Powerless Over Alcohol: An Objection and a Response
The reader’s objection and the response below concern “Back to Vice & Sin,” Ray’s review of Addiction and Virtue: Beyond the Models of Disease and Choice, by Kent Dunnington, posted in Amazon, Goodreads, and “Ray’s Book Reviews” at the PTP website.
Comments from Henry Clayton
[Printed verbatim]:
You say 'This conception of powerlessness is the basis of the AA claim that “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” a claim Dunnington downgrades to a “slogan.” Far from being a slogan, that statement is central to the AA understanding of what an alcoholic is'. So what happens to the whole edifice of AA once that foundational tenet is empirically demonstrated to be false? 'Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic' is true in the *minority* of cases. Most alcohol addicts, like most drug addicts, kick their addiction permanently, with or without treatment, & those who do it without 12-step do it with greater success. The one thing 12-step can 'boast' of is higher rates of absolute abstinence, which perhaps, coupled with the AA doctrine of powerlessness & permanent threefold disease, helps to account for the significantly higher relapse rate for recovered addicts who've recovered through AA or its offshoots. If you truly take to heart those ideas, then perhaps, precisely because of having taken them to heart, '[you] cannot drink again, ever. If [you] do, [you] revert to drinking alcoholically; [you] will not be able to take it or leave it as other people do'. This is just factually untrue of most alcoholics. And so AA promotes an understanding of human nature which is false & pernicious.
As for the anecdotes beloved of addiction recovery addicts, I have a few of my own, drawn from within my own family. My brother was so addicted to marijuana that when he & I took our families to Disneyland, he 'had to' go off into a bush or behind a ride to fire up literally every fifteen minutes. I recall standing in line to the Matterhorn & he openly fired up while standing line multiple times, until somebody went to get a Disneyland staff to report him. He was totally oblivious, I alerted him however & he avoided discovery. But, Disneyland, for Christ's sake! Fast forward several years. He's making a drug deal & somebody throws acid in his eyes. He's blind for months. He says to himself 'What am I doing? This is stupid.' He quits cold turkey. Fast forward several more years. Despite being around heavy users constantly, including two other brothers who run a medical marijuana grow house, he doesn't relapse. He's done with it. My brother has no special endowment of willpower, nor is he a moral saint (though he is a tremendously good person). AA's crippling message of powerlessness would have blinded him far more than the acid in the eyes did.
Ray’s Response:
Thank you for your comments, Henry. You object to AA’s understanding of an alcoholic as one who is powerless over alcohol. As the paragraph from which you quote explains, central to this understanding is the idea that “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” meaning that “Once the disease progresses to the point where I become alcoholic, I do not stop being alcoholic; that is, I do not regain control. What that means in concrete and practical terms is simple: I cannot drink again, ever. If I do, I revert to drinking alcoholically; I will not be able to take it or leave it as other people do.” You characterize this as a “crippling message” which “promotes an understanding of human nature which is false & pernicious.”
According to you, the AA concept of powerlessness has been “empirically demonstrated to be false,” since “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic” implies complete abstention and this is only “true in the minority of cases,” because “Most alcohol addicts, like most drug addicts, kick their addiction permanently, with or without treatment.” To support these claims, you cite your brother’s experience with marijuana. You also provide a link to an article1 about a study2 which presumably contains the empirical rebuttal of AA.
Like many arguments, yours arises from a confusion of terms. It rests on the ambiguity of the term “alcoholic” and its conflation with other, equally ambiguous terms, leading to a rather elastic interpretation of them. The AA concept of powerlessness over alcohol is narrow in its application. It refers only to a certain kind of drinker. The paragraph from which you quote makes this clear:
“There are of course many understandings of
what an alcoholic is, but in AA, an alcoholic by
definition a person who has no control over
alcohol and therefore cannot drink normally or
safely like other people.”
When AA (by which I mean the books Alcoholics Anonymous and The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, which contain the AA program), talks about alcoholics, it is talking only about that kind of alcoholic. It is not talking about any other kind of drinker who others may call “alcoholic,” or ”alcohol dependent,” or “substance abuser,” or “addict,” or anything else. . .
For remainder of this post, please see “Ray’s Book Reviews” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
Comments from Henry Clayton
[Printed verbatim]:
You say 'This conception of powerlessness is the basis of the AA claim that “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” a claim Dunnington downgrades to a “slogan.” Far from being a slogan, that statement is central to the AA understanding of what an alcoholic is'. So what happens to the whole edifice of AA once that foundational tenet is empirically demonstrated to be false? 'Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic' is true in the *minority* of cases. Most alcohol addicts, like most drug addicts, kick their addiction permanently, with or without treatment, & those who do it without 12-step do it with greater success. The one thing 12-step can 'boast' of is higher rates of absolute abstinence, which perhaps, coupled with the AA doctrine of powerlessness & permanent threefold disease, helps to account for the significantly higher relapse rate for recovered addicts who've recovered through AA or its offshoots. If you truly take to heart those ideas, then perhaps, precisely because of having taken them to heart, '[you] cannot drink again, ever. If [you] do, [you] revert to drinking alcoholically; [you] will not be able to take it or leave it as other people do'. This is just factually untrue of most alcoholics. And so AA promotes an understanding of human nature which is false & pernicious.
As for the anecdotes beloved of addiction recovery addicts, I have a few of my own, drawn from within my own family. My brother was so addicted to marijuana that when he & I took our families to Disneyland, he 'had to' go off into a bush or behind a ride to fire up literally every fifteen minutes. I recall standing in line to the Matterhorn & he openly fired up while standing line multiple times, until somebody went to get a Disneyland staff to report him. He was totally oblivious, I alerted him however & he avoided discovery. But, Disneyland, for Christ's sake! Fast forward several years. He's making a drug deal & somebody throws acid in his eyes. He's blind for months. He says to himself 'What am I doing? This is stupid.' He quits cold turkey. Fast forward several more years. Despite being around heavy users constantly, including two other brothers who run a medical marijuana grow house, he doesn't relapse. He's done with it. My brother has no special endowment of willpower, nor is he a moral saint (though he is a tremendously good person). AA's crippling message of powerlessness would have blinded him far more than the acid in the eyes did.
Ray’s Response:
Thank you for your comments, Henry. You object to AA’s understanding of an alcoholic as one who is powerless over alcohol. As the paragraph from which you quote explains, central to this understanding is the idea that “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” meaning that “Once the disease progresses to the point where I become alcoholic, I do not stop being alcoholic; that is, I do not regain control. What that means in concrete and practical terms is simple: I cannot drink again, ever. If I do, I revert to drinking alcoholically; I will not be able to take it or leave it as other people do.” You characterize this as a “crippling message” which “promotes an understanding of human nature which is false & pernicious.”
According to you, the AA concept of powerlessness has been “empirically demonstrated to be false,” since “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic” implies complete abstention and this is only “true in the minority of cases,” because “Most alcohol addicts, like most drug addicts, kick their addiction permanently, with or without treatment.” To support these claims, you cite your brother’s experience with marijuana. You also provide a link to an article1 about a study2 which presumably contains the empirical rebuttal of AA.
Like many arguments, yours arises from a confusion of terms. It rests on the ambiguity of the term “alcoholic” and its conflation with other, equally ambiguous terms, leading to a rather elastic interpretation of them. The AA concept of powerlessness over alcohol is narrow in its application. It refers only to a certain kind of drinker. The paragraph from which you quote makes this clear:
“There are of course many understandings of
what an alcoholic is, but in AA, an alcoholic by
definition a person who has no control over
alcohol and therefore cannot drink normally or
safely like other people.”
When AA (by which I mean the books Alcoholics Anonymous and The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, which contain the AA program), talks about alcoholics, it is talking only about that kind of alcoholic. It is not talking about any other kind of drinker who others may call “alcoholic,” or ”alcohol dependent,” or “substance abuser,” or “addict,” or anything else. . .
For remainder of this post, please see “Ray’s Book Reviews” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
No comments have been added yet.
