How about that line AA always reads about many people are unable to follow our simple program? Most of the members don’t believe there is any other way. They’ll label people who stop drinking by just…not drinking as a “dry drunk.”
AA does encourage you to spend 90 hours with the group for the first 3 months of the introductory phase. That’s just for the meetings. That doesn’t include the time ‘working the program.’
AA members will shun those that leave the group. They’ll make snide remarks about people who think they can ‘recover’ without the group. Of course, if the person does come back, it is proof that the group and only the group, is the way to ‘recover.’
What in your opinion constitutes a real alcoholic? Who said forced meetings do anyone any good? If you’re referring to the controversy over the court system using AA that’s a problem w/in AA. Each goup decides whether they want to sign court slips. I know for a fact some people have attained sobriety as a result of court sentencing but I expect the numbers there are as dismal as any other remedy applied by a court for any offense. In any event it’s not the topic of this thread.
You are absolutely right that a desire to stop drinking is required. That’s why people come to AA because they want to stop drinking.
Are you refering to How it Works? It doesn’t specify a quantity of individuals: “…Those who do not recover are people who can not or will not give themselves to this simple program…” ( do not get your panties in a wad over the word give) all this parargraph is refering to is self honesty.
I don’t use the term dry drunk at all, ever. I find it somewhat offensive. I don’t know of anyone that refers to non drinking alcoholics in that way or in any negative way for that matter. Why would we care how anyone else handled their problem?
It is apparent from experience that some people who stop attending AA drink again. It’s also true that some who attend all the time drink again or even some who never stop. Big deal. Alcoholism is not an easy thing to deal with. People die every day as a result and not all of them are alcoholics. AA makes no claims that’s it’s the best or only way to deal with it.
How you can dare to judge a worldwide organization of 2,000,000 people based on your attendance of a few open meetings is beyond me. It’s certainly not a valid sample to reach any kind of objective opinion.
And a willingness to brainwashing, let’s not forget.
Can you clarify? Is this because it has a religious / spiritual foundation? What makes it brainwashing?
I’m amused by some of the sentiments in this thread, honestly. “It hasn’t ruined as may lives as Scientology.” “Brainwashing.” In a thread that simultaneously submits that AA is a typical dictatorial, never-let-you-go-cult AND one that can’t seem to hold onto its members–well, it seems a bit of a schizophrenic assessment.
Why the animus? Why do you care?
This is GD, right? I’ve both given my opinions and the cite4s to back them up.
You’re welcomed to take it from there.
Ironic though, that the most emotional and hard-core people in this thread are those defending AA.
I couldn’t possibly think why that is. Cults certainly wouldn’t act that way…
It’s because we’re fighting ignorance right? There’s an abundance of it here.
There’s something we can agree on.
OTOH, I know by now that any/all cites I bring-up will summarily be dismissed by you. Can’t say that I am surprised for it only reinforces what I see as cult-like behavior, but it is certainly not becoming of a GD discussion.
So here goes nothing yet again: Is Alcoholics Anonymous a Cult?
No, thanks. I don’t see the debate.
Gosh, if I were you, I wouldn’t join AA.
Apparently You don’t consider first hand knowledge from an ordinary reasonable person worthwhile. You’ve yet to challenge anything I’ve posted. All you do is quote an equally misinformed poster and dredge up more drivel.
"The Twelve Step ‘support’ groups . . . will make every effort to convince the person he is powerless, insane, incompetent, the group is God and he must ‘work the program one day at a time,’” Ragged noted. “The most outstanding characteristic of these [AA] people is their intensely held belief in the goodness of AA and the badness of self.”
All I can say in my 21 years of experience this is not the case. Luckily the average alcoholic is smart enough see AA for what it really is, something some academics can’t. Powerlessness refers to an alcholics inability to drink safely. Insanity refers to reatedly doing the same thing time and time again and getting the wrong result but continuing to expect a different outcome. I have nothing for incompetentancy, I don’t even have a clue what’s being referred to. AA has no opinion on what constitutes God. Don’t drink today, its a simple concept, too simple apparently. I’ve never heard any earnest discussion from someone sober in AA about “the badness of self” I believe I’m a relatively good person with a physical defect (alcoholism) like any other defect it’s had psychological consequences.
I have neither the time or inclination to go through all the cites you’ve posted but my general feeling is AA is a really loose organization. It’s based on a book which as this thread has shown if nothing else that can be interpreted in many ways. AA as I noted way earlier is comprised of people, people of all stripes we have our share of total assholes like any other group of more than a few people. There some who’d like nothing more than to be cult leaders and they’re trying their best but they’re not representative of what AA is anymore than Dick Cheney is representative of Americans.
I defended AA early on in this thread. I dislike the organization because of its spirituality.
To compare it to a cult like scientology is disingenuous. How much damage does AA do to it’s members? How much does it cost to be a member of AA? Scientology?
Interestingly, I do not see that claim as based on any facts.
In my reading, the emotionally involved appear to be anti-AA, about 2 to 1.
I also see a lot of strawmen built and burnt, here. While several of the pro-AA folks have resorted solely to emotional appeals, nearly every anti-AA participant has insisted on telling the AA people what is “really” going on in their groups and lives, specifically over the protests that the characterizations are inaccurate. (And several of the cites on the anti- side that rely on personal anecdotes read a lot like the sort of inflammatory rhetoric that one finds from fundies who claim to have “escaped” Catholicism or the old “I used to be a Communist” tracts from the 1950s.)
Now, it is quite possible that AA is much less successful (in terms of numbers) than its members would like to believe. It would be interesting to see the actual studies (on both sides) professionally scrutinized, although I suspect that that will not happen.
I think the OP is wrong, because it (and all subsequent supporting posts) cherry pick the traits they want to see in cults and rely on confirmation bias to say “AHA! SEE! It’s a cult.” There are simply not enough actual points of correlation between AA and actual cults to justify the characterization and no one on the anti-AA side has actually demonstrated their position regarding its cult classification in a way that I find persuasive.
I do agree that mandated AA for drunk drivers is both dumb (it does not work) and wrong (it imposes a burden on the person that is not justified by the results).
I suspect that some folks who defend AA are a bit blind to the actual failure rates.
I have no idea whether it is “effective” or coincidental for the posters who have recounted their own experiences. (I also do not really care.)
However, a claim that one side or the other is using “the most” emotional appeals is laughably silly.
I have volunteered to be in two extensive studies at Harvard Medical School. One of their top measures for both of them is attendance at AA meetings. That is the best thing they can offer along with the other treatments they are studying. Even they don’t have anything better.
AA is not a cult by any stretch of the imagination. Look at yourself and any flaws that you may have. Now imagine that there is a place where you can go anytime you want that may help with your problems whatever that may be. That is what AA is. They don’t want anything from you at all. It is just people and some meeting may have mostly homeless people and others may have people with successful careers and salaries that are off the charts.
You can go anytime you want and nobody is ever going to ask you for a check or anything else. There are about 3,000 AA meetings a week in the Boston area alone and you can find them anywhere from Paris to San Francisco.
Let me ask the detractors this. Would you prefer to have AA outlawed across the entire would or are you just getting pissy because of your ignorance or just a few semantic issues? The way that AA self-organizes across the world is a minor miracle in and of itself.
I don’t believe I’ve made any claim on AA’s effectiveness other than the fact that it’s worked for me. I don’t believe that AA claims any particular success rate either. There was none in the numbers I found from the 2004 survey. It’s true by my observation that a relatively small percentage of people who come around continue to do so. That has nothing to do with the OP, whether AA is a cult or not.
That’s not what the line says. It says, " some people are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves." And that is true.
I haven’t been home all day, I was in Boston most of the day. I thought when I left this thread last night that RedFury and I had some kind of haphazard agreement. And dale - wow man, did someone hurt you real bad or what? What’s with the hate? This is particularly striking:
You know something, if you went to a couple meetings maybe went for a few months and this happened to you - or someone you know - that is completely unacceptable and not something that is the norm at most AA meetings. Had I seen that at an AA meeting [your last paragraph] I’d have had some words with the member who said such things.
When a newcomer comes into the rooms, they are automatically the most important person in the room. If someone has some time and then relapses, they too automatically become the most important person in the room. I’ve been around long enough to see this many times over. Look, folks like Redfury and dalej42 had bad experiences or are standing up for what they believe that’s fine. But blindly saying there is active brainwashing and other “unmentionables” at AA meetings is utterly ignorant. There is no nice way to say it. I’m sorry you folks feel that way. I’m sure glad I and others here don’t. Hell if everyone who needed AA went, meetings would be in stadiums not firehouses and church basements.
Well, I see that a precise definition of cult is an elusive thing, therefore, I don’t care if AA is a cult or not. But I have seen many things posted in this thread that are not consistent with my many years of association with the group so, FWIW:
I go to meetings when I feel like it, which is not nearly as often as I once did, no one shuns me or chastises me for that. I continue to be a member because I choose to identify myself as such, if I stopped going to meetings, or stopped identifying myslef as a member no one would try to bring me back to the fold if I didn’t ask them to. If I stopped going to meetings, but continued to identify myself as a member, no one would challenge me or claim that I wasn’t in anymore.
My spiritual beliefs are my own affair, unless I ask for someones help no one shares theirs with me.
No one ever tells me what to think or do, nor I them, although I will share what it was like, what I did and what it’s like now, and I will offer suggestions.
In my opinion, many behavioural scientists have a bug up their ass about a spiritual program, I’m sorry for them, but it’s really not my priority.
Does AA accept that there are other ways to sobriety and/or responsible drinking? Specifically, the lack of a need for a Higher Power (my dog?) and/or the so-called “powerlessness” of an individual over their choices? If so, would someone please provide an official AA quote saying as much? Or do they insist theirs is the only way? I can certainly provide many cites for that.
Many thanks in advance.
BTW, I’ve provided many many a cite (along with numerous studies and facts) and yet I have yet to read a single rebuttal other than anecdotal posts or downright dismissive responses to any of them. Neither are worthy of a GD thread response if my understanding of a proper debate is correct.
For instance, would anyone care to debunk this one point by point? It’d would greatly aid my so-called own ignorance on this topic of course:
This is exactly the sort of anecdote to which I previously alluded. It sounds like something from"I Escaped The Church Of Rome." It takes the basics of one version of a meeting, (one that might have occurred somewhere at some time, but is not necessarily representative of a typical meeting), described it in emotional terms, construing (or inventing) comments from the AA people in the worst possible ways.
I really hope that that was not one of the “studies and facts” upon which you are relying. It ain’t.
It is also interesting that while you have provided a lot of text denigrating AA, some or all of which might be factually based, none of that actually supports the notion of a cult. In other words, in your haste to stomp out the terrible evil that is AA, you are willing to rush into a thread on a particular topic that refers to a single aspect of AA, simply so that you can toss down all the other damning information that you have gathered over the years. I’d say that that was a pretty emotional response.