Category: From AA Agnostica

By Chris N.

In Against Recovery and Self-Help, Part 1, I argued that alcoholism/addiction is not a disease, and that “treatments” for it that regard it like a disease often neglect the social context of addiction. If addiction is not a moral failing, and not a disease, then what is it? I claim that addiction is a disability, and that regarding it as a disability could be a useful starting point for positive change.

Addiction is a disability according to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the ADA, those with addiction, like those who have very limited or no eyesight or those with very limited or no hearing, are members of a protected class of persons. That class has legal rights to what has been called “accommodations,” especially in public places. Textured dots at intersections where there are crosswalks is an “accommodation” for those who need to feel (or hear) the difference in the surface of a sidewalk, in order to move safely as pedestrians.

The way that understanding addiction as a disability can serve as a starting point for change does not have a lot in common with that example of ADA “accommodation.” It has more to do with a critical study and social justice movement about disability. At this point, I might as well confess that I am a college educator, and have broad knowledge of an academic field called Disability Studies, that I bring to bear upon my own experience and understanding of addiction. So, before I make the case that addiction is a disability, and that this understanding of addiction is useful, I need to provide some background about Disability Studies.

Disability Studies and the Disability Movement

The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed and signed into law in the summer of 1990. This was after a long battle by disability activists for such a federal law, culminating with the “Capitol Crawl” on 13 March, 1990. On this date, disabled protesters rallied outside the Capitol in Washington, DC. Dozens of the protesters who used mobility devices set those aside and literally crawled the 365 steps from the National Mall to the doors of the Capitol. The Crawl is credited with pushing Congress and President George H. W. Bush to enact ADA.

Not long after, academic historians, sociologists, philosophers, and members of other fields began to theorize about disability. The development of this separate field of study is in some ways parallel to the development of fields like gender studies or ethnic studies. I will present some very simplified ideas from the field of Disability Studies, and in the next section examine how addiction fits in.

In Disability Studies (DS), there is virtually unanimous agreement that the wrong way to understand disability is through what is called the “Medical Model.” Under the Medical Model, a disability is an attribute of an individual person. For example, under the Medical Model, a person who has no eyesight has a disability. The individual’s own condition is, all by itself, the disability.

The Medical Model is rejected because it does not consider the social context. An opposed concept, the Social Model of disability, claims that disability is the result of social exclusion on the basis of an individual’s situation of condition. In short, it is not having no eyesight that is the disability. The disability is the result of social exclusion of that person from much of the exchange of information, since so much of it is visual and in written text. To give another illustration, it is not a wheelchair user’s underlying condition that is the disability. The disability occurs when the society in which that person lives fails to provide access to housing, transportation, or education on the basis of that person’s need to use a wheelchair.

To explain further: A society is built. Certainly, the institutions and the literally built environment of a society are built. These are designed, and the kind of mind and body that they are designed to fit is an idealized mind and body that is deemed “normal.” Any quick visit to a public library or a school building will reveal the ways that the social world is built so that some kinds of minds and bodies can access these spaces without undue difficulty. By means of designing things for that “normal” use, the exclusion of anyone else is produced.

A recent extension of DS called Crip Theory goes further than the Social Model in its critique of social exclusion. Crip Theory examines social norms regarding work and life. It’s one thing to criticize social arrangements for excluding individuals from places of work or education. Crip Theory questions the norms of work and education that underlie those criticisms. For instance, I have several conditions that make working on the campus of my university impossible. The university has permitted me to work from home, and thus I can work around the various conditions that I deal with: working when I am able, working without a fixed schedule, working in a quiet environment, etc. But all the university has done is provide greater access to a workload that is already excessive—indeed, the excessiveness of which has been a factor in producing the disability that I work at home to “accommodate!” So you see, Crip Theory asks not only “Can I access my work?” but also “Is my workload appropriate?”

Addiction as Disability

Addiction is not an attribute of an individual. It is a way of life that a society produces, that we adopt of fall into as a route toward some goal. For most alcoholics I have heard the stories of, that goal is release from distress that is otherwise unrelieved and unaddressed. For myself personally, it was distress related to intergenerational trauma. I drank for more than 30 years without that trauma being addressed, because there were not resources in my life to address is. There still aren’t, because despite having greater access to healthcare than many full-time employees in the U.S., I do not have access to decent trauma psychotherapy—very few people do.

The relationship between trauma I experienced from birth and blackout drinking I began at 20 is obvious to me, in retrospect. Of course, I can’t be sure I wouldn’t have been a blackout drinker for 30 years if I had had social or psychological support as a child—of if my parent had had support as a child before me, and had not reproduced their trauma in my own life. But I believe we can say that if I or my parent had received more social support, the distress in our lives would very likely have been decreased. For me, that basic motivation to seek oblivion would not have been pressing. Perhaps I would not live a life now still permanently altered by trauma.

By now, many people know about the famous Rat Park study at Simon Fraser University,^[1] in which rats in an environment that was rich in interesting things to do, and other rats to be around, gave up their addictions to morphine, while rats who did not have access to such an environment remained addicted. Parallel studies on mice and cocaine have had similar results.^[2] These have been interpreted by addiction scholars (among them Gabor Maté) to suggest that addiction is what happens when all other options for release from distress, and all other forms of social support, and virtually all other ways of life, have been barred.

Alcoholism/addiction is a disability in another way. Work policies that fire employees for drunkenness or druggedness, law and social policies that prescribe specific treatments (e.g., A.A.) under threat of more severe punishment, and general social stigma are all disabling. They are also close parallels to disparate treatment that disabled activists have fought against for generations, with some success.

This is not to condone drinking or drugging at work, or at all. The point is that alcoholism/addiction is a socially produced condition, not an individual’s condition. A society that expects, even requires the individual to “overcome” their own alcoholism, would be like a society that expects a person without use of their limbs to “overcome” the lack of wheelchair access or remote-controlled mobility devices for their use. It is too often this kind of “overcoming” that is modeled as “recovery.”

Like someone denied access to transportation or education, being denied access to forms of social support and relief of distress is a disablement that a society imposes on a person’s body and mind. Those who are disabled find ways to work around, cope, or get by—or they don’t. To use concepts developed from French philosopher Michel Foucault, a society exerts a controlling “biopower” on populations of disabled people and addicts, requiring certain forms of behaving in exchange for permitting access to the goods that they are generally denied. “Good disabled people”—those who “overcome”—are better served than “bad disabled people” and “good addicts”—those who “recover”—are better served than “bad addicts.” Another group is simply “left to die,” because they do not serve the interest of the dominating class.

Against Recovery

Recovery is an ideal. Accepted as an ideal, it names a goal for alcoholics or their condition if they consider themselves to be doing appropriate things to “treat” their addictions. Whenever a word has such wide use as a term of encomium, I suspect it of being ideological. What I mean by ideological is that the word names a belief that hides the fact that it is a belief, by making it appear to be reality.

The ideology of recovery begins with the notion that it is good to recover/be in recovery. This goes without question the way it goes without question that health is good—and with the same problem that health and recovery are not objective. Recovery suggests that something is being brought back, returned to its prior condition, or indeed overcome. What is that something?

Considered carefully, it can’t be anything. The alcoholic or addict can’t recover lost time or money or relationships. For me, sobriety has led to my facing past trauma in its raw form, and not having a lot of help dealing with it. I seem to have “recovered” the condition I was in at age 20 when I started drinking in the first place! But that’s not recovery, is it?

It seems like recovery only means something that is expected to be good that is supposed to arise as a result of sobriety. But nothing follows from sobriety but sobriety. What a person can do with sobriety very much depends on the same factors that it depended on before they were drinking or drugging. Their society admits or denies access to goods like employment and education in the same ways it did before. Only now, that person likely has a history of alcoholism/addiction, of “mental” health issues, or of various damages from their drinking and using days, that may further limit their access to those goods.

The goods that recovery promises might be gained through some individual act of overcoming. But I refer you again to the disability critique of overcoming: (a) not everything is overcome, (b) not everything should be expected to be overcome, and (c) a person’s worth is not measured by their being able to overcome.

What the alternative offers

Understanding addiction as disability reveals that alcoholism or addiction is not a disease. Alcoholism or addiction is a relationship, and a relationship that is not even primarily to a substance. It is primarily a relationship of an individual to society and environment.

What this understanding calls upon us to do involves the following, in my opinion.

1. Resistance to the disease model of alcoholism/addiction. This is resistance to the model that ignores the social and environmental factors that are at the core of addiction. It requires us to speak back to those who use the disease model, and to try to change the discourse, and change people’s thinking.

2. Change how alcoholism/addiction is treated. Our current treatment models, based on the notion that alcoholism/addiction is a disease, and that no social or environmental change is needed, ignores the fundamental basis of alcoholism/addiction. It would be as if our society did not provide any ramps or elevators, or appropriate-width doors for wheelchair access, and told those using them to make due. We give alcoholics something like a wheelchair, but ignore the fact that our social environment remains the same.

3. Work for social change. Disability activism has achieved a great deal for disabled people, with some notable exceptions, mostly concerning “mental” and “behavioral” health. Present-day Crip and Mad activism, and activists in poor nations, have started to correct this; the self-identified Crip and Mad are speaking for themselves.^[3] There is not, to my knowledge, alcoholic activism or addict activism of a similar kind.

---

^[1] An article about Rat Park and recovery is at: https://www.practicalrecovery.com/prblog/rat-park/ Accessed 30 October 2024.

^[2] For instance, see Chauvet, C., Lardeux, V., Goldberg, S. et al. Environmental Enrichment Reduces Cocaine Seeking and Reinstatement Induced by Cues and Stress but Not by Cocaine. Neuropsychopharmacology 34, 2767–2778 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.127

^[3] In disability circles, there is a slogan: “Nothing about us without us.” This refers to the demand to be at the table for drafting of policy, and law, or for writing academic work or medical studies. Alcoholics Anonymous practices something more like “nothing about us except to us”: avoiding the social and political like the third rail and remaining insular and unheard outside of “the rooms.”

---

Chris N. is a sober non-believer. Critique of widely accepted ideas is his idea of a good time. He lives in central California.

---

 

The post Against Recovery and Self-Help, Part 2 first appeared on AA Agnostica.

by bob k. 

We live in a boozy culture.

There is a stigma that falls upon the folks who don’t drink at all and a different prejudice against those who drink too much. How much is “too much” depends a lot on who is doing the defining. Of course, there’s a stigma in being a person who used to drink too much and now drinks no alcohol at all. Newly sober alcoholics often find that drinks are pushed at them at social events and it may be best, to the extent possible, to dodge such gatherings in the early going.

The stigma against non-drinkers is easing in recent years. Phenomena such as “Sober Curious” and “Dry January” have made the eschewal of booze in its many forms to be something “cool,” at least in some circles. In other circles, soda-only drinkers remain suspect and might find themselves branded as squares, cheapos, religious nutbars, or reformed problem drinkers. OMG! I hope Nina doesn’t start preaching! There’s some warranted ill will towards overly enthusiastic steppers wanting one and all to dance their dance.

There is definitely some prejudice against alcoholics and some suspicion even of those claiming to be sober. Celebrities have been interviewed on television about their newfound sobriety while in an obvious state of inebriation. Often they’d slur something about attending 12-step meetings and taking it all one day at a time —whatever the PR professional had coached them to say. Such public instances of hypocrisy damage the credibility of less renowned people who have genuinely stopped drinking or taking drugs.

Even without highly publicized celebrity relapses, those less than famous folks might also fall under suspicion about their professed sobriety. Did Charles miss the neighborhood bash because he was afraid to be around booze, or was he too drunk to come, just like two years ago?

Whatever the stigma in 2024, the negative feelings about alcoholic drinkers used to be much worse.

Colonial Times and Early America

Drunkards have been pilloried, mocked, fined, dragged by the heels through dust, mud and cesspools, flogged and humiliated, all to only limited effect. In some areas, strict laws were enacted prohibiting chronic inebriates from getting married and having children. The unfortunate offspring of drunkards were viewed as suffering from the double curse of bad genetics and extremely poor parenting. In many jurisdictions, the alcoholic was considered insane and subject to incarceration in asylums at any time. Many were banished from their towns and counties.

Sunday morning sermons railed against chronic alcohol abusers. Inebriates were among the worst of sinners. “Most Americans saw excessive drinking as a simple lack of will. If people wanted to stay sober, the argument went, they would.” (history.org) Drunkenness was considered to be a matter of choice – a misbehavior that fell under the purview of clergymen and legislators.

Francis J. Galton — Eugenics

Charles Darwin’s cousin dropped out of medical school to study mathematics at Cambridge. Almost one hundred years after Benjamin Rush published the pamphlet An Inquiry into the Effects of Spiritous Liquors Upon the Human Body, and Their Influence Upon the Happiness of Society, Francis Galton went to press with An Inquiry into Human Faculty and Development. Galton had begun with a kinder, gentler version of eugenics than what was to come later.

“In a flourish, Galton invented a term that would tantalize his contemporaries, inspire his disciples, obsess his later followers, and eventually slash through the twentieth century like a sword.” (War Against the Weak, Edwin Black)

In 1883, Darwin’s cousin coined the term “eugenics” to describe a social philosophy of manipulating heredity scientifically. “Later, a ‘negative eugenics’ branch of this movement sought to decrease or eliminate breeding by those judged to be the most unfit of human stock. Negative eugenics grew out of the 19th Century notion of degenerationism, the belief that most social problems, such as alcoholism, crime, feeblemindedness, insanity, laziness, and poverty, were passed on biologically in more severe forms in each new generation.”
Slaying The Dragon, William L. White, p. 120

Darwinism had spawned social Darwinism which had adherents such as Herbert Spencer of “contempt prior to investigation” fame. Spencer denounced charity and instead, extolled the purifying elimination of the unfit. Reverend Justin Edwards had said the purpose of the Temperance Movement wasn’t to reform drunkards – it was to urge the temperate to remain so. “Let the unreformed continue to drink and when they die the problem will be solved.”

Reverend Edwards ideas are echoed in eugenic theory which posited that, by taking an attitude of benign neglect, alcoholics would die off through the process of natural selection. A more radical view favored speeding things along through marriage bans, exclusion of degenerate immigrants, sexually segregated institutionalization, and state-funded sterilization for drunkards and other undesirables.

American eugenicists believed the unfit were essentially sub-human, not worthy of developing as members of society. The unfit were diseased, something akin to a genetic infection. This infection was to be quarantined and then eliminated. Their method of choice was selective breeding – spaying and cutting away the undesirable while carefully mating and grooming the prize stock.
War Against the Weak, Chapter 3, Edwin Black

Sterilization

Throughout the first six decades of the twentieth century, hundreds of thousands of Americans and untold numbers of others were not permitted to continue their families by reproducing…

To perpetuate the campaign, widespread academic fraud combined with almost unlimited corporate philanthropy to establish the biological rationales for persecution…

Employing a hazy amalgam of questionable, falsified information and polysyllabic academic arrogance, the eugenics movement slowly constructed a national and juridical infrastructure to cleanse America of its unfit.

 …Mandatory sterilization laws were enacted in some twenty-seven states to prevent individuals from reproducing more of their kind … the goal was to immediately sterilize fourteen million people in the United States and millions more worldwide … Ultimately, some 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized and the total is probably much higher … Eugenics wore the mantle of respectable science to mask its true character.

                  War Against the Weak, Edwin Black, Introduction

A variety of physical methods of treatment were introduced in the period 1840-1950. The most dramatic of these solutions was sterilization.

This idea developed within a broader framework of social and “expert” attitudes that filled journals and the popular press that “parents addicted to alcohol and other drugs begat children with vulnerability to inebriety, feeblemindedness, prostitution and criminality, psychic manias, and an unending list of physical infirmities. As early as 1888, Clum identified alcoholism as the primary cause of insanity, idiocy, pauperism, criminality, and disease.” (Dragon, p. 120)

One of the leading physicians of the era in the treatment of alcoholism was Dr. T.D. Crothers. His 1902 depiction of the moral corruption of the offspring of alcoholics was typical of what was to be found in the literature. “Often the higher moral faculties of the person are undeveloped, and the children of alcoholized people are born criminals without consciousness of right and wrong, and with a feeble sense of duty and obligation.” (T.D. Crothers)                     

Nazis

In alcohol, we have to recognize one of the most dreadful causes of the degeneration of mankind.
Adolf Hitler

In July 1933, Germany passed the “Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring” which called for the sterilization of human beings considered to be polluters of the gene pool. “Ernst Rudin, a psychiatrist and enthusiastic protagonist of compulsory sterilization for psychopaths and the ‘whole, great army’ of incorrigible criminals in Nazi Germany, called for the sterilization of incurable alcoholics as well.” (Criminals and Their Scientists, Becker & Wetell, p. 480)

During the Nazi regime in Germany, 20,000 to 30,000 alcoholic women were subjected to forced sterilization. A total of 400,000 “undesirables” were sterilized. That the “master race” folks were sufficiently disturbed by the enormous social costs of alcoholism to take such draconian measures is less startling than the fact that similar steps were being taken in Freedom’s Land.

In 1934, the Richmond Times-Dispatch quoted a prominent American eugenicist as saying the Germans are beating us at our own game.

At the Nuremberg Trials, many Nazis defended their actions by indicating that their inspiration had come from similar policies in the United States, “the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.” (Eugenics And Its Relevance To Contemporary Health Care, Nursing Ethics, Rachel Iredale, 2000)

California

The sterilization of alcoholics was part of a broader program targeting the mentally ill, intellectually disabled, blind, deaf, epileptic, and in some areas, Blacks. Promiscuous women were sometimes sterilized under the guise of being “feeble-minded.” Several states passed laws allowing for this practice, but rates were low until a 1927 Supreme Court decision legitimized eugenic sterilization. The practice slowed following a second Supreme Court decision in 1942, striking down the punitive sterilization of criminals.

By 1956, 27 states still had pro-sterilization laws on their books. “California forcibly sterilized 20,000 people from 1909 to 1963… The goal was to rid society of people labeled feeble-minded or defective.” (cnn.com) In total, 65,000 individuals in 33 states were sterilized. We do not know the precise number sterilized as the result of being labelled “alcoholic.”

Part of the reason why the eugenics movement caught on so rapidly was because of the failure of the many ineffective reformatory and other programs designed to help the poor, criminals, and people with mental and physical problems.

Electroshock

Dr. Ladislas J. Meduna noted that agitation and depression lessened in the aftermath of seizures, and in 1934 the Hungarian neuropathologist began experimenting with chemically inducing grand mal seizures in schizophrenics. Some favorable results were achieved, and the psychiatric world was startled, as the disease had previously been considered incurable. The chemical treatments were abandoned after a short time owing to the “harsh collateral effects.” In its place, “convulsive therapy” moved on to electricity to generate seizures. Many alcoholics were forced to undergo electroshock therapy.

At around the same time, leucotomy, or lobotomy as it became known, became popular as a treatment for all forms of obsessional neuroses, including alcoholism. The enthusiasm for these procedures as therapy for mental illnesses is not remembered as medicine’s finest hour.

Those concerned with the stigma against alcoholics in modern society can take some consolation in the fact that in previous generations, it was much, much worse.

---

bob k. is the author of Key Players in AA History and The Secret Diaries of Bill W., both published by AA Agnostica. Research into the pre-AA world of alcoholism and addiction treatment came up with this gruesome story. For more about drinkers and drinking prior to 1935, watch for Almost Hopeless: Pre-AA Efforts to Reform America’s Alcoholics coming soon to an Amazon near you.

---

The post STIGMA first appeared on AA Agnostica.

By Andy F.

Atheists and Agnostics in AA

Agnosticism and religion are two contentious topics. Rarely does either truly embrace a tangible inner spirituality. It’s a personal journey in discovering who we are and what works for us. Freedom to choose one’s spiritual beliefs should be the catalyst of any organization. Sadly, so many AA members leave because of the ‘God’ word. It appears in 5 of the 12-step steps.

I struggled with the idea of a monotheistic God and relapsed many times. On several occasions, I almost lost my life to alcohol. I couldn’t handle what I saw as the religious aspect of AA, so I never attempted the steps at all.

Over the years, I have spoken to many atheists and agnostics who came to AA and, on seeing the twelve steps, walked out again. Some of them came back when their drinking got bad enough. What about those that didn’t make it back!?

A clinical study published in September 2002 concluded:

“God belief appears to be relatively unimportant in deriving AA-related benefit, but atheist and agnostic clients are less likely to initiate and sustain AA attendance relative to spiritual and religious clients. This apparent reticence to affiliate with AA ought to be clinically recognized when encouraging AA participation.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12380849

“For the times, they are a-changin” – Bob Dylan

I want to reassure non-believers that AA has changed. The fellowship has had to adapt and change with the times. Church attendance is declining, as is belief in the traditional idea of a monotheistic God. More and more people are moving away from religion and finding meaning in modern non-theistic spirituality.

New Age, Eastern, and metaphysical spirituality have become increasingly popular with truth seekers worldwide. A belief in universal consciousness as a higher power is fast surpassing the dogmas of traditional Religion. Consciousness is seen as a creative and benevolent power that helps us transcend the limitations of the ego self.

These days, AA has had no alternative but to move away from the religiosity of a monotheistic God. It has begun to embrace something called secular spirituality. What is that?

Secular spirituality

“Secular spirituality is the adherence to a spiritual philosophy without adherence to a religion. It emphasizes the individual’s inner peace rather than a relationship with the divine. Secular spirituality is made up of the search for meaning outside of a religious institution. It considers one’s relationship with the self, others, nature, and whatever else one considers the ultimate. Often, the goal of secular spirituality is living happily and/or helping others.”
Wikipedia

More and more AA members now believe that members who don’t believe in God can interpret the twelve steps through secular spirituality. I and many others have found a way to work the twelve steps as non-believers.

The principles of AA remain the same for atheists and agnostics. We all share a commitment to spiritual growth and helping others. For instance, we’ve found that a ‘higher power’ can be interpreted as the strength and support of our AA community, a belief that unites us all.

Others say that members can get sober without believing in an unseen, God-like higher power. Moreover, some aspects of the steps, like admitting powerlessness and making amends, are also practically effective for non-believers.

A landmark event

The religious fundamentalists in AA have always believed that the AA Big Book is infallible. The idea that only God can help alcoholics recover from alcoholism was considered sacrosanct.

Several years ago, a landmark event occurred in Alcoholics Anonymous’s history. In May 2017, the AA Conference approved a new pamphlet for publication. It isn’t easy to get new literature approved by the Conference.

This new piece of AA literature, now approved by the Conference, is the result of the dedicated efforts of the Thursday Islington Agnostic, Atheist, and Freethinkers group in London, UK.

Here is the first paragraph of the pamphlet:

“A.A. is not a religious organization. Alcoholics Anonymous has only one requirement for membership, and that is the desire to stop drinking. There is room in A.A. for people of all shades of belief and non-belief.”

The pamphlet is called The “God” Word and freely available by clicking the link.

Where is AA heading spiritually?

How does the dictionary define secularism? It means “neutrality towards all religions.” (Wiktionary) That being the case, it could be argued that AA has always been secular. With the publication of The “God” word pamphlet, this seems more evident than ever before. If “AA is not a religious organization,” then by definition, it is secular.

Does this mean that AA is to exclude members that believe in the traditional God of religion; certainly not! AA warmly welcomes every alcoholic who has a “desire to stop drinking.”  (Regardless of “Belief and non-belief”  – The “God” word pamphlet.)

“The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking.”
(Tradition Three)

Excerpts from Bill’s writings

One of the greatest legacies left to AA by Bill W (AA’s co-founder) was the belief that as a spiritually based organization, AA should always be “all-inclusive.”

A short excerpt from ‘The dilemma of no faith’  by Bill Wilson:

“Consequently, the full individual liberty to practice any creed or principle or therapy whatever should be a first consideration for us all. Let us not, therefore, pressure anyone with our individual or even our collective views. Let us instead accord each other the respect and love that is due to every human being as he tries to make his way toward the light. Let us always try to be inclusive rather than exclusive; let us remember that each alcoholic among us is a member of AA, so long as he or she so declares.”
Bill W.
Copyright © AA Grapevine, Inc. (July 1965)

Here is another quote from Bill, an excerpt from ‘Responsibility is our theme’:

“Let us instead accord each other the respect and love that is due to every human being as he tries to make his way toward the light. Let us always try to be inclusive rather than exclusive; let us remember that each alcoholic among us is a member of AA, so long as he or she so declares.”
The Language of the Heart, “Responsibility Is Our Theme,”
Copyright © AA Grapevine, Inc. (July 1965)

‘All-inclusive’ – The mark of true spiritual power

As an enquiring agnostic, I have always been very suspicious of any religion or spiritual organization that insists new members accept their particular set of beliefs. This type of blind faith has never worked for me. I have always had to arrive at my own conclusions, ask questions, and seek answers. This approach to spirituality is the only thing that keeps my search honest and authentic.

Whenever I encounter any spiritual or religious doctrine that insists its way is the only way, I immediately become discouraged. My mind becomes closed to any further spiritual investigation. I have always felt that to be accepted into a religion, a new member must embrace its doctrine as the ultimate truth. In my mind, this type of rigid religious dogma made it exclusive and not inclusive.

Acceptance immediately became conditional. If I wanted to enjoy the benefits of their religious community, I would have to comply with their beliefs as being infallible. I was unable to do this as it never felt honest. When that happened, I had no alternative but to walk away.

I am so grateful that Secular AA and AA Agnostica are becoming increasingly visible in the AA landscape. It has given me the space and freedom to pursue my journey towards spiritual truth in a way that works for me.

---

Andy F. went to his first meeting on May 15th, 1984. Having had negative experiences with religion and religious people in childhood, he found it impossible to embrace the twelve steps. Frequent references to God and a higher power put him off completely. He decided to pursue his recovery through therapy. Unfortunately, it didn’t keep him sober. He became a serial relapser and, several times, came close to losing his life. Eventually, he was lucky to find an experienced oldtimer happy to work with an agnostic. Andy was able to stay sober and recreate his life. It’s now been twenty-seven years since his last relapse. He is committed to sponsorship and has become an avid blogger. Andy’s blogs are about his experiences in recovery as an agnostic alcoholic.

---

For more information about Andy and the books that he has written and published and are currently available, click here: https://aaforagnostics.com/.

For a PDF of this article, click here: Secular Spirituality.

---

 

The post Secular Spirituality first appeared on AA Agnostica.

By Ronald W.

I started drinking at age 15 in high school, and I always drank to get drunk. And I did that for 37 years. That was my deal with life – as long as I could drink when I wanted to or needed to, I could deal with life and get by.  At first I was seeking nirvana, and then gradually seeking comfortable numbness, and then finally oblivion.

My parents were not drunks. They barely drank at all. They were very strict, very religious people, and they raised their family of 6 children that way, with a lot of corporal punishment and harsh discipline when we were young. But I did have a stable environment, and enough food, clothing, and shelter,  along with a decent education, and I am grateful for that.

By the time I was a teen I was overflowing with guilt, shame, fear, feelings of inferiority, and suppressed anger. I found some others who became my friends and we started drinking together on weekend nights. And then I got involved with other mind-altering substances as well, and other friends. And I had become an agnostic as well.

I was a nerd in high school, and very socially awkward, and that did not improve much in college. I was thirsty for learning, however, and I earned two bachelor’s degrees over the course of 10 years. I was able to keep my partying to mostly just weekend blowouts for about 12 years, until a breakup with a girlfriend, and I drank more often after that. Still I got a good job, which involved a lot of travel, and which allowed me to drink a lot during the week after work. I knew I needed money to drink, and I needed to drink so I needed to work. That cycle worked for many years, more or less.

However, after another couple of breakups with more girlfriends, I started going downhill and struggled to keep my drinking in check. During this time I earned by Master’s degree and several more certificates and certifications for my career. But after about 1½ years of voluntary sobriety, I finally went over the edge again on my last three year run. I was still very much a closet drinker, but most of my friends were gone. I never had a family of my own as alcohol was always my mistress and first choice. And my drinking was starting to affect my work. During that final phase, I started to drink to blackout and passing out and waking up in my own vomit, which I had mostly been able to avoid in previous years. I was desperately seeking oblivion.

Then came the moment of clarity, when the fog cleared a bit after 32 years of drinking. The sign was flashing “Point of No Return”, and I was descending into a very ugly oblivion. I knew I had a decision to make. That I could continue on with my downward spiral and probably not escape, or something had to change. I could not live without alcohol, but I realized I could not live with alcohol anymore.

My employment had an Employee Assistance Program, and I called them Monday morning after my latest drunken spree. They set me up with a therapist after telling them I was depressed and seeking help (I did not tell them I was considering suicide). The therapist I went to the next day turned out to be a very beneficial beginning on the road I was embarking on. I was honest enough that my therapist recommended I go to AA. And the very next day, Wednesday, I attended my first meeting.

Just talking to my therapist once a week, or reading a self-help book was not going to cut it, I knew that from the get go. I needed a more active solution, a tool kit for life, but mostly I needed to get out of myself and my own head, and around others who had a similar problem but who had found a solution.

And so every night after work on my drive home, I was able to find a meeting, and then on the weekends I would go to a morning meeting and an evening meeting, so I did more than 90 meetings in 90 days. But I desperately needed those meetings, and the hope and encouragement I felt and heard in these rooms. I needed to see that there were other people who had problems with life and with alcohol and with their own self, like I did. And that they had found a way to help them not drink, and to help them live life on life’s terms.

One day at a time really hit me right where I needed it. I could not see swearing off alcohol forever when I had no idea if I could go for a week without drinking. That would be meaningless. But I could maybe go for a day, and just do today, one day at a time, each day. And that is what I have done ever since. I have never taken an oath to not drink and I never will. I will always only do one day at a time.

I did not identify with any of the god talk in AA and I mostly ignored it. I then came to realize I was actually more of an atheist that an agnostic. But what did I believe? I believe in myself, and in others, and in the fellowship, as well as things like truth, justice, liberty, equality, fairness, nature, science, and the wonder of living.

I was psychologically weak when I first came in to get sober, and I needed emotional support, friendship, and connection with others who had done this thing. I found an agnostic sponsor and worked a secular version of the 12 steps. It kept my mind off drinking.

As a human, I do need relationships with other people, and even though I am still very much a loner, I have found some of what I need in AA. I also found that by helping others as others helped me, I feel better about myself,  and find a place for myself among others in different ways.

I know I never want to go back to those final desolate days of desperation and hopelessness, and staying in a fellowship of others like myself is the best way for me to do that. I will soon be celebrating my 18^th year of sobriety, and have been retired for three years now after my 35 year engineering career. Still having fun and looking forward to more one day at a times. I take care of myself and my relationships, help others, sleep well, eat healthy, stay active, and keep involved. I will continue dancing one day at a time until I dance no more!

---

Ron W. had his last drink on September 30, 2006. He came to AA on the recommendation of his therapist. Ron has used many different ideas as his higher power, as he was agnostic when he joined AA and soon realized he was actually mostly atheist. Many meetings in southern California are more tolerant of different versions of one’s higher power, even though they use the Big Book and Twelve Steps, and he is grateful for that.  During the Covid lockdown, he found many available secular meetings and fellowships and that was a breath of fresh air. Today he is retired, travelling, and is content with life.

---

For a PDF of this article, click here No Longer Seeking Oblivion.

---

The post No Longer Seeking Oblivion first appeared on AA Agnostica.

By Chris N.

My observation is that most people give credit to Alcoholics Anonymous for helping to change attitudes about the phenomenon called alcoholism. The book Alcoholics Anonymous famously claims that alcoholism is a disease, and includes “the doctor’s opinion” as part of establishing that claim.

Of course, A.A. was not first to claim that alcoholism is a disease, so this is not unique or new to A.A. or the book.  One of the most bizarre things in the book is the glaring, stunning, OMLOG (O, My Lack Of God) contradiction between the claim that alcoholism is a disease rather than a moral failing, and the prescribed religious and moral treatment for that disease. But if that is bizarre, consider that legal systems send offenders, and medical treatment programs for addiction continue to send patients, to A.A. and N.A.—as though what is offered there isn’t a religion-based moral system. For no other kind of legal infraction, and for no other ailment, does our society consider it appropriate to refer people to a self-help group whose mainstream operates as an ongoing Christian moral training camp.

A.A. does have something right: that whatever “addiction” is, it is somehow different from other wrongs or ailments. It is not like committing fraud or lying to Congress; it is not like breaking your arm playing lacrosse or even a chronic condition like multiple sclerosis. But in none of those cases would we imagine that the treatment should involve sharing your “experience, strength, and hope” with others in like condition, and undertaking 12 steps aimed at a “spiritual awakening.”

There is something else that I believe A.A. has right: that for an “addict,” living without alcohol or the substance of choice takes the help of others, and the best others to provide that help are other addicts. Addiction is in some way different from acts of treason, tennis elbow, or prostate cancer. The difference of addiction that I want to discuss is also what leads me to doubt the disease model of addiction.

I will assert without argument that A.A. is wrong about the “spiritual” part of the “program.” This language originally intended to assuage worries of alcoholics concerned that A.A. was a Christian cult group, until they could be fully inculcated into the group, when its true Christian meaning could be accepted (see Schamberg on this point). A.A., at its core, is a religious program, especially in the conventional version as represented by the book of Alcoholics Anonymous. In what follows, I am simply going to reject and ignore the notion that a supernatural being would cure anyone of addiction.

The Disease Model of Addiction

Let me return to a more salient point A.A. makes: alcoholism is a disease, rather than a moral failing. Despite this, it prescribes a moral (“spiritual”) remedy. This contradiction reveals an underlying assumption in both the “moral” and disease models of addiction: it affects individuals as such. There may be conditions contributing to the development of addiction, but the addiction itself is treated as the behavioral problem of the individual. Treatments, whether moral or “medical,” are focused on the individual. The individual has the problem, the individual needs to be treated, the individual needs to be sobered up, the individual needs to have the spiritual awakening, and so on.

This assumption appears natural because it is fundamental the ideology of Liberalism and Capitalism—the fundamental and dominant set of assumptions about social reality that prevail in our society, of which a bit more anon. The assumption that it is the individual who “has the disease” and the individual who needs treatment leads to an unconscious, fast bit of reasoning. Addiction comes from continuous use of a substance. An addict must have continuously used that substance. Therefore, the addict must be responsible for the addiction. It follows that the person who needs to be treated is the addict, and the one who needs to be held to account for this addiction is the addict.

This is how the predominant models of addiction and recovery reproduce the ideology of individualism. Whatever social conditions pertain to the development of addiction, social and economic systems are usually regarded as irrelevant, and at best considered co-causal factors. Consumer capitalism is never considered as fundamental to the production of addiction and recovery; or, when it is, it is considered merely as the unchangeable, inevitable background situation, i.e., “the real world.” ^[1] The differences between two poor people of color growing up with discrimination in education, transportation, economic and social opportunity, one of whom becomes addicted to alcohol and one who does not, is chalked up to individual strength of character, or strong family background, or moral virtue, or religion—something outside the public sphere.

And the familiar shibboleth that “alcoholism can affect all kinds,” regardless of education or wealth or social class, allows us to ignore any of the social and economic factors that pertain to the development of addiction. It mystifies alcoholism and addiction. Underlying causation is not merely ignored, it is hidden by layers of assumption that the individual has somehow been created by itself.

This ideology leaves us with far fewer resources for understanding or ameliorating addictive and other unhealthy consumption behavior. It has us ignore the way brain chemistry works, and how a person in distress, lacking safety, security, affection, care, or a home can alleviate this distress through tricking their own brains, via alcohol or other drugs, into producing hormones that reduce the feeling of distress. We know that the repeated use of alcohol and other drugs to reduce distress is the heart of substance addiction. Therefore, we know that it is not the individual’s lack of good character, lack of moral upbringing, lack of religion that leads to addiction. We know that it is ongoing experiences of acute distress.

You don’t necessarily need to grow up a poor kid of color and consequently discriminated against in myriad other ways, to lack safety, security, affection, or care, or a home. Often the distress is not recognized, or is misrecognized as “discipline,” particularly, in my experience, among those who grew up poor or in families who did not gain much education. Furthermore, plenty of white “middle class” kids, plenty of wealthy kids, grow up in situations of tremendous ongoing distress. It is not poverty or discrimination that necessarily leads to alcoholism or addiction—no news there. It is not what we used to call deprivation. It can be as simple as neglect.

Acute distress is a complex phenomenon involving psychic, emotional pain, lack or loss of resources, lack or loss of social support or economic support, and other factors. It can, and often is, related to trauma. The rates of addiction among those who have unresolved trauma in their personal history is very high, for instance—according to the National Institutes for Health, close to half of PTSD sufferers fit the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder, and more than one quarter fit the criteria for substance dependence disorder (the DSM-V term for addiction).^[2] No one traumatizes themselves. No child neglects or abuses itself. No one dispossesses themselves economically and socially. These are harms and oppressions that a society produces, along with the so-called individual who experiences the distress of living through them.

We know that this is the heart of addiction and unhealthy consumption behavior. Yet the way we talk about addiction and recovery, leaving aside “miracles,” continues to tell us and the “individual” that the individual is responsible, the individual needs to take stock of themselves, the individual needs to do the work.

The industry of “self-help” is built on this premise. And while the idea of self-improvement is ancient, the specific concept of self-help in the modern sense belongs very much to the capitalist-individualist ideology of the first book published in this industry, Self-Help, by Samuel Smiles. Smiles’ text draws from a series of lectures he gave to audiences of laborers in the North of England, allegedly by invitation. Smiles tells us:

But to wrestle vigorously and successfully with any vicious habit, we must not merely be satisfied with contending on the low ground of worldly prudence, though that is of use, but take stand upon a higher moral elevation. Mechanical aids, such as pledges, may be of service to some, but the great thing is to set up a high standard of thinking and acting, and endeavor to strengthen and purify the principles, as well as to reform the habits.^[3]

It is a story we hear often, but it simply is not true, and A.A.’s own practice shows that it is not true. What helps us is not strengthening and purifying our principles, but being able to share our woes and miseries, being able to speak in a frank way about our distress, in a space that is practically unique in the modern world. Groups of alcoholics who meet in person or online and are able to talk about their lives freely together and share their grief and their struggles, and occasionally their joys and pleasures, can provide each other support, friendship, conviviality, love, safety, connection, and community. These are all goods that our economy and society provide only scarcely and at high cost to us (especially in the cost of time).

Otherwise, for most of us, our environment continues to be the same unsupportive or oppressive situation that produces distress in the first place. For myself, being sober does not eliminate—in fact, only leaves open, raw, and more acute—the unresolved trauma of the first 20 years of my life before I began drinking, to say nothing of everyday stresses. As Gabor Maté mulled in In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, the ecological milieu in which addiction thrives is one in which peace of mind, self-care, and general well-being are almost impossible to achieve. When “treatment” of the “individual” returns a sober person to a social milieu as stressful, oppressive, and where income divides are as inequitable as in our society, no disease has been cured, or even cared for. Maté says, “Stress is salient in the ecology of addiction… The most potent stressors are loss of control and uncertainty in important areas of life, whether personal or professional, economic or psychological.”^[4] For example, at present, roughly 45% of workers in the U.S. are fearful of losing their jobs this year.^[5] This is both a stressor in itself, and something out of the individual’s control.

Neoliberal, capitalist society does not provide social support or a public sphere where the question of the ecology of addiction can be addressed. To remain consistent with the ideology of this economic and social system, the individual-disease model of addiction and alcoholism must be maintained, despite its inherent contradictions. That is how the bizarre disease of alcoholism appeared in the 1930s, the only disease in modern medicine to be treated with a moral and “spiritual” program. This bizarre disease was the only one in modern medicine caused by egotism and selfishness, according to the book Alcoholics Anonymous: failings of the individual, “defects of character.” Yet even a psychiatric diagnosis of substance dependency disorder today stipulates that this is an individual’s disorder, an in that way the DSM-V continues to echo that addiction is a defect, even if it does not say “of character.”

I repeat: we know better. Alcoholism, addiction, is not a disease that an individual has. It is the predictable result we ought to expect from acute distress and lack of support, conviviality, and care. We know this, because we know that what keeps us sober is our mutual support, our conviviality, and our care.

---

^[1] For instance, in his book Addiction, one of the oddly most economically and socially conscious books on the subject, Russell Brand makes the connection between capitalism’s dependence on unending consumption, and the addict’s own dependence. Although Brand asserts that addictive behavior is really only consumption behavior that has become overwhelmingly self-sustaining and destructive to people, he surrenders any possibility of social change to the power of capitalism.

^[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3811127/ Accessed 23 September 2024.

^[3] Smiles, Samuel, Self Help. Forgotten Books, 2012, p. 295. Originally published 1866. If you’re of the right mindset, it is as hilarious as you’d expect.

^[4] Maté, Gabor. In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 2008, p. 397.

^[5] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/07/job-market-cooling-despite-high-employment-numbers/72846912007/ Accessed 23 September 2024.

---

Chris N. is a sober non-believer. Critique of widely accepted ideas is his idea of a good time. He lives in central California.

---

For a PDF of this article, click here: Against Recovery and Self-Help, Part 1.

---

 

The post Against Recovery and Self-Help, Part 1 first appeared on AA Agnostica.

By Alcohol Free Margarita

I had really high expectations for this event for several years, and my expectations were nowhere near high enough! Leading up to the event, I had the rewarding privilege of working with the folks from the OMAGOD ICSAA Host City Committee, as a member and the secretary of the Board of Secular AA. Let me tell you. Be glad people like Tony F and Alison P use their powers for good not for evil. They are capable of amazing things! Participants at the conference only saw the tip of that iceberg. And what an amazing weekend we had in Orlando!

I was looking forward to meeting so many of my heroes like authors of the secular literature that has enhanced my life, speakers I’d seen only online, and especially all the folks I’ve grown to love from their honest, vulnerable shares and for the compassion they’ve shown me from their little 2D boxes in my Zoom screen.

There they were in 3D and living color. Even before arriving in Orlando, I had the huge pleasure of flying with my Hubbie and love of my life, Will.I.Am, and Beth Aich, author of We Are Not All Egomaniacs. Then to find Dr. Judy Hollis, author of From Bagels to Buddha, Fat is a Family Affair, others, and renowned for much more that was truly exciting. We were ever so grateful for Rady who’d driven from Cleveland delivering us and many others throughout the weekend to the hotel where more hugs, heroes, and hugs from heroes awaited. At dinner, I remember thinking, “Don’t pinch me! If this is just a dream, I don’t want to wake up.” There I was sitting amongst the amazing Penny, Mary C, Joe C, Dr. Allen Berger, Zanner, my beloved Will.I.Am and tables full of more of my heroes nearby, knowing many loved ones were yet to arrive in Orlando. I slept less than 3 hours that night; too fucking excited.

Friday morning, I loaded up on ICSAA Orlando 2024 merch. Will.I.Am, chair of Secular AA and Tony, cochair of the ICSAA Orlando Host Committee expressed warm welcomes and gratitude for everyone there. Then I had the huge honor of presenting Zanner from Beyond Belief Toronto in the first session of the conference. With their story, they shredded my heart, stitched it back together, and filled it with hope and inspiration for all our abilities to recover from trauma and addiction. The recording of Zanner’s session has already been posted on our website, https://secularaa.buzzsprout.com/1536487/episodes/15810118-icsaa-2024-zanner-w-from-sobriety-torecovery. Luckily many more recordings are coming soon as there were always multiple sessions offered concurrently throughout the weekend. I will have to catch the recordings of Atheism as Affirmations in Sobriety by John H. and How to Start a Secular Meeting in the Bible Belt by Glenn G as they shared the time slot with Zanner’s, The Next Step: From Sobriety to Recovery. Check back here for those https://www.aasecular.org/recordings.

I also had the huge honor of introducing Allen Berger PhD in his session titled Emotional Sobriety and Healthy Relationships: Creating Room for People Rather than Expectations and Rules. He spoke about emotional sobriety foremost as maturing, a process many of us stunted in the throes of active addiction. However maturing toward self-sufficiency doesn’t mean not asking for help. As I understood Allen, it means understanding what we need, a challenge in and of itself for many of us, and learning how to communicate that in our relationships. Resonate? “I alone can do this, but I cannot do this alone.” Access Allen Berger’s books and schedule of ongoing talks and more at his website, https://abphd.com/. He and Joe C. even posted a 30-minute session I have yet to listen to titled, He Doth Protest Too Much (Missive from ICSAA)! from the conference in their podcast, Emotional Sobriety: The Next Step in Recovery, accessible where you listen to podcasts. I also look forward to listening to the recordings of sessions held concurrently to Allen’s like Kurt R’s, Our (Troublesome?) Relationship to AA Literature, Experience and Strategies for the Future as well as the Beyond Belief Sobriety Podcast Reunion Panel with Mary C, Angela, and John S as they’re released to Secular AA’s podcast site, https://www.aasecular.org/recordings.

Joe C. was the Keynote speaker Friday evening sharing on what best helps people with mental health challenges and addiction to thrive. He discussed the scientifically studied conceptual framework, C.H.I.M.E.: Connection, Hope, Identity, Meaning, and Empowerment. I saw Joe present on this topic a year ago, July 2023, at the Langley, BC Roundup, One Big Tent, and it was awesome, but his presentation has become even more fascinating, polished, and informative.

Friday afternoon’s sessions were followed by fellowship and chocolate chip cookies! Smiling faces can be seen from then and throughout the weekend posted on ICSAA Orlando 2024’s private Facebook group, https://www.facebook.com/share/g/sXEiXqXp3SZnK1Zj/ .

Nell and Joseph, I forgive you. Friday evening, I joined one of the yoga/Pilates sessions they led. But, for the rest of the weekend, was I ever sore from my healthy lifestyle choice! But, yes, Nell and Joseph, I forgive you. Still, I was too excited and only got about 4 hours sleep Friday night.

Tired but happy, I attended sessions all day Saturday. Wow. What another joy it was to introduce and hear the LGBTQIA+ panel on Identity, Not an Outside Issue first thing Saturday morning with Stephanie F, Tracy C, and Chad C giving leads. To those three and the participants who spoke after, thank you for your loving, compassionate, inspiring and brave shares and insights. Thank you, Sri from Boston! Meanwhile and unsurprisingly, I heard great feedback from folks who attended the concurrent session presented by Glenn Rader on Cognitive Distortions and am eager for that recording to be available as well. His book, Modern 12 Steps, was the first book on secular 12 Step recovery I came across as a newbie the summer of 2021. Thankfully, he and his partner stayed for the whole conference and Will.I.Am and I were able to chat with them about recovery and much more. Being able to thank and hang in person with authors and presenters was an unanticipated benefit that kept happening throughout the ICSAA Orlando weekend.

It happened with Beth Aich, too, author of We’re Not All Egomaniacs: Adapting the 12 Steps for People with Low Self-Esteem who led the next session I attended. I’ve thanked her before because I came across her book when I was struggling with Step 4 just a few months into recovery. You know that ‘My Part’ column in the 4^th Step? Her insight about victims of abuse not being to blame for their abuse was a dramatic turning point in my recovery. It now feels like common sense, but I needed to hear it and am ever grateful to Beth. There wasn’t a dry eye in the crowd when Beth finished her presentation. Together she had us recite the following aloud using our own names, “I, Margarita, take you, Margarita, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to have and to hold, to love and to cherish, until death do us part.” Try it! Imagine the power of doing that together in a room full of people.

At the conference, we suffered the wonderful problem of too many great options scheduled at once and I must listen to the recordings of the concurrently offered sessions of The Young Faces of AA: Stories of Early Entry and Ongoing Recovery led by Stephanie F from New Zealand and Who Is Hank Parkhurst? led by Geri B when they are posted at https://www.aasecular.org/recordings as well.

One of the greatest gifts of the many given me by sobriety is meeting Penny on zoom and finally in person this weekend. Penny from Virginia, the keynote speaker at lunch Saturday shared on the remarkable experiences her 56 ½ years of sobriety made possible; nonbeliever all her life and sober in AA since 1968 because she led her life guided by choosing not just the next right thing, but always the loving thing to do.

Feeling like an awkward kid in front of her superhero, I met Dr. Jamie Marich who, while wearing her ‘Sober is Sexy’ T-shirt, presented on the intertwined topics of trauma, dissociation, addiction, and trauma-informed and adapted 12 Step recovery. I already own and have benefitted from reading and discussing her book, Trauma and the 12 Steps (An Inclusive Guide to Enhancing Recovery). So, I had to pick up a few more, Process Not Perfection: Expressive Arts Solutions for Trauma Recovery for the artist in me, and Dissociation Made Simple. I want the e-version of her book, Trauma and the 12 Steps: Daily Meditations and Reflections to add to mine and my husband’s morning readings of Joe C’s Beyond Belief, Agnostic Daily Musings for a 12 Step Life and Ryan Holiday’s The Daily Stoic. (Bob K, if you’re reading this, we’re patiently awaiting your own soon to be published daily musings to add to our morning reflections, too.)

I am looking forward to hearing the recordings of the other sessions offered in that time slot of The Art of Living Sober: A Panel on Stoicism and Meditation in Recovery led by Lily A as well as the Friends of Secular AA Panel ~ OA, NA, ACA, CoDA, AlAnon posting soon at https://www.aasecular.org/recordings.

Following Jamie, I attended Tracy C of Westside Agnostics Cleveland’s presentation titled Double Winners, followed by Michelle’s presentation titled, Black, Female, Atheist & Sober – Seeking Wholeness: Finding “The” Shoes That Fit. I am grateful for the space granted in secular AA meetings to recognize the importance of mental health factors or belonging to other recovery fellowships or society’s marginalized groups as integral to our recovery, not as outside issues, and we can improve at providing safe space. I look forward to hearing recordings of the sessions offered concurrently, Secular Voices at International Women’s Conferences led by Jen B; Afternoon with the Atheist Panel led by John C; as well as Limitless Expansion through Practice of THESE Steps, a Lifelong Adventure led by the beloved Ever Grateful JEB; Legislative Remedies to Prevent State-Coerced Participation in Orthodox Twelve-Step Programs led by Eric C; and Slogans in AA led by Max and Mikey J of OMAGOD.

Saturday night, many of us danced our sober asses off and were entertained by Robin from Secular Sobriety Tulsa’s cover of Drops of Jupiter by Train.

Sunday morning brought Dr. Trysh Travis, author of, in Bob K’s words, the “FANTABULOUS” book The Language of the Heart: A Cultural History of the Recovery Movement from Alcoholics Anonymous to Oprah Winfrey (2009). The recording of her presentation, AA in the Age of Polarization, is already available on our podcast https://secularaa.buzzsprout.com/1536487  and recordings of the concurrent sessions of Relationships in Recovery: Platonic and Romantic led by Stephanie F and Chad C as well as Kurt R’s Working Under Cover (or Exposed!) will soon be added.

Surprisingly, I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Noeréna A of Westside Agnostics Cleveland’s presentation on grief. She inspired and filled the audience with tools and hope with her refreshingly upbeat presentation on Twelve Stepping through Loss, Change and Grief While Protecting Recovery, a valuable must-listen recording for all of us in recovery given experiencing loss is inevitable. Access her recording here https://secularaa.buzzsprout.com/1536487/episodes/15815818-icsaa-2024-loss-change-and-grief-the-12-steps.  I’m eager to hear recordings of concurrently offered sessions of Healing Our Relationships in Al-Anon led by Tracy, Alex, and Marilyn as well as the Long Timers Panel led by Mary C.

The last panel I attended was not recorded, but no fear, one of the speakers, BD Zack, has already offered to speak at the next conference. He and Owen shared their Experience, Strength and Hope and truly filled me with hope, inspiration and joy of knowing people like these two are out there in this world.

The closing. Where are my words to describe the closing?! Chills reliving the memory of, after gratitude was expressed, the concluding exchange made between the newest and most veteran of us in recovery, Marcela and Penny. The crowd sobbed in unison with the love, joy, and hope personified in that pairing.

Check back at this link for more recordings as they are released: https://www.aasecular.org/recordings. Session recordings will be wonderful, but you can’t experience the comfort and joy of being right there in kinship. ICSAA Orlando 2024 was a ‘lovefest’, to steal a word from Penny, like no other conference before because so many of us already knew and loved each other thanks to Zoom. Now I have even stronger connections and many beautiful new ones as well. Of course, not every loved one in our recovery networks could make it and we lamented that and truly missed them.

Join us Sunday, October 6 at 2 pm ET, Zoom ID: 864 4075 003 and Passcode: 121212 for the Biennial General Membership meeting for opportunities to get involved with Secular AA in the planning of the next in person conference 2026, our secular presence in Vancouver 2025, our virtual conference 2025, monthly zoom Global Speaker Meetings, and more. Several cities initially expressed interest in hosting, but only groups in Phoenix, AZ have followed through. Join in the exciting opportunity of participating in the planning of ICSAA Phoenix 2026!

---

Margarita has been alcohol-free since June 20, 2021, after learning religion-free AA existed on zoom. She gratefully joined the Board of Secular AA serving as secretary as of 2022 while also participating in organizing monthly Global Speaker Tour events in addition to International Conferences of Secular AA throughout 2023 and 2024 with no plans of stopping.

---

For a PDF of this article, click here: A Zoom Baby Attends ICSAA 2024.

---

 

The post A Zoom Baby Attends ICSAA 2024 first appeared on AA Agnostica.

By Mick S.

I’m sure my experience with AA is not totally unique but it’s probably a little unusual.

In short, I spent a decade sober in AA in the 60’s and 70’s, then drank for 22 years before  returning to AA in 1999. So I have now enjoyed 25 years of continual sobriety.

By the benchmark of “Once having taken a drink, I cannot guarantee my consumption or my behaviour” I have been an alcoholic from my first drink at the age of 15. I am the son of alcoholics and if you shake my family tree bottles will fall from many branches. Whether my alcoholism stems from genetics or environment is an interesting topic for discussion but really quite irrelevant.

I made my first contact with AA in 1966, aged 19, and got sober at 20. This was in the Goulburn Valley area of Victoria, Australia. The first AA member I met was known to me, being the father of boys with whom I’d gone to a Catholic school. I had to stop myself from calling him “Mister”.

The AA which I encountered was very big on fellowship, less so on program. The advice (and example) offered to the newcomer was simple and direct.

The FIRST step was in fact to accept unreservedly that one was an alcoholic and could not take the first drink. The “One day at a time” mantra was emphasized and stressed that if a day was too long one should break it down to shorter periods or simply get another member on the phone. (Early on there were simply no mobile phones and not every home had a landline).

The next step was to get to meetings. Our home city of Shepparton had one meeting a week and there were meetings most nights in surrounding country towns within an hour or so drive. Often a country town group consisted of one person who, on a designated night, would open up the church hall and wait for visitors to arrive, and usually they did. So a meeting could also consist of a meeting in the car on the way to the meeting and again on the way home. Often the “meeting after the meeting” would adjourn to the local member’s kitchen until the small hours of the morning.

One was further advised to make amends to those one had harmed, with family being a priority.

Initially I was by far the youngest but over the years other young people joined the group and we would make up a carload and drive the 2 ½ hours to Melbourne ( the state capital) to attend the young people’s group, drink coffee and talk in coffee lounges for hours and race back up the highway to be home for work in the morning. We were young, sober and enjoying life.

The religious views of the members seemed to represent a microcosm of the greater community. Some were believers, many were nominally Christians but non practising and a few were non theist though the term atheist was rarely used. Most meetings closed with The Serenity Prayer but I, and I suspect most others, regarded this as a commendable thought process rather than a plea for divine intervention. The “Lord’s Prayer” has never been a part of Australian AA culture. At meetings the Big Book was on the table and the banners on the wall but discussion was more about practical matters and strategies for a life without alcohol. A lot of the people were at best semi- literate so reading and philosophizing was of little interest.

After 10 years of this my life was good. Whilst an earlier (far too young) marriage had failed I had remarried to the woman who is my wife today, moved to Melbourne and had a small and successful business. The only problem was that I was busy. People to see, places to go, money to earn. Before too long I was thinking of myself simply as somebody who chose not to drink instead of an alcoholic who couldn’t drink, and I just didn’t have time for the AA meetings.

Of course, the inevitable happened and I did drink. I think there was something in the back of my mind telling me that if this was a major problem, I could always head back to AA. Predictably and spectacularly, it was a problem and, yes, I did make my way back to AA. The flaw in my plan was that it took 22 years to find my way back to AA in 1999.

I do not propose to deal with those 22 years here other than to say that I am very fortunate to still be here and that my survival is largely due to the support of my wife with whom I celebrated 48 years of marriage this year. This is the woman who met and married me as a sober person in AA with no alcoholism in her family background or experience and when I drank she found herself married to a man she’d never met.

At about 3:00 AM on February 24^th, 1999, I awoke from a fitful sleep with an overpowering sense of impending doom and a moment of total clarity that my life was at a crossroads like none I had experienced before. Everything that I held dear was balancing on a knife edge: marriage, sanity, finances, health, even life itself. Later that morning I contacted each of my 6 children to seek their forgiveness and support in the action I was about to take which was to re-engage with AA and again seek sobriety.

I started attending meetings and bit by bit the fog lifted. I really don’t think I took too much notice of what was actually happening or being said in the meetings and simply maintained my resolve to refrain from drinking one day at a time. However, I soon became aware of an emphasis on spiritual matters which was foreign to me. When I examined my attitudes to this, I realized that I had over the years moved from a general dislike of my Catholic school years to what I realized was atheism. I could find not one trace of evidence, let alone proof, of the existence of a deity. Not all, but many of the meetings I attended preached a doctrine of “Believe or Begone” and would quote the egregious Chapter 4 of the Big Book to those who would resist their religiosity. I was also counselled to “Fake it till I Make it”, usually right after being told that this was a program of rigorous honesty. (And I seemed to be the only one in the room who saw the irony in this.)

As time passed, I became more open about my atheism and more likely to confront those who harangued the newcomer with their “You’ll never get sober without God” nonsense. And I was now angry because of the number of people I saw being driven away from AA by the cultish and dogmatic attitudes of the fundamentalists. Going to meetings was becoming a chore for which I had less and less appetite.

At about this time I began to hear about something called “Secular AA” in the USA and even of a couple of meetings in Australia. In 2018 my wife and I holidayed in North America and I attended the International Secular AA Convention in Toronto.

“Life Changing experience” is a cliché, but that’s what it was. From feeling marginalized in Australia to agreeing with several hundred like-minded people at the International Conference of Secular AA (ICSAA) in Toronto was incredible. Shortly before my Toronto visit, I had met Helen M who’d started a secular meeting at Kawana, on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. Helen had encountered a lot of push backs trying to get her meeting listed and even when she did open her meeting the harassment from local AA traditionalists forced her to close the meeting due to fears for her safety. Upon my return from North America we joined forces and started the Bulimba Freethinkers Secular Meeting. Helen’s tormentors paid us a visit but upon finding a male (a 71 year old male) they slunk back and left us alone. Covid drove our meeting to online and post Covid we have continued as both and in person and zoom meetings and we host participants from all round the world. We lost Helen to cancer in 2022.

Today Secular meetings are listed under their own heading in Australia and the last several National Conventions have featured secular meetings. On the surface it almost looks like inclusiveness is the order of the day. I was naive enough to start to believe that was the case until I became involved in AA politics and realized that it is there is little more than reluctant tolerance of secular AA. It doesn’t really matter what the hierarchy (and yes there is a hierarchy) tries to pretend, little has changed in AA. Secular newcomers are still being turned away in droves.

In Australia in recent years a pamphlet created by secular people for secular people was created and distributed around secular groups. It was resolved that that pamphlet be presented to the AA Conference to become “Conference Approved”. I attended when our local area met to consider this proposal. As a co-author I saw myself I felt I could answer any questions about the pamphlet. Instead, I found myself under attack and defending the very right of secular AA groups to exist at all, a battle which I was naive enough to believe had been fought and won.

The motion was defeated at the conference, but it was decided that there should be such a pamphlet but it should be written and designed by people appointed of the Conference. The process is ongoing and I’ve heard that a secular member has managed to have some say in the finished product and it may not be a total loss. Given the pace with which AA moves and the fact that I’m now 77 I have little confidence in living to see the outcome.

Given the speed with which AA is inevitably moving towards the precipice of total irrelevance by insisting on imposing 1930’s thinking in the 21st century I doubt if it can continue in its present form for more than another decade or so.

I had long been a proponent of the school of thought that secular AA should exist under the umbrella of AA. I was a secular member of a secular AA group (secular being an adjective not a title). I now think that the best way we can be of service to the non-theist who seeks our help is to shake off the shackles of an organization which has lost its way and forge our own path.

The difficulty of course with this is that traditional AA owns the “brand” and so long as the fundamentalists hold sway I can’t see this happening.

I think Bill Wilson deserves the last word on this from his speech at the General Service Conference 1965.

“Our very first concern should be with those sufferers that we are still unable to reach… Newcomers are approaching us at the rate of tens of thousands yearly. They represent almost every belief and attitude imaginable. We have atheists and agnostics. We have people of nearly every race, culture and religion. How much and how often did we fail them?”

I think Bill would be turning in his grave.

---

Mick was born in rural Victoria, Australia in 1947. At an early age he resolved never to work where he couldn’t see the sun for most of the day and a life spent largely behind the wheel of a long haul truck was the outcome. He did manage to spend some time at home as is evidenced by his 6 children, 11 grandchildren and 4 great grandchildren. Today he is retired in subtropical Brisbane Queensland with his wife, Joan, and two Cocker Spaniels, Joe and Charlie, and most of his family live within an hour’s drive. His experience of 2 introductions to AA 40 odd years apart qualifies him to draw comparisons between AA “then” and “now” and he’s no fan of the modern iteration.

---

For a PDF of this article, click here: AA Then and Now.

---

 

The post AA Then and Now first appeared on AA Agnostica.