12 Steps to Evading Responsibility


dan_edge

Recommended Posts

I recently wrote an article criticizing 12 Step Programs that may interest some of you. In the article, I suggest an alternative to the 12 Step philosophy: Rational Recovery.

If you haven't seen the Rational Recovery website, MSK, you should check it out.

Dan,

I not only know of Trimpey's site, I have the book, Rational Recovery: The New Cure for Addiction. If you like this approach of making little characters in your head to talk to, this is a powerful method. It doesn't work for everybody, though.

As to other anti-12 step approaches to addiction recovery, you will probably also like Stanton Peele.

One of the best Internet resources of concentrated information on recovery (all systems) I have found is The Addiction Recovery Guide. There is an article featured on the site that I strongly identify with: Addiction is a Brain Disease by Alan I. Leshner, MD. Here is a quote that I find very near the truth:

A core concept evolving with scientific advances over the past decade is that drug addiction is a brain disease that develops over time as a result of the initially voluntary behavior of using drugs. (Drugs include alcohol.)

The consequence is virtually uncontrollable compulsive drug craving, seeking, and use that interferes with, if not destroys, an individual’s functioning in the family and in society.

I still do not like the insistence on claiming that addiction is a disease as a one-sided definition, but at least one of the volitional components is strongly identified here. In the dispute over whether addiction is a disease or not a disease, my own view is that it has elements of both. Calling it one or the other is a gross oversimplification, just like saying that there is only one kind of addiction.

A proper and effective treatment seeks to isolate the components and treat each according to its own nature (i.e., reality) instead of shooting for a one-size-fits-all miracle cure.

I read your article (and Hsieh's recent blog entry also). I fully agree that, if taken to its logical consequences, the 12-step program errs on the side of discouraging the development of personal responsibility. However, nothing about addiction is logical from the addict's perspective, so there is no consistent outcome. The simple fact is that 12-step programs work for some people and don't work for others. (In fact, this same observation holds for Trimpey, Peele and other recovery systems.)

I personally had a good experience with the 12-step program. The strongest elements for me were the following:

1. The breaking of the false self-appraisal in having to admit that I was powerless over the addiction (Step 1). I took this to mean that my manipulative self had lost control, not that my entire being was without efficacy. If taken in the manner I did, it works wonderfully. An addict is stubborn in his adherence to thinking he can control anything and everything and that part needs to be broken. In the groups I attended, they had a saying about learning your real size.

If taken in the self-abnegation sense (and I have seen this also in 12-step recovery groups), it does not lead to relapse, as your article insinuated. It leads to the cult-behavior commonly seen in the core cliques. One of the reasons I stopped going to meetings was that after I stopped using drugs and was more-or-less steady, I had no interest in the small self-contained society I saw with a lot of peer pressure running rampant.

2. The part you most criticized in your article: That 12-step programs encourage relapses. In my experience, I did not see any encouragement at all, but I did encounter toleration for relapses if the person was willing to try again to stop using. For me, this toleration was critical because I suffered a great deal in overcoming the craving attacks. This toleration was my anchor. It allowed me to try and try and keep trying until I finally succeeded in staying clean. That is literally how it worked for me. In my case, I don't think an intolerant approach would have worked. I would be dead now.

3. Psychological visibility. Being in a group of individuals who were facing what I was facing—and wanted out like I wanted out—and identified themselves as such was fundamental to my own recovery.

4. Owning up to the damage I had caused to myself and others. This fully broke the back of the false self-appraisal I had.

In short, 12-step groups are good if used as one part of a broader program (even if it is a personal one). It's funny, but the best way to do a 12-step program is to not do all 12 steps. If taken all the way to the extreme, they result in a cult of underachievers. As many addicts are jaded, they see this, call it BS and jump ship. That, to me, explains partly why there is a high turnover rate.

One thing I did appreciate about your article is that it shows you are willing to write about addiction without bashing the addict metaphysically. This is rare in an Objectivist. The norm I have seen is to consider the addict as some kind of immoral freak or, at best, some kind of inherently damaged being. I predict that if you continue, you will be able to provide some really good and efficacious support to Objectivist (or Objectivism-friendly) addicts and help some of them stop the madness in their lives.

I have a suggestion. Rather than demonize 12-step groups (lots of people already do that, including Trimpey and Peele), why not concentrate on techniques, theory, suggestions, studies, etc.? I mean this from an Objectivist viewpoint. There is so little positive material that any new addition would be valuable.

I have this project going here. I admit it is not a high-priority project, but some information and advice is provided. I don't know of any other place with an Objectivist slant that deals with addiction to the extent I have here.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. But before getting too excited about Rational Recovery, I think reviewing independent evaluations of long-term abstinence under the program would be required. I looked at the site that Dan linked to and was only able to find a study from 1998 which claimed that "Sixty-five percent were found to be abstinent, using brief telephone queries by the instructor." Not exactly a reliable means of gauging reality. Is 1998 the last time that the organization measured its effectiveness (and I use the term "measured" loosely if to "measure" is to briefly contact substance abusers by telephone and ask them to self-report), or have I just not yet found information on the site about detailed, scientific tracking of successes and failures of the organization's entire 10 years of existence?

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now