I raised a query in an earlier post about the concept of anonymity and alcoholism, suggesting that shedding the anonymity factor may be a step toward eliminating the shame that is seemingly endemic to this disease. Some readers appreciated my words in the spirit in which they were intended; others did not.
The thoughtful responses were appreciated; I relearned some things about AA practices that I'd forgotten over the years (I have not been a regular follower since my first year sober.) The snarky, hateful (and usually anonymous) responses were just kind of mean -- and a little too defensive, I thought. And the suggestion that I'm arrogant because I dare to question rules that were made up before I was born and before more information was available? Really?
The pervasive theme, that anonymity is not only about shame but also a spiritual practice, one of putting principles before personalities, was well taken. I understand this a little better after reading people's responses and can understand where the anonymity would benefit in that regard (although it could be argued that this is more a matter of privacy than anonymity). But that doesn't even kick in until people are through the door. I'm talking about getting people through the door.
Some people suggested said they would feel just as strongly about anonymity if they were in a support group for cancer or diabetes. And there is the crux of my question: Is that really true, on all levels? Would they have spent even one minute blaming themselves, or being ashamed, for being diagnosed with cancer or diabetes? More importantly, would they have put off getting help because of that self-blame, or because of society's feelings toward those diseases? Would they hesitate to share their disease with their children, despite knowing there may be a genetic component? Would their children fear inheriting this disease because of the social implications?
I did not think twice about seeing the dermatologist for skin cancer, even though, as a redhead who used to slather on baby oil while sitting in the sun with double albums wrapped in tin foil to direct the sun to my face, that truly was something I could have prevented. Yet it took me years, after acknowledging to myself that I had a drinking problem, to seek help -- and that wasn't even something I could have prevented. That's the part I want to get rid of. Maybe shedding anonymity is not the way to do it. But I can't help but feel that the perception of AA as a secret group that meets in basements to talk about their disease does a disservice to alcoholics. I can't imagine a breast cancer survivor group ever having that same reputation.
Since I believe it is better energy to talk about what I am for rather than what I am against, I will say this: I am not against anonymity. I am for openness, honesty and non-judgment around the disease of alcoholism. I am for treatment options, dialog and communication that is not laced with fear and shame. I am for living with this disease the same way I live with my allergy to Keflex -- as a part of who I am, not the whole of it. I want my kids to be able to say, "Mom, how will I know if I'm an alcoholic?" as easily as they would ask, "Mom, what are the symptoms of diabetes?"
This is not about me. It never was. I came out about my disease 20 years ago. This is about my children, for whom I never want shame to be a factor. One person suggested that writers and "famous people" talking about their issues was an avenue toward greater fame and income; I would suggest that, for example, Demi Lovato coming out about her depression and self-esteem and cutting issues is an avenue for my daughter to one day say, "Hey, Mom, I think we need to talk about something," maybe even before she hits her teens... rather than when she has kids of her own.
Follow Maggie Lamond Simone on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MagLamondSimone
Kevin Griffin: Buddhism and Recovery: Anonymity as Spiritual Foundation
Don McIntire of Burbank CA was given access to the AA membership surveys from 1968 through 1996. He is a staunch defender of AA and cannot be accused of negative bias. His article "How Well Does A.A. Work? An Analysis of Published A.A. Surveys (1968-1996) and Related Analyses/Comments" in the Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly (Vol 18, No. 4, 2000) centers on the 5 per cent one-year retention rate and attempts to explain it.
McIntire found that an average of 81 per cent of AA first-time attendees dropped out during the first 30 days.
At the end of 90 days, 90 per cent of newcomers have dropped out; only ten per cent are left. (This gives a new dimension altogether to the "90 in 90" slogan, doesn't it?)
At the end of the year 5% are left.
McIntire's article never looks at this bigger picture. To do so would be to confront the reality that AA is driving people away who have a sincere desire to get sober (and many of whom will achieve that aim).
No, it's not a business, AA operates like a religious sect, if not a cult. It needs a fresh supply of new blood because so few take the bait.
"During Bill's stay in Akron, he and Bob calculated their success rate to be about 5 percent, and among the few who seemed to catch on, not all of them were able to maintain consistent sobriety. The first edition of AA's Big Book, published in 1939, contains the personal recovery stories of many of AA's earliest members. Some years later, Bill made notations in the first copy of the book to come off the press, indicating which individuals portrayed therein had stayed sober. A good 50 percent of them had not."
Bill W. A Biography of Alcoholics Anonymous Co-founder Bill Wilson, Francis Hartigan, pages 91-92.
AA membership in the US plateaued in the 90s and has decreased. AA has changed the way it counts members in an attempt to disguised this fact, but GSO reports are full of stories about the decline.
So whenever the welfare of the suffering alcoholic (non-member coming to his first few meeting) clashes with the welfare of AA/NA, it becomes the duty of AA/NA to sacrifice his welfare, i.e. to make him relapse. I've seen it happening and, having been the RD (service Representative) of all-India NA region, I know full well what the Traditions are.
AA/NA does not advertising agencies when they have people like me giving free service to advertise for them; the primary purpose of AA/NA is carrying the message, which is nothing but advertising, informing everybody that AA/NA work. Too bad they work only in sending most addicts and alcoholics back to drugs and alcohol.
And they want us to remain anonymous because they don't want us to tell the truth about AA/NA to the public. For then, society will stop sending addicts and alcoholics to them. And they will lose their yearly income of about 10 million dollars each; this they see as going against their common welfare! This is the truth, and only the truth can set us free. In order to improve we have to first admit the truth. Is AA/NA willing to do this?
Good article, thanks for bringing this up.
Unlike AA surrender to God was the cure.
However the disease theory is debatable. Stanton Peele has done an interesting take on why it doesn't make sense to call alcoholism a disease.
http://www.peele.net/lib/truth_1.html
Back in the good old days they considered vital to the success of AA and its book sales, so to ensure that Morgan stayed sober for the broadcast, members of AA kept him locked in a hotel room for several days under a 24-hour watch.