Akrasia Anonymous
- November 3rd, 2011
- Write comment
“Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.” Rom. 7:20 (NIV)
I attended my first AA meeting in 1986. Roughly a third of my days since then have been “sober”. But I have never been a good AA. The longest stretch of continuous sobriety was around three years, but that stretch was without AA. My adult life has been punctuated by periodic episodes of abstinence.
So, I reckon I’ve attended a few thousand AA meetings in my life. I have affection for the AA fellowship and have no desire to disparage the beneficial impact it has had on innumerable lives (including mine).
But seriously, is this the best we have been able to do as a society to deal with addiction? How can the pseudo-medical establishment dispense millions of prescriptions to Xanax every day and at the same time offer nothing to addicts and alcoholics besides AA? How can the medical establishment charge upwards of $30,000 to provide so-called “treatment” and then turn all these folks over to AA (or NA)?
I know it’s an intractable problem. But how irresponsible is it for medical doctors who claim to be “experts” in addiction to dump addicts and alcoholics back on the streets and expect AA to take care of them? AA has its own anachronistic definition of addiction (allergy). It does a pretty good job of diagnosing the chronic, male alcoholic of 1940. Bill Wilson did an amazing thing (for those who have any experience of the subject, his 12 Traditions are much more significant than the 12 steps).
But the emphasis on “spiritual recovery” is a joke when introduced by an MD writing scrips for benzos.
There is a phenomenon of physical addiction. Anyone who uses opiates for a sufficient period of time will become physically addicted. That’s pretty easy to comprehend. But alcohol doesn’t work like that. The vast majority of alcohol users are not addicts. Some become chronic. The definition of addiction has been stretched to include anyone that has a problem with self-control.
This is misguided. As some of you may have noticed, I am a bit interested in Weakness of Will (akrasia). I continue to puzzle at the impotence of the human will. The fact that AA has been successful (although I believe it is waning in influence) has more to do with a particular religious point of view. Many of us are aware that, like St. Paul we do what we do not want to do. We feel powerless. AA offers a solution: there is a God (of your own understanding) who will do for you what you can’t do for yourself. He will be your power.
But it is a lie. There is no God that does such a thing. And deep down we already know that. And it’s not just picking up a drink or shooting up, it’s your whole life.
I’m not condemning those who believe that this is the case. St. Paul had a wonderful solution to the puzzle. God knows that you’re a sinner, but He loves you anyway, and His grace is sufficient. He made you the way you are (fucked up) to demonstrate his love and glory.
I don’t believe it, but I get it.
Drinking and drugs are disruptive forces that affect society (that’s why they are sanctioned). But what about all the other deficiencies we have? Don’t we all fall short? Don’t we all imagine that we could do more or be better if we only applied ourselves properly and did what we ought to do (according to our own conscience)? Our will is weak. We all fall short. We are all less than we could be. That’s the human condition. It’s not sin. We’re not powerless. We’re just weak.
