colter:

Quote

Barbara,

I here you! No, your not crazy! There are in my opinion elements in you criticisms of AA that ARE TRUE!

Quote

retracted

I can assure you that your opinion as to my sanity or lack of it is totally irrelevant to me., but out of politeness, I should say thanks, (I suppose), for that vote of confidence.
[previous reply retracted as well]

upsidedown:

Quote

From my reading of this thread (I am only halfway through) it seems that the complaints arising from AA come from participants before, during and after participation in the group.

That, to me, is what distinguishes AA from being destructively cult-like.

[b:e2f6915e02]So are you saying that if you complain about abuse and mental anguish while it is happening, it isn't destructive? Or are you saying that it hasn't occurred?[/b:e2f6915e02]

Actually, though, you do have a point.
You might even be right, to some degree.

Those who complain haven't bought in to the "group think".
Those who [b:e2f6915e02]have[/b:e2f6915e02] bought into the "group think" react as vehemently to criticism of it as in any recognized cult.

As in scientology, landmark, and the Hari Krishnas, those who do not conform to the accepted mind set are reviled, ostracized, and "corrected".
You will get the same response from your AA group as you would get from "colter" here. This was my experience.
Criticism and questioning is only "tolerated" only because there is no one to "kick you out" of the group if you do so.

And, there is no accountability in an AA group.
[b:e2f6915e02]Who can you complain to if you feel you are being harmed?[/b:e2f6915e02]
Who will stop it if someone harms you?
More than likely, (as we have stated ad nauseam),, you will be told "yes, it happened, but what was your part in it?", and "work a fourth step on it"; [b:e2f6915e02]you will have to take the blame.[/b:e2f6915e02]

You can stay as long as you can take the heat.
[b:e2f6915e02]Chances are, however, you will be pushed out by the constant disapproval of the "believers".[/b:e2f6915e02]

[b:e2f6915e02]AA is unlike scientology in that the indoctrination techniques are not as rigorous, and more people slip through the cracks.
[/b:e2f6915e02]Also, if you are forced to give up your money to be indoctrinated, you will experience greater cognitive dissonance, and will be more likely to decide the "group think" is good. (Read up on cognitive dissonance if you don't know what I'm talking about.)

No, AA is not "as bad" as scientology, probably, certainly can't compare to to "the family", or the "people's temple".
[b:e2f6915e02]Pneumonia isn't as bad as lung cancer, either, but both can kill you.[/b:e2f6915e02]

Quote
upsidedownnewspaper
Controversial groups like Scientology and Landmark produce complaints only once a member is [b:2c57f82ed2]outside of the influence [/b:2c57f82ed2]of the group.

From my reading of this thread (I am only halfway through) it seems that the complaints arising from AA come from participants [b:2c57f82ed2]before, during and after participation in the group[/b:2c57f82ed2].

That, to me, is what distinguishes AA from being [b:2c57f82ed2]destructively [/b:2c57f82ed2]cult-like.

I can only speak for myself. I did not say a word until I left and got away and did a lot of thinking. I would never have complained before or during my time there. I saw what happened to those who complained. I remember asking innocent questions and being told to "work my program". I learned to shut up quick.

However, some members of Jonestown complained while in Guyana. Does that make them any less of a cult?

Quote
dwest

Quote
upsidedownnewspaper
Controversial groups like Scientology and Landmark produce complaints only once a member is [b:85e2755207]outside of the influence [/b:85e2755207]of the group.

From my reading of this thread (I am only halfway through) it seems that the complaints arising from AA come from participants [b:85e2755207]before, during and after participation in the group[/b:85e2755207].

That, to me, is what distinguishes AA from being [b:85e2755207]destructively [/b:85e2755207]cult-like.

I can only speak for myself. I did not say a word until I left and got away and did a lot of thinking. I would never have complained before or during my time there. I saw what happened to those who complained. I remember asking innocent questions and being told to "work my program". I learned to shut up quick.

However, some members of Jonestown complained while in Guyana. Does that make them any less of a cult?

The key word, I think, is [b:85e2755207]destructively[/b:85e2755207] (cult-like). But the distinction I have attempted needs more clarification, I agree.

AA is much more insidious than the "recognized" destructive groups.
AA group-think comes at you ever-so-gently, and the indoctrination is, if not more subtle, more difficult to pinpoint.
Who, exactly, is doing the indoctrinating, after all?

[b:326ee58713]No one charges you a dime![/b:326ee58713] (True. Does that mean it's necessarily a good thing?)

[b:326ee58713]There is no [living] charismatic leader![/b:326ee58713] ( True, but there is a reward there for the egomaniac; there are many, many egomaniacs in AA who are more than willing to try to educate, control, and manipulate anyone who is willing to let them.)

There was a charismatic leader, one who started the whole thing. He was good, too.
He wrote a very persuasive essay on his process for recovery.

[b:326ee58713]You can leave any time you want! [/b:326ee58713](Yep, if you don't like AA, and are willing to give up all your AA friends, and are willing to risk "jails, institutions, and death", you can just walk out the door.)

AA to me is kind of a frankenstein monster that grew from mostly good intentions but has taken on a life of its own.
At this point its message of hope for the desperate and threats of death to those who don't grasp it have their own power to draw in the convert; no guru is necessary, the blind acceptance of the group think and peer pressure applied by voluntary members, combined with the persuasive, evangelistic delivery of the "big book" are the controlling force behind AA.

I don't pretend to completely understand it.
It has something to do with the level of despair experienced by most new prospects before they join AA, and the seemingly absolute conviction behind "the promises".
How otherwise would a program that [b:326ee58713]delivered what it promised to only 5% of those who chose to follow it[/b:326ee58713] keep attracting new converts?

And don't kid yourself, there is a power structure behind promotion of this organization.
There are paid employees. They don't just "attract", they [b:326ee58713]promote[/b:326ee58713], extensively, and[b:326ee58713] recruit[/b:326ee58713], knowingly, from some of the most desperate ranks of humanity. (Jails? Institutions?)

"Cooperating with Court, DWI and similar programs" Available here:
[www.alcoholics-anonymous.org];

Recent, [b:326ee58713]unbiased[/b:326ee58713] articles about AA:
[mentalhelp.net]
Alcoholics Anonymous is a Cult ?
Mark Dombeck, Ph.D.

[mentalhelp.net]
"A better meeting"
Mark Dombeck, Ph.D.

I promise, these articles cover both sides of the debate.

I'm reposting this as it's been waiting so long for approval that it's now two pages back where nobody will read it.

There has been some mention of court rulings requiring attendance of Alcoholics Anonymous as a release condition, can somebody provide more information about this, please. Specifically, in which countries, under which provisions of law, how Alcoholics Anonymous was classified for the purpose and how restricting the options to this group was justified.

Barbara,

If you haven't seen the Penn and Teller episode covering 12-steps, I'd highly recommend it. You'd enjoy it a great deal. I know I did. Funny thing is, a therapist friend of mine recommended it to me when we talked about AA and our dim views of the program.

I've read a few accounts recently of people in jail being released early for going through AA, to me, that's bribery. Several of my friends have told me how they drank more after meetings than they drank before they started going.

Ok, so I said my next post would be about RR, I fibbed a little. Forgive me? :)

[b:564d1eb5c9]WHAT IS A CULT? [/b:564d1eb5c9]

The term "cult" is a pejorative label used to describe certain religious groups outside of the mainstream of Western religion. Exactly which groups should be considered cults is a matter of disagreement amongt researchers in the cult phenomena, and considerable confusion exists. However, three definitions dominate the writings of social scientists, Christian counter-cult ministries, and secular anticultists.

Social scientists tend to be the least pejorative in their use of the term. They divide religious groups into three categories: churches, sects, and cults. "Churches" are the large denominations characterized by their inclusive approach to life and their indentification with the prevailing culture. In the United States, the churchly denominations would include such groups as the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the American Baptist Church, the United Church of Christ and the Protestant Episcopal Church. Groups that have broken away from the churchly denominations are termed "sects." They tend to follow the denominations in most patterns but are more strict in doctrine and behavioral demands placed upon members and emphasize their separation and distinctiveness from the larger culture (frequently spoken of as a "rejection of worldliness"). Typical sects have disavowed war (Quakers and Mennonites), championed controversial religious experiences (pentecostals), and demanded conformity to detailed codes of dress, personal piety, and moral conduct (the holiness churches). Sects such as the fundamentalist Christian groups have argued for a stringent orthodoxy in the face of the doctrinal latitude allowed in most larger church bodies. More extreme sect bodies have developed patterns and practices which have largely isolated them from even their closest religious neighbors--snake-handling, drinking poison, alternative sexual relationships, unusual forms of dress.

While most sects follow familiar cultural patterns to a large extent "cults" follow an altogether different religious structure, one foreign and alien to the prevalent religious communities. Cults represent a force of religious innovation within a culture. In most cases that innovation comes about by the transplantation of a religion from a different culture by the immigration of some of its members and leaders. Thus during the twentieth century, Hinduism and Buddhism have been transplanted to America. In sociological terms, Hindu and Buddhist groups are, in America, cults. Cults may also come about through religious innovation from within the culture. The Church of Scientology ad the Synanon Church are new religious structures which emerged in American society without any direct foreign antecedents.

When social scientists began their discussion of cults in the 1920s, they were aware of only a few cult groups, well-known groups which they could not fit into their more crucial debates about churches versus sects--theosophy, Christian Science, spiritualism, and the two large Hindu groups: the Vedanta Society and the Self-Realization Fellowship. Elmer Clark's pioneering survey of The Small Sects in America (1949) listed fourteen New Thought bodies and thirteen Esoteric bodies, showing an awareness of some twenty-seven cults (plus a few others such as the black Jews considered in the body of his text).

A second definition of cult arose among Christian polemicists. In the early twentieth century several conservative Evangelical Protestant writers, concerned about the growth of different religions in America, attacked these religions for their deviation from Christian orthodox faith. Among the first of the prominent Christian writers on the subject of cults, Jan Karel Van Baalen described cults as non-Christian religions but included those groups which had their roots in Christianity while denying what he considered its essential teaching. According to VanBaalen, all religions could be divided into two groups, those which ascribe to humans the ability to acomplish their own salvation and those which ascribe that ability to God. The latter group is called Christianity. All other religion fits into the first group. In The Chaos of Cults, which went through numerous editions from its first appearance in 1938, Van Baalen analyzed various non-Christian religions in the light of Christian teachings.

With little change, contemporary Christian counter-cult spokespersons have followed Van Baalen's lead. Cults follow another gospel (Gal.I:I6). They are heretical. They set up their own beliefs in opposition to orthodox faith. As Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, two popular Evangelical writers assert, "A cult is a perversion, a distortion of Biblical Christianity, and, as such, rejects the historical teachings of the Christian Church."

The Christian approach to cults would include every group which has departed from orthodox Christianity (such as the Church of Christ, Scientist, the Latter Day Saints, and the Jehovah's Witnesses) as well as those groups which have never made any claim to be Christian. Individual writers disagree over the cultic nature of such groups as the Roman Catholic Church (included and then dropped by Van Baalen), or the Unitarian-Universalist Church. Little consideration has been given to non-Trinitarian Pentecostal groups.

The third definition, the one which became the dominant force in the public debates on cults in the 1970s, developed within the secular anti-cult movement. The definition has shifted and changed over the last decade. It did not develop out of any objective research on alternatie religions, rather it emerged in the intense polemics of parents who had been disturbed by changes observed in their sons and dauthters who had joined particular religious groups. These "cults"--predominantly the Children of God, the Church of Armageddon, the Unification Church, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and the Church of Scientology--had, they charged, radically altered the persoality traits of their children.


Anti-cultists began to speak of "destructive cults," groups which hypnotized or brainwashed recruits, destroyed their ability to make rational judgments and turned them into slaves of the group's leader. While drawing upon Christian counter-cult literature in the beginning, the secular anti-cultists gradually discarded any overtly religious language as a means of designating cults in order to appeal to government authorities and avoid any seeming attack upon religious liberties. Thus, "cults" have come to be seen as groups that share a variety of generally destructive characteristics. While no one group may embody all of them, any "cult" will possess a majority. Marcia Rudin, a popular anti-cult writer, listed fourteen commonly accepted characteristics of a cult:


Members swear total allegiance to an all-powerful leader who they believe to be the Messiah.
[list:564d1eb5c9]
Rational thought is discouraged or forbidden.
The cult's recruitment techniques are often deceptive.
The cult weakens the follower psychologically by making him or her depend upon the group to solve his or her problems.
The cults manipulate guilt to their advantage.
The cult leader makes all the career and life decision of the members.
Cults exist only for their own material survival and make false promises to work to improve society.
Cult members often work fulltime for the group for little or no pay.
Cult members are isolated from the outside world and any reality testing it could provide.
Cults are antiwoman, antichild, and antifamily.
Cults are apocalyptic and believe themselves to be the remnant who will survive the soon-approaching end of the world.
Many cults follow an "ends justify the means" philosophy.
Cults, particularly in regard to their finances, are shrouded in secrecy.
There is frequently an aura of or potential for violence around cults. [/list:u:564d1eb5c9]


Anti-cultists suggest that, as of early 1980, 3,000 to 5,000 destructive cults operate in the United States. However, no evidence of the existence of such a large number of religious groups, either cultic or otherwise, has been produced. Anti-cult literature reflects a great concern with approximately 15 groups, though as many as 75 to 100 have received passing mention. Only five groups--the Unification Church, the Children of God, the Church of Scientology, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and The Way International--have received consistent coverage over the years of the anti-cult movement's existence.

The discussion of cults by social scientists, Christian counter-cult ministries, and secular anti-cultists has singled out a number of groups for attention as prominent or typical examples of cults. Among these groups, some became controversial because of their divergent behavorial norms (polygamy, a leader's claim to divinity, exotic rituals, communalism). Others came into open conflict with the authorities because of violence (the black Muslims). Many groups recruited single young adults and moved them into intense religious communities against the wishes of their parents. Such groups have received the most attention in the last decade.

Included is the most prominent "cults" for analysis and discussion. It is designed to provide a concise overview of each group and a summary of the controversy surrounding it. Along with the "cult," the secular anti-cult and Christian counter-cult movements are also given treatment, as they are a very active element in the contemporary milleu. This will cover most groups which one is likely to encounter; however, for a more complete listing of all the individual religious groups currently functioning in the United States, including a brief descriptive statement of each, the reader is referred to the Encyclopedia of American Religion, which can be found in the reference section of most libraries.
[/size:564d1eb5c9]

Colter

I just don't think AA is a destructive cult worthy of the Rick Ross messageboard for the following reasons. Tell me if these points are correct, please, anybody:

Complaints arise from AA before, during, and after the group's influence?

AA is accountable in the event of serious complaints?

AA is not exclusively the only option available to alcoholics?

The twelve steps of AA are not "secret" knowledge; they are readily available to new members and to outsiders?

Membership to AA need not mean life-time membership?

We can focus on the term "cult", and thereby discredit allegations of harm suffered in AA, or [b:7fb3be2a61]we can focus on the allegations of abuse[/b:7fb3be2a61].

Personally, I don't care whether or not anyone believes AA is a "cult".

I am more interested in discussing the damage some people claim to have suffered in AA.

[b:7fb3be2a61]I believe we are attempting to understand and possibly remedy that damage.[/b:7fb3be2a61]

All of this tedious haggling over semantics is merely an obfuscation of those issues.

Quote

A Better Meeting
Mark Dombeck, Ph.D.
Updated: Jul 1st 2006

It seems to me that helping the group to self-police is important and imperative if that group is going to be maximally supportive for its members.
I have run psychotherapy groups in my work as a psychologist, and I have run an online community as well. There are always members who try to dominate groups, and there must always be an 'immune system' for any group that exists to minimize abuses. In a psychotherapy situation, that immune system is called the therapist. In an online group, it is called the moderator. In an anonymous group with no real leader, the group itself has to have a way to keep itself in check.
The question of coercion needs to be addressed. I'm thinking that this is not something that really is within AA's control (whether or not people are mandated to join them). This is a legal issue, instead. Personally, I'd like to see a whole lot more public money be put into professional treatment programs based on sound scientifically based principles, and for courts to mandate people into such programs. This isn't entirely practical, however. This money is just never made available at the level where enormous numbers of people can be helped on a daily drop-in basis, and hence AA is pushed because it is ubiquitous.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they are worth. I'll put the questions to you again, because I am interested in your answers to them more than my own: [b:7fb3be2a61]What would a useful alternative to AA look like? What parts of AA are useful and should be incorporated into this new alternative, and what parts need to be left behind? What reforms and innovations should be added so that the resulting program is more useful to its members?[/b:7fb3be2a61]

http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=9878

Quote

Its no secret that AA's focus on submission to a higher power has broad potential for abuse. [b:7fb3be2a61]That focus on submission and making ammends is there for a very important reason[/b:7fb3be2a61] - it encourages the growth of empathy and social solidarity in participant addicts; qualities which help them resist the lure of their drugs.[b:7fb3be2a61] And yet, that very submission also comes with a terrible vulnerability.[/b:7fb3be2a61] it is important that anyone teaching submission as a way of life also be a kind and loving person, because otherwise, that submission becomes the basis for cult-like cohesion, as the commenter points out.[b:7fb3be2a61] Sociopathic types who also tend to be addicts are very likely to get themselves into AA and then use it for their selfish purposes.[/b:7fb3be2a61] At any given moment within AA, there are going to be people who are honestly struggling with remaining sober and people who are using and not admitting it, or not taking the steps necessary to end it; people who understand hurt and who want to help others stop hurting and people who are all too willing to use other people for selfish purposes.

http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=9527