A thought-provoking if slightly case-in-point article in the NY Times, “Challenging the Second ‘A’ in AA,” in which writer David Colman takes a skeptical look at the principle of anonymity in Alcoholics Anonymous. Given that he himself uses the opportunity to “unburden himself,” it may not be the world’s most objective take on the subject. He presents anonymity as something that is nearly as antiquated as the stigma of addiction itself, at one point going so far as to imply that there is civil rights’ dimension involved. Be that as it may, some might say that the self-aggrandizement on display here – using one’s sobriety as a hook for an article – inadvertently argues for anonymity.
The AA understanding of anonymity – which is only anonymity at the level of “press, radio and film” – was not meant primarily as a safeguard against stigma, but against any one person speaking for the whole organization (which, considering the types of addicts that find their way into the limelight, might be reason enough to keep the policy in place), another example of how AA has brilliantly institutionalized its anti-institutionalism. This is coupled with an understanding of the nature of addiction, that not having to claim membership actually facilitates membership. But then there’s the deeper diagnosis that one finds in the Big Book, that at the root of the alcoholic’s problem lies the “self-will run riot.” In this light, perhaps the notion of “principles over personalities” (which is what anonymity is ultimately about) might be seen as one that actually serves recovery, protecting the sufferer from themselves, rather than vice versa.
Of course, the issue isn’t black and white – Lord knows there are theological objections that might be voiced in response to anonymity (the whole notion of “witnessing” for example), and certainly the wider world (the church especially!) could benefit from hearing more from the 12-Step community. But not necessarily from those that are aching to speak for it:
More and more, anonymity is seeming like an anachronistic vestige of the Great Depression, when A.A. got its start and when alcoholism was seen as not just a weakness but a disgrace.
Over the past few years, so many memoirs about recovery have been released that they constitute a genre unto itself. (Kick Lit?) Moreover, many of them share a format that comes from A.A. itself: most 12-step meetings revolve loosely around what is called a “qualification” — an informal monologue by one member about his or her battle with the bottle.
…Not everyone is happy about this turn toward openness, chief among them A.A. itself, which last year issued an expanded statement on anonymity that has been read at some meetings, adding language about the importance of discretion on social networking Web sites, hoping to ward off breaches both purposeful and accidental.
In the world of recovery — encompassing the greater community of recovering addicts, which overlaps mightily but not officially with A.A. and its alphabet soup of sister groups — anonymity is a concept that, even if it doesn’t feel bit old-fashioned, can be self-defeating.“Having to deny your own participation in a program that is helping your life doesn’t make sense to me,” said Maer Roshan, the editor of The Fix, a new, hip-feeling Web magazine aimed at the recovery world. “You could be focusing light on something that will make it better and more honest and more helpful.”
This delicate question was the subject of an essay by Susan Cheever in The Fix, titled “Is It Time to Take the Anonymous Out of A.A.?” Given that she has written books about both her alcoholism and that of her father, the writer John Cheever, as well as one on the history of A.A., it’s not hard to guess whether she is an A.A. member. But in her essay, she vented her frustrations with trying to observe the practice of anonymity while trying to speak frankly about addiction.
“We are in the midst of a public health crisis when it comes to understanding and treating addiction,” Ms. Cheever wrote. “A.A.’s principle of anonymity may only be contributing to general confusion and prejudice.”
Molly Jong-Fast, 32, a New York novelist who became sober in A.A. 12 years ago, agrees. “It’s seems crazy that we can’t just be out with it, in this day and age,” Ms. Jong-Fast said. “I don’t want to have to hide my sobriety; it’s the best thing about me.”…
“I violate my anonymity daily,” said Rick Ohrstrom, the chairman of C4 Recovery Solutions, a consultancy firm. “I am 25 years in recovery, and have been out there fighting for the rights of people in recovery, and I’m sick and tired of people in A.A. meetings not lifting a finger to do anything about it. They hide behind anonymity — if you don’t tell anyone else that recovery works, that’s what you’re doing. That’s not how A.A. got to be where it was.”
Others insist on the importance of privacy. “Our effectiveness to reach the still-suffering alcoholic is better protected by anonymity, even today, than not having anonymity at the public level,” said Dr. Andrea Barthwell, the chief executive of Two Dreams Outer Banks, a rehab center in Corolla, N.C. “It’s possible that anonymity would be lifted sometime in the future, but there’s no one that’s made that compelling argument yet — and it can’t be done from outside the fellowship.”
Unlike the more practical 11th Tradition, aimed at the outer world, the 12th Tradition takes a crack at our far more problematic inner world. Stating (somewhat obliquely) that “anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities,” it’s about cultivating the often overlooked idea of humility, an excellent means for quieting the now-me-more urges that bedevil addictive people more than their peers.
In this light, anonymity is a token, a symbolic gesture, but we are symbolic people. Even shedding your last name can go a surprisingly long way toward shedding the weight of being yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c654iTRuxic&w=600
COMMENTS
5 responses to “Principles, Personalities, Anonymity, and Alcoholism”
Leave a Reply
Interesting thoughts:
“certainly the wider world (the church especially!) could benefit from hearing more from the 12-Step community. But not necessarily from those that are aching to speak for it:”
AMEN. AA by its very nature is full of people who are grandiose, egocentric and narcissistic, so viz this comment, I couldn’t agree with you more! The people who want most to abolish anonymity and become Head Spokesperson for AA are those who would do the most damage to this great institution in my opinion.
“most 12-step meetings revolve loosely around what is called a “qualification” — an informal monologue by one member about his or her battle with the bottle.”
Uhhh…not so much the meetings I go to. Generally it is only “speaker meetings” which are characterized by a monologue. In my experience, the person in charge of leading the meeting suggests a topic, or asks the group for a suggestion, and then we go with that. In fact my favorite meeting has a time limit (of 5 minutes) per person’s “share.” Very helpful in managing those with aforementioned character traits.
“It’s seems crazy that we can’t just be out with it, in this day and age,” Ms. Jong-Fast said. “I don’t want to have to hide my sobriety; it’s the best thing about me.”…”
She does not need to “hide” her sobriety from anyone. She is free to share it, except at the level of press, radio and film. But thanks to the principles of the program, she’s not free to share mine. And really, it’s nothing to be proud of. It’s a great gift we have been given, FREE. The only response can be: “Why me?” (I will go to my grave thinking that: why did I ever get scooped up and saved? It was just so unlikely! But it happened)
“I am 25 years in recovery, and have been out there fighting for the rights of people in recovery, and I’m sick and tired of people in A.A. meetings not lifting a finger to do anything about it. They hide behind anonymity — if you don’t tell anyone else that recovery works, that’s what you’re doing. That’s not how A.A. got to be where it was.”
Beg to differ with you there, Rick. That’s exactly how AA got to be where it is. I don’t know who he thinks he’s “out there fighting for” but it’s certainly not me. “Hiding behind” my anonymity is the only way I got sober. Unless I had been convinced that it was a truly anonymous program [and had this proven to me over and over again] I never could have taken those first steps.
What I find so interesting, is that what is going on my church (ECUSA)— schism–, is caused by these same type of personalities— grandiose, fresh, “new-thinkers,” not wanting the same old tired “antiquated” beliefs and principles– is what I am reading about in this article, now about my beloved AA. So these people think they know better than the founders? Not possible. I say, go form your own program.
Also, I have read just about every memoir by everyone who has written one (really!) about recovery, and they are very compelling and helpful—(though many of them are littered with obvious deviation from the tried and true 12 & 12). I am glad these people have shared their stories and think it is important 12th step work–HOWEVER, they are supposed to be anonymous. Susan C. should have written her story and called her dad John C. Seriously. And she should have attempted to hide revealing details. Seriously.
There have been many people who have tried to “improve” on AA and it just doesn’t work.
I always appreciate your particular way of writing about it, anonymous person, (although there is that unfortunately revelatory last initial.)
Personally, I’ve been a member of AA for about 22 years, and to me, the hallmark of a person working a good program is humility. It’s something you can’t fake, and it shines through in a person’s sharing and writing. Always enjoy reading your stuff, though I rarely comment.
(that anonymous thing, you know…..)
I can’t think of a single good reason to break anonymity “at the level of press, radio, and films.” (And in an era of blogging, self-publishing, and anonymous interaction on the internet, there’s even less reason to do it, IMO. There are lots and lots of ways to be anonymous now, even at these levels.)
Once again: the 12th Tradition reads, with my emphasis: “Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.” The Steps and Traditions were in many cases arrived at empirically – and in my 25+-year A.A. career, they’ve never steered me wrong. There aren’t so many things you can say that about in this world.
As “anonymous” above notes: nobody stops a person from breaking their anonymity in their private lives; the restriction applies only at the public level. (Although I admit the philosophy does trickle down and has other effects. And that’s a good thing; newcomers can feel that they won’t be “outed” against their wills. Plus, aren’t we all tired of – and cynical about – endless self-promotion by now? A.A. is actually very refreshing that way – and people might believe it’s more honest, too.)
Such great and enlightening comments. Thank you both.
There are thousands of sober alcoholics who literally donate enormous amounts of time and effort to help the still suffering alcoholic. There may be people “hiding behind their anonymity” who don’t want to do that kind of service work, but they will miss out on the rewards of “freely giving”.
AA is the opposite of the “real world” where we fight for our rights to money, property and prestige. I have not seen many seriously discussing the need to get rid of anonymity who aren’t making money somehow from their anonymity breaks.
The other comments are true to the spirit of AA. I am sober 30 years, and have thought about a number of ways to profit from sobriety. None so far has felt right.
I agree that authors could publish their stories anonymously. Unfortunately in today’s PR saturated publishing, there would be pressure for book tours and public appearances, which anonymity would preclude.
So far, I have met many more alcoholics who need anonymity desperately, in order to even show up at their first meeting, than those who feel they are being held back by the “silly” need to avoid some folks profiting from telling their stories in the public forum.
One Southern old timer said it this way, “Well, son, it’s either self or God”.
Sometimes i think Christians should be anonymous at the level of press radio tv…..We are such bad examples…….( especially TV?)