Is there any hope, then, for such people? I believe so. Note that the first word of the first step of 12-step programs is “we”. This means that recovery involves interaction with fellow addicts who have been there, who understand. This understanding allows those who have maintained abstinence to help those who are struggling to stop. They offer some tools at the outset - what to do when the all-but-inevitable craving happens early in recovery; how to briefly tolerate the desire without picking up the drink. Since 12-step programs are behavioral rather than analytic in philosophy and strategy, extinguishing a powerful craving (which has always won out in the past) is brought about by substituting some other behavior for drinking - at first with the help of another who is physically present! This is so simple in principle and yet so difficult to do!
At the beginning, abstinence can be as simple as phoning a friend and merely talking about the strong desire (or anything else) until it passes. Sometimes, a friend reached by phone offers to meet immediately and go for a cup of coffee or to a 12-step meeting; a better bet for early attempts to abstain. Any behavior at all will do, other than taking a hit, as part of the process. And for those who are really ready, who have had enough, the reliable ability to NOT act on cravings can be acquired after as few as a dozen or so repetitions of this behavioral strategy - over a period of only days or weeks. This early abstinence outside a recovery facility can only be possible, however, after detoxification - after the physical withdrawal - is over. Usually, this takes a week to ten days, depending on substance and duration of use. By far the easiest way to undergo detox is in a facility, surrounded by others with the same problem 24/7.
The important point is that it doesn’t take a thousand repetitions of this behavioral strategy. After only a few repetitions of substituting a harmless behavior for that first drink immediately upon craving, the addict undergoes a startling revelation: after only a few rounds of repeating this strategy, of ‘practice’ when a craving occurs, mentally (s)he steps outside of him/herself and says: “Wait a minute, I’m having a craving! I see what is happening! Due to my recent experiences, I now know that I do NOT have to use now! I have practiced this escape route and it has worked! I’ll call my friend or find a meeting, now;” after more ‘practice’ sessions, (s)he’ll say “ I’ll exercise for 5 minutes, or walk around the block, or read a few pages of recovery literature - I’ll do anything for a few minutes (because that’s that’s all it takes for the craving to extinguish itself) except pick up that drink and I know from experience that the desire will pass!”
Slowly but surely, the formerly overwhelming power of the thought which demands the drink, diminishes and finally departs. Such new transitional behaviors are strongly enabled and reinforced among members of recovery communities. These are unique communities within our culture. It is very important to understand that these communities, though they understand the addicts/alcoholics, do not at all excuse them from the consequences of their behavior. The universal belief is that everyone must face the consequences for prior bad acts and, where possible, make amends. The mere ability to resist the desire for a drink is not and cannot be the end of the story, however.
The fact is that if an alcoholic tries to rely on the newfound ability to abstain long term on this basis, (s)he will eventually drink; it is the inherent nature of alcoholism to relapse - particularly early in recovery. The long-term answer is to not have the desire to drink reach consciousness in the first place; this, so the temporary strategy of abstaining from one particular impulse need no longer be practiced at all! The real solution is to live in such a manner that alcohol no longer requires conscious attention or avoidance, whatsoever. Real recovery is much more than having to regularly employ strategies to avoid using. In that circumstance, the alcoholic’s life would still center upon alcohol - abstaining from it - and that’s not much an incentive for recovery, if that’s all one could look forward to. That’s not the whole story, fortunately.
Therein lies the true genius of the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous. They understood that once it appeared, the desire to drink was irresistible, unaided; and they recognized the fatal fact that the alcoholic cannot - by his will power, as we have seen - banish that desire to drink from his consciousness. Was there, then, a strategy to make the that craving less likely to appear in the first place? By virtue of their desperation, open mindedness and collective experiences, they hit upon some empirical principles of behavioral psychology - then, in 1935, only in its infancy.
The main principle is this: practicing several new, simple behaviors - different from those repetitive (often harmful), compulsive ones done during active drinking - serves to reduce the likelihood that cravings will occur. This is actually a form of misdirection. By causing the individual to consciously perform a series of acts which are neither complex nor difficult, the alcoholic’s will power can actually succeed at guiding this category of behavior - here directed toward goals completely unrelated to drinking or not. This new mode of behavior serves as a novel respite from what was previously an endless struggle centered on drinking or not. Further, the mere accomplishment of these simple tasks offer a hint of return of some renewed control over one’s life. Other suggested behaviors prescribed by the 12 steps capitalize upon this new sense of self-control and, by their nature, improve the alcoholics’ self-esteem (actually, these behaviors serve to “crowd out” former harmful and especially shame-inducing behaviors which reliably served as triggers for cravings in the past!).
As I understand it, then, the behavioral program of the Twelve Steps is a kind of operating system for humans, one whereby they become able to manage their own lives, find a power greater than self will (i.e., their own will power) as well as to honestly care for others and accept their care in return. By living thereby a decent, wholesome life, connected to others recognizable as like themselves, they discover their own moral agency as part of a real and vital community. This, in turn permits and encourages personal growth toward self-actualization. Analytic psychology asserts that understanding one’s own psyche should give power over one’s subsequent behavior. For some, this may work, but has proved no panacea - at least for those whose mental economy includes addiction.
Behavioral psychology, by contrast to analysis, says if one first makes small changes in behavior, new thinking patterns will follow the new behaviors. It can be said then, that the 12-steps, work by misdirection. Association with a new fellowship enables and begins a series of small behavioral changes suggested in the steps. New friends who understand promote and support these behavioral changes. The conscious focus subtly shifts from forever struggling to NOT take a drink/drug to AFFIRMATIVELY performing a series of tasks of daily living - unrelated to drinking. People working this program tend to like pithy slogans. One that succinctly summarizes the steps is: “Admit defeat”, Clean House, “Help Others”.
An important concept inheres in the meaning of the verb “to admit”. At AA meetings, people introduce themselves as, Hi, I’m Bob, I’m an alcoholic”. That act of speaking out is NOT the essential meaning of “admit” when it comes to the steps. What one says out loud may be a considered truth or it may be a calculated falsehood. Among alcoholics, the joke is often repeated, in referring to themselves before recovery: “How can you tell an alcoholic is lying? Answer: When his lips are moving”. Thus, merely labeling one’s self with the word is not an effective form of “admitting”.
The first meaning in the dictionary of “to admit” is to let IN, as admitting someone into your home or a court admitting evidence. So, we “admitted we were powerless” means we accepted without reservation - into our own self-image - that this attribute, being an alcoholic, was an important part of who we are. Whether we say it out loud to describe ourselves is far less important. In fact, many alcoholics, when introducing themselves at the start of an AA meeting, say: “Hi, I’m Bob and I’m grateful to be a recovering alcoholic.” Many are indeed grateful to have accepted defeat by their addiction and to have found a community thereby, which accepts them, not in spite of their imperfections, but because of them. Many refer to this as “the gift of defeat”!
I said that admitting - letting IN - one’s true status as an alcoholic/addict was “effective”. By this, I mean that it is salutary because honesty is an essential virtue for real recovery. It does, as I said previously - to an important extent - depend upon how others honestly respond to us in order to continually hone our own self image. The speaking aloud of one’s status, however, is effective at something else important: reduction of shame felt for one’s status as an alcoholic and guilt for the associated harmful behaviors of the past.
Many newcomers have been told ”You’re only as sick as your secrets. And if you’re like me, your deepest secret is - ‘If you really knew me, if you saw who really lives in my skin, you wouldn’t want to have anything to do with me’”. That is shame (guilt is ‘I made a mistake’. Shame is ‘I am a mistake’) in its most toxic form and shame is the single biggest trigger when it comes to initiating cravings for a drink/drug. “I’m not even worth the effort to try to recover. I’m useless and haven’t even been able to live up to my own standards. I am a defective unit”.
If one goes to a treatment center, one is initially isolated from the outside world during physical detoxification. For a few weeks, there is no contact permitted with anyone outside - not even phone calls, not even family. This creates a therapeutic situation where the only possible relief from the suffering of withdrawal (beyond medications for the purpose) - especially after physical detox is completed - can be found among the other patients and therapists. Many later recognize that the very first relief they had was in listening to other peoples’ stories. Simply listening, because they often identified with the other person, gave some brief relief from the black hole of self-absorption, self-pity and self-hatred which peak while physical withdrawal recedes and the mind begins to clear.
Many addicts find remarkably salutary effects from these simple listening experiences. There is significant value in this component of it - where patients undergo medically-supervised withdrawal and are kept temporarily separated from their prior “people, places and things” - all strongly associated with using. Early exposure to other similarly-situated addicts in a safe (safe from immediate ability to use on impulse) environment, then, is a solid start. A central theme taught while in rehab is the essential nature of ongoing recovery activities upon discharge. Patients are told at the outset recovery is NOT a one and done matter! If they really want to remain abstinent and recover, patients are told they must throw themselves wholeheartedly into 12-step programs/communities. This guidance as to what to do after physical detoxification is finished, I believe, is one of the most important functions of treatment centers.
In rehab, patients see with their own eyes, people who are similar to themselves in the most important ways. They see people who have done the same destructive and hurtful things they have done to themselves and others. They feel not only some connection with these story-tellers, but they find they do NOT think of them as bad or defective human beings, as they do consider themselves. They do not judge and condemn others! They save that harsh judgement for themselves (“If you saw who lives in my skin…”). They eventually realize: “this other person has done many of the same things I have done, but I don’t hate him/her for it; I don’t hate him/her because of his/her misdeeds; I rather like him/her and still consider him/her a worthwhile, though troubled, human being who has made some serious mistakes”. “I can see his/her suffering and wish I could help lessen it”! In this last bit of self-talk, the addict discovers within him/her self a remnant of compassion for others, of humanity he/she thought - shamefully - was gone forever. Yet here it was, emerging spontaneously from within himself. The importance of this cannot be overstated.
Figuratively, a light comes on (the light bulb in the ‘thought balloon’ displaying the mind of a cartoon character): “That person has told me his/her story, warts and all. I don’t dismiss him/her as a worthless waste of protoplasm as I do myself; maybe, just possibly, that’s how the other people here feel about me”!?! Such an experience - enabled by honesty (the courage to reveal what was previously kept scrupulously hidden), is the first glimmer of hope for many people in rehab. This is so because, for the first time, this experience transmogrifies into an invitation to become part of a group of people who truly care about each other. This newfound caring and desire to reduce others’ suffering, lead to unconditional acceptance of these others - perhaps rooted in ancient tribal instincts. This, in turn, opens the door to a sense of belonging, which is so essential to true self-esteem and eventually to freedom from addiction.
This concept is neatly summarized on the last page the text of the original 1939 book “Alcoholics Anonymous” (….referring to the God of your understanding - not a God as required by an organized religion): ….”your real reliance (dependency!!) is always on Him. He will show you how to create the fellowship you crave”. The craving for a drug (or addictive behavior) of choice, then, can be seen as a poor substitute for reliance (dependency) on a fellowship, the craving for which emanates from a higher power, from God.
Many times, after reading and digesting these words, I have heard recovering people say: “It’s so ironic. All those years of delusion; I thought I was craving a drink or a drug (or sex, or food) on which I was dependent both physically and spiritually. I now know I was really craving something on which I might always depend, no matter what. I even tried crazy/intense, addictive romantic relationships. Those didn’t work either. What did work turned out to be this fellowship of fallen creatures who see themselves in the mirrors of self they hold up to each other - and accept each other. If, indeed, God speaks to me, he does it through the mouths of other people”. Many have found in recovery a God of their understanding, a “Higher Power”, a power greater than one’s own self-will - which had failed for many years.
Coming to grips with this concept is difficult for many, particularly in early recovery. In part, this is because alcoholics have been accurately described as “egomaniacs with inferiority complexes”. Thus, one fellow who has guided many to recover (a “sponsor”), has explained the import of a “Higher Power” as follows: “Bob, you’re an intellectual. You could debate the existence of God with the best of them for the rest of your life and you would stay drunk. What I suggest you tell yourself, instead, is that “God may or may not exist. All you need to know to stay sober is that you’re not him”. That’s “higher power” (the Second Step) in a nutshell.
To give context, this analysis should include an historical recounting of addiction in light of my assertion that addiction is rooted in human ontology. At base, an addictive impulse is at work whenever any behavior is practiced in order to suppress uncomfortable feelings or short circuit the arduous process of self-actualization. It is done by abusing some substance, behavior or other persons (or groups). Both the substances and the behaviors amenable to abuse depend on the technology and morals of any given era. In modernity, “bread and circuses”of old have been raised (lowered?) to Rococo proportions with synthetic chemicals and electronic devices and power games of politics. This has led me to wonder, historically, what was the earliest possible addiction. What substance or behavior could be abused back then, which might quell uncomfortable feelings resulting from the difficulties inherent in the existence of human life. Back then, self-actualization for most individuals, likely consisted of having a family and neither starving, freezing or being murdered. Creating some degree of safety in one’s immediate surroundings was likely as far as it went.
Though I’m no expert, I suspect the very earliest addiction - even before grape juice was fermented - was likely behavioral, as implements and substances (aside from maybe local, isolated plant-based chemicals) were not yet available in most places. To answer such questions about unrecorded history where there is no record to provide evidence, we must make inferences to the best explanation. This is approached by asking what principles/forces known to be at work in the present, were likely also at work in the past. These inhere in human nature as heritable instincts, likely ‘hard wired’ in our brains.
We know such instincts were at work for all of recorded history, because they were often described contemporaneously or shortly thereafter. Historical events were usually recorded when they resulted from instincts acted out far in excess of what was required for mere individual survival. These are referred to as sins (“character defects” in AA parlance). So, then, here again we see the Seven Deadly Sins as work: pride, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, sloth, and wrath. I think of them as inborn instincts because they had significant survival value prior to civilization. A good way of think about behavioral addictions is to consider them as exaggerated, out-of-balance, unrestrained operation of one or more of these instincts. Aimed at control of one’s environment - in service of survival - employing these instincts was surely a predominant motivation for behavior throughout both recorded history and before history was recorded.
A case can be made for many possible abuses stemming from each of these instincts - become ‘sins’- when excessive beyond what was necessary for survival. For example, one must have some desire to eat, yet not become a glutton; one must have some degree of lust for continuation of the species, etc. Only when an instinct becomes unbalanced, then, can we say it is being abused for some psychic (or material) payoff. Again, there are many possibilities, of which we will explore just one, below.
A brief reading of recorded history offers a vast array of accounts of instincts run amok. The payoff for individuals abusing others - like for substance abusers of today - is generation of pleasure chemicals in the brain, illusions of independence, erroneous feelings of power and control - an evanescent sense of comfort/safety - consistent with the usual addicts’ denial of their own vulnerability and mortality. The first addiction, then, was likely excessive efforts to acquire and retain power in a primitive world, in the form of controlling other human beings. The question is whether or not these character defects - a.k.a. sins - within individuals, scale up to society at large. Can they thus explain many of history’s destructive patterns; do they account for society’s problems still today, in modernity?
In this most personal effort, my opinion, I will focus on one instinct, qua sin - that of pride, because its operation, I believe, has brought us, once again, to the brink of ruin as a civilization. Throughout recorded history, tyranny has been pervasive - like earlier tribal tyranny at the hands of strong leaders but writ large. The root of this is surely pride and its accompanying lust for power over others “by any means necessary” (this religious mantra of the ‘true believers’ of today is emblematic of pride and is repeatedly, proudly and defiantly announced) - accounts for the horrific excesses which have been perpetrated, including numerous episodes of mass murder. Today, we witness excesses of pride being expressed with fiery religious ardor, as with barbarisms recorded in the past. Remember the Inquisition? Today a deeply religious “altruism” - purporting to be benevolent, under the title of “woke”, arrogantly pursues raw power and brooks no doctrinal deviation.