I had been thinking about this a while back, but this thread brought it to the top of my thoughts:
of course, here’s a reference to the Twelve Steps themselves.
I’ve not been through a Twelve Step program, and I’m curious.
Are the steps fairly formalized, with a person being identifiably on a specific step, with rites of passage to the next step, possibly with exams, evaluation panels, “passing”, “failing”, etc., or are they more informal?
E.g.
“I failed my Step 4 test. The Evaluation Panel determined that my moral inventory was insufficient.”
“Oh, Step 9 is the hardest. I’ve been working on it for the past six months now.”
“The Step 8 certificates aren’t what they used to be. They used to be all bright and sunshiney and printed on glossy paper, now they are just a blank piece of notebook paper and you have to stable the list of people you harmed onto them.”
or are the steps more of an artificial model of what naturally flows out of the activities of a twelve step group, in the sense that you can make it through them all without realizing or really thinking about which one you are “on” at the present time?
No, there’s nothing like that with the steps. It’s much more abstract. Some people have a sponsor who guides them through the steps, but it will be different for everyone. You move to the next step when you feel you are ready, and you can go back to any of them at any time. Some people do them in their heads, others write it down, do journaling, etc., or they talk it out with their sponsor. It’s all very informal.
I’s a self-absorbed distorted view of human behavior that aims to absolve an individual from the responsibility of their actions, and give them a seemingly reasonable reason to justify their past damaging behavior.
The only steps that require any sort of definite, concrete action are steps 4, 5, and 9. These are related to the concept of the “fearless moral inventory”; the 4th is the actual inventory, where the person writes all that down, the 5th is where the person sits down with someone else to go over the 4th step, and the 9th is where the person makes amends. The rest are pretty fluid, and you can do those every day if you’d like. But aside from the specific steps I mentioned above, there is no ceremony or rite of passage because they’re not one and done.
A friend of mine, an atheist, said they drove him (back) to drink. Eventually, he spent time at a secular dryout center that actually dried him out and he has stayed sober since (although he does drink with caution–and I’ve witnessed that many times; he does drink a glass or two of wine, or one beer, or a couple frozen daiquiris and then stop).
I had never seen them actually spelled out before; they would drive me to drink too–and I drink very rarely.
Well, the two choices are to absolve yourself or kill yourself, so I don’t really see a problem.
In other words, I don’t know a single person who copes with doing wrong without either justifying it or making amends. I can’t even fathom how you could. Either you make it less important so you can get on with your life, or you come up with things you can do to negate your guilt.
What other method do you propose to deal with guilt?