There are probably still copies of this hideously awful bullshit floating about. It’s best viewed as a piece of archaeology, a record of fantasy and myth, but it has doubtless perverted the understanding of many people looking to get to grips with their or other people’s alcohol problems.
Why write this rubbish? Alcoholics Anonymous emerged in 1930s USA with its roots firmly embedded in a Right-wing, Christian fundamentalist tradition. It promoted a '12 Step' programme - the drinker had to submit to a god (now changed to 'higher power') because s/he couldn’t tackle the problem alone! AA has huge political clout in the USA, we get scores of books like this as a consequence.
According to AA, people with problems which could be traced to alcohol were 'alcoholics'. They suffered from 'alcoholism'. It was a disease (which, in the years after Crick, Franklin & Watson discovered the double-helix, would be described as ‘genetic’). The only 'treatment' was abstinence, the only 'cure' – never to drink again. Which is why we get the term 'recovering alcoholic' – you could never recover, one drink would plunge you back into Hell again. The political power of AA has made the model a hegemonic force - journalists, politicians, the general public have become conditioned to talking of 'recovery' and 'alcoholism', etc. as if these were established, unchallengeable facts.
The reality? People can and do change their drinking, can and do learn to drink differently, can and do tackle the problems which led them to drink, etc. People have problems with drink for a wide range of reasons – a one-size-fits-all genetic ‘disease’ explanation is simply inadequate. People drink from pain, fear, a sense of inadequacy, loneliness, isolation, social pressure, habit, or fun (and fun drinkers can end up in court and be sentenced to 'treatment'). The rich can drink raucously, at best their behaviour will get them referred to AA where they'll be happy to learn that it's not their fauilt, it's in their genes – homeless street drinkers get moved on, beaten up, thrown in the 'tank'.
And AA doesn't work. It's results are no better than chance. There have been complaints of abuse of females and vulnerable males by established members of groups. A huge percentage of people leave – often very quickly.
Drinking is not a disease. Patterns of alcohol use and abuse vary from society to society (there is no gene which makes you French or Italian or Moslem). Alcohol consumption and the problems which can arise reflect sociological pressures, political power and personal circumstances. We need to work from sociological models of drinking behaviours and understanding of personal circumstances, not get trapped in the simplistic 'disease' model.
And yet the authors present ‘alcoholism’ as a disease carried in the individual’s DNA and insist that there is unshakeable evidence to prove this. They state, “the accumulated evidence from all the life sciences positively indicates that physiology, not psychology, determines whether a drinker will become addicted to alcohol or not.” (p. v) And that’s bullshit, utter bullshit.
The authors’ commentary is one of moral disapproval of established moral disapproval – the ‘problem drinker’ has often been presented as a weak individual or individual exhibiting weakness, the authors tell us “the alcoholic is generally considered to be a moral degenerate who chooses a life of abasement”. (p.9) But they reject this “lack of will power and maturity” explanation (p.9), dismiss it as moralising, as a myth about “the disease”. They moralise about moralising!
There’s constant talk about disease and victims – the value of the disease model is that it excuses individual drinkers, allows them to exonerate themselves, it’s not their individual failings or problems, it’s the fault of the illness not of the individual.
It also evades any social or political causation – sale of alcohol is huge business and the breweries and distilleries, etc., have serious political clout. In many societies there is widespread social approval of and encouragement of alcohol consumption – alcohol plays a central role in social life across the world ... and it's worth more money that any of us will earn in a lifetime.
People learn to drink, people are taught to drink, they learn how to drink, they are taught to drink in a variety of social situations (from teenage groups drinking on wasteland to ‘connoisseurs’ spending thousands on a bottle of wine), … and they can learn their drinking for pathological as well as beneficial reasons, for individual as well as social reasons. People learn to drink, the consequences of their drinking can be problematic, and often, the more money they have, the fewer the problems they’re likely to face.
But this book prattles on about victims and disease – “Addiction to alcohol is primarily physiological.” (p.12) The authors then indulge themselves in a sweeping generalisation – “Alcoholics have the same psychological and emotional problems as everyone else before they start drinking. These problems are aggravated, however, by their addiction to alcohol.” (p.12) Ludicrous piece of logic – the so-called ‘alcoholic’ is an ‘alcoholic’ from birth, and remains an ‘alcoholic’ even if s/he never ever has an alcoholic drink … their ‘illness’ or genetic problem processing alcohol is only discovered once they discover they have problems with alcohol. Self-fulfilling prophecy! Meanwhile, other people who don't carry this debilitating gene can face the same problems as the 'alcoholic' but somehow cope better because they don't have the genetic flaw! Logically, that would suggest that some people cope with problems better than others ... that it might be worth investigating a 'talking cure' rather than being trapped in an abstinence one?
People drink because it’s fun, it’s social, it’s sexy, it’s relaxing, it anaesthetises them to worries and problems, it gives them confidence, energises them … sedates them, eases tensions, relieves pain – there are as many reasons for drinking as there are drinkers … and problems occur because of their misuse of the alcohol and the severity of the problems they face, not because they’re genetically programmed to have problems.
But we get the authors claiming that responsible drinkers who never have a problem with alcohol because they doon't drink can actually be alcoholics because of the nature of their disease! (p.13) Alcoholics don’t need help, they simply can’t drink normally – total abstinence is essential, total abstinence is the only treatment … they have to learn to become ‘addicted’ to abstinence, to compliance with a rigid set of behaviours.
Simply describing someone as an ‘alcoholic’ is a labelling exercise – it defines the origins of the person’s problems as beyond their ability to change, it doesn’t help to investigate the causes of their problems or the nature of the stresses they experience, it doesn’t suggest the best response, the best ways to tackle their problems. Regardless how trivial the offence, it’s a life-sentence with no hope of parole.
“Psychotherapy diverts attention from the physical causes of the disease, compounds the alcoholic’s guilt and shame, and aggravates rather than relieves his problems.” (p.14)
The authors inform us that concepts of “addictive personality” have been discredited – what they don’t point out is that few schools of psychology would ever attach any currency to notions of “addictive personality”, most would simply reject the label. I see this lack of awareness of psychology as informative.
Alcoholics, the authors argue, start drinking the same as anyone else … but they can’t handle alcohol, they can’t stop themselves. Alcoholism is a physical complaint, it’s roots are physiological. Therefore, different races respond differently to alcohol! “Jews and Italians have low alcoholism rates … Native Americans have extraordinarily high rates”. (p.43) There are sociological reasons for different social groups having different patterns of drinking – low rates of alcohol abuse in Moslem societies are not attributable to DNA, etc. etc.
I could go through this tome page by page and challenge the arguments and conclusions line by line. Can I just conclude by suggesting that I hope I’ve raised enough doubts and questions for anyone reading this appalling book to bin it and look elsewhere for help.
If you’re having problems through alcohol, or if you recognise that you’re using alcohol to anaesthetise yourself to other problems which need tackling – talk to somebody, go find someone who’ll help you cope (and someone who won’t simply pocket your money while convincing you of their own pet beliefs … there are large numbers of venal, incompetent and predatory therapists out there, don’t let them take you for a sucker).