A reader slams the claim that AA’s benefits remain unproven:
[Dr. Lance] Dodes’ assertions are false. Keith Humphreys has previously addressed this claim here. I also address it in this post. While the Cochrane study has flaws that are addressed in my post, it’s worth noting that the study compared AA and twelve-step facilitation (TSF) to other treatments. They found that AA and TSF were no more effective than other treatments. Cochrane’s abstract was poorly worded, but it only takes a few minutes to discern this.
Another writes that Dodes “depicts a superstitious, vindictive, and ominous version of 12-step recovery completely unlike the one I’ve experienced”:
Dr. Dodes claims, “The notion that people with addictions suffer from a failure of morality to be indexed and removed is fundamental to Alcoholics Anonymous.” In my own experience, AA literature and members are clear in their belief that alcoholism is not a moral failing, but better understood as a disease. On page 18 of Alcoholics Anonymous, the authors clearly state their view of alcoholism: “We have come to believe it is an illness.” The disease model of addiction is so widely accepted by members of 12-step programs that even South Park saw it as a ripe target for satire.
Later, Dodes refers to “AA’s emphasis on proselytizing,” which he rather snidely defines as “a basic tool through which recognized religions and certain fringe religious groups spread their message.” Whatever AA activities he regards as proselytizing are more casual than any I have ever seen used by any religious group in the world (whether “recognized” or “fringe”). AA does not place advertisements, solicit donations, preach on street corners or go door-to-door.
AA is composed entirely of volunteers and has no top-down leadership hierarchy. What organization there is comes from the “12 Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous,” first published in Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions. Tradition Nine states, “AA, as such, ought never be organized,” and Tradition Ten is clear that “our public-relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion.” If Dr. Dode does not believe that AA groups live up to these professed commitments, he should say as much and provide evidence. If he is unaware of them, then he is embarrassingly uninformed.
I’m confused by one claim of Dr. Dode’s in particular: “For now, I will simply say that there are indeed better treatments for addiction.” Besides the anecdote he provides about his work with Dominic, I found no further mention of such treatments. Presumably, I’ll have to buy one of his books or schedule an appointment to learn more. In the meantime, millions of recovering addicts worldwide will be sharing their experience, strength and time – for free – to anyone with a desire to stop drinking or using.
Another pleads for the Dish to wise up on AA:
You link over and over and over again to these critiques of AA that are so wrongheaded as to be laughable – if they weren’t so full of pernicious disinformation. By conflating AA and rehab, the authors have a whole article that elides the massive difference between the two. Rehabs have taken the 12 steps from AA – which are not copyrighted, because, you know, as above, the sixth tradition avoids problems of money, property, and prestige – and the failings of the system are those of rehabs. There’s almost nothing accurate about AA in that Salon article. A few points:
AA and rehab have even been codified into our legal system: court-mandated attendance, which began in the late 1980s, is today a staple of drug-crime policy. Every year, our state and federal governments spend over $15 billion on substance-abuse treatment for addicts, the vast majority of which are based on 12-step programs. There is only one problem: these programs almost always fail.
AA never costs money. Ever. The sixth tradition of AA is that “an AA group ought never endorse, finance or lend the AA name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.” And the court-mandated system is actually at odds with that same tradition. I have worked with many men trying to get sober in rehab and they have all relapsed because they were being forced to get sober. That doesn’t work and never will, because true alcoholics will look for any reason to keep drinking.
Another lie in the article:
AA has managed to survive, in part, because members who become and remain sober speak and write about it regularly. This is no accident: AA’s twelfth step expressly tells members to proselytize for the organization: “Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.”
This misinterpretation is completely counter to the eleventh tradition of AA, which expressly tells members not to proselytize: “Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.”
And even writing you about this is not in the spirit of the tenth tradition: “Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the AA name ought never be drawn into public controversy.” And yet people seem to be completely set on running it down, even though I’ve seen it work miraculously in my life and again and again in others. To educate yourself, you might want to check out the traditions of AA here.
The Dish 