into ‘5 -10% in later conference-approved literature’ & ‘we could hardly get anyone to take the bait’ at dr. bob’s funeral) in response to that question. since his death, AAWS & GSO have opted to simply keep their mouths shut.
so much for the solution.
speedy
June 19, 2009 at 10:00 pm
The interesting thing from the point of view of trying to deconstruct AA and what the hell Wilson was even trying to say with his disease model for alcoholism is what he does with the whole notion. First, he uses it to make himself (and by extension his reader) feel better with the whole “what a relief, all that bad stuff I did wasn’t my fault because I have a disease” bull shit. The interesting thing is that barely two steps later everything is your fault and only by debasing yourself in front of your sponsor and gawd will gawd agree to make you a better person. Besides being contradictory, its sick (not diseased, sick).
Wilson talks about that “step 2 pink cloud” and the subsequent depression and confusion of the new initiate. The reason for the pink cloud is that the initiate is initially love bombed to within an inch of his or her life and told that everything is ok and not their fault because they are “sick.” Then comes the real AA message which could be paraphrased as; “ah, well, scratch that whole “you were just sick” thing, turns out you are a really, really, really bad person and you need to start debasing yourself now, and for the rest of your life.” Hence the pink cloud dispersal.
June 20, 2009 at 3:38 am
Hi Annazed,
Could you tell me where Bill W talked about a “pink cloud”? I don’t recall ever coming across that. I may have but forgotten. Source please>? Thanks.
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 20, 2009 at 4:16 am
page 113 in Step 12 of the “12&12″:
“The best-intentioned of us can fall for the “two-step” illusion. Sooner or later the pink cloud stage wears off and things go disappointingly dull. We begin to think that A.A. doesn’t pay off after all. We become puzzled and discouraged.”
June 20, 2009 at 3:01 am
It is fair to note that the co-founders of AA NEVER ONCE refer to alcoholism as a disease in the Big Book, “Alcoholics Anonymous” – even though they certainly had the opportunity to do so. This is a glaring omission and likely intentional. The word “disease” is avoided like the plague in the AA book. Bill Wilson, in an interview years later was asked if he believed in the disease concept. He did not – and neither did the co-authors/co-founders and I don’t either.
The disease concept/model comes from the medical industry as it hones in on the recovery business. They are after all in “the disease business” and if alcoholism can be classified as a disease – they’re good as gold! AND they’re successfully doing it too – taking back the business they abandoned years ago because they had no success and couldn’t make money at it – (Alcoholics don’t really pay their bills very often — now do they?)
Now, today – fueled by the health insurance industry, who pays the doctors and rehabs even as the “treatment” inevitably fails. What a deal! The rich get richer and real alcoholics die from a disease that does NOT even exist – and cannot be “treated” — from chronic alcoholism stemming from spiritual malady that is beyond th capabilities of medical science and BOARD APPROVED opportunists — and NOT DISEASE. Nice.
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 20, 2009 at 3:14 am
Bill Wilson once said, and I’m paraphrasing: “We have never considered alcoholism a disease entity”.
I can find the exact quote and source if you wish. I was surprised to hear that, actually.
June 20, 2009 at 3:36 am
Yes most are surprised to learn that. I know that I was – after sitting in AA meetings for several years listening to AA folks talk about “their disease” and ‘disease this’ and ‘disease’ that and “I have a disease that tells me that I don’t have a disease” —- JESUS CHRIST a talking affliction!
POP-AA folks are just so weird.
Real alkies like me just don’t identify with them at all. It is amazing we haven’t ALL joined your ranks and left the fellowship. It’s just such a prolific source of prospects that we “keep comin’ back” – only not so we can stay sober – as some suppose. We have already recovered and have been placed in a position of neutrality with respect to EtOH — but we come for the “fresh meat” to take through the 12 steps and to “save” from the AA hobbyists, social workers and amateur psychologists that sit in folding chairs spouting their bullshit and kill real alcoholics by telling the to “just dont’ drink” like any non-alcoholic can do and they cannot!
Thats what some of us do anyway.
I may look for it – as I haven’t seen it in quite a while. If I locate the source I will forward it to you, MA.
BTW the “father” of the disease model is considered to be Jellineck with whom you are probably familiar. His name comes up all the time in the online ANTI-AA site and materials.
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 20, 2009 at 9:28 am
ma,
saying “we have never considered ‘alcoholism a disease'” while repeatedly referring to it as an ‘illness’ or ‘malady’ (or even explicitly , in the BB, a form of ‘spiritual disease), is just plain doubletalk — orwellian bulls**t at its finest.
if wilson truly wanted to put the kibosh on the widespread acceptance of the ‘disease’ concept, he would have opposed marty mann’s efforts in the mid-1940’s. at this point, wilson is still a very powerful figure in the AA organization & could very well have put a stop to her dispersing her ‘questionnaires’ at AA meetings & then turning those results over to jellinek.
wilson (& organized AA) knew exactly what was being orchestrated & they not only did not oppose it. they actively supported & assisted in it.
speedy
June 20, 2009 at 10:30 am
I agree with you, Speedy. This is why I was surprised to see that Bill had said it wasn’t a disease. Maybe he was on a bad trip at the time.
June 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm
bill wilson from an address to the national catholic clergy conference on alcoholism in 1961:
“We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically speaking, it is not a disease entity. For example, there is no such thing as heart disease. Instead here are many separate heart ailments, or combinations of them. It is something like that with alcoholism. Therefore we did not wish to get in wrong with the medical profession by pronouncing alcoholism a disease entity. Therefore we always called it an illness, or a malady — a far safer term for us to use.”
(http://www.bhrm.org/papers/AAand%20DiseaseConcept.pdf – pg.3)
so after supporting marty mann’s efforts to get the AMA to endorse the ‘disease’ definition of alcoholism, bill says AA (& be sure to take note of the collective “we” pronoun) never, ever said it was a disease. all the written mentions of “illness”, “disease”, “malady”, etc. in the BB & 12X12 (never mind mann & jellinek’s machinations, & the endless proclamation of ‘disease’ at meetings) are all to be ignored.
‘dr.’ bill compounds this dissembling with the laugh-out-loud declaration that “… there is no such thing as heart disease. Instead here are many separate heart ailments, or combinations of them.” i wonder how well that little nugget would’ve gone over at a conference of medical doctors on alcoholism, or an AMA conference on alcoholism (the AMA has disease definitions for both alcoholism & heart disease).
again, all of this would be funny if it didn’t have such widespread social/cultural/economic impact.
speedy
June 21, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Oh good. You found it. Thanks, Speedy.
I just finished reading “Slaying the Dragon”, which is pretty good history of the treatment industry. It was written by an AA advocate, but it is fair and accurate (although it lies by omission, but only slightly). AA had a vested interest in the disease concept, which the both promoted.
June 22, 2009 at 6:07 pm
ma,
read white’s book during my first go-round in da rheums. it was one of the primary influences in getting me to walk the hell out.
in a former lifetime, i was a grad. student in english on a PhD. track with a full fellowship at CUNY’s grad center. i’m a bookworm & something of an biblio-elitist. so it wasn’t “the orange papers”, “blamedenial” or “morerevealed” or bufe’s “AA: Cult Or Cure?” that opened my eyes to AA’s baldly bogus nature. it was reading books like white’s, fingarette’s, & maia szalavitz that did it. i found the above resources afterwards.
of course, i went back to da rheums.
then left again.
then went back.
and left again. this time, with any luck, the ‘left’ part sticks. feels like it will.
speedy
June 20, 2009 at 4:20 am
“Bill listened, entranced, as Silkworth explained his theory. For the first time in his life, Bill was hearing about alcoholism not as a lack of willpower, not as a moral defect, but as a legitimate illness. It was Dr. Silkworth’s theory — unique at the time — that alcoholism was the combination of this mysterious physical “allergy” and the compulsion to drink; that alcoholism could no more be “defeated” by willpower than could tuberculosis. Bill’s relief was immense.”
‘PASS IT ON’: The story of Bill Wilson and how the A.A. message reached the world, Authorship credited to ‘anonymous’, page 102.
June 22, 2009 at 9:25 pm
danny,
let’s define some terms here:
1 – AA’s “co-founders” are william griffith wilson & dr. robert smith, yes?
2 – the ‘Big Book’ (the oft referred to static “first 164 pages”) & the ‘Personal Stories’ (which have in the past & continue to change) are what constitute the book entitled “Alcoholics Anonymous”, yes?
3 – prior to his 1963 agreement with AAWS, bill w. was sole owner of the copyright to “Alcoholics Anonymous” & outside of the materials written by others & included in the ‘first 164 pages/Big Book’, it’s accepted that wilson wrote most of the ‘Big Book’, yes? (see http://silkworth.net/gsowatch/aaws/index.htm for a breakdown of the original text’s authorship)
4 – if we accept the list of authors provided above, dr. bob made no written contribution to the ‘first 164 pages/Big Book’, yes?
5 – on pg. 64 (“How It Works”) co-founder bill wilson writes, “Resentment is the ‘number one’ offender. It destroys more alcoholics than anything else. From it stem all forms of spiritual disease, for we have been not only mentally and physically ill, we have been spiritually sick. When the spiritual malady is overcome, we straighten out mentally and physically.” parsing that out some: ‘resentment … destroys alcoholics’ & ‘resentment’ and ‘spiritual disease’ are inextricably linked [the later follows from the former without fail]; according to co-founder wilson, alcoholics are ‘mentally & physically ill’ as well as ‘spiritually sick’; a lay reader might reasonably infer that ‘spiritual disease’ & ‘spiritually sick’ are virtually synonymous, yes? further, that treating this ‘spiritual malady’ (‘sick’-ness, ‘disease’) is the path toward regaining, mental & physical wellness, yes?
6 – in common usage at the time ‘the first 164 pages/Big Book’ was written (& even now), the terms ‘disease’, ‘sick’, ‘ill’, & ‘malady’ are — if not absolutely synonymous — certainly understood to convey the same meaning, yes?
7 – when first getting sober, an alcoholic’s linguistic skills are at best dulled, yes? (i.e., distinguishing the finer etymological origins of the words ‘disease’, ‘illness’, ‘sickness’, & ‘malady’ are probably not the easiest things for a person in this condition)
8 – in handing an alcoholic desperately trying to get & stay sober a ‘Big Book’, telling that person to read it closely & expecting that person to make the distinctions articulated above (even if they have not been rendered completely moot by the passage of time & common usage) is probably asking a little too much, yes?
9 – further expecting that person who — if he or she should manage to get & stay sober while reading the Big Book & going to meetings — to re-visit the text & apply subtle, etymological distinctions to the words used is, again, probably expecting a little much, yes?
10 – this whole “the co-founders of AA NEVER ONCE refer to alcoholism as a disease in the Big Book” thing is closer to absurd philological hairsplitting than it is ‘rigorous honesty’, no?
take your time with this one,
speedy
June 23, 2009 at 1:05 am
LOL I’ll bite – I am taking my time:
first five:
1) The co-founders include those two. there were close to a hundred others. “We, OF Alcoholics Anonymous, are more than one hundred men and women who have recovered from a seemingly hopeless state of mind and body.” (By the time of publication that “projected” the >100 was correct.)
2) Yes
3) co-author is co-author. Obviously there is one “scribe” responsible for paper and ink – but if someone else has anything to say about content and also contributors – then they are ALL “the author”. I am not aware than Bill had a blank check to write anything he wanted to. He probably had the most influence though. Even chapter purported to have been written by other members have the smell of Bill all over them – probably through his very own editing of content – but I am conjecturing.
4) if you do. I don’t. Bob may have been active in the project. I don’t know. Wast there.
5) linked? Yes. Inextricably? How do you arrive at that? Everyone who is spiritually ill isn’t alcoholic even though all alcoholics have been or are. No, not inextricably.
More to come.
June 22, 2009 at 9:28 pm
This is just a note to say that I really like Having Danny here. It makes everything so much simpler (this simple program).
AA is what Danny personally says it is, capice?
June 22, 2009 at 9:34 pm
And this: You’re a real alcoholic if real AA works for you. Cuts right straight through the bullshit.
June 23, 2009 at 12:19 am
a,
like they say ’round da way — keep it real, yo.
speedy
June 20, 2009 at 3:16 am
NOTE:
There is no “success rate” for sobriety in AA. LOL! All this trying to figure out something that is not measurable.
You area attempting to discover data measuring “sobroety” in a fellowship that does not have “sobriety” as it’s objective. Try as you might – there is no measurement available for a success that isn’t even an objective. You’ll never obtain it!!
It is no wonder no one is happy with the “stats”. They are inventions and totally arbitrary.
The “75%” concept which is entirely an extrapolation – – of the Forward to the First Edition was not referred to as a “success rate”. That term is yet ANOTHER extrapolation. Even the “75%” idea is entirely extrapolated and never actually referred to in terns of “percentages” in that Forward.
If people would trying to make it into something it is not they might not get so frustrated with the erroneous data they are collecting.
I’ll say it again: AA doesn’t HAVE a success rate and has adopted Traditions which wisely prevent the creation of one. Folks out to stop looking for one. They ain’t gonna find it – and can only try to invent one. It will be wrong.
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 20, 2009 at 3:55 pm
>There is no “success rate” for sobriety in AA. LOL! All this trying to figure out something that is not measurable.
“Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are those who cannot or will not give themselves completely to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way.”
That’s the first thing read after the prayer in the standard AA format. Virtually the first thing about the “program” that a newcomer hears. It is pretty much a manifesto of AA, and your pal Bill W. wrote it. Originally he wrote “never have we seen” but cooler heads prevailed and the waffle word “rarely” was substituted, but the gist of the claim remains.
Hummm, ok Danny.
People go to AA seeking help for the dangerous and intractable medical condition of alcohol dependence and abuse, the courts send people to AA who have shown by their actions (DUIs, drunken fights, drunken domestic violence situations etc.) that they should give serious consideration to their alcohol intake, employers send drink dependent employees to AA as a condition of remaining employed, insurance companies and treatment centers pay for 12-step based treatment then dump the newly detoxed into AA expecting them to remain sober, but there is no measure of success expected by AA itself.
Do you find the logical or even practical?
June 20, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“page 113 in Step 12 of the “12&12″:
“The best-intentioned of us can fall for the “two-step” illusion. Sooner or later the pink cloud stage wears off and things go disappointingly dull.
Bill didn’t write the 12&12, therefore Bill never referred to “Pink” anything.
“Originally he wrote “never have we seen” but cooler heads prevailed and the waffle word “rarely” was substituted, but the gist of the claim remains”.
That’s absolute myth. He used “Rarely” from the beginning
http://www.barefootsworld.net/aaneverrarely.html
June 20, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I NEVER have seen any fail who thoroughly follows their path. NEVER. Not one – not ever.
And I have seen and see many.
I’d have to go with the original truth – not the softer edited version.
NEVER is correct in my experience. These men recover fully fro alcoholism and are free from qany human aid including AA meetings for their happiness and whole lives which come about. It is wonderful to be inlvoved with it. It aint happening in the A rooms though – as you guys alreayd know. Not in the typcial kind of open-discsuuion meeting thtamore resembles “group” hour at “Happy Acred” – right before the meds are distrubuted. It is happening wherever and whenever a sponsor opens that Big Book and statrt twelve stepping his prospect and that prospect turns his life and will over to God. You ought to see the sparks man!! You ought to see the joy in the families — in the children who get their “daddy” or mommy back from the dark abyss. It makes for a great life to be involved in this kind of avocation.
It is too bad you guys ran away from it all and didn’t even realize it. But it is for the best – apparently you have solved your drinking problem by more appropriate means. Ain’t this great country?
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 20, 2009 at 4:25 pm
In addition if there is no success rate expected of measured then how do these “addiction counselors” with zero education seep into the treatment industry structure and in fact redefine it as a low-paying scrum-sucking job where no real qualifications beyond mouthing AA slogans is expected or required?
http://newrecovery.blogspot.com/2009/05/class-war-in-california-counseling.html
June 20, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Anna, That blog post you linked to is great. I bet that a fundamental objection to requiring standards of education for the frontline addictions counselors is that it would necessarily, legitimize it — and going legit also means becoming accountable (being subject to all the same standards that others are).
June 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm
WOWEE!
I guess you have encountered some of the bottom dwellers of the treatment industry. It is amazing that these shingle bearing middle-of-the-road solutionist killers get to legitimize and legalize their shenanigans and call themselves “professionals”.
Anna, in the words of Kieth Partridge aka David Cassidy – ‘I Think I Love You.’
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 20, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Of course Bill Wilson wrote the 12X12. I’d recognize that pathetic pseudo-intellectual striving writing style anywhere.
http://www.efn.org/~eviaa/literature_links.htm
June 22, 2009 at 5:56 pm
a,
bill wrote the 12X12 with the assistance of his (then) tom powers. powers got so fed up with wilson’s womanizing, depressive tendencies, & various other nefarious behaviors that he actually dropped bill as a sponsor & went on to form his own [AA] group either before or soon after the book’s publications.
it gets better.
“twelve steps & twelve traditions” was written & intended for COMMERCIAL PUBLICATION by harper/collins (see: http://aagso.org/aaws/index.htm – it’s at the bottom of the page). the book’s commercial (i’m guesing hard cover) price tag was going to be $2.75 in 1953; that’s $23 today.
i may not be on the “AA is a cult” or “AA makes people kill themselves” teams, but i love beating up on bill wilson. that guy was an absolute snake.
speedy
June 20, 2009 at 9:16 am
all,
to attempt to try to try separate bill wilson or AA from the ‘disease’ concept of alcoholism is just plain bulls**t. wilson bought the whole silkworth ‘allergy’ notion hook, line, & sinker. that ‘diagnosis’ has direct roots in the 18th century balderdash of benjamin rush & thomas trotter, &, later, the 19th century poppycock of the temperance movement.
the words ‘illness’ & ‘disease’ appear more than 10 times in the first 164 pages of the BB. for all intents & purposes those words are contemporaneously synonymous — the etymological distinctions between ‘illness’ & ‘disease’ in 1938 (never mind the 19th century) are irrelevant.
‘peaceful’ danny & pinkcuda are splitting hairs less than half the width of a sub-atomic particle with their beyond retarded semantic arguments. AA & the ‘disease’ notion are joined at the hip & no amount of dissembling is going to change that at this point.
AA is now & has always been a faith-based placebo sham that has ‘solved’ the alcohol problem for a very select few alcoholics. for the rest, it is an impediment of tremendous proportion.
speedy
June 22, 2009 at 11:27 pm
You might have some AA history that I wasn’t aware of!!!
I know that Tom P was a Grapevine editor and invented and had the “Preamble” published in Grapevine – not for AA – but under the auspices of Grapevine (totally separate entity and influence) – but I didn’t know about his work on the 12 & 12. Did he help write the first 12 essays or the last 12? And was he a ghost writing co-author or just a copy editor?
Now I have some homework to do. GEE THANKS SPEEDY. (fuck!)
June 20, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Danny is correct on all points. There is no success rate in aa. It cannot exist. AA treats nothing. AA measures nothing. AA is above both.
But, what is AA? basically, it is a cipher. At best, a place to go in order to: get better, get worse, or stay the same.
June 20, 2009 at 7:47 pm
That is correct – AA “treats” nothing. There is no “treatment” for alcoholism. And AA doesn’t purport to have one either. Lots of folks may want it to – but it doesn’t – and hence the frustration.
AA is a spiritual fellowship – not a “not drinking” hospice. Anyone who goes to AA thinking that AA is going to solve their drinking problem will be terribly disappointed – UNLESS they are suggestible and fall in with the POP-AA crowd. And even THEN the most thoughtful among those will drop away after and ‘quit’ after a short while and go on AA bashing websites. 🙂 – believing they have ‘Seen the Great White Buffalo’ but have not really.
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 20, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Danny, that’s complete and utter bullshit. Of course, we know that AA is not appropriate or therapeutic treatment for alcohol dependence and abuse, but it most certainly does purport to be.
June 20, 2009 at 7:51 pm
A short article about the 12 & 12 if anyone is interested in how and why there is a 12 & 12:
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com/2008/02/bill-w-vs-aunt-jemima_28.html
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 20, 2009 at 10:37 pm
aa is only selling elixir. Wilson just found a cash cow.
June 22, 2009 at 12:47 am
Some of you might enjoy this. Samuel L Jackson compared West Coast AA to East Coast:
http://www.theinsider.com/news/1430104_Samuel_L._Jackson_Disses_LA_Alcoholics_Anonymous
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 23, 2009 at 12:29 am
i am so sick of these mothafuckin’ west coast anonymous alcoholics on this mothafuckin’ east coast anonymous alcoholics plane.
so mothafuckin’ much for tradition mothafuckin’ 11.
my name is samuel & y’all know i’m a REAL mothafuckin’ alcoholic.
June 23, 2009 at 2:39 am
Now that IS funnee!! 🙂
Somehow I am juxtaposing Jules and his “Tasty” Kahuna Burger with AA-speak and amusing myself altogether.
June 22, 2009 at 3:57 am
LMAO! What ever is the point of any disagreement then? When the facts are identified and pointed out in counterpoint to your psotion you just call it a lie.
I tell you that Bill did not believe it a disease. You disagree because you had been told it differently and believed it.
THEN:
Bill W’s actual quotation that he (and AA -“we”) do notconsider alcoholism to be a disease is presented
AND:
STILL you say its not true.
What pieces of work! What perfect cases of “Cognitive Dissonance” you are. (Remember? It’s SOC101)
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 22, 2009 at 10:00 am
“When the facts are identified and pointed out in counterpoint to your psotion you just call it a lie.
I tell you that Bill did not believe it a disease. You disagree because you had been told it differently and believed it.
THEN:
Bill W’s actual quotation that he (and AA -”we”) do notconsider alcoholism to be a disease is presented
AND:
STILL you say its not true.”
Believe it or not, Danny, Speedy is right. The quote from Bill is accurate, but that does not mean that AA did not promote alcoholism as a disease. This should not come as a surprise, because AA is one mass contradiction.
The very first treatment centre in New York was manned by AAs, and they certainly did advocate the disease concept. So too did the other treatment centres which sprung up around that time, and every one of them were run by AAs. AAs were instrumental in getting it classified as a disease, regardless of what Bill Wilson said. Remember, Bill was a certified lier, so whether he himself believed what he was saying is up for debate.
June 22, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Everything I have ever seen in AA historical documents and seen and heard within the treatment industry indicate to me that (i) the treatment industry promotes alcoholism as a disease and has the support of governmental medical and legal professions (ii) The co-founders of AA did NOT consider alcoholism as a disease (iii) treatment industry jargon and concepts have blurred and many folks (including present company) making it increasingly difficult for the general public as well as AA members themselves to distinguish the difference between actual AA principles and treatment industry jargon and propaganda.
Now that is going back to then. There is however a little slip of “disease”ism in AAs current brochure collection of literature. I am surprised that no one has brought it up. Why are you not familiar with it? I don’t understand THAT at all – seeing as all you AA critics are such such thorough researchers. (NOT! )
There are many of us in the AA fellowship who feel that Central Services is being taken down by the pressures of the treatment industry interlopers into the fellowship and and do no trust it anymore.
The very first treatment center in NY? – are you kidding me? Hospitals alone have offered alcoholic treatment services since before they adopted the use of wooden tongue depressors. Towns in Manhattan is just to name one. Your ideas seem to come from another planet somewhere – behind the moon – on the dark side. So many assumptions and acceptance of things speculated upon, invented, assumed and just plain ol misinterpreted mixed in with a fact here and there – a little sprinkle of truth here a dash of myth there . . . Ken Ragg – whip it with some Orange Papers and VIOLA I believe ——–>THIS! Really!
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 22, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Truth is I haveno idea if its a diesease or not. I knwo I dont think it is – I dont have it terated a sIF it is and th eprobelms has been elimiated. it doesn t esist anymore for me. What else so I need other than to pass that wodnerful news onto the next sufferer? Nothing.
I don’t give a flying fig if that red thing growing on my ass was classified as a virus, a bacterium or alien implant – if the medicine got rid of the problem then I am satisfied.
The only people who REALLY care that it is a disease are those who stand to money off it if it IS classified as a disease. And that ain’t going to be AA. It’s the treatment industry.
So if you want to know where the movement toward “disease” originates and where the muscle for it is – look there. Follow the MONEY TRAIL! That’s always the best path any sleuth will concur.
Peace,
Danny S – RLRA
http://recoveredalcoholic.blogspot.com
June 22, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I am getting tired of this game. Really Danny this is your job; memorizing all of this tripe and getting it straight.
Anyway, in Chapter 5, page 64:
Resentment is the “number one” offender. It destroys more alcoholics than anything else. From it stems all forms of spiritual disease, for we have been not only mentally and physically ill, we have been spiritually sick. When spiritual malady is overcome, we straighten out mentally and physically.
So says Bill Wilson, so say you all (AAs) even though it is crap. .
June 23, 2009 at 1:09 am
Yeah ok. But it happened to me!
So what can I say? It didn’t happen to you and that is fine. But it happened to me! It’s my experience. if I wanted to I couldn’t agree with you on the “crap”.
June 23, 2009 at 2:08 am
Wait, what are you saying “yeah ok” to?
Are you conceding that Wilson spoke not only of “disease” but of “spiritual sickness” in his Big Book?
As for what did and did not happen to me; I don’t need you to tell me whether it’s fine” or not. My own experience was that stopping being a very heavy abuser of alcohol (along with other corollary effects) made me a better person to be around and and not such a drain on the people around me. That could be said to have a “spiritual” component to it that has nothing to do with medical outcome like better health overall. Simply not being an inebriated fuck-up has all kinds of upsides to it. It did not require a belladonna induced white-light experience or even an intervention on the part of an imaginary man in the sky. Just that, not being that person any more is miraculous, but it’s not a miracle.
September 19, 2009 at 5:18 pm
It seems very odd to me that someone thinks Bill W. is a liar but then follows HIS program to the letter. Knowing that Bill W. is an idiot is enough to make me not want to follow his program or remember the empty slogans that anyone who did believe his crap came up with.
Why follow the steps of a lying snake to reach a divine revelation? None of us are perfect but…
What AA did for me is tell me that if I did [insert whatever here], I would drink. When you keep repeating this to people, especially people that are healing, they DO tend to believe it. This statement alone, being repeated over and over again has caused people to drink and very likely cost some their lives. I wouldn’t assume that AA has helped more people than it’s harmed. To me that matters.
I got out but what about the people who will be coerced into AA from the courts or stumble in on their own? Your kids, your wife, your girlfriend, your mother? Do you want them in the AA shithole? If so then promote it, and I’ll keep speaking against it.
June 23, 2009 at 4:02 pm
cuda & danny,
if you’re still reading this thread go here:
http://wiredin.org.uk/all/articles/entry/2383/the-disease-model-of-addiction/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Update
from a fellow traveller. might be of some interest to you.
speedy