Stepstudy.org


Three Views of Recovery


Currently, there are three major conflicting views on the nature of recovery. One view states that recovery is the result of a religious conversion experience. Another holds that recovery is really the process of re-socializing oneself to a community of sober addicts. A third view maintains that recovery happens when addicts expose and treat the underlying psychological causes of addiction.

The Conversion Experience View

This view of recovery understands the Conversion Experience as a psychological process defined by philosopher and psychologist William James. In his The Varieties of Religious Experience, James stated that conversion is a process by which

“a self hitherto divided, and consciously wrong, inferior and unhappy, becomes unified and consciously right superior and happy, in consequence of its firmer hold on religious realities”

According to James, the conversion experience is a huge displacement and rearrangement of the convert’s personality. This internal reorganization is not just a passing experience, instead, a whole new and stable attitude is established.

“the new ideas that reach the center in the rearrangement seem now to be locked there, and the new structure remains permanent.”

For the addict, this means that the former center of his life—the obsession to use—is now discarded and replaced by a sense of personal spirituality. The Conversion Experience View of recovery believes that this kind of radical change in the personality is necessary for true recovery to take place. The Twelve Steps are seen as a tool for creating Conversion Experiences without the intrusion of organized religion. In the Steps, an addict can have a powerful experience, and interpret it however he or she pleases. Therefore, Conversion Experience is often referred to as a Spiritual Experience, and the program is called “spiritual not religious.”

While working the Twelve Steps in a Conversion Experience style, the addict will make a total surrender of both will and life to a Power that heals the addict’s mind. A moral inventory is taken to root out and expose the addict’s primary trouble—selfishness. Amends and Twelfth Step work are designed to relieve the addict of self-concern and encourage a compassion for others. In this compassion, the Conversionists find themselves guided by a real and living Spiritual Power.

Meetings, in the Conversion Experience View, are a chance for recovered addicts to give testimony to the Power of the Steps and invite newcomers to work the Steps with a sponsor. Meetings are not a time to “share” or “check-in.” Instead, they are a time for those who have had a Spiritual Awakening to offer their services to those who have not.

Outcomes anticipated for people in recovery are very high in the Conversion Experience View. People who work the Steps successfully, are expected to find emotional well-being, freedom from mental obsession, and a deep sense of peace that comes from having a spiritual purpose in life. As long as the recovered person continues to help others, his or her sense of well-being is expected to increase. The times of real pain and anguish that are to be expected in life (when a loved one dies for example) are expected to bring the recovered person deeper into dependence upon their Spiritual Source, and so, while painful, will improve the addict’s spiritual life.

The Conversion Experience View exists in many of the Twelve Step fellowships, but is most commonly seen as the View of Alcoholics Anonymous member who strongly advocate for the AA Big Book. Sometimes called “Book Thumpers” or “Program Nazis,” these AA members have a reputation for being conservative and intolerant in the way they express their View. From their own point of view however, the Big Book advocates are trying to save fellow addicts from the pain of self-centeredness. In this way, they believe that they are expressing the spiritual truth of the Steps.

When Conversionists tell their stories, they are most likely to speak of the mental aspects of their addictions and place a strong emphasis on the personality change that they have experienced due to their experience of surrender to God.

The Re-socialization View

This view of recovery is…

“…highly social and involves the use of informal community resources that provide a sobriety-based framework in which one can stop drinking and maintain sobriety.”

William L. White
Slaying the Dragon

In the Re-socialization View of recovery, the biggest problem of the addict is not a need for spiritual experience, nor is it underlying psychological stressors. Instead, the Re-socialization View believes that the addict’s biggest problem is using. When the using stops, the addict’s biggest problem becomes how to stay stopped. Solutions to these problems are fairly straightforward. “Don’t use, go to meetings, ask for help.” “Keep coming back.” “Meeting makers make it.” “90 meetings in 90 days.” These and other similar slogans outline the program of the Re-socialization view—just keep going to meetings.

At times, meetings are emphasized so heavily that many people who hold this View do not work the steps. However, those who do work the Steps, tend to see them as a way to increase involvement in the fellowship. “Higher Power” and “God” are often interpreted as meaning the fellowship, the meetings, and sometimes the Steps and Traditions. Turning one’s will and life over to the care of God, really means coming to meetings and becoming willing to share and listen to others. Moral inventory and Amends are designed to help the fellowship stay intact even when personality clashes occur.

For Re-Socializationists, sobriety is understood as a difficult process, especially because the sober addict is forced to deal with feelings that were once suppressed by using. When things get rough, an addict goes to a meeting and shares their pain. Other addicts at the meeting sympathize and support those suffering. Sometimes, if there is an addict present who has suffered through a similar hardship, there is a sharing of experience, strength and hope. This makes meetings a kind of mutual-aid group. Other activities that are important in the Re-socialization View are “meetings-after-the-meetings,” sober dances, camp-outs, and other non-meeting social gatherings for addicts.

Expectations for recovering people in the Re-Socialization View are moderate compared to the expectations for people recovering in the Conversion Experience View. It is anticipated that recovery will be a painful process that lasts a lifetime. One is not expected to find relief from mental obsession, nor a vital spiritual life. Instead, the Re-Socialization View expects that people who stick with going to meetings will eventually be able to manage the business of daily life. Recovering people can get jobs and relationships, and keep them for longer than they used to. Recovering people don’t have to sell their TVs to buy drugs, or do any of the other behaviors associated with addiction. Often, recovering people have more money and possessions than they did when they were using. All of this is expected to provide some value and relief in the addict’s life.

The stories of recovering people who hold this View focus on the physical aspects of addiction and the despair and hopelessness of addicted life. These stories are meant to be a reminder to the speaker, and to his or her audience of why not to use again. Some times, though less frequently, stories focus on the things that the speaker has gained by being sober. Generally, Re-Socialization stories end with gratitude for the program, the meeting, and for one more day of sobriety.

The Psychological View

This view of recovery states that addiction is only a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder. In the years since the development of psychoanalysis, many psychological theories have been formed and promoted, each with its own view of the nature of the psychological causes of addictions. The theories range from Freud’s assertion that the alcoholic is expressing latent homosexual tendencies, to the Family Systems Theory concept of the addict as an actor of a role in a dysfunctional family system. Many of these theories, as they have each come into fashion, have had some impact on the Twelve Steps.

Currently, the psychological agreement seems to be that the addict is someone who uses to cope with some kind of pain. This pain might be the result of early child hood trauma, sexual abuse, a dysfunctional family system, low self-esteem, etc. The pain could also be produced by an existing mental disorder, such as Post Traumatic Stress, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, depression, etc. Addicts of this second kind are called “dual diagnosis,” because they are diagnosed with their mental disorder and addiction. Because addicts are seen as using to cope with pain, addiction is sometimes called “self-medicating.”

Recovery in the Psychological View is the process by which an addict learns appropriate methods of self-care. Treatment focuses on treating the source of the addict’s pain, and teaching the addict new ways to cope with pain. There is much talk about “feeling feelings,” and overcoming fears and shame. Sobriety is seen as a time of self-discovery, because feelings surface that were suppressed by using. Because most of these feelings are uncomfortable, the Psychological View attempts to help people in recovery to manage life while processing difficult emotions. Often, addicts are encouraged to use self-affirmations to build a positive self-image and increase self-esteem. Recovering people are instructed in the basics of self-care: hygiene, nutrition, sleep, and healthy social interaction. Sometimes, the word “H.A.L.T.” is used to remind people in recovery to stop and take care of themselves when they feel “Hungry, Angry, Lonely, or Tired.” The Psychological View encourages proper medication for people who have a dual diagnosis, and regular talk therapy, with emphasis on processing the pain of childhood and difficult personal relationships.

Working the Twelve Steps is not central to the Psychological View of recovery. When the Steps are worked in this View, they tend to be an extension of the type of therapy mentioned above. One realizes one’s powerlessness and turns one’s life over to professional treatment. Inventory is usually “balanced,” meaning that for every negative aspect of self, there is a positive one as well. Inventory also tends to explore things like family dynamics, early child hood trauma, instances where the recovering person feels that he/she has been victimized, etc. Amends are not emphasized in the Psychological View. In fact, most Twelve-Step rehabs will only utilize the first five Steps. Twelfth Step work is almost non-existent in the Psychological View, as professional treatment is seen as filling the role of ‘sponsor.’

Meetings in this View are seen as important to the recovery process. The Psychological View understands meetings in nearly the same manner as does the Re-Socialization View. For the Psychological View, meetings are important not for mutual-aid as much as for group therapy. The emphasis is not on “we help one another out,” but “we each get our turn to process feelings.” Often, addicts exiting treatment will be instructed to attend “90 meetings in 90 days,” and meeting attendance is often part of the routine at rehab. However, in many cases, the Psychological View feels that meeting attendance is not enough for the recovering person. Regular visits to a councilor are encouraged.

The Psychological View’s expectations for recovering people are equal to or less than those of the Re-Socialization View. Addicts are expected to struggle greatly with mental obsession and difficult feelings for the rest of their lives. One figure in the Psychological View, Terrence Gorski, has defined what he calls Post Acute Withdrawal Syndrome. PAWS predicts that people in recovery will not be able to get better through meeting attendance and Stepwork. Instead, the addict needs to see a PAWS trained therapist, or they will have severe symptoms of Post Acute Withdrawal Syndrome that will likely cause them to relapse. These symptoms can never be eliminated, only managed.

Stories of people recovering in the Psychological View often reflect their experiences in therapy. They speak of learning to feel their feelings, coming to grips with early childhood trauma, becoming better at taking care of themselves, or similar topics. Sometimes stories will include mention of Stepwork, but it is usually clear that this is Psychological and not Conversion Experience style Stepwork. Stories include much Psychological language, and will often focus on the emotional accomplishments of the speaker. The process of self-discovery and learning to love oneself feature strongly in Psychological View stories.

Arguments between the Views

Each View of recovery has an argument with each of the other Views. These arguments help us to distinguish the Views from each other, and clarify the values of each View.

Conversion vs. Re-socialization

From the Conversion Experience perspective, Re-socializationists are diluting the meaning of the Twelve Steps by not emphasizing a spiritual interpretation of the program. Conversionists point to the fact that many people in recovery could benefit from a Conversion Experience, but are unwilling to make the effort as long as they can ‘get by’ on meeting attendance. The fact that Re-socialization allows people to ‘get by’ and suffer from the mental obsession is seen as a crime by Conversionists; it keeps suffering people from getting real help, and it turns the program into a place where people get by without getting better.

From the Re-socialization perspective, Conversionists are seen as narrow-minded and possibly dangerous. Re-socializationists point to the fact that plenty of people are staying sober in the program without having to get religion or work the Steps. The fact that Conversionists are pushing their nearly religious View of recovery means that some people, who might otherwise stay in meetings, get turned off and don’t come back. Some of these people probably go back to using and may even die as a result. For the Re-socializationists, anything that keeps alcoholics/addicts out of meetings is a bad influence on the program.

Re-socialization vs. Psychological

The Re-socializationists see the Psychological View of recovery as having a basic misunderstanding of the disease of addiction. Alcoholics drink because they are alcoholics, and drug addicts use drugs because they are drug addicts, not because they are trying to cope with pain. Addicts may be in pain, but this is probably the result of their disease, not the cause of it. Psychologists are also seen as having the wrong approach to dealing with addictions. While therapy might be helpful for many, real recovery depends on one addict helping another. This is because only someone with first-hand knowledge of the disease of addiction can really understand the condition of another addict.

People who hold the Psychological View of recovery see the practices of Re-socialization as insufficient to help people recover. Meetings are good for what they are, but meeting attendance alone is often not enough to help addicts deal with the underlying psychological causes of their using. People who have a dual diagnosis, who suffer from PTSD, who are severely depressed, or who have deep personal issues to work through will need more than meetings to successfully stay in recovery.

Psychological vs. Conversion

The Psychological View of recovery reacts strongly against the Conversionist idea that selfishness is the root of the addicts problems. The emphasis on selfishness is seen as bordering on abusive. According to the Psychological View, recovering people need to be affirmed and nurtured, not scolded or told that they are bad. In this View, addicts already have negative self-images, and focusing on selfishness can only serve to increase that negative self-image. For some in the Psychological View, the Conversion Experience View of recovery is seen as taking advantage of vulnerable people. People new to recovery are in an impressionable frame of mind, and Conversionists seem to be attempting to force newcomers into a religious point of view.

Conversionists see the Psychological View of recovery as causing more harm than good. In the Conversionist View, telling addicts to care for and think about themselves only increases their already high level of self-concern and selfishness. Furthermore, the Psychological emphasis on “feeling feelings” and “expressing pain” leads to a recovery environment dominated by narcissism and diseased thinking. In this View, an addict can never express his/herself enough to rid their psyches of the mental obsession to use. The Psychological View of tortures recovering people by forcing them to obsess over their symptoms without offering a real solution to the basic problem of addiction.

Agreement among the views

Our division of the recovery culture into three Views is somewhat artificial. In reality, there are many recovering people whose recovery philosophy represents a mix of two or more of the Views mentioned above. Recovery culture represents a wide spectrum of belief and experience, and there are many ways in which each of the Views can be adapted to match each of the others. For example, the Conversion Experience is a powerful mental experience, and can be understood in Psychological terms. Mutual support networks and Re-socialization clearly have a Psychological benefit as well. And Conversion Experience, in its need to be shared with others, has a strong social impulse and a clear desire to help others Re-socialize themselves. However, our depiction of the three Views of recovery should help our understanding of the Twelve Steps by revealing the major themes that are present within all Twelve Step recovery programs. By looking at each View in its purest form, we can get a clear picture of the kinds of programs and experiences that are available in recovery culture.


20 Comments so far
Leave a comment

The discussion of the “three” viewpoints carries the psychological views of those who wrote the items. The starting point as to “conversion” should be the real facts about what conversion to Christ is; and the definition doesn’t come from William James. It comes from John 3:1-28; John 3:16-17; Romans 10:9. As long as writers depart from the Biblical concept, they run with the idea that mention of God drives people from the rooms, that “conversionists” are some special brand of recovering people. I suggest there will not a an appropriate discussion until the whole picture of conversion, cure of alcoholism, and Bill’s comment on page 191 of the Big Book are incorporated. It is covered in my two recent titles about Bill and Bob. The first is The Conversion of Bill W.; and the second is Dr. Bob of Alcoholics Anonymous. Bill saw his grandfather cured of alcoholism by conversion. He heard from Dr. Silkworth that the Great Physician could cure him. He went to the altar at Calvary Rescue Mission, made a decision for Christ, and was born again. He so stated in his own autobiography. From there he staggered to Towns, decided to call on the Great Physician for help, and–on doing so–had a conversion experience almost identical to that which his grandfather had years before. Neither ever drank again. Until, therefore, people are willing to look at the facts about Bill, Bob, and the required decisions for Christ in the early fellowship, we will continue to be beset with the scholarly discussions of “spirituality” “psychic change” and the like. It’s the miraculous that the founders found, and it’s the miraculous that Bill and Bob embraced. Thus Dr. Bob concluded his story by saying: “Your Heavenly Father will never let you down!” It had nothing to do with meetings because there were no meetings of today’s kind–just one per week. It had nothing to do with Steps because there were no steps. It had everything to do with the basic ideas in the Bible that Dr. Bob pointed to in the Book of James, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and 1 Corinthians 13.
God Bless, Dick B. http://www.dickb.com/conversion.shtml

Comment by Richard G. Burns, J.D.

This excellent article “Three Views Of Recovery” helps make sense of what seems to be the contradictory messages we hear at some AA meetings. The author is unattributed – an old fashioned anonymity-loving member of our fellowship, I would guess. The insight is profound and very helpful as agreed by some others to whom I have shown it. Many thanks to the author for the useful label “conversionist”.
That’s what I am—a conversionist (having had a spiritual awakening as THE result of these steps). This paper just may be the catalyst for us conversionist to do some helpful revitalization of our precious fellowship by being better able to talk about these various aspects of the program and how we can more patiently explain the “hope” we have in us.
I did not see any particular bias in this piece except, I suspect an oversight, when it was said in the conversionist view that “Meetings…are a chance for recovered addicts to give testimony to the Power of the Steps.” It would be accurate, in my opinion of the conversionist view, that we actually give witness to the power GOD who shows us the steps.
And many thanks for the comments by our good friend Dick B. who has done diligent research on the Oxford Group roots of AA. I myself would not be making these comments but for access to the larger history of AA that Dick has been so faithful to bring forth for us. Through his histories I was led to the origins and methods of Keswick and a deeper inquiry into Frank Buchman’s experience at Keswick in 1908. (posted at YetNotI.com and a different version on this site.)
I am convinced that it is Frank’s “experience” that we receive when we really grasp all that AA has to offer.
Our ‘spiritual awakening’ is the AA way of saying what some in the churches in the mid 1800’s were engaged in – a search for a way to impart the second blessing (filling of the Holy Spirit, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, second work of Grace or whatever it may be call.) Keswick had the message – the Cross. And it had a method. Frank got the message; he also attended the conferences from 1908 until the 1920’ with the men from Oxford while he developed his method of personal work – Soul Surgery (it is this precious way of doing personal work which is at the heart of our fellowship (conversionist view).(see this site-downloads for Soul Surgery)
Frank never got very far from the Cross, and was reported to always seeming to be listening”…for the voice of GOD. His great mistake was to say something to the effect that “wouldn’t it be great if a man like Hitler could be directed by God.” We AA’s would say today, “Wouldn’t be great if such and such a fellow could get our way of life.” But then we would not be saying it in public, and so we stay out of trouble .

Comment by George McLauchlin

[...] AA. Their view is, apparently, strongly oriented toward the “Resocialization” camp (see three views), but remains informed by psychological theory and [...]

Pingback by Bill and Bob Off-Brodway « Stepstudy.org

I’m a conversionist. I believe that a Higher Power can restore me to sanity and I understand that self-centeredness, pride, etc. is the nature of my illness. I no longer have a “choice” about booze. This is my great exception to re-socialization and psychological: When I hear that I have a choice today I want to puke. If I thought that by attending AA I would earn a choice over something that I really have no choice over, one day I’d make the wrong choice. I also hear “Think the drink through” What’s to think about? I have an obsession with alcohol and drugs: I cannot not drink or use. But my main reaction to this excellent article has to do with the comments. While I am a conversionist I take strong exception to those who are enamored of the Oxford Groups. First of all, I’m not a Christian. I have no desire to have Jesus Christ as my Higher Power. Jesus, as the Big Book puts it, had “moral philosophy, most excellent “(sic.). I believe Jesus to be a great Prophet. But don’t tell me that Jesus has to be my Higher Power.
As for Buckmanism. It’s no small wonder that Bill was VERY smart to make the break. I’ve yet to meet a drunk that could do anything “absolutely”. And I’m not a fan of Hitler. Buckman tried hard, very hard, to convert Hitler, win him over as it were. Unfortunately Buckman didn’t understand (although I’ll grant he later did) that Hitler was a madman demon. Also, when the Oxford Groups became overtly political, I’d venture a guess that Bill remembered the Washontonians. So contrary to the thoughts of some conversionists, it was a real smart move to break away from the Oxford Groups. That being said, I wouldn’t deny anyone the right to get sober in any way they want to, in the context of the program of action in the first 164 pages of the Big Book. God Bless.

Comment by Art

This has really helped me see where i was going, what happened and which direction i take today. I feel strongly that for me, a combination of all three are crucial in todays modern society (I speak as a UK fellowship member). I attend CA which uses the Big Book and I work through the book & the steps. I also see the importance of re-socialization and when i was always going to NA I came to realize that i neede more (some conversion) and as a man who expeienced sexual abuse, mental abuse and a great deal of bullying, I had the seek professional help too and at one point my counsellor became mt Higher power. Today, I have all these valuable experiences and combination of these different styles wins for me hands down.

Comment by Kieron

According to this article I guess I also am a conversionist; however, I like the term Spiritual Thug. Unfortunately, and in contrast to the very learned scholar Dick B., I do have misgivings of aligning with the Oxford Group and Buchmanism. I will not dispute the origins of AA nor question the beliefs of the first 40, yet I have to lean more with post-publication concensus of the BB that allows one to have faith and trust in God the Creator, be fulfilled with the Spirit, yet perhaps not a biblical christian God. OG seemed intolerant of non-christians. If being a conversionist requires that I also surrender to Christ then it requires me to have a religious conversion and not a spiritual conversion.

Comment by lewby

I hsve to wonder about the zealots for following the Oxford plan when it legacy failed Dr. Bob and Bill W. and hence some of the knowledge was used for the beginnings of AA. If the AA History site was more openminded about a spiritual life, rather than making money on books written about “AA History” to support the Christianity view it would be more in line with the principles of AA. AA is a world wide fellowship of which the larger world is more than likely not “Christians”. Peace out.

Comment by mikie

I wonder, does every 12 step program include someone on a higher power or a God or sorts?

Comment by dtssmithers

I am a REAL agnostic, not an agnostic waiting to be converted into a believer as Bill W describes in the book. I believe strongly in a combination of resocialization and psychology.

Between 1985 and 1987, I tried to get “converted”
by doing everything possible in AA. I nearly died of alcoholism because I could not stop drinking. I went to treatment, where I received help with the underlying causes and conditions which made me want to run away from life into the bottle. I stopped drinking when I got the proper treament and have been sober for 22 years.

The problem with the conversion view is that it doesn’t work for people like me. Conversion AA tells the alcoholic that he can’t get sober unless he believes in God. If he can’t believe in God, he dies. I know because people tell me in meetings that I can expect that for myself.

Not for me! It puzzles them that I still don’t drink.

Comment by DallasAlice

I loved this article! I’d love to Know who wrote it and if I could copy it for my sponsees? cmr

Comment by Chris Raymer

I have read this on a few different occassions and I don’t think that my view has changed. I believe we need a bit of all these methods to acquire sobriety and then a bit more of all these methods to maintain the sobriety. In speaking of a Power greater than myself I caution people that it is only as they understand him (or don’t understand him however the case me be.) My understanding of my God today is far more superior than my understanding when I first got sober some 17-1/2 years ago. Does that mean that my God changed? I think not. But thank God that I have. I hope to come back here in 17-1/2 more years and tell you that my concept has still changed and evolved.

Comment by John O'Sullivan

Wow. I’ve been trying to recover for about 25 years. And I have been coming to meetings on and off for over 31 years. I seem to be the type of alcoholic/addict that the Big Book was written for as I have done much better with the conversion approach than with either the social or psych approaches. I am leaning toward the idea that all three in combination, perhaps in varying degrees, could ultimately be most successful. Heavier on the conversion, ample on the social, with maybe a touch, in my case, of the psych. For now though I am trying my best to give myself completely to the conversionist method – it’s had the best effect so far. I am once AGAIN sober 110 days. In AA and other fellowships I have been abstinate for periods of 4 months, 8 months, 25 months, 28 months, 61 months, 50 months and again currently 110 days. The two latter periods are with the conversion method. The prior mostly re-socialization with misguided attempts toward conversion. Reading this article however helps me toward being more open-minded about the social and psych methods than I had been since turning toward the conversion method. I have fallen victim at times of my own zealousness about it. A fellow named Joe H. used to like to ask: “how’s that workin’ for ya ?” Joe, I guess whatever works – works. I think I’ll go meditate now.

Comment by Robert Salafia

God eiher is, or He isn’t, wrote Bill Wilson. And Shoemaker before him. And Pascal before either of them. Is that conversionist or a challenge to believe.

Comment by Dick B.

As a woman with decades long sobriety I can testify to the fact that I and others have recovered and stayed sober by going through ahd using all these methods. Of course we work the steps, of course we go to meetings, of course we seek counselling, of course we connect, of couese we help others, of course we work through traumatic events and issues. Of course we use eveything AA has to offer. Of course we surrender to a higher power in whatever form. Explore and invite spirituality into our lives, avoid judlement, promote tolerance, kindness and service.

The division and arguments are to me only a typical aspect of alcholosm where black and white thinking reigns. Those who think they have the one and only truth and need to peddle it are still in the throes of their alcholic affliction.

The 12 traditions guide us and protect AA from collapsing from within as a result of all the disputes and egos, and sociopaths and potential cult leaders who would love to take it over. They cannot, have never been able to and never will.

Serenity, sanity and service.

Comment by Ada

lovely comments, Ada.
I am now in my 36th year as of Oct 28th and have been able to stay in AA and maintain a few on going relationships with those who are without knowing it in the re-social frame.
I was glad to see this article that reveals what is going on in our fellowship….at least now i know that the different tones i ve been hearing in the meeting werent just my imagination
Thanks for your comments
Dick B Atl, Ga

Comment by Dicky B

That was a really interesting article, Im just under 2 years sober, as well as being dual-diagnosis. I guess in my short journey so far, re-socialisation was my first phase. I loved going to meetings and getting ‘identification’ from fellow addicts and alcoholics, unfortunatly I learned through numerous painful experiences that attending meetings and getting ‘identification’ and going for coffee was not going to keep me clean. I had to fully apply myself to the steps. I have a lot a gratitude for people from that phase of my recovery, who went out of there way to assist me. I guess I am a conversionist these days, however Im not a Big Book basher, or a step Nazi, I try to not take myself to seriously. I know I have had a spiritual experience, because Ive had a dramatic realignment of my values, as a result my thinking and behaviour have changed. The obsession to use and drink has been removed.The universe no longer revolves around me, if only people would do what I wanted them to etc etc. The psychological view is quite interesting, I self medicated my mental health problems for many years, sadly I reached the point where The drugs and the alcohol didnt work anymore. Counselling etc was in some ways valuable, but in the end it had to be an ‘inside job’ as they say.

Different strokes for different folks….

Peace

Comment by Matizm

Lewby- your post gives a perfect example why obstinate belief in a path of recovery only doubles back on the whole principle of “recovery”. The BB even addresses the issue of staunch religious zealots who through their myopic view of the world and the nether-world idealistically turn away alcoholics who need only believe in *something* greater than themselves. Anyone who cares to delve into the so called *roots* of AA and glean from that a purely Christian view is their own business, but espousing that belief and then forcing it on others is the basis for despotism. That is akin to believing that since the foundation of the United States was basically built on Christianity, that it is okay to have a state religion today, regardless of what the word *progress* means. Isn’t it obvious that the BB is based on all three approaches to recovery? Goodness, the BB addresses all of these facets- *Doctor’s Opinion* & *Chapter to the Agnostic* Anyways, thanks lewby for bringing up the hypocrasy in the religous zealot camps of AA. Good post sir.

Comment by Dod

I have been in recovery for along time and have personally experienced each one of the three stages that haave been described. My question is, “who says one theory is superior over the other?” I feel that I have converted my life into a life full of a normal life that does not include alcohol or drugs. Yes, I struggle with life’s little challenges, however I do live life on life’s terms today. Isn’t it wonderful not having to deal with the obsession to drink or take a drug twenty four seven? I have converted my life and that conversion includes (my) idea and understanding of a higher power. No one elses! Who’s to say that one way is better than the other. Whatever works, is my motto. To each his own. As long as you can lay your head on your pillow at night and not taken a dring or a drug, then don’t you think that it’s been a good day? Of course that’s only paart of what recovery has to offer but to me that’s what it’s all about. Whatever works.

Comment by Matt

It’s absolutely ludicrous that one drunk would claim that he’s not drinking better than any other drunk. Also beyond pathetic that anyone would attempt to gain any notoriety within an anonymous fellowship.

Comment by Bill W.

The book “Alcoholics Anonymous” lays out a very specific plan of action for recovery from alcoholism and the authors tell of their experience with that program. They never claim that their program is the only or best program for chronic alcoholics but they do express what some professionals in the field had to say about chronic alcoholism at that time and what they themselves witnessed.
The fellowship that sprung up around this program of action took the name of the book and the fellowship more or less was filled with people who had tried the program of action and who were then attempting to help others utilize the specific program of action and gain sobriety as well. It is true that the steps were not laid out in the form that we know today, but there were certainly SPECIFIC guiding principles which became the steps.
There are other methods of recovery just as there are myriad types of alcoholics and the AA program lays no claim to being the sole form of recovery but instead says “If you suffer the way we suffered, then try this here program which worked for us. If you have something different that works for you, our hats are off to you!”
The different views of recovery are fantastic but they do not describe three different views of the AA program of recovery. There is simply one AA program which was laid out in the book AA. Anything different than this is not AA.
I think that a lot of people take what they hear from people in meetings (I don’t consider all AA meetings “AA” anymore) and then claim that what they heard is an “AA” perspective. What is contained in the book Alcoholics Anonymous is the one and only AA program of recovery. Nothing more nothing less. Meetings of Alcoholic Anonymous should be solely based on the program of the same name. In fact, the book was written so that the AA program of recovery would not be lost, changed or misunderstood.
People who come to AA meetings and push a different idea of recovery are like people who go to an Italian restaurant and promote Chinese food. They sit in the Italian restaurant and make sure everyone knows that they got their stomach full at a Chinese restaurant, they complain about Italian food, tell everyone that Chinese food is better than Italian food and they will even tell you that Italian food is actually dangerous!
If you have a program other than AA that works for you, fantastic! But if you want to try the AA program of recovery, remember that it is outlined in the big book. What you hear at meetings is perhaps not AA. One line in the book describes the AA program of recovery specifically enough to let everyone know exactly what AA is.
Of the big book:
“Its main object is to enable you to find a Power greater than yourself which will solve your problem.”

Comment by Mike B. CZ




Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>